Pod Save America - "The Herschel Walker Abortion Fund."

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

Herschel Walker gets caught paying for a girlfriend's abortion while advocating for a national abortion ban and control of the Senate hangs in the balance. Maggie Haberman joins to talk about being Donald Trump's psychiatrist. Then later, Jon and Dan play another round of Take Appreciator. If YOU want to directly support abortion access for those who need it most, head to theherschelwalkerabortionfund.com/  For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Herschel Walker gets caught paying for a girlfriend's abortion. Control of the Senate hangs in the balance. Maggie HabM Progress and on the SiriusXM app. You'll be able to hear our election coverage lineup of podcast hosts, candidates, experts, and more, including Pod Save America at 6.30am and 12pm Eastern each

weekend as we break down all the issues that matter this November and offer the only 100% correct opinions in politics. That's our guarantee to you. All correct opinions in politics. That's our guarantee to you. All correct opinions, no predictions. That's right.

That's right. You can listen on channel 127 or subscribe now and get up to four months free of SiriusXM. See offer details at SiriusXM.com slash crooked. Also, if you haven't caught up on this season of The Wilderness, take a listen this weekend. I am talking to voters who aren't hooked on Twitter or cable news to find out how they think about politics and what it will take to actually reach them to help save democracy in 2022 and beyond. You can now catch up on the first four episodes of The Wilderness. And then I got two more episodes coming out every Monday, wherever you get your podcasts. So we got I did a group in Vegas that's coming out this Monday of working class Latinos in Las Vegas.

Question, what day of the week did you do the group in Vegas? I did it on a Friday. Was that the only day? I could go out Friday night. The only people who were available were just a Friday. You would have done Monday, obviously, but just happened to be the Friday. Look, a couple of my friends happened to also be there that night.

Yeah, great. That night. What a coincidence. Your dedication to our democracy is all inspiring. I am just trying to find out what's on people's minds, Dan. And then the last group is younger black voters in Atlanta.

Did that after our last PSA live show in Atlanta in August, and that's coming out a week from Monday. But listen to all the episodes. Fantastic stuff. Hearing from these voters and some stuff that will make you really mad. But it's important to know. It's important to know.

All right, let's get to the news. In one of the great news breaks right after we recorded moments in Pod Save America history, The Daily Beast reported on Monday night that Herschel Walker, the Republican Senate candidate in Georgia, urged a woman he was dating in 2009 to get an abortion, reimbursed her for the procedure, and then sent her a get well card. And we know this because the woman provided a copy of the check, the receipt, and the get well card. But wait, Dan, there's more more the news gods are at least temporarily smiling here on the thursday pod because last night the daily beast also revealed that the

woman in question isn't so anonymous after all she's actually the mother of one of walker's children whom he has already publicly acknowledged as his own walker, of course, is in favor of a federal abortion ban with no exceptions for anyone but apparently himself. And he has responded by threatening to sue the Daily Beast for defamation, which he has not done all week, and conducting unintelligible interviews with right-wing pundits. Here he is Thursday morning with Hugh Hewitt. And if that had happened, I would have said, there's nothing to be ashamed of there. People have done that, but I know nothing about it.

I know nothing about it, but if I had done it, it is not something to be ashamed of. But I have not heard of it. Right. But also, I've been forgiven for it, which he says in the next clip. Yeah, I've been forgiven for it, but I haven't done it. But I've been forgiven for not doing what I have said I have not done.

But if I had done it, it would be fine. Which is very clear. Yes. All right. This egregious example of lying and hypocrisy on one of the most important issues of the campaign should of course end Walker's candidacy, but also we live here in the year 2022.

So what do you think? Are you asking me whether a candidate running on a platform of an abortion ban with no exceptions in the year in which Roe v. Wade was overturned is revealed to have paid for an abortion? Could be harmful to him? Yes, I think it could be harmful to him. Problematic, perhaps? It's not great. I remember once working in politics

100 years ago, and a candidate did something completely insane. And Ron Klain, who was involved in it, sent me an email saying this would be an A-plus answer to how to lose a campaign. That's what this would be. But we also like to live in a world where maybe there

was a time in politics in the not too distant past where this would literally be it. The money would dry up. Republican leaders would distance themselves. The NRSC or McConnell would walk away from them. Religious leaders or Republicans in Georgia would walk away. No one would be seen on the stump with him. But we don't live in that world anymore. That's not how it works. And there's this interesting polling number that's been going around from the Public Religion Research Institute, which does some really interesting polling. In 2011, they asked Republican voters, do you think a candidate who committed an immoral act in private could be ethical and public and fulfill their duties?

And only 36% of Republicans in 2011 thought that. In 2021, that number is 70%. And that is not a crazy thing. It's not that long ago that a lot of Democrats supported Bill Clinton because they thought he could be a ethical, good leader in the White House, even if his personal conduct was abhorrent, as we dealt with in the late 90s. But that is sort of what has changed here, is twofold. One, Republican leaders will stick with him. Trump has proven there is no price for – that the actual danger is to walk away too early and to stick around too late when the candidate did something wrong.

So could this affect the race? It absolutely will affect the race. Is this the end of Hershel Walker's campaign? Absolutely not. way too early than to stick around too late when the candidate did something wrong. And so could this affect the race? It absolutely will affect the race. Is this the end of Hershel Walker's campaign? Absolutely not. Do you think the difference here is it's not just conduct in his private life that is the issue. It is the fact that he is running on an abortion ban with no exceptions. But, you know, the exception is, of course, for him. And so basically, the message is, Republican politicians want to ban abortion for everyone except Republican politicians. Yeah, yeah, this is look, this is not good. I mean, he is someone who says abortion is murder. And then turns out he paid for an abortion and sent someone a good

get well card for it, which is showing that there is a tremendous conflict between his public statements and his personal conduct or even maybe his personal beliefs, if he has any beliefs at all. Yeah. And look, we you know, I know you wrote a message box about this and and noted that when this first broke that Tommy was saying, oh, it could be like an Access Hollywood tape moment. And we all know what happened there. I was thinking about that. I mean, I think that the damage to Trump after the Access Hollywood tape was real, but the problem was it was so early, or there was so much time left after Access Hollywood, that then we had Jim Comey step in and change the news cycle.

I mean, well... I always wonder if the election was like a week after Access Hollywood, that then we had Jim Comey step in and change the news cycle. I always wonder if the election was like a week after Access Hollywood, if it would have gone the same way. I don't think it would have. Yeah, or if Jim Comey had not intervened, or if the Russians had not the very next day dumped out all of the emails on WikiLeaks. All of those things happen that are not necessarily at play here. But the original point that brought Tommy into this conversation is pointing out that the time difference between – the gap between the Revelation election is almost exactly the same here as it was in 2016.

So there are a lot of turns of the wheel here. Like there is an important – another important difference is this is on the most important issue in the race for Democrats. Like this is we want what like we you guys just had a discussion, which we'll revisit shortly about how the conversation has moved away from abortion, an issue that has been very given Democrats political momentum to issues like crime and immigration that do it for Republicans. And here, the scandal is on that issue right it is it's like mitt romney discovering in 2012 that mitt romney had evaded taxes by using a swiss bank account oh wait that happened sorry sorry but for example it's on the who knew who knew that a mitt romney hit was going to find its way into a conversation about herschel walker i mean it's and his abortion it's all it's all

it's we're always one turn of the wheel from that so believe it or not things got even worse for walker right after the beast story came out his son christian who is a right-wing tiktok influencer denounced his father in a series of videos that went viral here's a clip family values people he has four kids four different women wasn't in the house raising one of them. He was out having sex with other women. Do you care about family values? I have a silent lie after lie after lie. The abortion card drops yesterday. It's literally his handwriting in the car.

They say they have receipts, whatever. He gets on Twitter. He lies about it. Okay, I'm done. Done. Everything has been a lie. So Walker's conservative son tells us the abortion story is true uh he also says in another video that his father threatened to kill him and his mother might that make a difference i guess i mean we have seen ads in this race with testimony from

his ex-wife about walker putting a gun to her head uh it was a republican accountability project ad that is truly one of the most devastating political ads I've ever seen. Yeah. I think this is a huge, the Christian Walker videos is incredibly significant. So I think the two questions that probably passive consumers of political news in Georgia have right now are one, Hershel Walker did what? And two, what the fuck is the Daily Beast? I mean, it's just, I mean, we know Republicans are very good at taking news stories from the mainstream media and discrediting them right away, right? That is the core trick of Trumpism. And the Daily Beast, which has done lots of great reporting over the years, but it is not something that has a lot of

brand equity with voters out in the world. They don't know what it means. It has a very strange name that's going to be very confusing. A lot of people are hearing it for the first time. And so having Herschel Walker's own son, who also is a right wing DeSantis lover, say his say the story is true and his dad is a liar and should not be elected. It will be very powerful with the exact set of voters that are sort of on the fence about Walker, whether to vote for him or whether to vote at all. I have some insight into how Herschel Walker stories have been landing with voters in Georgia when I was there in August to conduct the focus group that I did. Again, this was with younger black voters who described themselves as moderate and who have not made up their mind. They were all Biden voters, but they had not made up their mind on whether to vote or who to vote for in some cases.

And we got to the Senate race. And it's funny because they didn't know specific stories about Walker. They didn't cite the ad about his ex-wife saying that he held a gun to her head or anything very specific. It was just like, oh, I heard that he's crazy. Like, I have been hearing so many crazy stories about him and it seems like we can't vote for him. He's crazy. And I just think there's a general feeling that over the campaign, Herschel Walker has not conducted himself too well and that he is lying. So to the extent that this reinforces impressions about Herschel Walker that are already out there, even though even if those impressions aren't fully formed right now from passive news consumers, they do have a sense

that that he is has been lying about some stuff and is a little bit crazy. And I'm sure this will only reinforce that. And again, we're not talking here about like, will base voters, base Republican voters stay with Herschel Walker? I imagine that most of them will for all the reasons we talked about earlier. This is about the vast group of voters who have not quite decided either who they're going to vote for or whether they're going to vote in the midterm election who don't follow the news that closely. So Republican politicians, of course, have already decided they don't care about any of this. Not a single elected official has retracted their endorsement. Most of them haven't even criticized Walker, though. I guess the lieutenant governor of Georgia was on CNN last night and said that he's wondering, we all knew

that there was baggage, but we're wondering if the baggage has been maybe a little too much now, said that he's wondering, we all knew that there was baggage, but we're wondering if the baggage has been maybe a little too much now, which I thought was an interesting semi-break. But of course, most Republicans are still on board with him. Former NRA grifter Dana Loesch summed up the MAGA World response when she said this the other day. I don't care if Herschel Walker paid to abort endangered baby eagles. I want control of the Senate.

If the Daily Beast story is true you're telling me walker used his money to reportedly pay some skank for an abortion and warnock wants to use all of our monies to pay a whole bunch of skanks for abortions i want control of the senate i actually found the honesty there refreshing and clarifying. What about you? Yeah, I think, I mean, other than the overly vivid imagery about baby birds. Yeah, which seems unnecessary. And the very unnecessary and misogynistic use of the term skank in this situation to refer to the woman and not the man. It's exactly how the Republicans feel, where political power is in and of itself. And it is highly unlikely that they lose this race and take the Senate.

It's possible, but it gets a lot harder if this is the case. And so if they want to be able to stop Joe Biden from ever appointing another judge or passing another law or confirming another cabinet member doing those things, they have to win this race. And they don't care. They knew that they knew whether they knew the specifics of this story. They knew you like you and I have watched about like six interviews with Herschel Walker, and we know he is deeply unfit for this office. But they did not give a shit because they thought he gave them a great chance. And now he's their only chance. There's not a world where they're taking him off the ballot. Ballots are printed, voting is starting. And so they're going to ride this one all the way to the end, just like they did with Trump in 2016. It's just another piece of evidence also that they have no more issues anymore. There's no

issues animating the Republican Party, but power. And I do think that should be part of the Democratic message about the party, right? Like Republican politicians want power so they can control your life and get to play by different rules than you do, right? Like that's it. They want power. They get to do whatever they want. And then they get to tell you to do whatever they say. That's basically where Republican politicians are right now. That's what they want. So here's how Raphael Warnock responded when asked about the story. He said, I'll let the pundits decide how they think it will impact the race. But I've been consistent in my view that a patient's room is too narrow and cramped a space for a woman in the government.

What do you think about that response? And how do you think Warnock and Democrats should handle this story? Can they make it matter? I think that answer is fine. He's definitely right not to take the bait on how it affects the race. And I assume he's answering a question about whether he thinks this is going to affect the race. And the person who reported that should stop covering politics, who asked that question, stop covering politics, because I don't know why we use politicians to, a rare time to ask them questions, to have them

make political predictions, which obviously no one gets right. So what a stupid use of time. So congratulations, Raphael Warnock, for not answering that stupid question. I think the core of the answer is right, which is what – or at least it is the first part of a two-step here. The first part is – well, actually, there's a pretext to the first part. The pretext is we should not assume people are going to know about this. The voters you talk to are barely surfing the news. And so if you want people to know it, someone's going to have to pay to tell them. You're going to have to put it on television.

You're going to have to put it on digital. And so this isn't necessarily the Warnock campaign, but some Democratic group should probably take some of those Christian Walker videos, slap his name in relation to his father on the bottom of the page, and just run them. Right? Like, no spin on the ball. Just here's what Herschel Walker's son says about him. Right? Maybe you throw some headlines in there, but that's it. So that's one. Two, the most politically important part of this is that it ensures that abortion is going to be a top issue in this election, both his personal conduct and his public position. And I think that what Walker's answer there is exactly that. Maybe be a little more explicit than he was. I would

just say every time anyone asks you a question that whatever Hershel Walker did in his personal life, here's what he wants to do to your personal life. A ban with no exceptions. Do that. And then the third part is, I think it's the one you just went to, which is using this to make a case about Walker being another example of wealthy elites who think there's one set of rules for them and one set of rules for you. And he can get an abortion because he's a rich guy. You can't. He's a rich, politically connected insider. You are not. Therefore, you have a different set of rules.

I think those are the elements of what the response looks like. Warnock definitely nails the first part. I imagine the second part is coming when they have a debate in the very, very near future, I think. Yeah. Politicians playing by a different set of rules is a very powerful political argument. And also, like you said, I think everything is about reminding people of the consequences of what will happen if Herschel Walker is elected or any Republican is elected. People care less about process. People care less about what politicians do in their own private lives. They care about what is the consequences for me and the consequences for people of Herschel Walker in the Senate is that there could be a national abortion ban and

that also this man believes in abortion with no exceptions except for himself. So as you mentioned, we talked about the rest of the Senate map on Tuesday's pod wanted to get your take on where things stand. Why do you think Republican candidates seem to be polling better over these last few weeks? Well, as I do every Tuesday morning between five and 530, I listened to the Tuesday pod on 2x speed, why drink coffee. 2x speed, not even one and a half. Yeah. So in the words that I understood in that suboptimal environment, I agreed with- How do you even hear love it at that point?

I mean, you're the fast talker of the three. I am a fast talker. And I talk faster than you. So no one has ever listened to this pod at 2x. No one listens to us on 2x. No, that makes sense. Yeah, that'd be bad. And I agree with all the points you guys made about inflation, gas prices, issue salience, all of that. But I would add two other points to that list. One is, and I think is we have not paid enough attention to, which is Democrats outspent Republicans in these Senate races by pretty massive amounts from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

But from Labor Day to now, Republicans have been pretty massively outspending Democrats. And that's in part because Democratic candidates raise more money directly into their campaigns through large grassroots fundraising bases than every Republican other than Trump. So like Mark Kelly is raking money in $5 and $10 at a time. Blake Masters is scrimping by, right? Same thing with Warnock and Walker, Mandela Barnes and Ron Johnson, all of that. But in the fall, all the Republican outside money comes in, and it comes in big. And that's where their advantage is.

And so they are – and they do have a strategic belief that Democrats are wasting their money over the summer. I don't think that's necessarily right, but that's why all the Republican money is coming now. And they have focused on crime. It's been crime ads everywhere and Democrats have suffered from that. But the other point that I think is worth noting, and I think that's why we sort of overread these things, is all of these races and all of these Senate races and all of these states were always going to be incredibly close. I mean, these are states that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in most cases by less than one half of 1% in a better political environment than this one. So what we're seeing also is a reversion to the inevitable mean. Dr. Oz was

never going to get 38% of the vote. He's going to get somewhere between 46 and 48, no matter what happens. Same thing with Hershel Walker. These are 51-49 races in every case, or 49-48 in some cases. And so we're right back to where we were, which is a coin flip. And that was going to happen. Republican voters were going to come home in all these cases. And in some cases, you look at Arizona, the gap is narrowed a lot, but Kelly has stayed at above 50, and Blake Masters has come up to like 47, 48. And that may be his ceiling. It's going to be different in other states. And so this is sort of like if we ever thought this was going to be easy, we deluded ourselves over some of these.

We're always going to be incredibly, incredibly close. And that's where they are. And that's where they're going to stay till the very, very end. Yeah. And look, and you mentioned 2020. It's basically been like this since 2016. The shifts in the most competitive states and districts between 2016, 2018, and 2020 have not been large, even though the winner has changed. And so I think that's worth keeping in mind. I kind of

always have been looking at the Democratic candidate number in these polls, like you just said. If it's like 48, 49, 50, 51, I'm feeling like that's pretty good. But especially in a year where Republicans are the party out of power, which tends to give you a little boost, I worry that undecideds end up breaking heavily towards the Republican candidates. So some of these Republican candidates who are down at 42, 43, 44, like you said, are going to end up at 48, 49, even if they lose. And so if a Democratic candidate is polling at 50 or 51, you're feeling pretty good. If they're polling at like 46, 45, and they're still three or four points ahead of the Republican candidate, I'm still not feeling that great. No, you should feel really badly in that case. Unless there is a significant third party candidate

that brings your win number down to closer to 47, which is not, I don't think that's happening in any of these major races other than maybe the oregon governor um we should be deeply concerned and i'm very worried about nevada where you that's the number you constantly see catherine cortez mastovat is like 46 yeah and the only two things there are like in nevada you can also choose um it's one of the few states where you can choose no candidate for some races so that could bring the number down and then in georg, of course, there's a third-party candidate, and then there's a potential of a runoff if no one hits 50%. So we could all be talking about the Georgia runoff again.

Yeah, we have not. Won't that be fun? We have not focused on that. That might end up being by far the likeliest scenario, given the presence of that third-party candidate. For someone to get over 50 would be pretty hard. Yeah, so everyone get ready for that. Yeah.

Let's rerun the whole thing in the holiday season during a potential COVID spike. That seems great. Fuck. One thing that seems to be happening, at least in the Pennsylvania race, is that John Fetterman's unfavorables have gone up. Media Matters has one possible explanation for this. They did a study that found in the four weeks following Labor Day, Fox's weekday primetime broadcast mentioned the Democratic nominees in seven competitive Senate races more than twice as many times as CNN and MSNBC's broadcast did combined. This has been especially true of Fetterman. He's now a star of

Fox News primetime. How much of an impact do you think this could be having on these races? I think it's a pretty significant impact. And particularly just as we were talking, the Republican gains primarily over the last few weeks or months here have been among Republicans coming home, right? People who live either directly in or adjacent to the right wing media ecosystem. And I think this whole thing, it's fascinating for a whole host of reasons, because one, it goes to the larger point that Fox is an arm of the Republican Party. They think they need to do this. They have watched what's happening. We have made Democrats successful.

We made this race about Dr. Oz's weird elitism. Blake Masters is creepy conservatism. Ron Johnson's dopey insurrectionism. Right. johnson's dopey insurrectionism right and they and they sort of agree you know sort of it's the thing we you know we've said on this podcast before is that in this media environment you're either serving lunch or you're on the menu and so they want to turn this around make it about democrats and they they know they can get people fired up about fetterman because he of his tattoos his support for legalizing marijuana. He is a character, someone who you can radicalize Republican voters around. So they are doing

that because they think that's in the Republican Party's interest. MSNBC and CNN are not arms of the Democratic Party. They don't make their decisions based on what helps Democrats win elections. And the thing that I think is an interesting, longer sociological understanding of that is Fox also does things that are in its ratings interests. And if they were not getting ratings for this, they would not do it. But I would just note that conservative media consumers are eating up these Senate races. And I promise you, MSNBC and CNN would, they'd probably remove their pinky finger for ratings. And so if they got ratings, they would, you know, they'd probably remove their pinky finger for ratings. And so if they got ratings, they would cover these races, but they don't get ratings.

Which makes you wonder why, like sort of, it maybe bespeaks the larger problem of why Democrats struggle in midterms when Trump's not on the ballot is because we were probably, I bet when they cover Trump Mar-a-Lago investigations, ratings go up when they cover John Fetterman and Mark Kelly, ratings go down. So they do the former, not the latter. Or even when they cover Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker, right? I think there's just more of an interest on the Republican side. I would guess that the free media that Republican candidates are getting from Fox News attacking these Democratic candidates may be even more valuable than all of that outside spending you referenced earlier on political ads, which I think some voters, they're just sort of numb to some of these ads. But

they're watching their news all the time, and they're seeing another story about John Fetterman or another story about Mandela Barnes or another story about Raphael Warnock. And that's registering in a way. And they're altering the context in which these campaign ads are being consumed, right? By sort of creating an alternate image of Fetterman, but also just raising, if you even, like this is not in this study, but this has shown up in other studies, is that crime as a topic on Fox has also gone up dramatically in recent months as to create a context for these crime ads against Democrats, right? The crime ads hit us hard. It's all working together. It's all working together. It's all part of a plan and Republicans have both parts

of the plan and we have neither. So congratulations, Democrats. Well, any thoughts on, we'll end on a hopeful note, any thoughts on how Democrats can regain the momentum in these final weeks? We need to send a Daily Beast reporter into every state. No. Look, I think what Democrats have to do is pivot and punch back. And I've been watching the Federman race as we all have very closely. And the way they have leapt at this Washington Post story about Dr. Oz is his grifting pseudoscience. Puppy murder. Don't forget the puppy murder. Yeah. Well, I was going to get to the puppy murder, but I know how uncomfortable that conversation was at 2x speed on Tuesday morning. Even at 2x speed, the utter emotionally fragile disgust was palpable. But you have to find an issue, latch on it, and punch back as hard as you possibly can.

And Fetterman has done that well. I've seen Mandela Barnes making a few moves on that way, but that's ultimately what you have to do. And just to try to once again, be on the off, regain the, regain offense. And it's gonna be, I think a little different in each race. Obviously we know what it's going to be in the Herschel Walker race that we have puppies and pseudoscience in Pennsylvania. And there are some real opportunities around social security and Medicare in Wisconsin that I that you see the Mandela Barnes campaign get aggressive about very recently yeah and I do think in the case of Pennsylvania it's not just that there's a really bad Republican candidate there's a really good Democratic candidate like and and people I mean I remember this from the

groups I did in Pittsburgh but like people just love John Fetterman they love that he's different they love that he doesn't seem like a typical politician because he's not, doesn't look like one, doesn't talk like one, that he's like willing to, you know, say things like I want to legalize weed and take on some of those parole board stories head on. And I think that it's been tough, I'm sure, because he is, of course, you know, still recovering, as he's mentioned. But like getting him out there and reminding people why they like john fetterman so much in the first place because he's not like every other fucking politician in washington is going to be important in these final weeks too when this is all said and done uh and if fetterman wins and kelly continues wins as we

hope and expect he will it's going to be a really interesting case study in two very different but very good candidates. They could not be more different in demeanor. But like Kelly is, of all the states we've talked about that are the Biden states that decide to control the Senate, Arizona is probably the toughest one. Right. And Kelly has been in the lead and has run a great campaign from the very beginning.

And like we talked about John Fetterman all the time, John Fetterman's on the news, John Fetterman's on the internet, John Fetterman's on this podcast yeah mark kelly just out doing his business yet somehow uh just a quiet i'm just a quiet ex-astronaut yeah and it's and it like really works for him in a lot of ways so they're like i guess a bit maybe the more important which is is that good candidates come in all different shapes and sizes that is very true that is very true okay uh when we come back, we will talk to Maggie Haberman of the New York Times about her new book, Confidence Man.

Confidence man, the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist who has had the great honor and misfortune of covering Donald Trump for much of his career, Maggie Haberman. Maggie, welcome to the pod. Thank you for having me. So none of us have been able to escape Donald Trump for the last six or seven years. For you, it's been longer. An endless number of words has been written about him. You wanted to focus a good part of this book on his New York origin story. What did you want people to understand about Donald Trump that we don't already know or that maybe we get wrong? So a couple of things, and you are correct that he is the most written about man

on the planet, I think at this point, or one of them. I wanted to tell a story about the arc of his life, about the world of dysfunction that he came from, where corruption touched on various aspects of the media, of the real estate industry that he came from, of his family business, of machine boss politics, and of racial tribalism in New York. All of that was exported by him to Washington and foretold how his presidency was going to go. Because in addition to the world he comes from, he has these specific characteristics about his personality where he has sort of a handful of moves. And it's just figuring out which one is operative in any given moment. He is not strategic. And I do hope that people who read a lot of strategy into what he does come away with realizing that from reading the reporting in the book. But what he is, is more calculating moment to moment. And I hope they get that too. I've always thought that an underrated part of

Trump's appeal, at least to people like me who aren't fans, is his ability to entertain even as he horrifies. You write about feeling queasy during the 2016 campaign when Trump read Lindsey Graham's phone number aloud at a rally, but then a colleague of yours later remembered it as funny. And you write, it seemed as though there was both a menacing psychological thriller score and a sitcom laugh track playing behind him at all times. To what extent do you think Trump's ability to both repulse and entertain at the same time explains his political success? I think a great deal. I would put that in one bucket. I think another bucket that explains

his political success is that he spent decades brick by brick, news story by news story, building this artifice of himself as a massively successful know, massively successful tycoon commensurate with, you know, New York's biggest names in finance, which was just not who he was. But the view of him outside of the five boroughs of New York was much more that that was the case. And I remember being very struck by the cognitive dissonance in that in 2015, a big part of that was him playing himself on the apprentice. You know, the person who we got to see over and over again, doesn't really like interpersonal conflict and doesn't really like to fire people himself, had the catchphrase, you're fired. And that's what he was known for. And so people had this view of who he was combined with, to your

point, he both intimidates and is about power and dominance, but he also tries to entertain and that has kept him where he is. Yeah, I mean, a theme of the book is that Trump mostly has no core beliefs and will say whatever he needs to get ahead. But you do write about how one of his few consistent beliefs is that hate should be a civic good. Can you talk about that? Explain that a little? Sure. So I wrote that in the context of the ad that he took out. He took out a full-page newspaper ad in 1989 after the notorious Central Park jogger case where a white Wall Street executive

was jogging in Central Park in the evening. She was brutally raped and beaten and found several hours later. And teenagers were charged with the crime, all teenagers of color. Their confessions were, it was later learned, coerced by police. They were all ultimately overturned the convictions. But Trump at the time took out a full page newspaper ad about these kids saying, bring back the death penalty. And then I think the second half was bring back our police. I just don't have it in front of me. But he talked about glorifying police brutality. He talked about what I'm positive is not a real story about his youth and watching police officers throw some,

you know, rowdy people out of a diner. And he missed those days. And Ed Koch had told, then the mayor of New York City had told the populace, you know, to keep hate and rancor out of their hearts toward these kids and toward others in the wake of what's happening. Because when there's an incident like that in a major metropolis or anywhere, but in a major metropolis, it tends to cleave the city into two. Koch was understandably, as any leader would, trying to avoid that. And Trump's response was, I want to hate them. He wants people to hate them. He wants society to hate them. And so I said, this was as clear an ethos that Trump appeared to have guiding him, which was hate as a civic good.

And I think that is something we saw him use in 2015 and in 2016. You know, he, a really important moment in the campaign in 2015, I would say, was, I think it was September. He had a rally in Arizona and he brought out a so-called angel mom, someone whose child had been killed by an undocumented immigrant. And that really set the tone for what we were going to see. And now these rallies that he does, you know, it sounds like he's reading a police blotter sometimes. I mean, he's just talking about this one getting killed or that one getting killed. And he has infused our politics with it in a way that has been, you know, durable.

Do you see him as an authoritarian, even if he's a very American version of an authoritarian? I see him as a bossist. I'll answer that slightly differently. Because I think an authoritarian has a coherent view of governance. And I think an authoritarian doesn't mind having responsibility. In addition to power, I think Donald Trump is all about avoiding responsibility, he wants credit. And that's something different. But I think he has significant strongman impulses and does not accept systems and does not believe systems should apply to him. There is, there's a pretty significant tension between someone who wants to avoid responsibility and someone who is seeking the presidency, the position where

you're responsible for everything, right? The buck stops here, all of that. We're all sort of operating based on reporting, some of yours, someone else, that Trump is going to run again in 2024. I mean, you've reported some pretty else, that Trump is going to run again in 2024. I mean, you've reported like some pretty active planning that's been going on about announcements. Is there a scenario where he doesn't run? And what would that look like? Or is it a foregone conclusion? I don't think anything with him is ever a foregone conclusion, especially because, and I write about this, he is so expert at leaving all options open until the last possible second. And his heart really doesn't actually seem in running right now. He does not enjoying himself. You can see it when

he's at these rallies. It's just something is not quite what it was. However, I think he has backed himself into a corner. I think both in terms of his desire for attention, his desire to fundraise, his desire to have a cudgel to use against the various investigations he's facing, and the prospect of having the constitutional protections that the White House gives a president against indictment or against trial. I think all of those are reasons why he's likely to run. I remember when, and you've written about this and talked about it many times, but when Trump first wanted to tell you personally that he was going to run for president, you didn't think he was ever possibly going to do it, in part because he would never want to be a loser, right? And to run and lose again would be to put himself in the absolute dustbin of history.

People have lost re-election and gone on, whether it's Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, gone on to have careers. But to lose re-election, run and lose again, would be to paint the ultimate Scarlet L on himself. And you think it's a risk he's willing to take? I do, because I think that when you are willing to say that you didn't really lose, even when you've lost, I think your calculus becomes a little different. But I don't think he wants it, and I do think that that's something he's cognizant of. I just think that in his mind at this point, the desirable effects of it outweigh the negatives. One of the things I've been very interested about as it relates to Trump is he is obviously not shy about sharing his opinions in public about anyone. Republicans, Democrats, reporters who cover him. You know, he just basically wished death upon Mitch McConnell last week, depending on how you read his most recent truth. looming over his 2024 race, people who had supported Trump before, sort of either openly

advocating or quietly flirting with DeSantis. Why is he so quiet about DeSantis? And do you have a sense of how he really feels about him? Well, he's not quiet privately. He's quiet publicly. And he's not on Twitter anymore. You know, I think I think even Trump is aware that Truth Social doesn't quite get him the sugar high of followers that Twitter did. He's I think he's maybe got three million. Whereas he could be he could be back any minute now. Well, that that may happen. And he may be back with Facebook, too, at some point pretty soon. There are moments where he can actually show some discipline. They're usually not long lasting. And they're always when it's to his own advantage. It's not about someone else. There are a number of people around Trump who just don't see a benefit in getting into a

big fight with DeSantis because it just elevates DeSantis, number one. And number two, the flip side is if DeSantis were to be hurt in his active reelection campaign right now against Charlie Crist, pointing to Trump as a fault would be problematic for Trump. So that's why. And do you, you've also done a lot of reporting around Ron DeSantis, the people who support him. Do you think he runs if Trump runs? I, so with the caveat that my predictions are worth the paper they're written on and the air they're breathed into, I have not been certain that DeSantis really wants to go into the Trump meat grinder. And that's just based on people who I talk to.

Now, you know, as you guys know better than anybody, you get a moment in time and you either take the moment or you don't. And you can make an argument. This is DeSantis's moment. If he waits, it's not clear what it ends up looking like. But everybody thinks it's going to, you know, they're going to be the ones who can really take Trump on. thinks it's going to, you know, they're going to be the ones who can really take Trump on.

And it's incredibly difficult when he is, you know, saying all kinds of vicious things about you to keep going in the face of it, because people who accept normal parameters aren't used to dealing with that. And even DeSantis, who does a fair amount of insulting, it's not like Trump. I will say, we don't know what DeSantis is going to look like on the national stage yet. There have been a couple of vaguely Scott Walker vibe 2015 moments with DeSantis recently. So I'm just not convinced it's a foregone conclusion. One thing I've always been curious about in reporting on Trump and Trump world is, you know, you document this in the book, Trump is obviously a sort of a historically prodigious liar. He is surrounded by people who also lie and sort of there's been this, you know, if you're

unwilling to lie for Trump, you're not really close to Trump. When you're talking, you know, reporting close to Trump. When you're talking, you know, reporting about things Trump may do, may believe, may say, how do you sort of sort out what is factual and true when you have, you know, sort of an unprecedented amount of dishonesty in all the concentric circles around, you know, sort of a historic dishonest person? It's a great question. And it's a question we've all, you know, wrestled with since 2015. You know, the normal rules of multiple sources, you amplify it because, you know, everybody around him doesn't lie, but a lot of people around him lie. And a lot of people are willing to do it because he encourages it or, Dan, because they think they'll get extra benefit of the doubt because they're not him. You know, I mean, there are a number of people who take advantage of the fact that a lot of what he says is not true to say what they want, even if it's not true.

It's just it's a huge challenge. I mean, getting a baseline of truth with him is a huge challenge. And in the process of the news report day to day, in the process of this book, we do the best we can to get the best attainable version of the truth. But it's a challenge. All right. Let's talk about your Twitter mentions, which, unlike your book, I would not recommend. I see. Thanks, John. Look, I wouldn't recommend mine either.

I wouldn't recommend anyone's personally. So I see like two main critiques of your work. One is that, and this is the more recent one, that you somehow held back urgently important reporting for the book that I guess would have sent Donald Trump to jail already. And two is that all the access you've had to Donald Trump over the years hasn't resulted in urgently important reporting. And sometimes both of those seemingly contradictory critiques come from the same people.

I'm like, is she holding scoops back or does she not have important scoops? You can't have both. But like, what is what is your response to sort of those two broad criticisms that you have no doubt heard over the last several years? So, as you know, those two things are in conflict. I had this figure has been cited to me, which is why I know it. I had I had close to 600 bylines in 2016. The vast majority were about Donald Trump. I had well over a thousand during the presidency.

You know, I was part of a lot of rigorous reporting on him. You know, my general view on it is I report and people can react how they're going to react. And, you know, the goal of it is not to get a reaction. When I have confirmable, reportable information, my goal is to get it out as quick as possible. And that has always been my guiding ethos. I also, I think people misunderstand too, like you didn't have the reporting that he had taken classified information with him from the White House.

People like assumed that he just sort of lied to you during that interview. No, in fact, he said the opposite, that he just sort of lied to you during that interview. No, in fact, he said the opposite, that he said he didn't take anything of great urgency. And I asked the question on a lark because he was so proud of those Kim Jong-un letters. He would wave them around to people in the Oval Office. And his immediate reaction when I asked, did you take any memento documents was my question. And he said, nothing of great urgency now. And then he sort of said something mushy about the KJU letters. And I thought he was saying he had them and I kind of reacted. And then he said, no, no, those are in the archives and took it back. So, no, he didn't. He didn't inform me of that. I mean, listen, if

if I heard that someone that Donald Trump literally said, I have I have classified material here and it didn't get reported, I'd be really outraged, too. But that is that is not what happened. And the toilet stuff was reported. Your toilet reporting. That was back in February. I appreciate that. I appreciate the headline. Yeah, I put that out in February as an issue around the documents was coming up. And that was eight months before the book came out. Not to be confused with your Rudy Giuliani toilet reporting, which is another anecdote in the book that I highly recommend. That has a less security implication security implication uh around it different different frankly that's that's one tip that i wish you had held back you can't please everyone i'm sorry that's right fair enough fair enough john and i are divided on

that one my my last question is like you must be so tired tired today or in general that's what i'm saying i guess all of it uh tired of donald trump we're all tired of donald trump like how do you how do you keep going will you keep going if he runs again uh and covering this beat it must be exhausting for a million different reasons like what what keeps you into it so i would just i would just make the point there's a lot of people who are not not tired of donald trump and and that's part of why he sustains in political life, number one, and he remains a huge force. I don't know what the next couple of years will look like, assuming he runs. I think these investigations into him, which I've been pretty involved with reporting on, are going to continue, and that will remain a focus. But who knows? All we have is today. continue and that will remain a focus. But who knows? All we have is today. That's true. That's true. Maggie Haberman, thank you for joining Pod Save America. The book is Confidence Man. Look, as someone who has thought way too often about how to defeat Donald Trump

over the last several years, I think this book is fascinating and important in giving you a window into his psyche, which is always a dangerous thing for those of us who don't know him to try to guess. But you know better than most since you have, again, unfortunately, had to spend so much time with him. So thank you for doing that. And thank you for joining Pod Save America. Thanks for having me. Okay, before we go, our chief take officer, Elijah Cohn, is back. He's married. Congrats.

Thanks, John. I am married. Exciting weekend. He's married and he's got some piping hot takes. Just for us. And he's not married to takes. He's married to a person. I mean, he is married to takes also. i don't want to take that away to divorce the takes to you know never divorce the takes trust

me if i legally could i would but i checked some of the state of north carolina all right what do you got for us elijah guys i have a really exciting array of takes for both of you to sample today. So I hope you brought your appetites. I'm hungry. I'm hungry. Good. Let's see. I'm going to explain how it works.

I'm going to share these takes with you all. The producers have seen them. You guys have not. John and Dan, they will react to these takes and rate them on a scale of one to four politicos with four being the worst. John and Dan, are you ready? So ready. Never been more ready. All right, let's get started. This first one is from the Washington Post. Shout out to friend of the pod, David, for sending it to me. This piece is so good, you guys. This piece is titled, To Stop Inflation, We Need to Secure the Border.

All right. Here's a quote from it. There's so many possible excerpts, but this one kind of sums up the argument of the piece, and it's such a great excerpt. So, quote, Biden's failure to secure the border is ironically helping to fuel the inflation that is undermining his presidency. We need foreign workers to help the supply side of the economy meet rising demand. But we cannot pass legislation to bring in these workers until the border is secure.

So the inflation crisis and the border crisis spin out of control together. Who wrote it? That is some fucking galaxy brain shit right there that because the economics they they do admit that the economics suggest that we need more workers in this country but we can't bring those workers in because we have to kick them out first? I don't know. I don't know. Who is that? Can you give us, is this a person we've heard of before?

Yes, definitely. Is this person a regular columnist at the Washington Post? They are, Dan. Ooh. Is it Mark Thiessen? It is Mark Thiessen, yeah. Yeah. I mean, John, to be fair to mark teason he says we can't just let anybody into the country we have to let the right people into the country

but we can't let the right people into the country until we stop letting everyone into the country which obviously i mean do you think i recognize that you're in charge of social elijah so you probably won't do this but i was hoping someone could clip starting at, to be fair to Mark Thiessen and put it out there. Yeah, I'll put it on a graphic, just owning myself. To be fair to Mark Thiessen. Or even if you just want to send it to Tommy and see what his reaction is, that'd be great. Yeah, and Rhodes too. I did actually text this to Tommy and he texted me back in all caps, of course it's fucking Mark Thiessen.

Yes. So here's my thing on this it's a very uh i'm gonna take points away from him because it's like a it's a very like lazy bush era which of course because he's a bush era speechwriter a bush era take about immigration like we can't give a pathway to citizenship unless we secure the border. Like it's it's sort of a few steps ago for the Republican Party on immigration. It's and it's not where they are now. So I'm going to I'm going to give it to me. Yeah, I'm going to give you an example of what an alternate version of that take would be. Inflation right now is George W. Bush's fault, because had he not invaded Iraq in 2003, he would have had the political capital to pass the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill in 2005. And therefore, the border would be secured.

We would have passed comprehensive immigration reform and there would be no inflation. So ultimately, this is George W. Bush's fault. That's a take. That is a take. Maybe we could add to this game and it's alternate takes from us. Yes. I guess that's the podcast. That's right. Wait, was there a Politico writing in there, Dan? I'm going to give you just two.

Okay. Two Politicos. And once again, I will say, I feel dramatically constrained by the limit of four Politicos, which is just like the problem that the Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler has with his four Pinocchios. Because the big lie that sparked the murderous rampage on the Capitol gets the same number of Pinocchios as Barack Obama misstating some fact about Social Security. Right. So this is our I mean, need basically i need some more room

to spread my wings so just take that back to your production meeting next time no please explore the space i still have it written as one to four politicos but you go over okay i feel you feel so inclined uh and we'll see if you if you feel that way about this next one um okay so let's head over to the elon musk twitter story. It does look like Elon Musk will end up buying Twitter, and many users are afraid that the sale means the platform will be full of trolls and Nazis. There's also discussion of it helping Republicans. That brings us to this take. It is a tweet and a quote. The relationship between Twitter content moderation and electoral outcomes is a little ambiguous. Letting Trump back on Twitter is almost certainly good for Democrats.

Letting more Nazis and bigots back on Twitter is also probably good for Democrats. Guys, who wrote it? Okay. Okay. We know. Yeah. We both know it's Matt Iglesias. I do not know if he is wrong. He, I think, I mean, he gets demerits for making a prediction with near absolute certainty on something he knows very little about. So like that is like, we don't really know that. Is it likely that Donald Trump, just reminding everyone of what a fucking lunatic he is, good for Democratic prospects where we want Trump to be at the center of the news story? Yes. Is it true that a bunch of bigots and white supremacists coming back on the platform to abuse everyone is good for Democrats? No, I'm skeptical of that. it was it was trollish in the sense that it's like obviously it should go unsaid that it's not

good for democracy or the country to have to have that happen but in the narrow question of whether more trump tweets helps democratic electoral fortunes that is something that we have argued on this very podcast yes it was offered in a much more nuanced, data-driven view in a message box about a year ago, for those who want to check it out. Right, which is why we talk on the podcast and write in the message box and don't write the tweets. Sometimes we've got to write the tweets. But the tweets get you in trouble.

Sometimes you need more than 280 characters to explore a complicated issue. Right, right. No, I remember from the Boston show, we did talk about this, but I guess like the Nazis and bigots parts of it does really stand out. Because it's like, really, what's the connection directly? They're not running. Yeah, right.

In fact, they are running, but those Nazis and bigots are already on Twitter. Like Mark Fincham is on Twitter, I think. Right. Yeah. I don't know that that necessarily, that part the argument is is helpful or right or anything but the the first part about trump and democrats is you know i'm more i'm more inclined to believe that so i'm going to give this i'm going to give this two again i'm going to give it to i'm like dan i want to spread my wings and and and have a larger john sometimes you got to come up with your own solution if the rule makers won't work with you so I'm going with 1.36 politicos love it there we go exploring the space

all right so last one I do have a bonus one that's so far far outside the political realm maybe we'll cut it maybe we won't even get to it but this is the last official one uh no now we're definitely we're definitely doing it now that you've said it and it's gonna be a podcast so go for it let's go fight the culture war there's a lot of good culture war you know battles happening right now like lizzo's playing james madison's flute and velma from scooby-doo is gay but in the spirit of take appreciators we're gonna do something that's a little more dressed up. You're not going to get the author. So I'm just going to have you guys guess the outlet. So the post promoting this piece read, New York libraries have waded into America's culture wars by directly lending books to non-residents in spring, including thousands of students

living under red state book bans. This is a story about how Republicans have banned hundreds of books from schools and libraries and how some libraries are lending those books to people in those red states. Here's a quote. Proponents of the ban say that they're protecting children. Detractors say this policy chills discussions around institutional racism and deprivesq children resources to help them better understand themselves guys it's classic both sides which outlet wrote this um politico correct yes it's a politico politico new york but yes politico there you go there you go classic classic proponents say yes i'm still good i'm gonna give it uh 1.73 good job john who had a buck against the system and can i bring quiet civil disobedience

civil disobedience by decimal point damn can i bring you back to the to the initial promotion of new york libraries wading into the culture war by lending books yeah i'm like i'm gonna you know what i did skip over that i didn't i thought about the i was focused on the quote the headline is pretty yeah waiting it is funny yes but waiting by loaning books across state lines uh i don't know 3.21 We've lost the thread guys I mean Maybe we're just numb to bad takes Elijah I don't know I'm finding myself less outraged

Maybe I need to really get myself going here That's how they get the lobster every time You guys are you focused on other aspects Of the culture war from Lizzo playing the flute? I just read it to us. I'm still mad about Lizzo and the flute. Yeah, I'm outraged about the flute. Okay.

I'm outraged about the outrage about the flute, just to be clear. I'm outraged that I had to look up what that was. Yeah, that took some time out of my day. Apologies. All right. Well, we'll go to this bonus one, which is so outlandish. Oh, a bonus. It's so outlandish. It's so's so outlandish it's so ridiculous it's

so far off the spectrum that it has to be talked about uh it's not political like i said we can cut it if we need to but it's a piece titled and this was going around a lot uh here's why you shouldn't high five a child um i heard i heard the piece literally starts with, argh, someone's screaming in pain. There's so much to quote from it, but here's just one. A high five is a gesture of familiarity to be exchanged between equals. I have traded the palm slap with adult friends. I will not slap the upraised palm of a person who is not my peer, and a peer is someone over the age of 21 emancipated

employed and paying their own way any thoughts on this piece you guys you did it elijah that it's a full playbook it's a full playbook it was it's the craziest fucking piece i can't believe it was published i i read the whole thing i was like what is happening here you read the whole piece yeah well everyone was talking about it. And I don't know. I need, yeah, I did. After I finished Googling Lizzo flute controversy. I mean, Offline goes on fall break for like three weeks

and you read this entire piece? It's a quick piece. I mean, I didn't, like, this is, like, I definitely knew about the Lizzo flute thing. This, I heard nothing about. Can you just give me like a little, I'm going to give it a full playbook just to be clear, but can you give me some context? What's the rationale about why you can't high five and unemancipated non-self-sufficient 19, 19 year olds?

Like what, what is the argument? Uh, it's a lack of respect. It teaches the child not to respect an adult. Uh, and it's a lack of respect it teaches the child not to respect an adult uh and it's a problem in america generally do you think it's a problem that in recent weeks my one-year-old son fist bumped the former president states like is this is that is that a failure of parenting i think as a as a person who reads a lot of Republican takes, I'm getting excited just thinking about what that says about the former president of the United States that he allowed that. I mean, to be clear, Jack initiated said fist bump.

And to be clear, the former president's Barack Obama, not Donald Trump. And to be clear, because the former president in question was Barack Obama, it wasn't just a fist bump. It was a terrorist fist jab. Oh, just another old 15-year-old joke for nerds of a certain generation. Love making those. Which is funny because

Cody Keeney, author of Grace and an amazing work you should all buy, made that exact joke on text to me two days ago. We only have a couple things we go to here. There's not a lot in the arsenal these days. Okay.

Elijah Cohn, thank you for your takes as always. Congratulations on your nuptials. Maggie Haberman, thank you for joining the pod today. Everyone have a great weekend, and we will talk to you next week. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez.

Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and Hayley Muse. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production Thank you.