Pod Save America - "It's Coup O'Clock Somewhere."

Episode Date: June 14, 2022

The second January 6th hearing exposes Donald Trump’s Big Lie, Senator Chris Murphy joins to talk about a potential deal on gun safety, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy stops by Crooked to talk about Covid and mental health. 

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Every time with you two. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Every time with you two. I'm reacting. Don't blame the victim. What is he talking about? I thought you sounded pretty normal. Me too. Weird. Monsters.

On today's show, the second January 6th hearing exposes Donald Trump's big lie. Senator Chris Murphy joins to talk about a potential deal on gun safety. And Surgeon General Vivek Murthy stops by Crooked to talk about COVID and mental health. But first. Two separate topics. Yes. I mean, connected. Also connected.

Sure. But we'll talk about both. But first, I want everyone to check out Crooked's newest podcast, one of my favorites we've ever done. It's called Mother Country Radicals. Host Zayd Ayers-Dorn, the son of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. one of my favorites we've ever done it's called mother country radicals host zade ayers dorn the son of bill ayers and bernadine dorn takes us back to the 1970s when his parents and their young friends in the weather underground declared war on the united states government guys this podcast is it's fantastic love it remember in 2008 when you and your buddies at the Hillary Clinton campaign tried to demagogue

Bill Ayers and tie him around Barack Obama's neck as some sort of political problem. Well, I just think it's interesting what role Barack Obama plays in this series. Also, we find out from this series that it was quite a gendered attack. Bernadine Dorn was actually the, she was on the FBI's most wanted list. She was the most wanted woman in America. It's such a good show. It's such a good show. It's such a good show. There's explosions.

There's orgies. There's 1960s radicals. It goes through a couple decades. There's a lot of politics. Sure. It's very good, guys. Orgies? Did you say the orgies?

There's orgies. You mentioned it? Our development team wanted me to make sure I got that in there. Included the orgies. Yeah, they wanted to make sure I got that. Seems like you did your job. I did it. What a word of that era. Of that era? People don't say orgies anymore? It feels, you know, I don't know.

Remember Madison Cawthorn? That was like a week ago. Yeah, we played it every live show. Anyway, we have more cool news to share, guys. We are launching our very own book imprint called crooked media reads love it it's called crooked media reads because that's what could clear legally you'd be amazed at how hard it is to name something these days what with what with uh all the different things out there all those those trial lawyers. So Crooked Media Reads is going to begin

publishing titles in 2023. We are very excited to work with and lift up brilliant authors who are out there telling stories that are inspiring, fun, entertaining, challenging. Might even get me to start reading again. Can't believe it when I see it. Yeah, now it's a stretch.

It's a stretch, but hopefully. Crooked Media Reads reads and so do I. Yeah, we'll know when you've successfully gone offline when you bring in a dog-eared copy of some kind of a book. It has to be dog-eared? Yeah, I mean, that means you read it. It means you read it. Okay.

Or you bought it used. That's a classic reader thing. To learn more, to learn more than the fantastic endorsement we just provided. Crooked Media reads. You can go to crooked.com slash reads and check it out. Alright. Let's get to the news. Episode 2 of Insurrection

aired on Monday morning and the theme of this hearing was that Donald Trump inspired the attack on the Capitol and scammed his own supporters out of $250 million by repeating the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Despite being told over and over again that there was no evidence of voter fraud or irregularities

by Trump's own campaign manager, his campaign lawyers, White House staff, White House lawyers, and officials at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Bill Barr, who was the real star of Monday's show. Let's take a listen. I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit. Bullshit. They were bullshit,

and they were idiotic claims, complete nonsense, completely bogus and silly, and usually based on complete misinformation. I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations. I told them that it was crazy stuff, and they were wasting their time on it. Bill Barr, welcome to the Recepts. What do you call that? Like a swoosh cut? I like it. Let's start with general reactions. What, if anything, was new or surprising in Monday's hearing to you guys? Tommy? I would sort of put the whole hearing less in the new and surprising than powerful to hear it from these people. Bucket, hearing Bill Barr talk about just how nonsensical the fraud claims were was powerful. There were a whole bunch of folks at

the DOJ saying the same thing. All of Trump's senior staff were telling him that there was no election fraud, or at least not enough to swing the election and he decided to believe the crazy people it was fun hearing I guess it wasn't new either that Rudy is constantly drunk hmm oh yeah we'll get to that a bibulous lawyer I love that they all think that Dinesh D'Souza is a complete clown thought that was fun the amount of money you want to tell people who Dinesh D'Souza isn't just in case. Right-wing documentarian and quotes slash criminal who has been resuscitated by the Trump ilk. The amount of money raised by the election law was new.

Here's something new that I learned. What? The word... The word... Bebulous. It's a great word. It's like a state of near constant drunkenness uh learn that today from tommy just now from my uncle you know when um so bill stepien uh was supposed to testify in

person today but his uh uh his wife went into labor if you believe that that was an eye roll uh actually you know what it is i performed air quotes my fingers didn't have to do it but you felt felt them. That's acting. That's the training. But the point is, people thought, oh, he must be pulling out because he's obviously a Trumpy guy. He's not only Trump's campaign manager. Of course he doesn't pull out. I didn't even make that joke.

The point is... Was there a point? Here's the point. We're all waiting. Bated breath. When Bill Stepien got backed out of the hearing for a legitimate reason, fucking freaks. And when he was first announced, people thought, oh, this might be a hostile person because obviously he's still Trumpy. Not only did he work for Trump, obviously, he's now gone on to represent people like Liz Cheney's primary opponent. It was actually surprising how direct this very sleazy and disgusting person was in saying, I didn't believe these claims. I couldn't stand by these claims.

That was, I think, more than people even expected this morning. I felt the same way. A lot of these quotes or accounts from former Trump staff, former White House staff, campaign staff, they have been reported in the past here and there. But it's different to like read in the New York Times that a source said that bar thinks this or bar is said to have said this and just hear it in a deposition on television and hear bar's tone like mocking it mocking mocking the allegations as ridiculous and absurd i mean you know bar was the star witness uh stepien was the uh the other star witness who ended up appearing in a prerecorded video. Clay Thompson.

Yeah, they got prerecorded videos of everyone just in case something happened, like your partner goes into labor. Right. Barr's the Steph Curry. Stepien is the Clay Thompson. Thompson is Stepien. Rudy's the Draymond Green. Okay.

Hammered and just kicked people in the balls. What do you think the committee thompson is stepping in rudy's the draymond green okay hammered and just kicked people on the balls what do you think the committee's goal what's happening okay we're just talking just talking some basketball talking some nba playoffs hitting my head against the microphone oh sorry um what do you think the committee's goal was uh with these witnesses and their testimony today why What do you think the big lie day was all about? Have at it, buddy. I think they're telling a story, telling a story about Trump's efforts

to overturn the election, how it connects to January 6th. And a big part of that story is the manufacturing of a lie that the election was fraudulent in some way. They ended the entire hearing by going to something they hadn't done throughout the day, which is they went back to January 6th and the people on the, as part of the mob that's from the Capitol, all of them regurgitating the claims that Trump made. And so this was a day about connecting the lies that the

people at the Capitol believed with the effort to manufacture a reason for the coup over the preceding several months and how few people actually provided Trump with any evidence or reason to believe what he was telling these people, making it clear that he was lying to them, he was willfully lying to them, or that no reasonable person could believe what Trump ultimately was claiming. Yeah, they collected just about as many Trump campaign officials and Trump administration officials and DOJ officials as they could. And they told the American people, we looked at every single allegation of voter fraud. We looked at every single election conspiracy, no matter how crazy it was. We knocked all of them down. We debunked all of

them. And then we told Donald Trump that about every single allegation and conspiracy over and over again. And he just didn't care. And he kept lying anyway, which I think is a, you know, I think the closest, maybe the most damning testimony in a way came from, uh, there was that deputy, former deputy AG, Robert Donahue, I guess his name was. Yeah, that guy was great. And he was like, basically, you would tell Trump that his conspiracy is bullshit and wrong, and he wouldn't fight you on it. He'd just move on to the next one. Yeah, I mean, we'll get to mindset and motive and intent in a bit. But I do think it's relevant to show the American people that Trump was offered two versions of reality,

one of which comports with actual reality and it was told to him by the man he made attorney general or vice president or deputy attorney general he chose not to believe that one and instead went with the craziest of the crazy people led by his drunk lawyer rudy giuliani even all the campaign hacks that worked for them at least with the government officials you'd be like oh well they're in the government. Right, Jason Miller. Jason Miller, Bill Stepien, all these campaign hacks, which was like the dredge of the earth for the reelect. This was the C-team on the campaign.

So Stepien told the committee that he was on, quote, team normal within the Trump campaign because after the election, he, quote, didn't think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional. Fun understatement. Should we be thanking Bill Stepien and Bill Barr for their heroic public service, guys? No, I mean, also, Bill Barr is playing a little fast and loose here with his own behavior at the time.

I mean, he certainly was making comments that undercut people's faith in vote by mail, for example, as the election was happening. In June, he gave an interview where he said that vote by mail would give reason to believe that the election would be flooded. He said flooded with fraud, could potentially be flooded with fraudulent ballots. He was playing this game the whole time. And also, I think it is good that we have Bill Barr on the record calling bullshit, but I am skeptical that he was as emphatic and clear in his meetings with Donald Trump as he is being in these committees now. Bill Barr is a longtime member of the Republican establishment and still wants to be a member of good standing in this

version of the Republican Party, which means that, you know, he can say what he wants to say about Donald Trump. But like, that's why he he resigned with a letter of flowery praise to Donald Trump, said nothing until a to be an honest person who was Donald Trump's campaign manager, but it was just too much once Lin Wood and the other goons started showing up with their election fraud claims. I mean, Bill Barr, it took you until then to realize that Trump was detached from reality.

The, like, let's inject bleach to cure COVID press conference didn't do that for you? Right. Also, and then Bill Stepien. Bill Stepien's currently working for Liz Cheney's MAGA primary challenger. That's what he's up to. There's an element of the Stepiens and Bars and some of these other Republicans that feels a little bit like,

you know the scene in, nope. Oh, sorry. I thought we were being really mean to metaphors for no reason today sorry keep going I'm sure this is going to be a winner still stuck the point I was going to make what do you got

the point I was going to make is only it seems as though their real problem with people like Rudy with Lin Wood with Sidney Powell is they didn't have the patina of professionalism, the gloss of seriousness that these people require if they're going to participate in some kind of national campaign of disinformation. They weren't effective enough coup plotters. Let's also just quickly point out that— You'll never know the film analogy I was going to make. You'll die without knowing.

Everyone at home. What a loss for the loss for everyone at home will die without knowing um speaking of dead inside jared kushner i just love that his vibe on the whole thing is like he had like three months left to the white house he could have done the one meaningful act for its entire time and stepped up and helped like defend the country against this lunatic stepfather his and protect our democracy and he did the bare minimum he wasatic stepfather of his and protect our democracy. And he did the bare minimum. He was just out of town for as much as possible. I think we should, love it, what do you think,

format a little segment on PSA, a little music, where we cut to Tommy and he talks about Jared Kushner. I just think it happens enough now on each of these episodes we get a little Kushner update. I'm not into it. I just like his Saudi kickback. I'm not into it. $2 billion Saudi kickback.

You've got an investigation coming. It sounds boring to me. That's too much time. Too much Tommy. Too much Tommy. This whole dialogue reminds me, have you ever seen... Maybe if I did it,

I would do it. You wouldn't do it? I think it'd be great if I did it. Honestly, listener, this is actually a pretty good window into how things go here. Anyway, helpful test. I can see it with me and the music.

To try to bring it back to the podcast. He's like, OJ, what if I did it? I do think, Bill, helpful testimony from horrible people. Sure. It's possible. Yeah, absolutely. You know, Bill Barr gave helpful testimony. Stepien gave helpful testimony.

They're still horrible people. By the way, Bill Barr, too, even as he's saying things that are helpful to hear, that you want to hear unequivocal, as day trump was full of shit god what an arrogant prick he still manages to be yeah you still can't like him no i mean who's got his he's got i know i obviously i never liked him but just even in the moment you can't help but remember what what a fucking prick he is that has asked us to rethink i'm not asking him to rethink a goddamn thing one person certainly not on team normal of course was rudy here's what we heard about him on monday you will also hear testimony that

president trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts on election night and instead followed the course recommended by an apparently inebriated rudy giuliani Was there anyone in that conversation who, in your observation, had had too much to drink? Mayor Giuliani. And the mayor was definitely intoxicated. Was there a purpose? Was there a purpose to that other than the very laudable public goal

of just mocking Rudy Giuliani? I don't know. It's a tough sell to find a legitimate reason for trying to embarrass Rudy Giuliani about his alcoholism. There is, I suppose, if you blur your eyes as if you've drank as much as Rudy Giuliani had been drinking, you can say, oh, well, they're making the point that no one reasonable could support what Trump was doing. And the only person who was telling him to go out there and declare victory was sloshed beyond recognition. That's perfectly reasonable. You just did it. Yeah. The one guy, the one guy who told the man is in crisis. sloshed beyond recognition. That's perfectly reasonable. You just did it. Perfectly reasonable.

The one guy, the one guy who told him to... The man is in crisis. The one guy who told himself to declare a winner was hammered and Trump said, sure. You know what, though?

He would tell him to declare a winner when he wakes up sober in some room he doesn't recognize. I mean, look, all you need to do is watch Judge Jeanine's show

in the last calendar year to know Rudy was always drunk. I think that what this show is is thaty was visibly drunk to everyone and still trump chose to believe him despite being visibly drunk over everybody it's an indictment of trump not his character and judgment and decision making yeah meanwhile also we're trying to put on a show here for people i know a little pizzazz i rudy does seem like he's in crisis yeah i think we gotta get rudy well then there was rudy testimony where he's like if you put me in a small room with all the ballots today and i hand counted

them i could find you some fraud that was not great that was just light of day testimony he's gone there um so there's been a debate among legal experts and people who play legal experts on twitter about how much it matters whether Trump knew he was lying about the election or whether he genuinely believed his own bullshit. What do you guys think? I don't know. Like different people say different mindset does matter to prove the intent of a criminal offense. But like this also, it's hard to know. I don't know. The big lie matters because if Trump could try to show that he wasn't actually trying to do anything but protest or use legal means to object to the results, that might be compelling in some way or get him out of some legal jeopardy. But

I think it's clear that he wasn't just trying to protest and wasn't just trying to use legal means. I mean, they were trying to do blatantly illegal or corrupt things to overturn the results of the election. So I don't know. I'm not entirely sure. So, you know, there's some kind of dissensus about this among, you know, prosecutor Twitter. But one point I've seen made a few times is it is not necessary to prove that Trump had this malevolent intent. But it's nice if you're trying to tell a story. It's also important, I think, if you're telling a story to the country. There was a point that they made at some point in the hearing

which I think gets at sort of what's most important, which is not what Trump specifically believed, but rather that no reasonable person could believe the story Trump was saying. We don't need to be inside of Donald Trump's mind. What we have is plenty of evidence that no one reasonable could take the story Trump was saying. We don't need to be inside of Donald Trump's mind. What we have is plenty of evidence that no one reasonable could take the information and that Trump had been given and come to the conclusion that this was fraud. Barbara McQuaid, who's a former federal prosecutor, she talked to Greg Sargent at

the Washington Post about this. And she said that all you need to do is really prove willful blindness, which means if you close your eyes to the high probability that a fact exists, you can't use that to evade responsibility. So like the fact that which is once again, all these people telling Trump it's a lie, it's wrong, it's a conspiracy. We looked into it. It's debunked. You can't just pretend that none of that exists and then say, no, no, I just believe myself. It also isn't the first time he challenged the legitimacy of the election. this and then say, no, no, I just believe myself. It also isn't the first time he challenged the legitimacy of the election. He told Ted Cruz that he stole the Iowa caucuses. He was prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the 20th election. So this is a strategy, a pattern. And then beyond the legal ramifications of this, which which, you know, is we are not experts. The political

ramifications, I think, are easier. It doesn't matter if donald trump was consumed by a completely idiotic delusion or a fucking liar either way it's damning yeah yeah this guy wants to run for president again in 2024 so again there is a we're all interested in the legal outcome here but there's a political outcome that might be even more consequential i got mary mary carlin's like well we have the tvs on over at DOJ. Yeah, he's been watching. I'm sure my prosecutors are watching, too. I hope so.

I hope so, too. I hope they're doing some investigating, too. What's going on over there? Representative Zoe Lofgren. Dot those eyes, buddy. Representative Zoe Lofgren closed the hearing by pointing out that the, this is just a nice, just a note at the end of the hearing in her closing argument, pointed out that the Trump campaign raised around $250 million from fundraising emails about voter fraud claims that they knew to be false.

That is so much money. And she later told reporters that the committee has evidence that Trump and his family have personally benefited from these donations. How big of a legal and or political issue is that one, guys? To, you know, not to put too fine a point on it. After the hearing, Lofgren was asked about this, about the legal jeopardy and said, it's clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn't exist and use the money raised for something other than what he said. Now it's for someone else to decide whether that's criminal or not merrick garland you watching now hey hey merrick can you hear me now hey merrick can you take it they take that feather and dip it in the ink you slow fuck

jesus christ what were you saying earlier about uh good information set in an arrogant way and how that's really bad well it's the bill the billboard. What are you talking about? Look around you at what it's built. Look at how he's spreading himself out at the table just like Barr. You bet I am. I'm taking up space.

Hey, it's when a gay person does it, it's resistance. I like that Kim Guilfoyle, Don Jr.'s girlfriend at the time, got paid $60,000 to introduce Donald Trump Jr.

at the January 6th rally at the Ellipse before the riots. $60,000. So much money. Two minutes. I mean, of course, they raised $100 million in the first week. Of course, these grifters aren't going to turn off the spigot. That alone is enough to keep up the big lie with them. It is.

I like it as a political point, too, because just like, hey, he's a fucking he's scamming you. He's scamming all of you right like of course the hardcore supporters don't care but a lot of people out there you're like oh this guy did it he's he's corrupt in a whole bunch of different ways he wanted to hold on to power he wanted to overturn the election and he wanted to make a buck well to the point that i of course one of the republican goobers made in the in the hearing which which is that's money that wasn't going to elect republicans right that's what mcconnell's about electing republicans but that's money that wasn't going to elect Republicans. Trump doesn't care about electing Republican Republicans. Of course not, but that's the ultimate sin to a Bill Stepien.

Yeah, that's true. So before we move on, some brand new polling out today. Politico Morning Consult says that 67% of all voters think that the Justice Department should either definitely or probably bring legal action against elected officials who have attempted to overturn the results of an American election. Listening to that, Merrick Garland huh hey hey merrick because he does make his prosecutorial decisions based on polls that's what we want in an attorney general right i i'm not i'm just saying i'm not i did what you said i'm joking i'm not i'm not accusing you of anything i'm just saying

let's get let's come on man any love it i know that you were digging into the crosstowns yeah i had questionnaires like any anything else surprising in the poll? And Lovett's in our office, and he's like, I'm looking at the crosstabs of this poll, and I don't find any other interesting information. You have to understand. You have to understand. Tommy and I get – John writes up some questions,

and sometimes Tommy and I, we realize, oh, he wants us to say – he has a goal here. They're looking for a message box. You know what I mean? They're looking at the inbox. They're like, is Dan – no Pfeiffer message box today? Sometimes he's trying to steer the conversation. So let me look at this poll,

see if I can find anything interesting. The only thing I will say is, I think the most important part about that 67% number is that there's obviously strong Democratic support. There's also strong independent support. I have a sneaking hunch that some of the Republicans, when they think it's Democrats. Oh, that's interesting.

So I think that 6-7 is a little bit, it's capturing some Republicans who think Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris should be in jail. Or just sort of the hypothetical versus do you want to re-litigate this old thing that you're sick of hearing about? I think we might have a different answer. The number that jumped out at me was asked how much of the first hearing they watched live last week. 14% said they watched the primetime hearing in full. 25%, they watched some of it. And 60% said they didn't watch any of it.

That was the number that jumped out at me as well. That's a bummer, the last part. Although the ratings were surprisingly huge. What, 20 million people watched the first one? Huge ratings and still in the you know in the context of the entire electorate seems small yeah i mean it's not like you know yeah mash final episode high but it's still pretty good they also the vote impact number was a was in that same category of which was 32 said um that it would have a major impact on their vote 18 said minor

50 no impact it's not that's not i don't think that's necessarily too good or too bad it's about where i would have imagined i would also say though uh asking people what the impact is of a hearing they haven't seen yet is a little bit um self-fulfilling yeah well that yeah because that's 60 number that's a that's a lot of people haven't yeah i'll tell you some of that 14 percentage when they're fucking liars people lie oh, I caught a bunch of it, of course. Don't ask me any other questions about it, but I saw a fair amount of it. They should have asked a question,

have you heard about it through news coverage? Right. Which is probably where most people are going to hear about these hearings from. Yeah. But if you want to watch them, the next January 6th hearing is Wednesday, June 15th, and we will have a live group thread

starting at 10 a.m. Eastern, 7 a.m. Pacific. You can find us at youtube.com slash crooked media to check it out. We'll all be there. We'll be all your favorite crooked media hosts. Just jumping in and out of the Slack channel.

Group thread is very fun, but I find myself far more focused on what we're all saying in that than watching. I know. I noticed that too. I can do both. Everyone just get, because we watched the first, of course we can can everyone's just getting off jokes well the first one we

watched and i was not on twitter that much because we were all prepping for it was right before our live show in la i found that more impactful to watch without without looking at a screen or it was also today's hearing i suppose yeah i'm glad it exists but i mean i didn't need a second hour to tell me that trump was full of shit. You know what I mean? Well, there's going to be a couple of those. Let me tell you.

I think Wednesday is going to focus on the Justice Department and what he tried to do with the Justice Department. I'm interested in that. I like how they're bringing in new characters

and the witnesses and members of Congress. This is great, yeah. Zoe Lofgren's getting some shine today. Yeah, like when Joey Pantz showed up in Sopranos. Members of Congress

have never sat on live television so quiet as the members on this panel. Yeah, as I said. This is like probably taxing their restraint. If you gave Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin coal, you could have diamonds by the end of the week. They're sitting there in silence. I'm just saying. Members of Congress like to talk.

Don't disrespect. But you know what? Honestly, here's why I want to defend this because we've criticized this for so long. No, it's awesome. I love it. They all give these long speeches on television. It is the most disciplined I've ever seen members of Congress. Very disciplined.

Very effective. It's excellent. Good for them. We should do some stupid shit too. We should do like a best dressed, funniest aside. Yeah. Worst Zoom angle. Rudy Giuliani won worst Zoom angle today.

Although Stepien's was not great either. Yeah. Worst Zoom angle. Rudy Giuliani won worst Zoom angle today. Although Stepien's was not great either. Yeah. The best sort of image to come out of it was the photo of Bill Stepien kind of leaning back. Emo. Emo Bill. Like he had his head against his high school locker looking all emo. Yeah, he was sad. It's like, why can't Team Normal get back to the work we're meant to do?

Vilifying Muslims. Team Normal. We're fucking assholes. When we come back, Tommy talks to Senator Chris Murphy about the bipartisan gun safety deal he just announced with 10 Republican senators. I am thrilled to welcome back to Pod Save America, I am thrilled to welcome back to Pod Save America, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He has been one of the leaders of this effort to put together bipartisan legislation designed to reduce gun violence. Senator, thank you so much for joining the show.

Yeah, awesome to be with you. Thanks. So I know you've been working, I mean, you've been working on this issue for years and years, but you've been working intensively on this compromise package for the last few weeks. Can you just walk us through kind of what's in this framework agreement that you guys announced over the weekend? Well, first of all, I'm really grateful to all the partners who made this happen. I just think that we all sensed this anxiety, this fear, this urgency from parents and kids,

moms and dads back home that frankly, I've never felt before. In the wake of Uvalde, there was just no option for failure here. And I'm glad that Republicans felt that same thing. But this is a breakthrough. This is the biggest set of changes in the nation's gun laws since the 1994 assault weapons ban. It's been almost 30 years since we've done anything meaningful. And well, this is not clearly at the finish line yet. It is the end of this three decades log jam. It's not everything that I want, but it is life-saving. There are five major gun provisions in this bill, not one, not two, five. We're talking about building out red flag laws all around the country that will allow us to take weapons away from people that are a danger to themselves or others. We closed this boyfriend loophole so that every domestic abuser is prohibited from getting guns, not just spouses, but also boyfriends.

We have the first ever federal criminalization of straw purchasing and gun trafficking that helps cut down the illegal flow of weapons into our cities. We have changes to the definition of a federal firearms dealer. So more of these folks that are selling at gun shows and selling online have to do background checks. And then finally, we have this sort of innovative approach to under 21 purchasers. Obviously, I would have loved to ban assault weapons. I would have loved to raise the age to purchase them. But what we got agreement on is, you know, essentially a pause, a kind of waiting period so that every under 21 buyer has to have a sort of more comprehensive background check done, which means they won't leave the gun store with a gun. And the local police department will get a call so that these

kids like the Uvalde shooter who, you know, were police involved, will have, you know, the opportunity for an intervention if they're in crisis and walking into a gun store to buy an AR-15. Now, on top of that, I'll stop, but billions of dollars in mental health funding. So we're going to make one of the biggest investments in the nation's mental health system in a very, very long time. So that's on top of all of those gun changes. So it's a big deal. It's kind of an old school compromise. And I'm really thrilled to be able to try to push it forward.

I mean, listen, my personal bias here is I've been watching this issue go unresolved for long enough that I'm in the camp of if we could do anything that saves a single life, I am for it. I am a little surprised. I mean, why do you think the people you're negotiating with could get to these increased background check provisions for people under 21 to buy an assault rifle and not just raise the age to purchase one from 18 to 21? I think that feels so minimal. And I was just curious, like where that opposition came from. Yeah, I don't, I don't know the answer to that. I, listen, there's Republican support for raising the age, but, you know, we spent the last three weeks counting votes and, you know, realized that we probably weren't going to get to 60 votes on raising the age. I mean, Tommy, you know, this that this is, you know, this issue of AR-15s is a really complicated one for Republicans and Republican voters. There's sort of an identity

that people have attached to their ownership of these weapons and their ability to get them without obstacle. I don't quite understand it, but I know that that cultural connection to the weapon does exist. And so, you know, anything that would essentially stop a class of people from getting access to that weapon was a bridge too far to cross right now for Republicans. But here's my theory is that by showing Republicans who vote for this, that there is political benefit to supporting more restrictive gun laws and not much political cost. It's going to make other changes much more possible down the line, including potentially raising the age to 21. Yeah. No, I mean, on the cultural point, I remember Ted Cruz releasing a video a couple of years ago where

he thought it was cool to wrap bacon around the muzzle of an assault rifle and cook it through the heat. I mean, there's this weirdo stuff that goes on. The bill creates these incentives for states to enact red flag laws. Are there examples of states that wanted to create these kinds of red flag laws or intervention programs, but didn't do so yet because of a lack of funding? Yeah, I think that's a good question. And I think maybe the piece of this most states that don't have them, it's probably a combination of funding, but also politics. And our hope is to sort of make the political lift easier in states that haven't adopted them.

But we also know, you know, there are 20 states that have them. That's a lot of states. And in many states, they don't work very well because there isn't the funding necessary to teach law enforcement and first responders what to do when you see somebody in crisis and how to sort of navigate the judicial process to take those guns away. get money. And I do think that once you have high profile Republicans at the national level standing up and supporting red flag laws, we'll have a few more, maybe a lot more Republican states that will pass them. I mean, no one who has followed your work on this issue, I think, would doubt your sincerity or your commitment to getting something done. I know your connection to Newtown. You literally wrote a book on the subject. Again, I'm of the mind that like doing something is better than doing nothing. But you know, I went to the LA March for Our Lives, March rally protests on Saturday. And what I heard

from the organizers there and, you know, teenage speakers were calls for a full assault weapons ban. You know, a young woman who had been shot in a school shooting, her best friend was sitting next to her, her friend was killed. She went and hid in the classroom until she could get medical help. What is your message to these young organizers who are desperate for more to get done? I mean, how do you make the argument to them that this bill will break the logjam rather than give Republicans an excuse to say, we don't actually have to do more. We just passed a bill. What more do you want? Well, I mean, listen, I would first make the argument that this bill does save lives and that, you know, we should be in the business of supporting legislation that results in less homicides and less suicides. And this bill undoubtedly does that. But second, you know,

I'd ask folks that are skeptical about this to, you know, look at other great social change movements and how they succeeded. None of them got 80 percent or 100 percent of what they wanted in the first bill that passed the United States Congress. In fact, every single great social change movement that you read about in the history books just got one win and then another and then another. just got one win and then another and then another. After states started adopting laws to allow gay couples to marry, the marriage equality movement didn't go away. It, in fact, gained steam because all of a sudden you sort of had a taste of victory. All of a sudden your opponents realized that there was political benefit to voting with you. Civil rights movement, the same thing.

So I really believe that we have to pass something that is meaningful and impactful. We're not interested in checking boxes, but we should study other change movements and know that victories beget victories and that that is what's going to happen here. Yeah. You mentioned a couple of times this hope that this will change the political calculus for a lot of Republicans. How do you interpret the fact that, you know, of the 10 Republicans that are part of this compromise, four of them are retiring and none of the rest are up for reelection this year? I mean, like, I know that that is leading to some cynicism. I think that this might change the political calculus on the right. I know. I think people are just looking for reasons to

be cynical. I really do. Like, I mean, I think that that's not a helpful analysis. You know, it also is true that the 10 people, no matter where they were in their election cycle, were the 10 that would most often engage in bipartisan discussions. And it just so happens that none of them are right now in their election cycle. I think that you will see as this bill moves forward, other Republicans, some of which who are in cycle, ending up supporting it. So listen, I think there is I think there is a need sometimes to filter everything through a cynical lens, right, to to just come to believe that Republicans could never do this because of legitimate political pressure. But that's what happened here. I mean, these folks came to the table. Remember, none of this would have happened if Mitch McConnell hadn't sort of given a permission

structure for these talks to happen. I think he felt the pressure as well that was building out there. And ultimately, I think that that's how democracy is supposed to work. So now we go from sort of framework agreement in principle to putting it all on paper, writing out the actual law. How delicate is that process? How much room is there for things to get mucked up? And then relatedly, is there anything listeners can do in this interim period to help support the bill and help get it passed? Like, do you want people calling members? Like, what can we do here? No, I do. I mean, again, I think we can't take this for granted. It looks like we have 60 votes,

but we've got to hang on to the ones that we have. And, you know, I do think to the extent that there are a handful of Democrats who are sort of of the belief that we shouldn't vote for anything and give Republicans any kind of win on this. We do have to convince folks that saving lives is important, even if you're not saving every life at one time. And of course, there's the potential that this could all fall apart. You know, probably the biggest gun group out there, gun owners of America, just came out strongly against this bill today. The right is going to fight like hell to stop this. You've already seen the sort of radicals in the House starting to line up against it. So, you know, this is going to be hard to get across the finish line. And so just because folks see 10 Republicans signed up today doesn't mean that by any means this is guaranteed passage.

There's a reason why it's been almost 30 years since a bill like this has passed, because it's super difficult. Yeah, well, I hate the fact that I've been working in politics long enough to see a series of mass shootings, a series of conversations about how things were different, followed by nothing legislatively. And so frankly, I'm very excited at the prospect that, you know, you guys have put together this compromise, that we could see something done. I'm grateful to you and all the Republicans who had the courage to come forward and work with you and the Democratic side on this. So fingers crossed, we'll keep beating the drums on this thing and encourage people to call senators and members of Congress and everybody else because, you know, saving one life matters. Thanks, Tommy.

So one piece of the bipartisan gun safety deal that Senator Murphy just spoke about is $7 billion in mental health funding. Even before Uvalde, the Biden administration has been sounding the alarm about the youth mental health crisis in this country and taking steps to increase mental health awareness among kids, an effort that has been led by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who's here with us in person today. Dr. Murthy, welcome back to the pod. We're so happy to have you here in studio. Well, thanks, guys. It's good to be in person. Yeah, this is great to see the here in studio. Well, thanks, guys. It's good to be in person. This is fun.

This is great. You see the uniform in person. I think more government officials should have the full uniform. I realize maybe we should have dressed up today. Didn't make me realize that. It's all good. You guys look good. You're in Los Angeles talking about the youth mental health crisis, which has been exacerbated by everything from the pandemic to mass shootings now to social media. You've been focused on this for a while. What have you found are the most effective ways for parents and schools to help kids who are having a hard time?

Well, I'm glad you asked, John. Look, I think kids have been having a hard time? Well, I'm glad you asked, John. Look, I think kids have been having a hard time for a long time. Even before the pandemic, we know that kids were struggling. In fact, in the decade before the pandemic, there was a 57% increase in the suicide rate among young people. And there was a 40% increase in the percentage of high school kids who said they felt persistently sad or hopeless. We know that kids were having a tough time before. The pandemic made things worse. And I will tell you also that these mass shootings, when they happen, they take a toll on the mental health of kids as well.

Even if they're not directly involved, they traumatize an entire nation. And those include our children. But there are steps that we can take. I think, number one, getting more counselors into our schools will make a difference. And that's something President Biden has spoken a lot about. He directed ARP funds, American Rescue Plan funds, to help do that. And he's asked for more money to get more counselors in schools. The other thing that's important is that we help make it easier for kids to access care. You know, right now it takes on average 11 years from when a child has symptoms So when they can actually get care that's an unacceptably long period of time

That's 11 years when a child is struggling more And think about this is a parent to see your child struggling and to not be able to help is one of I believe one Of the worst feelings a parent can have and that's a lot of parents are going through so we've got to improve Access to care and we can do that using a combination of technology, expanding the workforce, and also revamping our, what's called a parity law, to ensure that the networks through which people get care are actually adequate. But the last thing I'll just mention is this. Look, there's a lot that we have to do. But one thing I just want to say to parents directly is that I can't underscore how important it is in moments like this that your child knows that you love them and that you're there for them.

And that seems like such a simple thing to say. But moments like this, when a child experiences a mass shooting or hears about it or when they're bullied online or experience any other form of trauma, it rocks their world and they need their foundation reinforced. And as parents, many times we are that foundation for our kids. So it may not seem like it's solving all their problems, but knowing that you're their rock, knowing that you're there, knowing that you can start a conversation about mental health with them, even if they don't say anything, they know that you're somebody that they can talk to. And you're setting an example and how to talk about mental health and telling them it's okay to get help. These are powerful roles we can play as parents and they're more important right now than ever.

You mentioned online bullying. One thing that has risen in the 10 years in which we've seen this increase in depression, suicide attempts in social media, even internally, we've seen leaks that at Facebook, they were aware that Instagram has incredibly negative consequences for self-esteem. How much do you attribute this crisis to social media and the effects it's had on young people? Well, I think social media is part of the problem here for some kids, not for all kids. I think some kids, you know, are actually benefited by social media. They find community that they otherwise wouldn't have had, especially if they're part of a group that's underrepresented. But for other kids, it's been harmful. It's hurt their self-esteem. It's

negatively impacted their relationships with their friends. And it's contributed to this culture of comparison, which, you know, is the experience of comparing your average days to other people's best days. That's what social media is like for a lot of people. That's what Instagram is. That's what it's supposed to be for. Right. And even though you know that there are other parts of people's lives

they're not posting online, it still makes a lot of kids feel worse about their lives. And I say that not because it's theoretical, because this is actually literally what kids tell me as I do roundtables across the country. And I ask them about their mental health and about social media. And a lot of times when talking about social media, they say, we feel like we have to keep using it, but it makes us feel worse about ourselves. And it makes us not feel as good about our friendships because we think that we're really good friends with someone.

And then we see online that there are parties and doing all this stuff without us. And then they even tell us about it. So I do think it's a complicated and sometimes negative factor. But I think what has to happen as a result of this, and frankly, what should have happened long before, is that we need technology platforms to be open and transparent with the data about what's happening to our kids. Companies have a lot of data. They're not necessarily sharing a lot of that data. And this is actually what independent researchers tell us. People have been studying tech

and the impact of mental health for kids for a long time. They say, we cannot get the data from the companies. And privacy, you can share data and trends while still protecting user privacy. So that's not and shouldn't be an excuse here. But I do think that what has happened is we've had this national experiment that's been conducted on our kids, and frankly, on all of us, where we put social media platforms out into the ether. We saw rapid adoption.

Now billions of people are using them. And oops, we didn't actually understand what impact they had on our mental health and well-being. And it's long past time for us to get the data to help us understand what that is. And finally, I think this is true as well. time for us to get the data to help us understand what that is. And finally, I think this is true as well. I think if you're a platform, you also have to ask yourself, what is my responsibility here to make sure that what I'm putting out into the world isn't harming other people? And so I think companies have a responsibility to, whether it's designing their algorithms, whether it's designing the platforms themselves, to think about how they can contribute to the

well-being of children, as opposed to just focusing on the amount of time that's spent on their platform. It should be about time well spent, not just time spent. But is it unsafe at any speed? Do you think Instagram is safe at any speed for kids? Do you think there's a version of this kind of comparison that kids can be doing online every single day that won't contribute to the detriment of their mental health? Well, I think that's why the answer to that question has to be borne out by data, right? We've got to understand what data tells us

about what is safe and in what form it's safe. Like I know, for example, where I feel pretty strongly that if I were to show up to this interview, and as I actually do have on my phone with pictures of my kids, right? And I show you pictures of my kids. And maybe those pictures involve a vacation that we took last year. Is this episode going to adversely impact your mental health?

Well, maybe it'll make you feel great. Maybe part of me will be like, gosh, I wish I could go on a vacation, right? But we know that this is a normal part of human interaction that we've had. I'd be pissed. I'd be furious. That's why I'm not unlocking my phone to show it to you. that we've had. That's why I'm not on Mockingbird.

So the point is in small doses, I think, and with context and with relationships, we can absorb a lot of these instances where we may have

a bit of comparison here or there. I think part of the challenge is the sheer volume with which it happens on social media and the utter lack of context. Like if we were,

if I were to show you these pictures, you and I, because we're in person and we're having conversation and we're, we have a bit of a relationship here. I might also talk to you about the fact that, yeah, we went on that vacation, but it was pretty tough. Maybe it was financially challenging for our family, or maybe we, we got sick, you know, on the trip and it really kind of sucked in the end. And it was, wasn't worth it. Like we may have a more nuanced conversation. That nuance is utterly missing often on social media. You're just purely seeing the highlights without the context and it wasn't worth it. Like we may have a more nuanced conversation. That nuance is utterly missing.

Often on social media, you're just purely seeing the highlights without the context in people's lives. And I think context is everything. I'm sorry I had such a bad time. You're up next. No, it is the difference also between watching screens together as a family and then doing it separately, right?

Because then you can have that context and that conversation there. Let's talk about vaccines. At long last, the FDA has said that both Moderna and Pfizer's vaccines are effective in kids under five. There's the hope that the FDA and CDC will authorize both maybe by the end of this week,

if not very soon. I know there's millions of parents who can't wait to get their kids vaccinated. There still might be others who aren't sure about their under five kids. What would you say to them? Well, look, I say this not just as a surgeon, but as a parent of a child who's under five. My daughter's four.

And look, I've been waiting to get her vaccinated, too. But what I'd say is the most important thing is for parents to make sure that they have the information they need to make a decision for their child. And that means that they have to understand two critical things. One is, is this vaccine safe? And is it effective for my child? Where you get that information from really matters because there is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there. This is actually a topic that was the topic of my very first Surgeon General's advisory was health misinformation because it's been so rife during the COVID crisis. But we want to make sure people are getting info from credible sources. So that means your own doctor or the nurse who's involved in taking care of your family. It means your

children's hospital, your local department of health. It means the CDC or the FDA. What's going to happen this week is that the FDA's advisory group is meeting to discuss the data. That data will be public. The FDA will then render a formal, you know, sort of authorization for the vaccine if they think the data merits it. And then after that, the CDC will then render its recommendation. And then after that, it will be available. But all of the people should know that the operational work of making sure that the vaccine will be available in pharmacies, doctors' offices, community health centers, that work and planning has been going on for weeks and months now because we want to make sure as soon as the FDA and CDC give the signal that the vaccine

will be available to parents. Obviously, if you're an adult and you've had COVID, you should still get vaccinated. Is the same true for kids under five? If you've had a kid under five who's had COVID, just go seek the vaccine if it's authorized. That's certainly a safe thing to do because what we know is that having prior infection gives you some protection, but we've seen already that that protection doesn't always last. So even for example, if you got the first wave of Omicron, BA1 as it's called, as I did and my family did, you can't necessarily guarantee that, especially in the absence of a prior vaccine, BA1 as it's called, as I did and my family did, you can't necessarily guarantee that, especially in the absence of a prior vaccine, that you have great protection now against the

newer sub-variants that are coming out. So that's why getting vaccinated is still a good idea. But the bottom line is throughout this pandemic, the vaccines have demonstrated that they're really effective at keeping you out of the hospital and saving your life. That's the most important job of a vaccine. You may still get an infection if you're vaccinated, but it will likely be mild or in some cases even asymptomatic. So that's why I would still recommend people vaccinate their child. That's why I'll take my four-year-old also to get vaccinated when it's available. So in April, the administration put out a warning that said without additional funding from Congress, they wouldn't be able to buy boosters for the fall. Last week, they said they were moving money around to pay for boosters, but that would require

cutting money for tests, scaling back some money for research. What's the latest on making sure that we're going to have boosters we need this fall, right now? Yeah, it's a good question. This is something we should not have had to do, take money from critical pots to buy more vaccines and therapeutics. And let me just be clear about what we're taking money away from. We're taking money away from buying more tests. We're taking money away from supporting domestic manufacturing of vaccines and tests, which are both really critical. We're taking money away from research into the next generation COVID vaccine. People have been talking about having what's called a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

We'd love to get there as soon as possible. We are now literally taking money away from that. That's stupid. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. And these are lessons we should have learned from prior pandemics. So right now, with the funds that we have taken from other pots,

we're able to start to get in line because keep in mind, other countries have been getting in line to buy vaccines for the fall. We haven't been able to do that because of the lack of funds, which is really terrible. So now at least we're able to start getting in line. But even now, we don't have enough money to guarantee that every American who needs a vaccine in the fall will have one. So we still need Congress to come forward and to provide the funding for that. Even like some of the funds that we pulled aside, for example, they're not only being used for

vaccines and therapeutics like Paxlovid, but also for another therapeutic called the monoclonal antibody, right? We only have enough to buy five weeks more of monoclonal antibodies. So we have, we're blessed as a country to have had the experience and the resources to tackle COVID-19. This is not the time to take our eye off to tackle COVID-19, this is not the time to take our eye off the ball. I know that this is a big fight with Republicans in Congress. I've been wondering this. Is it possible to do this through reconciliation? That's a good question. I don't know if it's possible to do this through reconciliation. I would defer to others who are more expert in sort of budget and sort of policy in this regard.

But what I do think, though, is it shouldn't have to come to that. Right. Right. This should be we actually and this is what when I talk to people around the country, this is what they don't understand. The general public, they say, wait, tell me this again. We spent two years developing extraordinary treatments and vaccines, and we proved through real-world experience that they've saved so many lives and prevented millions of people from ending up in the hospital. But now we're not going to make them available to people anymore. It just doesn't make sense to people because it just doesn't make sense.

What's the status of an Omicron-specific booster for the fall? specific booster for the fall? So there is now data on Omicron, what I would call the bivalent vaccine. So they include both the sort of original version and an Omicron variant together. And the data is, you know, at least provided by the company seems to be promising that these actually are effective, you know, in reducing the likelihood of people end up in the hospital or that they may lose their life. But the truth is, we've got to see that data. And this is something I just want to be cautious about is a lot of times companies will put out press releases based on their interpretation of the data. And while we should understand what that is, it's only when that data is made publicly available, it's only when it's looked at and examined closely by the FDA and the CDC that we can truly make a decision about

whether it is worth purchasing and recommending for people around the country. So my hope is that it will be, but we got to see the data first. I believe everything Pfizer and Moderna says, always have. Do you think these, would this bivalent booster be effective against like BA4 and BA5 and some of these newer variants? Do we know? Yeah. So that is an interesting question. And there will likely be some level of cross-protection in this, at least against severe disease, you know, hospitalization and death. But how much, and in particular, how much cross-protection they may be against preventing mild and moderate infections, that part's not clear yet. And this is really one of the challenges,

John, is that the variants are evolving pretty quickly. But again, one thing that I want people to feel reassured about is that what we've seen throughout is that even when you're vaccinated with the original version of Omicron, that this vaccine still seemed to be very effective in keeping you out of the hospital and saving your life. So a lot of people I talk to who are fully boosted are still not living their pre-pandemic lives because they are afraid of getting long COVID. And not just long COVID symptoms that last for weeks or a couple of months, which is bad enough, but like potentially a disabling case of long COVID that leaves them disabled over the long term. What's the latest research say about the chances of that happening? And what is the federal government doing about it? Yeah, it is really one of the still unanswered questions.

That is, it's vaccine, it's frustrating because if we had the data about how common this is and who's particularly at risk for it, that would be really helpful, right? And people could adjust their risk accordingly. Because these studies are like all over the place. There's like a study that's like, it's 2%, it's up to 10%, it's 40%. You're like, the number is just all over the place.

That's right. And that's why actually one of the things that the federal government has done is the NIH has actually dedicated, you know, specific and a whole initiative to long COVID where they are actually doing a study to understand exactly this. What is their frequency and who's at risk? It's also why President Biden actually directed the Department

of Health and Human Services to put together a couple of reports in short order to help patients understand what services were available to them if they were, in fact, struggling with long COVID. Because we want to do, and the government administration is doing everything possible to make sure that people who do have long COVID have the support that they need. That's incredibly important. But to your original question, John, the question, it comes down to, though, how do I manage in the interim, right, if I'm out there? And this is tough. Look, we know that the majority of people at this point who seem to get COVID seem to recover, right? That is good news. And we've also seen from some earlier studies that long COVID tends to occur more often when people have more severe illnesses, when they have,

you know, are in the hospital for a long period of time. And again, some of this, not to get into the nitty gritty of the data, but when people are hospitalized for a long period of time, they tend to have longer symptoms anyway, whether they're hospitalized for pneumonia or something else. So how much of that is just, you know, the sequelae or the consequences of being seriously ill versus actual long COVID? That's part of what's being teased apart. So what I would say is that, you know,

if you're somebody who's vaccinated and if you're boosted, if you've got higher risk people at home who you're worried about who might be immunocompromised, if you yourself are immunocompromised, you know, it makes sense to probably still be cautious, you know, in your approach, whether that means, you know, avoiding higher risk activities or testing before you engage in activities or wearing a mask when you're in public indoor spaces. If you're not worried about your own health because, you know, you don't have other medical conditions or if you're not living with someone who's a particular high risk, then this is a time where i think being able to pull back you

know and some of those precautions especially if you're boosted um is reasonable if you're primarily your primary goal is to keep yourself out of the hospital and make sure that you're i think a lot of people are struggling with i've struggled with this myself is so there's the risk of getting long covid there's the risk of getting long COVID. There's the risk to immunocompromised people and the vulnerable, especially some elderly people, even if they're fully boosted. And then there's two other facts. One is that like, we're not going to hit herd immunity at this point and COVID may be here forever. And then I think back to what Dr. Fauci said when Omicron first hit, which is virtually everybody is going to get exposed and likely infected. So I'm like, how do you square all of those three facts? Because then it just

sounds like a lot of people are going to want to take precautions forever if they want to avoid long COVID. And I just, you know. Well, and then that's a challenge more. That's why we have to really make sure we're doing everything we can to get answers to these questions on the frequency and risk factors associated with long COVID so that we don't, you know, people aren't in limbo like forever. But it's also why I look, I think these variants are getting so transmissible, right? Each one is more transmissible than the next, more contagious than the next. That's why in part, you're seeing so many people, you know, get infected. And certainly I've seen that in my own circles. The good news is that, you know, the vast majority of these people, if they were, particularly if they were vaccinated, are okay.

You know, the people who are, you look at the folks who are hospitalized, you know, and who are losing their life to COVID, and it's the death rate is much higher among those who are unvaccinated compared to those who are vaccinated. So, you know, while we don't have all the answers yet, you know, I do think that, and yes, while this is incredibly transmissible, I think we should do what we can to prevent the transmission. But it's a risk-benefit balance here. And for a lot of people, to give up going to see family, to give up going to a wedding that you've held off on attending for a couple years, or a major anniversary celebration, these are prices that we pay as well, and we have to adjust those against our risk of getting a mild infection.

Well, those are in many ways kind of the easy examples, right? Because those are special things that people would really want to take a chance for. What I've struggled with is there was a period of time where there was this debate. Everyone's going to get it. And a lot of the health expert says,

no, that's bullshit. Not everybody's going to get it. You should still try to avoid getting it. Don't listen to the people who say everybody's going to get it. And a lot of the health experts says, no, that's bullshit. Not everybody's going to get it. You should still try to avoid getting it. Don't listen to people say everybody's going to get it. And then you see data come out of places like Hong Kong that shows that places that had done extreme mitigation measures, once they got hit by these more transmissible variants, the rates didn't just shoot up. They caught up to what they would have been on the lines of the countries that had done less. And I found that really persuasive. And what I took away from that as someone who was really careful for a very long time is I can no longer avoid this. I will get

this. The best I can do is be careful for a week or two around a special event, a big show, a big event. Right. But that in the end, whatever the risk of long COVID is, it's almost beside the point because it is inevitable that at some point I'm going to get this infection. Do you agree with that? Well, I think, look, I think in our current circumstances, I do think the vast majority of people, you know, at some point in the months and over the next few years will likely get exposed and infected, you know, to COVID. And we already have seen that the majority of the country has, in fact, gotten COVID-19. So we know that that's the case that will likely continue to happen. I do think this is where it becomes trickier, because it's not just black and white, you know, take precautions or not. It's about when do I take precautions? If you've got, again,

somebody coming to visit you who might be higher risk, or if you're going to go to an event, you want to make sure that you don't end up getting sick right before and having to miss the event, then yeah, it makes sense to take those kinds of precautions. And if you yourself are at higher risk, then I think it makes sense to take precautions. But given how contagious it is, I don't think people should think that if I got COVID that I failed somehow, that I screwed up, I didn't do this right. Even if you do everything right, you can reduce your chances, but you can't eliminate a hundred percent your chances of getting sick, which is why, again, it's thing, it's important for people to be able to weigh, um, what they're giving up, you know, with the benefits of mitigation. And for a lot of people, you know, it's, uh, they will tolerate the risks

that they may get a mild infection. If they can go about living their life, you know, going out to eat with friends, gathering with friends, going to concerts. And I don't think that that's a, it's not a bad decision to make. It's just slightly different depending on what people's risk tolerance is and based on their personal health and the health of the people in their home. And again, why it's so important to then make sure we have up-to-date boosters, treatments, treatments, especially for people who are immunocompromised, and then look into funding and research for treatments for long COVID. That's right. And the thing is, even with the two years that we've been in this struggle, we've developed remarkably good vaccines. And we have a therapeutic impacts of it, which is remarkably effective at preventing hospitalizations.

Just imagine what we could do if we continued our pipeline of research and investment. We may one day have mucosal vaccines, right, which could actually help even do an even better job of preventing transmission. We may have pan-coronavirus vaccines, which will be even more effective against future variants. We could do so much more. And so I do think that we shouldn't judge COVID based on what's happening right now

and think that what's happening now is gonna be what our life is gonna be like in perpetuity. I believe that things will get better as our therapeutics and treatments continue to advance. We just have to make sure we keep investing in those because to not do so, I think would be just tragic. Let me ask you this question. Do you have to pay for the jacket? They fit you for it. I assume when you get the job, do you charge you for it? Does it come with it? You buy your own. Officers buy your own. I thought so. The officers buy your own uniform. Yeah, you had to buy your own uniform.

That's right. That's good. Snappy. Dr. Vivek Murthy, thank you for stopping by. It's always wonderful to talk to you. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Good to see you both in person. You too. Thanks to Senator Chris Murphy and thanks to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy for joining us today. We'll see you on Group Thread tomorrow, 7 a.m. Pacific. And we'll talk to you on Thursday for another pod. Did you guys ask Dr. Murphy if he's related to Ezra Klein?

We've made that joke a couple times before. Well, I mean, this is the outro. You can do whatever you want in the outro. If you listen, this is anything else. Anyone got some shots they want to take? I don't know. I like Levin's shirt. I just want to apologize to Jamie Rus i like love his shirt i just want to apologize to jamie ruskin oh yeah i want to apologize to adam ship i have just a joke it didn't mean what is your shirt it's uh

we're here we're clear i have a brick the other option for this is uh respect my existence or expect a brick i like that one too we should do that i like that one a lot yeah look at us look at us promoting violence in many different forms no no no excuse me excuse me just hand the brick

to the person oh it's just you're gifting a brick gifting a brick yeah that's fine I don't know what you were thinking that was what Stonewall was

Tommy's so violent yeah got it my bad anything else anything else for the outro I'm wearing a red shell Tommy's wearing a

attack he's a big Super Mario fan here big gamer he's Mario Karting it up look at that my wife mocked my sweatshirt and said I'm wearing a red shell Tommy's wearing a He's a big Super Mario fan here Big gamer He's Mario Karting it up Look at that My wife mocked my sweatshirt And said You're not a gamer

You know Hannah I think it's great Hannah gives me the hard stare When she hates what I'm wearing Look Here's the thing Even women can enforce Toxic masculinity

Like saying that You can't wear that You can wear that This is not non-masculine no but i'm saying that that the bounds the bounds of your the two of you do we think do we think the podcast is still going yeah i hope people still listen to you do not press stop do not press stop the two of you when nothing makes me so sure that masculinity is a prison with no locks than the incredible rigidity of the bounds around the two of you. Here's a new joke.

No one's heard this one before. Oh, John and Tommy are heteronormative in the clothes they wear. You gay bash my Netflix watching. You attack me. I gay bash your Netflix watching. You enforce heteronormative standards by attacking the content I enjoy. Because Tommy likes Emily in Paris. Such as E&P.

What was the other? You had a couple. You had a couple. Fire Island. Fire Island. Great movie. Adorable rom-com. Love it.

Shouted me down for enjoying it. Hey, you'd have to waterboard me to get a bad word about Fire Island out of me. You would have to torture me in a fucking prison to get me to say something ill about Fire Island. All right? How fucking dare you? Did it pass the Bechdel test? That's been a big debate. Oh, man.

Someone's been on Twitter. What do you got? Is this show still on? The Surgeon General was on this episode. It's like a whole extra episode. Leave it on. Leave it going. All of it.

Bye, everyone. Bye. Bye. We'll see you Thursday with Dan. Don't worry. Don't worry. You'll get Dan. It gets better. Listener Thursday. Hot Save America is a crooked media production.

The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, 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 Montouf. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.