Pod Save America - “Is Palin Running? Alaska!”

Episode Date: April 5, 2022

Democrats move closer to confirming Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a criminal referral from the January 6 committee, and some version of Build Back Better that Joe Manchin can support, the Atlantic's Anne Applebaum talks about the current situation in Ukraine, and a March Badness championshit winner is crowned.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 Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. I know this is a podcast, but if you're watching us right now, we're back in the old studio, which is now the new studio. Brand new studio. It's beautiful. There's what looks like a Big Mac on a podium. Chandelier with monkeys on it.

There's a monkey chandelier. Yeah, that's a big one. We've got a donkey. Some other knickknacks here. I think describing set decoration is one of the most wonderful podcasting. On today's show, Washington kicks off a busy spring with Katonji Brown Jackson's confirmation vote in the Senate, a potential criminal referral of Donald Trump from the 1-6 committee in the House, and the return of Joe Biden's economic plan in a form that Joe Manchin can live with. We'll get into all of it.

And then Tommy talks to the Atlantic's Anne Applebaum about the current situation in Ukraine. And later, we'll wrap up the final round of our March badness bracket, and we have a surprise late entry to consider from way out west. So stay tuned. But first, check out the latest episodes of Crooked's newest podcast, Strict Scrutiny, to catch up on Judge Katonji Brown-Jackson's confirmation hearings. Each week, law professors Leah Littman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray use their experience to provide understanding into the inner workings

of the Supreme Court's decisions, culture, and personalities. New episodes of Strict Scrutiny drop every Monday, wherever you get your podcasts. Also, check out this week's Offline, where Samantha Bee offers some motherly advice for future Oscar attendees talks about the time she was almost canceled for a joke about Ivanka Trump and discusses how she keeps her show funny even when politics makes you feel like shit which is all the time forgot about that joke about Ivanka Trump that was so

long ago yeah what year was that but I actually but you know fortunately I made her relive it as we all like to relive embarrassing public things we all love that it was a C-bomb situation We all love that. The C-bomb situation. It was a C-bomb situation. Very much a C-bomb. I didn't bring that up, but you did.

New episodes of Offline drop every Sunday wherever you get your podcasts. I just twisted you up there like a pretzel. All right, let's get to the news. It's the start of a busy spring in Washington before everyone leaves to campaign for the midterms. Late Monday night, the U.S. Senate advanced the nomination of Judge Katonji Brown-Jackson

to the Supreme Court by a vote of 53 to 47, with Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney joining all 50 Democrats in support. The procedural vote was necessary to break a highly unusual tie in the Judiciary Committee, where every single Republican senator tried to block Judge Jackson from even being considered by the full Senate. This despite a new Marquette Law School poll showing that 66% of Americans support Judge Jackson's nomination, including 67% of independents and even one in three Republican voters. The whole thing puts Senate Republicans in a bit of an awkward position. Here's Roy Blunt and Lindsey Graham explaining their no votes.

I think she's certainly going to be confirmed. I think it'll be a high point for the country to see her go on the court and take her unique perspective to the court. But I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the court. And I won't be supporting her, but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment. And I'll say this. If we get back the Senate and we're in charge of this body and there's judicial openings, we will talk to our colleagues on the other side. But if we're in charge, she would not have been before this committee. I like the Roy Blunt prevaricating so much. It's like, it's a beautiful and historic day for our country.

No. I vote no on it. But then he has a little button on the end. He's like, but you know, and then she'll get nominated and confirmed and I'll join everyone in recognizing the importance of the thing that I just voted against. I couldn't be prouder to be part of, if by

part of you mean opposed to this incredibly historic event. I am a part of it. I am Roy Blunt and I am very much a part of this historic moment. I'm just on the wrong side of it. My part was no. That was my part. I was the one trying to stop it, but there I was, you know? Part of it.

He's retiring. You don't have to tie yourself in knots, man. You're retiring. That's why he said the nice words that were in the sandwich. Say whatever you want to do. The no sandwich. Do whatever you want to do. The nice sandwich. Do whatever you want to do. The nice words between the no sandwich were him retiring.

Lindsey Graham, just a three-week temper tantrum. Just banging his rattle every day. Why are you so upset? Lindsey Graham, you voted to confirm her to the second most powerful court in the country last year. Five minutes ago. Last year. I mean, what, if anything, do you guys think Republicans achieved with their buffoonery during this nomination? I think they got Mitt Romney to yes.

I think that helps. I think they probably did. Maybe Murkowski, too. Yeah. I've been trying to, like, tune my brain to a more cynical setting when thinking about this. Like, set it to, like, Dan, you know? Yeah. Get over it.

But I haven't seen any real benefit for them. Get over it to Dan. Dan's a get over but i i just i haven't seen any real benefit for them to dan dan's a cynic he plays his he plays his part like the dream scenario for mcconnell was digging up something that would get i guess joe mansion to voice concern but instead they've achieved the exact opposite the cynical vote is a yes vote if your if your goal is to jam democrats in the future the cynical vote is a yes vote. The no vote is not cynical. The no vote is stupid, short term. Say more, say more. Yeah, what are you talking about?

Speak to me. I think it's a great take. I want you to- I'm a listener in, you know, upstate New York. I'm not sure what you're saying. Upstate New York? He's trying to be the voice of the people. On SmartList, they do this funny thing where they-

Oh, yeah. Sean's aunt in Wisconsin. Sean's aunt in Wisconsin. Sean's aunt in Wisconsin trying to rip that off. Dan's a cynic. The people in upstate New York can't figure out what's going on in politics these days. Dan's a well-known cynic. What do you have against Troy? What do you have against the people of Schenectady?

Have you been to Troy? What do you have against Buffalo? A lot of things. Other than that new dumb stadium they're building. Here's the point I'm making. It's the winning in the stadium that's the problem. This is this. She is about to be confirmed. It is an absolutely historic nomination. It would affirm their their sincerely held but wrong belief that Democrats have been the ones leading the radicalization of the judicial nomination process. They are the ones who railroaded Bork and Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh while they were the ones being dragged along to the ending of the filibuster, dragged along to the scorched earth politics of these confirmation hearings, and setting

themselves up to do what they want to do in the future, which is never allow another Democratic nominee to ever reach the Supreme Court ever again. But instead, they just they can't do it because their primaries because of short term thinking, because they're furious, because they just don't want to. And because they don't think that way. Yeah. And she's not changing the ideological composition of the court. So it was really kind of a free vote. Yeah. They also made her more popular. There was a clear backlash uh even among republicans even among republicans she her support at the beginning of the hearings was lower even though it was still pretty high uh it was like 58 59 it was a 66 by the end uh overwhelming with independents and like i said

a third of republicans too and they did a separate poll today um about like how the republicans handled the nomination 52 of the public said that they were unfair and did a very bad job questioning her so clearly there was backlash to it yeah i mean look i'm thinking about the conversation we had a while back and then you had with dan on thursday pod about like protesting themes for the midterms um but even yeah josh holly humiliating himself three or four days in a row did nothing for them. I mean, I'm sure they'll go after Democrats as soft on crime and maybe they'll point to elements of this hearing as part of that. But I kind of doubt it. I sort of think they have that that that well set up for

themselves because they'll go to their usual hobby horses. Yeah, I think they protested the messages poorly. Like I think there are there are some messages around those themes that do worry me around the midterms. I just think they did a particularly bad job in these hearings by being as extreme and openly racist as possible. And they were all over the place. I mean, even just now, John Cornyn is still talking about Obergefell. Obergefell! Right, which is a popular decision legalizing marriage equality. He is still attacking that.

popular decision legalizing marriage equality. He is still attacking that. He's still, I think both seeming radical and that he is going after like settled and popular opinions. While at the same time, I think, I think like giving fuel to the fire for Democrats and progressives who watch this very closely saying,

Hey, these threats, these threats to our rights. These are very real. Now is a very serious that we are, that we are not exaggerating. We are not just ringing the alarm. He said, he said that Obergefell mandate same-sex marriage yeah yeah yeah sure your lips to god's

ears buddy i'll send you a list i mean what was your take on graham's comments like you know sam stein tweeted this a reporter for Politico said, have we reached a point where the only way to confirm a Supreme Court justice is if one party controls the White House and the Senate? Yes. That is completely stupid. That is so stupid. Of course, Democrats will get railroaded to confirm a Republican nominee.

Yes, I think McConnell stealing the Merrick Garland seat was precedent setting. And all the little McConnell acolytes can blame Trump for ruining politics. But no, I mean, that was the biggest change we've seen in recent history. I do worry, though, the Democrats would probably not have the stomach to do what they did. I mean, like there will be lots of demands for reciprocity and retribution. But I wonder if we'll be able to pull the grapes for it. Here's something about Graham's comments. The Judiciary Committee tied deadlocked on this.

And the only reason that we were able to get it out of the Judiciary Committee on the floor for a final vote that will come later this week is because Chuck Schumer is the majority leader. If Chuck Schumer was not the majority leader and it was a close Senate, we would not have been able to discharge it. There would be no Katanji Brown-Jackson on the Supreme Court, which, by the way, all the kick Manchin out of the party stuff and Manchin being kicked out of the party,

there would be no Katanji Brown-Jackson on the Supreme Court. Yeah, I mean, look, you know, Scalia was 98 to 0. RBG was 96 to 3. Do you guys remember how close the John Roberts vote was in 2005? I don't. You i don't you got it

i got in front of me what uh pop quiz 57 40 john 55 uh the democrats split 22 22 what half the democrats voted for it was also some weird ones. Chris Dodd, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, You know what's extra embarrassing about me getting that wrong is you and I were in the Senate, working in the Senate for Barack Obama who was voting

on that nomination. And he voted no, but I think it kind of tortured him a little bit because of this tradition. I was there too. Were you with him? What was the final vote?

I don't have it in front of me. Well, what the fuck? What was the split that mattered? Yeah, but that wasn't your question. You said, what was the split? Hold on. It was like 70 or 80. It was like something like that.

Yeah. Graham's comments, though, by just saying like, hey, just so everyone knows, if we ever take back the Senate, we're never going to confirm another judge that's not a right-wing judge. Like, I'd put that in an ad. I think that's good for voters to see. And look, Murkowski, right after her vote, right after she announced that she was voting yes, she said this process is so unbelievably broken.

78-22. We should have been able to do the math. If there were 22 Democrats who voted no, obviously there were no Republicans. We're so stupid. We're doing great. We're doing great. We're moving on. Terrible math.

Over in the House. So anyway, Katonji Brown-Jackson is going to the Supreme Court. The vote's going to come later this week. Wonderful. Over in the House, the January 6th committee is aiming to wrap up their investigation before the midterms. But Politico reports that some members still aren't sure if they want to formally recommend that the Justice Department pursue a criminal case against Donald Trump. Select Committee member Zoe Lofgren of California said, quote, a referral doesn't mean

anything. It has no legal weight whatsoever. And I'm pretty sure the Department of Justice has read last week's opinion, so they don't need us to tell them it exists. She's referring to the federal judge who said in a ruling that there's credible evidence that Donald Trump engaged in criminal conduct by obstructing Congress from certifying the election. There was also a New York Times story over the weekend that gave us the White House view of the situation, quote, as recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, thank God, he has said

privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who's willing to take decisive actions over the events of january 6th let's start there uh what'd you guys think of the new york times story i like that biden on this matter is basically like all of us just be like what's going on over there what's he doing over there i put this guy in he says gonna be i'm not gonna get involved i'm not gonna call him but like come on we got crimes left and right being documented what What's he doing? I don't know. Tommy? This leak sucks so much. This leak is such a problem. This is like the DOJ equivalent of removing a white glove in the 1800s and slapping your opponent.

Now, don't you think Garland's going to get his back up and bend over backwards to not look like he's responding to political considerations? He put out the statement. The people who leak, I have no doubt that the people who leak this to the New York Times from the White House or from the sources that were familiar with Joe Biden's conversation want Merrick Garland

to prosecute Donald Trump. This will have potentially the opposite effect because Merrick Garland is the type of guy who if he has to read the New York Times that Joe Biden wants him

to prosecute someone is going to feel like he shouldn't prosecute someone yeah i my hope my hope in reading this is that this has zero impact potentially that's how i took it unless it was happening tomorrow i hope that too i hope for all kinds of i hope and expect this is giving me tasting notes of jim comey uh loretta lynch uh bill clinton on a tarmac yeah my hope is cigar box my look i look luckily ford berries look they broke the mold when they made james comey all right that guy we don't they don't make them that tall and ponderous anymore all right that was the last one all right so that's

a little shorter still a little shorter pretty ponderous what pretty pretty ponderous but he's not in that rarefied you know six three six four air where where facts and reason don't reach so that's i think hopeful uh but i'll tell you what my actual so i'll be honest in that i thought of the quote and then i thought oh who said that what wise sage said that quote and then when i looked it up i'm about to tell you uh i realized that once i found it i was in fact quoting alfred pennyworth from dark knight rises oh boy uh and this is the quote maybe it's time to stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day that's what i thought about what do you think merrick garland said that i want that's that's what i thought when i saw that when i saw the uh january 6 quotes about them not being sure if they're going to do a criminal referral.

It's like, hey. Oh, back to the. Back to Zoe. Yeah. No, let's talk about that. But before this, though, and Garland, what I want to say to Joe Biden, though, is if you don't want a DOJ that acts like it's being run by a ponderous judge, don't put a ponderous judge in charge of it would be probably the big piece of advice. judge in charge of it would be probably the big piece of advice. Also, it is a great example of a decision designed to send a message of reform or like you're cleaning up Washington by making DOJ independent again, doesn't usually get you much because Republicans will now point to the story

and say, look, Biden is politicizing DOJ. It's just as bad as it was under Barr or anybody else. And Democrats are frustrated with Garland, and they feel like things are going slowly. And so here we are. What do you mean it doesn't get you much? Probably a Washington Post editorial? Maybe a Ross Douthat column? We could have had Doug Jones.

We could have had Doug Jones. Perhaps a tweet from the liberal legal establishment? I bet no labels. We could have had Doug Jones right now taping pieces of shredded paper together. Doesn't strike me as too ponderous, that guy. No. That is not a ponderer.

He does. Some ponder. Not our boy Doug Jones. He does. Just thinking about the flashlight going through the fucking trash outside of Trump Tower. That guy get it done. Come on, Merrick Garland. just thinking about the flashlight going through the fucking trash outside a trump tower that guy get it done come on merrick garland he's obviously really well qualified for the job

doj's legitimacy is bigger than a case against trump but not that much bigger i mean this is a pretty big case it's a pretty big case look you're right anyway but back to your original point levitt something about a batman no there is a there is a hope that Merrick Garland is like, I don't care what's in the New York Times. I don't care what Joe Biden wants. If the facts lead me to prosecute him, I'm going to prosecute him. And if not, then I'm not. But again, the most important story was the one we talked about on Thursday's pod, which is, again, or one of these pods. or one of these pods, a federal judge said in a ruling that there is ample evidence that Donald Trump broke the law when he tried to obstruct Congress from an official proceeding, which was

certifying the presidential election. And I also like when the case out of New York fell apart and the district attorney Bragg basically said he wasn't going to do it, wasn't going to let them go to the grand jury and those prosecutors resigned. The letter was, I think, furious that they weren't allowed to take this case to the grand jury. But I think even those prosecutors admitted that they didn't believe this was some malevolent choice. It was just one they disagreed with. They thought it was an error because they thought that the evidence was strong enough to lead them toward seeking an indictment this this uh uh district attorney disagreed uh but i what i'm getting at is they all if they're going to do this they understand that this is one of the most important decisions uh any prosecutor has ever made in the history of this country yeah for sure and so they don't want to do it unless they feel like they have him dead to rights that's right so i understand that i understand that that's where Congresswoman Loughran's quote is correct. Like a DOJ referral from Congress

doesn't mean anything in practice. And the fact that a judge looked at all this evidence and said, hey, there's some crimes here is a very big deal that should hopefully give DOJ all that they need to move forward. But why say it to the politico? But also, this is the how these are these democrats in the house like too afraid to put their hand on the knife you know it's like

liz cheney has been out there saying if a criminal referral is warranted we will have a criminal referral so now we're going to have zoe lafgan like go back on that and do you think merrick garland is going to be more or less likely? It like, okay, if there's a bipartisan committee on this, if the bipartisan committee sends a criminal referral to DOJ, that probably lends the whole thing a little bit more weight

than if the bipartisan committee, much like Robert Mueller before them, decides to end with a report and no recommendation whatsoever. But this is the point though. It's all, it's a, this is like a second order question about the politics of what these referrals will or will not do, the stories that they'll shape,

the mood of the country. If you get to the end of the investigation and you believe there's enough evidence for a criminal referral, you do it. Of course. And if you don't, you don't. You don't. Why are you doing punditry about,

oh, it's, even if we don't, it's fine. Like, what the fuck are you doing? Just do it of course and if you don't you don't you don't why are you doing punditry about oh it's even if we don't it's fine like what the fuck are you doing yeah just do it if you think there's a referral send it along if not don't but why are you getting out there ahead of it being like in the end what we do is really up to god you know just declined comment on that one because truthfully the committee's done some good work and they are the reason that we have this ruling from a judge now who has seen the evidence. Look, the best investigations happen through the press. We all know that by now. Well, I mean, Trump's done most of his crimes on television.

There's one last big piece of potential business for Congress this spring that we should talk about. The return of the bill formerly known as Build Back Better. Politico reports that Joe Manchin is open to a smaller bill focused on raising taxes on the rich and big corporations, married with prescription drug reform and climate spending, with roughly half of any new revenues from the bill to go toward deficit reduction. But of course, when reporters tried to pin him down on the details, he gave the following quote. Really, I can't give you a reading on it if there's anything serious about this. You have chatter and we talk to everybody after next week we'll see after the judge and all that maybe

things will pick up i'll tell you i was uh joe mansion sounds like they should schedule that signing ceremony at the white house he is the sweet green of word salads this guy why what's this he pops out a lot of word salads i'm just that's all i mean because he's like sweet green you know the restaurant that makes sounds yeah but he puts out a lot no i get like conveyor belt sure sure sure sure sure not enough dressing oh man criminal referral for that joke it's like his position is just a it's a mobius strip you know. He's for and against it at all times. That's right.

Just write down what you want on paper. You guys pass what this asshole says, and let's just move forward. Well, there was some talk of him actually writing things down on paper. It would be wonderful. That he's maybe started to jot some things down, made some scratches.

I will tell you. So the question is, if you're reading this story in the white house uh and you still have hair left afterwards um or you're a democrat in congress like what approach do you think offers the best chance because we're not going to predict that it's going to get passed but the best chance of getting this passed you you basically get joe manager pretty drunk you put a dead body on the almost famous you wake wake up and you say, take care of it. We'll just take care of it for you.

Joe, Joe, Joe, we're family. We'll take care of it. Okay. I'm going to side with Lovett on this one. Okay. I think you should really just write the bill, dude. I think that- You'd be a hero.

Put a bunch of earmarks in for your little, your coal factory or whatever you want on there. Whatever. Right, they're going to do short- Get the rest done. Short-term climate destruction for long-term climate salvation. Yeah, there's a little, they're going to do short-term climate destruction for long-term climate salvation. Yeah, there's a little bit of, you know,

he wants this all-of-the-above energy strategy, which means, you know, short-term fossil fuel production, long-term climate investment. There were some, you know, Politico Pro had some Democratic members of Congress in the House quoted as saying, like, fine, you know, as long as it's short-term, and the long-term spending is going to match what was in the House quoted as saying, like, fine, you know, as long as it's short term and the long term spending is going to match what was in the original Build Back Better,

which was very significant spending and transformative on climate. And the hopes that it would out it would just by having done that, that spending, you kind of outpace whatever damage you do with the short term. But here's here's what I've learned from Build Back Better for everyone else is everyone shut up about everything on this, right? Like whatever Joe Man mansion sees this partly as a messaging exercise about himself and where he stands and if he wants to go out here and say that this is this is a bill about deficit reduction and and fighting inflation and we're gonna fight the deficit blah blah let him say that yeah if he wants to talk about the all of the above energy strategy but we know that the actual legislation

is really transformative on climate let him say whatever the fuck he wants to say. Just get the thing done. I think that the thing I don't understand is where Sinema falls on all this, because so there's a prescription drug piece, and if she apparently negotiated a weaker prescription drug piece that she could get behind before, I don't know where that stands compared to what they're kind of heading towards now. There's the climate piece, which Manchin has been for,

which Sinema has not come out against. And then there's the taxes. You know, which Manchin has been for, which Sinema has not been come out against. And then there's the taxes. You know, Joe Manchin's been all over the place. He said different things depending on which reporters are passing him by. But he is he has been over time signaling that he wants higher taxes on the rich to pay for to pay for this, plus some deficit reduction, both because he's his brain is kind of steeped in 2000 era. It's pickled by punditry from the 2000s. And I think he is genuinely convinced by the inflationary arguments. But Sinema has been for a different set of tax increases.

So specifically, Sinema and Manchin both are open to raising taxes on rich people. Manchin wants to raise rates. He wants to undo the Trump tax cuts. And she's been against that. And she has been against that. He wants to undo the Trump tax cuts. And she's been against that. And she has been against that. She's more into the creative minimum tax for millionaires or billionaires or wealth tax or all that other kind of stuff.

Or minimum tax for corporations. A little wrapped in an enigma. That's why. Yeah. When I talked to Katie Porter about this on Thursday's pod and she said the problem is that the two circles of what Manchin and Sinema want, there is no Venn diagram. They don't really overlap. That's what she's worried about at least. That's so i think that's that's that's the trouble here um but you know again just put the two of them in a room put the two in a room and say like figure

out some tax thing let's get this done it's just it's so frustrating because like even larry summers the biggest inflation hawk who has been shouted down for the last six months to a year was in favor of bill back better because he didn't think it was going to exacerbate the problem. But you will undoubtedly hear Joe Manchin cite that over and over again about this smaller version. And look, it's incredibly important to make the wealthy pay their fair share, to cut the cost of prescription drugs, and more than anything else, to invest in climate, to transform the economy to clean energy economy. But just on the politics, I will tell you, the politics of a bill that raises tax on the rich,

cuts the deficit, cuts the cost of prescription drugs, includes the ACA subsidies, and creates clean energy jobs, couldn't be better. Good stuff. Outstanding politics. Run on that. Yeah. And on the ACA stuff, it looks like our old boss

is going to the White House for the first time since he left on Tuesday. Maybe he can stick around. He's going to do an event with Joe Biden on the Affordable Care Act anniversary. Apparently they're going to announce that they're going to fix the family glitch in the ACA, which means that... That's the one that makes you have gay kids.

Makes your kids gay. That's the problem with that. It's also, yeah, that or extends subsidized health insurance to 5 million more Americans, which is pretty good. Which is pretty good. So they could just do that? Says you. By executive action.

Says you, that's what it does. Yeah, says me. There's a treasury rule that they think they can do that, which is they screwed up the way, HHS screwed up the way it defines, you know, how you qualify for subsidies. When it's just you versus you and your family. Only applies to pregnant men. Also, we got a covid deal we talked about the covid funding uh not getting in the last bill and apparently they just reached a 10 billion dollar agreement on that though they they left out fucking international covid yeah which is awful but that's great yell at the republicans

over that because it was 10 billion dollars or nothing and And so we get the $10 billion. No, I mean, like COVID is famously a virus that only occurs in the U.S. Yeah, so it's good that we cut all that international funding. But at the very least, you know, boosters, vaccines, treatments, we're going to have money for all that because amazingly we weren't going to because the Republicans tried to block it before. So that's some good news.

All right, when we come back, Tommy talks to the Atlantics and Applebaum about the war in Ukraine. On the line, I'm joined by Anne Applebaum. She's a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of a fantastic book, Twilight of Democracy, The Seductive Lore of Authoritarianism. Anne, thanks so much for doing the show. Thanks for having me. So I'm really grateful for you coming on. Obviously, Ukraine has been in the news for a month plus now, but over the weekend, we saw some truly horrifying images out of parts of Ukraine, like Bukha, that had recently been occupied by Russian troops. Clearly,

there were civilians being bound and shot, war crimes, or at least evidence of war crimes. The international response has been a little bit mixed so far, as far as I can see. Have you seen meaningful steps in terms of the pressure campaign on Putin? Are you seeing countries saying things that might move the needle? So the response of the West more broadly has moved the needle already. I think the fact that Putin did withdraw his troops from the north of the country is an important sign. He felt he could no longer win. And his original plan, which was to conquer Kiev, has failed. And that's partly because of Western support for Ukraine. I mean, I actually think that the military support for Ukraine is by far the most important thing we're doing and much more important than sanctions. Sanctions might have a long-term effect, particularly on the Russian military

industry and its ability to manufacture weapons, and that's good. But in the short term, there's no mechanism, there's no tool by which it stops Putin or does anything. So really, the most effective thing we can do is still military. I mean, there are the beginnings in Ukraine of important and serious human rights investigations. The human rights watch is on the ground. There are journalists on the ground. There are people beginning to bring court cases. And although that's all very slow moving and so on, I believe that will also have a cumulative effect over time. But I do expect more sanctions, more response. But as I said, I'll just repeat it again. Most important thing we can do is give the Ukrainian army the weapons that they're asking for.

Yeah, look, I agree with you there. I mean, I think we all want the peace talks between Ukrainians and the Russians to work. But most of the experts I read believe that this is essentially an effort by Putin to reconstitute his army, resupply, give people some rest and refocus his military effort on the east of Ukraine because their effort to race down from Belarus and get a bunch of tanks into Kiev was met with really fierce resistance from the Ukrainian military who, you know, you're right, they performed incredibly ably, but in part because they had anti-tank weapons that were provided by the U.S. and the U.K. and many others. Yeah, I mean, it's also

important to understand, you know, so the peace talks, I agree, eventually there will be some kind of negotiation, but the war continues to matter and will shape that negotiation. negotiation but the the war continues to matter and will shape that negotiation anybody who wants the ukrainians you know to trade land for peace um needs to understand what's at stake here and i think we've just learned it over the weekend every piece of territory that the ukrainians give up to russians is terrorized that means the local mayors and business leaders and you know museum curators are arrested or disappeared or murdered. It means that there's random terror at civilians. We saw already the effects of some of it. Apparently, there's more coming out as more of those towns are liberated and as people come in

to find out what happened. Every single eastern Ukrainian town that has been occupied, the Russians, the same story. You know, in fact, this is what happened in Crimea as well after the Russians occupied Crimea. So, you know, remember that, you know, any concessions, you know, this isn't just about giving a little bit of land up or moving the border. Any concessions mean that the Ukrainians are giving their own people up to a vicious totalitarian occupation force. And they may have to do it. And, you know, I'm not going to tell the Ukrainians what their negotiation strategy should be. But just remember when advocating for them to do that, that that's what's at stake. No, I think that's an important note. I mean, you know, I too am not going to tell

the Ukrainians when to negotiate or what to negotiate. But it is worth noting that I think that's an important note. I mean, you know, I too am not going to tell the Ukrainians when to negotiate or what to negotiate. But it is worth noting that I think when you total up the Crimean Peninsula and the Donbass region, you're talking about like 10% of Ukrainian territory. So this is not a small concession that we're talking about. What steps do you think have not yet been taken that would be the most meaningful in terms of support for Ukraine? So there's some military support we could sue them and some sanctions. I mean, I think actually, if you want sanctions that are more effective, I would take the top 5,000 Russians, you know, everybody who is in the Duma, in the Russian parliament, everybody in the Kremlin administration, and plus all their wives and daughters and sons and relatives. And I would ban all of them from traveling to Europe or America ever again. I mean, I would put them on lists right now. That's something that could have an

effect right now. So I would begin focusing sanctions much more on the broader elite and not just on these billionaire oligarchs who everybody loves to hate. You know, that's so I would I would say that in terms of military help. I mean, the Ukrainians have a specific list and they want aircraft. They want armored vehicles. They want more tanks. You know, they wanted a no fly zone. They made that very clear and we made it very clear, unfortunately, that we weren't willing to do that. Not even over Western Ukraine, which I think was a mistake. But I understand the calculation the Pentagon was this fear of a direct clash between U.S. and Russian forces, which they wanted to avoid. But speeding

up the provision of those weapons, those bigger ticket items that they want, plus the ammunition and so on, I think we can do that right away. plus, you know, the ammunition and so on. I think we can do that right away. I mean, we can do it the next week. So, I mean, just to follow up on the no-fly zone point, I am, I think I'm definitely in a sort of further left position than you are on this. Oh, there's no left and right here. It's not. Well, I'm just trying to describe to the audience. I've been very worried about escalation, very concerned about the prospect of a direct military confrontation between the U.S. or NATO and Russia. I understand those concerns. Yeah. feel like outraged, horrified, disgusted, wanting to give the Ukrainian military every weapon system they need. So I mean, I guess, how are you thinking about the balance there or the risk of a direct

confrontation between the US or NATO and Russia? I mean, how did you calculate that? Well, so right now there is no such risk. I mean, we aren't there. We're not fighting. There are no American soldiers, no active American soldiers. But a no-fly zone would mean US shooting aren't there. You know, we're not fighting. There is no there are no American soldiers, no active American. But a no fly zone would mean U.S. shooting down Russian jets. But we've we were not doing it. I mean, it's right.

You're advocating for it. I mean, it's sort of it's a moot point to advocate for something that won't happen. So, you know, I'm I'm I'm not going to bother advocating for it. And as I said, I understand the Pentagon's concerns about that. You know, it's a it that. It's not irrational. I do think that the Russians have used the nuclear issue as a form of, they use it to create fear and anxiety. They use it to make us not fight. And so to a certain extent, they are bluffing. I mean, that's what they do in order to prevent us from entering the war. And, you know, we have succumbed to that threat. You know, but they're, you know,

reasonable people can disagree about this one. Yeah. So, you know, you've written a lot about the need to crack down on Russian money, Russian oligarchs, and there has been some scrambling, some catching up lately to crack down on Russian oligarchs. The UK says they're going to pass some laws that make it hopefully less difficult to wash money through London. Everyone's excited when we see some mega yacht get taken by the Spanish authorities or whoever did it today. But you've written about how there are actually, the conventional wisdom is that money laundering and ill-gotten gains get hidden in offshore accounts abroad. But in reality today, states like South Dakota have become premier global tax havens. There's actually people taking money out of Switzerland and putting it in South Dakota. How do we fix that? If South Dakota state lawmakers

don't want to deal with the fact that you can hold companies anonymously in South Dakota, hide taxes, hide from legal liability, is that something Congress would have to do? Are any lawmakers working on it? So there are people in Congress who think about it. There are a couple senators who think about it quite seriously. Senator Whitehouse is one of them from Rhode Island. You know, I agree with the premise of your question, you know, that this is really a structural problem. And, you know, I don't know, confiscating somebody's yacht feels great and, you know, makes everyone happy, but it doesn't fix it. I mean, I think there are really

much more fundamental things we should do. I mean, look, why does anybody need to have an anonymous company? Why does anyone need to hold property anonymously? I mean, people have these, you know, there are these fringe reasons why someone might want it. But frankly, the people who want to do those things do it because either they want to avoid taxes or because they're criminals. So why does that have to be at all legal in our country for any reason? I mean, I think it's really time now to end all of those practices, you know, not just in the United States, but in Europe and, you know, really in all democracies. And, you know, getting to these very basic problems, you know, these very basic sources of kleptocracy and money laundering would be a lot more effective than just sanctioning

people, you know, retroactively when something bad happens. And by the way, this just isn't about Russia. This is about Russia. It's about countries in Africa. It's about, you know, many, many countries around the world. And we could, you know, we could stop a lot of corruption and we could stop a lot of the political influence campaigns that are paid for with corrupt money if we just change these laws. I mean, another one, why do Americans have to ever be allowed to put any money in tax havens? What are tax havens for? Who uses them? People who are avoiding taxes and people who are corrupt. So let's shut them down. Yeah, no, I totally agree with that. Just stepping back a little bit and getting more

into the topic of your book. I mean, we're obviously, we're seeing an autocrat in Russia invade Ukraine, but you're also seeing nationalists, autocrats like Viktor Orban in Hungary win reelection. It now looks like there's a surge in support in France for Marine Le Pen, who's a horrible right-wing, you know, xenophobic, racist candidate. Over and over again, I think we see these sort of illiberal autocrats use nationalism to get power. Do you have any thoughts on how to push back on that?

I mean, my concern is that it seems to happen in the wake of difficult economic times. So the 2008 financial crisis led to Victor Orban. Marine Le Pen is beating the drum about inflation. How do you think about how we can help counter those sort of appeals? I mean, that's a long, deep question. And a lot of politicians spend a lot of time thinking about it. I don't think there's a pat answer that goes for every country. I mean, there's some answers that have to do with changing the subject and focusing people on roads and bridges instead of existential cultural issues about which we will never all agree and divide people. There is an answer that has to do with rekindling and focusing on patriotism as opposed to nationalism and what are the things that tie us together as nations and pull us together.

Where can we be proud as Americans or as French people? There's a counter-narrative to nationalism that also could be unifying and satisfying in a different way. unifying and satisfying in a different way. There's a weird way in which Zelensky, I mean, that's an extreme circumstance, but the president of Ukraine has done that. I mean, here is a muscular, you know, patriotic defense of a liberal tolerant society. And of course, they have to do it with weapons, and we don't. We're lucky. But thinking about, you know, and also thinking, you know, thinking about the issues that unify people as opposed to the ones that divide them, finding ways to talk to the wavering parts of the right who are tempted by the far right, and this is a task both for the center left and for the center right, might be important, you know, finding the right messengers. I mean,

there's a series of, you know, I actually spent part of last year, I went around and I met a lot of center-right leaders in Europe. I wound up not writing anything because it was a little bit too inchoate. But if you talk to the center-right leaders of Spain, Poland, Hungary, actually the one who just lost and others, you know, they'd all thought about this a lot. Nobody had a formula, but you can see the beginnings of the outline of some ideas. Yeah, I mean, it seems like nationalism and xenophobia is an age old problem that's highly effective. And I agree with you that appeals to patriotism can be effective. I mean, Barack Obama, ultimately, that was an appeal to patriotism as sort of the better angels of the history of the U.S.

while recognizing its flaws, you know? Yeah, yeah. But in a way that is appealing to others. Final question for you, just to play like a bit of devil's advocate. I mean, I think there are totally understandable appeals for the U.S. to get more involved, to do more to help the Ukrainians. But then there are also voices often on the left who say, hey, you know, if you look at the recent history of the US pushing for a freedom agenda, we don't have the best track record. You could start at 1953 and propping up the Shah in

Iran or pushing for a coup. You could look at Bush's freedom agenda leading to the Iraq war. You could even say, hey, Obama's humanitarian intervention in Libya turned into a regime change exercise and had long-lasting repercussions. It seems like you could easily get from those examples to an argument that the US efforts to push our ideals on other countries often end very badly and that maybe the answer is more restraint. What would you say to that? I would say this is not a US effort to push our ideals on another country. This is the Ukrainians who have a set of ideals and who have goals as a nation and who would like to

remain a sovereign nation and who would like to be able to choose their own form of government. This is them requesting help from us. This is not a U.S.- US inspired movement. This is nothing, this is not, you know, an evidence of American manipulation. That's a Russian narrative. That's not what happened in Ukraine and that's not what's going on. Yeah, that's fair. Okay, Anne, well, listen, I know you're at the airport. I will say thank you very much for talking to us and safe travels. Delighted and happy to do it again sometime.

Thank you. for talking to us and uh safe travels delighted and happy to do it again sometime thank you all right we're back love it yeah you know we had a big uh we had the the march badness championship round on thursday and uh and you weren't you weren't there on the pod so tommy you weren't there on the pod. So, Tommy? You weren't there, Lovett. I wasn't there. I wasn't invited. Before we get to that,

what did you think about the outcome of the Duke game and what it means for Coach K's legacy? And who won? So, one of the teams that Duke was playing won or lost. I literally don't know what... I know there's someone named Coach K.

I believe for the first time someone accidentally tweeted a picture that I saw Someone accidentally tweeted a picture that you saw? I accidentally saw a picture of Coach K because it came into my feed and it said Coach K, I saw him sitting in a folding chair on some kind of a court, he looks like he has dyed black hair

Yes! Some kind of a court Famously terrible hair dye A tennis court? No, it was a basketball court I don't know who Duke played and I don't know whether or not Duke won or not. I don't know what round it was in. I don't know how long March Madness goes. I know it is now April, so it can't be too much longer.

Final game is tonight. Final game is obviously tonight, Thursday night. We're recording Monday. We're recording. It's Monday. Well, that's not on me not knowing sports. Well, that was the pot table. No more edibles before the C block. And that was the Pots of America Sports Minute. So Dan and Sean chose the national championship team. So they had a split decision.

They chose one vote for the Thomas family, not the English muffins, the Clarence and Ginny. One vote for the Florida GOP. The audience also chose the Thomas family, not the English muffins, the Clarence and Ginny. One vote for the Florida GOP. The audience also chose the Thomas family. Who do you choose? So I appreciate that the audience chose Ginny and Clarence Thomas. I understand that they're a kind of, you know, that's where your heart goes. That's where your emotion goes.

You know, that's where your heart goes. That's where your emotion goes. But when you actually step back and think of it, Ginny Thomas and Clarence Thomas are symptoms of our broken politics. Ginny Thomas, but for her connections to the centers of power, is just any baby boomer with a broken brain on Facebook.

Potentially from Florida. Potentially from Florida. And while Clarence Thomas is, I think, An icon. Yeah, obviously an icon. Famously, and gay icon. Gay icon, Clarence Thomas. Queer icon, Clarence Thomas,

who's done so much for all of us. At the end of the day, Clarence Thomas, he's the far right vote in a court we lost and could literally abstain for the next 10 years and would have no impact on any outcomes they're doing what they're going to do

and we love them for that and they're living their best life the Florida GOP is the future of our problems it is everything that we are dealing with all as once. I had a feeling about that.

I had a feeling about that. Like Ron DeSantis is smart Trumpism. The kind of radicalization of the Florida GOP. I mean, they are considering going after families for supporting trans kids. They've obviously done this. Don't say gay bill. They're now going to go after Disney for, I for i don't know having their own army in there

actually i didn't know that much about it disney for belatedly weighing in on yeah right man and i just i hope every the jd vance uh one day threatening to uh boycott disney the next day about how he's watching disney really yeah yeah good luck you're gonna take on han solo mickey mouse all of them at once. The Mandalorian? You're going to take on The Mandalorian 2? And Elsa? You're going to take on Elsa? That's your position? I side with Elsa.

I stand with Elsa. I stand with Elsa. I stand with Elsa. So the Florida GOP is your pick. I choose the Florida GOP. So, what we have learned is that for two straight years running, my failure to think of a tie-breaking

mechanism has come back to bite. Wait, because I went against... So it's Dan in the audience versus me and you. Oh, right, right, right. Should we downgrade the audience? Is that what you're trying to say, Lovett? I mean, no, it's just more that I think... Well put, Tommy. You got him now.

We don't like to shine too much of a light on him. How about this? Dan is technically our employee. The winner of the Crooked Media Internal... Dan works here for us at Pod Save America. National Championship. Obviously, we're not going to put our boot down. You know, it's not like a serious thing.

Dan got Tommy's copy today. He's the Florida GOP. Florida GOP. You know what? You're going to thank us. Yeah. They are the biggest villain What's that?

There's some breaking news Oh my gosh, what's going on? What's going on? Hey, what's going on? Hey, what's going on? It's my anchor, Jon Favreau Wait, he knows, well that acting doesn't work If he doesn't know what's going on, how can you throw it to him Then read what's going on

It's fine It's fine We have a late entry Into the March Badness Tournament from way out west. We do not see this coming, but we do have to take it seriously. Of course. On April Fool's Day of all days,

we got an announcement that there is a new candidate for Congress to fill the seat of uh the the dean of the u.s congress don young from alaska and that candidate is sarah palin of wasilla sarah palin she's back everybody she's back so he's back i saw this news on april fool's day and i saw jeremy peters of the new y York Times tweet out the press release. And I started texting it around and I sent it to our Slack. And I was like, I'm the first one to let everyone know that Sarah Palin's back. And then all of a sudden, I looked at the date and I was like, oh, April Fool's. Jeremy Peters was had and so was I. I

can't believe this. And then it wasn't an April Fool's joke. It was real. Sarah Palin announced her congressional bid on April Fool's Day. In a sense, we've been living in April Fool's Day for the better part of six years now. Six years. I was going to say since my my favorite part about the reveal from from Miss Palin, former Masked Singer, was that a reporter from the Anchorage Daily News, you know, probably a critical source of news for your average Alaska voter, was replying to Jeremy Peter's tweet saying, hey, can anyone confirm this or forward it to us? Please let me know. Here's my number. It's so funny. On Twitter. You didn't send it to your, the biggest paper in the biggest city in your state.

Also, I went to the website to see if it was real too. And it's like, even the website, you're like, is this real? It looks like it could be real. There's definitely a donation button, but there's not much else going on there. Anyway, it's real. I guess the cameo business dried up a little bit. We got to put some more gas in that tank. For those of you who are wondering what's going on with this election, there are nearly 40 candidates running to fill Don Young's seat. He died at 88. He was the oldest member of the House. Seven of them are huskies. Here's how it's going to go. There will be a special election on June 11th, and the top four candidates will move ahead to the special general election on August 16th.

Again, this is like Republicans, Democrats all run in the same first election, the one on June 11th, and then the top four run in August 16th. What a wild thing. Can you think of a worse job in all of politics than being the lowest ranked congressman from Alaska? You have the longest commute possible, and you have zero power. Get all the miles. I don't know. Sarah Palin's she's pretty bored pretty she resigned in 2009 what has she been doing since then i guess some fox hits the mass reality shows speaking gigs yeah yeah she's getting divorced i think she got a million dollars i think getting divorced takes time yeah that probably

takes time she will uh this is from the time story m. Palin will face a host of both far-right and establishment Republican rivals, including Nick Begich III, the Republican scion of Alaskan political royalty. Father Mark was a Senate candidate on the Democratic side. That's weird. State Senator Joshua Revek, an Iraq war veteran who previously worked for Mr. Young, and Tara Sweeney, who served in the Trump administration. On the Democratic side, Al Gross, Dr. Al. Nice. He'll be a former orthopedic surgeon. He ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 2020. He's going to be running as an independent. Break the back of these gas prices. That's a free one. That's a free one, doctor. And Christopher Constant, an openly gay Democrat, who's a member of the Anchorage Assembly. So that's what we got. What do you think, guys? Are we ready for another episode of Sarahah palin i think she's seeing marjorie taylor green and she's like you you think you can do what i do you fucking bitch i'm coming you dumb lady i am i am lauren bobert seriously i am twice as smart and half as well read as you i'm on my way i am i am i am i am all fucking i am all fucking savvy and i

haven't read a goddamn thing since i since since those people on the mccain campaign tried to give me a binder they think they get me to read a binder about foreign policy fuck you i read all the magazines i'm coming to your, back to your joke earlier, the Anchorage Daily News said the number of candidates is more than twice the number seen in any other primary in Alaska history

and greater than the number of mushers who ran in this year's Iditarod trail slide dog race. Wow, that's awesome. That's awesome. What do you guys think? You think she has a chance?

40 candidates, that's tough. But the name ID. The name ID is huge, but she's 50 now? Yeah, it used to be 51. Somebody just jumped out. What are they, growing every day? Beat the filing deadline. I was going to say, isn't there a filing deadline?

The thing is, she is not a popular politician in Alaska. She's obviously very well known, but people did not love when she resigned in the middle of her term. And she hasn't really done much for a full decade but the name id is name id she did uh open the door for donald trump to become president of the states yeah and he endorsed her pretty quick yeah yeah as as our friend peter hamby tweeted there would be no trump without palin yes i think that's true i don't know if it's i think it's correlation

not causation i think i think she i think she was trying she was hey, guys, I don't know if you guys noticed it, but I think none of the doors on this bank are locked. Well, I think he saw that work. She ran a campaign that was based entirely on cultural identity. And he was like, yeah, and right-wing populism.

And he thought, okay, I can try that. I could probably do it better than her. I'm richer, probably more well-known. Sure. 50 candidates seems like just kind of a mess. Oh, there's a candidate named Santa Claus who's a self-described democratic socialist who currently sits on the city council of the North Pole. Book him on the pod.

This feels like April Fool's content that I'm reading. Again, that could be said of any of the news we read any day. I felt for a bologna folder on the QVC TikTok. I'll just confess that now. I saw it and I thought, what are these fucking assholes doing? Oh, it's, God damn it. Wait, a bologna folder? A bologna folder?

Yeah, they put out, well, the problem is I saw it on April 3rd. I didn't know it was, I saw it on April 3rd. I was like, they're trying to sell a bologna folder? Am I in outer space here? And then I was like, oh, it's from two days ago. Those bastards. That's funny. Wow. All right. Well, thank you. This is the time I say thank you to Ann Applebaum for joining us. This is going to sound real weird after that interview. Let me tell you. Thank you. Thank you to Ann Applebaum for joining us. Congratulations to the Florida GOP for winning the national championship. I have one note that I forgot to include oh please yeah is it another batman quote it was actually it was that everyone should

watch batman returns okay uh it's a great way to understand that the the trump palin era so again coach kate won or lost i assume because the picture he looks sad yeah don't you seem sad so i assume that he lost okay okay um and i understand this is perhaps his final yes look at you more than you let on and they lost and so now there's a final championship between the Denver Nuggets the

Milwaukee Brewers is Bucknell involved? What about Gonzaga? of course we are Kentucky? you're closer with tennessee they got upset early now you're a little less i honestly can't i yes i'm telling you that i have no idea what's what's elijah's favorite team oh the north carolina tar heels sure yeah is that it let the record say that he pumped his fist

listen all right everyone this is some don't say gay shit happening at this table this is how it He pumped his fist. Listen. All right, everyone. This is some don't say gay shit happening at this table. This is how it starts. This is how it starts. You know, it's not limited to K through three. I'm not allowed to be myself here either. Just asking your opinion. You nailed the hair color.

End of pod. Bye, everyone. Landis Sound Engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerrard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford,

Milo Kim, and Amelia Montu. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.