Pod Save America - How Broke and Desperate Is Donald Trump?

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

Donald Trump is desperately looking for help to raise the 464 million dollar bond he has to put up for his New York civil fraud case. Joe Biden makes another big push on climate and student loans. Democrats try to keep voters of color from defecting to Trump. And later, Strict Scrutiny co-host Leah Litman joins the pod to talk with Dan about the latest Trump legal developments and the border war between Texas and the federal government. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's pod, Joe Biden makes another big push on climate and student loans. Democrats try to keep voters of color from defecting to Trump. And later, strict scrutiny's Leah Lippman stops by to catch us up on all the Trump legal developments, as well as the border war between Texas and the federal government. But first, Donald Trump's first full week as the presumptive Republican nominee has not gone as well as you'd think for the famously disciplined political savant. And you don't have to take our word for it. A senior Trump advisor told the staff it had been a bad press week for the campaign.

This is according to Politico. Since clinching the nomination, Trump has floated cuts to Social Security and Medicare, teased a national abortion ban, promised to pardon violent insurrectionists who he now salutes at his rallies, said that some immigrants, quote, aren't people and claimed that any Jewish person who votes for Democrats, quote, hates their religion. He also hasn't yet won over Nikki Haley's voters, as evidenced in this week's primaries by the nearly 20 percent of the vote she got without even being in the race. And Trump's got some cash issues. We found out this week that his campaign in the RNC raised less than half of what Biden and the DNC did last quarter. And his super PAC has now spent more than 50 million dollars on his legal fees without much to show for it because Trump is currently scrambling to find someone, anyone who will help him out with the $464 million bond he has to put up for the New York civil fraud case judgment. He doesn't have the cash, can't find an underwriter,

doesn't want to sell his assets, and is reportedly worried about the political perception of declaring bankruptcy. So where will he get the money? Here's one of his lawyers on Fox. Is there any effort on the part of your team to secure this money through another country, Saudi Arabia or Russia, as Joy Behar seems to think? Well, there's rules and regulations that are public. I can't speak about strategy that require certain things, and we have to follow those rules. Like I said, this is manifest injustice. Props to Joy Behar for getting that out there. Noted investigative reporter Joy Behar.

The Woodward-Bernstein generation. It's working. They're good questions to ask, I'll be honest with you. I know they are. I know Leo will break down the legal issues involved here, but from a political standpoint, it certainly doesn't seem ideal to have a president who's desperate for cash wherever he can find it. Do you think Trump is right to be as worried as he seems about this bond? Yeah, I think he should be quite worried for a whole host of reasons. Now, like his attorney who was just on Fox, I also don't know the rules and regulations about taking money from foreign entities. But if you were to do so, that would

seem quite bad politically, right? If you are in hock to Saudi Arabia or a Russian oligarch or something like that, that seems quite bad politically. Being in hock to a Wall Street bank or a giant insurance company also seems quite bad, right? Because one of Trump's bullshit appeals to some segment of voters is his idea that because he's this wealthy man, special interests don't own him, right? He lied repeatedly in 2016 about how he was going to fund his own campaign. I can't be bought. I can't be bought. I'm not going to owe anyone anything. And once I'm in office, I don't need to repay any donors with favors. Yeah.

Yeah. I can't be bought, but I can lease all of my possessions to one entity to keep me out of prison, basically. And then filing bankruptcy would be a disaster for him politically because his brand is successful business person, right? I mean, that's bullshit too.

His true brand is reality TV host. But this idea that he is a successful business person who understands the economy, all of that has potential to collapse if he has to file for bankruptcy six months before the election. And I mean, so all of this is very bad for him and is clearly impacting his conduct on the campaign trail because he is acting like the old school Trump lunatic that he was before. Yeah, no, you're it's a very good point you make about sort of his brand and some of his political appeal coming from seeming rich and successful. That's also where his part of his political appeal coming from seeming rich and successful. That's also where part of his perception of strength comes from. And if he's broke and desperate, he looks

pretty weak. The Washington Post ran a story about how Trump doesn't want to declare bankruptcy. And one of the people close to Trump told the Post he'd rather have Letitia James show up with the sheriff at 40 Wall Street, which is where Trump Tower is, and make a huge stink about it, then say he's bankrupt. He thinks about what is going to play politically well for him. Bankruptcy doesn't play well for him, but having her try to take his properties might. I don't care if this ends up being politically good or bad from him. I just, I want to see Letitia James show up with the sheriff to seize Trump Tower. That's just my most resistance-y take on this. I'm going to enjoy it.

I think we all deserve it. I just want to see it. Whether it's politically good or bad, whatever. We can figure out that later. We have been podcasting about Donald Trump for going on seven millennia now. And one of the ongoing themes, this idea that one day we would see him frog march to prison. We went, we went through multiple impeachments,

multiple criminal trials off the late criminal trials. It would be a nice little, just a moose bush to see her take Trump tower, take Mar-a-Lago, take the golf club, right? Take the plane, take the plane, take whatever. I don't care. Just reposs-Lago. Take the golf club, right? Take the plane. Take the plane.

Take whatever. I don't care. Just repossess the plane. Yes. It would just be, just give us that. We deserve that. I know you and Leah are probably going to talk about what can save Trump here legally, but it does seem like truth social to the rescue here.

He might end up making a bunch of money from his fake Twitter website because he snowed a bunch of Trump fans into investing. That would be annoying. That's probably what's going to happen. I guess. The most annoying thing. But even then, I mean, he has a lot of money from that, but it's not all liquid. That's his problem.

He obviously has less money than he tells everyone, which is why he was originally convicted of fraud. Also something that's bad. We forgot that part. You know what else is bad politically? Having been held liable for fraud. I mean, one would like to hope. Should be. Should be. Time will tell.

I don't know. But he also just does not have the like he would have to sell his properties to do that which he obviously is unwilling to do so maybe she'll take them and then sell them like that leah and i talked about this is and you will hear it but it'd be very amusing if that happens i'd say that it sure will all right so let's talk about the the entire week polling is a lagging indicator. So it's still unclear whether all of this shit will move the numbers at all. If you squint, squint at the polling, you might be able to see a little movement, maybe a little, but it's early. But one challenge we've always had

with Trump is figuring out which of his political problems to focus on. What do you think after the first full week of Trump as a presumptive Republican nominee? I think that there is a larger story to tell about his chaotic, narcissistic style. One of the things, we see this in all the polling, that there is this retrospective nostalgia for Trump's presidency. People have sort of memory hold what it was felt like to have Donald Trump be president, to live on the edge of our seats with this sort of insanity. And so just the fact that he's in the news all the time is good. And all the things he's doing are all about helping himself, right? So that's the larger story. You need a larger narrative. Of the crazy shit he said this week, what are probably the most politically impactful ones?

To me, it is pretty obviously putting cuts to Social Security on the table and proposing a national abortion ban. Those are two issues that go with the core of – Social Security goes to the core of his working class base and his working class appeal, as bullshit as even that is. Abortion is the thing that drives turnout among Democrats and has helped power our victories in 2022 and 2023. And we know from the polling as well that there's so much work to do to convince voters that Donald Trump is as far right on abortion as we have been able to convince him that the rest of the Republican Party is. He gets a pass because he is a New York wannabe playboy cad who cheats on his wives.

And we've said this before in focus groups. Sarah Longwell said this once in her focus group podcast, that people proactively will bring up the idea when you ask them if Donald Trump is anti-access to abortion or anti-choice, they will say, of course, he's not personal. He's probably paid for abortions. And so we have work to do there. And he gave Democrats the opportunity to do that. So those are the two things I would hammer.

I do think that your first point about telling the larger story is very important, because almost by definition, if we're trying to persuade voters who haven't made up their minds yet, they are at least open to voting for Trump or have voted for Trump in the past. And I do think, you know, you can, even though we rolled our eyes at it when they said it, but like Chris Christie or Nikki Haley, and they're like, yeah, at one point, Donald Trump was maybe fighting for you or said that he was going to fight for you or whatever. But he is now running for president solely to save himself and punish everyone else who disagrees with them. Right. He like he will say or do literally anything to keep himself out of

jail and keep himself from going broke. And he doesn't like anyone who's not for him and anyone who's not for him as a target. Doesn't like Nikki Haley Republicans if they're not for him. Doesn't like Jewish people if they're Democrats. Wants to shoot people who are protesting against him, but pardon people who storm the Capitol. It's all about him. And if you don't like him, you're screwed and he's going to screw you over. And if you're for him, he still might screw you over because he really only cares about himself. Yeah. He is a weak, insecure loser who is running for president to avoid going to jail to help himself, reward his rich friends, and punish his enemies.

Yeah. And I think you got to just tell a story to people who are like, well, I didn't think the first term was that bad, or I kind of like the economy, or we survived the first term. And I think the turn is he is now desperate to save himself. And he is even more narcissistic than ever before, right? Because that's that we're going to have to actually persuade people of this who are still on the fence.

And there are a number. And narcissistic is a stage direction, not a word we're putting in the act, just to be clear. So Trump's loyal subjects in the House of Representatives didn't make life any easier for him this week.

On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson and most of the Republican caucus released their 2025 agenda. They want to raise the retirement age for Social Security, privatize Medicare, get rid of Obamacare, cut disability benefits, cut Medicaid, cut children's health insurance, and pass a national abortion ban that could also eliminate access to IVF, all to pay for huge tax cuts to alleged billionaires like Trump, who could really use one right about now. The Biden campaign jumped all over this as

they should. And they said the budget is, quote, Donald Trump's Project 2025 roadmap. Obviously, this is an aspirational document. How do we make it matter to voters? I mean, this is the agenda if Trump wins. This is not like what the right does sometimes. They take something that may be unpopular with swing voters that some, maybe a progressive member of Congress says, and they just attribute it to Joe Biden. Donald Trump included cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his budget every single year he was president.

He says he supports a national abortion ban. He tried to gut many of the programs mentioned here while he was president. There is a roadmap here. He has said these things this week. And so I think you just have to attribute it to him. And because this is the reality, because if Donald Trump wins, he's almost certainly bringing a Republican House and Republican Senate with him. That's just how these things tend to go in presidential years, especially given what the map is. This year, it's hard to see a world where Donald Trump is winning Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan, or one of those states, and Democrats are winning Ohio and Montana. That would be highly unlikely. Yeah, as you say, the most unlikely

situation is that somehow Donald Trump becomes president and Democrats win the Senate. That's just not happening. That's not happening. If Donald Trump wins, Republicans control the Senate. Like just get the House possibility that Democrats could still keep the House. But I think it's a lower possibility. This is Mike Johnson's plan. This is the plan of whichever person succeeds Mitch McConnell.

This is Donald Trump's plan. And this is what they will put into place. And we have to tell everyone, right? That is ultimately what you have to do is you have to shout from the rooftops. And here's the thing, you don't have to convince them today, you don't have to convince them tomorrow. You have six months to convince people. And we're all going to have to do it individually because the press is going to be so fucking annoying about this. They're just going to be like, just throwing Pinocchios left and right. Ooh, like, oh, it's Donald Trump once didn't say this. And ooh, it's the Republican Study Committee, not the Freedom Caucus or not the caucus. Like, fuck that. This is what is going to

happen. And we have to drive it. And we're all going to have to do it ourselves to our friends and family on this podcast through Vote Safe America, all of that. I think this is a huge opportunity to help explain to people that the future Trump presidency is to a lot of people right now, something that feels a little more orderly than what they feel right now in lower prices or a return to 2019 prices at the grocery store. And we have to explain that it's so much more. And here is a perfectly laid out way to do that. this plan was released and the Trump campaign has not responded to try to put themselves at arm's length from the plan as they have done with some other sort of extreme right-wing things because there's a few people running the campaign who might know something about politics.

But I do think it's an opportunity for reporters should the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself ever venture out of his right-wing media bubble and take some questions from real reporters to ask him about not only whether he agrees with this plan, but if he says he doesn't agree with some parts of this plan, ask him why most of this plan showed up in his budget every year when he was president of the United States. So that'd be something good to ask. So while Trump's been sulking at Mar-a-Lago all week, begging for cash, Joe Biden has been barnstorming the country to sell his economic agenda. In Nevada, he talked about his plan to build more housing and make it more affordable. In Arizona, he announced a grant that will help bring back thousands of microchip manufacturing jobs to the U.S. The president also relieved student debt for another 77,000 borrowers this week.

We're now over 4 million Americans helped have had their debt relieved by Joe Biden. He also announced a new climate rule to help ensure that two thirds of all new cars in this country will be hybrid or electric vehicles by 2032. Pretty big deal, especially the EPA rule on electric vehicles. Trump and Republicans have been running against EVs, saying they're more expensive and will cost American auto workers their jobs. What do you think about the politics of Biden pushing electric vehicles? I would say I was feeling pretty great about it until I tuned into the Wednesday podcast this morning and I heard Adesu Demisi say that he was worried about it. And I figured if Adesu is worried about it, I'm worried about it.

Or I should be worried about it. I did that and then I did some Googling on the polls. Yeah. But here's the thing. This is the right – put the politics aside. This is absolutely the right thing to do 100%. You have to do it. Necessary.

Necessary transformationalational, like we're fucked if we just have gas cars for the next century. We're fucked. And I think the good of this outweighs the negative. I think being bold on climate is absolutely essential if he's going to reconstitute the coalition of young voters who put him in office the first time. He absolutely has to do this. But there's obviously risk to it. And one thing that Trump is very skilled at is finding a way to make people believe that the country is changing and that change is bad for them. And if you were someone who was in the auto industry, you've worked in the auto industry for a long time, you have survived massive transition, right? Globalization, changes in technology, the auto companies almost going bankrupt in 2009. And this is one more

threat, right? And Trump, this is all of what MAGA is about is that a bunch of liberals, people in California, elsewhere are changing the country and that change is bad for you. So we're going to have to push back on that. And I think what doing Biden, his relationship with an endorsement from the United Auto Workers is a great pushback to that idea. And so I think he can be very aggressive and push forward, but it's an argument he's going to have to win for sure. So on one side, you get a majority of Americans are supporting government programs to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Great, right? 54% approve that. That could be higher, too.

But they also support government incentives to encourage electric vehicle purchases. 52% approve of Republicans. So like if you're going to help people, the government's going to help people be able to afford electric vehicles. They like that. But support for the phasing out of new gasoline vehicles is only at 30 percent. And support for government restrictions on the sale of new gasoline vehicles is only at 30 percent and support for government restrictions on the sale of new gasoline vehicles is at 21 so that's that's the mandate part which is really tough that's why they keep calling it a mandate now of course it's not it's like a slow phased in process to 2032 right so that's you know what 12 years from now um hopefully we still have a country by then uh but so you can hopefully we have a planet a planet yeah planet would be good too country plant which will go

first so so yeah but that's just it's just it's important to know what the politics are before we go into this having said that it is extremely important to do and good that joe biden has done it because we absolutely need to make this transition if we are to prevent the worst climate catastrophes from happening. But we have work to do on the politics. It's just the case. It's almost comforting to know that given the massive political period of transition and chaos that we live in, that it is still true what has been true for 100 years. That is the government giving people money to do things, popular. Popular. Government telling them not to do something, unpopular. Or yeah, or taking away something that people have. No, they don't like that.

And I feel like we're back in gas stove hell. The government is not taking your gas car. They're just regulating how many new gas cars can be made. Drive it till it doesn't drive anymore. Just till it breaks down in the middle of the road. You drive as much as you want. You can drive that gas car as fast as that gas car will take you as the oceans are coming after you as the icebergs melt. All right. So most polls show Biden struggling with young voters. Two of their top concerns, along with the war in Gaza, are the climate crisis and student loan relief. Do you think these policies that we talked about this week, both the EV policy and more student debt relief, do you think this can help Biden with young voters?

I absolutely do think it can. John, I'm so glad you asked this question because you're not going to believe this. But this week on Polar Coaster, the subscriber-exclusive podcast for Friends of the Pod that I host, that you could subscribe to by going to kirkit.com slash friends, I talked to John Della Volpe, an expert in the youth vote and a pollster, about this very issue. And what he said was really interesting. One of the points that he made is that one of the huge struggles that Biden has is there's a massive knowledge gap with young voters between what they want Biden to do and what Biden has actually done. And that the only way to get those young voters back in the fold is going to be to talk to them from people they trust about what Biden has actually done and what he is planning to do. So I think this is huge. All of these things we've talked about today,

the bad stuff about Trump, the good stuff about Biden is inunition to use to try to go make a case, right? These are data points we can use. And these are really important ones, I think. I'm glad you said that. And I also think that young activists and organizers can really help here, organizations that do this kind of stuff. As we were preparing for this, I read the story in Politico that was in prep. It ran a couple weeks ago, I think in February, about young climate activists. And it talks about the Sunrise Movement. And a couple months ago, they protested at Biden's headquarters, campaign headquarters,

because he hasn't yet declared a climate emergency. And they keep saying he's going to lose if he doesn't. And their spokesperson acknowledged Politico in the piece that, you know, protests like that could make Biden appear weak and help Trump, but that, quote, it's hard to say right now exactly how we'll walk that line. So first of all, on a climate emergency, a climate emergency would be Biden using sort of, you know, you declare a national emergency if you're president for natural disasters or the pandemic or other things. It would basically, as I understand it, free up some money in different agencies to pursue more climate resiliency, to sort of stop more oil drilling, to stop more projects, to stop crude oil exports. So you can definitely make a difference. It will certainly not make as much of a difference as any of the steps that Joe Biden has already taken on climate. It would make some difference. But anyway, so

they're very upset about that. That's fine. Like, I realize that even though Joe Biden spent his political capital on passing what is objectively the biggest climate bill in history, there are going to be climate activists who wish he'd go further. I realize that even though he has now canceled student debt for over 4 million Americans, there's going to be progressives who wish he'd go further. And like, that's okay. Keep pushing, keep fighting. But like, we only get the chance to do more if Joe Biden wins. And one way to think about it is your vote isn't about grading Joe Biden's presidency. And it's not about punishing or rewarding Joe Biden or Donald Trump. It is about what kind of future you want for yourself. And Joe Biden was not progressives first choice in 2020.

He won. Progressives kept pushing. And this guy who's been pretty moderate for his entire life, decades in politics, ended up passing some of the most progressive legislation in history. And if he loses, perhaps you'll have proved a point, but you will also have done deep damages to the causes that you profess to care about. to the causes that you profess to care about. And I think that's like really important because a lot of young people and a lot of just voters in general are not paying as close attention as we are to politics. I say this, I'm a broken record on this. And they're going to take cues from, as you said,

and you talked with John about people that they trust. They're also gonna take cues from organizations and activists and volunteers that are out there. And so if you are part of these organizations, it is not contradictory at all to criticize Joe Biden, say he needs to do more, and then get out there and tell people it is vitally important to the cause of climate change to make sure that Joe Biden and not Donald Trump is president. That's my, that's just my thing on that, Dan dan i like this new segment of the pod where you just become the grandpa simpson meme of old man yells at clouds i wasn't going to win that i missed the

politico story i'm glad that the team put it in prep thank you uh and then i was just reading it last night i was like what come on come on and i also look and i know the sunrise movie like i follow them on twitter and they have like very strong feelings about Gaza. And I totally get that, too. I have strong feelings about Gaza as well. But it's like what you guys want is a president who's going to be forward leaning on climate and do a lot of work. And that's what you got in Joe Biden. Is it enough? No, it's not enough.

But like the way to deal with that is to keep pushing and make sure he's back in office and you can keep pushing to do more. I don't know. I don't know. Sorry. I just went on another rant. That's great. People love it. Another goal of Biden's campaign swing when he's out in Nevada and Arizona was to shore up support with Latino voters, who the polls show he's also struggling with,

despite winning 60% of Latinos in 2020. On Wednesday's episode, Tommy Nadesu talked about the interview where Biden said that Trump, quote, despises Latinos. And they also mentioned that his campaign released this ad targeting Latino voters. For our abuelos, insulin that costs $35 or hundreds. That is the difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. For women, the freedom to control our own bodies or doctors going to jail for an abortion. This is the difference between Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Only one choice is right. And the difference between them is your vote. I'm Joe Biden, and I approve this message. So I feel like we'll be talking a lot about the Latino vote between now and November. I know that when Tommy and I approve this message. So I feel like we'll be talking a lot about the Latino vote between now and November. I know that when Tommy and Adiso talked about this yesterday, they made the important point that you have to make at the beginning of any discussion of the Latino vote, which is that the Latino vote is not at all a monolith.

Just like white voters, Latino voters' political views depend on where your family's from, where you live, how old you are, all that. views depend on where your family's from, where you live, how old you are, all that. So with all that said, what is your take on both Biden's interview and the ad and just sort of the general outreach to Latino voters that sort of launched this week? It's obviously essential, right? And we'll get into what some of the polling says about Biden's struggles here or potential struggles here, but you cannot win the presidency without doing well with the Latino vote. Like that is, there's no margin of error.

This is the hard part about talking about this election is youth voters. It's true with everything, yeah. Yeah, young voters, black voters, Latino voters, women voters, voters named John. Like any group, you can lose no people, right? So it's like, so that is true here too. I thought, you know, I've seen some group you can lose no people right so it's like so that that is true here too i thought

you know i i've seen some and i've heard some uh critique of the ad uh that people maybe thought it was boring didn't love it here's one thing i say because john as you know i also host a very popular youtube show called political experts react where we react to campaign ads yes and are you gonna do a second organic plug here wait wait till i get a message box plug into the section of latino vote just kidding but anyway one of the things we i'm not subscribed to the positive american youtube channel but anywho the the fraternity leave and you're still doing that you think he's not texting me to plug the shit so um you're tweeting crazy things when you have a baby in your hand. He's just trying to plug cricket stuff,

but all right. Anyhow, he, one of the things that I think is worth noting on any ad is we all judge them from like a, as if we're Roger Ebert, right? Like it's not that interesting.

And where the camera angles and all of this. And just, we have to remember always that the campaigns test the living shit out of these ads. And so it obviously works with some group of voters. Otherwise, they don't run it. But I think it goes to a point that Adisu made, which is, especially with the Latino vote, simply talking about issues and what you've actually done and going to do for the

country and the community is incredibly important, right? So it's going to be not as exciting as a Lincoln Project ad about Donald Trump's father not loving him or January 6th. It's just like, this is blocking and tackling. We've seen it in the polls. It's not just for the Latino community. People love the idea of $35 insulin, and no one knows that Joe Biden did that. So you got to tell them, even if it seems boring at the time. So I think that's the right approach. I think I like the ad better than the interview, because the interview, I think, doesn't get to those issues in the same way. But outreach is important, just being out there,

showing up. And you're not going to win back voters today with one ad and one interview, but you have to keep doing it. So I imagine these ads will be up the whole time. I hope that this sort of public outreach focus on Latino media continues all the way through the time. I hope that this sort of public outreach, focus on Latino media continues all the way through the campaign. I also think the despise Latino comment, he despises Latinos. Clearly, Donald Trump has said any number of things that are extraordinarily racist and xenophobic in his time. But I do think I would use the opportunity to, if I was asked that question, to say, look, I just don't think that he fights for Latino voters. I think he doesn't have a record when he was in office of fighting for Latino voters. And I don't think he's going to do it now for the following reasons, right? The only people you're trying to persuade here are people who are like open to voting for Donald Trump or for a third party. And if they are open to it, then just saying, oh, no, no, he despises you is not is not necessarily the most persuasive argument. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, we have been Donald Trump is a racist.

Like, I don't think that is a question. He says racist things. He very clearly holds tremendous racial animus. I mean, he's a bigot across the board. clearly holds tremendous racial animus. I mean, he's a bigot across the board. But one thing that we just have to come to terms with as Democrats is we made that case from 2016 to 2020, and he showed dramatic improvement. With voters of color. Yeah, right. He showed real improvement with voters of color over that period of time. So it's possible that that's not the best argument with the voters who are open to voting for him. And so I understand why Biden said that, but I think you're going to win them

back by more showing what you've done and what you will do and what Donald Trump would do that is bad for your community. It's not just immigration. It is repealing the ACA. In 2012, when Obama did so well with Latino voters, the most important issue with the Latino voters in our polling was not immigration. It was Romney's support for repealing the ACA. So it's going to be that sort of stuff. And it's why he talked about housing when he went to Nevada, which because it's true in Nevada, it's true almost everywhere with every demographic group.

When you ask them about cost of living and they complain about cost of living, they mention housing more than any other issue because it's what people spend the most of their money on. And so when you ask people just when you don't give people a list of issues, but you just say what's on your mind, housing comes up all the time. So for nerds like us, there has been a raging debate among pundits and political operatives about just how much Biden and the Democrats have been struggling with voters of color over the last decade. This is based not only on polls, but on actual election results, though the results definitely show a smaller shift away from Democrats than the current polls. And so this debate ranges from some people saying it could just be a polling issue to others saying we could be in the midst of a full-blown racial realignment. And it is true. If the polls right now and the crosstabs, demographic groups that we're seeing

in the polls, if this is correct, then it probably would be one of the largest racial realignments. Big if. Big if. But anyway, what do you think? What do you think of this whole debate? This is going to be one of those times where we have to hold two separate but true thoughts in if big if but anyway what do you think what do you think of this whole debate this is gonna be one of those times where you have to hold two separate but true thoughts in our head at the same time one is the polls are all over the map and the particular all all over the map with the teen of ours right they're showing gigantic swings that would be a um massive like you said historic realignment we're seeing smaller shifts. So that's point one. So who knows what the polls are going to say? That's point one. Point two is,

even if you just take all the polls and you average them together, they're all kind of showing the same thing, which is that Biden is doing less well with voters of color and Latino voters in particular than he did in 2020. And so whether the polls are right, the polls are wrong, which polls are right, which was wrong, is largely irrelevant in my view, from the perspective of activists, organizers, campaigns, operatives, because what are we going to do differently, right? What are we going to do with this debate? Are we just going to say, oh, everything's fine, let's do nothing, right? We're going to have to go get every single one of those voters, whether the polls are right or wrong. And so that's ultimately what I think the

Biden campaign is doing. But there we have seen, and the reason why people are so worried about this is Trump made real gains. Those gains mostly held in 2022. We didn't see a snap back to 2016 numbers with Latino voters, but we didn't see it worse, but Trump wasn't on the ballot. So what's going to happen this time? And if the polls are correct, especially the higher end polls, like the New York Times-San Antonio poll would show a dramatic shift, there's no math where Democrats can win elections anytime in the future. You can't do as poorly as we do with white non-college voters and not just crush it with voters of color. And if working class voters of color are starting to perform like working class white voters, that's the ballgame. You can't win a national election that way in the electoral

college. It's just not mathematically possible. Yes. If we are a party of college-educated white, black, brown, Asian voters, that is not a party that will ever win a majority anywhere in this country, except for like the deepest blue states. Because there's just way, way more non-college educated voters than college educated voters in this country. That is just, and not saying that's where we're, we don't know that's where we're headed. Like we are still getting a good, good chunk of non-college educated voters, especially non-college educated voters of color in terms of the results. Most of the actual election results we have, if you just put the polls aside,

show that voters of color who switch from Democrat to Republican over the last several election cycles tend to be people who had always held more moderate or conservative views, but we're still voting for Democrats based on either a historic attachment to the party or because they thought that the party was more welcoming to voters with more moderate or conservative views. And so some of this is ideological sorting. So if you had a black Democrat who's conservative or a Latino Democrat who's conservative or even more moderate, a black Democrat who's conservative or a Latino Democrat who's conservative or even more moderate. Maybe they voted for Barack Obama. And then as the Democratic Party, as they think they saw the Democratic Party get a little more progressive or a little more like ideologically polarized. And then certainly the Republican Party become more ideologically polarized.

They even either started voting Republican or what's happening a lot is some of these voters are saying, I'm not, neither party speaks to me. And this is also why you are not seeing as much attrition among older voters of color, both Latinos and black voters, especially like older black voters are still like these men and women, like strongest demographic group for Democrats. And that has been true the last several election cycles. And that really hasn't changed that much. But younger voters of color, especially young and younger black voters, too, do not have the same attachment to the Democratic Party as the party of civil rights as their parents, grandparents, great grandparents did. And so that's that's part of what we might be seeing as well. And I also think that there is a it's like a more of a populist streak among younger voters

of all races and voters of color who are just like very anti-establishment, anti-institution, sort of like angry about economic inequality and maybe a lack of attention to economic inequality by politicians of both parties. So there's a lot of different stuff going on here that could be going on. But at least in terms of the election results, you are seeing that some of this is more ideological sorting than it is anything else. There's one more piece of this

I think is important, which is we tend to analyze all voting groups as if they are static from election to election, when a significant portion of the shift from 2016 to 2020 is not so much people who voted for Hillary in 2016 voting for Trump in 2020. It is more conservative Latino voters who did not vote in 2016, or maybe even vote in 2012, voting for Trump in 2020. For whatever

reason that is, part of it's ideological polarization. I mean, there have been some theories around COVID and all kinds of whatever the reason is you're bringing new people out as opposed to moving them from Democrat to Republican, although there is some persuasion happening there. And it's just like my answer on this is prepare for the worst, hope for the best, right? Which is let's just let's operate like we're in the middle of a historic racial realignment, invest all the resources and time and energy and intellectual capital we can to stop it from happening. And if it turns out we did all that shit and the polls were just wrong, guess what, Joe Biden still won, right?

Yeah, I think it's worth knowing, and I'm sure the campaign is trying to figure this out and it's good for all of us to know too, is the why, like to the extent that there is drift and defection. Why is it happening? And, you know, there's also there's also has been evidence that nonwhite Democrats have more moderate views than white Democrats, especially on some social and cultural issues, which would surprise a lot of people. and volunteering, knowing why certain people, certain voters of different demographic groups are either concerned about Joe Biden or concerned about Donald Trump. Again, their concerns are not necessarily going to line up with your concerns about Joe Biden and Donald Trump. They almost

certainly will not. They almost certainly will not, again, by definition. And so knowing exactly what those concerns are will help you try to figure out how to persuade them. And I do think that's why it's important. This debate is important. It's not necessarily as important like are the polls going to be right or wrong? Like that doesn't matter as much. But why this is happening, if it indeed is happening, I think is very important in terms of like how we persuade people come this November. Okay.

A couple of quick things before we go to break. Well, you already did a polo coaster. Just one quick thing before we go. But anyway, I'll do another Polo Coaster plug. Go sign up for crooked.com slash friends. I'm listening to Dan talk to smart people and have smart conversations about the polls. It's great.

We are also about to talk to Leah Littman, one of the hosts of Strict Scrutiny, and we are thrilled to announce that all the Strict Scrutiny co-hosts are doing a special live show in Washington, D.C. on June 22nd at the Howard Theater. Head to crooked.com slash events to grab tickets to this show or see if Pod Save America or Love It or Leave It are coming to your city. When we come back, Leah Littman.

John and I are definitely not lawyers, and we didn't take the LSAT like John Lovett, but here to help us understand the latest updates in Trump's trials is an actual lawyer and constitutional scholar and, perhaps most importantly, co-host of Crooked's Strict Scrutiny, Leah Littman. Leah, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me. I'll tell you, John and I were talking about what we're going to do on this show. Obviously, we felt like there was so much legal news. We tried to read the stories. We read them. We tried to understand the stories.

We failed, and we said we had to get someone from Strict on this show immediately. So here you are. So you have to help us and our listeners walk through everything that's happening because there's a lot happening. And from what I can tell, none of it seems great. None of it seems great. And also some of what Judge Cannon is doing is truly inexplicable. So there are some things even I cannot explain.

Okay. Well, I'm going to ask you to try at least. So that's a good place. Let's start with Miami. So in the classified documents case, which, as you mentioned, is being overseen by a Trump appointed judge named Eileen Cannon, she has issued an order this week, given the defense of prosecutors too weak to file submissions that outline proposed jury instructions based on two different scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act.

This has people, seemingly like yourself, confused and alarmed. To whatever ability you have, try to explain what is happening here and why people are so alarmed by it. OK. So I'll try to explain what jury instructions are supposed to be and then explain what these are not. Okay. So jury instructions are things judges tell the jury in order to help them understand

how the law works so the jury can make their designated decision about what actually happened and whether the defendant is guilty of a crime. So a jury instruction might explain a super complicated crime that contains like 17 elements and tell the jury, you know, if you find these three things, you don't have to find this other thing, you know, and things like that. Or it might explain to the jury, like, who bears the burden of proof on certain defenses or whatnot. Judge Cannon's proposed instructions basically tell the jury, if the president does it, it's not illegal.

Like it just utterly eviscerates the Presidential Records Act and the charges that Jack Smith actually brought here. Because what her jury instructions convey is, I mean, again, essentially like the president can basically declassify things with his mind. president can basically declassify things with his mind. So the jury instructions say, look, you need to define and decide whether something is personal or presidential, but essentially a president's categorization about whether something is personal or presidential is authoritative. And a president can categorize something as personal after he leaves office and basically doing whatever they want. And that's just not how the law works. And so the concern is the jury instructions tell the jury to basically acquit, and they do so without a basis in the law. Okay, I have a lot of questions about this. One, even if we were to adopt this completely original, made up from whole cloth interpretation of the Presidential

Records Act. Once the FBI asked for the stuff and Trump refused to give it to him and got people to lie for him, would that also be a crime no matter what happened here? Like, is he also vulnerable on that? So there's still the additional obstruction charges, and those could come into play. But I think the concern is that if you tell the jury, look, these documents were essentially Trump's to do with what they want, that that could color their assessment of some of the other charges as well, such that even if Judge Cannon didn't essentially direct the jury, you know, fine for the defendant on obstruction, they would be viewing the obstruction charges through the lens of the government had no basis to be asking for these documents anyways, and that might inform their consideration of the other charges. And so what happens next? The defense and prosecutors file their competing jury instructions, and then she picks them out of a hat? How does she make a decision? And what happens if she makes the wrong one? Honestly, at this point, her picking a jury instruction out of a hat seems like the best

case scenario because, you know, what is going to happen is both sides will file proposed instructions and then she will evaluate their arguments and ask, you know, what is the legally correct, you know, best jury instruction that actually channels the jury's decision-making process to reflect the law as Congress wrote it. If, right, she was doing that in good faith, I think she would realize that her proposed that actually channels the jury's decision-making process to reflect the law as Congress wrote it. If she was doing that in good faith, I think she would realize that her proposed scenarios and instructions were pretty far afield from the law. But we don't yet know how she's going to respond when Jack Smith presumably is going to tell her those proposed instructions are completely nonsensical. And if she picks the ones made up of whole cloth that don't actually interpret the law correctly, what recourse does Jack Smith have? Can he appeal this? Unfortunately, it's very limited

because these are not final judgments in the case. That is, they don't effectively resolve the case, and they're not subject to an immediate or what's called an interlocutory appeal. So, you know, Jack Smith could, if he wanted, seek an extraordinary remedy from the Court of Appeals, a writ of mandamus. And it's possible that a Court of Appeals would say, this is so far across even a legally plausible border that we're going to intervene. But it's really tough to get a court of appeals to intervene in a kind of interim stage of a case with an extraordinary remedy like mandamus, and the 11th Circuit is a pretty conservative court of appeals.

And I've seen some fears, and this is going to just reveal how dangerously little information I know, that one of the concerns here is that the way she's doing this, what could set Judge Cannon up to be in a position because of, and if I get this wrong, we will edit it out of the podcast, but rule 29, which would mean that if she were to dismiss the case, I think, is this right, after the jury is selected, then that is not appealable in federal cases? Yes. So there are all sorts of procedural maneuvers that I feel like are just ticking time bombs in this case. Remember, she just made an earlier ruling in which she said she was not actually going to decide whether to dismiss some of the charges against Donald Trump on the ground that the federal law under which he was being prosecuted

was unconstitutionally void for vagueness, essentially potentially deferring a ruling until later in the case. And so there are a bunch of things she could potentially do that would pull the rug out from under the prosecution, delay it more. And again, given everything she has done in this case to date, there's every reason to be concerned that more trouble is in the works. Is she, I know this is kind of a harsh thing to say, but is she an inexperienced judge or is she a partisan judge? Does it seem like she is doing Trump's bidding here? Because there are liberal judges, conservative judges, but this is not something that's happening on a, this is not on the Federalist Society entry questionnaire, right?

This is something that's very specific to helping Donald Trump. So what's your take based on what you've seen? Yeah. So I should say she is a graduate of the fine law school that I also attended and where I now teach. I cannot say go blue in this context. But so I think the answer, I don't know her, I didn't know her, from what I've observed, is probably both, right? Like, she did not have a ton of experience when she was nominated and then confirmed in the lame duck session to be a judge. She has very limited criminal experience now. It's been reported that two of her law clerks, you know, quit under what circumstances we don't really know over the last year, although she's fully staffed now. So I think some of it probably is inexperience.

But I think it is really hard to say all of it is when she has gone so far over the line, you know, earlier stages in the case, essentially saying Trump had like a personal interest he could assert in the documents that would prevent the government from actually, you know, conducting an investigation and proceeding forward with the case where she got unanimously reversed by some of the more conservative judges on the 11th Circuit. So I think it's probably both. There was some talk when Judge Cannon was first assigned to this case that maybe it would be Jack Smith's move should be to try to get her off the case. Is that still an available option to him? Or is that, for the same reasons you cited about the circuit court, not really a viable course for him to take? It's not a viable course for him to take.

And I think asking would just undermine his own credibility before the 11th Circuit in the event that he tried to make some emergency appeal to them on some other grounds. Because here, the fact that she's made some rulings that have been reversed, even really bad ones, is not a sufficient ground to disqualify a judge. It would have to be like an actual conflict of interest. An actual conflict of interest or her doing something that was pretty close to illustrating explicit evidence of bias. So, you know, judges in other cases have been disqualified when they've made like discriminatory marks that reveal animus toward one of the litigants or one of their characteristics. And she hasn't done that. All right, let's move to New York State and Donald Trump's problem of securing money. So as we've talked about on this podcast before, as part of the New York State case against Trump's businesses, he received a $454 million fine. He has filed an appeal to

try to get a reprieve on having to secure a bond by next week. He said in that that he's tried with multiple companies and it's, quote, a practical impossibility for him to do that. Attorney General Letitia James asked the appeals court not to grant Trump that reprieve. What happens now? What happens if he can't find the money? So if he can't find the money, then I think Tish James could start attaching his properties and using that to potentially satisfy the judgment against him. This is what happens when defendants can't pay.

Then you have the state actually seizing their property and selling it in order to raise the money that the defendant owes them. So I think that is a potential next step, is Tish James tries to seize control of Trump Tower. Does that, I mean, like takes control of it, like repossesses it, or just takes some of the money from it? Like is she garnishing his wages, or is she repossesses it, or just takes some of the money from it? Like is she garnishing his wages or is she repossessing his car to try to bring this down to non-billionaire levels or non-fake billionaire levels? So the way it works is you repo the car and then you sell the car and you use what you gain, right, to satisfy the judgment and any remaining assets would go to the defendant. But there is

a world in which he actually does lose ownership of some of his properties. And then I saw, it's always hard to tell with these moves, like what's real and what's not, but that she did something in Westchester County today, which suggested that maybe she's putting herself in a position because he has a golf club in Westchester County. Would that be the next step to begin to move aspects of the case there so that she could go after those properties? Well, so what you do is you essentially file a notice of attachment on certain property, and you would do that in the location of the property. So it's not like she's moving the case from one location to another, but instead asserting, right, I am going to lay a claim to this property in order

to satisfy the judgment of the case and doing that in the jurisdiction where the property is actually located. And I think you explained this to John and I just a few weeks ago, but because our brains are Twitter infected porous, you know, porous mesh or something. Can you explain how the bond works again? And I'm particularly curious about this because there was a clip of one of Trump's attorneys today on Fox News dodging questions about whether he could seek funding from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or another foreign entity to secure the bond. Yeah. So, you know, in order to get a bond, you have to put up a certain amount of money. Now, as to where he would get that money, he would be potentially putting up. I don't know. I get that money he would be potentially putting up,

I don't know. I think that is a question that Michael Cohen, among other people, has suggested that maybe he would try to approach a foreign country and get some money from them in order to put up money in order to secure a bond. But I don't think we know a lot about what exactly is going on behind the scenes. I think the attorney general has said she's not totally convinced that he can't get a bond as is. And so we just kind of need to see how it plays out. And that's essentially like how a typical defendant would get bail, right? When they put up a percentage and then someone else would take responsibility. Like if he fled to Russia, whoever secured the bond would be on the hook for the rest? or how would that work? Yes.

So you put up a certain amount of money, and then the bond company essentially guarantees that they and you are good for it, such that if you do not do your part, the defendant doesn't do their part, then the bond company is responsible for the amount of money. And it's a way of basically deferring enforcement of the judgment, so that if a bond is posted, it basically tells the court this person could satisfy the judgment. And so they are allowed to continue to litigate whether they have to pay up or not, but they know they're good for the money, again, either through them or through some combination of them in the bond company. And will we know, let's say he secures

a bond, will we know who financed that? Will he have to disclose that publicly? I don't know. Yeah, I just don't know. Okay. Because that just seems to, if it is a publicly disclosed thing, from a political perspective, it seems to hinder his options, right? It makes it a little more challenging to find a Russian oligarch or the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to do it. As opposed to, you know, if it were to stay secret, although nothing with Trump stay secret for right, again, like even if right, it is formally secret for some time being, it is always possible that people would file requests for public information requests, you know, as to where they got the

money. And so that's why, you know, we don't know whether it could become public, even if there is kind of a normal rule under which it wouldn't otherwise. All right. Continuing our tour of Trump's legal troubles, let's move to Manhattan, where the case for involving the hush money payment back during the 2016 campaign was supposed to start. It seems to be delayed because of an issue around discovery. Help explain what happened there. And then my understanding today is DA Alvin Bragg said that the documents being requested were mostly not germane

so that there's a sense that maybe the trial can move forward. Just help us understand what's going on there. And are we going to get to see Trump at a defendant table sometime soon? Because we've been waiting a while now. Yeah, so the documents were disclosed because prosecutors have an obligation to disclose to the defense not only information that inculpates the

defendant, but also information that exculpates the defendant, right, is potentially relevant to their innocence. And included in that category of evidence is evidence that undermines the credibility of any witness that the prosecution intends to call against the defendant. So here, obviously, the prosecution is going to call some people who have had some run-ins with the law. And so there is potentially information, you know, within the federal prosecutor's office, within the Southern District of New York,

that is relevant to those individuals' credibility. And so I think there were some concerns that among this vast amount of documents that were turned over, there were going to be things that potentially changed the nature of the witnesses or potentially changed the nature of the prosecution's case against the defendant. And again, based on kind of credible people who said they have looked at the thousands of pages of materials and, you know, DA Alvin Bragg, it doesn't seem like that is the case. That is, it doesn't seem like there is anything that the SDNY turned over that really

alters the nature of the charges or the nature of the case or the nature of any of the witnesses against Donald Trump, and therefore, the case might proceed. Now, of course, the defense is going to say, we need more time to look at this. Maybe they think or they will say there were some leads in there that we need to chase down. But it's not clear, you know, as to whether the judge will actually force them to go to trial, you know, pretty close to the original date or initially after the 30 day deferral, you know, that DA Bragg gave Trump. So, you know, as to whether we should see it soon, maybe, but you know, everything that has unfolded in all of these cases has always felt like Lucy

and the football, where you think it's going to happen, and then it never does. I know, as people who work in content, we're just trying to plan podcasts and things like that, and they keep just moving these things around. Right, this was supposed to be Trump trial season, and instead it's weight on the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon and SDNY season. I know, which is a lot less fun for everyone and the rule of law generally. So, all right, let's end on a palate cleanser. Just the very light subject of the Fifth Circuit and immigration law.

So Texas has this law in place. Supreme Court said it couldn't stay in place. The Fifth Circuit is something else. Help explain what the hell is going on. Can Texas start deporting people as if they were the federal government? And if you want to just rant about the Fifth Circuit for a while, feel free. This is a safe space. Okay. So we are going to do a deeper dive on this topic because it is so horribly messy, and the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court are truly messing with just the enterprise of law,

as we know it, in the process. But the short answer to your question is no, Texas cannot just start deporting people, including people, by the way, who have lawful status under federal immigration law, which is what the Texas law purports to authorize them to do. They cannot begin doing that because the injunction against the Texas law went back into effect after a court of appeals, funnily enough, the Fifth Circuit panel dissolved a stay of that injunction that a previous panel of the Fifth Circuit had put into effect. But basically, the Fifth Circuit had previously suggested that Texas could effectively be immigration law as we know it, and that runs afoul and violates every basic principle of constitutional law, flies right in the face

of the Supreme Court's previous decision in Arizona. But this is what the Fifth Circuit has kind of been set up to do. You know, Mitch McConnell and Republican senators have blocked, you know, Democrats appointing judges in states with Republican senators by abusing the you know, Democrats appointing judges in states with Republican senators by abusing the blue slip, thereby guaranteeing that Republican presidents could fill that and other circuits where there are Republican senators with people who are so unhinged, they think Justice Antonin Scalia is a Democrat, like they think that guy is basically a communist. And so they've started

citing the writings of Robert Bork, who was Ronald Reagan's failed nominee 40 years ago, because they're like, that's the guy who we want to treat as the authoritative guy on this subject. And so the Fifth Circuit has just completely gone off a loose cannon. And it's not just the immigration case, right? That is the circuit that gave you the injunction that barred the Biden administration and the federal government from even talking to social media companies about content moderation. This is a circuit that gave you the medication abortion ruling that effectively slapped on a bunch of additional restrictions on medication abortion that the FDA deemed medically and scientifically unsound. This is the court of appeals that just said Texas could enforce a law that gave parents the ability to prevent their minor children from accessing contraception,

beginning the next wave on attacks on contraception. This is the court of appeals that green-lighted SB-8, the notorious bounty hunter law that nullified abortion rights and Roe in Texas before the court formally overruled Roe. This court is just where hope and law and dreams go to die. And they are just pushing the Overton window so far off of this galaxy that they are making this Supreme Court look less insane. And I think that is part of the game. And, you know, they came close again to allowing Texas to enforce a federal immigration law that allows a state rather than the federal government to deport and remove people, which is not how any of this has worked for the better part of 200 years. part of 200 years. But, you know, this court is just going to keep on pushing the boundaries of this because this Supreme Court is not inclined to really rein them in. I hope that was cathartic because it was at least it was very informative for us. But I hope you feel better after having

gotten that off your chest. And I encourage everyone like 75 minutes of uncontrolled screaming just what the fuck over and over and that sounds like a bonus episode to me that would do quite well. Leah Lemon, thank you so much for being with us again on Pod Save America. As always, great to talk to you. Likewise.

Thanks to Leah for joining us today. Everyone have a great weekend and we'll talk to you on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doom-scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are,

consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Kira Wakim is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis.

Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kirill Pelleviv, and Molly Lobel.