Pod Save America - The First (and Last?) Debate

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

The first debate is upon us, and you’re not the only one feeling nervous. Guest host Stacey Abrams joins Jon, Jon, Tommy, and Dan, live in Brooklyn, to talk about what we can learn from the 2020 debates, and what would constitute a win for Biden on Thursday night. Then, Strict Scrutiny’s Melissa Murray joins the hosts to break down the latest from the Supreme Court and what’s still to come this term, and Run for Something co-founder Amanda Litman talks with Dan about why it’s so important to have progressive candidates running in local races.Democracy or Else is out now! 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.Pick up your copy wherever you buy books, or at http://crooked.com/books. Want to join Crooked’s subscriber live chat for the presidential debate? Sign up at http://crooked.com/friends.

If you're a regular Pod Save listener, you've heard us talk about the partisan right-wing echo chamber that enables conspiracy theories, nutjobs, and oh yeah, Trump. The truth is, we should all get out of our bubbles a little more. That's why we have to recommend you add the Bulwark podcast to your rotation. Tim Miller, my pal, and a former Republican operative turned anti-Trump crusader, interviews a wide range of guests, from celebrities to politicians to everyone in between. It's non-tribal news and opinion, not for Team Red or Team Blue, but for Team Democracy. He's also joined by other members of the Bulwark crew like Sarah Longwell, Will Salatin, and former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

Watch on YouTube or listen and subscribe to the Bulwarks podcast wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, Brooklyn? Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Stacey Abrams. That's a little insulting. I'm Jon Lovett. Playing for the crowd there. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. We have a great show for you tonight.

Strict Scrutiny's Melissa Murray is here to break down all the latest Supreme Court decisions and non-decisions. Our pal Amanda Littman, founder of Run for Something, is here to talk about yesterday's primaries in new york uh and the amazing roster of progressive candidates running up and down the ballot this fall and of course we are incredibly lucky to be joined by stacy abrams in her first appearance as a pod save america guest host what a dream thank you thanks for doing this thanks for having me Huge get

Huge get Huge get Alright, before we dig into the news We are here in New York Because it's publication week For our book, Democracy or Else Yeah, How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps Raise your hand if you bought a copy

Alright Pretty good Thank you Thank you Pretty good The rest of you, what's going on? Raise your hand if you bought a copy. All right. Pretty good. Thank you. Thank you. Pretty good. By the way. The rest of you,

what's going on? Raise your hand if you didn't. Raise your hand if you planned to, but he got you a little early. There you go. All right. We are trying to get this thing to the top of the bestseller list. Hey, expectations game

on the bestseller list. The top, somewhere near the top. I bestseller list. Hey, expectations game. On the bestseller list. Right, right. The top, somewhere near the top. I don't know. I'm sorry I did that. We're looking to do this not just to fill our insatiable hunger for public affirmation,

which is even more insatiable for some of us than others. But because the more people who see this book and buy this book, the more money goes to Vote Save America and 2024 campaigns that are doing the real work to save democracy. So and luckily, Brooklyn's own Greenlight Bookstore is here in the lobby selling copies. Stacey, you're a best selling author of both political books and seven actual

novels you got any advice for us? writing words down works but I will say this having actually had a chance to read a bit of this you should tell your friends because this is a book that lets you read fast

and look really smart and that's the best kind of book. I mean, if Dostoevsky had figured that out, he may have made it sometime. But that's what this does. It is a fantastic primer on what's happening, but it's an even better way for us to feel good about what we can get done. So I would just tell people that. Best pitch I've heard. That's incredible. I mean, Dostoevsky is rolling over in his grave, but for us, good. Thank you.

All right, let's get to the news. I don't know if you guys have heard. There is allegedly a presidential debate Thursday night in Stacey's hometown of Atlanta. Most important moment of the campaign so far. The current president versus the former president. Jacked up Joe versus Don the con. It's a rematch that nearly 60% of Americans claim they'll watch,

even though 0% want to. And can you blame anyone? Because this is what happened the last time these two met up. I look at New York. It's so sad what's happening in New York. And I'm not sure it can ever recover what they've done in New York. I want to make sure. You graduated last in your class, not first in your class.

I want to make sure. Can you let him finish, sir? He doesn't know how to do that. He has, you know, you pick the wrong guy the wrong night at the wrong time. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He was not a loser. He was a patriot. And the people left behind there were heroes. And I resent. Are you talking about Hunter? Are you talking about Hunter? I'm talking about my son, Beau Biden. You're talking about. I don't know. I don't know, Beau. I know Hunter. What do you want to call him?

Give me a name. Give me a name. White supremacist and white supremacist. White supremacist and white supremacist. Stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what. Why didn't you do it over the last 25 years? Because you weren't president screwing things up. You're the worst president America has ever had. Let people know, you're a senator.

I'm not going to answer the question. Why wouldn't you answer that question? Because the question is, the question is, the question is, will you shut up, man? It's hard to get any word in with this clown. Woo! Democracy is cool. Democracy in action, folks.

Who's excited for these two to give it another go? Anyone? That clip makes me want to throw up, but I'm also hearing Despacito, and I don't totally know why. It just puts me in that headspace and from that time. You know what I mean? Did everyone else get the pit in their stomach when they watched it? I got the pit. Every time.

Yeah. So this debate will be 90 minutes, two commercial breaks, two moderators, CNN's Dana Bash and the man that Trump lovingly calls Fake Tapper. There will be no opening statements, no pre-written notes, no talking to advisors during the break, two minute answers, one minute rebuttals, and when your time is up, your mic is muted. Yeah, sure. Muted mics. Stacey, we have all talked probably too much at this point about our experiences preparing candidates for debates. You're the first guest host to have actually participated in a debate as a candidate. Can you talk a little bit about what it was like,

what your prep was like, and how much staffers like us annoyed the shit out of you? Given that some of them still work with me, I know. I will say I was resistant to the rigor of debate prep, in part because I don't like sounding stupid out loud in front of other people. And part of debate prep is admitting all of the things you don't know

to a group of people who are there purely to judge you. If I want to do that, I'll go and look in a mirror. But I will say part of what I learned about debate, and it was the best debate advice I ever got, it was that I wasn't debating the other person. It was an opportunity to talk to the people. And it's hard to ignore the person that you vehemently disagree with when they're standing that close. But when you can focus on telling people what they need to know, it's a lot easier to do it. But debate prep sucks. It is over and over again, like you're giving an answer and much as you're probably thinking,

like, shut up, slow it down, cut it off. And you're trying to count in your head to 30 seconds, 90 seconds. And did you remember that pithy phrase you were going to use that was going to make everyone tweet you the next day? And if not, you just pretend that you said it anyway. So there you go. If you were in debate prep at Camp David, what would you be giving Joe Biden in terms of either advice or pharmaceuticals? He's debated a lot more than I have. has acquitted himself well I think I will say in grave seriousness the biggest and most important piece of this debate is remembering that most people watching it already know what they want what they need is to remember why they want it

we have selective memory in this country which is why we have to do this every four years every two years trying to remind people to vote. But the challenge and the opportunity that President Biden has is to tell people that this isn't about just what has happened. It's also about what can happen, not the, you know, fascist storm that is, you know, heading our way. But he's put a lot on the table. And I mean, I grew up in the South, so he's planted a lot. Now it's time to let those things grow. And I think if he talks to folks about what's possible and why he's the person we want tending the garden, so I can completely butcher this metaphor, that's the best way to get people

to do this. But as much as that clip was interesting, watching the fisticuffs is not going to be what changes people's minds, but what will get them motivated and engaged is the belief that if they go and do something, things will sprout and grow

and life will get better. Yeah, that's good advice. So Dan, a lot of smart, well-meaning organizations from the left to the center left have been releasing memos and polls about what they're hoping to hear and see from President Biden tomorrow night. I'm sure you've read every word, looked at all the numbers. What's most persuasive to you in terms of the message that Biden needs to drive at the debate? Well, John, I have read every word of all the

memos, and you're not going to believe this, but just coincidentally, their advice for what Joe Biden should say at the debate lines up perfectly with the policy agenda of their organizations. That's amazing. And what are the odds, right? It's very weird. Look, in all seriousness, there is good advice in there, particularly around how the president should talk about immigration and the economy. But I think that the best way for the president to do this is to take it bigger, right? Which is the story that people leave here, leave the debate with, is that every single day Joe Biden wakes up, he's thinking about you. He's fighting for you. What does Donald Trump do? Thinks about himself, right? He's running for president to avoid going to jail,

give himself a giant tax cut, go back in power so he can exact vengeance on his enemies. He's not thinking about you. If he gets reelected, there's going to be no one in the White House who's fighting for you, right? And that is the right message because that is the most obviously and essentially true message. Joe Biden's superpower is his empathy. The most obvious thing about Donald Trump is he's a narcissist who cares only about himself, right? What is so interesting about him is that he is a grievance politician, but the grievances are all personal, right? It's people who wronged him, not people who wronged you, right? People who took your job away, shipped your job overseas. It's about the deep state and the New York Times and the CNN and all the people who go after him. And that is absolutely true. Now, this part is very hard for

people like us who have spent over a decade now screaming about how the press obsesses over optics. But what Joe Biden says in this debate is less important than how he says it. Right. It is going to be, does he come off as forceful, strong, energetic? Does he answer the questions of, according to the New York Times Siena poll that was released, hopefully three hours before this podcast, three quarters of the country who think he's too old for the job, right? Is he going to address that? Because that, to me, is the whole kit and caboodle. That's what this is about. This is why the Biden campaign wanted this debate this early on this day, because they thought this was their single best opportunity to address that. Once they address that, that opens up everything else, right? It makes people listen to him more on the economy, makes people trust him more to protect

them and keep them safe. We'll trust them more to keep the border secure or to pass legislation that covers immigration reform, because you have to do that. And so you're going to get the right message out, but how he delivers that message is going to be more important than anything else. Yeah. And what people are waking up worried about is not necessarily joe biden's age they're worried about cost of living affordability people are saying they worry about immigration they're worried about abortion access worry about democracy and what they're looking for from biden is that he is strong enough that he can do something about this that he's and then that's where the age issue i think comes in and so i do think like a lot of strong value statements

um uh up when he's up there is going to think like a lot of strong value statements when he's up there is going to be like really important to like let people know he's going to fight for them. And when it comes to the economy, like really digging in on here's what I have done. It's a down payment on what I want to do for the next four years. And if you give me another chance, we'll keep working in this direction. If you go with this guy, he only cares about himself and he's going to take us back. The worst mistake the president can make at this debate is to turn this into a defense of his record over the last four years. Just can't do it.

Because what you're doing, and I get it, right? This is the mistake every incumbent makes. It's the mistake Barack Obama made in that first debate with Mitt Romney in 2012, is you're proud of what you did. You're not getting enough credit. This other guy across the age group is lying about what you did. And so you want to defend it. You want to do that. But when you do that as the incumbent, you're accepting the premise that your opponent wants, which is this

is a referendum on the past. So you've got to make it about the future. But you can mention the things you did, but as proof positive that you're going to do this in the future. Because the best comparison with Trump is not the economy during Trump's presidency and the economy now. It's what they're going to do to the economy over the next four years? And Donald Trump's going to cut taxes to the rich people. He's going to pay for it by cutting Social Security and Medicare, and he's going to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Like, that's his agenda.

So, like, go future agenda versus future agenda is a good place for the president to be. Tommy, you weirdly decided to rewatch the first Biden-Trump debate from 2020. You guys did, too. Without being asked. Well, Tommy and I flew here on Sunday. Our flight was delayed five hours. So we spent the day at LAX. We did. We finally got on the plane

and it was pretty late. And Tommy spent the flight watching the first debate. It was a good time. And then now we all felt bad. So we all started watching it today. And let me tell you, it's not a fun watch. Tommy, what were your takeaways from that undoubtedly enjoyable experience? Yes, we had a great time on the plane. Biggest takeaway, unfortunately, it's an optics one, which is Joe Biden looked a lot younger. And I know no one wants to hear that, but he looked younger and he sounded younger. And so I totally agree with what Dan is saying, that there is a threshold question about his age that he has to answer that we saw in the New York Times poll where 68% of voters were concerned about his age and fitness to do the job. So I think what he says might be, at some points of the debate, less important than how he says it or the vigor with which he sort of

prosecutes the case. The flip side of that was Trump was so much angrier and redder faced and angrier. Just, he was so enraged in that moment. And I'd almost forgotten how just caustic and nasty he was. And of course we did later learn that he had COVID and he wound up in the hospital. So I guess on some level, it's like kind of an impressive performance, you know, to get out there and just rage for 90 minutes with COVID. He played through it. He's like Michael Jordan in that game, the one fact about sports I know. That was good, the flu game.

Yeah, the flu game. Jordan flu game. It was like the flu game. Good for you. And then poor Chris Wallace was just a drunk guy at a bar holding on to the mechanical bull like, you agreed to the rules. So we'll see how this goes. I mean, the takeaway was Trump is going to attack

from the very first second until the last second. So you have to be prepared for that, but also parry and respond and get him on defense and get that version of Trump, this angry, raging, red-faced man back on that stage. I don't think he has learned discipline in the last couple of years, but we've seen a more disciplined campaign, so it is a concern. I think Biden has to look energetic, as we discussed.

He has to be sharp and be on top of things. And then the one thing it really did make me rethink was this question about the muted mics when they're not speaking and the impact. Because I do think muting their mics when the other is speaking is good for the republic because i think most people watch a debate like that and they shout over each other and the response is not to blame one or the other it's just to be like politics is awful like i'm changed the espn is a channel away like what are we doing here but i do worry that a muted mic could save trump from himself and the ugliest side of him coming out. So it made me a little anxious about that. Yeah, because I remember watching that first debate,

and when they were yelling at each other, it was like, oh, this is just bad. To Stacey's earlier point about the most important thing you can do is like talk directly to the people i do think to the extent that biden shows anger or passion you always want it to be like anger on behalf of the american people passion on behalf of the american people and not anger at trump like when trump tries to needle him in a personal way who let that stuff go when trump tries to say something that you can then come back and be like, look, in 2020, you tried to throw people's votes away. You took the right to decide women's healthcare away from them.

You tried to take 20 million people's healthcare away from them. Get angry about things that affect people. Don't get angry about whatever Donald Trump says about, you know, you graduated last in your class, which he seemed really obsessed with in that first debate. Love it. One topic DC is yapping about ahead of the debate has to do with fact checking. CNN's political director said the debate is, quote, not the ideal arena for live fact checkingchecking, and that Dana and Jake will be, quote, facilitating the debate between these candidates.

They will not be participants in that debate. There's some reports that this has annoyed the Biden camp. Trump then posted that nobody's as loose with the truth as Crooked Joe and accused him of lying about his golf handicap. What do you make of this? How much, if any, fact-checking should the moderators do? Yeah, no, look, we're a couple fact-checks away from having this whole thing locked up.

Get a couple more Pinocchios out there. We can all get a good night's sleep. So, yeah, I saw these stories, and look, I love working the refs. Let's work the refs, great. But we were just talking about what Joe Biden has to do. Joe Biden has to defy right wing caricatures of his performance, assuage people's concerns about his age, while at the same time reminding people of everything

they dislike about Trump as a narcissist and how extreme he is. The moderators can't do that. The moderators can't help him do either of those things only joe biden can do that and that would be true if the moderators weren't jake tapper and anna bash who were i think two reporters who are going to follow up they're not going to just roll over they but we've seen them interview both of these people in the past and not only that how does joe biden do both assuage people's concerns about his age and remind people of the threat Trump poses? By beating Trump in a debate. That's how he does it. He will prove that he is up for the job by proving that Trump is not up for the job.

And so I am less concerned about whether or not Dana Bash says actually inflation is technically down or Jake Tapper jumps in and says actually murder rates were higher in 2020 than I am about any circumstance in which Joe Biden is just standing there and all of a sudden Jake is arguing with Trump and then down a bash comes down with a fucking folding chair on top of Trump's head and Joe Biden is just an observer. Like I'm not interested in

that. I'm interested in that. Yeah. That's awesome. What are you talking about? I'm talking myself into it about i'm talking myself into it i'm talking myself into it more broadly like there's a lot of reasons to be concerned about misinformation about joe biden's age about the ways in which the media kind of has uh normalized trump man, this debate is about Joe Biden answering the concerns that Americans have. And really, I think any conversation about the moderators is a side jump. Stacey, if the moderators don't fact check Trump, how much fact checking do you think Joe Biden should do? He should only fact check as a way to talk about the future. It's this is what

should actually be understood. This is how we talk about it. Rule number one in misinformation is you don't repeat the lie. And so using the lie as a way to show his strength, to show his future vision, to avoid Dana getting up with the chair, those are all, like he could be doing a lot of services both for America and for CNN by using it as a point of entry to a larger conversation so that people see what possibilities look like. And to the point about being reminded of just how angry Trump is, not taking the bait ticks him off more than almost anything else. else. And so being unwilling to take the bait and instead being the grownup on the stage, which is, you know, what he is, that's the best way to fact check without having to call the question. I think that's so important because there is, and I think Biden fell into this in that last debate with the wrong guy, wrong time, wrong place, right? That's, that is a version of strength,

right? But what Biden needs to be as strong and steady. People think Trump is strong. They may view that strength in a malicious way, as many of us do and should, but he comes off as strong, right? It's Sarah Longwell, our friend who's on this podcast a lot, says he gives off raving lunatic energy, right? And so that becomes a quite of a strong. So Biden doesn't show strength by repeatedly punching Trump in the face, literally or figuratively, but by being strong in energetic in his responses, but also seeming steady. Because that's the difference between the two is that that's how Biden won was Trump.

Like you watch that debate and it's a reminder of just how chaotic and erratic and alarming Trump is. And that was particularly alarming at a time of national crisis, like we were going through in the pandemic at the time. And so Biden had, and people looked at Biden and they said, that is a steady hand on the wheel in a dangerous time. And Biden has to show that because that's been lost over the last four years. I mean, I think it's machismo versus maturity. Yes, that's right.

We need to see maturity and that lets him lean into age because you get maturity from someone who's been here long enough to know what's worth fighting about and what's not. We've got a whole lot of maturity on our side. Yeah. We've got maturity in spades. We've got maturity up the yang. We've got so much maturity. I think the where it gets a little weird for Jake and Dana is not like, actually, Mr. Former President, 27 NATO countries paid 2% of GDP for defense. You know, it's like, nah, shit. It's like, would you cheer? You know, it's like,

it's like, no, actually, Mr. President, you didn't win the 2020 election. And your own attorney general said there wasn't sufficient voter fraud to impact the outcome in any way. Like, those are the kind of threshold, like, the sky the sky is red kind of reality-based questions where i wonder if they start to feel like they need to start yeah i mean we're talking about this like it's a regular presidential debate but one of the candidates is a convicted felon who tried to overturn the last election and then incited a violent insurrection in the capitol so it's just like it's like so it's the elephant in the room you know yeah but but like right now if you look at swing state polls right donald trump is currently leading joe biden is losing joe biden needs to change something at this debate if we come out

of this debate and it's a story about how donald trump and jake tapper were mixing it up well that that's a problem that's a like and i and i don't like i think just as much as like whatever this like i don't think jake tapper or dana bash want to be the story out of this debate all right but i at the same time i expect one way they will avoid any question about being biased is they're not going to go easy on donald trump they're going to go really hard on both of them right like everyone's talking a lot about about what j what Jake and Dana are going to do with Trump. Like one of the ways Joe Biden is going to have to, he's going to get some pretty hard questions from the moderators too.

And that's going to be, that's going to be part of his test. The story that comes out matters a lot, right? Because I know 60% of voters said they're going to watch the debate. That would be 90 million people. Zero chance. So, you know, if you pull people and ask them, if you're going to go to the gym this week, they also say yes, right? 37% of the country. Half the country is full of shit, it turns out, yeah.

But so, you know, that Biden debate that we just saw, 70 million people endured that. Now, that's a time in which that was a general election debate in October, at a time in which you really had no other option. It's not like you're choosing between the debate and going out to dinner with your friends or going to a baseball game, right? You were either watching that or watching something else, right? In that same poll where 60% of people said they'd watch it, only 41% of quote unquote swing voters said they were going to watch it. And so the people we need most are probably

not going to watch it. So they're just going to pick up the vibes off the debate. And if the vibe is, God, that was fucking awful. These guys yelled at each other for 90 minutes. That doesn't change the dynamics of the race. If it is Trump's a giant asshole, that does help a little bit. But the one you really want is, Biden was better than I thought. That's what you want people talking about. And then when people see the clips, because the real spin war is going

to be on TikTok after the debate's over, you want the clips to jive. That's what will go viral is a bunch of people going, Biden was pretty good. I don't agree with him on everything, but he was pretty good. You want a hot guy who normally makes pottery to be like, I actually watched the debate and I was pretty surprised. No, you want one of the clip guys like Aaron Ruppar being like, I can't believe Maria Bartiromo said this.

And you click the clip and you're totally underwhelmed by the results. But yeah, you got to frame it. You got to frame it. Question for the group before we move on. The president of cnn called you and said that jake was having a dental emergency and you had to be the fill-in moderator what is the number one question you're asking donald trump jake is ripping that tooth out with his bare hands remember the scene in castaway where he put the figure skid against his tooth and he

banged it out of his face with a rock? He's like, cut me, cut me. Cut me, Meg. Anyone got a question? It's a rocky joke. None that don't have curse words in them. Um. I'm.

Don't challenge her to swear. I'm the daughter of not one, but two pastors. If I curse, I have to say bless your heart when I'm done. No, I mean, I think it's a question about. I don't know, because he's going to lie. Like maybe just ask him how old he is. See if he can get that one right. Don't you want to ask basics sometimes?

How does a bill become a law? That, no, no, no. How many states are there? What are the three branches of government? Where is Florida? Explain the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Oh, that's a good one. That's a really good one.

Look, I wanted to ask this question because we know tomorrow morning when this podcast comes out, Jake and Dan are going to be listening. Yeah. They are the first thing they do, Pod Save America. But how are you really? You know, like see if you can get them to open up. What gives you hope? What gives you hope?

Drake or Kendrick. Lovett, do you have one? You know, I was thinking about this question and i i really don't like i i i feel like i feel like the questions we actually want him to answer are all so obvious right because like the truth is obvious that's i think the challenge of being in this time which is that like the truth is blitheringly obvious to all of us and it feels like our job is to go out there and say something that we believe is completely obvious uh to a country that is for some reason inexplicably unavoidably 50 50 no matter what fucking happens um and so it's like really the question it's like

you end up at the place where you're like how fucking how do you fuck your mother how could you uh and that doesn't do anything for anybody. But I like questions, though. I do think that there have been moments with Trump, too, where you ask a question like, you know, we're so accustomed to it now. The Trump worldview is everything he's ever done is perfect, and when he's president, everything's great, and when he's not, everything's shit,

and that's a switch that flips the day he wins or loses. And what's your biggest mistake, right? Like, what do you think you got most wrong when you were president? What's your biggest regret? I'll say Mike Pence. Yeah. But that's interesting. But that's interesting, right?

But I remember early on, Hugh Hewitt, Lovett's friend, conservative radio host, asked President Trump, then-candidate Trump, what is the nuclear triad? Which is the three means of distributing nuclear weapons. There's subs, there's nuclear silos, and there's bombers. And Trump clearly didn't know the answer. Unlike all of us.

And just fudged his way through it. But Hugh is a right-wing hack who worked for Richard Nixon and now has a radio show. So he just kind of let it pass. But like something like that could just catch him on the basics of government. Yeah. He's very good at not answering questions yeah yeah like he like his greatest political skill is that he has no capacity for shame in his body and so it just does like any other normal person would get that

question and they would feel more and more uncomfortable as they were like trying to bullshit their way through it it would be patently obvious he just like bulls through it well that's i think that's why you can't it can't be a question that he's just gonna like lie through like i want him to i would ask him all right you've said before that you this is kind of goes to the mike pence thing you said before that you hire the best people but more than a dozen of your most senior aides last time you were president are not supporting you, including multiple defense secretaries, multiple national security advisors, your vice president, multiple White House chiefs of staff. And they have said about you that you are a threat to democracy, that you are a danger to America, that you are a narcissistic moron how can the american people trust you to

leave this country if the people that you hired who worked closest with you aren't supporting you i bet he gets that yeah that's a good question you said you had a great question just in your back fucking pocket you set us up he also he was so good good that was a fucking contest i just wanted to that was really good i think that was really good didn't chris wallace ask him that question chris wallace yeah when on faxing sunday i think oh yeah when did he do an interview with oh oh wait when is the last time he i was wondering this because like this is the first time that donald trump has submitted himself to questions from someone who is not a right-wing Newsmax person. When did he do Chris Wallace?

Well, that was a long time ago. That was years ago. Caitlin Collins, I think, on CNN was probably the last. Or the 90-minute Time magazine interview that he did. Which is wild. Yeah, well, that's not live TV. I don't think that we talk a lot about, oh, incumbent presidents, they're not used to being questioned. This is a rare time.

We have two incumbent presidents who are going to face kind of tough questions in a way neither one of them are particularly used to. I also think Trump, too, like if you ask him a question he knows is meant to throw him off guard, he's very kind of good at avoiding it. But actually some of the most damaging things he's ever said, like, I think there should be some punishment for the woman. Right. Those are questions that didn't seem dangerous right and he tried to bullshit his way through because he didn't know the answer and didn't know how fraught it was so that's sometimes the most interesting space to get trump yeah give me your thoughts on tax policy sir yes i think like catching him being dumb is is is fine but i also because he that'll happen but i do think like some of the questions are like hey are we all

crazy here he tried to overturn the election all these people like imagine if all of Joe Biden's senior officials were like absolutely not the guys a threat to democracy what are we doing here like questions like that I think are in the New York Times poll once again released I know six percent of likely voters think that Donald Trump should be president and in prison. Eight. It was eight. That's registered. It's six and likely. I sent that or I saw that. It's like eight. You want to be really sad? Eight percent of the supporters think he should go to jail. It's tough. It's tough. OK, enough of that. It's going to be a great debate tomorrow night. Wonderful. It's going to be.... We'll see you on the other side. It's going to be a pageant of democracy.

But before we let Stacy go, she has generously agreed to play a game with some spicy pros that will seem very familiar to you. And I don't know anything about this.

Stacy. Yes, John. I don't know if you know this, but Tommy and I and John sort of, he helped a little. We wrote a book. I don't know if you know this, but Tommy and I, and John sort of, he helped a little. We wrote a book. I've heard tell.

It's called Democracy or Else. It dropped Tuesday, and it's available at fine bookstores everywhere, including here at this show. And if it hits the best sellers list, maybe airports. You, of course, are not just a person who is helping to change the politics of Georgia

while advocating for voting rights and democracy. You are also an author of multiple novels, which you wrote under your pseudonym, J.K. Rowling. I read them all on the plane. It's Selena Montgomery, which is a beautiful name. I really like it. Thank you beautiful name. I really like it. Thank you. Yeah, I really like that.

Now, I read them all on the plane here, and boy, are my arms tired. So we thought we'd make voting rights sexy in a segment we're calling Kiss and Tell People to Register. And it's very simple. Okay. I would just love if you could help our audience get a primer on the stakes around voting and democracy in this election. So John,

Tommy, and Dan are each going to ask you a question about it. Okay. And that's all there is to it. I do not believe you. No, that really is. They're just going to ask you a question and that's all there is to it. Dan, you're going to kick us off. Oh no. Excellent. Here is your question for Stacey. Why don't you kick it off and please read it as written.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hi, Stacey. It's me, Dan Pfeiffer. Hi, Dan. I lend a certain credibility to this whole operation. Sort of a spectrum,

with Levin on one end and me on the other. Anywho. Hey, don't rush through it. Okay. Anywho, an exchange in one of your novels reminded me of the importance of mail-in voting. Hunger

raged inside her, demanding to be sated. But it would mean nothing if he didn't understand. You're all I ever wanted, she said. Ethan froze, stunned and humbled. He kissed her then, slowly, tenderly. A benediction and a beginning, murmuring into the night, I've only ever been yours. Republicans in Nevada are suing to block the counting of mail

ballots that arrive after election day. Their efforts to restrict voting across the country in the hope the Supreme Court will issue benedictions for their policies. I see what you did there. But is the hunger for democracy among voters enough to overcome these restrictions? Well, given that as a line from Hidden Sins, what we know, thank you, what we know is that the secret to their success was revealing to the world what was happening. So number one, the way we protect democracy and we ensure access is by pushing hard for the world to see what Nevada has been

and what it could be. Because Mara's was a story of redemption. And we can redeem ourselves and Nevada in 2022 by making sure that the voters of Nevada believe that not only is their right to vote sacred, but it is a benediction to put a stamp on that ballot and send it in so it can't. John has a question for you as well. And John, I hate you.

Okay. Hi, Stacey. It's me. Podcasting's Jon Favreau Polls show a lot of voters Especially voters who are less engaged And less likely to vote Are skeptical of democracy itself Whether it can deliver, that it's worth their time Which reminded me

Of how much we admire your leadership and wisdom Do we take for granted that people Understand why a democratic system is best How do you address that cynicism? He just got a nice one. Yeah, I was reading it like, oh no. I don't think we take it for granted. I think it depends on the state you live in, literally. We have 50 different democracies. If you're in Oregon or in California, congratulations or Washington state, yay. If you're in Georgia, in California, congratulations, or Washington State, yay. If you're in Georgia, God bless you because the governor won't. If you're in Florida or Texas, they're trying their best to stop you. And so I think our opportunity is to remember that not everyone has the same democracy that you do, even though we

live in the United States. And so a lot of the work that we do, a lot of the work that Vote Save America does, that Fair Fight does, the work that gets done is about trying to ensure that for as many people as possible, we can start to take for granted how democracy should work. But until we get there, we've got to do the work for everyone who doesn't have a chance

to stand up. And while I'm talking about Fair Fight, make sure you check out fairfight.com slash L F

G V F stands for freaking. Let's freaking go vote. So go to fairfight.com

L F G V which is being done in partnership with Vote Save America because we can get

this done. And I believe Tommy has a question for you. Tommy, I am sorry. Okay. Hi, Stacey. Tommy Vitor here. And I turn red at the slightest provocation.

Hold for effect. I was thinking about the franchise while reading this passage in the novel Hidden Sins. Heat, like an inferno, blazed in his veins. It's amended that he slide his arms around her, that he trail his hand along her spine to sink into

the silver curls at her nape. He wanted to pull away to resist the skeins thank you for the parenthetical there that would bind his heart to her again, but he'd forgotten that she tasted of honeyed sweetness. Thanks. We are trying to resist the skeins of partisan gerrymandering

and the purging of voter rolls. But for Republicans, the prospect of choosing their voters rather than the other way around is just too sweet. How do we fight for democracy when it feels like the democracy itself is stacked against us? Thank you. We fight for democracy by remembering that we're entitled to it.

The Constitution does not give us the right to vote, but our citizenship gives us the responsibility to demand the vote. And so part of the effectiveness of gerrymandering is that it tries to convince us that our votes don't matter because we don't live in the right zip code or on the right side of the line. My response is that we do our best to erase those lines. We do that by making sure that people who don't, who were unfortunately drawn out of power, understand that there are other ways to gain that power.

And we don't use voting as the only thing. It is one of the tools in the toolbox. And just as the curls of the nape of Mara's head that curled around his fingers as he pulled her closer. We can, too, pull our country closer together. Amazing. Amazing. So, just so everyone... Thank you so much, Stacey.

Thank you for having me. Before... Just so everybody here knows, we'll have more to say about it soon but there is a very exciting project from Stacey Abrams and Crooked Media coming your way soon

but I won't kiss and tell Stacey Abrams everybody the one and only Our guest tonight is the co-founder of Run for Something. Thank you. An amazing organization that's recruited and trained thousands of progressive candidates all around this country to run for office up and down the ballot. She is one of the most inspiring and smartest people in Democratic politics. Please welcome to the stage Brooklyn's own Amanda Lippman.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. I promise not to make you read anything from Stacey's books. I've read a few of them. They're very good. They're very good, yes. Okay. While the presidential race is going to come down to traditional battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,

the race for control of the House of Representatives is going to come down to this state right here, New York. Now, last night was a primary election here. We had a very divisive primary. Income of Jamal Bowman lost. But going forward, this is going to be where it happens, right? We have two Republicans in states that Joe Biden won, a bunch of really purple districts. What is your view of what's going to happen in the state? And can the party unite in time to take advantage of a bunch of contested, targeted, winnable house races in a very blue state in the presidential year? I think we're going to have to. New York is going to be a battleground this year, which is a little unfamiliar for us New Yorkers in most elections. But we have seen what New Yorkers can do when it comes to going out to Pennsylvania

and knocking doors, when it comes to going down to Virginia and knocking doors when it counts. And I believe that New Yorkers can understand this is our time to shine. We can show up when it counts. We always do. And there are some really competitive local elections that are going to be happening this year all across the state, including in some of these competitive House districts that are going to make the difference, too. Are there any political races anywhere on the ballot here in New York that you're watching with particular interest? Do you think inspiring candidates, interesting, important races? Well, Run for Something just had a bunch of candidates up on the ballot yesterday that I'm really excited about.

Well, Run for Something just had a bunch of candidates up on the ballot yesterday that I'm really excited about. We helped Claire Valdez win against a union organizer, take a seat in the state assembly. Up in Albany, Gabriela Romero, want to see a very progressive, incredible young woman in a very competitive race. And I think there's going to be some really exciting races out on Long Island this year. So stay tuned. People often think that it is the presidential race that drives turnout, right? And that was sort of in the premise of my question, that this is a presidential year here in New York.

But Run for Something thinks it's the opposite, right? You talk about something that's called reverse coattails, where local elections can actually drive turnout for the top of the ticket. Do you explain your theory and how it's impacted recent elections? So traditionally, people understand that the presidential candidate has coattails, that people show up to vote for

Biden or against Trump and then also fill out the rest of the ballot. What Run for Something has seen, and we actually proved this out with some research back in 2020, is that contesting local elections, especially state-led, city council, school board, can increase turnout for the entire ticket to the tune of anywhere between 0.3 and 2.3 percent within that district, which can be the margin of victory for, say, Biden in Wisconsin or Arizona or Georgia. Now, think about this a little bit. Your local candidates, your state-led candidate, your city council candidate is out there knocking doors, talking to voters. Hey, I'm Amanda. I want to talk to you about your property taxes or the book bans they're pushing or how we can fight for abortion access here in this state. You know them. You can

yell at them directly if you want, which is kind of fun. You can really build a personal relationship. It's like a field organizer with a ton of skin in the game. And more recently, we actually tested this out with young voters in particular. We fielded a question in a poll. We asked young voters in battleground states, if there was a young, diverse progressive running for state or local office near you or in your area, how would that affect your likelihood to vote? 61% of young Democrats said it would make them more likely to show up. That's huge. Especially in a year where like, let's be honest, a lot of young people, especially young voters of color, not particularly psyched to show up for Biden.

So this is a tool in our toolbox. I was going to ask that because this is, you know, I think obviously reverse coattails works all the time, particularly in redder parts of the state where Democrats may not run all the time or there's not a competitive congressional race. So you're not seeing ads that turn out, but maybe you're turning out for your local school board or as you say, your city council or alderman or local election official, I know is something you guys focus a lot on. But this year in particular, Local election official, I know, is something you guys focus a lot on. But this year, in particular, it feels like with so many people being unhappy with the choice at the top of the ticket,

for whatever reason, that this would be most important, right? You know, we just had a small gathering to talk about some of the work run for Something Does around school board races. And Luisa Santos, who's a member of the Miami-Dade school board, who's a target for Ron DeSantis, who's had Proud Boys show up at her campaign events, who's been harassed, and also has done incredible things for Miami-Dade, bringing electric school buses down there, working for free lunch for kids. She was telling us how she goes and knocks doors and she'll talk to voters and she'll be like, well, are you going to vote this fall? And they're like, no, psych, not interested. And they'll say, well, let me talk to you about what i've done for your kids we don't even have to talk about biden we don't have to talk about trump let's

talk about what i've done for your kids and for our community they have a conversation will you show up and vote for me and she's able to get them to say yes and that times a thousand is what's going to win for democracy this fall. Right, because people, they turn out, they're unlikely to leave the first question blank, right? It's just not really what people do. Sometimes people leave the down ballot blank. But what we're doing with the thousands of Run for Something candidates across the country this year that we've recruited and the hundreds that we're endorsing is giving people more invitations, more reasons to show up. They'll probably do the rest of the ballot, most of them, because most of them are Democrats. They don't want Trump. They're just like not super psyched about everything else.

In 2022, you guys spent a lot of time talking about electing the candidates at the local level who are going to help certify the elections. Right. That in some cases, it's the recorder of deeds. Right. Could you just talk a little bit about that effort, how you're doing in 2024 and maybe some of it? So because we know when you talk local issues, right, you think local candidate, school board, potholes, local excise taxes. Right. But how local candidates affect some of the national issues we think about, like education, abortion, healthcare, that sort of stuff. Okay, so we call this program Clerk Work,

because I love a good rhyme. And the idea is that we should elect pro-democracy leaders who actually oversee elections. It's revolutionary. That is a crazy idea. Crazy. It's something Steve Bannon fundamentally disagrees with and has been running massive campaigns to recruit against. We have been doing this now for about two and a half years

intentionally. We've gotten more than 500 folks to run for pro-democracy positions that actually oversee elections. My favorite example here. So in 2023, we sent a bunch of text messages out in Pennsylvania saying, hey, have you thought about running for county commission? Because county commissions, among their many other powers, oversee the election, decide where polling places are and how the election is certified. One of the people we texted was a pastor in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, named Justin Douglas. Justin had been fired from his congregation for being too welcoming to LGBTQ congregants. He had been working with the unhoused community in the area. And he was like, I don't know if I'm the right person for this, but I'll have a conversation with you. And our Pennsylvania State Director and our team there

worked with him to get him to yes, and then to help him run this incredible campaign for county commission in Dauphin County, which is around Harrisburg. He was outspent 10 to 1. He was running against a Republican who had all the money and all the support and all the institutions. And Justin was leaving flyers on people's doors that was like, the mayor in Jaws 1 is still the mayor in Jaws 2 local elections matter. One of the things in his campaign... That's so funny. One of the things in his campaign... That's so funny. Yeah, he's great.

One of the things in his campaign, besides democracy, was that a number of prisoners had died in residence at the county jail system that the county commission oversaw, and he made that a core part of his campaign. Justin won by just about 150 votes. by just about 150 votes. Justin flipped control of the county commission for the first time since the early 1900s in over 100 years. One of the first things Justin did

was expand the number of ballot drop boxes in Dauphin County. Justin is making sure that ballots are available in Spanish and Nepalese and Bhutanese. He's ensuring that the anti-democracy and Republican incumbent he beat has no control over whether the election is certified. Justin and the county commissioners that he is part of are going to make sure that Joe Biden is able to fairly win the election in Pennsylvania this year and win the White House. Biden is able to fairly win the election in Pennsylvania this year and win the White House. When Run for Something started in 2017, right after Trump won, you became a vehicle for this tremendous sense of activism among people, like, what can I do? And you facilitated people who

were looking for something to do to run for office at all levels, right? And there was a huge burst of people who wanted to do it. In the ensuing years, right, we, you know, especially since 2020, there has been this sense that a lot of people have disengaged from politics. Either they thought Trump is gone and I'm exhausted and I can take a break, he's back, or they're maybe just burned out, cynical, whatever else. What's it been like trying to get people to run for office this year in this environment? Would you believe that we have built a list of almost 160,000 young people in all 50 states who want to run for office?

It is, as far as we know, the largest candidate pipeline of the democratic party thousands of people have signed up just in the last few months they believe we're going to still have elections in 2025 and they want to be on the ballot when we do that's amazing you said you know a lot of the candidates should work with their young candidates, right? You've really focused on young progressive candidates. All of the polling of the polling, as we believe, suggests that one of the challenges for the Democratic Party right now are young voters. Progressives, but also young voters writ large.

What advice do you have for Democratic candidates running anywhere about how they can bring Democratic voters back into the fold, young voters back into the fold? Talk about the things young voters care about. It really, in many ways, is that simple. Housing. Young people disproportionately feel the impact of the cost of housing, especially because young people are renters, and we do not have enough renters in elected office. So when we have conversations about housing, it's a lot of landlords. Abortion access. You know, I'm still technically a young

voter. I'm six months pregnant. Reproductive health is on my mind. Congratulations. Mid-October due date. I'm just going to be crying in my house either way. You know, think about the things that are really affecting young people now. Even, you know, here in New York, public transit. Could go on a whole rant about congestion pricing, but boy, Kathy Hochul's making it real hard. No, I think it's, in many ways, young voters really want to hear people talk, hear our politicians in our party talk to us about the things that directly affect our quality of life. Which is not to say that democracy isn't part of that.

It absolutely is. And it's not to say that restoring the soul of America is part of that, too. Sure, kind of. Some of us are like hit or miss about what the soul of America, is it good? Is it bad? I don't know. But for most young people, they just want someone to tell them like, I can fix the things that are bothering you. I can give you hope. I can show you that there is a path to a better community and a better place to live. It's why local candidates can really drive us. And yours, is that right? I mean, you mentioned that granularity is important. Specificity is important, specificity is important?

You know, you made a mention of the democracy message, right? Is there a sense that for a lot of young voters, I think maybe for a lot of voters, the democracy message may sometimes ring hollow because it becomes an endorsement

of a political system that a lot of young people felt has not worked for them? Yeah, you know, you think about someone who's 18 in 2024. They've never known a political environment without Trump. they've never known a political environment without Trump. They've never known a democracy that felt like it was reflective or representative of us. I think

it's one of the reasons why we've seen young voters or young candidates be such powerful drivers for young voters. It's both like practical, tangible. Oh, this is someone who, when I say I'm really pissed about XYZ issue is going to personally understand it because they have dealt with it. But also this is someone my age, my cohort, like maybe I play basketball at the gym with them. Maybe, you know, our kids play soccer together,

whatever it might be, who cares enough and believes enough in the possibility here. And I think it's one of the best things about this work is it is so optimistic and so hopeful to see young people who don't believe the system is broken. Okay. John, John and Ty, we're not the only ones with book news. You have an upcoming book with us for Crooked Media Reads. It's still in the works. Super not done yet. I hope my editor is not here.

In this book, you're exploring generational leadership shifts. Can you give us a little preview of what you'll be covering in the book? You know, I'm pretty behind. But I am writing a little bit about what it looks like to be the boss whose employees follow you on Instagram. Or, you know, take me for an example, to try and take maternity leave as the boss or, like, run for something, does believe that work-life balance is really important

and want to implement, as we have, a four-day work week and actually put that into practice. You know, when I say, like, you know what a boomer leader... No offence to all the boomers, although my girls will live in the water wars, so a little offence. But when I say, like, my boss is such a boomer leader no offense to all the boomers although my girls will live up live in the water wars so a little offense but when i say like my boss is such a boomer you kind of know what that means what i'm trying to do is define what it looks like when you say my boss is such a millennial my boss is such a gen z so coming to you next may please buy copies all right finally before we go amanda you've been on our podcast many times.

Crooked Media and Posse Mercury, huge fans of Run for Something. I found what you guys started in 2017 and what you've done to be incredibly smart, incredibly impactful. It is exactly what the Democratic Party has needed. In the pre-Trump era, so many times Republicans were winning races because there was not a Democrat to run against them because we had no operation within our party to recruit and train people no point of entry for people who said I want to run for office they didn't know who to call who where what website to go to and Amanda and our co-founders built this organization and made it Jake you've been making a gigantic difference and so I want to give you the opportunity to tell the

people in this room and listening not not in this room, how they can help support your work. Because no matter what happens in November, good outcome, unthinkable outcome, we need to continue to get young progressive people running for office up and down that ballot. Because that's the next generation of the Democratic Party. So how can they help run for Something? Runforsomething.net slash donate. $1, $5, $5 million. I will take it all. And I say that somewhat jokingly, but also anyone who's been sort of,

you know, to your point earlier, existing in the political space right now is tired. And we are feeling that on the fundraising side too. So if you believe in this work and you believe that building power, sustainable power in all 50 states at the local level matters, make a donation. And if you are listening or you're here in the room and you're like, huh, you know, I really would like to do something about housing or childcare or abortion access or criminal justice reform or whatever

issue it is, runforwhat.net. Look up what offices are available for you to run for next year or the year after. We would love to help you because I believe that democracy is going to win this fall and we're going to get a lot of elections next year. And even when Trump is far gone, we're going to have all his little copycats all across the country who are running for school board

and city council and state ledge that we have to beat too. And you, either listening or here, can be a part of that. Please give it up for Amanda Littman. Thank you so much. When we come back, strict scrutiny. Melissa Murray is going to join us for some more news. Please welcome NYU Law Professor and co-host of Strict Scrutiny, our pal Melissa Murray. What a standing ovation for the people at home. So today was a day like so many others in June where sickos like us maniacally refreshed our feeds at 10 a.m. Eastern, 7 a.m. Pacific in anticipation of Supreme Court decisions

that usually make us angry when they come and angry when they don't come. Wednesday morning was slightly different in that the court rejected a challenge from Republicans in Missouri that would have prevented the federal government from simply asking social media companies to remove misinformation from their platforms, but despite the court's term usually ending in June, which is almost over, despite American democracy hanging in the balance, we still don't have the immunity ruling or about 10 other important rulings. So Melissa, we'll get to all of that. But first, how big of a deal was the 6-3 ruling in Murthy versus Missouri? Okay, well, thanks for having me.

This chair is really deep. I feel like Martha Annalito made this, so I could feel like a child. Sit up. So Murthy v. Missouri is a really important case about social media. It should be understood in tandem with a couple of other cases that the court still has not yet decided.

These net choice cases, I think those may come down in the next couple of days. But the case was decided on procedural grounds. The court said that the litigants, which were two Republican state AGs and then a handful of social media users who said that Facebook and Twitter moderated their content to root out their COVID-19 conspiracy theories, the court said they didn't have standing. So it was a purely jurisdictional question. So we didn't actually get to the substance of whether the government can lean on social media platforms to do better content moderation. But because it was a standing issue, this could come back at a later time. It may come back in the future. I think the biggest

thing that this case did was that it allowed the court an opportunity to once again smack down the Fifth Circuit, which I always appreciate. And they did it in really excellent form. Like on strict scrutiny, we refer to the Fifth Circuit as a meth lab of conservative grievance. And the court seemed to agree with us. They basically said that this case, there had been no discussion of any of the facts that might lead to questions of standing whether these were the right litigants to bring this case to federal court. And so Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. And she said, you know, this is not a fact-free zone. And I guess that was encouraging.

Were there any hints in the decision about how they saw the substance of the case, or is it just purely standing? Mostly standing. The dissents, though, were really interesting. There was a big dissent by Justice Alito. And I mean, wow. Get out. Really? I mean, that guy. That guy. So he wrote this dissent where he just basically railed on the Biden administration and specific members of the Biden administration by name. So he name-checked Joe Biden.

He name-checked Jen Psaki. Name-checked the Surgeon General. And basically talked about all of these people trying to censor conservatives. I mean, it was almost like a Fox grandpa getting a chance to write a Supreme Court opinion. Think of them as people who might be upset about someone putting a flag on their house. That kind of thing. He is deep in the comment section. He is.

Yes. He's checking his menchies. First time caller. Yes, exactly. I wanted to ask you about the dissent because it first of all, like just you dip into Alito and he's just mad all the time. He's mad all the time. But why? He's 70 something years old.

He has the skin of a 50 year old. This man looks amazing for his age. No, seriously. Check it out. Yeah. It's like maybe, maybe you get everything you want and then you're unhappy. But something for him and his therapist. He doesn't. These people are not in therapy.

But I wanted to ask you about the dissent because the meth lab right now is contained to the Fifth Circuit. But in the dissent, he doesn't just name check people, right? He says, says, these bozos writing the majority, they didn't even entertain the actual substantive question, but I will. And I actually think on the merit, this is a violation of the First Amendment. Does that tell you, like, I mean, it does seem like everyone's like, oh, this, this opinion is, this Fifth Circuit opinion is ridiculous, but not ridiculous to three people

already. So not ridiculous to three people already so not ridiculous to three people who would be very happy to reach the merits of this case and a dissent like that is essentially a roadmap to future litigants just find better plaintiffs who can actually make out plausible claims of injury and then here's a path to deciding this on the merits and turning this into a first amendment violation so i think that's a path to deciding this on the merits and turning this into a First Amendment violation. So I think that's a big part of what this was. Right. Because he even says, right, like they didn't even seek damages. If they had sought damages, we could have talked about the damages. So it's like he's like really like, no, no, come back and we'll we'll we'll get

rid of any bounds on what you can say online. They do this all the time. The conservatives are always doing this in the Miffa-Pristone case, Thomas and Alito were basically asking the Solicitor General to identify who would be a better set of plaintiffs. And thankfully, she was like, I don't work for you. I work for the Attorney General. And so she declined to provide a roadmap for them. But they do this all the time. These dissents, these concurrences are often invitations to come back, do it better, do it again. It does seem like Alito is like Heisenberg, and he does want the meth lab to go national. Who is Jesse in this? Martha Ann. Always. Let's say someone reads Alito's dissent, they see whoever damages, whatever, they get standing. What is the actual decision on the merits in Alito's fashion mean? The government simply can't ask Facebook to take posts down? Well, so we already have a little bit of a kind of inkling of where he's going, because a couple of weeks ago, the court decided another case,

NRA versus Vulo. And it was decided much earlier in an earlier stage of litigation. But basically what had happened was Maria Vulo, who is a New York state official, leaned on some insurance companies, some banks to basically stop doing business with the NRA in the wake of the Parkland shooting. And the NRA sued saying that you can't do that if you're a government official. And the court in a very narrow, unanimous decision written by Justice Sotomayor said, yeah, the government can do its job. It can't use its position to lean explicitly or to coerce another entity to do something. And I think that's basically what Justice Alito is looking at. And he said specifically that

Vulo should be the template going forward. So, Tommy, does this seem like a defeat for the forces of disinformation? It seems like a mixed bag. I mean, like, I think, setting the government aside, I mean, I think the challenge with disinformation at the moment is the platforms. Speaking of Justice Alito's skincare, I think a couple weeks ago I saw that on TikTok, a bunch of influencers were saying that you don't actually need sunscreen to prevent skin cancer,

that sunscreen can give you skin cancer. Who was, there's one famous person behind this, right? Oh, I don't know. Anyway, so like no dumb idea won't go viral over there, so TikTok's a problem. I think meta is sort of washing its hands of all things content moderation. Twitter is obviously a disaster. I mean, we have like Elon Musk is the number one super spreader of disinformation. I think they fired their whole trust and safety team. They have changed the

verification process so that any bozo can pay eight bucks for a blue check and get algorithmic amplification. And then if you go super viral, you can actually make money on your posts. So every time I see in the news, like something happened in Gaza, there will be an account that is sharing a video from like 2015 in Syria that they purport to be from today because they'll get paid off of that. So I think the platforms that are disaster, I think that you're seeing academics get in the crossfire of the political discourse here. Like I think Stanford just shut down a research lab that was focused on disinformation and you have Republican members of Congress crowing that like, in the name of free speech, we just killed all this free speech and research. So I feel like the trajectory of our broader efforts of preventing the spread of disinformation

are getting pushed aside because institutions are not prepared for the political fallout. It doesn't seem like we're going to be able to address the supply of disinformation at this point because it's in so many different platforms. It's so many different places. And whether people, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately ultimately decides if it comes back to them there is legal pressure the stanford internet observatory shut down because of this legal pressure and because of pressure from people who are funding it so it's just like it does feel like it's it's becoming very very difficult to just actually go after the different sources of misinformation and deal with the platforms unless we're going to actually regulate them, which is also difficult. And there's very legitimate questions about what role the government should play here.

I mean, in terms of censorship, free speech, First Amendment rights, you can imagine a scenario where a Trump administration is shutting down disinformation that says things like, hey, you lost the 2020 election. So we have to be careful on that part. But I think broadly, there's a lot of non-government actors here. This is also just like, what we're talking about is so far, this is about individual staffers and people in the government seeing vast amounts of misinformation already on the internet and desperately trying to do triage. If you're at the stage where you're reaching out to Facebook

about individual posts that are going viral, you've already lost. We've already lost. That's a, you know, I'm going to say it, and you're going to all be a little immature about it, but it's like putting a finger in the dike. I can't do it. Dan?

Yeah, I mean, that's where the point is. Do you have a better metaphor? I don't know how I follow that, but... I was going to say it's like whack-a-mole, but... Yeah, whack-a-mole. Yeah. That was the one I was going to use, but anywho. Like, even in a

world in which we get the right decision in whatever the future case is on this, all it's saying is platforms will still make the decision. So ultimately, we are still, our solution as a society for limiting the spread of disinformation is to bet on the goodwill of tech billionaires. And then in the course of world history,

that bet has never worked. Just betting on rich business barons to make decisions counter to their financial self-interest is not a good strategy. And I think ultimately, the way we're going to beat misinformation and disinformation is not to stop it at the source. It is to invest our time and energy into countervailing factual positive information. And making our own. Damn it, love. We're going to make our own.

Make our own. Okay. Melissa, so the counts vary somewhat, but it seems like there are about 10 opinions left to be released. What are the big ones

other than immunity? We'll get to immunity. So there are a couple of really big cases involving the future vitality of the administrative state. So one, SEC versus Jarcacy, which is about the SEC's ability to do in-house enforcement adjudication. That's how most SEC cases are adjudicated. That will be huge. There's another set of cases, two consolidated cases, Relentless versus Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, which are about whether in circumstances where a statute is ambiguous, whether it's the agency

who has the opportunity to determine and resolve that ambiguity or whether a judge, a Trump judge, should be able to do that. It's the Chevron Doctrine, so that hangs in the balance. There's a major case on homelessness, Grants Pass v. Johnson. There are major cases involving environmental law, Ohio v. EPA, which is about the good neighbor rule. If you've watched The Lion King, this is basically the Pumba rule, whereas states that are upwind have to take precautions to ensure that their downwind neighbors

don't bear the brunt of smog or air pollution. So a lot of really big cases, some of them I think too wonky to really get into on mainstream media, which is why you hear about immunity, you hear about Mifepristone, but you don't hear about these other cases. But these are the cases that are about government as we know it, whether we have clean air, clean water, whether government can regulate, or whether we're going to allow judges, unelected judges, to make these decisions. And it does seem like that the court later today may have accidentally posted a decision on a major abortion case in Idaho. What happened there?

it Martha Ann? Possibly. So yeah, if you were refreshing this morning, I did not refresh hard enough to catch this, but apparently the court inadvertently uploaded the opinion in Moyle, which is the EMTALA case. EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. It's a federal law that requires when you present at a federally funded hospital, which is most hospitals since they mostly all take Medicare and Medicaid funds, you have to be served with emergency treatment that's appropriate, stabilizing emergency care, including abortions. And that has to be done even if you are in a state with a draconian abortion law like Idaho, for example. At oral argument, when this case was argued, it seemed very clear that the conservative supermajority on the court was really skeptical about the prospect of women needing emergency abortions

in cases of miscarriage or whatnot. And, you know, in their infinite medical judgment, the justices were sort of like, can't she just like wait, maybe die? I don't know. All of that. But it seems from this uploaded opinion that the court has made a decision to punt this case. They've decided that they are going to do what is known as a dig. They've determined that certiorari, or the court's decision to review this case, that decision was improvidently granted. And usually a dig happens when the court determines after oral argument, after review has been granted, that the circumstances are such

that further adjudication would be improvident. So a dig is very unusual, right? It doesn't happen that often. And I've never really seen a dig happen so many months after oral argument, right? So, I mean, usually if you've determined that there are circumstances that would require a dig, it's pretty obvious on the face. Yeah, we all know that. And we all know what improvident means. Right. Well, I know. We all know. But just in case somebody. Well, I know. We all know.

But just in case somebody listening and they don't want to feel dumb. I assumed you knew because I know about your LSAT score. Yeah, no, I'm saying I know. We know. But they don't. Somebody out there, they all know. But somebody might not know. Improvident.

We shouldn't have done it. I call it the alleged LSAT score. Well, I mean, he always tells me about it. I know. Well, that's, you know. So we shouldn't have taken this case. So a mulligan, essentially. Let's just call it a mulligan.

Do you want to hear my crazy cockamamie conspiracy theory about this case? Yes, of course. Okay, all right. Because I'm a lawyer, that's what I want to say. What did Lovett say? We're creating our own misinformation. That's what Dan advocated. Let's do it.

So here's my theory of this. The court got rid of the Mifepristone case not by deciding it on the merits, whether the FDA properly regulated Mifepristone. They ditched it on standing grounds, like not the right plaintiffs, not a clear claim of injury. And then this case gets digged, like dismissed as improvidently granted, a mulligan, if you will. I think they know that abortion drives women to the polls. I think they know that abortion gets undecided voters out and it galvanizes support in electoral politics. And I think they've looked at the calendar and they realize November is coming. Yeah. And a hundred percent. I think this is true true and I think they're trying

to figure out a way to get the court out of the crosshairs of electoral politics and if they decided this the way I think it looked like it was going at oral argument it would have galvanized so much support among women they're basically asking just go die

go to a parking lot and wait till we tell you you can have this abortion. And I think they just didn't want to do that. Justice Jackson writes a barn burner of a concurrence slash dissent where she says, I don't believe this was improvidently granted. I believe you bitches wanted to get to this and you took it. And now let's decide it because you broke it, you buy it. Like you need to decide this. And yeah. I mean, the lesson here that clearly the court took from Dobbs and all the political repercussions was not that you shouldn't take a constitutional right away from half the country. It's that you shouldn't do it in an election year.

I mean, and John Roberts said this at the oral argument in Dobbs. He's like, listen, can't we get to some kind of compromise where we uphold this cockamamie Mississippi law, but we don't go all the way and overrule Dobbs? Wouldn't that be better? Because there's an election coming, the midterms. And they wouldn't listen to him. Millions of women were energized by Dobbs

and they went to the polls. I think they see the same thing happening now. Abortion is a salient issue for elections. And Justice Jackson said this in her concurrence slash dissent. She said, you know, there's comparatively a more convenient time for us to get to this. And make no mistake, we will get to this. We're not getting to it now because they've decided it's improvident to do so, but we will get there. And there's already another case coming out of, wait for it,

the Fifth Circuit. So this is going to come back to the court. It'll just come back after November. So don't be fooled. Don't listen to all of the folks who are like, this is a moderate court on abortion. They want to take this issue out of the public discourse around this election. I don't even know if it was a mistake that it got uploaded the day before the debate where the one thing Joe Biden needs to hammer is that Donald Trump is responsible for whatever is happening on abortion. Sleeper cell IT person. Well, I was, I mean, I was going to ask like on that note, so we're recording this Wednesday night. The debate is Thursday night, tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, there's going to ask, like, on that note, so we're recording this Wednesday night.

The debate is Thursday night. Tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, there's going to be more decisions. There will also be decisions Friday. And then there will be decisions, I guess, Monday. And we don't know what's going to happen beyond that. What decisions could be released tomorrow that would provide fodder for either candidate at the debate tomorrow night? And like, how likely do we think that this court's going to release any decisions tomorrow morning that could potentially be fodder for the debate tomorrow night? Because it doesn't seem like they would drop the immunity. But now I'm thinking of some of the other ones, like

any case that would help Joe Biden make an argument against Donald Trump at the debate, it seems unlikely they would drop that tomorrow morning. So maybe they dropped the Amtala decision since we all seem to know what it is. So yeah, it's out there. Cat's out of the bag. Let the chips fall where they may. Housing prices are so high, maybe they release the case on homelessness and make that Joe Biden's fault? Possibly. I think it's very unlikely that the immunity case comes out for obvious reasons although they could literally be like gremlins where they got wet and ate after midnight and just decided to do it i don't know like that would be the most chaos agent thing ever well there's also there's also the case actually the eating after midnight would make them gremlins

is that what getting wet would make more gremlins is that... Actually, the eating after midnight would make them gremlins. Is that what happened? The getting wet would make more gremlins. Is that what happened? Yeah. The eating after midnight turns Gizmo into gremlin. Right. I actually never watched this movie. Oh. I just, like, know this.

You raised it. It seems like you raised it. It was on the LSAT. You raised it improvidently. I did. I wish you were back on the island. The one I was wondering if they would release tomorrow morning would be Fisher, which is a case about the January 6th insurrectionists and they were charged with obstructing an official proceeding

and they could throw out those charges. It seemed like they were leaning that way in oral arguments and that would take away two of the four charges. Not necessarily. Okay. So the Fisher case is about the statute, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was passed in the wake of Enron

and it makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding. And the question in Fisher is whether obstructing the certification of the Electoral College is the sort of official proceeding that the statute's writers had in mind, or was it something like evidence tampering or witness tampering, like the kind of thing that happened around Enron? And so, you know, this is going to turn this court's would-be textualists into knots, because on the face of it, this is straight up textual healing. Like, obviously, this should apply. But, you know, if you're textual-ish, you know, you might not necessarily go this way, especially if January 6th hangs in the balance. The reason why I think it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Donald Trump is that the charges in the January 6th indictment are not simply about interrupting the certification of the Electoral College, but about advancing these slates of false electors.

And that could be the kind of corrupt act that would fall within the scope of the statute. And so that was even more that would be even more textualist because in the statute, it says like, you can't, it's certificates, right? Like that's, I mean,

when you get that feeling, you need textual healing and you have to do that. Um, so, so, you know, again, maybe because I'm not sure how it necessarily works for Donald Trump.

I don't think it's a get out of jail free card for him, even if they side with the rank and file January 6th. Though at that point he would just say, he he would say, the prisoners, the patriots of January 6th, the court just ruled today, they're exonerated. That's not going to help him. We all have eyes. Yeah, I was going to say, one, it would help the members of his favorite choir. But if that IT, that possible resistance member who handles IT at the Supreme Court is listening,

that is a decision that would be good for us to have out. Because there's nothing we would like more than for Donald Trump to be talking about the patriots of January 6th on a debate stage in front of 50 million people. And if that IT person is listening, I don't know if this will help. And you know they are. And you know they are. I don't know if this would help, but please try turning the supreme court off and then back on so scotus continues to do trump a solid on jack smith's january 6th case by continuing to uh

punt the immunity ruling judge eileen cannon keeps doing everything she can to slow walk Jack Smith's other case, which is Trump stealing classified information. Can you take us through the latest on what Cannon has been doing and how this might be different than what other federal judges would do? Did you see the new picks today? New Mar-a-Lago picks just dropped.

Oh, I did see those. All the classified boxes spilled over on the side. It's great. So I grew up in Port St. Lucie, Florida, which is right next door to Fort Pierce, where this courthouse is. And I'm just like, it's a wacky place. So I'm never entirely surprised by what Judge Cannon does.

I mean, one, she's not a very experienced judge. And like, when I say this on MSNBC, people always like get into my mention, like, stop making excuses for her. I'm like, I'm not making excuses for her. I'm basically saying she's not that smart about this. But like, she's not an experienced judge on criminal matters. And so I think a lot of what we're seeing, you know, it's either a lack of experience, she's out over her skis, or she literally is in the bag for Trump or some combination of both, which, you know, I don't discount either. She's been doing a lot recently. So one thing that she's doing that I think most federal judges do not do is that she's making no use of the federal magistrate judge to whom she has been assigned. Like typically, if you're a district court judge, you get assigned a magistrate judge.

she has been assigned. Like typically, if you're a district court judge, you get assigned a magistrate judge. This is not an Article 3 judge, but an Article 1 judge that basically does a lot of Article 3 functions. So they do a lot of pretrial hearings. They will handle evidentiary motions and things of that nature. And they basically do a lot of the managerial work that clears space for district court judges to do their work and keep cases going on track. Bruce Reinhart is the magistrate judge who's been assigned to her. He's also the judge that signed the warrant for the search of Mar-a-Lago. So it's probably real awkward for her to go to Judge Reinhart and ask him to help her take on some of these issues. And so she seems to not be relying on him. Again, it seems like an unforced error for a district court judge

because it frees up a lot of time and keeps things moving. Last week and this week, she had a couple of really odd hearings where she invited essentially a Miki to come into court and to argue an issue that I think has been asked and answered by the Supreme Court and other federal courts,

like whether the appointment of a special counsel is constitutional or not. I believe this was decided in United States versus Nixon many years ago and has subsequently been reaffirmed by various federal courts, including the D.C. Circuit, a decision that the Supreme Court declined to review later, so it seems settled. Something she could have Googled? I mean, could have been an email, right? Did you say amici? Friends of the court? Is that what that is? Yes. If people just heard that term

and they weren't sure what it was... Tell me you don't listen to strict scrutiny without telling me you don't listen to strict scrutiny. I'm helping them. I knew the term. I knew that you heard that I knew the term. Your LSAT score again. I'm just, there's a big amicus or amicus debate that needs to be answered. Did you say amicus or amicus?

You go back and forth. I think I sometimes go back and forth. I want to be inclusive. Okay. Yeah. So she's doing that. She had another hearing this week about whether or not the funding structure for the special counsel was constitutional, also asked and answered by a case this term at the

Supreme Court. So just seems to be like having a lot of hearings. And I guess that's fine if the question of this case getting to trial weren't so urgent. Right. I was wondering why she's doing all this because like, didn't she are like the case is not happening before the election at this point. A hundred percent. So it's like, it feels like she's just like spiking the football. Maybe she's trolling us. I don't know. But I mean, I do think it's worthwhile to put a pin under this. Like this is the most straightforward case. I know. Right. This, this is the easy the easy one for real. And there are lots of people in federal prison right now for having fewer classified documents in their possession. Yeah. Right. And so. And not obstructing justice when someone's like, hey, if you have classified

documents, can you give them back? It's like, no. No, thank you. Erase the videotape. I have a subpoena. No, thank you. No, I mean, so this one's pretty bad. And again, I think you have to look at sort of, Tommy and I have talked about this, but Judge Cannon's on this case because the Southern District of Florida has two judicial vacancies that the Biden administration has been unable to fill because for district court seats, there is a custom of requiring the home state senators to provide their blue slips to any judicial nomination. And Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have refused to sign off on anyone who the Biden administration, shocking, I know. And so when this case went into

the wheel for the Southern District of Florida, they basically were like only a handful of judges who it could go to. And one of them was Judge Cannon. And lo and behold, it was Judge Cannon. It was a real deer hunter situation. If that was for you, fine. I want you to know that you got me all pissed off

about the blue slip thing. And then I came into the next pod I did with these guys. And I was like, Dick Durbin is trying to bring back the blue slip process. And that's stupid because it means these Republicans and red states can spike these judges. And then these guys, they made fun of me. They told me I was a dork for bringing up the blue slips and they made fun of me. I don't remember specifically saying that. I absolutely remember that.

I mean, it sounds like something we do it does sound like something i mean well look we do know that if in the nightmare scenario where donald trump wins the white house and the reformers take the senate the republicans would continue to give that privilege to democratic senators of course right obviously yes 100 100 so all right so the immunity decision we're waiting it feels like we're not going to have a real January 6th trial. We might have a mini trial before the election. Like a hearing. A hearing, right.

Eileen Cannon's doing her thing. We're not going to have that trial. The former president was convicted of multiple felonies in New York. We're clapping. We're clapping. Shout out. And by the way, seven of the jurors are here tonight hi hillary clinton no every um every one of them got a sign that hasn't really moved the polls

love it you've been talking about how as much as donald trump should face accountability from the law that is not going to save us do you want to make that case again now since it's look i do think there's like i i was thinking about this before the show just that like i feel like in the end like donald trump is just the luckiest person in the history of human society and we'll just have to face that at some point like it just never a drop of rain will ever fall on this man like i just what he did in a past life must have been pretty fucking amazing um but no look i think you know there was this there you know joe biden put out an ad it was a great ad it was a contrast ad about donald trump being convicted in all the ways joe biden is fighting for ordinary people and and we

talked about how that was a change from where joe biden had been at the beginning of the race where he said like the courts won't save us only we can save ourselves and i think the hope that somehow the judicial process the legal process the the um i don't know the moral character of of primary voting republicans like there was going to be some path to getting rid of donald trump that didn't involve once again all of us putting on our boots and our jackets and going and knocking on doors and getting people to do it but i think with each passing day it is very clear that no like there will be no legal accountability for donald trump and by the way a media environment this noisy and republican party this debased telling all of us that it's acceptable for someone convicted of multiple felonies by a

jury of their peers to be the nominee makes it acceptable to half the country. That is just the reality we live in. And I think a lot of times, how can this be? How can this be? It is. It just is. And there'll be plenty of time for us to figure out how to slowly but surely build a politics that doesn't make the stakes feel like this and doesn't make us feel so worried all the time. But that is not our luck for the next four to five months. Alyssa wants to fly her flag right now. All right this is so dystopian um how can you wear this outfit and be so dark in your predictions? He is he's true. Oh thank you sir. Yeah so here's here's my take on it right like you're leaning in.

I'm interested. Before you leave for Miami. Just between us, amici. You are my best amici. You really are. That's only true if Donald Trump wins. Because if Joe Biden wins, these cases can actually happen. They won't be killed by a new Trump DOJ.

They can actually go forward. And if accountability is what you want, then going to the polls, getting your friends, galvanizing people for Joe Biden should be a high priority. Like, that's how you get accountability. Oh, absolutely. Yes, these trials continue. I'm more making the broader point that, like, we have to defeat not just Trump,

but this movement enough times and so emphatically that craven, valueless people who care only about winning decide that the way to win is to moderate, right? Like, a couple years ago, it was Marco Rubio saying that the future of the Republican Party is a cosmopolitan and moderated uh party that brings in people uh from uh all walks of life right it was called the autopsy because the party was dead down you know yeah marco rubio let us down it's like we have to that's all that's that's the point i think they were just so freaked out by having a black president that they were like, we got to have a king. Definitely.

And once you get to that point, and if that's not your bag, then this is the moment to stand up and fight. Let me give a pitch for that maybe is a little more of your baser pitch for why you should get involved in this election. So you're sitting there, we've been doing this for fucking forever at this point. We've told you every election since 2017 was the most important election of your lifetime. You've been knocking doors, you've been texting, you've been phone calling. But just imagine this scenario when you're sitting on the Votes of America website and you're afraid to hit submit on your email address. We work our asses off. Donald Trump loses. Then we get to watch Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get sworn in again. Then a few months later, Donald Trump loses. Then we get to watch Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get sworn in again. Then a few months later,

Donald Trump will stand trial in Washington, D.C. for the insurrection. And then he's convicted. Maybe he goes to prison. A few months later, he leaves prison. He goes to Fulton County, Georgia. He has to stand trial again

for having to overthrow the election. Gets convicted. He has to stay in trial again for having to overthrow the election. Gets convicted. Goes back to prison. A few months after that, comes back. Goes to trial for stealing classified documents. Gets convicted. It's going to be a pretty sweet 2025, people. And then the primary begins.

And then, and also... Lock him up. Lock him up. All right. And then they're old, and Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas are like, we got to go. And we've also not only reelected Joe Biden, but we've kept the Senate, and we've flipped the House, and now we are adding more Supreme Court justices. And then Apple makes all the chargers the same. Yes.

This is the dream. This is the dream. This is the dream. There we go. All right, so that's the hopeful. That's the hopeful scenario, but it only works if everyone gets out there and volunteers and donates and does everything we can

for the next couple months to actually make this happen. So that is our show for tonight. We're going to be doing a special debate reaction show tomorrow night that'll land early Friday morning in your feed. Check it out. Thank you, Stacey Abrams. Thanks to Amanda Lipman and Melissa Murray.

Thanks to Greenlight Bookstore for selling our books tonight. If you haven't grabbed a copy of Democracy or Else, please do it on your way out. Thank you, Brooklyn. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doom-scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers

are Saul Rubin and Farrah Safari. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and Thank you. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pelleviv, and Molly Lobel.