Pod Save America - “Trump Leaks and Tax Cheats.” (with Rep. Val Demings!)

Episode Date: June 14, 2021

Florida Congresswoman Val Demings joins to talk about the news that Donald Trump’s Justice Department targeted House Democrats and her bid to unseat Senator Marco Rubio. Then, Jon, Jon, and Tommy discuss how new reports about rich people avoiding taxes should shape the Democratic agenda, and take a look at some of the highlights and funny moments from Joe Biden’s first foreign trip.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. 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. On today's show, Florida Congresswoman Val Demings is here to talk about the explosive news that Donald Trump's Justice Department secretly obtained the records of her fellow House Intelligence Committee members and their families. Then, we'll discuss how a series of new reports about rich people avoiding taxes should shape the Democratic agenda and take a look at some of our favorite moments from Joe Biden's first foreign trip. agenda and take a look at some of our favorite moments from Joe Biden's first foreign trip.

But first, check out this week's pod. Save the people where DeRay and the gang discuss the history and importance of Juneteenth. In honor of Pride Month, our own John Lovett returns to the stage for an exclusive Lovett or leave it special. Returns to the stage. Look, I just read the housekeeping called Out of the Closets into the Streets. Tell us all about it, Lovett. I'll let you explain. We have it's just going to be a big live show. We're going to record it live. We haven't announced the guest yet, but I saw just who's confirmed. We still got some maybes out there. Just who's confirmed.

We have an incredible list of people coming. So make sure you check it out. And we're doing it. It's a big fundraiser for the Trans Justice Project, which basically distributes money to local organizations doing work on the ground. We really wanted to find something where you could donate and know that it's going directly to local organizations that need the money. So go to crooked.com slash pride. It will be on Thursday, June 24th at 4 p.m. Pacific, 7 p.m. Eastern. Is it true you're working on a whole new hour like Gene Smart, all new material?

Yeah, I got a lot much more personal. All right. I'm no longer, you know, and let's just say, look, and for those of for the there's been a bit of a kerfuffle over my conversation with Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, and I'll just say we're going to address it. And no more jokes about no more jokes about burning Emily Favreau's house down? Hard pass. Got it. Okay, John, over to you.

Still smarting from that. Still smarting. All right. Still smarting. Let's get to the news. Last week, we learned that Donald Trump's Justice Department secretly seized phone and email records from reporters at CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times while investigating leaks about the Russia probe. Then on Friday, The Times reported that DOJ also secretly subpoenaed

Apple for the metadata records of 73 phone numbers and 36 email accounts belonging to House Intelligence Committee members Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, their aides, and their families, including a child. The subpoena has turned up zero evidence of any leaks. And now Senate Democrats and President Biden's Justice Department have launched their own investigations into what looks like an unprecedented abuse of power, something no president has ever done, not even Richard Nixon. Joining us to talk about what's next here is someone who's no stranger to investigating Donald Trump, former House impeachment manager and current 2022 candidate

for Marco Rubio Senate seat, Florida Representative Val Demings. Congresswoman, welcome to Pod Save America. It's great to be with you. Thank you for having me. Your committee, the Intel Committee, was the DOJ's target here. You, Chairman Schiff, Speaker Pelosi and others have all called for an investigation. Why hasn't anyone in the House Speaker Pelosi and others have all called for an investigation. Why hasn't anyone in the House threatened subpoenas for former Attorneys General Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions to testify yet, both of whom denied even knowing that lawmakers were targeted? Well, you know, let me just say this. As you indicated in your opening statement, this is unprecedented for any president in the United States. And how many times do we

have to go through this with the former president? He's done a lot of unprecedented things. But what I can guarantee you is, once again, he has reached an all-time low. Those in the Justice Department allow themselves to be used as his weapon against what he perceived as his political enemies. And we will get to the bottom of it. And I am sure that we will use whatever tools necessary to make sure that we get the whole truth and the complete truth about exactly what happened. We know the names that have been called, including a minor, but we do not know the full extent. And so we have to know the full extent of this unbelievable abuse of power. And I'm sure we will use every tool that we need to get to the bottom of it. And so that sounds like that you will issue subpoenas if Barr and Sessions

refuse to testify on their own. Well, I think it's critical that we find out what Barr and Sessions refused to testify on their own. Well, I think it's critical that we find out what Barr and Sessions knew. I mean, we've heard their statements. We've heard A.G. Barr try to distance himself. Well, you know, I would say it's about time. But we need to use whatever tool necessary to get to the bottom of it. And I'm sure leadership in the House will do just that. Of course, you know, this has been at the top of their minds And I'm sure leadership in the House will do just that. Of course, you know, this has been at the top of their minds since the story broke, and it will continue to be.

The American people deserve to know, certainly the members of Congress, their staff and family members deserve to have a thorough investigation. And quite frankly, every member who could potentially be targeted in such a awful way needs to know the outcome of this investigation. What are some of the top questions that you want answered from this story? Well, you know, from the very beginning, it seems like this was the president had a solution first and then went looking for a problem. You know, Adam Schiff led the investigation because of his committee assignment as chairman of Intel. He was just doing his job along with the members of the Intelligence Committee. It would be nice if the president

had chosen to do the exact same thing. And so I would particularly be interested in what information, what evidence did the president have that led him to the actions that he was involved in to actually get or have those records subpoenaed, phone records, multiple phone numbers, including that of a minor. what probable cause did he have to move forward with that investigation? I'd be quite interested in hearing that answer. President Biden has ordered prosecutors to stop seizing reporters' phone and email data for the purpose of leak investigations. Do you think that that ban should be enacted as a law in order to make sure that future administrations can't undo it?

You know, I certainly think that we have an obligation. Certainly, I think President Biden is off to a great start. But we have an obligation to put laws in place. Policies are one thing. Procedures are another. But in those areas that we have consistently had issues or problems, or in those areas that allow us to have an opportunity to be proactive in our response, I think we always should look to legislation to codify some of the executive orders that the

president may have written. And so again, leadership, and we will continue to be looking for those opportunities to make sure that the American people are not victimized. More broadly, do you think the Justice Department is doing enough to investigate the wrongdoing and potential criminality of the previous administration? Your colleague, Congressman Brendan Boyle, told The Washington Post this week, you know, he used to think it was better to look forward and not back. But with Donald Trump, it's sort of impossible to look away because it's just too dangerous not to investigate what happened. Well, you know, I share my have an obligation when there is suspected wrongdoing,

certainly to the gravity of the former president's actions. We have an obligation. It's not necessarily about looking backwards or moving forward. It is about, you know, the saying that I love to say, everybody counts, but everybody is accountable. And as you said, as you began this particular segment, these are unprecedented times. And we have a president who did whatever he could, whenever he could, to use the power of his office and basically in a criminal way. And so regardless of who that person is or what name they carry, we as legislators certainly have an opportunity to make sure that we provide the necessary oversight to make sure that we hold those who violate the law accountable because no one is

above the law and really make sure that we've taken care of past vulnerabilities. So moving ahead, possibly we can prevent the same thing from happening in the future. There were reports on Friday that negotiations over police reform are falling apart over qualified immunity. You're a former police chief. If this bill doesn't make it any easier for victims to sue officers or at least departments over police misconduct. Is it still worth passing? You know, I really believe, look, a year over a year now on the other side of what happened to George Floyd. And I don't think there's anyone who's heard his story who does not agree that what happened to him was brutal.

It was senseless, and it was murder. It should never have happened. And now, yet again, it is incumbent on us to take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening in the first place or happening the next time. You know, I am just, I know that this has been an up and down path to try to get the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed. But I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel just yet. I do believe that the legislation before the Senate, although not perfect, is quite reasonable. We still will have a lot of work to do, but I am just hoping that those who are in negotiations on both sides of the aisle will stay at the table and operate under the

umbrella of what's reasonable. And while I said I do think the law is not perfect, but I do think the provisions in the law are reasonable. Let's move forward and get this done. And then let's quickly get back to the table involving every entity, involving lawmakers, involving law enforcement, involving advocates, community advocates, involving social workers and educators and others in the process to look at the next phase of the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. But I'm not ready to give up yet. We have got to get this done. How important is qualified immunity to you as someone who's had experience running a police department? You know what I try to remind people in this as we're having this very important conversation is this because I frequently talk to people and they'll say well if I was a law enforcement officer and I did the same thing

I would be arrested today and you know led off in handcuffs immediately and what I try to help them understand is that well they do not have as a citizen do not have a duty to act. If they see a knife fight in progress, for example, or a gunfight in progress, they can simply walk away. Now, we would certainly hope that they would call the 911 and then be a witness to what occurred. Law enforcement officers do not have that ability. They have to engage. If they see a knife fight or a gunfight in progress, they cannot simply walk away and say, oh, I'm not going to get involved in that because it may not go well, and then I'm going to, who knows what will happen to me. They have an opportunity, an obligation to engage. And so I try to remind people of that. They have a duty to act, but by

the same token, they're always supposed to respond as they are trained. If they respond as they're trained and we find out that the training is substandard, then we need to look at the training. They always have an obligation to treat people with dignity and respect. And so we need to, as we have this very critical, very important discussion, I believe that law enforcement officers who violate their policies are engaged in egregious behavior, who have forgotten the profession, the professionalism, if you will, of their profession should be held accountable in a personal way. But as we engage in this conversation, and that's why I think it's so critical, it's so important, rather, that we engage law enforcement officers, community advocates, legislators, you know, social workers, and others in this discussion so we can get exactly to the place that we need to be. The American public deserves that. And quite frankly, the law enforcement profession deserves that as well.

You're hoping to unseat Marco Rubio in 2022, an incredibly small man who's already tried to brand you as a far left extremist who wants to defund the police, to which you cleverly responded by posting a photo of yourself in uniform as police chief. How much do you plan to lean on your law enforcement credentials in this race? You know what? I'm going to lean on who I am. This is about telling a story. You know what? I'm going to lean on who I am. This is about telling a story. I was a law enforcement officer for 27 years. I served at every rank within the department, had the honor of serving as the chief of police, the first woman to do so at my agency. That's who I am. And I will tell that story, just like I tell the story of being the daughter of a maid and a janitor growing up Black, poor, and female in the South. If those stories make Marco Rubio uncomfortable, that is his problem. That's not my problem.

I believe I have an obligation as I run for the U.S. Senate to make sure that the American people know who I am. And I really do believe that everybody counts, but everybody is accountable. When I served as an impeachment manager against the former president of the United States, it wasn't personal, but he abused his authority, violated the law, and he should be held accountable. And so as we move forward in our campaign, I will continue to introduce myself to Floridians and to the American people. I am really excited about this race. younger voters, progressive activists who really want to see more systemic police reform, who think that we should be transferring some funding from police departments to more community-based safety strategies? What would you say to them?

Defunding police is not the answer. I do not support defunding the police. But what I do support is that America needs to get serious about addressing some of the social ills that we face in this country in the first place. When you talk to some of the most vulnerable Black and brown communities, and believe me, I've done so for a lot of years, walking and talking as a patrol officer and in other positions as a member of Congress. What they tell us is that they don't want to see less police. They want to see more police because they believe if you cut resources, then they are going to become even more vulnerable. What they want, though, is to be treated with dignity and respect. And they should be treated with dignity

and respect, not just by law enforcement. You know, as we hold America to its promise in the criminal justice system, we need to do that and we will. But we need to hold America to its promise in all things. We need to get serious about addressing mental health illness. You know, we need to get serious about addressing drug addiction. You know, we say here in Orange County, Florida, in Orlando, that the greatest drug treatment facility and the greatest mental health treatment facility is the Orange County Jail. Now, that's ridiculous. You know, and I'd love to lean on the words of the former chief of Dallas Police Department, David Brown. He's now the commissioner in Chicago, but this is what he said on a day that he had five officers assassinated.

He said, every time there is a societal failure, we call the police to fix it. Mental health counseling, call the police. Drug addiction issues, call the police. Schools fail, give it to the police. They'll take care of it. And so what I'm saying is that, yeah, we need to fix the criminal justice system, and we will do that. I am committed to that. will do that. I am committed to that. But we've also got to get serious about addressing those social ills that cause decay in communities in the first place. Mental health counseling, drug addiction treatment, better housing, better education, better wages, better jobs,

better training. That's the America that we were created to be. And that's the America that I'm going to work hard to make sure that that's the America that we become. Florida Democrats have broken our hearts so many times over the last few elections. What lessons have you learned from those losses? And what do you intend to do differently than the last several statewide campaigns? I do believe that I am a unique candidate. I'm a different candidate. And I'm getting ready to do something that Florida has never seen before. An African-American woman born and raised in Florida running for the U.S. Senate.

I am going to build the most diverse, unique coalition from Tallahassee down to Miami, from the Panhandle down to the Keys, north, south, east, and west. And we're going to get this done. I really do believe that Florida is ready, right time, right candidate. And I am going to do everything in my power to talk to the voters about the things that they care about. Already, I've heard many times that they don't see Rubio, that they don't really know him, that they don't have conversations with him. And so I'm going to do what I've always done, and that's to get out, walk and talk. May ride my motorcycle on some days, but I am going to talk to the voters about things that they care about. I've been doing that a long time.

I certainly don't intend to stop this time. Do you have any plan to run an ad that's just a split screen with you riding your red Harley and then that famous picture of little Marco Rubio sitting in that oversized rocking chair. I just I think that might be a good ad. What I'll tell you is just stay tuned. OK, just stay. That's good. I'll take that. My last my last question for you before I let you go. You were just talking about how, you know, you grew up black and poor in the South. If you win, you'll be the first black woman senator from Florida. Juneteenth is coming up. Do you have any personal reflections on that day? You know, let's think about it. And I'll be very,

I'll say this very quickly. Emancipation Proclamation signed by Abraham Lincoln, President Lincoln on January 1st of 1863. That's significant. But even more significant in a sad way is that it took two years for the last group of enslaved people to receive word in Galveston, Texas. We've known June 10th as Freedom Day, and there are celebrations because certainly the end of slavery is something to celebrate. But Juneteenth has to be about more than a one-day celebration. You know, we say in this country that we are the home of the brave and the land of the free. And we have to make sure that freedom is something that we celebrate every day, not just freedom for ourselves, but freedom for all people. When there is an attack on voting rights, that's an attack on our freedoms. When there is discrimination against who you love or where you live or where you might be able to get an education because you can't afford it, That's not just an attack on certain people.

That is an attack on our freedoms. And so as we celebrate Juneteenth, because it is a day of freedom, it has got to become a state of mind in this country that we really do believe that all people should be free, free from discrimination in this country, free from hate in this country. And so I'm looking forward to this weekend and participating in many of the celebrations, but we've got to look at Juneteenth as more than just one day to celebrate who we are and who we have become and who we still need to become as a nation. Congresswoman Val Demings, thank you so much for joining us. Good luck to you in the race. And please come back again soon. I will. Thank you so much. All right. You guys heard Congresswoman Demings tried to see if the House was going to actually

subpoena these guys to get some answers. The Senate has already said that they would, but apparently Senate Democrats need Republicans to agree to a subpoena because it's 50-50. So the House has the power. I was sort of curious why they haven't started threatening these subpoenas yet. But it sort of goes to the bigger question of like, how much the Democrats want to be investigating the Trump administration. What did you think, Tommy? It seemed like where she ended up was that they will use all the tools that they need to get to the truth. So that to me said, we're warming up our subpoena pens. But was that how you interpreted it? I think so. It seems like they're going to get there. She said all the tools, all the tools they have, which is good. I was going to ask you, I mean, there's obviously a

lot we still don't know. But how do these Trump DOJ leak investigations seem different than the leak investigations under Obama or prior administrations, just for people who are listening who might not know? Sure. So, I mean, just like the broader context is, right, when there's a news report that has classified information in it, sometimes it will get referred to the Department of Justice to open an investigation into what happened. And the goal is to find and punish the government employee who broke the law. But sometimes in the process of that investigation, DOJ estimated records from journalists to try to find their sources. I was interviewed as part of two of those leak investigations. And even though I knew I had not done anything wrong,

it was terrifying and awful. So during Obama's first term, prosecutors at DOJ seized phone records and email records from reporters in two different leak investigations. It was the wrong thing to do. I think Obama thought so as well. And after that news came out, he basically told Eric Holder to go back and review DOJ's rules around how you manage these cases. Holder ultimately put in place regulations that made it harder to go after journalist records. And he made it so DOJ would have to notify news outlets about a subpoena so they could fight it or negotiate over what they turn over. What's new here is that Trump's DOJ demanded that Apple turn over records belonging to members of Congress and seemingly a minor child of one of the members of Congress to the government imposed gag orders

on these news outlets and told them that they couldn't talk about what happened. And then three, they seize these records without giving these reporters any advanced notice. And there's also reports that Don McGahn, the former Trump White House counsel, had his records turned over by Apple. I find that more confusing than anything else. I'm just like setting that aside. But I guess none of this should be a surprise to us, right? Because Trump was publicly accusing Adam Schiff of leaking classified information, but it's still pretty shocking. And so it does seem like all of this is kind of pouring out right now because, well, of course, Biden took over the Department of Justice. But also last month, Biden said he would not permit DOJ to seize some sort of new law that says these decisions aren't just up to the discretion of each administration. And this gets complicated, right? Because you have

to decide then who is a protected journalist. Is it the New York Times? Is it Julian Assange? Is it all of them? That's not easy. But yeah, I mean, this is some shocking stuff, especially the whole matter of going after Adam Schiff's emails. I mean, that's crazy. Lovett, what was your take on this whole story that broke Friday? Yeah, I mean, on the, you know, Tommy, you brought up the McGann thing, which I think is a small example that says that we just like we need to know more information. We just need to know more. Like, for example, like the McGann piece of this is was that done by agents seeking out information on behalf of Donald Trump trying to find out who's talking to who. Was this the Mueller investigation?

Looking at McGahn's communications because he may have been involved in some of the crimes that Mueller later uncovered. We don't know. Same, to a lesser extent, goes for the information around reporters and members of Congress. You know, they are seeking, they go after Schiff's records, Swalwell's records. Barr comes in, keeps the investigation open. Why? Nothing ever came of it. Right. We never learned anything about what came out of those documents. How much of this is a morally wrong, but practice that existed in other administrations. How much of this is the Trump administration targeting its enemies. We don't know. And I think it just goes to the larger point of we need better rules and laws restricting what the DOJ can and cannot do. And some of the lessons I think about going after reporters, even in Democratic administrations, shows us some of the dangers of putting that kind of power in the hands of even less scrupulous administrations. The last question on this for you guys. I remember this NBC story like right after the election where it had like five sources close to Joe Biden said he really doesn't want to spend a lot of time in his presidency investigating

Donald Trump or looking back at sort of the Donald Trump administration's wrongdoing and criminality. It does seem like up until now, both Democrats in Congress and Garland's DOJ, Merrick Garland's DOJ has been sort of reticent to do a lot of investigating of the Trump administration. I don't know that they're going to have that much choice anymore on whether or not they do that. But what do you think about the wisdom of that, Lovett? I mean, here's the problem. Crimes take place in the past. That's where they happen. You know, I am very, I am sympathetic.

The politics of this are difficult. That said, you know, the hope that we can just move forward, that we can just move forward over and over again. We pay for that tenfold. You know, the failure to hold Donald Trump accountable for his previous crimes puts him in a position to launch an insurrection. The failure right now to look back and figure out what the Department of Justice did wrong, what crimes took place inside the Department of Justice will mean that the next time you

have an abusive president, they are not as limited as they should be. Like, I get that you want to talk about other issues, but unfortunately, like events have intervened. Like, I don't know what, how are we supposed to be a nation of laws if when the most powerful people in our country break the law, abuse our system, there is no accountability. It is a recipe for impunity for the worst actors in our in our system. And at a certain point, like we have to just accept that, yeah, the politics may not be great, but we have to do we have to understand what went wrong if we ever have a hope to fixing it. It's something Adam Schiff has talked about a lot, that one of the reasons he wants to pass a reform bill based on what we learned from the Trump administration is that we have no choice

because looking back is the only way we can protect ourselves in the future. That's it. Tommy, last word on this. I mean, look, the hard thing here is the Department of Justice is supposed to be independent. You're not supposed to politicize these investigations. The president of the United States isn't supposed to direct these investigations. That is 99% of the time a very good thing. I just talked about the examples of these leak investigations during the Obama administration where that independence wasn't a good thing because they went after a bunch of journalists in ways that really pissed Barack Obama off and I think he wouldn't have wanted to happen. In this instance, I have some sympathy for the Biden team. The question, I guess, is just like, by what mechanism are you looking back?

I do think it's entirely appropriate for the DOJ inspector general to figure out what the hell happened with these subpoenas. It's entirely appropriate for the intelligence committee or the House side and the Senate side to look into the way prosecutors may or may not have been abusing their power, seeking the records of members of Congress, seeking journalist records, et cetera. But it's like, you don't want to get into a place where you are, records, et cetera. But it's like, you don't want to get into a place where you are, look, the uncharitable description would be sort of parroting some of the worst excesses of the Trump administration by telling your new AG to go after your former opponent, right? You at least have to worry about the optics of that and think long and hard about like the proper channels and ways to do this. I do think like, we obviously can't let Trump get off and, you know, get away with a bunch

of crimes he may or may not have committed. I just think we have to think long and hard about how and who is doing these investigations and go from there. But like all of like this last month of news is incredibly troubling. This should worry everybody that DOJ was targeting members of Congress. That is bonkers. Yeah. I saw Chris Hayes tweeted something the other day. He said, these people aren't going to stop until they get away with it or end up in jail. The Trump people, like it's, it's clear. They're just going to keep going until one of those two things happens until they win or they end up in jail. And like, you know, I have this feeling. I know, I think part of it is this horrible year and past four years, we just went through part of it is the fact that the state is in a drought, that that we're about to have brownouts in this city.

There is this feeling of tenuousness all around us, our democracy hanging by a thread, these states passing laws that will allow their legislatures to overturn the results. And like, I don't know. I don't like I get that people listening to this. It's like, in the one hand, I want politics to be boring. And then maybe you won't want to listen to this as much because it's boring. On the other hand, I don't want politics to be depressing. And then it's just another round of depressing politics because we have to be so terrified of everything that the future holds.

But like, this feels like the eye of a storm. We have this chance, this moment of calm to like, protect ourselves to like, put sandbags where we need to put sandbags to like, be ready for what's about to come. And I'm really worried we're not using it. We're just not using it. And everybody and there's just way too much complacency. And I don't know how we shake ourselves out of it. But but that's how it feels. The dry got the drought in there too. Wow. I'm thinking about the drought. Make it rain, Joe Biden.

Yeah. Lead. Just lead. Just lead. So the other big debate in Congress this week is over how to pay for Joe Biden's jobs and infrastructure plan. The president proposed eliminating Trump's tax breaks for corporations and the richest 1%, but the new bipartisan deal proposed by 10 Republican and Democratic senators on Friday

keeps the Trump tax breaks. This is after we learned from a ProPublica investigation last week that between 2014 and 2018, the 25 richest people in the United States, including Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, paid an average of 3.4 percent in federal income taxes. That is way below the top rate of 37 percent and the 14 percent in federal taxes that the median American household pays. Just a few days later, after the ProPublica investigation, the New York Times reported that the $4.6 trillion private equity industry avoids paying taxes thanks to loopholes, regulations, and strategies so aggressive and potentially illegal that at least three private equity officials have alerted the IRS, which hasn't done anything about it because they don't have the resources

to audit rich people, so they go after everyone else instead. Tommy, rich people avoiding taxes, nothing new. We know that's a thing that happens. But what, if anything, did you learn from the ProPublica or New York Times pieces? I think that maybe in the back of my head, I always assumed that avoiding taxes required complicated schemes where you have money in banks in the Cayman Islands or some tax shelter in Ireland or blah, blah, blah. No, it's actually really, really easy. You just reduce your income as much as possible because that's what our tax code has decided deserves to be taxed. And you get all your compensation in stock if you're a Bezos or

Elon Musk or all these guys, because you only get taxed on the value of your stock once you sell it. And in a lot of cases, that makes sense, right? Like stock prices go up and down. Paper gains don't mean anything to the average person who has like a couple shares. But when you're super rich, you can get banks to lend you tons and tons of money against the value of your portfolio, against the value of your stocks. And then not only do you not have to pay taxes when you realize your gains by selling those shares, but if you get the loan, you can write off the interest payments on your loan and reduce your taxes even more. So I think the other big takeaway for me was just

how unbelievably aggressive a lot of these billionaires were to the point where a lot of them were paying zero taxes because they were writing off losses in other places. Jeff Bezos got a tax credit for his children, like a $4,000 tax credit that I assume is usually for like the working poor. So it's a disgusting system being manipulated by some shitty, shitty people. And it's all and it's legal, right? It's not the problem with it is what's legal. I mean, I think that the New York Times story to to follow up on the pro-public investigation also made me realize just how shitty the IRS is at auditing fucking rich people because they don't love it. I have my pitchforks out. What do you think? Pitchforks. Yeah, I would say that like the ProPublica piece was interesting in that it kind of puts a lot of detail on what we basically already know. I didn't find that the ProPublica information was actually that that revealing. It's just very specific. It's like, look at we know what the tax code allows these people to do. Look at how these individuals have been actually doing it. You know, we had a lot of information on what Trump was doing to evade taxes. Trump is not unusual. I was more galled by the

the Times story because, you know, yes, a lot of what's in the ProPublica story is what's legal. But what what what's in the New York Times story that to me is interesting is what these private equity firms are doing is only as illegal as our ability to hunt and punish them for manipulating the tax code. Already, there is this loophole called carried interest, which basically says they treat the income they make doing their jobs of making money with money. That's their service that they provide. That's already taxed like an investment. So it's taxed instead of at 37 percent, what we hope should be 39.6 percent. It's tapped at 20 percent. That's a service that they provide. That's already taxed like an investment. So it's taxed instead of at 37%, what we hope should be 39.6%. It's tapped at 20%.

That's a big difference. But what was remarkable is these people, they're so greedy and they have been so above the law for so long that they're also applying. Basically, they charge a 2% fee for what they do. All right, 2%. 2% of a billion dollars is a lot of money. And they figured out yet another way to manipulate the tax code that allows them to pay an even lower rate on that 2%, which is just clearly

violates the spirit of the law. When they've been caught, it seems as though they're not doing it anymore because they recognize that it violates the letter of the law. There's been a number of whistleblowers about this. But of course, the combination of Trump, the Trump administration stacking the IRS and the Treasury Department with officials who are extremely friendly to these industries, plus the fact that the IRS has been gutted, they lost a huge percentage of their of their auditors between 2008 and 2018 meant these people are operating with impunity. Ron Wyden, who is great on this issue and a lot of other issues, too, pointed out that you are just slightly more likely to be struck by a meteor than you are to be audited for these kinds of practices. I think it comes down to like work

in this country is taxed. Wealth is not or at least wealth is taxed very little. That's that's just what it is. If you're already wealthy, if you're accumulating more wealth, you're going to get away with not paying a lot of taxes. If you work, you're going to pay your income taxes. The question is, what can be done about this from a policy perspective? Because, you know, I start off by talking about sort of Republicans refusal to raise the marginal income tax rate or corporate the corporate tax rate. But neither of those would actually do anything about what was in the ProPublica investigation or the New York Times private equity story. Tommy, what can be done from a policy perspective?

Yeah, no, that is a huge problem because they're very clear in the New York Times piece about private equity that good tax lawyers basically just run circles around most IRS auditors anyway. And so that makes it hard to recoup any of these funds. And, you know, in some cases, even during the Obama administration, efforts to clamp down on these loopholes actually made it easier for super rich people to evade taxes. So it's a big problem. I do think it's clear that we need to hire more people at the IRS and tell them to prioritize audits of the super wealthy. Longer

term, there needs to be some sort of reform of the tax code so that the IRS has better tools and laws and regulations available to them to tax wealth and not just income. I don't think it makes any sense to anybody that this is how our system functions, that working people... Warren Buffett always talks about how he pays less in taxes than his secretary. We didn't realize just how much less, Warren. It's pretty gross. But longer term, I do think the Democratic Party needs to make this one of the top two core messages in things that we talk about every single day, because it is wildly offensive to anybody who reads about it when you see these tax avoidance schemes spelled out and we see just how unfair the system is

when you are a billionaire. One thing that I would just add to that, though, is there's been this coverage that's like, well, raising the rate, these other steps doesn't actually address the fact that they accrue all this wealth without it ever being taxed. That's partially true. There's an incentive for people to hold on to stock for a very, very long time because if they die while they have it, then it gets passed on to their kids at a stepped up basis, which means the capital gains accrued over a lifetime may never, ever be recognized, will never be recognized as income. So while it's true that like, I'm not, I think a wealth tax is a great idea, that a wealth tax specifically addresses this issue. One way that we could get people to realize income on investments over time is by making

it incredibly painful to hold on to it and then try to pass it on to a foundation or to their family without ever paying the taxes, like close those loopholes. And all of a sudden, the incentive to hold on to it forever goes away or at least gets gets reduced. And like, I think that's an important thing. Yeah. Well, so there's two Biden proposals that aren't being talked about all that much. One is I think it's like 700 million dollars in funding for the IRS to go after tax cheats. Of course, now in a classic, Republicans are freaking out about the Biden proposal for 700 million dollars more for the IRS to go after tax cheats because they're saying that the existence of the ProPublica investigation is proof that the IRS can't be trusted with more money and resources because they're just going to leak your taxes to ProPublica,

which, by the way, doesn't give a shit about most of your taxes if you're not fucking Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffett. And we also don't know that it came from the IRS at all. We don't know anything. I actually would really encourage people to read ProPublica published this big expose, but they also published an essay basically looking at their the ethics of what they did, because ProPublica does not know where these materials came from. Right. They don't know. Anonymous. Yeah. And then the second Biden proposal is to tax capital gains as ordinary income for people whose income exceeds $1 million. And that would be the tax owed on stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and homes that have appreciated in value. Now, the

reason we're not talking about a lot of these things is because some Democrats are getting cold feet about these tax proposals. Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine wrote a piece on Saturday where he argued that the biggest threat to the Biden administration's agenda is moderate Democrats who are afraid or reluctant to raise taxes on the rich. He cites this Politico story that said corporate executives and lobbyists in Washington, New York and around the country say they are confident they can kill almost all of these tax hikes by pressuring moderate Democrats in the House and the Senate. Tommy, you were just making, what do you think of that argument? You were just saying the Democrats should make this a key part of their agenda.

I mean, look, the key problem, the biggest threat is a Republican Party, right? Like they wake up every morning hoping to stuff the courts full of people who are gut regulations and then use reconciliation to pass tax cuts for the richest people. But, you know, if Republicans are holding up the bank, Democrats are driving the getaway car, right? Especially these moderates and wealthy districts. To Lovett's point earlier, I don't think Democrats have played this issue well, because for decades, we have gotten bogged down in a fight about the estate tax and how it somehow might impact farmers when that was total bullshit. It's really about the Koch brothers. In truth, in some ways, we're past the point of that estate tax fight even mattering anymore because rich people have found so many new ways to avoid even paying the estate tax. So I think Elizabeth Warren did a lot of great work pushing for the

wealth tax. There are questions about the constitutionality that they're going to have to work out, but I think it's worth the fight. On the Biden piece of this, John, one, I think it absolutely makes sense to tax capital gains as income. It's a no-brainer to me. I don't think that's going to slow down investment. It's clear that a lot of these economic arguments against taxing the super rich are bullshit when you read about how these people are literally just hoarding wealth literally forever until they die, right? So I could care less about those.

I would love to see more proposals like Biden's that are basically message bills. I want to see tough votes on these issues, like force a vote on a tax increase on income and cap gains for millionaires only. I don't care if it doesn't raise all the revenue we need, just force the issue because Biden has it in his plan. But I think the Democratic Party needs to do a lot more to make this a really uncomfortable issue for Republicans. And look, if some moderate Democrats are swept up into the fight because they represent a bunch of hedge fund people in like Greenwich, Connecticut, I don't really care. I think like we have to be for this. This is also this is not just about the principle of making sure that the wealthy pay their fair

share, though that is an important principle. And also it is incredibly politically popular. But like budget rules, and we're using budget rules because we can only pass things through reconciliation now, mandate that any permanent increase in the deficit be financed, which means that Biden and the Democrats either tax the rich

or they don't pass the child tax credit, pre-K, community college, climate, health, anything else. So like, it is not often that you get a policy that is economically, morally, and politically compelling. Raising taxes on the wealthy hits all three. And I see like, you know, there's a lot of senators and the Sunrise Movement now are saying, you know, no climate, no deal, which I completely agree with on the infrastructure deal. I would say no taxes, no deal. Like this should be a centerpiece of the Democratic Party's platform for this year, for next year, going into the midterms, going into 2024. Like there is a populist rage in this country about the fact that rich people get away

with murder and not paying their taxes. And by the way, we have all of these social programs that we can't fund without doing that. It is insane to me that Democrats might be cautious about this. Insane. I mean, we've we've been talking about this for a long time. So, like, first of all, there's a bipartisan infrastructure proposal raising taxes even a tiny bit on the wealthiest human beings in the history of planet Earth is a nonstarter. But there's potentially an increase in the gas tax, which is everybody wild, wild. But like, you know, we talk a lot. We've talked on this

show many times about the fact that there is this Democratic brand problem. It's a deeper issue about why Democrats struggle to win, even in places where their policies do quite well. And like you look at what we've just been talking about, enforcement against wealthy tax cheats, closing loopholes like carried interest and stepped up basis, higher taxes on the rich and corporations, including changes in the laws to prevent dynastic wealth, antitrust and like pro worker, pro union laws. That is progressive populism. That is an answer.

We're sitting here facing populist authoritarians on the rise here in the United States and all over the world that threaten to unravel democracy. And this is a way to tell people, yes, we're making sure that people in power actually are held accountable and pay their fair share. And it is just sitting right there for the Democrats. And it's the other half of it's the other half of we have, you know, we have talked many times about the importance of policies that show people actual improvements in their lives. This is the other side of this, which is choosing the right opponents, choosing the right opponents. Yeah, there's a lot of like leftist critiques of the Democratic Party that I find frustrating and at times unfair. This is not one of them.

It is a problem that there are a bunch of Dems who have been more willing to listen to and do favors for Wall Street and some of the richest people on the planet than to, you know, change tax code and make it so it works for actual working people who we claim to represent. And it sucks. Yeah, I would just I would leave everyone with this and then we can move on the investors business daily poll, which was a poll that was very favorable to Trump and the Republicans during the campaign. It was it was commissioned by investors who probably wanted a very different result in late April, found that 65 percent of Americans are in favor of a proposal

that would raise the capital gains tax rates for couples earning more than $1 million. 65%. And I could list a million other polls for the last five years that say the same thing about any kind of proposal to raise taxes on wealthy people. It's not only popular with Democrats,

but overwhelmingly popular with independents and probably half of Republicans. All right. President Biden is on day five of his first big foreign trip. Today, he's taking part in his first NATO summit as president. Tommy is our world's own chief. Can you tell us what's happened so far on this trip and what do we need to know about? Guys, it's been a blast. It's been a hell of a trip. So he met with the G7 countries in the UK.

G7 is US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Now he's in Brussels. On Wednesday, he goes to Geneva for a meeting with President Putin. So I want to give you guys two buckets of things we can talk about today. Some news you can use and and then some stupid shit, because foreign trips will always spin out all kinds of stupid narratives. So let's start with the news you can use. The first is around COVID. That's obviously the focus of the G7. The US announced they're going to donate 500 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine as part of a roughly 1 billion dose broader commitment by the G7 to COVAX, which is this international

organization to get the world vaccinated. Now, like a billion doses, it's obviously a lot. It's obviously good, but it is well short of the 11 billion doses that the World Health Organization says they need to vaccinate 70% of the planet. So a lot of activists have been really hammering the G7 for falling short on this issue. There's obviously a moral element to the need to get the world vaccinated. But I guess my question for you guys is, do we think these G7 countries should be a little more concerned about this, in particular for selfish reasons, because an ongoing pandemic is going to stall the entire global economy and make it harder for everyone in the same ways we saw ourselves like limp out of the financial crisis. That seems like a bad setup to me. Yeah, I mean, as I'm looking in the headlines today,

like now everyone's talking about this Delta variant and the Delta variant started in, you know, came from India and it is more transmissible and it is possibly deadlier. And you're going to get more variants like that that could potentially be more dangerous and more transmissible in places where the population is largely unvaccinated, which was happening in India before it was hit with that terrible surge. So like, as long as there are countries out there with unvaccinated populations that do not have access to these vaccines, that is a threat to the United States. That is a threat to everyone else, both to the unvaccinated people in these countries, and if the variants get bad

enough, possibly vaccinated populations as well. So it is in the self-interest of every single country and every single person around the world to make sure that the entire globe is vaccinated. Do you think, Tommy, that it was like a political issue why they don't donate more? Or is it like a capacity issue? Like, I can't tell if it's like we haven't vaccinated our own country first, so we don't want to be given away too much. I couldn't understand that. I couldn't tell either. I do think that the politics of this are harder for some of these European countries that are behind us. But there is certainly a capacity issue. It's not just like the number of doses you can manufacture. It's actually building the infrastructure to get those

doses into the arms of all the people who need them. And I think that last mile problem has proven to be a problem with some of these COVAX programs. The other big issue is climate change, right? So the G7 countries came out of this. They committed to getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Activists, again, wanted a lot more. Specifically, they wanted the G7 to agree on a hard date to stop the use of coal. And they wanted the rich developed countries that are part of the G7 to cut checks to help developing countries cut their emissions. So like, you know, guys, it's always fun to transition from a conversation about one existential threat to humanity to another. But again, like, again, people are very frustrated about this outcome. Lovett, do you think it's fair to expect more out of Biden on climate change like this early in his first term? And do you think this just, again, like raises the stakes on passing our own climate infrastructure bill?

has not been a leader. And we have to like, not just make up for the damage Donald Trump did over four years in pulling us out of Paris, we have to demonstrate that we're serious about leading the industrialized world and moving much faster than we've been moving. I do think as important as an international agreement on this is, it is more important that we lead by example and demonstrate that we're actually serious about reducing our carbon footprint as a country and demonstrating that it's not just good for the planet, but a good economic decision, that it will help us sort of lead in industries and have like a beneficial effect for job creation and our economy. I think that's the far more important thing. But yeah, there is absolutely no reason not to put incredible amounts of pressure on the

Biden administration to lead. There's no reason. You think incredible amounts of pressure on the Biden administration to lead. There's no reason. You think Biden had to say to the other G7 leaders, sorry, I got a fucking coal miner as my prime minister back in the States. Joe Manchin's my 51st vote. And so I can't do much. I mean, probably. Yeah, look, I mean, the G7 countries, I think, are like 20 to 25 percent of global emissions,

which obviously is just a piece of the puzzle. But it does require some leadership from us, from the more developed countries to then go pressure China and India and other countries whose economies are still developing to say, hey, please stop using these plants and we'll help you with that transition. Okay, last thing was a big change in tone on China. So at the beginning of the year, the European Union had signed this major trade and investment deal with China. That deal is now on life support because they're frustrated with the Chinese. And this week, the G7 called on China to respect human rights on Hong Kong. They called on the respect human rights with the Uyghurs, and they basically told China to chill

out with threats against Taiwan. And now the Chinese military is a big topic at NATO. So it was interesting to see this shift from Europe cutting a deal with China to pushing back relatively hard for them on a bunch of fronts. But I guess my question for you guys is, does it ever make you nervous that the only thing that seems to rally the U.S. Congress or apparently the G7 leaders is anti-China sentiment? Like, I do feel like we're kind of walking backwards into a bit of a new Cold War here, but I don't know. What do you think? Sometimes I think it does seem a little bit like domestically, Joe Biden has this moderate persona, and that's allowed him to do far more sweeping and progressive policy changes. And then internationally, he strikes such a different tone and tenor on virtually every issue than his predecessor, and in practice, of course, but that the actual changes we're talking about here are

more incremental. It's almost like the opposite kind of dynamic. Because there is a genuine challenge posed by China, and we do need to address it. And obviously, we've talked about this before. We do not want to address it by kind of fanning the xenophobia that Donald Trump saw as central to his domestic politics. I mean, Dan and I talked about this Thursday, but it did get us a quarter of a trillion dollars in investment for research, science and technology in America. So that's something. No, but I have noticed that Biden and Tony Blinken, Secretary of State Blinken and and others in the administration have really tried to emphasize that it's not just China, but it's China and other authoritarian governments. And so they're trying to talk about this in terms of authoritarianism versus democracy and not make it just about China itself. They try to throw Russia in there as well. And I always wonder,

as someone who doesn't pay as close attention to foreign policy, like how much of this is political and how much of it is sort of real changes in China's posture over the last five, 10 years that we should be concerned about because they're more aggressive? I just don't know the answer to that.

I mean, I think the answer is like there have been real changes since Xi Jinping came on the scene and he's been increasingly aggressive, not only at home with like installing a surveillance state and throwing the Uyghurs into concentration camps in Western China, but also just hammering any country that dares to criticize the Chinese on any issue, hammering the NBA, hammering, you know, movie companies, John Cena, like literally everybody who gets cross-eyed. Well, it's, um, it is like there was this bet made in the nineties that just seems to have been complete, completely wrong, like liberalize their economy and we'll liberalize

their politics. That has not happened in any way. It's the opposite has taken place. They got all the economic might that they had hoped for, but none of the reforms internally. And so it's like, there is a kind of, I think, grasping for what a replacement theory on China should look like. That's not what we were doing in the past, ignoring abuses, and hoping that things would change. And certainly not the Donald Trump posture, which is, you know, a lot of kind of sound and fury. No, you're like, I was really right. But Trump's approach was trade war and then pay off the farmers in the U.S. who were hurt.

Biden is trying to internationalize the problem. And I think that's a better approach long term. I mean, but love it. You're you're right that like fundamentally the biggest difference on this trip is just the vibe. Like even Boris Johnson is like Trump's biggest cheerleader is calling Biden, quote, a breath of fresh air. That's remarkable. That was so good. Yeah, he had racist attacks against Barack Obama not long ago. And there was a Pew poll that showed these 12 countries they surveyed, they found that America's favorability basically doubled as we

went from Trump to Biden. So, okay, like we said, a lot of these trips include important foreign policy announcements. All of them generate stupid narratives and headlines. So let's talk about some of those because they're more fun. The first guys is bromance. The Daily Mail declared that bromance is in the air. President Biden was seen joking with Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister. He was seen locking arms with French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron tweeted out a photo or video of himself talking like super close with Biden that one Twitter user described as him looking like a coked up tech founder pitching Biden on his startup. Love it. Question for you. When did bromance enter into our lexicon?

I don't know. I do hate it. I hate it too. It's like a fun word for journalists who are usually pretty boring to use. Well, I guess it's what I find. Yes. It's just sort of like, you know, they're collegial. I think, isn't it just a romance? What makes you so uncomfortable about it just being a romance?

Like it's a non-sexual. That'd be such a funny headline. Non-sexual romance between. You wouldn't say that, of course. That sounds ridiculous. But that's what they mean. When they say bromance, they mean two men who do not want to have sex with other men have chemistry. Right.

Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. That would be hilarious. Long headline, but that would be very. Reuters. Reuters. Reuters. Dat would capture it. Reuters. Captured a little bit better, I think.

Reuters, Dateline, Paris. Non-sexual attraction seen between Biden and Macron. So I did some quick Googling and found references to Obama bromances with Biden, John Boehner, Prince Harry, Justin Trudeau, David Cameron, Narendra Modi, David Brooks, although I think we'd all agree that was more of a torrid love affair over many years. I could go on and on, but yes, to your point, love it. The longer headline is more apropos. Okay. Also on these trips, leaders give each other gifts for some reason. The results can range from poignant to boring to weird. So I don't know if you guys saw this. Apparently Biden gave Boris Johnson a fancy

handmade bike from Philadelphia. It cost like six grand. It was a nice thing. Boris Johnson gave Biden, quote, a framed photo of Frederick Douglass printed out from Wikipedia. What? I didn't see that. I always think more and more people are talking about him. More and more. That's right.

He's getting more and more notice. I forget what that was. It's very arrogant to give art as a gift because it's saying, I want to decorate your house. It's hard. It's a hard call. Oh my God. Print it out from Wikipedia.

Are you thinking about a specific piece of art that you were given as a gift? No comment. Now I am. Now I am. I titled this section, Age is Just a Number. So like symbolism, public diplomacy, they're a big part of every foreign trip. I tried to get out of that one fast in the UK.

A critical piece of that is President Biden's visit with the queen. So Biden became the 12th president to meet the queen. And he said she reminded him of his mother, which I enjoyed because Biden is 78 and she is 95. Just leaving that guys. Maybe in Hollywood, she could play the mother. Hey, Tommy, you were given a gift of a work of art. Where did you hang it in your house? In my home. Where? Somewhere prominent?

In my office. Okay. Last thing. Every foreign trip involves a fight over press access. In one case, I remember an Obama foreign trip. Robert Gibbs almost got his foot broken by a bunch of folks in, I think, the India security services who were trying to lock our press up. That's a good version of the fight. The bad version of the fight is when

reporters complain that they can't cover stuff. So right now, as of my count, the press seem pissed that Biden and Putin aren't doing a joint press conference. I think Biden's doing one solo because the last joint press conference with Putin in Helsinki went so well for America. They're also mad that they didn't get access to Biden's inspection of the honor guard at Windsor Castle. And this morning, they're pissed that Turkey put out a readout of the Biden-Erdogan bilateral meeting faster than the Biden team. All of this, frankly, is normal and probably a good push and pull. But it reminded me of one of my favorite moments from the 2012 campaign when a Mitt Romney foreign trip moment went viral. Let's play a clip. Governor Romney, do you have a statement for

the Palestinians? What about your gas? Governor Romney, do you feel that your gas have overshadowed your foreign trip? Show some respect the Polish people. Show some respect. Show some respect. We haven't had another chance to ask him questions. This is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect. That's a Romney flack telling the press to shut up because it's a holy site. Sorry, John.

However many views that clip has on YouTube i am about 70 of them it is my favorite and i never in my life have i been more on mitt romney's side than on that clip and he's just trying to walk away what about your gaffes what a question what about your i love that what about your guys i do i do think like shout out to i is that ashley parker we've talked to ashley about it before she's a good sport about it it was ashley sparker and phil and phil rucker was the other one too because no because what about your gas became the question but that really the comedy of that question really does rely on the very specific kind of full question that ash shouts. Like, it's like a full question.

It's not just a shout. It's a question. And then, oh, what about your gaffes? It's the best. It's the best. It's the best. It's the best. And then also, do you think that your gaffes

have overshadowed your foreign trip? What answer are you expecting to that? Yes. Yes, they have. Absolutely. My foreign trip has been 100% overshadowed by my gaffes, which you have reported. This is a holy site for the Polish people.

These trips are high wire act. So far, I think Biden's doing pretty well. I mean, look, you know, not all of the deliverables that activists and policy folks want to see out of every summit. But again, it's the first one. So, you know, look, for a guy known for a lot of gaffes, we have not seen a lot of Biden gaffes. for a lot of gaffes. We have not seen a lot of Biden gaffes. Well, it's also, I mean, the big difference in this foreign trip, just like everything else in the Biden presidency, is sort of like the low expectations that Donald Trump set for him, right? Like, you know, looking at the news over the last week, it's like, oh, there's not like something fucking crazy every few minutes

about the United States president going overseas, which is what happened when Trump went over there. It was just sort of quiet, which is good. And it's like, yeah, I mean, right. It's like, you know, as Joe Biden would say, don't judge me against the almighty, judge me against the alternative. It is nice not having a president threatening to exit NATO on a sort of near constant basis. Yeah. The previous almighty made headlines at one of these events by punching the president of Montenegro, I think. So yeah, you know, Biden's stepping over a low bar here, but good for him. Well, Tommy, you make a good point.

When they go Montenegro, we really have to go. No, no, yes. Don't, not doing it. But you make a good, these kinds of ridiculous foreign policy stories have been around for a long time. And so now it's time for a game. International travel.

It's an opportunity to experience new cultures and Google local tipping practices for reporters and administration officials like Tommy Vitor. It's a chance to wander exhausted and bleary eyed through various European conference spaces, remnants of ambient molecules fighting a desperate Leningrad like battle against fresh caffeine in the bloodstream, while trying to figure out how to make sense of what amounts to 75% of the president's job and 1% of the country's attention. The result is nuanced and substantive coverage of the delicate dance of diplomacy plus genuine nonsense. So let's focus on that in a game we call The World Is Not Enough. Here's how it works.

I'm going to ask you both questions about the most absurd moments of foreign trips past. Tommy, I'll start with you. In a scandal dubbed Obamagate, President Barack Obama was accused of leering at a young woman at the G8. He was exonerated when the video clearly showed that that was misleading and was not true at all. But it did not exonerate the person with whom President Obama was standing, who wasn't absolved by the video footage in the same incident. Was it Sarkozy? It was. It was French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who it seemed to have been actually leering. John, over to you. Quote, it was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said, we don't issue instructions on not touching the queen. John, who touched the queen? Michelle Obama?

It was. It was Michelle Obama. You got it. You got it. Tommy. In 2013, the world was rocked when President Obama took a selfie at a memorial service. Who was memorialized? And bonus, with whom was the selfie taken? Oh, oh, oh, oh. Nelson Mandela's funeral. Oh my God.

Fuck, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna throw a dart at a Nordic country. Estonia? No, no, no. I know that's not Nordic. Was it, was it the wife of the Dutch PM? Or was it the Dutch PM? Dutch PM? It was the Danish Prime Minister, Helg Torning-Schmidt. And who? There's one other person in that pic. Oh, I don't know that. It was British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Oh my God. I should have stuck with my guns and not swerved to Estonia. That's on me. John. Yeah, the Estonian. It's tough to be the Estonian uh leader to get in I get in that kind of stuff you're right John who rubbed who's back at the G8 in 2006

George W Bush Angela Merkel one of the weirdest fucking things it's a really uncomfortable video the photos are like forgot where he was she like, get your fucking arms out. I'm the chancellor of Germany. Do you know what we do when we get mad? And finally, because it's pride, Tommy and John, my no homo majordomos, in 2009, Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II an iPod loaded with songs from classic American musicals. Name one. Name one. Name one fucking song from a classic American musical that was on the iPod. Oh, that was on the iPod?

John, you first. I don't know. Name a song. Name a classic American. Memory from Cats? Wait. Is that Cats? Wait. Is that right? It was all there.

Tommy, you're going to have to guess one. That might be the only song from any musical that I know. It's unbelievable that they got that on there. Honestly, it shouldn't even be there. Shame on them for putting it on there. Name one classic musical song. 521,600 minutes. Is that right? Se love from rent was on there

very proud of your songs oklahoma there's no business like show business from annie get your gun some enchanted evening from south pacific everything's coming up roses from gypsy and if i were a rich man zero mostel from Fiddler on the Roof. Wow. Very exciting to see that there. Hey, love, before we end, I just want to thank Congressman Ronnie Jackson for the pills on these foreign trips

and the memories. You kept me up. You put me down. You were there for me before you became a total MAGA lunatic. So thank you for the pills and the memories and the erased memories because of the pills. Shout out to Ron Jackson.

Yeah, leave it in. You lifted Tommy up. All right. Thank you to Congresswoman Val Demings for joining us today. I'm glad she didn't have to stick around for all this. We will have everyone have a good week. We'll talk to you on Thursday. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production.

The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Flavia Casas. Our associate producers are Jazzy Marine and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somenator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmal Konian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week.