Pod Save America - "Hold the door!"

Episode Date: October 2, 2018

Jon, Jon, and Tommy discuss the renewed FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, Jeff Flake's change of heart, and the shifting politics of Supreme Court nominations. Then Jon F. talks to Ana Maria Archila about confronting Jeff Flake in an elevator and the importance of direct engagement.

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Today in the pod you'll hear our interview with Ana Maria Archila, one of the women who confronted Jeff Flake on Friday in Washington right before he called for a one-week FBI investigation into allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. We'll also be talking about the investigation itself and what the debate over Kavanaugh's nomination is going to mean for the elections in November.

Did you discuss with her at all the fact that she's the first person ever to hold an elevator door and have a conversation in a way that wasn't horrible no that's too bad did you call her back but I didn't need to because you made the joke anyway so there was a space for the joke can we get to the news no first we're gonna talk about love it or leave it oh we had a little show we like to call love it or leave it we had an awesome love it or leave it in studio we were joined by guy branham lewis vertel akil hughes great guests only problem is when you say guy branham next to lewis vertel someone is going to bring up glenn close and you're not going to be able to stop it from happening but we got through that part and it was all very funny uh-huh and great that's good

also a reminder votes save america.com get on that website register to vote check your registration for everyone on the youtube stream i'm wearing the merch and holding up a box that says vote save america tommy is a human billboard for vote save america right now get on it you want we want people to pledge to vote to register to vote we're calling it pledgester important, though, because those registration deadlines are fast approaching. Very fast. So you should, if you don't know what the registration deadline is in your state, go to votesaveamerica.com and check or just register.

Just do it today, please. That's the best part about the website. It's not just for registering. All kinds of information. Registration deadlines, what's going on in your state, important elections. Go. Hang out. Okay, let's get to the news. The Senate's final floor vote on

Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court has been delayed a week to allow for an FBI investigation into credible allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted women in the past. Initially, the White House gave the FBI a list of just four people to question who they've reportedly already conducted interviews with. On Monday, the White House said the FBI has been authorized to interview whoever they see fit, so long as they complete the investigation by Friday when Mitch McConnell has promised a final vote on Kavanaugh. Guys, why would the White House initially limit the scope of the investigation if they're so confident in Kavanaugh's innocence? What was going on there? I hadn't thought about it that way. What was going on there?

I hadn't thought about it that way. Hmm. Hmm, hmm, hmm. It's almost as if they're less interested in finding out what happened and more being able to show something to Jeff Flake that Jeff Flake asking the FBI to do the absolute bare minimum to get to the bottom of a very, very credible by the White House's own admission allegation of sexual assault about a future Supreme Court nominee is treated as a heroic act. That doesn't seem heroic in any way to me. That seems like the obvious thing you would do. The bare minimum.

The bare minimum. Well, also the whole thing. Get you a 60 Min The bare minimum. The bare minimum. Well, also the whole thing. Get your 60 minutes interview now. Once they all were forced to go along with Jeff Flake's plan for a one week delay, the previous day's events look all the more ridiculous. Yes. Making this about the performance of two people on television to determine whether or not somebody belongs on the Supreme Court, denying that the idea of suggesting that the idea of a delay is somehow giving into a Democratic dirty trick. All of it. Lindsey Graham losing his fucking shit. Then by the time the next day and they lost Def Lake, they were just for it. And the fact that they turned out to have been for it tells you that

all of that should have happened before the hearing. Right. And it also argues against the Republican theory of the case here, which is that this entire thing is a Democratic smear job because they're just want to hold the seat open long enough to make sure we get past the midterm elections and then take it. Because Chris Coons, who Democrat from Delaware, who worked with Flake to call for this extra week was basically like, all we want is a week. We're not trying to do what you say we're trying to do. We just want an investigation

and then we will give you your vote. Two thoughts on that. One, Dr. Blasey Ford raised these disconcerting allegations before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. So we know this wasn't some democratic dirty trick. Correct. Two, Axios floated a recommendation by the White House today to hold open the seat till 2020

if Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed because they like the politics of the House. We're going to talk about that. Again, they are just massive, massive hypocrites. So back to the FBI investigation. It was confusing reading these reports over the weekend. It felt like the FBI didn't have clear guidance and that they were letting the press know that to send a message to the White House. And then Trump would then tweet, I want this to be as credible an investigation as we can get. If they can only interview these four individuals that you named earlier, like that is a white washing. If they can't follow up on Dr. Ford's claim that she ran into Mark Judge at a Safeway and she can't figure out records from Safeway about whether he worked there at the time to

corroborate it, that's ridiculous. But it does sound like it's pushing in a direction where they're going to do more and more. FBI is going to let the investigation take it where it takes them, but they're not going to open up. If they found some banking crime in his past, they wouldn't then dig into that. And of course, someone was lying here because NBC reported that the White House was limiting the scope. Raj Shah, White House Deputy Press Secretary, responded by being like, no, absolutely not. We're just letting the Senate do what they do. And then, as you noted, Tommy, like Kellyanne Conway and others over the weekend were basically like, no, no, no. We don't want to limit the investigation at all.

We know that it was at least limited initially because over the basically on Sunday night, there's a story from in The New Yorker from Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow detailing all the different ways that potential witnesses tried to reach out to the FBI and basically couldn't get through. FBI but got no response. A classmate of Deborah Ramirez's who said he was 100 percent certain that he heard the story about Kavanaugh assaulting her a few days after it happened, tried to reach out. He had to end up calling the tip line. As you said, there were reports the FBI couldn't even contact the Safeway that Mark Judge worked at to verify that he was employed at the time that Dr. Ford said she contacted him. They did try to limit the investigation. Well, first of all, they have limited the investigation. The investigation is limited. It's limited to this topic and time limited.

And like we should all just, this is a ridiculous compromise. This is a lifetime appointment. Somebody that could be there for 40 years and they've already decided that they can only, he can only be disqualified if he can find it in six days. Like it's a game show. Right. Like it's supermarket sweep for crimes. But even by that standard, I think the truth is we just don't know. it in six days like it's a game show right like it's supermarket sweep for crimes but the uh but

even even by that standard i think the truth is we just don't know every person uh every person refuting the idea that they have tried to limit the scope is a world famous liar uh so i think it seems like it's probably somewhere in the middle whether they tried to limit it and then had to walk it back or left some limits in place that give them the ability to claim there aren't limits i just don't think we know. Why do we think they finally relented? I mean, clearly Jeff Flake had them in a position where they had no choice. Yeah.

Flake not only changed his mind and went against his previous public statement that he was going to vote for Kavanaugh, but he called Collins and Murkowski and he worked with a bunch of Democrats, so they wouldn't have had the votes on the floor if McConnell had tried to call it on Friday like they had planned. So they had to do this. They had no other choice. What have we learned so far since the investigation was expanded and sort of held for another week here about Brett Kavanaugh? I don't know that we learned this, but there's more and more evidence corroborating the claims that Brett Kavanaugh was a sloppy drunk, a frequent bar for the lead singer of UB40, which is, for you kids out there, a British reggae band that you probably don't like, and then threw a beer at the guy. So, one, who the fuck gets in a fight after a UB40 concert? It's like reggae is not really fighting music.

Two, we know that Brett Kavanaugh was, like, drunk a lot and kind of a belligerent guy. And also, Trump at his press conference today talked about Kavanaugh's drinking in high school as if he had an alcohol problem. It was really pretty remarkably different in tone. So again, this confirms what we knew at the time, which was that Kavanaugh did everything he could to cover up Hyde's lie about his drinking before the committee.

So the new argument from conservatives is that Democrats are moving the goalposts by urging the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh's drinking and lying. Why is him having a drinking problem relevant to the case in college? Well, it's certainly relevant because it's part of the fact pattern of at least two claims of sexual assault. two claims of sexual assault. But separate even from that, there's this strain of argument now among conservatives, which is, can you listen to yourselves? You're talking about throwing ice at a party. You're talking about how much a kid drank in high school. We don't care about that. We don't care about that at all. It is the fact that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath repeatedly as a means of diffusing and refuting claims that he drunkenly assaulted

women on multiple occasions. And as part of his refuting of those stories, he made pretty incredible claims about his behavior, that he never blacked out or had to piece together memories, that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game, that he couldn't drink during the week because he had work the next day. You know, those high school kids that can't have a during the week because he had work the next day. You know, those high school kids that can't have a beer or two because they have work in the morning. Even though on his calendar on July 1st, which is the date that the FBI should look into, it's a Thursday night and he said, you know, having skis with the boys at Timmy's or whoever with PJ and Squee and Mark Judge and the rest of the crew. So he

lied about that in his own calendar, refuted his allegations. And so you have a bunch of what are ultimately trivial lies, lies about what he did when he was drunk, lies about what he did when he was in high school, lies about who he hung out with. But they are part of what is, to me, seems like a bigger lie, which is the kind of person he is, the kind of person who's respectful of women, the kind of person who wouldn't do that. So it's this mix of these trivial and big lies, which is why his behavior in college and high school matters so much.

If you're going to look me in the eye and tell me that Beach Week Ralph Club means you threw up from spicy food, I don't think you deserve to be a judge in small claims court. We all know those people that lie about little things to our face and everyone hates them because they're not trustworthy. They're not honest with you. They're not real. And this guy's going to define, you know, like set the course legally for the country for four decades, and this is why this is important because you no longer have to ask yourself what Brett Kavanaugh was like or did 35 years ago. You just have to ask yourself what Brett Kavanaugh was like or did 35 years ago.

You just have to ask yourself what Brett Kavanaugh has been like through this confirmation process. And the answer to that question is a very openly partisan liar. Yes. Yes. And there's this trick also that's being played, which is you start from this question. Was Brett Kavanaugh honest? There's only one answer to that question. If you're being intellectually serious, no, he was not honest. But then you take a step away from that and you go, did Brett Kavanaugh of perjury? But that's not even enough. Then you take another step, which is, do you have evidence to prove that Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury? Now, all of a sudden, we're trying to produce evidence to refute lies that he gave on the stand. The standard for a Supreme Court justice shouldn't be, did they lie so thoroughly and repeatedly and leave enough of a paper trail that we can dispositively prove that he committed perjury?

It's not supposed to be close. He's supposed to be a judge. This goes back to the Republicans framing of this. They want it to appear like a trial. And so they want, you know, the standard to be beyond a reasonable doubt for both sexual assault and perjury. Right. And Democrats in most of the country, because we have done this throughout history when we've nominated people to the Supreme Court and had hearings. It's a job interview. It is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land. That's what this is. Yeah. And also, I would say that Brett Kavanaugh has some pretty strong opinions about perjury

and whether or not it's a serious crime. And if somebody should be, say, removed or impeached over it, he says yes. And he doesn't even care if the perjury is over a private sexual matter. He's very much in favor of impeaching people for lying about private sexual matters. And I would say that the evidence that Bill Clinton committed perjury is not a hell of a lot stronger than the evidence that Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly committed perjury in various confirmation since his testimony on Thursday is not just that he has proven himself to be dishonest over and over again, big things and little things. But the fact that he sort of revealed himself to be this naked partisan. Yeah. So the Portland Press-Herald, which is the biggest newspaper in Maine, Susan Collins, hope you're paying attention. This is a quote from their editorial over the weekend. Quote, we have never had a Supreme Court nominee who ripped off the nonpartisan mask the way Kavanaugh did Thursday and identified himself as an enemy of a political party that represents the policy preferences of millions of Americans. references of millions of Americans. And you think back to that testimony, his opening remarks,

which he wrote, which he had time to look over, which is not something that he just said on the spur of the moment. And he looked and he's talked about, he floated a conspiracy theory about people are attacking him because this is revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And then he said, you know what? What goes around comes around. Issuing a threat like that, that what goes around comes around, like if I end up on this court, you're all going to be fucking sorry. I mean, it was crazy. The revenge on behalf of what goes around comes around. Like, this is clearly a very angry man. The revenge on behalf of the Clintons, that is silly nonsense because nobody's doing this for the Clintons.

Like they may be angry that Donald Trump is president. A lot of those Democrats are angry Donald Trump is president and they don't want you on the Supreme Court. They don't like your policies. They don't like your position as a judge. That's all true. But nobody's doing this to get for Hillary's sake. Nobody's doing this for Bill Clinton's sake. Nobody gives a shit. That's not about this. Yeah. Like on the list of reasons I oppose Brett Kavanaugh, his role in the Ken Starr investigation. That's at a zero for me. What are you talking about? I do have some sympathy for the broader point that the confirmation process can be so bruising and awful for people in all kinds of positions that why would you ever take an administration job? Remember our friend Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas,

held an Obama nominee until she died, died to tell, you know, to stick it to President Obama. But I mean, that's not a new phenomenon. And I go back to Lindsey Graham's red-faced, screaming tirade that didn't once mention the feelings, needs, obligations to a woman who sat before him just hours earlier talking about a very credible accusation of sexual assault. He did not care about getting to the bottom of those allegations. He only cared about what it meant for his rich, powerful friend, Brett Kavanaugh. And that's why I'm getting very frustrated with a lot of the reporting on the broader process over the weekend. It's like Washington once again is at a new low, like both sides are doing it. I mean, on the one hand, regardless of how you think Dianne Feinstein handled the knowledge of Dr. Ford's accusations, handled the knowledge of Dr. Ford's accusations. At the end of the day, Democrats are trying to get to the bottom of a highly credible sexual assault allegation about a possible Supreme Court justice. And Republicans are doing nothing to sincerely investigate those claims. And in fact,

they brought someone in, they outsourced their role to attack the victim. So spare me this both sides bullshit. This is what the Senate is supposed to do this this is their job to look into these things well also and it's not just democrats that want to get to the bottom of this either like you know jeff flake wanted to get to the bottom of it susan collins and lisa murkowski wanted to get to the bottom of it so don't say it's like oh washington's falling apart just because one party decided to go out of their fucking minds and and try to ram this person through on thursday wanting a week to have the FBI look into the matter was a partisan trick

by the craftiest person in the world, Dianne Feinstein. And the mastermind, the super criminal genius who plotted this whole thing out. She knew when Dr. Ford's testimony would come out. She planted Debra

Ramey. What's your accent there? Whatever. she knew when Dr. Ford's testimony would come out she planted whatever and that was Thursday then Friday when Jeff Flake can't look his friend Chris Coons in the eye and say that he believes it's a partisan conspiracy ends up in favor of the exact same one week delay it's no longer a partisan trick, is it? It's just so ridiculous. The most incredible thing from that 60 Minutes interview is when they asked Jeff, like, do you think you could have done this

if you were still running for office again? And he, without even missing a beat, said, oh, absolutely not. Of course not. Like, really? No? And he's like, no. I couldn't have asked for a week delay if I was running for office.

I mean, what does that say about the Republican Party, the Republican base and the Republican media that if Jeff Flake was running for another term in Arizona, he could not have done the simple, most common sense thing that everyone knew that should be done, which is to ask for an extra week for this investigation? I'll tell you what I was thinking when I saw what Jeff Flake was doing. I was like, oh, God, that is politically really savvy. Because when the committee hearing was starting, I had this sort of pit in my stomach. And the pit in my stomach was Jeff Flake puts out this statement saying he's voting yes. And of course he is. Because if he votes no, he personally sank this guy and he doesn't want to do that. If he votes yes in the committee, he's then making it impossible for him to kind of change his mind and vote no the next day with Collins and Murkowski, if they may want to vote no. So he created this

third pathway where he could vote yes in committee while still reserving the right to vote with a group of the moderates or whatever, the so-called moderates, which I thought was like, that was pretty savvy. And then all of a sudden I'm looking at this, I'm like, when's the last time we had a moment like this? It was John McCain voting down down the health care bill yeah john mccain is gone jeff flake did did something on the path to doing the right thing which few in the committee have done as republicans he's going to be gone one by when the people willing to do the hard thing on the republican side are disappearing right there's just no that's it on the on the way out one of my big takeaways from that committee hearing was like, we should really think hard about term limits.

Some of those people should be out of there. Orrin Hatch should have been gone a decade ago. Grassley. Chuck Grassley. Oh my God. Just not great leadership. Think about the Republican they would put in place of Jeff Flake on a committee of Jeff Flake weren't here.

Not a person who's going to look into Chris Coons' eyes and feel a stirring of conscience. But I have to say, I am not a Mitt Romney fan, but I would have much preferred Mitt Romney to be on that committee than Orrin Hatch. I mean, someone with a, I don't know. Yeah, a hint. I just want to also pause and say,

over the years, I've made lighthearted jokes about Chris Coons, and just as a kind of a boring guy, a guy I don't know anything about, just a stand in for like, I would call him Tom Carper, the other senator from Delaware. Exactly.

I would say something along the line. Maybe even right now, am I doing it? I would say something like who can compete with a rock star like Chris Coons, you know? And the implication is that he's not a rock star. Yeah. You kind of Harry's MVMT them.

And I just want to end that by saying, this was a compliment. I guess Chris Coons. Good job saying This was a compliment, I guess. Chris Coons, good job this week. Here's to you. Here's to you. You and an elevator door held open at the right moment

may have very well changed at least for a few days the course of this nomination. We shall see. Let's talk about the politics around the Supreme Court fight, especially as it relates to the midterms. We have a few new polls from CBS, YouGov, Quinnipiac, Politico, and Reuters that all show similar results. Pew, pew, pew, pew, pew, pew. Yeah.

There's no people. One, more Americans believe Ford than they do Kavanaugh. Two, more Americans are opposed to his confirmation than supportive of it. And the numbers have generally become worse for Kavanaugh over the last week, with the exception of Republican voters and especially Republican men who are slightly more supportive. But Democratic men and women are heavily, heavily opposed and independent men and women are slightly opposed. Also, polling incredibly well amongst men named squee we don't know we don't know what squee thinks because he wasn't on the witness list but maybe their fbi is talking to squee as we speak squee i think we all had friends with dumb nicknames in high school and college yeah no of course um anything else surprise you

guys in these numbers in some of the uh some of the polling? I am surprised at the number of think pieces that are being written about these numbers. I honestly, I feel like this fight will feel like a lifetime ago when we get to the polls. I'm hopeful that it will remind Democrats that we need a check on the Trump administration at large. I suspect that a lot of Republican voters vote on judicial issues generally and it might turn them out. I think it's impossible to know what this is going to do. Yeah. One of the surprises to me, to your point, Tommy, is the YouGov poll. It has 60% of Democrats saying the Supreme Court will be very important to deciding their vote in 2018. 48% of independents said that. Only 46% of Republicans say that. That, that that that is true is different than any poll that has ever been taken about Supreme Court because it's always been a Republican based issue.

And our fear for a long time had been we can't get Democrats motivated enough about the Supreme Court is a big issue to vote on. And they finally figured it out. Right. We're about to lose the court for 40 years. That's so frustrating. it's frustrating better late than never guys thanks for voting on the supreme court after he gets fucking two judges it is he is the now he is the most unpopular nominee of all time on the supreme court brett kavanaugh that is the he has that distinction in all seriousness i think there's two things to take from the polling one is how will it affect whether or not kavanaugh gets on the court? We don't know. We don't know. But this is now not about sort of national polling. This is about what Susan Collins will do, Lisa Murkowski will do, Jeff Flake will do, Donald Trump will do.

And I feel like that's not as responsive to the moving of these polls. And the second thing is what happens to those polling and to the importance of this issue, whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. And again, we have no idea. One of the reasons I bring up the polling is because there was a New York Times piece that ran over the weekend about how Republican leaders feel that while the debate over Kavanaugh might cost them control of the House, it might actually help them maintain their majority in the Senate. And here's their reasoning, quote, by muscling forward with a floor vote next week, Republicans would also imperil several Senate Democrats from strongly conservative states

who've opposed Judge Kavanaugh expressed ambivalence about his nomination. Yet in doing so, Republicans would energize many Democrats in a share of independence in suburban congressional districts and big state governors races where female voters were already enraged. Yeah. Do we buy this? I read that piece and that was one of the reasons I scoffed at think pieces generally earlier. Like, I don't know. Maybe they're right. Those are smart reporters.

It's the kind of thing. Who knows? It's like, why'd the stock market go up today i don't know people had people had a good birthday party i will just say this in uh in the pile of evidence against the contention from this piece that we now have a bunch denver crowds are facing maybe the toughest senate map they've ever faced um all these red state senators up in really tough races. And yet, and these are all cautious people. In fact, we've criticized a lot of them for being too cautious. The only person who's up, or two people,

the only two people who are up in 18 that haven't announced their vote on Kavanaugh yet is Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp. And notably, Donnelly in Indiana came out strongly against the nomination before Flake flaked. And that's, I think, because he understands that he needs the base to turn out for him. And that's how you're going to win in a midterm. That is incredibly important point that Joe Donnelly in Indiana looked at this and thought to himself, this is a conservative state. And yet I feel comfortable opposing this nomination, partly because I know that the volunteers I need,

the people who are going to help turn out the vote, are not going to show up unless I vote no on this, which shows you that activism work and pressure on these senators works. I'd also say, good for Joe Donnelly. Joe Manchin was looking at this as a tough vote and a tough choice before the allegations, before all these stories, before Kavanaugh's terrible performance, before Kavanaugh perjured himself. And so if you're on the fence about something and then you learn all this new shit, how wide of a fucking fence are you sitting on? You know, you hear that Humpty Dumpty? Fall over onto the right side, Joe. Don't fall on the wrong side, Joe. Fall on the right side, Joe Manchin.

Just as an example of how Republicans view this, and Tommy, you mentioned this earlier, Axios quoted a Trump advisor this weekend who said that if Kavanaugh's nomination tanks, he'll advise the president to hold off on nominating anyone else until 2020 because polarization in the Supreme Court would be an energizing issue for his reelection campaign this advisor this advisor told jonathan swan that if democrats win the senate under no circumstances should trump nominate a compromise candidate this sounds fucking batshit crazy to me but what do you guys think i got i feel like this is first of all i don't believe it second all, this feels like it's much more.

I believe that the person said it too soon. I don't think his reporting is wrong. I believe that the reporting is accurate. I believe that the position is made up in the moment. And I believe it's a lot more about pressuring people around Kavanaugh than it is around Donald Trump's plan in 2019. As if Donald Trump is like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, walk me through the calendar. As if Donald Trump is like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, walk me through the calendar. I also, yeah, I also think that like Donald Trump doesn't actually care about judicial nominations in any way, shape or form.

He probably barely knew what they did for a living until he got the job. But like the Federalist Society does, like the Leonard Leo, big money donor, right wing zealots that grow Brett Kavanaugh's in their petri dishes, they care. And they're going to be like, we're not waiting till you lose reelection. Potentially, we're going to be like, we're not waiting until you lose reelection. Potentially. We're going to do this right now. And like, we're just going to put forward someone that wasn't a belligerent drunk who

potentially did terrible things like put forward Amy Barrett and call it a day. Yeah. It's, it struck me as like, why are they giving up this easily? They wouldn't go, Mitch McConnell's not giving up this easily.

Like, but that's why it's a, it's a way of signaling to people in the base and to the activists and the writers and the National Review writers, the smart ones, their best. Intellectual Zambonis? The Zambonis. A lot of intellectual Zambonis going around.

Get on that fucking Zamboni and you get out there onto that ice and you pave the way for Brett Kavanaugh. Trump's saying crazy shit. Kavanaugh bust! Trump's saying crazy shit, but I will write a thousand word piece about why it is the right thing to do, even though I have criticized Trump in the past. Let me think so hard my brain falls out and lands on a pile of Ayn Rand books and then absorbs the text of those Ayn Rand books and then jumps back in my head. Twice as smart. No.

What? I don't know what's going on there. What happened? I don't know. I liked it. What? I don't know what's going on there. What happened?

I don't know. I liked it. On the Democratic side, Michael Avenatti said over the weekend that he thinks a full and complete FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh with impeachment on the line should be a litmus test for Democrats seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination and that the court should be expanded to include 11 justices. Mehdi Hassan, who I know you talked to for Potsdam The World at The Intercept, also wrote a piece about this saying Democrats should rebalance the court next time they're in power. Is this a good idea? I am not a lawyer.

I spent... Sean Spicer over here. I worked on national security policy. I spent exactly zero minutes working about judicial nominations at the White House. So caveats aside. But I think when you start floating ideas like packing the courts, you're getting into banana republic territory. You're getting to Hugo Chavez, Maduro, Venezuela, countries where democracy goes fully off the rails.

So I'd love. I guess they stole a seat. Yes, I guess in some ways it's totally irrelevant what other countries do, but like there are some things that in my mind should be sacred, but why don't we, why don't we have one election for eight years? Like what other laws are we going to change right now? I understand the content. I understand the sacred. I know people on the court is not a sacred. I know, but it's, it's where we've been since what? 18 something. It's been changed a bunch. bunch uh we had six justices

it then went to 10 yeah we're talking about the time periods in the 1800s and then the republican legislature shrank the 10 to 7 to stop andrew johnson for making nominations lincoln added a 10th justice to try to end slavery and you know basically republicans did change the makeup of the court in 2015 and 2016 when they held it to eight justices. So there's a. I know. I just think a permanent change. Whatever.

Love it. Make it. My view is it is a serious idea being stuck with the rules of the number of judges and what can and cannot change, which is basically just handed down to us as sort of an accepted rule. It's no reason to not explore whether or not that rule should change. I think if you look at the Supreme Court right now, not only do we have the stolen Garland seat, and the conservatives are like, only believe it's stolen if you don't understand.

We know it wasn't literally like a fucking Beagley boy with a mask on, but you know it was fucking stolen. Mitch McConnell at least brags about it. My proudest moment is looking Barack Obama in the eye and and telling him you're not going to fill that seat we're not saying stole like a crown jewel we're saying stole like a base in baseball they stole it or whatever anyway go ahead continue you lost us i just think we should be open to the idea i don't know if it's a good idea mostly honestly i don't know if it's a good idea. Mostly, honestly, I don't know if it's a good idea politically. Like, I would love for there to be possibility for Democrats to add two judges to the Supreme Court. I don't know if it's a good idea because I'm not a lawyer, you said, but the bigger fear I have is

that politically it is dangerous. Yeah, I like I just it makes me very nervous, I guess, is where I'd land. I will say this. I've, you know, been back and forth on this. Originally, Tommy, I think I was much more where you are. And the more I thought everyone should read Mediasan's piece because it is a very, I mean, Avanadi just randomly said something. But Mediasan wrote a very thoughtful piece about this. One thing I didn't realize is, you know, I'm like, well, maybe it's just easier to impeach Brett Kavanaugh if, you know, we find more allegations after he's on the court. That's tougher than adding to the court or taking away from the court. Impeachment requires two thirds of the House and the Senate to add a seat to the Supreme Court or to take one away.

We're only require a simple majority in the House and the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate majority of the House. Right. Right. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Yes. So so there's so there's that. So it's so it's an easier thing to do. Of course, that doesn't get to the problem of is it sort of fucking with our democracy? I guess my biggest worry is not just to like the value of the institutions itself and the you know, the the history of it. It's Republican retribution. to sort of make up for the stolen seat and Brett Kavanaugh liar on the Supreme Court, then when the Republicans win, well, then they add two more seats to get that. And then does the court become a political tool for whatever party's in power to carry out that party's agenda?

Now, some people will say it already is. Well, that's the thing. A lot of this is sort of addressing a shift that we struggle to talk about because it's not quantifiable. But the court has changed. It has become much more divided on ideological lines. You can you know, you don't you can go from before Bush versus Gore. But the fact is now we do. And Kavanaugh's behavior during this hearing is only a reminder of that. We now have Republican judges and Democratic judges. When we appoint someone like Elena Kagan, we know where they're going to likely end up on key issues. Same thing for someone like Neil Gorsuch. The mystery and majesty of the court where someone like Nixon might accidentally appoint a liberal, where the ideological makeup of the court was more opaque and less beholden to partisan politics is gone.

And a lot of this is a response to that. Part of it, why we were talking about this is, it's not because the court is partisan, it's the court is partisan and we've lost the court. And it has limited our power dramatically. It has already affected Obamacare. It has affected a bunch of different issues. Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of the political, what it would mean politically,

I mean, take this with a almost decade long grain of salt, but like, I think people think it hurt roosevelt and the new deal coalition when he tried to pack the courts politically i think there's also a question of like what it would do to the credibility of the court generally uh and how it could damage that so that makes it's worth thinking about it i mean the the the reality is uh if democrats win in 2020 and it's not only it's it's not just about, okay, now Ruth Bader Ginsburg can retire and we can replace her with liberal justice. It basically means that even if we win in 2020, Clarence Thomas is 71, 72 years old. That is the next possible retirement where we can actually restore the balance of the court to what it is right now. That is a long, long time with a court that will

absolutely, we know this because it is so partisan. Now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on it, rule against almost every major progressive initiative that comes from a Democratic president. That is a decade or more. And you got to believe that if there was a Democratic president, Clarence Thomas will hold onto that seat like the night in the last crusade in that room he will be there for 400 fucking years waiting for waiting for people to come in and check out the cups i'm telling you but no but look this idea of court packing court rebalancing yeah that's what we're calling it we're rebranding it today it's a court buffing It's just sort of court improvement. The Court Improvement Act.

The Court Modernization, Renovation, and Pre-existing Conditions Act. That pulls well. Avenatti Natural Growth. The reform and get money out of politics, pre-existing conditions are bad. The Court Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Court Stimulus Act. Court Surge. Look, we're all talking about this. Recovery and reinvestment act. The court is divided. Court surge. Look, we're all talking about this.

Chuck Schumer, we got a whole bunch of these. Just call us. Anyway, what I was going to say is like all of this sort of like, ah, maybe we'll pack the courts. Like coming out of nowhere. Like it's actually a response to a deeper problem, which is these nominations have become in part because of the partisan nature of it now. these nominations have become in part because of the partisan nature of it now and because judges are living so much longer these appointments have become so fucking important the scale that like that that's part of part of why you know this part of why mitch mcconnell felt it necessary and politically palatable to hold a supreme court seat on in an unprecedented way in the in the off

chance donald trump won the white house the seats have become too important because they're there for 40 years because the court is polarized and nobody has a good answer to that. Adding to justice may solve the problem for us as Democrats, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. And I don't know if anyone has an answer for that. Well, and some people throw out term limits, but term limits is maybe the hardest thing to do because term limits will require a constitutional amendment. The one thing that gives me a little bit of hope here is no matter what happens with Kavanaugh, if we win the House back, I think the committees will start investigating him. So we might get to a place where his impeachment is far more possible if he actually did the things he is accused of. But again, that's not a long ball we want to be throwing.

Yeah. Okay. Let's move on to our favorite segment. Candidate of the day. Antonio Delgado is the Democratic candidate for New York's 19th congressional district. He sounds great. Which covers parts of New York's Hudson Valley and Catskills region. Ah, the Catskills.

Kutcher's. His opponent is John Faso, who was first elected to Congress in 2016. Faso won by 8 percentage points, and the district voted in favor of Donald Trump. However, the 19th district voted to elect President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. This is one of the Obama-Trump districts. The Cook Political Report, as well as FiveThirtyEight, have described the race as a toss-up. Tommy, what do we know about Antonio Delgado? Well, Jon, one, he is a Rhodes Scholar. He's a graduate of Harvard Law School. He's an attorney.

He's friends with a bunch of our friends, some friends of the pod, Danielle Gray, who say he is an incredibly smart, thoughtful, impressive individual. We also know that, thanks to our sad sack wannabe policy wonk friend, Paul Ryan, he is facing some of the most racist ads up this cycle. He one time like rapped on an album or something, and they're making that the focal point of a whole bunch of race baiting ads. So I think for that alone, we should probably support him and tell Paul Ryan that he is a despicable human being. Yeah, he had a successful rap career briefly and launched a hip-hop record label and... Who hasn't?

Yeah, that's a hard thing to do. If you're going to go after him, why not come after me for when I did that? If you guys can find Lovett's rap album, then you've really hit gold. No, yeah, I mean, the ads are so disgusting.

He can't be our voice, is what the ads say. That is his voice, and then they play the rap. His voice is not our voice, is what the ads are saying by the NRCC. Condoned by Paul Ryan

and all the Republicans who say, oh, we can't make race an issue in our party. We have to drive out these racists. That's what Paul Ryan said. Drive them to the polls.

Jon Faso, other hits from him. After promising a constituent with a brain tumor that he would not vote for the health care repeal bill, he voted for it. He did. He voted for it. Votes with Trump 90% of the time, A rating from the NRA, ran digital ads promising to keep MS-13 out of New York,

featuring an ominous-looking photo of tattooed Latino men. Just Faso trying everything he possibly can in an Obama-Trump district to say, this is not about the economy, this is not about checking Donald Trump, this is all about you being scared of an African-American winning the seat and MS-13. Again, this ad is by CLF, which is Paul Ryan's super PAC. It says he has Delgado has extreme New York City values. He's New York City's voice, not ours. New York City, what is that?

It is, it shows an image of two white people who they say would pay higher taxes. So it is as blatant as it gets. And Antonio, again, is a Rhodes Scholar and a graduate of Harvard Law. That is his qualification. At least this time in this ad,

when they refer to New York City values, they mean black and not Jewish. That's right. That's right. Anyway, it's a very tight race. There's a couple of polls that have showed Delgado up, a couple of polls that have showed him down. So it's a toss-up.

It's going to come right down to the wire. So if you're for, and we, I guess we haven't voted yet. Should we vote? I need some more information. I'm leaning. I'm leaning heavily in Antonio's favor here.

Oh, okay. Wow. Normally I'm torn. Love it. It's up to you. I'm, I'm,

I'm, I'm coming, I'm coming out for Delgado as well. I'm going early. I don't want to be one of those fence sitters at the end that everyone's focusing on, you know, you better not pokeeps

see John Faso in Congress. Disqualify. Spontaneous applause has broken out. All right. The endorsement goes to Antonio Delgado

in the New York 19th. Cue the fanfare. Good work, everyone. If you agree you should support Antonio Delgado, help him out. He can use it because it's going to be a tough race and he's facing millions and millions of dollars of racist ads.

Poughkeepsie you with the polls. Wow. I'll say this, John. Give me one second. I'm going to say, I'll say this, John. Give me one second. I'm going to say, I'll say this, John. Oneonta. What? I'm working on an Oneonta fund, and they're not coming.

Normally they come so fast. Leave that in. When we come back, we'll have my interview with Ana Maria Archila, Executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy. If you're supporting John Fausso, you might as well be stony on it. Go to votesaveamerica.com. Vote these people out. On the pod today, we're happy to welcome Ana Maria Archila, Executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy and one of the women who confronted Jeff Flake in an elevator on Friday. Ana, welcome to the pod.

Thank you so much. Jeff Flake on Capitol Hill. You had also been on the Hill all week and you had shared in his office at the beginning of the week that you had been a victim of sexual assault yourself, something that you'd never even told your parents. What ultimately led you to share your story in Jeff Flake's office? We're living through a really important moment in our country. The Me Too moment is allowing us to kind of really stare at the reality of sexual violence in our country and I think around the world. And I have been thinking about this question of whether I can or whether I should share my story ever since. But really, it was hearing, reading, I guess, on Monday, reading the story of Dr. Blasey Ford and recognizing my own experience in her. And then watching the outpouring of courageous kind of story sharing that survivors were doing across the country that allowed me to kind of step into it and overcome the fear that I've been holding for 30 years.

of solidarity, as a deeply political act, as a deeply feminist act, and as a way to participate in these kind of weaving of a fabric that we're doing in this moment of really confronting the pain and the rage, but also the resilience and the power of survivors and of women in particular in this moment. and the power of survivors and of women in particular in this moment. So after you shared that story in Senator Flake's office, obviously, you know, we all woke up to the news on Friday that Senator Flake said he would be voting for Kavanaugh in the Judiciary Committee. And then you were outside of his office.

You sort of saw him go into the elevator. What were you hoping to achieve in that moment when you made the decision to confront Senator Flake in that elevator? Did you think you might be able to persuade him? Were you hoping that other people would hear you confront him because there were obviously reporters there? What was there going through your mind in that moment? Listen, I had been in D.C. and joining hundreds of people who were sharing their stories, both about surviving sexual assault, surviving our system that constantly is trying to take away our health care, surviving a moment in history that's constantly trying to take away our voting rights. So I was kind of surrounded for weeks with stories of people who were coming to Washington, D.C. to fight for their lives, to fight for the people they loved. And on Friday, I showed up to the Senate,

the Hart Senate building to join in the protests early in the morning before the hearing started. And I met a young woman who I was just meeting for the first time, Maria Gallagher. And she said, well, I'm here for the first time. I've never talked to an elected official. Someone said that I should go to Senator Flake's office. And I said, well, okay, let's go. I, you know, I'm, I've been organizing for 17 years. And I know that we have to fight the fight

up until the last minute, even if it feels like we are losing. And, you know, quite honestly, in that moment, it felt like we were losing. But I believe in the power of people trying to still hold elected officials accountable, even if we sense that our voices might not be enough. So I went to Senator Flake's office with her. I had this nugget of kind of hope that maybe, maybe Senator Flake could be the one that would demand a better process. He could be the one Republican that could vote his conscience, partly because, you know, he's not up for reelection. And so it seemed worth it to me. And I had just been in his office earlier in the week. But I did not, honestly, I wasn't convinced that we were going to find him. It's really hard to find the senators. I wasn't sure that we were going to be able to talk to him, even if we found

him. But I felt like this woman and I wanted to, you know, do this thing together. And it was, we were standing in front of his office when we found out that he had just released a statement announcing his decision to vote for Kavanaugh. So we both felt so dismayed and then saw him walking out of his, you know, another door close to his office and the gaggle of reporters kind of following him. And so we just ran and we didn't really know exactly what we were going to do in the moment, but we ran and we were just rudely kind of interrupted the interviews that were happening and just really like allowed ourselves to do what women are constantly told not to do, which is to actually just powerfully share our anger and our pain and our story and force him to look at us and force him to hold, to really hold the emotion that so many women are having, are feeling in this moment,

watching our politicians yet again put a woman who courageously kind of shared her story of surviving sexual assault through a trial and then, you know, turning their backs and saying, well, I guess we don't really have the facts. So let us just go with the man. I mean, it's got to be so hard to go actually do that in that moment. I mean, you you work for a progressive advocacy organization, but you've said, you know, Maria Gallagher isn't a professional activist, that this was the first time she'd come

to Washington like this. Why do you feel it's important for the senators to hear from voices like hers? You know, you talk to the Washington Post about regular people doing scary things. I know, you know, on the pod all the time when we go to live events, we always try to, you know, persuade people to go knock on doors. And a lot of people say, you know, it's scary to phone bank for the first time. It's scary to knock on doors and a lot of people say, you know, it's scary to phone bank for the first time. It's scary to knock on doors. I can't imagine how scary it must be to chase after a senator who's getting in an elevator and share your story like that. What do you think about that? I mean, I think that we have to do these things that scare us so that we can, as an act of love, it is as an act of both love for ourselves,

love for the people we know, love for our country, and as a way to correct a democracy that's so damaged by both the kind of internal dynamics of partisan bickering, both the kind of internal dynamics of partisan bickering, but also the corruption of kind of the money in politics. And I've like devoted my entire adult life to building, building, building people power. And it's really built one person at a time, one person discovering her voice and her power and discovering

that actually happens in community. So, you know, my friend Addy Barkin. Very well. Yes. He is one of the most just wise, profound, beautiful human beings I know. And he, I think, really kind of exemplifies the power of using, like really allowing people and the country to have the courage to not turn away. I think Adi has said again and again, look at me. Yes, I at me.

Yes, I am dying. But and because I'm dying, I know something that we should all know, which is that our time is precious. And we must use the time we have to build a country that allows the people we love to live with freedom. I, you know, I think when Addy first went to, when he first came back to Washington, D.C. after confronting Senator Flake, actually on a plane, we had a little conversation with the leaders of the Women's March, Linda Sarsour and Bob Bland and Winnie Wong and others. And Adi shared a passage of Ta-Nehisi Coates' book to his son, Between the World and Me.

And I'm paraphrasing. The passage basically says you have to think about slavery and any other great injustice, not as something that happens to a mass of people or something that a mass of people do. You have to think about it as something that happens to one person. What did it feel like for her to wake up in the morning? Who did she talk to? What made her cry? What made her laugh? How did she feel when her children were taken away from her? How did she feel at the end of the night after an endless day of work? You have to try to imagine what her life was like. And really, like, this is what we're trying to do with all of the outpouring of stories about surviving sexual violence, which is one expression of the one of the outpouring of stories about surviving sexual violence,

which is one expression of one of the many ways that women kind of are devalued in our culture. And I think it's really like forcing those conversations. That's what I think Marianne and I were determined to do in that moment is telling Senator Flake, OK, fine, it seems like you have made a decision to turn your back on us, but we're not going to let you look away. Look at me. And now that there's this extra week while the FBI sort of expands their investigation,

what is your plan to continue fighting the nomination? Obviously, you have Senator Collins is still undecided, Senator Murkowski, I guess on the Democratic side, you know, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp. What's in store for this week? So this week, there are hundreds of people still traveling to Washington, D.C. to talk to senators in the halls of the Senate buildings like Maria and I did on Friday. And thousands of people will join us in Washington on Thursday to rally together and to kind of have a public display of power. We will continue to bird dog senators in Washington and visit their offices in Maine, in Alaska, in West Virginia,

and all across the country. This time that we have is incredibly precious, and we cannot allow the FBI to decide who the next Supreme Court is. It has to be something that we, people in this country, take ownership over and really demand. We want the senators, Senator Flake, Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, to make this decision with a lot of understanding the consequences for the next several decades. And we want people in this moment to use their power in the same way. So let's not give up our power to the FBI. Let's do this. Let's show up so that

we can be the ones that decide who the next Supreme Court justice will be. And how do you convey to people who are protesting, who are many for the very first time, that this is sort of a very long struggle that doesn't end, whether or not Kavanaugh makes it to the court? One thing I always worry about is, you know, a lot of people ever since Trump became president are protesting for the first time, they're active for the first time. And you think, obviously, there are going to be disappointments along the way. How do you make sure how do you sort of buck people up to make sure that those disappointments don't sort of harden into cynicism, but, you know, make people feel like they need to keep going? but, you know, make people feel like they need to keep going.

Look, it's still possible that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh will be forced on all of us. But I think that the reckoning that women and survivors in this country are forcing on the country is not going to go away. We're going to show up with this level of rage and anger and pain to the elections in November. And we are going to continue to lead the process of kind of transformation. The story of our country, the history of these countries is of constant struggle for more of us to be included in the promise of freedom and of democracy. by not ignoring the violence that is imposed on us, the intimate violence and the sexual violence, by not continuing perpetuating kind of the political violence of diminishing our voices. And so I think that whatever happens with Kavanaugh's nomination, this movement is just building more strength every day.

I have complete trust in our ability to gain power from each other. and that's, at the end of the day, what will hold the Supreme Court's feet to the fire as well, regardless of who's sitting there. Obviously, Judge Kavanaugh is not just terrible as a Supreme Court justice because he's accused of attempted rape. He's terrible because he has Trump's seal of approval. He's ready to roll back the rights of women,

decades of progress for women, for immigrants, for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, for workers. So that's why we can't just simply allow the FBI's investigation to be the decisive factor. We have to fight this nomination all the way. And I actually believe that momentum is on our side, that if we keep going, if we keep forcing these interactions

and demanding this connection and demanding real moral reckoning, that we can turn the tide. And I didn't think that on August 1st when Addy and hundreds of other bird dog activists went to Washington to get arrested in protest of Kavanaugh's nomination. Ana Maria Archila, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for the work you're doing. And thanks to you and Maria Gallagher for making sure that Senator Flake did not look away. We appreciate you. Thank you so much. I want to make sure that people know where to find information

about the activities that are happening this week. Yes, please. You can follow us. You can follow Adi Barkan on Twitter. He will keep us all informed. But also you can follow CPD Action and the Women's March, and we will make sure that the country knows about all the elevator women that are getting ready to fight and to force every single one of those senators to look at us.

Thanks, Ana Maria. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, everyone. Thanks to Ana Maria Archila for joining us today. So I know Ana Maria talked a little bit about what you can do if you want to help stop the nomination to break Kavanaugh this week. Our friend Ben Wickler at MoveOn.org reached out as well. He said if you can make it to D.C., go to D.C. There's going to be demonstrations in the Hart Senate office building atrium every single day. So you can go join the protests there.

You can start by your senator's local offices. If you're not in D.C., you can make sure you know you get in elevators with them there's going to be a vigils nationwide on wednesday night so check out moveon.org to figure out where those are and of course call the senate 202-224-3121 call everyone you know in maine alaska west virginia but most of all maine because as Susan Collins goes, so goes the other people who are also undecided with Susan Collins. There's a wishy-washy woman in Maine, and the future of many rights depends on what happens next. Also, thanks for listening, Brett Kavanaugh.

This one goes out to you. We have to comment on the song to make sure it's fair use. I don't like it. I like beer. I like beer. I like red wine. I I don't like it. I like beer. I like beer. I like red wine. I don't drink red wine. I like beer.

Okay. Fucking clown. Go buy some Nats tickets. What's up with the Nats tickets? All this shit's going on and nobody's gotten the bottom of the Nats tickets. Somebody look into the Nats tickets.