Pod Save America - "The World Rallies Behind Ukraine."

Episode Date: March 1, 2022

Joe Biden prepares a State of the Union as war rages in Ukraine, Melissa Murray joins to talk about Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, and a look at the good, bad, and ugliest moments from this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. It's good to have you back, Tommy. It's very good to be here. I missed you guys. And I want to start with some far worse topics first, but at the end, maybe I'll talk for a minute about where I've been and what's been going on.

Okay, good. Good. Well, before that, on today's show, Joe Biden prepares a State of the Union as war rages in Ukraine. Melissa Murray joins to talk about supreme court nominee katanji brown jackson see there's some good news yeah and uh and also a look at the good bad and ugliest moments from this week's conservative political action conference more bad news yeah that was not a good one just a brief brief moment of joy there but first two crooked shows for you to check out What a Day is our daily news show that breaks down all the latest

headlines in just 20 minutes every morning, starting at 5 a.m. Monday through Friday. And on this week's America Dissected, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed talks to neuroscientist and author Shane O'Meara about the power and health benefits that come with taking a walk and why so many of us rediscovered it during the pandemic.

Yeah, I mean, of course we did. What else are we going to do? Yeah, we did a lot of walking.iscovered it during the pandemic. Yeah, I mean, of course we did. What else are we going to do? Yeah, we did a lot of walking. Walking, now more than ever. New episodes of America Dissected drop every Tuesday. All right, let's get to the news. President Biden will deliver the State of the Union on Tuesday night, and the backdrop couldn't be more different or dramatic than it was just two weeks ago. Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has already led to hundreds, if not thousands,

of casualties, but it's been met with stiff resistance from the Ukrainian military, Ukrainian civilians, much of the global community, and even Russian civilians. Still, even though Russia has been hit with severe sanctions, has been isolated from most of the world, and has begun to engage in ceasefire negotiations with Ukraine, Putin continues to wage a relentless assault on the country that now includes bombing residential neighborhoods. And on Sunday, he told the world that he's putting his nuclear forces into a heightened alert status known as, quote, special combat readiness. Yeesh. Lots to cover, but let's start with Putin's nuclear saber rattling uh which understandably freaked out a lot of people uh sitting me me included it's one of the best kinds of rattling

put my toilet on defcon 2 just cut that that's stupid i'll leave it in it's funny that's funny uh tommy can you explain what putin's pronouncementment means and talk about how the Biden administration has responded? Sure, I'll try. So basically, he called in the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the equivalents, set them at the end of a very long table and told them to go into special combat readiness, which in practice, I don't know that we know what the specifics are. I think it's an incremental step in the chain of events that you would need to conduct to ultimately lead to a nuclear launch. So sort of like a heightened alert. But it seems like the real goal is just to scare the crap out of everybody. So mission accomplished. It seems like he was mad that the West had just put in place the swift banking sanctions, central bank sanctions.

And he was trying to wave around the nuclear trump card and say, like, don't even think about doing more. I think we should take it seriously for a few reasons. don't even think about doing more. I think we should take it seriously for a few reasons. One, my loose understanding of Russian military doctrine is that it does include a strategy where at times they escalate to deescalate. So like use overwhelming force to quickly end a conflict rather than drag it out, even potentially nuclear weapons. So it's just worth noting. Yeah, I'd say that's worth noting. Yeah. And I also just think like stepping back, like any talk of nuclear weapons is a big deal. Biden, to his credit, I think chose not to respond in kind. But if he had, that would have meant going to DEFCON 3. It's like we're in the movies all of

a sudden and basically saying, okay, the Air Force, you can now mobilize in less than 15 minutes to respond to nuclear attack. And that means like parking planes on runways with nuclear bombs on them and opening missile silos and just like serious stuff, deadly stuff. And finally, I think this is the biggest challenge to a lot of this is we have zero insight into what this guy is thinking, right? There's all this reporting that he's isolated. He's kind of lost it. Like who knows? We don't know. No experts know. We don't have that great intelligence into what he's doing, but I do think it's safe to assume that he's thinking about this war in existential terms. And he's thinking like, not only does he want to win this war for Russia, but he has to win this war to not seem weak and not get deposed and not get killed.

And I just don't know how that changes his calculus or like all the traditional thinking about nuclear deterrence. So I don't want to alarm anyone. I don't think that this means he's going to nuke us, but like he wants to scare the shit out of us. And he's surprised a lot of people with his willingness to be militaristic. Not to bring it all back to Trump all the time, but as you were talking just now, I thought, can you imagine if Donald Trump had been president when Vladimir Putin starts talking about special combat readiness for nuclear weapons? That would have been a bad tweet. We kind of saw it, right? I mean, with, with Kim Jong-un in fire and fury. Yeah. And just the other thing I'd add to that is any step closer, any step towards readiness

is a step that puts an accident further in reach. It just- Absolutely. It is incredibly dangerous. Yes. Tommy, having watched this war and the global response unfold over the last several days, what's been going better than you expected? And in addition to obviously the nuclear issue, which could call it the nuclear issue, what are you most concerned about? I think the better category is Zelensky's leadership in particular, like his messaging and ability to rally people. The bravery of the Ukrainian people, like we probably shouldn't be surprised that they are fighting this fiercely. They have like a proven history of nationalism and identity and a willingness to fight for their country and really have been fighting since 2014 in this low grade combat with Russia. But like

they've been, their bravery is pretty astounding. I think Biden deserves a lot of credit. They kind of put Russia on these, Putin on his heels by calling out all these moves before he could do them by releasing intelligence. They've rallied the world. The biggest surprise for me is how strong the Europeans have been. They cut off Russia from the swift banking system. They took action on Russia's central bank. These are major, major steps. You have Germany of all places is sending military support to Ukraine. They're canceling a natural gas pipeline. They're increasing their defense spending. Sweden is sending military aid. Finland's talking about joining NATO. So like, those are some of the positive things we've seen.

Switzerland, the famously neutral Swiss decided to impose economic sanctions too. They got too much credit for being neutral as if that was good. It's evil. Yeah, it really was. It was an evil thing they did. Yeah. Not just watches. Which makes it all the more surprising. Absolutely. What's happening right now. So Which makes it all the more surprising. Absolutely. What's happening right now.

So that's all on the better than expected category. What is concerning you right now? I would say there's sort of three buckets of concerns. One is just continued escalation. More Russian troops are coming towards Kiev. Belarus is sending in troops. We're sending more arms to Ukraine. There's more sanctions.

There's not a lot of off-ramps or diplomacy happening that we're seeing at least publicly. There's some failed efforts with Ukraine in Belarus when the Russians were talking there, but nothing's happening. It's like, what context can we create that allows Putin to potentially climb down and save some face here so he doesn't view this as existential? So that's the thing. One, time. Time and numbers are just not on Ukraine's side. The Russian army is massive. The vast majority of them have not been involved with fighting yet. They've been sort of in transit to the fight.

But they're getting closer every day. And odds are they will encircle these cities. And it will get harder to resupply Ukrainian forces. And there's a real risk that the tactics become more aggressive. You start bombing more civilian areas. There's sort of, you know, close combat in cities. And if this keeps going, it's going to get worse. And people should be ready for that. And just the last thing is like, you know, you've all these innocent people are dying. You've got half a million refugees, uh, fleeing Ukraine. Um, and look again, on from the Russian side, like most Russian soldiers

didn't sign up, they were conscripted and there's reports are that they don't even know where they are some of them thought they're on a fucking training mission somewhere in Ukraine and so they get captured outside of Kiev and they're like what happened here and it's just a reminder that the whole system is really fragile and you know a bunch of Russian citizens are seeing their economy collapse because their leader is a madman who made this choice and And even if Putin calls off this invasion right now, what has happened is going to be catastrophic and impact the world for generations. So it's just like, there's no unringing this bell. And that's really scary. There's a troubling, I haven't known exactly how to put my finger on it, but there's a troubling way in which people are embracing what is genuinely

heroic and brave video coming out of Ukraine without acknowledging that this isn't a movie. And sometimes the most heroic countries get crushed with time because it's not up to them ultimately how bad this gets. It is up to Vladimir Putin. There's one person in control of how terrible the situation gets. And what is, you know, put aside the kind of easy narratives, there is two things seem to be true. Everyone is acknowledging that this is in many ways irrational, that this is further than people thought he would go, that he is isolated, that he's been especially isolated over the last two years. And that it is the goal, maybe the righteous and correct goal for the West to isolate him,

pressure him further. And no one seems to be talking honestly about how many bad places that can go that will not depend on the heroism of groups of people fighting for their country, fighting for self-determination. It's just the reality of it. Yeah. One thing that worries me is that as Putin escalates, becomes more aggressive, and more people die, and the rest of the world sees it because of social media, there's going to be a natural desire to do more, which is understandable. But once we have taken all of these steps in terms of imposing very

severe economic sanctions, isolating Russia, isolating Putin, what else is there to do short of military options, which could very well start World War III if the United States or NATO allies got into an actual military conflict with Russia. Yeah. And what it seems like Putin does, like I'm no military expert, I just like I've read a lot of smart people. And it seems like what Putin did was he broke off small pieces of his army and tried to race them towards major cities in hopes that that would scare the local Ukrainian military commanders to death. They would give up. Zelensky would capitulate. It would be over fast and he could basically beat the sanctions from happening. So there wouldn't

be a real cost. That was catastrophically wrong. But what comes next is, you know, the 40 mile long convoy of Russian troops gets five kilometers closer to Kiev every day. And this just gets worse and worse and uglier. So I agree with you. I mean, the images we're going to see, the cost of civilian lives in Ukraineraine it's going to get worse and worse and you mentioned that convoy headed towards kiev you know i saw on twitter today uh richard engel from nbc news uh tweeted something about you know the us and nato could destroy that convoy uh soon if they wanted or something like that yeah he's like uh moral dilemma nasa russian convoy is about 30 miles from kiev u.s nato could likely destroy it but that would be direct

involvement against russia and risk everything does the west watch in silence as it rolls that was the tweet and it's just like i mean if we didn't watch in silence and we did something wouldn't then we'd be in war with russia well i just we're not watching in silence right because we have how many how many fucking times we have to go through this the options aren't nothing or war and that i have such admiration for the way in which the biden administration has defiantly defended that view that we have other powerful options and i think i personally uh i i it seems that a lot of people are surprised by just how effective, just how unified, just how much force these sanctions and these sort of diplomatic and

economic and non-military actions, like how much of an effect that they've had to push back on this invasion. And to call that silence is to go back to Bush era nonsense. There's only two things you can do. There's bombing and there's nothing. Diplomacy is not real. Sanctions aren't real. Finances aren't real. None of it's real. The only thing that's real is bombs. And I feel like we've done that already. Reminds me of cut and run. Yeah. I mean, I don't need to pick on angle or like act like one tweet is the entirety of his views on this, but you hear this stuff all the

time. I'm not directing that at him. I'm directing that at his attitude. But there's no discussion of casualties, legal authority, the risk of casualties, nuclear war. And like you saw this in ostensibly straight coverage of Syria, Afghanistan, and now in Russia. And this fucking moralizing tone of like, are we going to do something? Or are we going to stand on the sidelines? That gets celebrated and it gets praised. And I don't know what Biden should do or NATO should do. I'm not pretending to, but the journalists covering this have got to stop framing this choices between like military

involvement or watch and silence. It is so irresponsible. It creates political incentives that push us towards war. And it also ignores the reality that if you look at a lot of the wars we just fought, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sometimes the best thing America can not can do is not get involved, especially military. We have done a lot more harm than good in places. And we should just we should at least make that part of the discussion. Can you talk about what a no fly zone would entail? Because that idea has been floated by some Republicans, some others. And the administration was asked about it today.

And they said that they they would not be setting up a no-fly zone. Yeah. We'll talk about it like it's a grounding at O'Hare. Right. I mean, I think people talk about the no-fly zone like it's a middle ground between full war and sanctions or some sort of softer option. It is absolutely not. It would mean it would entail US planes or NATO planes shooting down Russian planes in

certain airspace that you decide is inside the no-fly zone. It would also mean destroying all the anti-aircraft weapons that you decide is inside the no-fly zone. It would also mean destroying all the anti-aircraft weapons that the Russians have on the ground in the region and potentially across the border in Russia, because you're not going to fly a bunch of F-35s into an area if the modern Russian air defense systems are live there and could shoot them down. This is why no-fly zone in Syria was a big deal, because the Russians had armed them with all these systems that were incredibly modern and lethal. And so it's a big deal. It's starting a war. Yeah. Let's talk more about how Joe Biden is handling this crisis. Lovett, here's a lead

from the Washington Post that would strike fear into the heart of any speechwriter just 24 hours before a big speech. Quote, President Biden's team has revised his State of the Union address to emphasize Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine as a major crisis facing the West. While not a wholesale rewrite, the new version will reflect the way the crisis has added urgency to his longtime theme of defending democracies. I can tell you guys that they are actually still in the process of making these revisions. The Washington Post sort of made it frame like it was in the past tense. Unfortunately for the speechwriters and Joe Biden, that is not true. Lovett, how do you think Biden should handle Ukraine in tomorrow's speech?

I think it's where you would start. I think it's where you would start by talking about the bravery and unity of the Ukrainian people in the face of this assault on their country. And then I think it's an opportunity to talk about the fact that freedom is precious. Self-determination is not guaranteed. And as we lead the world in a response to an unjust war, we ought to affirm our obligations to each other. So we see democracy threatened in faraway places, but he's giving a State of the Union in a chamber that was assaulted to overturn our democracy a year ago. And I think you should point that out. I think you should make that connection. So it's about, I think you highlight the leadership that he has shown,

because I do think it is worth highlighting, a unified global effort in support of Ukraine. But we don't just need to protect our values. We need to live by them. That means defending voting rights. And that means also demonstrating that democracy is not just a nice thing. It's not just a delightful good. It can deliver that you don't need to turn to autocrats. You don't need to talk to thugs or oligarchs that people can come together and disagree and make noise and have friction, but ultimately resolve their differences and take on the biggest challenges we face. And that that is ultimately the fight the US has to lead in the 21st century. And it's a fight that America can win. Now let's talk about what we're going to do

about gas prices. God, this is one where I really feel for you, speechwriters. I mean, it was tough for me in the comm shop, but like the reality is Biden could handle this situation perfectly and it could still end up being the most unpopular thing he is ever a part of as president. And it's like, okay, speechwriters go craft the right frame i mean i think love it i think that's all great i i i agree with all that um i think when you're i have nothing to add is what i'm not gonna go no notes i'm not gonna go on my own little rhetorical thing here i'm not gonna do it um what i am gonna do is just be a fucking hack and be a hack polling give me some hack that just because I've been looking for polling on what people think, because I think polling from a couple of weeks ago is now useless.

Right. We now watch the invasion happen. Everyone around the world has seen it happen. Live opinions change. Right. So you're writing a speech. Your most important thing. The primary audience for the speech is the American people.

Your first job in a speech is to meet the audience where they are. So where are they right now? Yahoo News, YouGov poll from just the last few speech is to meet the audience where they are. So where are they right now? Yahoo News, YouGov poll from just the last few days was from over the weekend and yesterday. 70% of Americans are following the news closely, 30% very closely. That's a lot. That's a lot of people following the news. Yeah, 40% of them are lying, but yeah, keep going. Right. This one surprised me. Ukraine now ties inflation as the top issue people say Biden should prioritize, with 23% of people saying Ukraine and 23% saying inflation. Third in the list is immigration at 12% with COVID at 7%.

That's also a very big shift. Again, will it last? Is it about the fact that people have been watching this the last couple of days? Who knows? But that's where it is right now. 47% say it's in America's best interest to stop Russia and help Ukraine. 26% say the conflict is none of America's business. And 27% still aren't sure. In terms of the steps that Biden has already taken, 56% supported Biden's sanctions, only 9% opposed.

56% also agree with Biden's promise to not send troops. Only 15% disagree. And yet, just 34% of people approve of how Biden is handling the conflict, with 48% disapproving, and his overall approval is 4,153. So you have an audience that is overwhelmingly pay attention, cares about the issue, supports Ukraine, overwhelmingly disapproves of Putin and Putin's invasion, supports the steps you've taken, sanctions, the steps you haven't, sending in troops, but some of them still aren't sure why it's in America's interests, what our goals are, and a plurality doesn't think you're doing a good job handling it. So I think all that, that's what you have to answer for in the speech. When it comes to defending democracy against autocracy in Ukraine, like Lovett was saying, I think he also has to answer, what are we willing to do and why?

And what are we not willing to do and why not? And I think answering those questions very specifically when you, I mean, now, again, in terms of the structure of the speech, you could start with some big thing about democracy and then get into it. You probably want to come back to it in a foreign policy section. And then I'm sure you also want to end the speech with sort of a stirring oration about this as well. Yeah. What I hear when you say those numbers, though, is when people say they don't approve of the job Joe Biden is doing on this issue,

I think you have to put that in the broader context of months of just brutal coverage, brutal congressional negotiations, COVID news, economic news, inflation news. So I take all that. And what I see as just to be purely cynical is this is an opportunity to just demonstrate command. And that's really ultimately all the proof points of what he's doing versus not. I think they're important.

You're right. He should talk about the things that are popular. He's talked about why he's not doing things that are unpopular. But ultimately, I think this issue, for being purely cynical, has presented him an opportunity to show leadership in the parts of his job that he is in control of, unlike Congress, unlike COVID. Yeah. Just so tough. I see people trying to compare this to Bush post 9-11 and whether there's a rally around the president, rally around the flag moment here. It's just different. Like we weren't attacked. We're not responding.

People, we were not asked to make any sacrifices in 2001, 2002, we were told to go shopping, right? I mean, there could be real economic costs from these sanctions for Americans, gas prices, commodities, you know, like things could get really turbulent here and we're going to have to show some resolve and, and stick with the sanctions for a while if we want it to work and like put a cost on Putin. It's just going to be, it's so tough. We're also not in charge of, we're also not in charge of what happens in Ukraine. Well, that's the biggest, that's one of the biggest problems. And to add to all these challenges, right? So there's a Quinnipiac poll that came out today too. To your point, Tommy, 59% are worried that a long conflict in Ukraine

will hurt them financially. And then 57% think the Biden administration hasn't been tough enough. 29% say just right. And 3% say too tough. And which makes me think. But John, that survey ended Sunday, which made me wonder like how much of this captured what he's actually been doing since the big stuff was Sunday. But that's very possible. I think the larger issue here is Sunday. But that's very possible. I think the larger issue here is the public tends to have a just fix it view of both national and international challenges. When there's a problem, they want the president to fix it. If he does, great. If he doesn't, they don't tend to care whether or not it's beyond the president's control to fix it. And what I worry about here, and look, the Biden administration, I think they do have, know joe biden has to talk about the union there's no question about

that and they're doing all the right things i think strategically and also um communications wise right now but as they increase the salience of this issue and talk about it more the challenge is if this goes poorly for ukraine which a lot of military analysts and foreign policy observers think that it ultimately will, then people are going to say, oh, why didn't Joe Biden fix Ukraine? I don't understand. Republicans will just go back

saying he was weak. Yeah, exactly. Then you'll get that. And I do think like, this is sort of part of the life in a politics where no one admits to trade-offs ever, right? Like, I think a lot of what

the polling has revealed is the news is awful. People have a moral outrage. They feel it is dangerous. It is destabilizing. They're all correct. They don't want this to be taking place. Are they willing to sacrifice? Well, I think that's an open question. But so far, the answer has been a lot of suspicion about any efforts that might hurt. The gas prices might hurt their economic position. And then now that is normal. That is okay. In a normal functioning, working politics, there'd be a debate about those trade-offs and there'd be an honest, there'd be a hard policy conversation about how far we're willing to go or not. But when there's going to be an entire propaganda apparatus that says a different person could have stopped

all of this without any of the trade-offs. Everything he's doing is wrong. I would have done everything better. And what I would have done would have worked. Won't say why or how. Won't give you any details. My mere existence, my presence. Trump said my presence essentially would have prevented this. Because they all know that none of them would want to say, oh, I would have sent a bunch of troops in because they know that's not popular. But also they'll just say there was something magic that I could have done. And they wanted to be a set of words I could have uttered that would have like brought Vladimir Putin to his knees. Right. And it's not even just a Trump thing. It's all these Republicans. So it's like he's weak. Okay, he's being tough with tough sanctions, but those are hurting people. And I wouldn't have done it that way. Like, you don't even have to get to a different president to get to the kind of pure bad faith attacks that are coming in the administration's direction. And so I don't know how you have a sophisticated policy response that is sustainable, even if it does get ugly, even if it doesn't work right away, even if it just it takes it has this huge cost on Russia

while Putin goes into Ukraine and stays in Ukraine. Anyway, I don't know how you have that kind of difficult conversation in a country just drowning in bullshit. Yeah. One interesting thing is that over the last few days, even some of the Republican Party's Putin apologists have started to change their tune. Here's Tucker Carlson. Vladimir Putin started this war. So whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it. He fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we're seeing tonight in Ukraine. Well, that's certainly a change from last week when he was like, what did Vladimir Putin ever do to you? Did he call you racist? Did he eat dogs? Whatever the fuck that was that clip that we played on Thursday. Did he ever poison you for running as an opposition candidate? I think, I think it was all a really racist attempt to say China is worse. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. But also like, what, what do you think, what do you think happened to Tucker? You think he just was like, Oh, now I have to, I have to backtrack and,

and blame Vladimir Putin. Yeah. I mean, this humiliated a lot of people from the people who said, there's no way Putin will ever invade. You guys are being alarmist and militaristic to the people on the right who are apologizing. And, but I think there are a few different flavors of kind of Putin fan,

Putin apologist. I think there's the ones who just like use Putin or anything to portray Biden or Democrats as weak. And it's just sort of like the crass political version you were talking about who will say, I would have stopped Putin with tough sanctions, but I would have approved the Keystone pipeline. So gas prices would have stayed down, right? Just like bullshit. There's some, I think, who view criticizing Putin as a proxy for like the 2016 election and impeachment. And so those are the dumbest people and the debate just gets caught in there. And then I think Tucker genuinely likes Putin because he is a right wing, like Russian orthodox, white nationalist authoritarian. And I think Tucker likes that. And they want the US to be more like Russia. And the reason I think Tucker likes that is because he also likes Viktor Orban, who is the right wing quasi dictator of Hungary. They are they are proudly open about this sort of like right wing religiosity, bigotry that they will dispel. Steve Bannon has been saying this, right? On his podcast last week, he was like, well putin is anti-woke love putin anti-woke that's

that they've they've combined uh they've combined the culture war here with uh with vladimir putin's uh war abroad into one big piece of shit yeah i do think sometimes it's like everyone's like what's going on with these republicans they're so crazy they're fascist they like fascism yeah and they're in favor they like autocr. They like autocrats. But what's interesting in that polling again, only 9% of Americans have a favorable view of Vladimir Putin, which shouldn't surprise us. But when you hear Tucker and Bannon and all these people, you think, well, you know, 9% of Americans have a favorable view of Putin, including just 14% of Republicans. So obviously the number is higher with Republicans, but still only 14% and only 6 percent say the invasion is justified, including just 9 percent of Republicans. So it is a good, you know, it's interesting that I think some of these right wing media stars have realized that as much as they've been trying to pull the base towards them and their views, they haven't quite done it yet. Yeah, they have failed. And the images we're seeing over the last week are going to hurt that effort enormously.

Yeah, we're human beings and no one wants to see kids dying so one more note on tuesday state of the union we will be covering this speech on the crooked media group thread we're bringing it back group thread is back group that is back so come join us at youtube.com slash crooked media on tuesday night right as the speech starts watch with us watch with us you can watch with us uh and when we come back strict scrutiny's melissa murray talks to talks to Lovett about Katonji Brown Jackson, as well as the legal implications of Republican politicians targeting gay and trans kids.

It's been a week of high highs and low lows on the judicial beat. On Friday, President Biden announced his pick for the Supreme Court, Justice Katonji Brown Jackson, who would become our country's first black female Supreme Court justice. But as we seek to elevate this judge to the highest court from deep down, way, way, way down from the pit of Republican animus, we see emerging multiple attacks on gay and trans kids, which will almost certainly find their way into the courts. Here to talk about all of it, we are once again joined by Melissa Murray from your favorite

legal pod, Strict Scrutiny, which we are thrilled to say is part of the Crooked Network. Melissa, welcome back. Thanks for having me. And thanks for making me part of the family. This has been great. So exciting. So exciting. You happened, it has coincided with a surfeit of legal news.

So much. So much. Honestly, I've been listening to Strict Scrutiny, and I feel like surfeit is legal news. So much. Honestly, I've been listening to strict scrutiny and I feel like surfeit is a word that I could throw in there, you know, just to prove I can hang. I invite you to the pod at any time to use all of your $50 vocabulary words. You're always welcome. So first of all, just stepping back, what was your reaction to President Biden's reaction of someone we were calling KBJ. So I was absolutely thrilled. This is a brilliant, brilliant nomination. I know that President Biden said he was going to pick a Black woman. And I actually think that the whole lead up to this

and how basically almost every Black woman lawyer in the world was on the incredibly long short list. But that too was amazing because it showed everyone that there was this amazing crop of legal talent that had really gone unrecognized and untapped for a really long time. And at the top of it is Katonji Brown-Jackson, and she's just the most fantastic nominee. She has deep, broad experience in so many different facets of the legal profession. She has been a judge at the trial court level, at the circuit court level. She's been a clerk at all three levels of the federal judiciary. This person is tailor-made for this moment. It's a fabulous, fabulous nomination.

I was delighted. And literally all the Black women in America are in formation. We are part of the K-Hive. We're ready. I get nervous when K-Hives are brought up because I've tangled with the K-Hive in the past, but I appreciate what you're saying. Oh, the other K-Hive, the KBJ-Hive. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to trigger you. The KBJ-Hive. Apologies. So on Strict Scrutiny this week, you had a discussion about what it meant that Biden defiantly repeated, I'm going to choose a black woman for the Supreme Court, despite the human cry from conservatives. And one point that I believe Kate made, which I found fascinating, hadn't heard before, which is that it wasn't just a good thing to say,

it was a legal argument. Can you talk a little bit about what that means? Sure. I agree with you. This was one of the most astute and I think underappreciate observations. And Kate's just a smarty pants. So good for her for bringing this up. But she, she characterized it as a kind of presidential constitutionalism. And it's this idea that it's not just the courts who make constitutional meaning, but other actors, including the president do it. And her point was, in this moment where the court is poised to take up a really consequential challenge to affirmative action in the next term, President Biden's insistence that he was going to name a Black woman

to the court really stood in stark contrast to this court, which really seems poised to dismantle affirmative action. And it seemed to be a statement that as the court is considering in what circumstances the use of race can be permissible, it seems like this court thinks that there's no use of race that could ever be permissible. The president was making a point that not all uses of race are tantamount to Jim Crow segregation or white supremacy, that in fact, the use of race in circumstances where it's intended to Jim Crow segregation or white supremacy, that in fact, the use of race in circumstances where it's intended to remedy past exclusion or underrepresentation can actually be appropriate. And his insistence on this was not just about semantics or campaign promises, but

in Kate's view, and I think she's exactly right, it was a moment of constitutional meaning making. So now we head into a confirmation process. What worries you? Does anything keep you up at night about this process? The different Republican lines of attack feel like pretty thin gruel. I don't even know if you would be able to call it broth. She went to Harvard. That's unacceptable to us when it's not the other four members of the court who went to Harvard. That's unacceptable to us when it's not the other four members of the court who went to Harvard. What worries you about the coming fight? I don't lose sleep over this because I'm planning to look 35 for the next 25 years. So I don't lose

sleep over the Republicans. They're going to do what they're going to do. But I think we're already seeing a kind of coalescing set of objections, none of which really stick, but I think they will try it nonetheless. So, you know, I was on another show this morning and a caller called in and literally just sort of peeled off a set of Republican talking points. She's a radical leftist. She's soft on crime. She's been funded by dark money and George Soros. And, you know, I don't even know where you get this from. I mean, the whole point about her being soft on crime, this person linked to her being a public defender. But we all know that being a public defender is not about being soft on criminal justice. It is about a clear commitment to the rule of law and this constitutional value we have that every person in the criminal justice system who is a defendant has to be represented. Like that is a value that the Constitution actually protects. And so, again, calling her soft on crime because she has represented indigent defendants

seems like a real stretch. But if that's what they have, I mean, I guess. But I just think these attacks on her are not going to fall really well. And it seems like a political miscalculation given how many people are excited about this historic nomination. How many people recognize that this isn't going to change the composition of the court in a meaningful way or in the short term, certainly. And it just seems churlish to kind of deny people the opportunity to be really excited about what is a major milestone in the American legal landscape. The ideological makeup of the court is not changing through this appointment, as you just pointed out. But what are your hopes for the ways in which Justice Jackson can wield power, maybe in ways that were different than what Stephen Breyer could or would do?

I think this is what's actually quite brilliant about her selection. I mean, she's a lot of different things. She has been a circuit court judge where she's had to work in multi-member bodies and much was made at her nomination introduction about how she's very much a consensus builder in all of these different institutions of which she's been a part. But she's also been a district court judge where you're kind of solo and, you know, you kind of read the law in your way. And if you're appealed, you're appealed. But many times district court judges aren't appealed. And so what you say sort of stands. And I think that bodes well for her in the short term as someone who will be prepared to write really cogent, entrenching dissents. And I think she will be dissenting a really cogent and trenchant dissents. And I think she will be dissenting a lot given the nature of this court. But if the landscape changes and the

composition of the court changes, and maybe there are more moderate Republican appointees, maybe there are more Democrats, I think there will be an opportunity for her to exhibit some of these consensus building strengths that she has and really sort of be in the mold of her mentor, Stephen Breyer, who very much was a pragmatist, very much was insistent on consensus, even though the moment was probably a little far gone for consensus. But in that sense, she really could be a nominee for all seasons, like in this moment where dissents and pushing back is necessary, but maybe also

looking to the future where conciliation is likely. Last question on this. I was very troubled to learn that Judge Jackson did original oratory and dramatic interpretation as part of the Speech and club, uh, as a forensics champ, as my, as a, as a former, uh, uh, extemporaneous, uh, that was your event. I did, I did extemp and I did oratory. Um, I, I feel as though I worry that, uh, forensics kids are theater kids adjacent. I feel like this is a little too close to having a theater kid on the Supreme court. Does that worry you at all? So I too was a forensics kid. My initial event was declamation and then original oratory and then student Congress where I was a national champion too.

I think we should have theater kids on the Supreme Court. I want to see jazz hands on the bench. We haven't had any flair since Justice Ginsburg passed away with those jabos and collars. I'm ready for it. We've got Neil Gorsuch, we've got Sam Alito. They're not bringing anything with flair to the table. I mean, Justice Alito's got that great skin, as I've remarked about in the past. You're always talking about Justice Alito's skin. Famously, I'm telling you the man like he's thin skinned, but it's so dewy and moist. I think we have to acknowledge that he's doing something right. And I mean, he's always doing something on the right, but he's also doing his skincare right. And I think we have to give him props for that. But I love the idea of a theater kid. And I love that she did some kind of improv thing

with Matt Damon, which makes her Jennifer Lopez adjacent. She's like two steps away from Jennifer Lopez, which is also kind of amazing too. I like that we both did Declination and then O.O. I like that that was our, we both were on a similar path. That was the natural progression. That is the natural progression. Yep. Yep. Yep. All right. So I did want to before, before we, thank you for taking the time, before we let you go, there were two very serious and dangerous developments, one in Florida, one in Texas. There is the Don't Say Gay Bill in Florida. 20 other states already have anti-gay curriculum laws in the books, but this bill goes further. I'm going to ask you a question I know that you can't answer, but as this looks like it could pass and Governor DeSantis

has said he will sign it, what happens when this law hits the courts? I think this law and the Texas anti-trans law both have really big issues. And the thing is, their issues are sort of organized around this one single constitutional principle that parents have a right, a fundamental right, but not an unfettered right, to raise their children in the manner of their choosing. I think that augurs poorly for the Texas bill because this whole idea that parents cannot authorize gender-affirming treatment for their children seems to fly in the face of that idea of parental rights. On the other hand, the point that parents do not have an unfettered right, like they have to send their kids to school, they may have to submit to a particular kind of curriculum,

that I think may create a dicier question in the Florida situation in terms of what the state can mandate in terms of public education. It's a general matter. Public schools are free with some limitations to sort of craft a curriculum that is available for the entire collective. And it seems here that Florida has done this with particular anti-gay animus in mind. And I think the real issue is how a court, whether it's a federal court or a state court, thinks about this. Do they understand the underlying anti-gay animus? How do they treat that? Is it a question of a suspect class? It wouldn't be in a federal court. Perhaps it might be in STEM state level courts.

But they all sort of turn on this question of parental rights, which have really gotten a lot of attention this year because of the mask mandates. But that's really what's orienting all of this. And these two laws are really two different sides of this same principle. On the, I want to come back to the Texas part of it, but on the Florida side, so there is the parental rights argument, but critics point out that the law is written so broadly that it might lead teachers to feel as though they can't even refer to the fact that they have a same sex spouse.

I think that's the point. It's vague by design. It's not a criminal law. Generally, criminal laws can be struck down as being unconstitutionally vague. Civil laws, not so much. But I mean, I think you do have a broader question of whether the law is so vague as to chill what would otherwise be constitutional or permissible conduct. And that is, I think, an open question that would have to be litigated. But I think the vagueness is by design because the law is actually intended to one, chill conduct, to deter people from doing these things,

and more importantly, to cultivate a culture of shame around this. And so in that sense, it has been remarkably successful, even if it is ultimately invalidated. it has been remarkably successful, even if it is ultimately invalidated. On the Texas front, so this is the governor affirming his attorney general and saying he believes the law means that gender affirming care can be constituted as child abuse. And therefore, parents who are supportive of their trans children, listen to the best medical advice, are in some ways are liable under this law, and that nurses, doctors, teachers, that people who have a duty to report, right, as part of their obligations, they have to report when they see something wrong. It's not just that they are legally obligated, now have a legal obligation to report parents for supporting their trans kids.

What was your reaction to this letter? And what happens now? We've seen district attorneys in, say, Austin say they're not going to enforce this. What happens next? I think, one, the first thing I thought when I read this directive undergirded by this letter drafted by Attorney General Paxton is like, this is terrible constitutional analysis. I mean, we have recognized in the Constitution, or not in the Constitution, but inferred from the Constitution, this principle that parents have this right to raise their children in the manner of their choosing, including things like medical treatment. And this really flies in the face of that.

But it is of a piece, I think, with other kinds of conservative legislation. For example, the use of child endangerment laws against pregnant women who quote unquote endanger their fetuses. So this is sort of the same idea, like using existing child abuse laws, but expanding their scope to include this other kind of conduct. I think it's unlikely that it would survive a legal challenge for a lot of different reasons. The whole issue with the doctor's reporting seems to fly in the face of the patient and doctor privilege, although doctors do have reporting requirements for actual child abuse. But I think a lot of people would say that this is quite far of an extension of those

principles. But I don't think that the ultimate litigation and invalidation of this law is the point. I think the point is ultimately to chill conduct, to make parents afraid, to stop them from offering this treatment to their children, and to cultivate, again, a culture of shame, offering this treatment to their children and to cultivate, again, a culture of shame, to express symbolically that this is something that Texas thinks is inappropriate, it's problematic. It can have enormous collateral consequences. For example, if you are a parent and you are being sued for custody of your child, for example, and you are actually offering this gender-affirming treatment, it could be used against you if this law remains on the books. Again, I think the law is likely to be challenged and will be invalidated, but just that kind of fear, the thought of losing custody of your children, the thought of a child

endangerment suit against you, I think is enough to chill the conduct. And I think that's the point. There's something also about both, we've seen this in a few different proposals from Republican And I think that's the point. seem to be also some kind of admission of weakness in this, that their efforts to do this down the middle have somehow failed. The letter from Governor Abbott, it's like a fit of pique because it's basically saying, I don't agree with the consensus of doctors. I don't have control over that. The medical profession, I see it a different way. I'm not a doctor, but I've decided I know the medical profession, I see it a different way. I'm not a doctor, but I've decided I know better. And so I'm going to use the tools I have to try to subvert this consensus that as a governor, I reject. There does seem to be a kind of admission that their previous efforts have collapsed.

So I'm going to make a connection that does not seem obvious, but think about all of those laws, those religious objection laws where people can say, you know, I'm not going to perform a same-sex wedding because I am religious and it violates the tenets of my faith to do so. I have argued in a lot of the articles that that's a kind of privatization move. Like you don't like what the public sphere is acknowledging as sort of majoritarian sexual mores. And so you figure out this other way using religion or something else to basically create your own private Idaho where it's 1954 and you don't have to recognize same-sex marriage or Black people or whatever. I think it's a similar kind of move to the private sphere, as you stated, like, you know, majoritarian norms favor equality,

favor inclusion, diversity, and that's not where you are. So instead, you have sort of, like when the state won't step in and enforce your vision of what's appropriate, you've now deputized it to private citizens who, like you, are alarmed and want to enforce this kind of vision. And so I think we're seeing that in a lot of different venues, like this sort of shift to private means of enforcing norms that may be bygone norms in a lot of different venues, like this sort of shift to private means of enforcing norms that may be bygone norms in a lot of ways. Yeah, I think you also see that in some of the protests around mass policy. I think you saw this as well, because when parents show up at a school board and say, I have rights, it is my child, You do. Of course you do. But we all come

together and have a system for how we each reflect our own rights and responsibilities and values. We come together, we debate it, we elect the people that are on the school board or who select the school board. And then as a democracy, we recognize that we all have disparate interests, but it's only one school building. And so we give that authority to a school board that makes the best decision they can. And if you don't like it, that's life. But there's this kind of anti-democratic aspect to this, which is I will agree to the democratic decisions that fit with my worldview, and I won't with the ones that don't. But that's not how it works. I mean, you're preaching to the choir. But I mean, again, and the whole like my way or the highway, like I'm all for democracy until I don't like democracy and democratic deliberation.

I think we're seeing this in so many different facets of public life right now. It's not just these questions about sexuality, about I mean, we're seeing it with CRT. Like, you know, I mean, where are black parents in the whole debate over CRT? Like, why don't we have a voice in terms of what these curricula look like? I mean, no one asked us, for the last 20 years, we've been, our children have never really had the opportunity to have a full fleshed out view of American history. And yet, you know, suddenly, these other parents get to say what gets taught and their points of view are credited. So again, you're preaching to the choir. I don't know what to say about that. I'll keep preaching. Yeah. It's the also, I mean, look,

it applies to the don't say gay bill too, because these are parents that grew up at a time where sexuality in terms of sexuality was discussed ad nauseum in school, but not gay sexuality. And that should be cordoned off. It shouldn't be heard from because I'm straight and I didn't have to hear about it. I got to grow up in a straight white experience and I want that same thing for my children, not to be confronted by these other ways of living while ignoring the fact that some of those kids are black, some of those kids are gay, some of those kids are having an experience in that classroom. I think one thing that gets said about it, which I think is a fair point is like, you know, are you sure that the teachers are equipped to actually present this

information in ways that are credible, that are understandable and accessible? And I think that's just a bigger question of like, if we actually did this more frequently and better, we could actually get good at it. But if we don't do it, we're never going to get good at it at all. Right. Well, if the objection is we don't believe schools can translate curricula into good teaching, we have a bigger problem. And the answer isn't to only teach the parts of history we like. I don't think. I guess we... It's one concerned parent to another. Final question. Somewhere out there, there is a person who lost in the final original oratory competition to Katonji Brown Jackson. They feel pretty good today, huh?

It's good to lose to this person. Don't you think? They've carried around for a long time that number two spot. And today that's like, I lost. Yeah, but I lost to a Supreme Court justice. That person is definitely telling, like, I lost to a Supreme Court justice for sure. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Good for them. Good for them. If you're going to be number two, this is this is the person better to be like number two to Katonji Brown Jackson than

some other person. Absolutely. Absolutely. Melissa Murray, thank you so much for taking the time. Everybody go subscribe to Strict Scrutiny. It is a great way to keep up with the Supreme Court and the legal culture around it. It's a great show. Thank you. Thank you. Talk to you later. All right. So before we go, all your favorite Republican goofballs descended on Orlando this weekend for this year's Conservative Political Action conference or CPAC. We've got Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gates, Donald Trump Jr., J.D. Vance, and of course, former President Donald Trump, who had this to say. They're going to find out the hard way starting on November 8th. And then again, even more so

on November 2024, they will find out like never before we did it twice and we'll do it again we're going to be doing it again a third time how many more times does he have to say it how many how much more specific does he have to be before everyone starts treating him as the 2024 Republican frontrunner? I mean, the guy's fucking running. Unless he's dead or in jail. And even in the in jail scenario, I don't know. Yeah, Dan hit him with a take him seriously, not literally joke on Twitter, which is a great comeback. I think we should never forget the infamous Selena Zito running.

Yeah, I mean, it's exhausting that no one enforces the rules on this guy. I also feel like the whole exploratory committee process is such a joke that I can't get myself that worked up about it, but yes, he just announced. Technically, he's activated several rules that will change the way he has to conduct his campaign. It would be cool if they did that, though.

Yeah, what are they going to do? We're going to do the FEC to save us? I don't think it's going to happen. He did pretty well in the CPAC strop hole. He did. Of course, again, this is a strop hole of the most hardcore right-wing activists. Trump, then Putin, then DeSantis. Well, 40% of them are from Florida that voted. They saved him last time, too, though.

85% chose Trump as the nominee. 97% said they approved of his presidency. Again, Putin, Kim Jong Un like numbers there. And he did beat DeSantis in a head to head. Fifty nine to twenty eight. So the whole, you know, that's that's strike one against the Trump's losing his grip on the party. Yeah. I think you got to run against Trump to eventually beat Trump. You know, you got to show some strength. You got to show you'd be a better candidate that you could win. Like take a message against the guy. Come on, DeSantis.

launching an unprovoked invasion i think that's back to our conversation earlier that's also one reason i think republicans aren't out talking about this a lot they didn't ukraine wasn't mentioned much uh during cpac and i think it's partly because look lest we forget what the first impeachment was about donald trump threatening to withhold military assistance to zelensky unless he dug up dirt on biden yeah that That was the, that was the big, and then, and then tried to blow up NATO and said that the United States was going to get, get out of NATO. Look, Republicans experience

occasional bouts of self-preservation and even occasional moments of shame, but they never last. And this thing drags on, there's economic costs, they will be out in force parodying whatever nonsense Trump says about it. So we should be ready for that. Yeah. And this thing drags on, there's economic costs, they will be out in force parodying whatever nonsense Trump says about it.

So we should be ready for that. Yeah, and in the short term, I mean, I think like global events and really like governing generally doesn't really animate this crowd. They like the culture war stuff. They like talking about cancel culture and owning the libs.

And unless we're fighting a culture war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, like they're not going to be that into it until they can make it about whatever bullshit. I do think that's a little bit why some... Vladimir Putin's on the right side of the culture war for them. Well vladimir putin like they're not going to be that into it until they can make it about whatever bullshit i do think that's a little bit why someone's on the right side of the culture war well i think that's why some of them have gone to that point like i actually think putin's a christian unlike these liberals in the white house i think that's putin

doesn't use pronouns it's it's uh yeah you can't put they them on a tank the uh fucking idiots the but uh absolute idiots but uh i think it's because it's like they don't know how to culture it's hard to culture war this real world it's real it's real this is well again the people on their side of the culture war are the ones launching an invasion that's killing people in front of the entire world for the whole world to see that's why i think it's not that popular for them to talk about speaking of the culture war though let's let's listen to some of the greatest hits from the other uh cpac The paperwork's already been filed. I have introduced articles of impeachment to impeach Joe Biden, impeach Kamala Harris, get Nancy Pelosi the heck out of

there and save our country. And we are in the process of getting money from the legislature so that if Biden is dumping illegal aliens into Florida from the southern border, I'm rerouting them to Delaware. We'll do some in D.C. and Hollywood as well. If you hear anybody speaking against the COVID policies, education policies of this administration, report them to the authorities. It was a slap in the face. We got to hold Democrats accountable, everybody, right? Fire Fauci. We've got to investigate Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lock her up.

Lock them all up. Lock her up. Lock her up. Lock them all up. Why should Americans have to pay the cost of freedom elsewhere when our own leaders stand up for our freedom here? I'm not for sending Americans to Ukraine. Except maybe one. if russia wanted to destabilize ukraine putin didn't need to send tanks we could have just said dr falchi oh my god you were wondering where that was gonna land in a place that makes no sense zero when are they gonna let hillary clinton just live out her days like 20 20 years from now they're gonna go to some very fancy uh nursing home be like we're here to fucking lock you up we're finally doing it i don't know she gave a big

speech last week i watched the trump speech live for some reason and it was very low energy like he was just not into it he was not feeling it the crowd liked it but like even that super cut like talk about playing the hits they They're sort of stale. It was like, we're talking about investigating Hillary Clinton. You know what's interesting? What was that Homeland Security that Marsha Blackburn was talking about? Oh, that was Marsha Blackburn. It sounded like her.

Correct me if I'm wrong. It sounded like my... I hate that I know the sound of her voice, but... You know, they got a little too comfortable with Trump as the news director for the country. They got a little too comfortable waiting for him to tell them which way to go. You know, they're a little out of practice. It's tough to do programming on your own. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

With Jeff, the Jeff Zucker of the conservative movement has gone and they're beside themselves. One more thing to note from this weekend. There was another event in Orlando that took place at the same time as CPAC, the American First Political Action Conference,

a white nationalist event orchestrated by Nick Fuentes, who also attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Here's what he had to say right before he introduced Marjorie Taylor Greene. And now they're going on about Russia and Vladimir Putin is Hitler. And they say that's not a good thing. I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have said that. You know, they say about America, they say diversity is our strength, you know. And I look at China and I look at Russia. Can we give a round of applause for Russia? I look at Russia.

Can we give a round of applause for Russia? Yes. Putin! Putin! Putin! Absolutely. Absolutely. There's a Putin chance in Orlando. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at this event. Paul Gosar sent a video at this event. He's doing like a a brain dead norm mcdonald voice yeah what was really just that guy's a foul person here's a head here's a headline from uh new york times february 21st 1999 22 000 nazis hold rally in garden police

check foes scenes as german-american bund held its washington birthday rally last night what's old is new again you know what i mean yeah so Green says she didn't know that Fuentes was a white supremacist. Yeah, sure. And that she only spoke there because the gathering had a very large and young following. Yeah, not true, by the way. So Mitch McConnell responded by saying, quote, there's no place in the Republican Party for white supremacists or anti-Semitism. Really? And Kevin McCarthy called Green's appearance unacceptable and said that he'll be meeting with her this week. What do you think that's going to lead to, guys?

Yeah. I think, one, Marjorie Taylor Green is a liar and an idiot. And she knew exactly what she was doing. Of course. Two, the damage is done. Every time these guys get attention, even if it's negative, they win. Their message gets out. People hear about them.

They see their views. They get more followers. This is bad. What happened is really bad. as they get more followers. Like this is bad. What happened is really bad. And I think last thing just on CPAC is like the story of CPAC for me

is that what is fringe this year becomes mainstream next year. Like Trump pulled out of CPAC in 2016 because he got a shitty time slot and a bunch of people were going to protest him or walk out of his speech. Now the whole thing revolves on him. And so it's not just a question of like,

do Republicans have the guts to condemn this version of anti-Semitism, literal Hitler praise? It's do they have the power to rid the party of this group of people that they have tacitly welcomed in over the course of many years by embracing their fucking 4chan and 8chan memes and like playing footsie with the MTGs of the world and being okay with this stuff. memes and like playing footsie with the MTGs of the world and being okay with this stuff. Some people on our team were asking us right before the show, why do we think that Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell like responded so strongly to this? And it's a great question. And I was thinking about it. Like, I think what McCarthy is doing here is like, okay, there's furor about this right now. I'll say that I'll meet with her next week. He'll meet with her. She'll be like, well, you know, with her she'll be like well you know i

she'll issue like a half apology that isn't a real apology and then by that point everyone will turn to the next thing yep but i do think it's like incumbent upon everyone else reporters democrats everyone else to be like no no no you have a member of the republican caucus who attended a white nationalist event where this was said at a moment where vladimir putin is like that is a clan rally it's a fucking clan rally this guy was at unite the right he was in charlottesville we see where this leads and like you've got to kick her out of the fucking caucus and and hold them accountable because clearly mcconnell and mccarthy know that they don't want to embrace it right they're worried about it so don't let them forget about it yeah i mean jim mccarthy's a huge fucking coward

so no hope there just the worst no hope there and also like you know he's he's gonna try to run for speaker if they win and he's got to keep the whole right wing fringe with him and you know he's just a pathetic human being remember when uh marjorie taylor green had to go to stand in front of the holocaust museum and apologize the the last time she participated in anti-Semitic bullshit? I think this is the worst one for sure. Go into the... It's a prone Hitler rally. You should be expelled from the house.

Quite, quite bad. It's not that... This is an easy one if we didn't have a fucked up society that made it a hard one. Get out. Well, that's CPAC for you. Another CPAC is in... Another CPAC is in the books. And that's our show. Tommy, we are really, really happy that you're back.

It's so good to have you back at the table. It is good to be back. Thank you guys for giving me some time away. Just to talk about like a minute for like about the last month and kind of what we've been, my wife and I, Hannah have been through. Listeners may or may not have noticed that I've been gone for about a month. We were expecting a baby girl in May. Unfortunately there was a knot in her umbilical cord and our daughter Margo was stillborn in late January at six months. And the broader context that made all of this, um, so much harder

is that Hannah and I have been trying to get pregnant for a couple of years. We had several miscarriages over the past few years, and we had like just gotten past the point where we thought we were out of the woods with Margo. And then this freak accident happened and we lost her and it was just, um, completely devastating. And so, you know, we are, it's a, it's a weird mix of feelings. I am genuinely grateful and Hannah's genuinely grateful that we got to meet her and hold her and just be with her for a few hours. But leaving without your kid is gutting. And it's just, it's not an exaggeration to say that, um, it upended every plan we have for the future and that the next steps are incredibly daunting, as is just the sort of general shift from this phase of like acute grief and time off and focus and to just like living with this forever in the finality of it all. And so, you know, that kind of manifests in ways like every day, big and small, like we spent part of Valentine's Day picking up our daughter's ashes from the morgue. That was rough. But then there's also just little stuff like very nice, well-meaning people will say, Oh, do you guys have kids?

And the answer is yes. You know, we are parents. We have a daughter. Her name is Margo. We love her. We'll love her forever. She means everything to us, but her time with us was brief, you know, and your options in that moment are like lie or rip your guts out in front of some fucking stranger who was just like making small talk and so you know we spent this last month like trying to work through this stuff and reflect on what happened and like we're obviously very sad and i'm really angry sometimes but i also did come away feeling incredibly grateful for what i have in my life and the people around me. And there's kind of like a counterproductive way to have this fight with yourself, which is to like scold yourself

and be like, look what's happening in Ukraine. Nothing you went through compares to that. Like that's not useful. I don't think there's any value in like ranking or dismissing grief, feelings or feelings. But I think mourning is different than self-pity. And I think gratitude and perspective has really helped me in this process. And it's come from people and from books and just for like reading and learning. And so the thing I am most grateful for is Hannah. You guys know her well. She adores you both. Listeners don't know her because she's a pretty private person. She'll remain that way, but she has been like so strong through this. She has sacrificed so much over the last couple of years for me and for our family.

And like, I just couldn't imagine life without her. And to state the unbelievably obvious, like the burden of pregnancy is not born equally, but neither is the burden of a miscarriage. Like we shared the emotional pain of losing Margo, but the physical burden was entirely on her. And I hate that so much and just would have done anything to change it. But I, you know, I'm just so lucky to like, walked through this hell with her. And I wanted to just talk about this stuff today for a couple reasons. The first is because I think that miscarriage and difficulties with pregnancy

have got to be one of the most frequently occurring and traumatizing, but least discuss things that happen to people. And I don't know why, because that makes it harder. We had some good friends, Ashley and Steve, you guys know them well, who have been through similar experiences. Thank God we were able to talk to them because they were enormously helpful. There are celebrities out there who have done this, who dealt with this. John Legend, Chrissy Teigen have been incredibly open and were fucking attacked for it. And by the way, if you attack them, you're monsters. But hearing about their experience really helps like a shocking amount. It really matters because there's no playbook for how to handle the loss of a child. And like losing Margo hit me like a ton of bricks and

impacted us equally. But Hannah and I felt, and we grieved the previous several miscarriages very differently. And that in itself can be hard, but it's also normal. And if you're not prepared for it, cause no one talks about it. So I just think we need to like normalize talking about this shit, especially for men. Cause like, I don't know, it felt, it feels weird to talk about it. It's not my body. I'm not autonomous here and also just i think talking about this stuff this time talking about margo this time has been helpful for me personally because only a handful of people knew about the challenges over the past few years and how it impacted me but what happened manifested in me in every interaction I had with the world. And that was hard to keep in. And I'm

sure it made me like angry and shitty in situations where there were days where I was having a tough time and no one knew why. And like, that's just hard. And I'd actually, I had made my first ever appointment with a therapist a few months back because I wanted to just like prepare myself to be a father and be a better husband and more patient human being. And we did this like introductory call in December. It's like, what do you want to work on? It's like, problems at work. And then I get on a call with this guy.

The first appointment is the day after we get back from the hospital from losing Margot. And I'll be honest. I thought it was very funny to jump on a Zoom with this guy and be like, remember all that shit we talked about before? Hey, do I have something for you? I got an update. We're going to take this in a different direction. So last two thoughts. One, people have just been so nice.

I'm so grateful to the Crooked Media team and you guys for letting me step away. I'm stepping away for a month. That's not easy. I'm so grateful to the listeners of this show who are so kind to us because I am normally very cynical about social media. I think it's bullshit 90% of the time, but the words and the love and the people that reached out, it really, really, really mattered. And it really, there were periods where those interactions, just reading that stuff, even if it was one way, like sustained me when I had nothing

else to cling to. And so thank you. And it's a good reminder to me. And I think hopefully anyone listening that if you have a friend who's having a hard time, it's not what you say, it's that you said something. So default to trying. Um, and then just last, last thing, like, I just want to say thank you. And then I'm so grateful to our family and friends. Um, you know, just people like reached out to us and supported us in ways that I didn't know were possible that I wouldn't have known to think to ask for. And it's just like such a blessing that Hannah and I have found a way to surround ourselves

with these like kind, good people who were doing things for us behind the scenes in front of us that we'll never even know. And I want you all to know that we are keeping score and that there's a spreadsheet. And the best heavily weighted variable is financial. So just bear that in mind going forward. And so that's it. I'm back.

Missed you guys a lot. We love you guys. We would do anything for you. love you guys. We would do anything for you. And look, I know it's one thing to think that speaking about this publicly is a good thing and helpful. And it's an entirely other thing to actually have the courage to do it, especially because you're both private people, especially Hannah. And the courage it took for you guys to post about it to speak out about it is incredible and I can tell you that from reading all of the comments on on social media too it has meant the world to a whole bunch of people listeners to this show and otherwise and

so um I hope you guys are I hope you guys are grateful for that as well. And I'll just say, serious point is I have been, I've seen you try so hard to understand how you were feeling as you were going through this. And it was so moving to see the work you were doing to try to be the best person you could be for hand during this time i've had that to be one of the most moving things i've seen a person do and also i just think people need to understand that shamik brought really shitty bagels and i brought much much better bagels the bagels i brought were so much better than the ones shamik brought those were

shit bagels and i think we should they were terrible and everyone should know and they were and it was and honestly it was an insult but i i'm glad i could fix it he's still trying to make up for it and talk about the score sheet he has he slipped a few places what's the name of that bagel place courage bangles it's i've legitimately the best bagel i've ever tried in my life i can't believe i'm doing an ad right now um look i've sort you know there's i've dealt with sort of like two moments of like really extreme grief in my life there was this and i was losing my father to cancer and i think the speed with which this happened you know what i mean like the 24 hours between no heartbeat to delivery just like left me no choice i was just like a frayed nerve when i got home and like i like just i woke up that morning i was like I have something in me that I just have to say.

I cannot not talk about this stuff anymore. You know what I mean? It's like the first couple of times I was like, Hannah, you take the lead, whatever you want to say about miscarriage, everything else in life, I will follow suit. So I was like, I just like have to kind of tell people what's going on because I'm just going to fucking die. And, and you know, so I think it's a good lesson for me that that's the better path for almost everything in life is trying to address stuff and talk about it. So yeah, it is. Anyway,

real uplifting episode. We started with nuclear, nuclear saber rattling. There's no good time for the theme music to start. Katonji Brown Jackson, next Supreme court justice. That's exciting. time for the theme music to start. Katonji Brown-Jackson, next Supreme Court Justice. That's exciting. That was good.

How about that? That was good. We love you, Tommy. We're happy you're back. Thanks, guys. Love you back. Appreciate you. Hot Save America

is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somanator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Madison Hallman, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team,

Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.