Pod Save America - “More fucked than we think.”

Episode Date: June 1, 2017

As Trump prepares to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, Jon and Dan talk about the consequences with one of the deal’s chief negotiators, Brian Deese. Then, they break down the politics of the decision, catch up on the latest Russia developments, and talk with Ana Marie Cox about Trump’s decision to rollback birth control coverage under Obamacare.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On the pod today, to help us usher in the end of the planet, former senior advisor to President Obama and one of the chief negotiators of the Paris Climate Agreement, Brian Deese. We're also going to be talking to the host of With Friends Like These, Ana Marie Cox. A couple housekeeping things. You should go listen to Pod Save the World this week. Tommy talked to former Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns about all kinds of things around the world, but also some of the fact that Trump has not staffed his State Department at all and what that means for diplomacy. It's a good episode.

Love It or Leave It is going to be live in Washington, D.C. The swamp. Love It goes to the swamp. Love It goes to the swamp. So that should be exciting. I think it's sold out. It's sold out. Obviously.

He's doing two shows. He's doing a show on Monday, too, that I think is going to air the following Friday. So that'll be good. So Love It won't be coming to do ads today. But maybe we'll get Tommy here. Senators and members of Congress are still holding events. Many are hiding from their events. But if you go to resistance near me dot org, it's a great Web site to tell you all the different kinds of events that are happening within your zip code. To of note, Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa, for all you Iowans out there, 845 a.m. tomorrow. He's holding a town hall in Iowa. So you can check that out. 8.45 a.m. tomorrow, he's holding a town hall in Iowa, so you can check that out.

I don't expect Chuck Grassley really to be a swing vote on health care, but it would be fun to yell at him for sure. Did anyone ever think Chuck Grassley would be a swing vote on health care? Oh, wait. Yes, we did in 2009. We did. Yeah, exactly. That's very true. That was a mistake. We waited for Chuck Grassley for a little bit because we thought maybe he would have some sense. And guess who's having a town hall this Saturday at 9 a.m., Dan? It's San Juan Hills High School in Capistrano.

Darrell Issa. Is he coming down off the roof? That was a reference. I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there is a picture of Daryl Issa on the roof of his office building. Now, I dug into this a little bit because I couldn't even believe that it was true. Daryl Issa says he was up there to take pictures of all of his constituents down below that he had just shook hands with. I like to believe that, of course, he was hiding from his constituents, as would we all. But look, we're fair here on Crooked Media. We're very fair to Daryl Issa. So if that was the case...

And if we are, I want to talk about it. I don't want to be spreading fake news, right? So that's what it is. But anyway, more importantly, if you are in the region, you should go to the town hall at 9 a.m. Look, we've been wanting to go to some of these ourselves, but we are not constituents of Daryl Issa, and that would be wrong. We don't want to be paid Soros protesters, so we stay away from these events. I don't want to continue the sort of online campaign to get you to run for office, but in a long discussion in my household this weekend over our prospects for taking back the house, Howley did ask me if you would have any interest in moving into Daryl Issa's district.

I do not think I'm moving to Orange County. Well, you know what? I said Orange County last time, and someone got annoyed at me. He only represents a piece of Orange County. It's even further south than that. So, yeah, no, I don't think I'm going to move down there. My representative is Adam Schiff, so we are a district crowded with Democrats, and I'm a podcast host, so I'm good for now.

Are you sure? Because I've often thought of you as a cast member of the OC. It's really nice down there, I will say, having spent some time in Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel. It's pretty. Everyone should go visit. Okay, when we come back, we will be talking to Brian Deese about the Paris Agreement. This is Pod Save America. Stick around. There's more great show coming your way. On the pod with us today, we have former senior advisor to Barack Obama and one of the primary negotiators of the Paris Climate Agreement, friend of the pod, Brian Deese. Brian, how are you? I am good. I'm good. We first met

when both of us were in our early 20s on the Kerry campaign, and I was a deputy speechwriter, and you were Gene Sperling's protege. Remember that? I was working in an office with no windows, if I remember correctly. You were. And then all those years later, now you're negotiating international climate agreements that Donald Trump might kill. And still Gene Sperling's protege. Okay, so at 3 p.m eastern on this thursday afternoon which is probably right around when all of you might be listening to this podcast for the first time um trump is expected to announce that he's pulling the united states out of the paris climate agreement which every nation around

the world has signed on to except nicaragua and syria even kim Jong-un has decided to be a team player on this one. So we're going to get into the politics of this, but first we wanted to talk to you, Brian, about the substance of the agreement and what it means and the stakes, especially since you were so intimately involved. So let's start. Just tell us what the Paris Agreement does and why it's so historic. Why does it matter so much?

Sure. And the first thing is, I don't want to be fair to Nicaragua. The reason why they didn't join the agreement was because they didn't think it was actually strong enough. They want to do more on climate change. So it's really just us and the Syrians together in the same boat. So look, the Paris Agreement in some ways is a very modest agreement. What it basically says is every country around the world develops their own climate targets and their own climate plan, and they put forward that plan. And then they commit to working as part of a global process to submit that plan to independent review and verification. And then they'll update that plan over time.

So in one sense, that's very modest. It's not a global supranational government. It doesn't say every country has to reduce their emissions by any particular amount. But on the other hand, it's truly historic because it is the first time in the history of the planet that every country actually came together, got over the sort of existential fights about who is responsible for climate change and who should bear the burden and said, you know what, we're all going to do what we can and we're going to work together to try to get it done. How difficult was it to negotiate the

agreement? Well, you guys will remember the at the beginning of the obama's tration was uh... was noted by an absolute failure of a climate conference back in two thousand nine in copenhagen everything seemed to fall apart and what that exposed was that there was a really giant rift in the world between developing countries on one side uh... that said you know, we didn't cause this climate problem. We don't need to do anything about it. And rich countries like the United States on the

other side saying, politically, everybody has to be together. And overcoming that basic disagreement was incredibly complicated. And it required several years of quiet, patient work that led in 2014 to a historic announcement between the U.S. and China, which sort of broke that developing-developed-country dichotomy. And then from there, it was just an all-out sprint of about a year to try to get every country on board. And it was like herding cats, but the one good thing is that as a result of that whole process, we really have turned a corner. And that's why you see every other country in the world saying, we're going to move forward on this.

Deese, what happens to the agreement if the United States pulls out? I mean, it's one of, obviously, the largest, most powerful countries in the world with one of the largest economies. If we're not in, does the whole thing stand still or what? So technically, the agreement continues to go forward. And we see today, almost in a way of trolling Donald Trump, you see the EU and China are putting out statements recommitting to the Paris Agreement. And so the agreement itself continues to go forward. of the Paris Agreement. And so the agreement itself continues to go forward. All the parties who are in the agreement will continue to be subject to its requirements. And actually,

the agreement has a withdrawal provision that says any country that wants to withdraw can only do so after three years. So in fact, what I anticipate will happen today is President Trump will say that he's intending to pull out of the agreement. But even the United States, that will be a process that will take several years. So this thing's still going forward. The Paris Agreement is going forward. And the real question is, you know, what's going to happen with the U.S. sitting on the sidelines when all these other countries are writing the rules going forward. Will that create some sort of incentive for China, India, Brazil, the countries who were

problematic in the Copenhagen Agreement, to do something different? Or have they just decided that the only path forward here is cleaner, more sustainable energy? Well, first of all, I think this is handing a huge, a huge gimme to the Chinese, because the one thing that they will do, and they've already signaled they'll do, is they will claim the mantle of China is the global leader on climate change. And this will play right into their narrative that China is the ascendant global superpower and that the United States is a nation in decline. So they will take every opportunity to use climate change to reinforce that basic narrative. I think that economically and politically, those countries

are committed to moving forward toward cleaner energy. But I think within the context of the negotiations themselves, what you'll see is those countries looking to try to build out the rules in ways that advantage their countries and disadvantage the United States. And, you know, we dealt with this all the time in the negotiations where countries would seek to, you know, put seemingly technical provisions in the agreement that would actually handicap the United States or hurt U.S. business interests, and we fought against that tooth and nail. And one of the ironies of the U.S. pulling out is that our team will no longer be at that table, and that will create more opportunity for those countries to put those kinds of provisions in.

So one of the criticisms from the right about the Paris Agreement as it was being negotiated or right after it was negotiated is, you know, United States shouldn't sign on to this because China and India and these developing nations that are emitting a lot of fossil fuels or using a lot of fossil fuels, they're not going to really make progress towards this. That they're going to continue on the path to dirty energy, and we're going to be the only ones that have to change. Now that we're a year or so past the actual agreement, do you see countries like China and India making progress? Are they making progress towards their goals? The pace of progress over the last 18 months or two years in global energy markets has been breathtaking. I mean, Dan, you'll remember in early 2015, when we decided that President Obama would go, we actually moved the State of the

Union so that President Obama could go to India to see Prime Minister Modi in January of 2015. India to see Prime Minister Modi in January of 2015. At that point, the Indians committed to hitting a goal of 100 gigawatts of solar, which, you know, without getting into gigawatts is a lot of solar. And at the time, everyone said that's crazy. It's a fantasy. It's a pipe dream. We're now a little over two years into that process. India has 15 gigawatts of solar installed there in the pipeline, and the Indian solar market is just totally taking off. And in practice, solar is actually cheaper than building new coal-fired power plants. So you're seeing the Indian government announce that they're putting aside the plans that they had to build new coal plants. So this is happening in practice.

The pace of change is happening really quickly. And what that means is that it turns the traditional conservative argument on its head. Actually, India and China, these other countries, are looking for opportunities to gain advantage in cleaner energy sectors because they see that as an economic opportunity for them. So to what extent can cities and states pick up the slack on their own? I know as many of them already are, if Trump withdraws from the agreement. Well, look, this is a place where I'm pretty optimistic. You start from the premise, you take just California and New York, together they represent the fourth largest economy in the world. And they're both being led by governors and administrations that have said they're not only going to keep their

climate targets, but they're going to increase them. That's happening across the country in states that have Republican governors as well as Democratic governors. And the truth is, a lot of the actual policy associated with energy sector regulation happens at the state level. So that's meaningful. And so when you combine that with the fact that virtually every company in the United States, including, you know, in the fossil fuel industry, Exxon, for Christ's sake, is making, you know, at least talking the talk about moving toward cleaner energy, then you can see a scenario over the next couple of years where the U.S. continues to make progress, and we continue to see our carbon emissions coming down. I think the bigger challenge is when we get into the 2020s,

you really do need federal regulation to try to drive that, continue to drive that curve downward. Let's talk a little bit about the federal regulation, because even before today, Trump and his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, have taken a number of steps to try to undo a lot of the Obama-era regulations around energy and climate. What actions have they taken that worry you the most since Trump took office? Well, a lot of things they've done have been a lot of hot rhetoric. And then you unpack them, and there just isn't a lot of there there.

So even, you know, taking the Clean Power Plan and that, you guys remember that, you know, ham-handed press conference at the EPA with the coal miners? Oh, yeah. The administration still hasn't actually said what they intend to do with the Clean Power Plan, and they are really boxed in legally in terms of the options that they have. And utility executives are continuing to retire coal plants and invest in cleaner sources of energy because they have a long view and they're thinking past this administration. The thing that worries me the most about what this administration has done and is doing,

frankly, is the dismantling of the capacity of our agencies, particularly the EPA, to enforce local clean air and clean water regulations. Because a lot of what the EPA does is not about climate change. It's about protecting the air and the water that our kids breathe and drink. And we've seen, you know, the EPA doesn't always get that right. Think about Flint. But the idea that the right answer to that is to just, you know, decimate the agency and get rid of all that capacity at the local level. Yeah, I think that exposes communities across the country to a lot of, like, tangible here and now risk that, you know, people are going to get hurt as a result.

Brian, just to sort of take a step back to the state of the planet, generally, you know, it seems like Trump pulls out of Paris, it's a three year deal, if we are lucky enough in the White House, the US gets back in, California, New York can do some things to mitigate the damage here. But how much of these four and maybe eight years of, at best, treading water and probably going backwards on climate, is that going to matter? How fucked are we? Yeah, exactly. Look, I think we're more fucked than we think we are. Great.

Because what we've seen is that there's a bunch of data out there about how much the global temperatures have gone up. We had to update that statistic in the State of the Union every year about 10 of the last 11 years, the hottest on record, 11 of the last 12, etc. But the thing that worries me the most is if you look at the activity at the poles, in the North Pole and the South Pole, what you see is that things are accelerating a lot faster than they are on the rest of the planet. So warming at the poles is happening at roughly twice the rate that it is happening elsewhere. And you see things like, you know, in the Antarctic,

there's a piece of the Larson ice shelf that is calving and that is suspected to break off in the near future. And this is like a giant piece. I think that, you know, it's like, like the size of Delaware. And so when things like that start to happen, there aren't that many fixed structures on the planet. You know, there aren't that many of them left. And when we start to break those things, we get to a point where, you know, President Obama used to say, and he used to say publicly and privately, that this issue is unique because there is such a thing as being too late. And, you know, I think we're

racing toward that moment. So, you know, on the one hand, I think the path that you just described, Dan, is absolutely right. And we can mitigate the damage over the next couple of years. On the other hand, the one thing we don't have in the fight against climate change is time. So, you know, I think the stakes are pretty high. All right. Thanks, Trump. One more non-climate question for you, since before you were a senior advisor in handling the climate portfolio, you were the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, known as the OMB. New OM director mick mulvaney yesterday basically said that uh this the days of the cbo have probably come and gone and that the person in charge of uh the cbo health care modeling is a hillary care alum planted by the dems uh mulvaney also basically

said uh we'll never uh we'll never default on our debt and has flirted with attaching spending cuts to the debt ceiling increase. What are your thoughts as you watch Mick Mulvaney sort of at the head of OMB, having been there and dealt with this yourself? And can you talk a little bit about the relationship between the OMB and the CBO and the importance of the CBO, since we throw those acronyms around a lot. But I just want to make sure everyone understands how important these organizations are. Sure. Well, I'd say at the outset, there has never been a clearer argument

for why having the CBO matters than this sort of insane diatribe from Mulvaney. The CBO is the, you know, congressional scorekeeper, and it operates at the behest of Congress. OMB, Office of Management and Budget, is the executive branch, so the president's budget office and the president's scorekeeper. And, you know, they've operated, there is always a bit of constructive tension between the executive and legislative branch, and that plays out

in the context of budget scoring as well. But on the other hand, both OMB and CBO are populated by career officials who are extraordinary professionals and who understand and respect their respective roles in the process. And as a result, there's an extraordinary amount of value in having both of them in the system. But the idea that, first of all, the current CBO director was handpicked by the current Donald Trump HHS secretary. So the idea that he's somehow a Democratic plant is ridiculous. And second of all, the whole point of having an independent arbiter around budget issues is so that any particular partisan group can't, you know, distort the process for their own advantage. So, you know, look, I think this is symptomatic of a broader problem where Mulvaney is looking across the government

budget and regulatory functions that are there to provide a check and figuring out how to undermine them. But I think this is one where anybody who sees these types of arguments should just think, you know, thank God we have a CBO, and this is why we need to maintain, you know, the degree of independence that it has in the system. Never thought I'd be saying thank God for the CBO, but here we are. You know, when I was at OMB, there were lots of times when I found engagement with CBO frustrating, but that's the system of checks and balances that we have in our government more generally. We put out a plan. We say it's going to create X amount of jobs or reduce the deficit by this.

And CBO says, man, now you guys are actually off by this or you're trying to change this. And that's why they're there. And then you go with their number and then you don't sort of tell them, you don't say that they were just making it up. Oh, God.

Anyway, Dees, thank you so much for joining us and I guess scaring us, but also reassuring us that, you know, there are cities and states out there that are working pretty hard to fight climate change. And hopefully those efforts continue as we try to elect a new president in the next couple of years. Well, let me leave you with one last hopeful point. Great. If he announces withdrawal, the process is three years plus an additional year. That's four years. And by just pure stroke of luck, the day that Paris went into effect was November 4, 2016,

which means that the day the United States would withdraw is November 4, 2020, which happens to be one day after the presidential election in 2020. So that should be a motivating factor for everybody. It should be. Well, great job putting that in the deal, Deuce. Brian Deuce, thank you for joining the pod and come back again soon. Thanks. Take care.

Don't go anywhere. This is Pod Save America, and there's more on the way. Don't go anywhere. This is Pod Save America, and there's more on the way. All right, so Deese gave us a readout of all the substance here. Let's talk about some of the politics of this agreement. So first of all, the latest. We don't know. It seems like all signs are pointing towards that he's going to withdraw from the agreement.

There was the usual round of, oh, Ivanka's putting so much pressure on him, and then maybe he'll change his mind like he did on NAFTA. Feels unlikely, but probably useless speculating about this now since it's already happened. Someone brought up, Dan, yesterday that there is the possibility he could just send it to the Senate, since if you send it to the Senate to have them ratify it as an actual treaty, you'd need two thirds of the Senate, which would, of course, kill it because there's a bunch of Republicans in the Senate that actually agree with Trump. So that seems unlikely. Right. Right. I mean, I'd say a couple of things. One, let's say hypothetically we recorded this podcast and then Trump surprises the world and announces he's staying in Paris. That's a high class problem, people. Delete the podcast and celebrate the planet.

Good. I like that. Good admonition. Second is, I don't think he will send it to the Senate because that, I don't know what he would get from that. He wants the credit, the quote-unquote credit for destroying the planet. He doesn't want to share that credit for destroying the planet with Mitch McConnell. So I don't see why he would not just stand there in the Rose Garden with a shit-eating grin on his face and argue that he is proudly standing up for the coal workers in West Virginia or Kentucky or wherever else. Yeah. Let's talk about why we even got to this point, right? Like why Trump had contemplated pulling out of this agreement, right? This is like just some of the reaction yesterday from

around the world and from here in the United States. I mean, you've got people from like Al Gore to Pope Francis to most of corporate America, including ExxonMobil and the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who's now Trump's secretary of state, all telling him to stay in the fucking agreement. There's this quote I saw yesterday. It's a colossal mistake, an abdication of American leadership. I can't think of anything more destructive to our credibility than this. That was Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for George W. Bush. Mitt Romney started tweeting about why we should stay in the Paris Agreement. Elon Musk finally threatened to quit the Economic Advisory Council that he was part of, along with a bunch of other CEOs, if Trump withdraws from the

agreement. So it was good to see that. Although I should note, there's a bunch of other CEOs on that council that should follow Musk out the door, including Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, Walmart CEO Doug McMillan, Bank of America's Jamie Dimon, General Motors' Mary Barra. So everyone should put pressure on all of those people if Trump withdraws and they're still sitting on that fucking sham of an economic advisory council that Trump has put together. And they've done polling on this, too. And something like 31% of the American people support withdrawal, according to a recent Washington Post poll from January from this agreement. 31%.

And that shows Republicans are split on the issue. And Democrats and independents overwhelmingly want Trump to or want the United States to stay within the agreement. So what are your thoughts on why the hell he's doing this? So what are your thoughts on why the hell he's doing this? You know, this was pointed out by Jonathan Chait. Yeah, it's the best piece on this. I think it's worth, everyone should read his piece. Jon tweeted it out earlier. Jon Favreau tweeted out Jon Chait's piece earlier to make that clear.

But the Republican Party is a collection of conflicting interests, corporate interests, white working class interests that don't like the corporate interests, libertarians, evangelical Christians who disagree with the libertarians and vice versa. The only thing that unites them is opposition to what Obama did. And so no one, it doesn't matter. This could be the Paris Accords to promote high-speed rail across Western Europe. It doesn't matter. It is the fact that it is a deal that Obama struck. that Obama struck. And therefore, the only thing that Trump can do that will unite his fractious, fucked up party is to undo the things Obama did. It's the only thing they're capable of,

the only thing they can find agreement on. And so that's what this is about. It's not even really about the planet. It's not about whether Trump actually believes that climate change is a Chinese hoax, or whether it's about helping coal miners in West Virginia. It doesn't matter. It's just that it is something that Obama did that he is going to undo. He can pat himself on the chest. He'll feel good about himself for two minutes. Then he'll go back home. He'll turn on TV. He'll see that he's still under an increasingly aggressive investigation into his collusion with Russia, and he'll tweet crazy things again. It's like a respite from the pain of his daily life as president. No, and Chay points out, and this is something that's true across the spectrum of issues now, that the Republican elite's reason for being is to piss off Democrats and liberals that they, they exist now as a party to troll liberals and to piss them off. And that's it. And I mean, it's just like they're,

they don't, you don't. And when I'm talking about Republican elites, I'm talking about the, the idiots on TV, the entertainment wing of the party that's on Fox, Republican politicians. There's a whole bunch of Republican voters out there who, you know, probably very good people and, you know, would like politicians who actually like stood up for them and help them get jobs and lift their wages and get health care and stuff like that. But the people who are running this party, which are the people who are on TV as commentators and Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress, they don't talk anymore about small government, constitutional liberties, strong defense, blah, blah, blah. All they do, all they

talk about is trying to piss off liberals and make them outraged. And that's a win for them. You know, Matt Fuller from the Huffington Post tweeted yesterday, he was like, they are basically a biker gang obsessed with winning. And that's about it. It doesn't matter there are no principles there is no policy underpinning there is nothing else they are about the accumulation of power and the annoyance of other americans well and in the in the climate issue is a perfect example of this right it's it's it because this is an issue now where you have the people who want to stay in the agreement, right, are business interests, right? Like even energy companies, even oil

companies want to stay in, right? And you've got Mitt Romney and you've got faith leaders, you've got all these people who traditionally have been part of the Republican coalition, and all of them want to stay in this agreement. So there is no one, no one can mount a substantive argument as to why we should withdraw from this agreement. And Chait goes into this in the piece. And we talked to Deese about this too, that during the negotiations, you know, people were saying, well, you know, India and China are still going to pollute. So why are we agreeing to this? And now India and China are on track to meet their targets, right? So there's no good reason to pull out of this agreement, except that it was an Obama agreement, and it's going to piss

off Democrats to pull out of it. That's it. No other substantive argument we've heard. Yeah, this is not a substantive argument, because Republicans, to a person, oh, not to a person, but of major leaders in the Republican Party and members of Congress, they claim that they raise doubt about the science of climate change. Right. And we should divide those people into two categories. There are the people, probably like Donald Trump, who are too dumb to know why that opinion is so dumb. opinion is so dumb. And then there's the rest of them, like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, the Mitch McConnell, everyone else who are too dishonest or too weak to say what they truly, they know, they know that like they read actual newspapers beyond Fox news. They know that 97% of climate

of scientists agree that climate change is happening and it's manmade, but they are afraid to say anything about it. And this I mean, climate change is the is the one issue that I really worry about, that our political system may be too broke. broke. Maybe. We should, like, I mean, it's a lot like, this is not some minor, like, there are all kinds of policy issues in Washington. And people agree that there's a problem. The economy's not doing

well. Republicans think we should give tax cuts to the wealthy. Democrats think government should spend more money. I'm simplifying these positions. But, and then we'll debate that, right? Or, healthcare costs too much, and we'll debate that right or health care costs too much and we'll debate that but this is one where republicans refuse to acknowledge the problems actually happening and it's not a minor problem it's not a temporary problem it's literally the fate of the fucking

planet and look and it's also we'll probably hear from Trump today that, you know, it's this is about protecting American jobs and coal miners and stuff like that. And that's a fucking lie, too. And it's actually a huge disservice to the coal miners in Kentucky and West Virginia and places like that because he's lying to them because those jobs aren't coming back. And if he really cared about them, he would provide health care for these people and provide training for these people and provide basic benefits to their families and try to figure out how to revitalize local communities and not pretend that fucking we're going to be a coal-fueled power for the rest of our time right and and he also is lying the fact that like the reason that these jobs are disappearing is because natural gas is cheap and not because we're trying to invest in solar power and wind energy and everything else like that so on one hand he's making up this fiction that we're doing this to like save coal jobs when he's not going to save a single fucking coal job by pulling out of the paris agreement it's a lie it's just a it's an it's a story they've invented to continue a political battle that they just love fighting. That's why they exist. When the polar ice caps melt and the seas

rise and they flood, I hope if someone sees in their lifeboat is paddling by and they see Mitch McConnell, don't stop and pick him up. Leave him there. He can fucking drown in his own bullshit. Well, it's important too that, you know, I don't want Trump to just get the, to get all of the criticism from today too. I mean, last week, 22 Republican senators sent Trump a letter to urge him to pull out of this agreement. Once again, this is not just a Trump, we are not just living through a Trump emergency. We are living through an emergency that has been created by the Republican Party in Washington, the Republican Party as it exists right now. That Republican Party, every single member of Congress that sent that letter to Trump, and every single member of Congress who voted for this piece of shit health care bill needs to be defeated. And we are not going to, getting Trump out of office is not going to fix the problems we have. All of those people need to be out of office. We need to have a new Republican Party that's based on, like, the few people,

the few Republican thinkers, commentators, politicians like Ben Sasse, people like that, who we definitely disagree with, but don't play these games. You know? It's just that we're not going to fix everything until that happens. Yeah. Let's do one caveat for fairness. Sure. Since you wanted to be so fair to Daryl Issa either, is that our party has not been perfect on this.

No. Oh, my God, no. And when we were in the White House in 2009, the House, led by Nancy Pelosi, passed a cap and trade bill which would deal with climate change and would have made this the law of the land and not something that donald trump could undo with uh a pen and his stubby little fingers a cap and trade bill which we should note is a fairly market oriented solution to this problem right it had been like let's not forget it was the mccain kennedy lieberman bill there you go

mccain decided to sell his soul to try to win the Republican nomination in 2008. Right. So this used to be, Kevin Trade used to be a fairly moderate Republican position. You know, now it's seen as some like left-wing bill. But go ahead. House, Democratic House passed it. Democratic Senate, where we had somewhere between 60 and 59 Democratic senators, depending on the month, was unable to pass it because there are regional problems here where senators like Joe Manchin from West Virginia have opposed Democratic efforts on climate because of the coal jobs in that state.

And so because of that division in our party, eight years ago, we missed an opportunity. I think the Democratic Party, with a handful of small exceptions, has reached a point of near unanimity on the urgency of the issue and the set of solutions that should be discussed as part of that. Yeah, and look, a lot of those Democratic congresspeople who took that vote for the cap and trade bill that just died in the Senate because of some Democrats who didn't want it, in the Senate, you know, because of some Democrats who didn't want it. A lot of those Democrats in the House, you know, they lost their jobs in 2010 because of that vote, because of that vote and because of the ACA vote. And so that was, you know, that was a courageous stance that some Democrats in the House took, but a not so courageous stance by a lot of Democrats in the Senate. stance by a lot of Democrats in the Senate. So do you think that Democrats can make this an issue in 2018, 2020 and beyond? Is it too hard to make climate change an issue still? Or is there too many regional differences where, you know, it just sounds like we're a bunch of tree-hugging

environmentalists? Or has the political ground shifted since then? And this is an issue we should run on. What do you think about that? I think we have to run on it. I think we should be smart about it and focus, talk about the economic benefits of doing the right thing here and how Trump is costing jobs and seeding the ground in China and all of that.

You have to make it relevant to people's lives, not just in the decades from now, whether the planet will still be there for them to live on, which is also important and should be talked about. But what it means for new quality, high-paying jobs. And they're either going to be here or they're going to be in China. And the Trump and Republican path is going to put them in China, not in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, California, wherever else. But we also have to run on it because we have to win the national debate on this. People have to care. More people care than used to care, but it's still not something that motivates people to vote. And we have to make people understand that if you care about this issue, there are two options. There are Democrats who will do things to save the planet and the

Republicans who will do things to destroy the planet in service of whatever dumb reason they have. And like that mattered, like the people, like there was some thought that there was not that big a difference on this issue in the 2016 election. And some number of voters, in some cases a larger number than the Trump's win margin in some swing states, voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. And we have real consequences here. If we're going to actually pass the laws necessary to take the steps necessary to deal with climate change. We have to convince people. And the only way to do that is in campaigns. Yeah. And I do think we have to make the whole case. I think, you know, years ago,

our party sort of took a shortcut and we would say, oh, the reason we need to invest in clean energy is because it's going to create millions and millions and millions of new jobs. Everyone's going to be installing solar panels and wind turbines and like, it's going to be great. And I actually think, I think people, a lot of people don't see that as, you know, that's, that's the answer, right? Like, I think you have to make the case that climate is an issue that affects our national security, that could improve our economy, but that also is critical to the fate of our planet, to the air that our children breathe and the water that they drink and future generations, whether they're going to survive or not, right? Like, I think you do have to make the whole case here. And you can't just be the like, oh, green jobs, everything's

going to be great, because it is a shortcut, right? And it's not the full answer, right? Like, that's not, our economy is not just going to be saved by a bunch of green jobs. Everything's going to be great because it is a shortcut. Right. And it's not it's not the full answer. Right. Like that's not our economy is not just going to be saved by a bunch of green jobs. They're certainly going to it's going to certainly going to produce a lot of jobs. But like we need to make the entire case here the honest, truthful case about why this issue matters. I think. Yeah. Clean air and clean water is is an important point. And actually in the polling that I saw back when I worked on on this issue in the White House, clean air in particular was the most relevant to people. Right, right, right. Okay, we should probably move on to Russia, to the latest on Russia. I'm just glad we didn't have to talk about it first today. But a couple breaking news items that we should chat about here.

While we were talking to Deese, I saw that James Comey will be testifying next Thursday, June 8th, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. So, you know what? We're going to have to move this podcast until after the testimony. We're not even going to play the game anymore.

Yeah, I'm for that. I support that. So anyway, so Comey's going to testify. So here's my question. If Comey testifies basically and says basically what was in the New York Times story that he, from his memos, he said that Trump basically pressured him to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn. It seems like now you have a former FBI director testifying under oath that the President of the United States intended to obstruct justice. You would think that would be enough to get some proceedings in motion in Congress,

but I don't know. Maybe not. Do you think Comey's testimony could change anything? to get some proceedings in motion in Congress. But I don't know. Maybe not. Do you think Comey's testimony could change anything? Do you think if Comey went up there and said, yes, Trump did it, Trump colluded, Trump obstructed justice, do you think anything will matter from what Comey says? This is sad, but no. This is actually the textbook case of an impeachable offense.

This is what caused Richard Nixon to leave office before being impeached, right? It is firing, it is pressuring someone to stop an investigation into the president and his associates, and then firing the person when they refuse to do that. This is what every student who took, you know, U.S. American Government 101 in college, this is what they learn as. Like, this would be an A answer to the midterm question, what's the fastest way to get impeached? It would be this. But it's not going to matter.

If James Comey walked up there, proudly reached into his pocket, found emails directly from Trump to Putin. Saying, hey, help me win this thing. Right. Thanking him for the hack. And then additional sets of emails from Jared Kushner to Putin's guy saying, please direct your Twitter bots with the Podesta emails to the third district of Wisconsin, the Philly Burbs and somewhere outside of Scranton. It wouldn't matter. trying to interpret some legal statute, right? It is that the judges are members of Congress, right? Like Congress has to judge that something was a high crime and misdemeanor. Therefore, it is always ultimately going to be a political question, right? And so the whole idea of whether

there was corrupt intent or not, which is the legal standard for whether you've obstructed justice is a bit beside the point when the people who are supposed to impeach you or not are members of Congress. And so far, this Congress has not been great on that count. Yeah. This is not an original thought, but Trump has immunity by majority. I would challenge anyone to tell me a crime that Trump could commit that would lead Paul Ryan to start impeachment proceedings against him. Raising taxes? I don't even think that. I really don't. I mean, that's our classic joke. If Trump wanted to expand Obamacare and raise taxes

on the wealthy, then no. Paul Ryan no longer even has the moral courage to stand by his one guiding principle, which is tax cuts for the wealthy. He would do whatever Trump says. A couple other things are moving on this front, too. The subpoenas are getting issued left and right here. Congress wants to talk to Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, who we all remember from the says who moment on CNN when Breonna Keillor was interviewing him and he just said says who 50,000 times. So they want, they want him subpoenaed. He's already refusing to go. They're asking for documents from Michael Flynn. He's apparently giving some documents over

and on more breaking news from NBC while we were recording this. From NBC News, the FBI and Congress are examining a campaign event last spring during which Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, and Jared Kushner were in a small gathering with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak and other diplomats at the Mayflower Hotel. So we have heard about this meeting before. And first it was possibly Kushner and Kislyak. Then it was Kushner and Sessions and Kislyak. And now there's a possibility that Trump was in that meeting, too. I mean, Jesus Christ. Yeah.

I mean, every day. The sources are five current and former U.S. officials. So this is not just Obama deep state. This is five current and former U.S. officials said they're aware of the classified intelligence. And then you add in the fact. Let's just go through a couple other things that have happened. Five current and former U.S. officials said they're aware of the classified intelligence. And then you add in the fact, let's just go through a couple other things that have happened. One, there was a report last night that, well, first, after the hacking happened, the U.S. under the Obama administration basically kicked Russians out of two compounds that are believed to be used for intel activities here in the United States. And now the Trump administration, under the leadership of Rex Tillerson, once winner of the Friend of Russia award from Vladimir Putin.

FOP, Friend of Putin. FOP is discussing returning those to Russia. And it was originally supposed to be part of a trade for the U.S. to be able to construct a new consulate in St. Petersburg. But then they just dropped the demand. So now it's just a gift. Unbelievable. Which is insane.

Even put the substance aside. Like, I don't even understand how someone would be like, you know, let's just kick this decision down the road until maybe we're not in the heat of the Russia investigation, even if you thought it was the right thing to do. Like, no group of people have ever acted more guilty than these people. But again, if your motive, if the entirety of your motive is to piss off liberals and troll them and make people outraged, you do something like this, right? Some of the stuff they do, I think they know it's politically stupid.

They know it will be seen as awful. But all they want is to rile up their base and to piss off the other side. And so they are brazen as possible and saying, sure, this was the punishment for Russians interfering in our election. Here you go. And we know we're under investigation for possible collusion with Russians. Here you go, Russia. Here you go.

I don't know. That's the only reason I can think of for doing something like that. But the thing that's so crazy about that is, I mean, this is just the enraging hypocrisy that dominates our landscape, is the main foreign policy critique of President Obama over the six years I worked in the White House was he was either too friendly to Russia when Medvedev was in charge and we tried to do. So they opposed the start deal because it was too friendly to Russia. They made fun of Hillary Clinton for handing him a weird reset button for six years. Made fun of Hillary Clinton for handing him a weird reset button for six years. And then when Putin invaded Ukraine, the argument was we were not tough enough in our response. And so a mere two years later, the Republican Party's way of trolling Democrats and liberals is to be nice to putin it's fucking insane we're it is so we live in a world of such through the looking glass absurdity that sometimes

we have to like step back because we're just buffeted by it every day i mean it's it's insane it's not great can i talk about gerard kushner for a second because i don't want to miss my chance here the uh the time cover boy yeah let's do it oh the good sign but i by the way remember what happened when bannon was on the cover of time that didn't that didn't go too well for bannon actually i'm sorry it didn't go too well for bannon for like two weeks when there was a bunch of stories about you know bannon falling out of favor and jared rising and now you know now we're about to pull out of the paris agreement so i guess bannon bannon got his uh Bannon got the last laugh here. Yeah.

I mean, you're never in that much trouble if the president who's mad at you has the attention span of a three-year-old that just ate seven Snickers bars. So it's just like, he's mad at you. Oh, look, the shiny thing over there. Now someone else is on the time cover. So everyone gets their time in the barrel, but Trump doesn't have the attention span to actually follow through on anything, which is why no one's been fired. But on the Kushner thing, I think that the political conversation around Kushner understates the legal jeopardy that he is in. Yeah. Because we have devolved into this, and the Trump people actually did a pretty good job of this,

devolved into a debate about the merits of back channels. Right. And that is not the point here. No. That is not, I mean, one, it's not a back channel. I think Lovett did a very, in time, he did a very good job of explaining this on Monday. It's not actually a back channel. I think Lovett did a very good job explaining this on Monday. It's not actually a back channel.

It is actually just basically turning Jared Kushner into a mole for Vladimir Putin. Yeah, it's letting him hide out in a Russian diplomatic facility and make some phone calls that the U.S. intel agencies won't be able to track. That's what it is right but then but then so he filled out his sf-86 which is the form you fill out to be granted it's basically your security clearance to work in the government and he you and i both filled these out on multiple occasions and i can't tell you how seriously they tell you to not lie like it is one of the scarier things you do i was even going to tweet lie. Like, it is one of the scarier things you do. I was even going to tweet about, you were tweeting about this with someone about the SF-86. And I was like, I was going to tweet about it.

I was almost too afraid to talk. It's so afraid to talk about the SF-86, right? Like, it is such a scary document. And then someone sits you down, someone with, like, very high level security clearance. And they talk you through the form. Right. And they also basically say like, you will sign this under penalty of perjury and it is a federal crime and you

could go to jail for life. And you're looking through this document and you're like, I think I've been truthful on everything. And I, I've tried to be as truthful as Ken, but like, could anything I say be misconstrued and you'd like triple check it and you're scared.

And they interview like everyone you've ever known in your life. And then they find people that that you haven't asked them to talk to to try to trip you up. I mean, it is a crazy process. Crazy process. Right. So Jared Kushner went through that entire process like everyone else and then intentionally left off meetings with the Russian ambassador where he discussed becoming a mole for the Russian government and a meeting with a sanctioned Russian banker that they snuck in the back door of Trump Tower so no one would see the meeting. These are not things you forget. Yeah. Whoops. Signed the form and submitted it.

And then there was just randomly in the middle of the craziness of the first few weeks of the Trump administration, there was – I think it was a New York Times story that said that Kushner accidentally left off some meetings with Russians on his form. And Jamie Gorelick, his very well-respected Democratic attorney, said it was accidentally submitted before it was complete. That was a lie. I am going to presume, for the sake of Jamie Grawlick's very sterling reputation in Washington, that Jared Kushner lied to her. Yeah, probably. And everyone in Washington thought, oh, Jared Kushner seems like such a nice guy. I went to that cocktail party with him in Ivanka once.

He really likes the Paris Agreement and doesn't seem to be as racist as all the other people he works with. I'm sure it was an accident. But no, he intentionally lied under penalty of perjury. Sign that document. These are not meetings that happened like five years prior, ten years prior. Probably the week he was filling it out. That's what I'm saying. He was filling it out right after the fucking meeting at the Mayflower.

Yeah, it is. I mean, it is in anyone. I have known people in the government who have lied on that form about youthful indiscretions. Yeah. Maybe a little weed weed maybe something heavier than weed and as soon as it was discovered that they lied walked out of the white house walked out of the federal government or wherever else on that very day like the and this and those people are not people who have access to who get the president's daily briefing every day.

Right? His access to the most... We have given access to the most sensitive intelligence this country has access to to someone who, admittedly, is a fact, lied on their SF-86, and has not denied, no one has denied, that he tried to, as a private citizen, become developed.

I don't know what the right noun is for Back Channel, but to be willing to engage in a secret relationship with the Russian government weeks after they hacked our election. When do you think serious? Do you think we will see pardons from Donald Trump with that on any of these figures for any of these figures? Kushner, Flynn? Yes. Yeah. That'll that'll be when we know that shit's really hit the fan. Yeah. I mean, because you would never you would say that's impossible. We can possibly do that. But firing Jim Comey is the most insane thing a president has ever done since Richard Nixon. So sure. Good times. OK, when we come back, we're going to talk to Anna Marie about all this stuff.

See what she has to say. We'll be right back. This is Pod Save America. Stick around. There's more great show coming your way. Good morning. I was going to ask you how you feel, but we're both pissed today, so we should just all be pissed together. Oh, well, about what, though? Because, like, there's just a variety of things. I was going to ask you how you feel but we're both pissed today so we should just all be pissed together oh well about what though because like there's just a variety of things i was gonna ask you that take your pick what do you want to talk about we have covered of course paris and i would

love your thoughts on that um we then talked about the latest with russia and then dan went on a great rant about jared kushner we haven't talked about kufefe yet oh shit fuck Kufefe man like I am that is like it's like I the only reason to talk about it is that that it stands for it is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the world right like that's what Kufefe should now mean it should now mean it is everything is fucked like hashtag Kufefe means that everything is fucked because that is what it means for us as a country it's so funny because i i was i was up because it's you know west coast when it happened and i thought it was like sort of funny i think i made a joke or two about it and then you know everyone was going crazy and all of twitter was kufefe forever and

i was like all right fine and then i went to bed and I woke up the next day, yesterday, and I was really busy so I didn't really pay attention. And then I get home last night and I'm looking at Twitter and I'm like, are people really still fucking talking about this? Is this really, is this happening? And I joked. I joked right after it happened, like five minutes after it happened. Oh, is everyone getting their think pieces ready? And sure enough, yesterday, someone sent me a link. Chris eliza oh whole piece whole piece about it oh my ah my ears burn well and of course so he has his whole piece about it i of course don't read the piece because why the

fuck am i going to read a piece about cuvefe and so i tweet back like uh never disappoints you know and then i get these laws series of tweets from being like, come on, did you even read the piece? Why are you blasting me? Winners and losers. Did he do winners and losers for Kufefe? I was just like, Chris, I think it was silly. I think writing about it is silly. I think it's silly.

I don't care what your piece says. It's fine. I actually, I had the similar experience you did, which is I made jokes about it. It was like 9.30 at night our time. I just kind of putzed around. I didn't even care the internet went crazy about it because nothing was happening. Right.

Then I woke up and I did that thing where I bleary-eyed see what horrible things Trump has done on Twitter. And I saw he made a covfefe joke of sorts. Right. And I was like, oh, that's actually like a human-ish thing to do to make fun of himself. And then I was like, so that's pretty good it's over we'll move on and then in the briefing when sean spicer was incapable of saying that trump made a typo and then and then hillary clinton had to end with that terrible cafe tweet at the end of the day the whole god it's just like it's just like when will the election be over i mean i know i don't like the ending of the election like there's a part of me that understands like relitigating it constantly

because the ending sucks but it's over god damn it like i just i mean yeah i mean i think that there's something going on in like it's either in hillary's mind or her staff's mind that are like you know people said she wasn't authentic enough or funny enough or whatever during the election and so now she's gonna let it loose but like letting it loose isn't like making fun of trump in a tweet because he did something that like that's that's not really her you know what i'm saying like well that's her she's tough like no no no like hillary clinton's not making koufefe jokes on her own no i don don't think she is. I don't think also that was like a totally lame Koufefe joke too.

It was just like it was like it was a it was a Koufefe joke made in a lab you know like her decisions always are and so it was just like the same kind of weird half heartedly kind of authentic thing that infuriates us about her

in the first place. Like i think her real self is pretty just pretty nerdy and stiff like so just be that way right just be nerdy and stiff i like that about her i'm nerdy and stiff i don't mind it you know um i'll say like i read i read over the weekend that uh rebecca tracer story about her about hillary the cover story for new york magazine oh yeah that's great. And I left that story thinking, like, first of all, I was sad, you know? It was just like, it was a tough read.

It was sad. It makes you sad about the election all over again. And it did make me feel a lot of, like, sympathy for Hillary, right? And I also thought some of the things she said in that, like, that seemed like it was her, right? She was, and it's not just her being wonky. She had, like, a lot of really great insights

on the media and Democrats and politics going forward. And she seemed unguarded. And it was, you know, it was like a really good piece. And, you know, then we get like cafe jokes and, you know, more conversations about why she lost and who's at fault. And it just it seems like we're like destined to relive this every couple weeks. Yeah. What is like totalitarianism is imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever like this is our totalitarianism is like hillary and trump baiting each other on twitter forever which feels like a human face being stomped by a boot i was actually going to say like so the reason why koufei facedown if you're reading is there is

other stuff to talk about you guys talked about the birth control waiver? No. We did not. Let's talk about that. See, that's something I wish Hillary was talking about, right? Right. Which is that,

so Vox had to scoop Sarah Cliff, who's amazing and everyone should follow her work on ACA and ACA all the time. She found out

or she saw the draft of a Health and Human Services memo, you know, rule change that would allow any company to opt out of covering birth control. Any company, not just for like moral reasons or not just, you know, companies that somehow like have an interest, a religious interest, but anyone, allow anyone to do it, which is just like, yeah, it sucks. You know, I mean, like we have the lowest abortion rate like i think ever right now like it's continuing on a downward trend for

many years what you guys i don't know you guys heard the ben howe episode that we did we were yeah we were yes right so you know ben, I think, said something I wish other conservatives would would hear and understand, which is that the proper pro-life position is free government paid for birth control for every woman who wants it. Like if you really are against abortion, if you want to if you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, you should make sure every woman who wants birth control gets it because that would do it right yeah again it's another position it's also like another move that it's it is it's a move that would make it's making such a small constituency happy right like who is out there saying you know like it's not like i bet if you polled republicans you'd still have a majority of republicans who thought that yeah companies should provide free birth control it's not even like also evangelicals don't necessarily believe that

birth control is you know um uh an abort an abortifacient right like that's actually a small minority even of like people who are christian pro-lifers who think that birth control is a problem so you're like what they like about that kind of policy is the idea behind it which is the idea of theocracy you know like they're not even personally necessarily like opposed to birth control right like evangelicals use birth control believe it or not like a lot of people do um it and that is also infuriating it's a small it is it affects everyone not just women it affects everyone um and it only makes a small it is it affects everyone, not just women. It affects everyone. And it only makes a small constituency happy.

And it's just it. And it's also reminds us all that, like, you know, we did get President Pence, too. There's not like we have like the absolute worst of all possible worlds in this presidency. world in this presidency we have an embarrassing buffoon in the front and a you know a hypocritical gleeful theocrat in the back oh you know i mean like there's no haircut that that makes sense stuck in the middle with both of them that's right so so who's on uh who's on the pod this week oh we actually won one well okay, okay, how many guests? I guess technically two. W. Kamau Bell, host of United Shades of America, is the guest.

Oh, nice. Yeah, he's awesome. He's someone I've talked to several times. Got a really great way of time at Race in America and also Difference. His show is kind of a sister show to mine in that it's about creating uncomfortable conversations and talking about Difference. And we did something that I do every once in a while, which is that we had someone call in and talk about a problem regarding relationships and politics in their life and actually incredibly for me heartbreaking story from this woman whose parents um i mean i mean spoiler alert her parents are or have some issues about race that are causing problems in her relationship with them in relationship with her husband. And Kamau, who's also in a biracial marriage himself,

was just really helpful and thoughtful about it and spoke to the sort of the issue of them having kids and how do you deal with grandparents that may not be reflective of the values that you want your children to grow up with? Like, how do you negotiate that? you know i mean i think that i'm you know i talk about the fact that my in-laws are conservative but yeah i so i know a lot of people deal with the issue of having people in their family and people they love disagree with them but this woman's story is like a sort of an order of magnitude more intense because it's just really apparent like where the problem is. So I hope we helped her out with that. And I know there are other people out there dealing with the same kinds of things because I get so much email about it.

That sounds great. And everyone should listen. So that'll be dropping tomorrow, right? On Friday? Yep. Tomorrow. Outstanding. All right. with friends like these everyone go download the latest episode and subscribe and rate and review and rate and review yeah we need we need to get back to rating and reviewing in the itunes store we started with that and uh it always helps hey when are we going to get more merch i'm going to have you like put you on the spot like right now we are um ish we are we are figuring that out right now we are looking at

various uh various options so it will um it will happen soon because we want more merch yeah we want we want merch for all the shows yes we're we're dreaming of like t-shirts with you know the uh the pod save the world logo and love it or leave it logo and you and DeRay. We're going to get all kinds of great shirts. Comfort is a tool of oppression. That's like the one that I think people want from my show. Do you think Tommy will ever wear a shirt without a Crooked Media logo on it? I can hear you, Dan. I'm in the goddamn studio to do ads.

I knew you were either going to hear it now or you were going to hear it with a podcast post. I wasn't worried about it. I wasn't trying to get a secret in. Yeah, that's right. It's so great. Usually we get a surprise at the end of this conversation with Lovett, but Lovett is in the air today flying to D.C. for his big show. So we have Tommy to do some ads. Slash friend's wedding.

Tommy, I'm loving your show lately. Thank you. I think you're doing a great job it's so been really helpful for getting through this incredibly complicated time right now my strategy is book really smart people and then speak as few words as humanly possible I think that you're on to something

thank you I should let you guys know too there's a March for Truth happening in Washington D.C. this Saturday. It's about getting to the bottom of the Russia investigation. Like, tons of people, moveon.org, a bunch of other groups are there, and there's going to be

a bunch of speakers, and John Lovett's going to be one of the speakers at the rally. Oh! That's adorable! Were we supposed to laugh at that? Ana had the right reaction, which is oh, that's adorable, and the rest laugh at that i know that was the right i had the right reaction which is oh that's adorable and the rest of us just started laughing so guys people take love it seriously now just try to sit with that for a bit seriously not

literally that's the way he would want it all right guys um we're gonna go do some ads but it was great to talk to y'all and uh and have a great weekend all right talk to you next week all right everyone take care