Pod Save America - "Stoking Hate in Primetime."

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

A heavily armed 18-year-old carries out a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York inspired by the same racist conspiracy theory pushed by Tucker Carlson and Republicans in Congress, Biden tests new research by calling Republicans "Ultra MAGA", and Jonathon Martin joins to discuss his new book This Will Not Pass.  For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Leavitt. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, a mass shooter in Buffalo embraces a version of the racist replacement theory you hear from Tucker Carlson and some Republican politicians. Joe Biden sharpens his midterm message by coining the phrase, ultra-MAGA.

Americans join nationwide protests to defend abortion access. And later, New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin joins the pod to talk about his new book, This Will Not Pass. But first, always check out What A Day, Cricket's daily news show, but especially today's episode, which covers the racist massacre in Buffalo and the nationwide protests over Roe v. Wade, including interviews with activists who were there. It's a tough but powerful episode that is definitely worth listening to. Check it out. All right, let's get to the news. On Saturday, a heavily armed 18-year-old wearing tactical gear walked into a Buffalo supermarket and murdered 10 people

while live streaming the massacre on Twitch. 11 of the 13 people shot by the killer were black, which is what he wanted. Shortly before the massacre, he posted a 180-page memo that said he began browsing extremist sites like 4chan and 8chan because he was bored during the pandemic, and he ultimately came to embrace replacement theory, which is a racist belief that Western elites, and particularly Jews, are trying to replace white people and dilute their power by allowing immigration. The Buffalo Killer, who plagiarized two-thirds of his manifesto from the Christchurch Killer, who murdered dozens of Muslims in New Zealand back in 2019,

wrote that Black people are replacers as well. A version of replacement theory has been mainstreamed by Tucker Carlson and Republicans like the third-ranking House Republican Elise Stefanik, Senator Ron Johnson, and J.D. Vance, who argue that Democrats only support immigration to register more Democratic voters. So sure enough, an Associated Press poll this month found that one in three Americans now believe that an effort is underway to replace native born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains. Tommy, to what extent are Tucker Carlson and some of these Trumpy Republican politicians at fault for these numbers? of course, could have included Tucker Carlson content. We don't know. But I think the role that Tucker plays in particular is he is the bridge between the far right, overtly, proudly racist, anti-Semitic fringe, and what you can say on cable TV. He bridges that gap. So Tucker doesn't say, you know, there's a Jewish plot to bring black and brown people into this

country and replace white voters. He says, Democrats want to replace legacy Americans with more obedient people from faraway countries. That's how he tries to sand it down. And I always think back to how in like July of 2020, we learned that Tucker's head writer was fired because CNN found out that this guy was posting on a like virulently, overtly racist online forum and had been doing it for years. And this is a guy who wrote for Tucker's show, helped write his books, started working at the Daily Caller, in fact. And so this is kind of like what we've learned is the MO of Tucker's show. They troll extreme right-wing sites, they sanitize things just enough, and then they spread it to masses.

And the New York Times found that in more than 400 episodes of a show carlson amplified the notion that democratic politicians and other elites want to force demographic change through immigration um so big picture like the core sentiment and ideas that make up the great replacement theory are not new draws from very old racist anti-semitic conspiracy theories that have been around forever but But Tucker is mainlining it into millions of households every night. Yeah. And I think he can he serves the role of sparking people's curiosity. So they see something mentioned on his show and then they start looking online and they go down some much more extremist rabbit holes. And he helps legitimize it by sort of sanding down some of the more extremist edges of the stuff that you find online for cable.

Love it. What do you think? I think whether or not this person was specifically inspired by Tucker Carlson or specifically inspired by Elise Stefanik is sort of beside the point. Like the hold of this kind of rhetoric on the right is a threat to the country and it's a threat to the country and a menace, whether or not at like the very bottom of this engagement funnel from like casual trolls on social media to like racist 4chan posters to the people shouting locker up to insurrectionists.

There's someone today or tomorrow or the next day at the very bottom of this pit of violent racist rhetoric who go all the way, right? And they will take it upon themselves to do violence. This will happen regularly. It will happen unpredictably for the indefinite future. At any time, there's some number of broken, angry, lonely, socially maladjusted young men who are losing touch with reality. They are radicalizing in one way or another, and they're becoming more capable of violence. And they will latch onto this fascistic, hateful, racist conspiracy theory because it's ideal, it's perfect,

and either it will find them or they will find it. And when someone as prominent as Tucker Carlson gives it purchase, it means it is everywhere. He's the most prominent white nationalist in America, which probably makes him the most prominent white nationalist in the world. So that's what I think. Yeah, and look, I think it's not just a danger of radicalizing individuals here. They are

organizing because they are finding each other online. This is why he, you know, the manifesto was two thirds of it was plagiarized from the Christchurch killers manifesto, right? Like this is this is multiplying. And, you know, I think the person who put it best was not necessarily a Democrat or someone on the left. But Liz Cheney, a conservative Republican, tweeted this morning, the House GOP leadership tweeted Monday morning. The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. GOP leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them. It's a lot more than just being upset at Donald Trump for the insurrection.

She's gone a little broader at this point. Yeah. In her accusation. She's speaking truth here. So Elise Stefanik is being criticized for Facebook ads she ran last fall that accused Democrats of, quote, a permanent election insurrection because their plan to offer a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants will, quote, overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority. Her spokesman responded Monday morning by saying she's, quote, never advocated for any racist position or made a racist statement. Sure. Tommy, what do you think

of the now common right wing response to all this, that this is just a disagreement about immigration policy. Yeah, the challenge is that is this framework for how they want to discuss immigration or this disagreement over immigration policy is just sort of fundamentally race based. If you're going to say, I'm not racist, I just don't think we should allow any more immigration from the continent of Africa. Are we going to pretend that there's not a fundamentally racist approach there? They're saying that there's a majority white group of people in America now who are legitimate, and then new people who want to come in are not legitimate or not as worthy. And again, back to Tucker Carlson, Tucker says the worst attack on our democracy in 160 years was not the insurrection. It was the Immigration Act of 1965. That law got rid of the previous system, which basically overtly tried to preserve America's racial makeup by promoting immigration from northern and western Europe.

So, you know, they're kind of giving up the game here. It's also just pathetic. You're a political party. Compete for votes. You know, I mean, what is it about new immigrants that you think makes them democratic it's it's again the race it's also it's wrong it is wrong in recent years especially with latino voters the assumption that new immigrants will vote for democrats is just wrong and racist on its own and look you know rich lowry and some other people on the right

were pointing out today like oh well democrats used to say that a diversifying nation would help them there is a bit of a difference between saying certain demographic groups are maybe more likely to vote for one party or the other and accusing one party of a plot to open our borders so that one demographic group can replace another. Like, I don't know. I don't know how you can't tell the difference between those two things. I think they can tell the difference, actually, is what I think. I think they can tell the difference. Yeah, I mean, look, it's like Stefanik's rhetoric is, you know, she's delegitimizing immigration. She's delegitimizing their votes, like this idea of beingson has called them like legacy Americans, right? Like people who have been here for generations that they should count more, have more of a say, right? So they're all, they all know what they're doing. They all know what they're saying. And,

you know, Stefanik is, she is entirely cynical. She is maybe the quietly the most cynical and she sees where her people are going and that's where she wants to lead them. quietly the most cynical, and she sees where her people are going, and that's where she wants to lead them. She was a formerly mainstream Republican who was once criticized by anti-immigration groups for supporting legal status for undocumented workers. You talk to people who went to school with her at Harvard, they'll tell you she was just a moderate Republican then. Tommy, what do you think happened to Elise Stefanik? You know, she's not the first or last Republican who became a political coward when it comes to the immigration debate. I mean, remember Marco Rubio was going to lead the fight on the right to get to comprehensive immigration reform. She, in a lot of ways, she makes me more, Elise Stefanik, that is, makes me more frustrated and nervous than like the Paul Gosart, Marjorie Taylor Greene lunatic fringe, because I

just think she's doing this for personal gain. And it tells you a dangerous story about the trajectory of the Republican party. I mean, she made a bet around impeachment to go full MAGA and rake in that campaign money and motivate her base voters. And then she made a play for leadership, knowing that the far right doesn't really trust her, which is why she got even Trumpier still. And she's calling Democrats pedo grifters. That was over the weekend, I think. And, you know, the one ironclad rule of like MAGA world is you can never cave to the left.

You can never tell the social justice warriors online that they're right, right? And so she's just as dug in as she's going to be. She's a little bit like New York's J.D. Vance. It's entirely manufactured. It's entirely a performance. It's a shift you watch unfold in real time. But there's something so despicable and revealing about the statements she put out today.

Ten people are dead. It is a terrible tragedy. It's a tragedy in her state. a terrible tragedy, is a tragedy in her state. And if you look at the statement that she put out, the first few lines are her expressing sadness at the event, and the vast majority of it is victimizing herself, her spokesperson, just performing for Fox News, playing the victim. There is no tragedy that they can't turn into an opportunity to feel as though they're being made a victim, even though 10 people are dead because of hateful rhetoric that she very much spouted. Yeah, she is like Kevin McCarthy or J.D. Vance or so many Republicans, a power hungry phony.

They know better. They just they see where the base is. They see where Tucker's leading the party every night and they want the position. And you know what? She got to be number three in the House when they kicked Liz Cheney out. And now she someday wants the speaker job, right? And so she's going to say whatever it takes to get there. I just like if you do have a sincere disagreement on immigration policy, just acknowledge that talking about replacement is linking you to this rhetoric that has incited multiple mass murderers, the Tree of Life Synagogue, the El Paso shooter, Buffalo, Christ

Church, Charleston shooter, Dylan Roof, like posted Nazi references, that Norwegian psycho shot up a summer camp, right? Like at some point you have to just acknowledge reality and think to yourself, am I actually contributing to a problem where innocent people are getting massacred regularly? That's where my head would be. And we have these debates over these individual examples, but the thing I always come back to is this, I have like sort of stochastic terrorism or stochastic fascism. You pump enough of this filth into the air over and over and over again. There are enough broken people in this world that somebody is going to follow your argument to its logical conclusion,

and that will continue to happen. It will just continue to happen. So the killer live streamed the massacre on the platform Twitch, which said it removed the video within two minutes of the start of the violence. But by that time, it was already shared hundreds of times on other social media platforms. And of course, the killer was radicalized online, as we mentioned. Love it. What responsibility do social media companies have to keep this violence and extremism off their platforms? And how much can they actually do? They have a lot of responsibility and they can do more. You know, they hide behind scale that, oh, they're doing the best they can, that these things are hard.

These are hard, hard problems to solve. But we don't accept a supermarket that said they built the store too big and so some of the food will kill you. We don't accept building codes that say our building is too big. Some of it may fall down on top of you. You built these machines. And if you guys don't want to spend the money and put in the resources and put in the time to figure out how to keep this stuff off of your platform, that is not something we need to accept. That's a problem they have to solve. Tommy, what do you think?

I mean, they did a good job keeping ISIS propaganda off a lot of these platforms. And I don't understand how I can't extend to incidents like this. Like, sure, you know, from what I read, CNN reported that like 20 people were watching this thing live and then they conspired together on 4chan to find ways to save and re-upload the video. But I mean, last night I was looking around on Twitter and if you searched Buffalo shooter, the video would just pop up and autoplay in your feed. And that is terrifying. And it was all over Facebook. Um, and I saw some reporting that Facebook said it didn't violate their terms of service. Right.

And like this has been happening for years. Years. I don't know how they haven't figured this stuff out. Millions of people end up seeing these videos. This shooter was inspired by an identical video by someone else. I don't get how we cannot stop this. Content moderation is difficult. But sometimes these platforms would like you to

believe it's impossible and it is not like you know it's good that twitch took it down after after two minutes but it raises the question should the ability to live stream be so easily accessible uh twitch allows anyone to go live uh youtube uh requires users to verify their account and have at least 50 subscribers. So they're even putting up some kind of barriers that Twitch doesn't have. Like you mentioned on Twitter, Twitter hadn't removed a lot of the posts until contacted by the New York Times. And then they put out a statement, OK, now we're going to go remove the post. But clearly they were up there for a long time.

I saw them before I walked in today. Still on their side. Treat it with the seriousness that you would take something really dangerous, like a tit on Instagram. Or an unauthorized bit of Warner Brothers footage, you know? Right. I mean, YouTube can take down a song in an instant. You know what I mean? Like, why can't you take down the sound of a gunshot well it also shows why elon musk's uh comments about free speech and twitter that you know he's

going to allow as much free he's not going to go beyond the law and he's going to allow everything else well the manifesto would be allowed under the law a lot lot of this stuff, this filth, this hate that's all over social media, that's radicalizing people is not technically against the law, but it is certainly hate speech that is within the power of a lot of these platforms to control. And to say that you're going to go buy Twitter and just let everything go that's within the law is a cop out, ignorant, all of the above. Yeah. He's not thought about this for more than two minutes as evidenced by his recent tweets yeah he's also he's also got a little bit of a buyer's remorse it seems he's like he's very much caught the car and he's like i don't like the way this

he caught the car and the car's value went down 30 so he's like uh bots trying to find lame excuses to get out of this uh one person who's been more aggressive in calling out republican extremism lately is president biden last week he coined the phrase quote ultra maga during a speech about the economy and he called trump the great maga king uh there's apparently some research behind this the washington post reports at the center for american progress and biden advisor anita dunn conducted a six-month project where they found that voters view the word MAGA as more negative than even phrases like Trump Republicans. And in battleground areas, more than twice as many voters said they'd be less likely to vote for someone called a MAGA Republican than would be more likely. Trump and other Republican politicians, of course, are embracing the label and using it to sell merch and raise money uh tommy do you buy the research is this the midterm message about republicans we've all been waiting

for ultra maga kind of reminded me of of clockwork orange like ultra violence i wonder if that was intentional um i think that calling your opponent extreme is a tried and true method to win elections not a big fan of ultra maga i. Not a big fan of ultra MAGA. I'm not a big fan of the great MAGA king. The latter in particular does sound like a compliment. But if they could tell a larger story about the extremism of the modern Republican Party from banning abortion to tax code to whatever,

like string it all together, tell a make it a narrative sure i don't think we should run around calling donald trump king um he likes it burger king i don't know none of it trump likes it trump's gonna be selling mega king t-shirts i think they already are i think they are too love it uh yeah i mean i think when i think of ultra, I think of, you know, a kind of watery beer. But I think MAGA Republicans is good. I think ultra MAGA, I sort of, I don't mind it. It does feel like it's gilding the lily. And isn't the whole point that the MAGA is the extreme piece? Like MAGA Republicans are bad. Are there MAGA Republicans we're okay with like is it the ultra magas that we have to worry about we you just you just it was the first day of rolling an out show we don't need to go to we don't need the new model yet you know let's try MAGA republicans for a beat that's the thing they tested you know mk ultra mk ultra right i will

is that when they tested they tested lsd on. Is that what that is? Among other things. Yeah. Cool, cool, cool. So I will say, you know, I cap and Anita, like I trust the research that says that MAGA is is is useful here and works and is effective. I'm surprised that MAGA works better. MAGA Republican works better than Trump Republicans just because you'd think more people would be aware of Trump than the phrase MAGA. But, you know, whatever. That's the research. I do think that the key here for Democrats is you can't shortcut the story for why the Republican Party is extremist by just using the word MAGA. This is like Terry McAuliffe calling him Glenn Trumpkin and just like letting it go. Like you got to tell the whole story. I know that sometimes Democrats are obsessed with like the, you know, we need a bumper sticker message and where's our Frank Luntz and let's listen to George Lakoff and all that bullshit. And you get yourself a slogan, right? It's not the slogan.

It's not the phrase that sells it. It's the story behind why they marry a Republican. So we have to just be sure to use clear examples over and over and over again of their extremism to remind people of why they're extreme and not just call the mag and think that's going to do all the work. That's just one caution. And I do think Biden did that when he was rolling out the mag. He told the story in a really good way. And I do think that the kind of two pillars, these sort of, they're telling you how to live, here are the ways they're coming after your teachers, your doctors, your healthcare decisions, all of that. And they're coming after your teachers, your doctors, your health care decisions, all of that. And then and they're also coming after Medicare. They're coming after Medicaid.

They're coming after Social Security. The sort of Rick Scott agenda, like those two things together tied to MAGA Republicans, I think is very good. So before we get to the interview, we thought we'd end on an optimistic note. There were hundreds of marches and rallies on Saturday where tens of thousands of people turned out to protest the Supreme Court's expected decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Our team at Whataday talked to some people at the Los Angeles protest. You can hear that segment on today's Whataday. And we will also have a special preview at the end of this episode. So stick around for that. Thanks to the What A Day team for grabbing that audio. Tommy, Emily, Charlie, and I were also at the protest. Love it. I know you were at the DC protest. What'd you guys think of the crowd and the energy? Love

it. What'd you think in DC? Well, to be honest, at first I was just there to get a picture so I could virtue signal on Instagram. That was the goal. That was the whole reason I was there. But then it had a surprising impact on me the more I stayed around. What impact was that? and it was just really heartening to be out there, especially I rented a bird scooter, and I was driving around, and I was kind of would like kind of skirt into this protest, kind of hang for a bit,

and then drive to another part of it, and I kind of went up. I went up Capitol Hill a little bit ahead of the protest, and I kind of turned left, and then I saw the whole march coming up Capitol Hill towards the Supreme Court, and it was massive. It was massive. And for one little moment, my cynical heart opened. The sun was shining in my mind. It was very moving. And I felt like I wanted to fight. And it was just great seeing everybody. It really

was. It was good seeing everybody out there. Tell me what you think. It's been a long time since there have been protests quite that large and it's i think it's good that people turned out to talk about rose specifically because it's a critical issue to a lot of people i think it's good for the democratic party to flex that muscle again because we're going to need more direct action um in the coming years and i also think one of the things that I really love about marches and rallies like that is that you can see people finding joy and community and just coming together and being together. You know, people are angry and they're sad and they're scared about what's happening in the world. But unlike the constant anger and nastiness on the internet, like you see people

with funny signs, they're with groups of friends, they're coming together. And that I think is the power of these marches. Like you can fight for something and have fun and do it with people you care about and find real joy and purpose in that movement. And I think that's an important thing to remember or to realize for the first time

and to want to be a part of. Because we need people to turn out for these marches and to want to be a part of because we want people we need people to turn out for these marches and not think that's something other people do. There is no substitute for in-person physical community organizing. We've all been part we have all been living through this pandemic for the last several years. A lot of people may do with organizing online but again you just referenced this, like the more you are watching these stories unfold on your phone, the more you are seeing the cynicism

and dejection and disappointment only. And you're not seeing sort of like the inspirational nature of people coming together to fight. And when we walked down there this weekend, that's what you saw. You saw people ready to fight. You saw people inspired. You saw people ready to to take action and you don't see that shit if you're just scrolling through twitter all day or on facebook or instagram or wherever else it also

was really nice to see it was it was mostly women at least the protests that i saw plenty of men, but it was like, you know, Gen Z all the way to just, you know, baby boomers that have been out there protesting for 50 years. And it was great seeing that. It was just so many furious women, just like happy to be out with each other and feeling connected to each other and i felt glad to be able to see that we when we got to the supreme court there was a very small um uh anti-abortion protest and it was very it was peacefully but fully surrounded by like cheering and dancing um younger people and then there were just all these sort of older couples coming through. It was great to see.

Yeah, I'll say that we met a woman who told us, please relate a love it that I'm a baby boomer and I'm here. So you've made an impression on an entire generation. You've offended, which is great. And as I've said before, I'll say it again to all the baby boomers listening.

You're not the ones I'm talking about. You've done your best to overcome the lead poisoning that has ravaged your mind due to leaded gasoline. Jesus Christ. I think that's it for today. Cut off the feet in New York. Thank you. Love you. All right.

When we come back, Tommy and I will talk to New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin about his new book, This Will Not Pass. Joining us now, New York Times national political correspondent and co-author with Alex Burns of the blockbuster, New York Times bestseller, This Will Not Pass. Jonathan Martin, welcome to the pod. Man, this is why Fabs is a gifted speechwriter, Tommy. He can deliver that kind of prose, man. It's just effortless. You like that? No, no, no, no.

He meant Blockbuster like the video store that went out of business. That's what's happening to the book industry, pal. How you doing? You know know i'm old enough to actually recall some big nights at blockbuster myself back in the day i know me too i i just dated myself uh jonathan i've been reading the book it is excellent i imagine a lot of our listeners have seen all the scoops that are that have spilled out of the book in advance of publication. So I want to start with a bit of a process question because I'm talking to a New York Times political reporter. So when you guys took some shit on Twitter for quote unquote holding things for the book the way people are willing to talk to reporters like you for a book versus tomorrow's paper.

Can you explain to listeners how that works and how you decide what goes in the paper versus a book? Yeah. Well, first of all, guys, thanks for having me on. And full disclosure, I've known these two cats for many years. Full disclosure, I've known these two cats for many years. Back before they were on the fashionable left coast, they were trudging away in D.C. You were just a blogger, I think. I know.

Some startup. Politico. That's right. Thepolitico.com. So it's a good question. Look, I think it's fair to get that critique. I would say two things. Like one, well, first of all, I would just say generally as a rule, we don't discuss sourcing. But like two things generally on this topic.

One is, you know, yeah, when you're speaking to people and the ground rules are for a book, obviously the response is different. The nature of the conversation is different. And especially when it comes to sensitive matters, it's a very different conversation and sort of dialogue. And people are much more willing to talk candidly when they know that they're speaking for history and not for tomorrow's paper or even next week's paper. And I think in the case of this book, we were really pleased with people in both parties, like how much they opened up talking about this period after we assured that, of course, this is not going to be out for a year or so.

And so that was striking. The other thing is you have to have pretty ironclad agreements that this is for the paper, this is for the book. Because otherwise, it's obviously going to create challenges. So I think those two things are important. And just like the last thing I'll say is the weeks and months of working like various tips and hearsay and second and third hand material and then trying to track it down is that right is it wrong is it kind of right and like that's just the sort of nature of this business and so it is not a glamorous uh like hollywood ending where it's like oh we have this thing dropped from above in our lap and we can just sort of print it it's it's a much more uh like lengthy grueling process i like that these people

bought themselves a year like they like like oh they're not going to screw me in tomorrow's paper next week but a year from now maybe i'll have a different job and it won't be a concern. Yeah, in fairness to them, I think it was more just like, you know, this is an important moment in American history. Can you talk honestly about like what happened at XYZ conversation or moment? And I think just like the nature of politicians is that if they have some assurance that it's not going to be immediate or that they you talk to them they kind of want to have their say and they want to have their voice and sort of capture uh in their eyes what happened and why it happened it's a future me problem it's like when you agree to go out to dinner with someone who sucks exactly right it's exactly right i mean the impression i get from your book and in the last few years of following politics is that Republican leaders love how Trump excites their

base, but hate how he repels swing voters. And that's why they can't really figure out how to deal with them. Like, do you think that's a fair reading of the dynamic? Yeah, I do. I mean, I think it's even, even more straightforward than that, uh, Favs. I mean, I think it's just their primary voters like Trump and nothing he does or says makes them stop liking him. And so they feel like they're handcuffed to Trump because their voters like him. I just, especially in the house, I just don't feel like it's more complicated than that. If tomorrow Donald Trump stopped being popular, uh, with rank and file Republican voters, I have no doubt that the bulk of House Republicans would happily move on, right? It's just an entirely a demand side issue. As long as like the voters and their primaries like the former president, like that's

going to compel the leaders of the party in the House to stick with them, you know? tell the leaders of the party in the House to stick with them. You had some really interesting reporting on Joe Biden's vice presidential selection process. Yeah. A couple of distinct pieces. One, you guys wrote about how close Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois came to becoming the vice president. But you report that Biden's team was worried that because she was born in Thailand to a Thai mom and American dad, she could have faced essentially a birther conspiracy or a legal challenge.

Do you think Duckworth is VP, if not for that fear? I'm not sure I'd go that far. Floyd and subsequent protest, I think were probably enough that Biden felt like he ought to pick an African-American vice president. And I certainly think Senator Duckworth was a contender. I'm just not sure it got to the final, final stage. sure it got to the final final stage but it does speak to like the shadow that trump cast right that even the perception that he would make this an issue and find like some circuit court judge somewhere to potentially knock biden off the ballot uh in a given state was like enough that they just you know weren't totally sure it was worth pursuing. But no, like this is a fascinating point that you raise.

Look, obviously we get why a lot of the reporting in here that's been picked up is on the Republican side, but half the book is on Democrats and on Biden in particular. And there's tons in there about both Biden and the 2020 campaign, Biden putting together his cabinet and then Biden trying to govern in 2021. Yeah. Well, so the other part of the vice presidential selection process that really jumped out at me is you guys report that Reid Hoffman, who's a tech billionaire donor, did a bunch of polling and focus groups about the vice presidential nominees. And that got pushed into the official vetting process. Did that surprise you that kind of like a donor led, I don't know, research project became part of Joe Biden's selection process? Not totally, because I think I think Biden was willing to sort of take that into account. I'm not, I'm not super surprised that, you know, they would look at that given the detail of the polling, which by the way, we, we obtained, you know, that doesn't surprise me too, too much. I mean, I think what's striking is

just how sort of raw the numbers were in terms of like the American voters were going to be pretty uneasy about whichever African-American woman was picked. And I think that that was pretty sobering for the Biden folks. And I think, you know, they believe that we have to pick somebody with sort of maximum credentials because the electorate is going to be skeptical with this. And so I think Vice President Harris had been a state AG, had been a senator, had been a prosecutor at the local level from the country's largest state, was probably the best sort of credentials among the black women that they were considering. You mentioned a lot of the book is about sort of joe biden's and by the way brock obama a fellow you guys know well was pretty candid with with with the biden folks about this which is not

discouraging them from picking a black woman but just being real about the challenges out there with the electorate you know this is gonna be a real this is gonna be a real challenge i think the biden folks knew that you know. Sorry, go ahead, Joe. He lived through it. Absolutely. You mentioned a lot of the book is about Biden's challenges governing the first couple of years. Here's something I've always gone back and forth on. I have heard from sources close to the White House that they came to believe late in the game that Joe Manchin was never really serious about wanting to do a deal on Build Back Better, that he was always just trying to find an excuse to say no to kill the thing. Do you think he was ever serious about a deal?

Do you think he'd do a smaller deal now? Yeah, that's a great question. I definitely picked that same kind of ex post facto regret from the White House, too, ex post facto regret from the White House, too, that, you know, he was forever looking for the next excuse. It could have been the war in Ukraine one day and the next day it could have been inflation. It was always something to sort of not not take the bite out of the apple. Look, I think if you look at what he put on paper and gave to Senator Schumer over the summer of 2021, outlining like what he could do. If they had called his bluff on that and like kind of written that bill and

then put it in front of him and jammed it through the house, I think they, they had a shot. I just think like every day that went on into the fall, it got harder and harder with him. And then once inflation became real, that was just obviously his, his sort sort of excuse he was going to ride. Have you heard this rumor that he might want to run for president in 2024? That's what he's

Yeah, I have. I have. I've heard three things. Well, four. He's going to run for president in 24. He's going to run for governor in 24, not run at all and retire, and then run for re-election. I've heard all four of those rumors. I mean, so, yeah, I remember doing a story right before the filing deadline in 2018 because Schumer was really nervous that Manchin was not going to file. And this rumor spread through the Senate, and the caucus was petrified he was not going to file, because obviously he's the only Democrat that can hold that seat out there. And they got him to run again, but he famously said, this place sucks, talking about Washington. And that was on the record in my story.

So he does this and sort of grumbles about coming back to the Senate. I want to be governor again. And I think guys that this is sort of part of what he does. I, he enjoys being in Washington. He likes being in the mix. He likes going on TV and he grumbles about it, but I think he really enjoys it. And I, if, if I, if I had the guest knowing him,

I think he's going to run for reelection in 24. Yeah. Politicians tend to like to be in politics. That's what I'm in my bed too. So Jonathan, you guys have boats where they have like members over for parties and stuff. Like he kind of likes it, you know?

Yeah. Yeah. He loves the houseboat. Totally. So you guys had this, this reporting he kind of likes it you know yeah yeah he loves the houseboat um totally so you guys had this this reporting that that broke you know early uh when the book came out yeah kevin mccarthy had some pretty harsh criticism for donald trump mccarthy and his team denied it believe that i mean it's so shocking that you know who would have thought that republicans secretly weren't fond of donald trump right yeah yeah yeah who would have thought that Republicans secretly weren't fond of Donald Trump, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who would have thought it? Okay. So then you guys,

McCarthy's team denies it. Then you release the tapes proving that in fact, he did say this, right? How do you, as a journalist deal with someone like McCarthy after that, knowing he lied to your face, lied to the country.

I mean, this guy could be speaker of the house and he's just, it's a great question. I mean, yeah, look, I mean, he, he, he lied the House, and he's just not really a liar. It's a great question. I mean, yeah, look, I mean, he lied. He did grave damage to his credibility by lying in the short term. His conference professed not to be that bothered by it. But I think you guys have been around politics long enough to know that when you get caught in a lie just that nakedly, it does long-term damage to you.

And look, it's pretty revealing that the people in the House GOP conference kind of shrugged, like, yeah, of course, in private, he was torching Trump. It's kind of like, yeah, you know, we all do, right? Yeah. It wasn't really a breaking news headline for them because that's sort of their existence. But the fact he would so brazenly lie like that, look, I think it does create challenges for him down the road. Obviously, in public now, his word's going to be questioned.

And with Trump himself, it just makes him that much more beholden to the former president. And I think the reason that Trump didn't torture him is because Trump loves the idea of Kevin being that much more beholden to the former president. And I think the reason that Trump didn't torture him is because Trump loves the idea of Kevin being that much more beholden to him and having, having, you know, him that much closer. And so in January, if they do get the house and Trump's got even more juice in terms of

dictating both the speakership election. And then if Kevin is speaker, what happens in the house? You know, uh, what do you think the chances are that trump loses the nomination if he runs um loses the nomination if he runs i think today he would be a formidable candidate for president guys for the same reason he was in 2016 because he would have a divided field i mean he never he never got 50%, I don't think, in any of

the early primaries or caucuses in 16. He was clocking pluralities in those races. And I think he's going to have the same advantage in 24 if he runs. The field will be smaller because you'll have a bunch of folks peel off who will not run if he runs but he'll still have a divided opposition and so he doesn't have to get 51 he just you know he cruises along with his solid you know um third or more of the electorate and that's enough to win a five-way caucus or primary right yeah he did lose a dead Cruz in that old Iowa caucus too. It's embarrassing. Right, he lost to Cruz in Iowa.

And then after that, he mostly won. He lost to Wisconsin, but he mostly won. But he was winning with 34, 36 kind of thing, right? Yeah. And I just don't see a scenario where the non-Trump candidates rally around one Trump alternative, right? Because you'll have, you'll have like the hardcore anti-Trumper and you'll have the more kind of semi anti-Trumper, right? So. Yeah. I mean, what, what comes through in the book, you know, people did speak very freely to you guys and it's worth reading just for the kind of expo factor. Look, for example,

there was this infamous quote from November 9th, 2020 in the Washington post, where someone said, what's the downside for humoring a little bit, this little bit of time about the results of the election? I'm 100% certain after reading your book that it was Lindsey Graham. I know you can't confirm that because that's a different newspaper, but call Bezos and get him to confirm it. But the other thing that's in there, it's like, you know, Mitch McConnell, McConnell's been all over the place with Trump. Clearly hates his guts, but you know, he's recently said he would vote for him. But you report that Mitch McConnell during the transition period was calling Trump national

security officials and asking them to remain in their jobs to fend off a constitutional crisis, but then he didn't vote to impeach. Can you, is it possible to get into the mind of Mitch McConnell and how you can hold those two thoughts at once? I won't impeach this guy, but I'm calling Gina Haspel, the CIA director saying, please God don't leave in case this man tries to stage a coup. I can't understand that. So Tommy, I'm amazed that nobody else has picked this up from the book, but we have this scene right after the election where McConnell summons the head of the CIA, Gina Haspel, to come to his suite in the Capitol, McConnell's office in the Capitol, entirely so that the

photographers who were there in the Capitol could take the picture of her coming in there because McConnell wanted to offer her a kind of symbolic vote of confidence to keep her in office during those crazy days after the election. That's a small sort of anecdote in the book, but I think it's really revealing as to how concerned kind of old guard Republicans were about Trump's mindset after the election and just how serious they were taking this effort that he was obviously leading to overturn the election. Now, let's be honest. It wasn't so much so that they were going to confront Trump about it in public because they were more worried about keeping those two seats in Georgia in January

than about Trump doing anything to overturn the election. And I think the reason for that is precisely the quote that you just cited. And I have to confess i don't know who said that but there's always this challenge right with trump is like and by the way it's not just with republicans some democrats too like how seriously do we take this guy because yeah so much stuff he's doing is like kind of scary and like would be authoritarian but at the same time they see him they deal with them he's kind of this like seemingly buffoonish kind of scary and like would be authoritarian but at the same time they see him they deal with them he's kind of this like seemingly buffoonish kind of hapless figure and how scary could he be

this was the conundrum that we sort of capture in this book for you know time and time again and after the election they're still not taking it seriously enough. Oh, it's my pillow guy at the White House. He's a joker. You know, come on. What kind of a coup can this actually be? And guys, I don't think it's until the Capitol itself's overrun on January 6th that a lot of people in the Republican Party finally sobered up to the threat that Trump presented. So, I mean, this is a theme throughout the book, the theme of like fear. And, you know, at one point you guys say that, you know, there's lawmakers in both parties

who basically are afraid that there's more political violence to come and they don't say it publicly. They say it to you guys, they say it to each other, but they're reluctant to talk about it in public. So here's like a personal question. Like, I know you guys are supposed to be objective. You're not supposed to have real feelings about things, right? You're New York Times reporters. Like, but, you know, you're also members of the press. The press has been sort of under assault the last couple years, as are many of our institutions. Like, how afraid are you personally about the state of democracy?

And not just by Dan Pfeiffer, by the way. about the state of democracy. And not just by Dan Pfeiffer, by the way. I had to get an attack on Pfeiffer at some point during the program. That's great. Of course, we love Dan. Test to see if he listens to the episode. So I'm really concerned.

I think we came away from this book sobered about the sort of short to medium term prognosis for American democracy. There's not a lot of good news to find. And I think, you know, talking about this book the last few weeks, we get this question a lot from people. Just like, give us some good news. Like, what's the upside here? I just don't see a scenario where the fever breaks.

There's a reason why we call the book, This Will Not Pass. And I'm not just doing a shameless plug for the book title. Honestly, I'm not. This is an ongoing challenge. And we had to end the book somewhere, obviously. And so we basically did a sort of two-year account of 20 and 21. So we kind of ended at the start of 22. two-year account of 20 and 21. So we kind of ended at the start of 22. But it's not easy to know where to end because this is ongoing. I mean, you sort of see what happened in Buffalo over the weekend. We're living in this extraordinarily toxic moment in American politics. And I just don't see a scenario where things are going to turn around. Guys, think about COVID for a minute. I mean, not even for weeks did that bring the country together. A once in a

century pandemic you would think would have some rallying effect on the American people. Everybody's in it together. We're all feeling the pain here. But, you know, that just drove people further to their corners. It deepened the silos in this country. So I just don't have a lot of sort of happy news to offer about the challenges. And I do have a lot of concerns about the assault on institutions, including the press. You know, I look at Pennsylvania over the weekend before the primary, major candidates, like not including the press at their events, just for arbitrary reasons. So it's really disturbing.

And I just have one more thing. Spending a lot of time in the Capitol, our bureau in DC has basically been closed down for much of COVID. And because the book as well, I spent a lot of time in the Capitol. You guys have been there over the years too. I cannot begin to capture, and because the book as well, I spent a lot of time in the Capitol. You guys have been there over the years too. I cannot begin to capture,

and people who work there and listen to this podcast will appreciate this, the sort of the menace in the air, the feeling that January 6th wasn't the end, that it was not a culmination, but that it was only kind of one more grim milestone on the way to more political violence. And every time there's one of these foiled attacks or uncertain vehicle near the Capitol, people just get really nervous again. And what's even more

depressing, guys, is that within the body itself, in the House, especially more than the Senate, there's such mistrust now between the two parties. And not like, oh, they're going to hurt me on this bill. They're going to double-cross me in committee. But more like we could have a fistfight on the House floor like tomorrow. I mean, it's wild. You guys really do. I mean, I think your personal anxiety about the future of democracy comes through in the introduction of the foreword, but also that sense of menace comes through when you talk about how Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, former CIA officer, moderate from Virginia, called AOC on January 6th to say, hey, wear sneakers so you're mobile. Sorry, fifth, wear sneakers so you're mobile. Don't dress like you. Be low key because I'm worried you're going to be a target.

I mean, that is one, frightening. Two, pretty amazing prescience. And it makes you wonder about all the Capitol policing issues, given that a member of Congress was thinking like that. Yeah. And these two Democratic members, the famed class of 2018, who could not be more different ideologically, you know, as far on the spectrum as you can be and still be on the same caucus. But Spanberger, having been in the agency, knows that AOC is the most high profile member of the House Democratic class of 2018, knows that people are going to be targeting her potentially, and so does give her that heads up based upon her own national security background.

It's a really fascinating moment. And then, you know, also we have that the leadership of the House Democrats were telling members, you know, don't walk outside. Take the tunnels under the Capitol buildings. Don't wear your member pins. It was fascinating. And then Anna Eshoo told us, a lawmaker from California, said that going to the Capitol on January 6th that morning, it was sort of eerie. And she felt like it was that scene from The Godfather where he's rolling up to the toll booth. And so it was just the sort of, you could sort of feel it in the air. There were two lawmakers, Jason Crow from Colorado, Andy Kim from New Jersey. Kim served in the State Department in Afghanistan and Jason Crow is a former Army Ranger. Both of them sent their wives home before January 6th and said, don't stay for the swearing in. It's not worth it. Something could go down here. So

all these members are sensing something in the air in the days before the 6th. And I'll just tell you guys my experience. I was in Georgia on the 5th covering what was supposed to be the big story, those two Senate runoffs. But I knew the 6th was going to be a moment to witness. I caught the last flight from Atlanta back to D.C. on the night of the 5th. And I'm on the plane, and I think it was Delta. They're bringing on not just flight attendants, but Delta security staff before the flight even takes off, and walking down the aisle and telling folks, put your mask on,

settle down because the entire plane was full of people going to the rally on the sixth. And so I'm thinking to myself, yeah, I don't usually see this kind of security before a plane takes off. And this is a pretty rowdy crowd. So you could sort of feel in the hours ahead of the six that something was going to,

was going to happen. Last thing. Cause I just, I just can't resist a chance to make fun of Jared Kushner. you could sort of feel in the hours ahead of the six that something was gonna was gonna happen uh just last thing because i just can't resist a chance to make fun of jared kushner you report on page 91 for those who are looking for it that the jared yeah really the jared kushner personally worked to recruit a campaign manager for kanye west because jared thought it would help siphon black voters away from Biden. West ultimately won 71,000 votes. How much time do you think Jared spent on this dumb fucking scheme while he was playing shadow secretary of state and setting up his future $2 billion investment fund that is seeded entirely with Saudi dollars? And also working on the government payroll, I should add. Yeah.

I know for a fact he spent a lot of time on it. Look, I think he, you know, he, like his father-in-law, is a great believer in the power of celebrity and came to the conclusion that a prominent African-American celebrity could somehow be like the secret sauce that they needed to get just enough votes sort of siphoned away from Biden to give them a chance in a lot of swing states, which, you know, frankly tells you a lot about how they view black voters. But also, like, it's just like the most crude political analysis, given both Kanye's like lack of knowledge of events and obviously like engagement at all in public life. But it does sort of bring you to the White House and sort of like what these guys were like, especially going into 2020. You know, we talk about this at great length in the book. Everything was calculated upon how it could shape the election and whether

it was good for Trump. And look, let's not be naive. Like most presidents are political. They make decisions in part based upon politics. Even the one you guys worked for occasionally did that, but it's almost cartoonish. Trump's talking to these governors who were just desperate for help during COVID. And these governors are trying to get PPE. And they're having to call Trump himself. And he says literally to Ned Lamont, the governor of Connecticut, ask me nicely. What does he point out in the book? It's not like George W. Bush was like, I'm sorry, we're not going to help New York after 9-11.

They're not going to vote for me. That's right. And this is what makes Trump different, is that every president, at least rhetorically, has tried to unify the country and tried to be a president for all Americans. And Trump never even fainted toward that. There was never any mystery about who he was representing because he said it out loud. And by the way, that's one of the challenges, guys, about doing a book that involves Trump, is that he said it out loud. And by the way, that's one of the challenges, guys, about doing a book that involves Trump is that he says everything out loud. So it's not like there's tons of secrets about Trump. But that's one of the reasons why I think we wanted

to do the book the way that we did is like a more comprehensive account of this period of political crisis in America. Yes, Trump, but also Biden. Yes, the White House, but also Congress. Yes, Washington, but also governors, mayors. Because the last two years has been this extraordinarily tumultuous time, and not just in the West Wing, right? It was felt in the House, the Senate, with governors, with mayors all over the country. And so we want to sort of capture that in the most rich, comprehensive way possible. So that's what we try to do. Well, it's an incredibly well-reported book.

Terrifying at times, but a very, very good first draft of history. Jonathan Martin, thank you so much for joining Pod Save America. The book is This Will Not Pass by Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns. It's now a bestseller. Read it. Hate read it. Whatever. Trigger yourself.

Buy one for your friends. Exactly. Perfect. Great book. John, Tommy, thanks, guys.seller. Read it. Hate read it. Whatever. Trigger yourself. Don't trigger it. Buy one for your friends. Exactly. Perfect. Great book. John, Tommy, thanks guys. Take care. Take care. Thank you.

See you. All right. That's our show for today. Thanks again to Jonathan Martin for joining us. We'll talk to you later this week. And now, here's a clip from today's

What a Day. You'll be hearing from some activists and protesters who were at the rally in Los Angeles this week. And now here's a clip from today's What A Day. You'll be hearing from some activists and protesters who were at the rally in Los Angeles this Saturday. I am here marching for my granddaughters. Sorry if I get emotional. Oh my God, I came, I just feel like we're going back in time and this would be devastating for my granddaughters. My mom and my grandparents fought for this and I just think that if they're going to try to take that right away from me, that I should try too. You know, I have a six-year-old daughter here who may someday herself want an abortion and I want her to have that right. More genders than just women need abortions, including gender expansive and trans men.

So we want to show up for all people who need abortion. I'm a family physician and it really concerns me about the safety and health of my patients. That if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that it will result in unnecessary deaths and harm. I'm here today as a postpartum depression survivor who wants better opportunities and better access for my black daughter to care, whatever that care looks like for them. I don't love abortion. I don't think that's a great thing. But the idea that the government should be in the doctor's office with me and my doctor

deciding what's going on is not okay. I'm here today because a long time ago a friend of mine nearly died from a botched abortion. I rushed there and had to rush her immediately to the hospital where if I if not she would have died. So I'm here to make sure that that doesn't happen to anybody else. I think this is a much bigger issue even than just Roe. The potential of not being able to marry the wife of my dreams, potentially not having access to birth control if I'm raped. And what could happen to other groups that have gained some rights in the past 50 years.

And if this is a precedent, this is horrible. I have been marching for women's rights to health care and abortion since the 80s. And I'm really tired of this, which is why my sign says, enough is enough. The more people show up, the more that our voice is heard. Hopefully the voice will get louder, and so bullshit like this doesn't keep happening. As my sign says, I'd rather be doing all these things. I'd rather be going to farmer's market,

masturbating, taking a nap, but we're here. We won't stop. We won't go back. We won't stop. We won't go back. We won't back down. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back.

We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back. We won't go back Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein.

Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.