Pod Save America - “Mark Meadows’ Fascist PowerPoint.”

Episode Date: December 14, 2021

The 1/6 Committee charges Donald Trump’s former Chief of Staff with criminal contempt of Congress as the former president’s allies prepare for the next coup, Joe Biden and co-president Joe Manchin chat about the future of Build Back Better, Donald Trump and Bill O’Reilly’s roadshow is having trouble filling seats, and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas abortion ban, this episode ends with a special feature on the future of Roe v. Wade that includes moving stories from people who’ve already been affected by abortion restrictions.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.

We only have 100 days left until the 2022 midterms, and we need to make every one count. We know how high the stakes are in these midterms. Abortion is on the ballot. Climate is on the ballot. Our basic freedoms and ability to make our voices heard to protect them are on the ballot. Head to votesaveamerica.com slash midterms to take our Count Me In pledge to volunteer the weekend of July 31st and become part of our midterm madness program to get involved in the most important elections in 2022 from the Senate to your local school board. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor.

On today's show, the January 6th committee charges Trump's former chief of staff with criminal contempt of Congress as the ex-president's allies prepare for the next coup. Joe Biden and co-president Joe Manchin chat about the future of Build Back Better. Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly's roadshow is having trouble filling seats. And in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on the Texas abortion ban, we have a special feature on the future of Roe v. Wade that includes some moving stories from people who've already been affected by abortion restrictions. So please stick around to hear that.

But first, before we start, check out the latest offline. I talked to Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy about how to stop doom scrolling, what he calls America's silent epidemic of loneliness, and the importance of real live human connection to our health. Did you ask him to prove that he's not related to Ezra Klein in any way? You know, that's what he was on Ezra's show. And that's the only that's the only way that I know they're not they weren't the same. And Ezra actually made a comment about it at the beginning of the show, which I thought was helpful. I've never been able to see it. Let's get to the news. On Monday, the bipartisan committee investigating the January 6th attack

on the Capitol voted to bring a criminal contempt charge against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for defying a subpoena. So Meadows had initially agreed to testify, then backed out because Trump threw a fit. But we're already learning a lot from the thousands of documents, text messages and emails that Meadows had already handed over to the committee when he thought he was going to cooperate. Just a few examples of what we're learning about before we really dig in. One, an email where Meadows said that the National Guard would be present at the Capitol on January 6th to protect, quote, pro-Trump people. I want the record to reflect that John was doing air quotes, bunny quotes. You know, I appreciate that, Tommy, because often when I do air quotes on the pod, I at least tell people I'm doing air quotes.

I usually write out quote unquote for myself. That's good. Maybe we should move on. He did air quotes there. out quote unquote for myself that's good maybe we should move on he did air quotes there uh number two an email where meadows discussed getting trump to persuade legislators and states that biden won to send their own slate of trump electors instead three a 38 page powerpoint that a retired army colonel had sent to meadows and various republican members of congress that urged trump to overturn the election by declaring a national emergency

based on the lie that China and Venezuela had taken control of our voting machines. Real thing. Real thing. It was in a PowerPoint. That's the Sidney Powell beat, right? That's the Sidney Powell. Probably started on your favorite podcast.

Mike Lindell's probably on that too. Starwhite. So I'll stop there for your reactions. Usually the tough part about these january 6 investigation stories is figuring out what information is actually new and what matters most what do you guys think after reading all these stories about mark meadows involvement and is there anything else i did mention that you think people should know about i'll just say generally i think i remember when mcconnell and other senate republicans said oh just what's the word just let him let him lay out, you know, blow some blow some steam. So it was a court to Ashley

Parker, I think. Yeah. And I think what I take away from this is I think sometimes we are a little bit casual with Trump's fascism, in part because he seems so inept. But the people around him, while inept, are not as inept as him. And this was a more sophisticated and detailed operation than even we had known until like the past couple of days. And we should all, I think, be honest about the fact that what stopped this was not how ham-fisted it was, not the lack of sophistication. What stopped it was that they lacked power and that it wasn't just the Mike Pence fail point, but that there were a few other fail points that protected us throughout this emergency. But it wasn't because they didn't have a sophisticated and organized operation to overturn the election. I will say, I think it's also possible to just stumble ass backwards into a fascist takeover.

Sure. Like it's very well could be like, oh, we're just we're just humoring him. We're just humoring him. We're going down. We're getting down we're getting closer we're getting close i mean we'll just do it yeah remember when mike flynn was asked why don't we have a coup here in the u.s like they just did in burma and he was like we absolutely should do that we're like it was like crazy mike flynn what's he doing uh it turns out that was sort of uh you know centrist within this group i mean i think what we like like, first of all, again, I just want to point out that Mark Meadows

is just a gargantuan idiot. You know, I reached out to a very smart lawyer friend of all of ours who pointed out that usually you stonewall before you give the incriminating docs to the Congress people. But in this case, Such a good point. He gave over the incriminating docs

and then kind of made it clear what he wasn't giving over then he stonewalled well did our i can't really do that did our lawyer friend whoever you talk to also bring up the fact that it's odd he michael molly yeah right yeah that's what i figured um that he um claimed executive privilege over information that is currently being released in his brand new book. Yeah, that was bad, too. A book that he included incriminating information in, to Tommy's point, because he was unaware of what was or was not incriminating. Right. Because putting in your book that Trump got a positive test because he wanted to turn himself into a biological weapon to kill Joe Biden turned out to have been more incriminating than even Mike Meadows understood.

Yeah. Mark. Mark. Mark. Yeah. But really, who cares? Who gives a fuck? He's an idiot. He doesn't deserve the right first name. Right. The privilege claims that Mark Meadows is trying to assert here are undercut by him quoting Trump in his book. The other problem he has is that the former president's privilege claims are subordinate

to the current president's privilege claims. And Joe Biden is saying, no, you don't have privilege. Also, the committee hasn't received any formal notification of an invocation of privilege by Trump. So none of this has actually happened. I'll just make just one other point that I think is sometimes lost because it's a lot of legal nonsense and none of us as a lawyer, we're not lawyers here. But I don't think you need to go to law school to understand that it's not privileged if it's a fucking crime, right? Privilege is not an ability for you to commit crimes out of the White House,

like for example, trying to overturn American democracy. So it's sort of beside the point, which I think is a point Jen Psaki makes at the podium a lot. And I think the reporters view it as like kind of a talking point, like, why aren't you worried about executive privilege in the future? Well, because we don't believe in doing doing a coup and they view that as a talking point but it's actually a a good response like it's because of the crimes yeah thinking about like what's the most alarming information in here that we've learned you know there has been a lot of talk especially on twitter about the infamous powerpoint from the retired colonel um which is completely chilling it's it's it's even more chilling to see it in a powerpoint which i can't even make at this point i don't know how to make

a powerpoint but this this this uh this this colonel certainly how do you dare you use some of microsoft's most famed and important work tools productivity suite very simple very clean powerpoint you know did you save that to to your drive your online drive you sons of bitches john's a prezzy guy yeah what i'm focused on is there were actual conversations with republican state legislatures to send their own slate of electors they had wanted to have trump call these people and the biggest threat we face in 24 i I think, is still Republican state legislatures overturning the will of the voters and sending their own slate of electors to Washington. And if there's a Republican Congress there, then that's that. And all they have to do is say, oh, there was some kind of made up some kind of fraud.

Let me have a conspiracy. Yeah, it was close. But the legislature got together and they're all pro Trump people in the legislature. And we decided to send it, send our own slate of electors yeah i do think i do think sometimes uh in this debate about what it takes to overturn a democracy there's a confusion between what's needed and what's good to have like a doj that's willing to kind of stir the pot and join you and saying that elections are fraught good to have thousands of fucking hooligans standing outside the the capital good to have but you don't need those things no well because again they might have been counterproductive well again we're

talking about all what happened in january 6th but remember in 2024 trump's not going to have the doj he's not going to have a lot of you're not going to have the vice presidency right all these things we're talking about are in the i don't know merrick garland's shifty you know where's merrick's bread buttered you know but he is going to have these republican state legislatures and we better fucking hope that there are democratic governors and democratic secretaries of state in place in these states yeah also like look unlike uh the the people who thought like bob muller was going to walk out of the into the oval office and lock trump up after his report

was issued this is a political document with it's really just about telling a story of what happened so i would love to hear mark Meadows comment on whether Trump was watching footage of the insurrection live and cheering. I would like to know why it took him so long to put out a statement condemning the violence. I would like to know what Mark Meadows was saying when he was reportedly in constant contact with the Secretary of Defense's office and why it took so long to send the National Guard out. Also, Mark Meadows was clearly communicating on his White House email, on his personal email, on his White House phone, on his personal phone. Remember when that was a problem?

I almost didn't even bring it up because, yeah, it is a very overused. If any of you say butter emails, I'll punch you in the fucking face. But it is pretty funny that they're like, the committee said it had questions about why Meadows used a personal cell phone signal and two personal Gmail accounts. Yeah, no, it's down the list, I'm sure. But also to your point, John when when he was briefed on plans to get republican state legislators to send alternate electors uh meadows said he loved the idea and quote have a team on it what team yeah was it the willard crew was it giuliani in the game buddy bannon tell me did you did you read this thing that uh on the war room podcast bannon

and matt gates were talking about raising an army of 4 000 shock troops to take on the War Room podcast, Bannon and Matt Gates were talking about raising an army of 4,000 shock troops to take on the government? Did I read a thing about Steve's podcast? I listened to the episode. That's pretty alarming. Why didn't you tell us that when you heard it? Was the context a little different? I think the context is because it's unfair.

It requires nuance. I'm trying to get books. Yes, yes, they're going to do shock troops, but it's not as bad as it sounds. It requires nuance. Because I'm trying to get books. Yeah. Yes, yes, yes. They're going to do shock trips, but it's not as bad as it sounds. What I think they're talking about, here's what Steve Bannon is doing. I did this on purpose. Smartly and really well.

They are using that show to motivate their audience to go run for these state election function commissions or running for school boards. They are motivating and activating the base to run for office, to get in these positions, to have pieces of... So we need some shock troops for democracy. There we go. I feel like we're going to get to that later. There we go. Alright, democracy.

Speaking of your pal... We need white helmets. But for democracy. Steve Bannon's criminal contempt trial is scheduled for July 18th, which is pretty far away. Raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the 1-6 committee. What, if any, lessons do you think Democrats can learn here from both the Mueller and impeachment investigations? Is this committee about the search for a smoking gun?

Or is it just about laying out all the evidence, making the public knows the full truth it's a great question john uh i'd say one lesson from the muller investigation is that muller got fucking worked uh by bar by trump by the process just absolutely buffeted by events one thing to take away from that experience uh that four-page bar memo totally worked it was a total sham so it's good good memo um we should probably not let bar put out a memo about what the committee finds uh that would be a mistake well i just like if we're working up to just a committee report i feel like you know we're probably going to be a little like this is not going to end in uh liz cheney and adam kinzinger and adam schiff like you know going to mar-a-Lago and throwing fucking cuffs on Donald Trump. So just that's not what's going to happen here.

I think that I think that yes, I think that this is a an important document that will help us understand what actually happened. We are already learning a lot because this committee exists. The conversation we're having now is because this committee exists, but it will not fundamentally change the politics in our country right now. And we do not need more evidence to prove that the Republicans have become an anti-democratic party. So any hope we have for a message or making this important in the midterms, there's no more information coming to help us do that. I think, unfortunately, the timeline is pretty standard. Bannon wants to push it to October. The government wanted it in April. So they kind of met in the middle. Like the justice system is

just slow as shit. Yeah. this is always a concern about contempt charges But yeah, I mean to your point, I think the outcome is going to be political It's political documents about getting more evidence on the record in front of voters And I think the big weakness of the Mueller probe. Well, there were many Starting with Mueller running it probably but you know was letting Trump answer questions in writing and not doing anything about him dangling these pardons In front of people so that they would remain silent. And he can't do that here. But I think we just have to figure out a way to understand his mindset on January 6th and the days that led up to it and what coordination was going on with these outside forces and kind of work from there. I think we,

yeah. And I think to the extent possible, we have to treat all the evidence and everything we hear during this, these committee hearings as just push it to the future this is about the the guy that we're talking about is the front runner for the republican nomination in 2024 and what this committee hopefully will is going to lay out here is that he has left a trail of documents and evidence that is a how-to for the next coup so like is this like when someone you don't want to hang out with is like let's do something friday and you're like no no no like i can't but a couple weeks like a couple weeks is pushing it into the future screwing over future selves yeah that's what this is okay well that's what the and that's what the

fucking powerpoint is like it's scary that that was floating around uh a couple years ago but it's also this is what they're going to do next time fringe becomes central quickly in the trump orbit they are going to use this as a document to learn. Right. We should. We should, too. Yeah, it is. We are still stuck, though, where we've been, which is I think we have all been previously radicalized by this problem. Right. This challenge of the authoritarian turn the Republican Party. This is more evidence to prove it. There is a set of steps we need to take to protect ourselves.

And the problem is we do not have a majority in Congress to take those steps. And that is going to be true indefinitely. Well, so a big part of this conversation is, you know, like you said, but preventing the next coup. And part of that is a big part of that is the midterms. Dan wrote a message box over the weekend about whether Democrats should focus the party's 2022 message on the Republican threat to democracy. What do you guys think? Can that work? What does it look like? What does it sound like? So I think one of the challenges here is if you ask people, Dan points this out, if you ask people,

do you believe democracy is under attack? 56% say yes, American democracy is under attack. 37% say it's being tested. But then you dig into those numbers and what do you find? People who approve Biden, only 42% say that. But 71% of people who disapprove of Biden say that. Republicans, 75%. Democrats, 46%. Independents, 50%. And if you blur your eyes, you see that same thing over race, over gender, over education, which tells me that a lot of this are Republicans who believe the big lie and believe Biden being in power is our democracy being under attack. And so I worry. So the question is, what do we do? We have one year. We have to make not we don't just have to make a case for why people should care about this issue. We have to make a case for this issue. We have to explain to people that this issue is real and should be salient and central to their vote. That's a lot to do in a year. And I do think, look, I think the focus so far, and I understand it in many ways, has been on a lot of these voting restrictions, on standing in line and having water and food while you're standing in line, stuff like that. That's what got the most headlines. And obviously those restrictions are, you know, odious, right?

But there hasn't been enough focus on election subversion and not just election subversion in 2020, but election election subversion in 2024. And I think that has to be central to whatever democratic message there is about the threat to democracy. And I don't think it's been central to the message up until this point. I like this Dan guy. I think he's going places. He's a smart guy. But I'm, you know, I think he makes a good point that you want to run on a big message. It's got to be big.

It's got to be inspiring and motivating. I am caught on the part like he is where you ask voters or voters say to you, OK, what are you going to do about it? And we have very little to point to. And that's hard. What I'm wondering is if there could be maybe in Congress somewhere some sort of bipartisan path to create a bill that's much more narrow and tailored. It is just about election subversion. I don't know what that looks like exactly. I'm almost certain that that bill would not include the stuff we want in it to prevent voter suppression and other anti-democratic policies that we all hate, that we've all talked about, that are all very important to all of us.

But you have to find a way to prevent radicalized state legislatures in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and, you know, name the swing states from just overturning the results of an election and just sending a different set of electors than the people voted for. For sure. And I think, you know, I think we talked about this a couple episodes ago, but I think the bipartisan commission here, maybe one result of this that they're heading towards is to reform the Electoral Count Act. So they take care of from the federal level in Congress. They try to do reforms to prevent this from happening. And maybe you get more bipartisan support for that.

Certainly you start with like Liz Cheney and Kinzinger being on board. See what you can get in the Senate. And it's like you said, Tommy, it's just narrow. It's not about the other voting rights stuff at all. And then if someone came to me and said, what do we do about the alternate slate of electors thing? I would say make sure that Tony Evers and Gretchen Whitmer and Tom Wolfe are reelected and make sure Stacey Abrams wins in Georgia and whoever we nominate in Arizona for governor. That's that is the best way to prevent election subversion in 2024. Those is the 2022 elections for secretaries of

state and governors in the swing states. Yeah, I this is not a politically smart thing to say in terms of how you would message what we need to do in 2022. It's not very inspiring. It's not very helpful. The most important thing or a Democrat can do is not be a Republican and have this power. And like we need Democrats to be in power to prevent them from using their power. It's one thing I said before, and I still believe if these people no longer believe in democratic institutions and following the letter of the law of believing in the results of elections, they don't win. It doesn't matter what we write down before they take power. If they're in Wisconsin, they're trying to... Ron Johnson, the senator from Wisconsin, Republican, is urging the GOP legislature in the state to take full control of federal elections. So they want to get rid of a bipartisan Wisconsin elections commission that Republicans created five years ago. They're throwing out their own project. And then there's

a Trump-loving sheriff in Racine County, the fifth largest County in Wisconsin, this guy named Christopher Schmeling. He's recommending felony charges against five state election commissioners because the commissioners at the height of the pandemic told, uh, the, the board of elections not to send train poll workers into nursing homes because they didn't want to kill senior citizens. That's how radical these people are. It's looney tunes. Look, I am as guilty of this as anyone, but when we talk about this threat, we talk about protecting democracy and subversion,

and we use these words that I think are sort of esoteric to a lot of people. These people, these Republican elected officials, don't want to respect the will of the voters. If you let them take power, they will not give you a chance to vote them out of power. That's what this is about. It is about you think you have a voice now. You think you get to control your government. You get to have a say in who gets elected. You put these people in power. You no longer get that say. And that's it.

And I think that's right. And I think the question is, what is the context you put that in? that's right. And I think the question is, what is the context you put that in? And I think sometimes what we need to, I wonder if the way to square the circle between this being probably the biggest threat we face as a country and the fact that right now it just simply isn't evident in the polling that enough Democrats and independents see the same way. It's that Republicans aren't dangerous and radical because they oppose democracy. They oppose democracy because they're dangerous and radical. And it is part of a larger philosophy, a larger radical agenda that has taken hold. And I think finding a way through that to me, I don't know the answer, but I think that's the direction. Yeah, I agree with that. Again, I like this Dan guy. Look, I think-

He's going places. Look, look, Dan is a very smart guy. All right. We really respect Dan here. He's going places. The Monday pod, no, there is no podcaster we love All right, we really respect Dan here. Going places. The Monday pod, there is no podcaster we love more on the Monday pod than Thursday Dan. Some of my best opinions are Thursday Dan opinions. Remixed with some jokes.

Remixed with a joke. Yeah. What about something like Trump's smash and grab? He's trying to do to democracy what that gang did to the Nordstroms at the Grove. No.

Oh my God. They'll do it. Let's see what the only party interested in democratic governance is up to. The world's two most powerful Joes chatted on the phone Monday about what it will take for Biden to get Manchin's vote on his Build Back Better bill. The senator's office released a statement saying the conversation was, quote, productive and that the two will keep talking. But that's all we got for now at the time of recording. Manchin has a list of incredibly annoying concerns about the legislation, as he does.

Manchin has a list of incredibly annoying concerns about the legislation, as he does, but his biggest is the cost, because even though the bill only funds most programs for a few years, Manchin for some reason believes that a future Congress and future president will extend the programs, and for some reason asked Lindsey Graham to get a score from the Congressional Budget Office for how much that would cost. Here's what happened. And you know why I wrote a letter to CBO? Because Joe Manchin came to me and he said, I think this bill is full of gimmicks, that these programs won't go away, Lindsey. And if you score them for 10 years, I think the bill will double. Well, it didn't double. It was almost two and a half times. So I hope that this will be a showstopper for Build Back Better. Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Lindsey. Appreciate all of your help and all of your hard work. So the CBO did this score of an imaginary bill that doesn't exist, and they found it adds a whole bunch of money to the deficit because when they put the current real bill together, they only paid for the programs that were in the bill for the years that they decided to extend those programs to, which were not 10 years. Come on, Joe. You know we don't like it when you hang around with that bad crowd. You spend too much time with Lindsey Graham, next thing you know, you're cutting spending and fucking ****.

Jesus Christ. I think, cut that. Anyway, I don't know what you just heard but uh what's the democrats argument as to why the bill doesn't include what mansion has called gimmicks john question parliamentary inquiry yes um senator from massachusetts shouldn't joe mansion know better than almost anyone that it doesn't look likely that the democrats will be able to extend all of these programs for a decade? Because odds are they're going to get fucking wiped out in the midterms because Joe is pissing away time and making us look like idiots. Or, Tommy, I'll give you the most hopeful scenario. Okay.

That the Democrats hold on to the House and hold on to the senate and joe biden is president and then guess who has a say as to whether the programs get extended without being paid for joe mansion joe mansion also joe mansion has a say we could just raise taxes on rich people that's uh that's another thing that we could do he's for raise taxes for i know that kirsten cinema has a fucking problem with it but whatever there's always more fucking but it's not his problem it's not when he has to pay for they're just sometimes he's like an observer of politics and it's like he's not he has no agency in his own mind yeah the gimmicks thing is is is really wild to me because i just don't under i for the exactly the point that you raised on me and also in even an event of democratic control joe mansion can stop this so i don't

understand it stop being fucking coy man all right you don't want you you don't just want it to be a deficit neutral you want it to be deficit neutral without some of these ways of sun setting or having them come in uh uh later to kind of reduce the cost over 10 years fine fine that's what you want how about tell people yeah for this meeting or maybe you have or maybe you haven't pushed hard enough he's definitely said it a bunch of times. He does the things where he like he like mumbles it to reporters in the hallway. Like, I'm sad about the program.

Just like if that's a deal breaker for you. Great. Why are we why is it coming out through a press statement after your call with Joe Biden? Now we've been doing this for months. Those gimmicks have been there for enough. A lot of Democrats who are more progressive don't like these gimmicks. They would like some. There's a real genuine debate over whether or not it should just be three programs fully

funded, built to last and made exactly how Democrats would like them versus having more programs that maybe have sunsets or provisions that make them less generous. Fine. Have that debate. But wrap it up here. Well, Jonathan Chait wrote a piece about all this where he basically said, like we did, you know, Joe Manchin's concerns, the way he lays them out are unreasonable. But like you said, love it.

A lot of Democrats have said, OK, one of the programs here is universal pre-K. And it's not really going to be universal because 40 percent of states that are controlled by Republicans are going to say, fuck, no, we don't want the funds for universal pre-K because they're awful people. Much like they did with the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Why would we want children to learn? Why would we want children to learn? Why would we want poor people to have health care? That's exactly – that's their stance on that. So as opposed to this program that's going to sunset after four years, it's going to go away after four years, and it's not going to go to everyone that it should go to, why not fully fund for 10 years the child tax credit that's –

Which is about to expire. Which is about to expire at the end of this year that could, you know, reduce child poverty in half. Why not? And then if the one one exception to all this, by the way, is the climate provisions are funded for 10 years. That's, I think, one of the only provisions that are everything else is going to be or most other programs are four years. So there is look, if the if the result of this is that Democrats pick three or four programs to fully fund for 10 years and even if republicans take over we have these really important programs that help people that are that last for 10 years then you know maybe that's a good thing but i don't know that that's i don't know if that's the chess that mansion's playing well it's it's just so like there's never been like a red like he keeps drawing he draws these sort of soft red lines all the time

like obama yeah exactly here you go trying to lead from behind and uh it wasn't even a He keeps drawing. He draws these sort of soft red lines all the time. Like Obama? Yeah, exactly. There you go. Trying to lead from behind. It wasn't even a joke attached to lead from behind. You can just say it. Yeah, it's just a different thing that triggers me. It's a joke in itself. I almost said it when I was kind of hoping that Ben would be on the losing team for that game we played at one year so that I could say he was leading from behind.

That would have been great. But there's too much space between when I was next on the stage. How important is it to get this thing passed by the end of the year? Chuck Schumer, on Monday,

reiterated again, we're going to get this thing done by Christmas. That guy is hopeful, huh? In some sense, I guess it's not important. You could pass it next year. In another sense,

it's hard to not feel like this thing is slowly dying. Death by a thousand Joe Manchin press avails. Sooner the better. And no one's making a good case for it. Progressives are angry. It doesn't do enough. Moderates are scared because that's how they roll. Blue state Democrats are talking about salt deductions because that's what they're focused on. The country is focused on inflation. I mean, so it doesn't feel good to let it languish. No, I think sooner is better.

The State of the Union is the last step. If it's not done by the State of the Union, we're absolutely fucked. Optimistic case. Gas prices are going down. Supply chain disruptions

are lessening. Omicron disappears. Omicron, never heard of it. Don't even know what you're talking about. What are you... We all warm ourselves all winter by burning masks

for a better place in February. Pass passes sucker immediately well that's very optimistic you agree the the the state of the union is the is the deadline yeah he could that's true that's good or the state of the union is his you know he's got a national audience and he you know really really sticks it to the to congress during the state of the union meaning joe manchin comes up and delivers it yeah they won't he might as well yeah might as well sit behind him just say president look he i wonder what other opportunities he has to speak to the country but speaking to the country at the state of the union it is his last chance in 2022 barring oval office addresses to really make a case for his successful agenda now would i like him to use that speech to make his case for voting rights legislation and have already gotten billed back better past? Yes, that would be sure. That would be ideal. But I understand that barring that, love it. That's the best way to use it. Before we move on to our special segment on the future of Roe v. Wade, we did want to do a quick check in on the biggest live tour of the year. Something to think about for your last minute holiday shopping. A night with Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly.

Look out, BTS. they're coming for you on saturday night the disgraced former president and disgraced former fox news personality launched their tour where else but florida where the sun sentinel reported that quote many seats remained empty in the cavernous arena and quote the top level was closed off with ticket holders up there upgraded to the lower bowl uh here's some of what these lucky MAGA fans heard. The ones I did the best with were the tyrants. And they all say, oh, he loves tyrants. He wants to be a tyrant now. I just, for whatever reason, I got along great with Putin. I got along great with President Xi of China. I got along great with Kim Jong-un

of North Korea. And isn't that good? Isn't that better than having a nuclear war? I did. I got along great with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. And isn't that good? Isn't that better than having a nuclear war? I did. I got along great with him. I liked him. He liked me. He wrote me beautiful letters. He wrote me beautiful letters.

I called them love letters. What about it, Worldo? Isn't that better than having a war? Yeah, sure. Sure, Don. Sure, it's better. That sounds like a good time. No?

Wouldn't you want to get a ticket to that? Those two? A night with Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly. She said screaming. Remember that Politico reported that Trump and O'Reilly were having a hard time selling tickets to this event? And O'Reilly said the following to the Politico reporter. You put one word in there that's not true, I'll sue your ass off. You can quote me on that. You're just a hatchet man. And that's what you are. And then it was half empty. Even more alarming in the Sunset North Port of

this from the event, when Trump suggested that new libel laws would help bring in the media, O'Reilly replied, quote, that's better than my solution, which is a machine gun. Yeah. Yeah. That was in the same uh edition of politico playbook where they suggested that kamala harris was sort of uncouth for criticizing her own press coverage sort of adjacent to the machine gun quote how long do you think very similar very similar how long do you think until trump blames the lack of attendance fully on o'reilly and does so publicly oh i didn't didn't think about that. That's a good plot twist. I did it as a favor for Bill.

I shouldn't have done it. You know, he doesn't have the same juice that he had. You know, he had all this. Not that I, that guy got fired. I don't remember what happened. Maybe it was unfair. Maybe it was unfair, but it happened. It happened.

It was, maybe it was unfair. They say it was unfair. Some people say it wasn't unfair. I don't know. I'm too nice. He got a falafel and a loofah confused. Google that one. If you don't know, here's a new theory.

Uh, O'Reilly is a big war on Christmas guy. So he's just going out on the road to kind of gather up the troops together for one last run at the king. Santa. Do we read anything into the small crowd size? Or is this just fun to talk about? I think it's early. Trump says he's going to run for president again. He's going to start filling the...

He's just going to start filling the... You never hear a stump speech. The reason he had to overturn democracy is he's not a nationally popular figure. He has a very dedicated minority of voters. That's why you overturn democracy. That is true. You don't do it because you're popular.

He's not popular. That is his big problem. So after you get your tickets to Lovett's show in San Francisco, get your tickets to the O'Reilly Trump show show tell us which one's better my understanding is that there are hundreds of tickets still available not for my joke love it sold out love it sold out talking about bill o'reilly and trump i'm talking about the main event not the undercard i'm as surprised to be here as you are i fire my agents let's go just wandered out there what the

fuck on friday the supreme court refused to block a law in texas that bans most abortions after about six weeks and allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Texas resident obtain an illegal abortion. The court is also considering a case in Mississippi that seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks, but could result in the court effectively striking down Roe v. Wade. We wanted to better understand how abortion rights in the U.S. have eroded to this point and how the law in Texas is already rippling through communities. So we sat down with people on the front lines of this fight to find out. Take a listen.

Look, I mean, there's no question. Roe is hanging on by a thread right now. We've seen over the last year alone, 600 new restrictions introduced in state legislatures, 90 of them bans have been enacted. And, you know, in addition to Mississippi, we have a very problematic ban that was signed into law in Texas, SB8. That's Alexis McGill-Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She's one of several people I spoke to this year about the fragile status of abortion rights under the most

right-wing Supreme Court of our lifetimes. How did we get to this point? Is this a story all about the right prioritizing the judiciary, or is there more to it? It's a story about the right prioritizing power building in the states, the impact of the 2010 elections on what happened not just to our Congress, but also to state legislative houses across the country. Republicans have been trying to cripple Roe ever since it passed almost 50 years ago. But 2010 was a watershed moment. Republicans won 54 state legislative chambers around the country. And then state lawmakers passed a bunch of restrictions on abortion providers and abortion access.

They also redrew electoral maps so that they could more easily stay in power. The gerrymandering that ensued has essentially been a power grab that has allowed a very small, a power grab that has allowed a very small vocal minority who opposes access to abortion, who also oppose access to voting rights, to trans care and other things, to hold these levers of power. And I think what's really important to understand is 80% of Americans believe that Roe should be the law land. The reality that I see on the ground when I hear from people who are seeking abortions is that they're confused about which laws are in effect and which ones are not. Renee Bracey Sherman is an abortion activist and the founder of We Testify, an organization focused on elevating the voices of people who have abortions. And that was the goal of the anti-abortion movement to begin with. They have said time and time again that their goal is to make abortion unthinkable.

So they're getting to that point where they've created this labyrinth and confusing maze of restrictions where people don't even think that they can get an abortion. So they just try to figure out, what else do I do? The law was initially quite clear in 1973, right after Roe v. Wade was passed. But a few years later, Congress passed a law called the Hyde Amendment. Which meant that people who are on Medicaid aren't actually able to use their health insurance to pay for an abortion, with the exception of some very narrow situations, right? We've actually just seen cracks in access ever since. The cracks really gave way last year when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died

and was replaced with Amy Coney Barrett, moving the court's conservative majority very far to the right. The state of Mississippi then filed a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Opening arguments in that case were heard earlier this month, and we likely won't get a verdict until June. But if the justices side with Mississippi and refuse to protect federal abortion rights, we'll first look to Congress and then to state houses across the country to keep abortion legal at the state level. And that's unlikely to happen given Republican control of so many state houses and a divided Congress.

Again, Alexis McGill-Johnson from Planned Parenthood. It means that 25 million women will be living in roughly 26 states where they won't have access to an abortion provider. It means they will have to get in cars, planes, trains, unobiles, because, you know, what's not going to happen is people not seeking access. What's going to happen is people will be traveling stream lengths to get access to safe abortion. Going out of state can be really difficult for a lot of people. Odile Shalit runs the Bridget Alliance, which was started out of the need to help people travel long distances to seek reproductive care. So, I mean, the Bridget Alliance was founded through the recognition that travel is and is now becoming one of the largest barriers to access and specifically to abortion access.

We have to date, I believe, helped people travel from about 42 different states. And I think an average of 1,000 miles. Our clients are mostly folks who are working to make ends meet. They are young people. They're people who live in rural communities. They are Black. They are Indigenous. And they are people of color. They're parents of one or more children.

They range in age from anywhere from 11 years old to 49 years old. From the time that we connect with a client to the time that they're supposed to travel and leave their home, many different things can occur. Their funding for their procedure may not come through. Their escort may change their mind and decide not to travel with them. Their parent or friend who said they were going to provide child care may change their mind. change their mind. A winter storm may come through, making it impossible to drive, and especially because the brakes aren't working well on their car. And some states require patients to make multiple visits over several days before they can get care. It was like ridiculous to me that I had to jump through like three days of hoops and stress and misinformation for a procedure that took like 10 to 15 minutes.

Stephanie Gomez lives in Texas, which has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws on the books. She had an abortion several years ago. I was within an hour and a half of the clinic as opposed to other people in Texas that don't have a clinic within 500 miles of them. Once I got to the clinic, there were still a couple of barriers. Like, I did not know that I was going to have to make multiple trips to the clinic, which threw another wrench in it because I have to skip school again and figure out how my mom is not going to find that out. I have to figure out transportation again. Stephanie says it was ultimately a choice that put her on the right path. I definitely wouldn't be where I am now.

Like, I wouldn't have been able to get, like, mental help. Help, I would not have been able to leave that relationship. I wouldn't be, like, working my dream job. And I wouldn't, you know, I think I wouldn't be like who I am right now. And I don't think that I would have this sense of self. And, you know, I talk about the first time I got an abortion was really the first time that I stood up to these systems that try to tell me who I should be, right? Like back then as a young Latinx woman and, you know, still people try to tell me how I should feel about my abortion.

And like, oh, you shouldn't be so loud about it. You shouldn't be so happy. And I'm like, no, it was a moment of empowerment. And it was a moment of me saying, like, you know, I don't know if I can cuss, but like, fuck all y'all. Like you don't. It was the first time that I like Steph Gomez made a decision for Steph Gomez. Like Mississippi, Stephanie's home state of Texas has also sought to test the Supreme Court. The legislature passed a law over the summer called SB-8, which banned abortions after six weeks. That's often before people know they're pregnant.

The law also incentivized private citizens to turn in people who seek out an abortion, creating a bounty system with a $10,000 reward. Patients are just numb, and they're just shut down. That's Amy Hagstrom Miller. Her team at Whole Women's Health Clinics in Texas was helping patients up until 11.56 p.m. on August 31st, minutes before SB8 went into effect. She's seen firsthand how SB8 has affected both patients and staff alike.

Even though they heard about SB8 on the news and they learned about it from our website and they hear about it again on the phone and they hear about it when they check in, by the time they actually get the news that they might be too far into the pregnancy for an abortion in Texas, they're devastated. It's almost like they're experiencing it, almost like they're sentenced to be forced to continue pregnancy. SB8 went into effect on September 1st, forcing people to scramble before the deadline. KT Volkova told us about their experience trying to get an abortion in time. Like literally days before SB8 went into effect, I found out that I was pregnant.

And I already knew like all the clinics in Texas were fully booked up until September 1st. And I did like the math and I definitely was like on that cusp of like five to six weeks. So definitely time was like really of the essence. And I knew that like if I had to wait like past September 1st to get an appointment, I probably wouldn't have been able to get an abortion in-state and I'd have to travel elsewhere. KT also volunteers with an abortion fund in Texas, so they've been pretty familiar with abortion restrictions for a while now. Still, KT says that SB8 feels inconceivable. There's like constant battles that we're having to face. And it's like, I understand that a lot of people call everybody in Texas right now resilient, but we shouldn't have to be resilient.

This literally should not be happening. And I never thought in my lifetime I would see or have to deal with or live in something like this. or like live in something like this. Amy says the law has also led to more threats and intimidation against her staff. The opposition likes that people are confused, likes that people are scared, is sort of preying upon that environment, you know, of threats of lawsuits or actual lawsuits

in order to really bring the care environment and the service community to a stop. You know, we've gone through this process of like, who's going to back us up? Amy Hagstrom Miller actually has experience defending abortion rights at the Supreme Court after her clinics won the Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt case in 2016. But things are different today than they were back then. This Mississippi case is not going in front of the same court that the Whole Woman's Health case went in front of in 2016. Our court is completely different than it was then, and that was very much by design by the former president.

And I think the national attention, I hope, is really putting this court under a microscope. Vice President Kamala Harris invited Amy to the White House after Texas passed their six-week ban. It's my understanding it's the first time in 25 years that an abortion provider has been invited to the White House. But I do think it's important for us to remember that the majority of people aren't represented by this current Supreme Court.

And that there's three bodies of government, the executive branch and the congressional branch, for a reason. And if we can't get relief from the courts, we need to look at Congress and we need to look at the executive branch. And so I'm encouraged by her making that statement. I asked Alexis McGill-Johnson what the White House can and should do about it. I think that the bully pulpit, right, is one of the main levers the White House has. And so to see the administration speak more clearly about the need to codify Roe, to speak more clearly and explicitly about the impact of not having abortion access,

who it will impact, you know, is largely going to be BIPOC communities, low income communities in the South and the Midwest. And to help normalize, right, the experience, right, one in four women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Some Democratic politicians and strategists in certain states and communities have traditionally seen abortion rights as a politically challenging issue. You mentioned sort of where the public is on this, that it is there's no state where there's not a majority of citizens who support abortion access. What's the most effective messaging for Democrats and more conservative states and districts who do want to stand up for abortion rights, but maybe a little skittish? Look, I think the first thing I do is actually

point them to the impact of, let's say, the Women's March in 2016 on the 2018 midterm elections where we got the first pro-choice majority house ever, like the energy of support that came there. We saw abortion take place front and center in Kentucky and Virginia in 2019. We also were able to deliver state houses and governors in those races precisely because we were having pro-active conversations around why legislators shouldn't be making this decision for women, right? That we actually, if you trust women to make these decisions, you trust them to actually control their bodies, that that actually is also a selling point. And I look at 2020 and I talk about Senator Peters, right? Gary Peters in Michigan, who was neck and neck, if not behind in his race before he told his family's abortion story and a later term abortion story. And the number of supporters that he reached after doing that, the donations that came in because people really connected to the, you know, the personal being the political. There's nothing more beautiful than when someone says, I had an abortion,

and that person listening gives them a hug or says, I had an abortion too. Again, Renee Bracey Sherman. That connection allows people to realize how common it is and get the support that they need. And it's just beautiful and magical. So I hope that anyone listening who's had an abortion and wants to share their story, like talk about it, talk about it with your loved ones. You'll be surprised to hear how many stories you receive back. Odile Shalit also told me about the power of talking about abortion and how it can lead to meaningful change. You can also talk about us.

Please, if you listen to this podcast, go share it with five other people. Invite it into your dinner table conversation. Believe me, I am like, somehow my friends still love me and invite me to dinner parties. I am that person who comes in and I talk about this. And they're grateful for it too. And we've expanded our dialogue. So I ask that folks talk about it, share this. And if you have fears about this or discomfort around abortion,

around abortion later in pregnancy, talk about that too. And these conversations will help you and will help all of us. As we stare down the biggest threat ever to Roe v. Wade, activists like Renee and Odile are preparing for the future of limited abortion access. Should the Supreme Court decide to gut abortion access, I hope that everyone will know the phone number to their local abortion fund.

I hope that everyone will know the phone number to their local abortion fund. I hope that everyone will know the phone number and look up the Repro Legal Defense Fund. It's housed over at our friends at If, When, How. Because the thing is, is that it's not just people who have abortions. It's going to be people who maybe experience pregnancy complications, have miscarriages too. Any one of us can be caught up in the criminalization of pregnancy and the criminalization of abortion. How are we going to do this when the number of people who need our support explodes? I'm hopeful that Bridget Alliance and our partners are going to get the support that we need, the donations that we need to continue to provide our care and to grow our services.

Because I really believe in the strength of this community and how much we've been holding already. But I would be remiss in not stating that this community has been holding so much for so long. And largely by unpaid volunteers. And I hope that Bridget and others are able to continue to get that support so we can continue to be here.

So this service, this community that we operate within can work. It can, at least for now, fill the gap that exists here between someone and their right to an abortion. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, the Bridget Alliance will still be here to help our clients. You can find abortion funds and organizations at www.abortionfunds.org. Special thanks to Renee Bracey Sherman, Alexis McGill-Johnson, Stephanie Gomez,

Amy Hagstrom Miller, Katie Volkova, and Odile Shalit for sitting down with us. And to Flavia Casas, Olivia Martinez and Andrew Chadwick, who created this audio story. All right. Thanks, everyone. We'll talk to you on Thursday. Have a good one. All right. Thanks, everyone. We'll talk is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somanator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Madison Holman, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.