Pod Save America - Trump Loses Immunity, Johnson Loses Control

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

A vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas fails and Republicans turn on each other over the border fight. Nikki Haley loses Nevada to “none of the above.” And the DC circuit court rules against Trump’s pitch that he’s not beholden to federal laws. Politico congressional correspondent Daniella Diaz, Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston, and Strict Scrutiny co-host Kate Shaw join to walk through the latest. 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 Pond Save America. I'm Jon Lovett. On today's show, Nikki Haley loses the Nevada primary to none of the above, and legendary Nevada political reporter John Ralston stops by to help explain what happened and what it means for November. Strict Scrutiny's Kate Shaw breaks down a federal court's ruling that eviscerates Trump's claim he is above the law and not subject to criminal prosecution. But first, yesterday, House Republicans planned to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for the high crime of overseeing policies they don't like, and they wanted to move forward on a cynical standalone funding bill for Israel as a way to avoid providing the aid Ukraine needs to avoid losing the war. Despite the legislative genius of Speaker Just Think About Baseball Mike Johnson,

both efforts failed. Joining us now is Daniela Diaz, congressional reporter at Politico and author of their newsletter Inside Congress. Daniela, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thank you for having me on this crazy week. Danielle, first of all, I understand that you're in Virginia at the House Democratic retreat today. I don't know if that's like a spa thing, if there are sound baths, but what's the mood and what are Democrats saying right now? saying right now? I mean, it's hard to overstate how giddy they are that they have this mind-meld union community. They all vote together watching House Republicans totally melt down last night when they were doing these two pretty crucial votes for leadership, which was, of course, whether to impeach Alejandro Mallorca as the Department of Homeland Security secretary, something they've been talking

about doing for months, and also a standalone bill that would, or standalone aid for Israel that didn't include Ukraine that also failed. And I don't want to get into the weeds, but Speaker Mike Johnson tried to pass that using a procedural rule that meant that it would need two-thirds support in the House. So he was betting that enough Democrats would support this. That's not what happened. And it's really, really quite crazy. I mean, I think the best way to describe what was happening in Congress this week, what we saw last night with the House Republican conference is like a dumpster fire emoji. It's truly, it feels, I want to say that it feels like the House speakers race, like when they booted McCarthy, like that kind of chaos. But it's even

crazier because there is a speaker and there is leadership and there is, you know, they're they're trying to pass legislation that they just can't. There was a split screen over the last couple of months. You had Democrats and Republicans in the Senate working together on a series of bills to fund the government that that would then die in the House. Republicans in the House would say, we need to do individual funding bills exactly the way the Senate was doing it, but then they couldn't get anything through, right? They couldn't pass. They could not,

they barely could prevent the government from shutting down. You have in the House, you have Republicans pushing for a impeachment of Mayorkas. And in the Senate, you have Mayorkas on behalf of the administration, working with Lankford, Murphy, Sinema, and others to try to come up with an actual deal to address the problem. In the House, Marjorie Taylor Greene, I thought, said something that was, I think, revealing, which is the only way we'll control the border is by impeaching Mayorkas. And yet that cynical gambit, right? They're refusing to go along with

actual legislating to fix the problem, but they can't even get their cynical gambits across the finish line. What happened? Why did this impeachment effort not pass? It led to a tie and they had to kind of walk it back. But what what what why did it fail? Well, first of all, Johnson has like a three vote margin to get anything across the finish line. That's like number one, even more slim. It's like razor thin, right? Like he can only afford to lose three to four votes. And they have an absence because Steve Scalise is getting cancer treatment. And that's something that, you know, everyone has known about for a long time since he came out and said that he had cancer. But then also,

he knew, that's another thing that you really have to, when it came, let me backtrack. When it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the joke within people that knew her, and when I say people that knew her, her aides, people on the other side, reporters, you know, the Capitol Hill community, is that she would never put a bill on the floor that she didn't have the votes for. Pelosi was someone who, as many have said, ruled with a Gucci glove. She knew how to get the votes, and she never put a bill on the floor that didn't have the votes. how to get the votes. And she never put a bill on the floor that didn't have the votes. Now, we've seen in this Congress, first it was McCarthy, now it's Johnson, put bills on the floor that don't have the votes. And sometimes it's the first step of that vote passage, like we call it a rule, like to advance legislation, don't need to get too technical, but McCarthy would put rules

on the floor and he wouldn't have the votes. And now we saw Johnson put bills on the floor last night that he knew didn't have the votes, but he put them on the floor anyway. And these members that voted against it, and specifically, I'm thinking of Mike Gallagher, who this morning said, leadership knew I wasn't going to support the Mallorca's impeachment, and they've known for a month. I've been very clear about where I stand on this issue. It's very surprising to watch Johnson just put bills on the floor that are not going to pass and be okay with that embarrassment of what was last night, that he put two bills that were pretty high stakes and watched in real time that there weren't enough votes. So I think it shows first that he is figuring out how to govern in real time. Yeah, that's for sure.

That he's figuring out how to govern in real time. And then also it shows that the conference is so broken. They don't really have, and normally it's okay to have some members that aren't supporting things. I think of, you know, when the progressives would vote against things when Pelosi was speaker, but their margin is so thin, he can't afford that. And he's not planning ahead. So I don't, I guess they're going to get Scalise here next week and they're going to try to pass this again. And that's what we're hearing with one vote, with a one vote margin, you know, like just one vote to get it over the finish line and then they'll impeach Mayorkas.

But then, of course, it doesn't even matter because this is going to get buried in the Senate. Right. It's already dead in the Senate. It's already Republicans have come out against in the Senate. So it's one example of many of just pure dysfunction. I know I keep saying that word, but I don't know how else to describe it. But it's like, hey man, you know, you know you didn't have a lot of training for this in the Ark Museum,

but now you're here. If you're going to pull a bunch of bullshit political stunts and not do anything, it's pretty embarrassing to, you're not even able to complete your stunts, right? Like he can't even, he's not governing and he's not succeeding at his,

like who is getting anything out of this? Like who does this kind of thing serve, right? Like, oh, they'll come back next week at a Mayorkas impeachment, then it goes to the Senate and just dies. That's sort of the, there's sort of an embarrassing, an embarrassing, some kind of a process

that's very quick. And by the way, they're still like, they're still dealing with, I'm thinking specifically of that New York race that's happening in the next couple of weeks. And they need that seat. That was George Santos. And I even heard and I think it was a Republican in the conference saying now people are probably missing George Santos because they expelled him. But that's really like another example of just like the chaos of they wanted to keep someone who's been indicted for the sake of having a vote to get things across the finish line. And then this is all taking place while this election is

happening, the special race that they need. And it's not a really good example of how Republicans can govern. Yeah. Which Democrats, again, as I'm here, are seizing on that. Right. Like that's the messaging they're going to have in the next two days at this Democratic retreat is we deserve to have the House back because we can govern. And that's and they're like, we don't even have to prove it. Like, watch what's happening right now. And now heading into a potential, even if let's say they do get the votes. OK, you have you refused to vote on border security, but instead decided to impeach the person negotiating and trying to figure out how to actually solve the problem.

Like, I don't know that that's a good story for them. It is amazing to me how in the last week, this is an issue in which they believe they can win on that. They have gone on the record and saying, we like the crisis at the Southern border so much, we don't want to fix it so that we can run on it. I don't know that that's good politics for them. On the standalone Israel bill, which also failed, just very quickly because we've taken a lot of your time, but what happened there and why did Johnson want to bring this vote and why did it fail?

Well, Johnson used the standalone Israel bill as a proof that he wants to do something in the wake of the Senate supplemental kind of falling apart, right? He announced that he was going to do this on Saturday. It was only a couple of days ago that he announced that he was going to put this bill, you know, it's felt like a month in the last like three days. And then the deal came out Sunday, which we knew was going to happen. The text that was unveiled by these negotiators and blessed by leadership. And then even members of his own conference didn't want to support this bill. And I'm talking about the House Freedom Caucus members because there were no offsets to pay for this legislation. But it was also kind of a meaningless vote because President Joe Biden said in a statement

yesterday, two days ago, that it was two days ago that he would veto it. And so why would Schumer put that on the floor in the first place either? So it was kind of just a messaging bill to prove that Republicans care about Israel and want to help. Right. And he needed Democratic support. And I, again, don't want to get into the details, but basically he put this on the floor as a suspension, which basically means he needs two thirds support from the House. And he knew he didn't have Democratic support. Democratic leaders yesterday in their conference meeting basically told their caucus, vote your conscience, but we're not supporting this. We're not going to tell you to vote against this. And of course, there were Democrats that did support

him. In the end, it wasn't enough. And Johnson knew that it was going to tank and he did it anyway. So many people are questioning. I mean, he was defensive of why he did it in just a press conference he had at 1130 today on Wednesday. But he said that he they need to move on legislation when the Senate's not acting. That's his argument. But the disconnect between the two is pretty wild, considering when Mitch McConnell was leader in the Senate and Pelosi passed bills on the House, the Senate would take that legislation up or the House would take up legislation that the Senate leader Republicans would pass. So it's just so different in this Congress with this divided government. That's not happening anymore. And what is,

just to come full circle, what is the possibility of going back, Schumer talked about wanting to bring this up if the border bill either gets a vote or fails, whatever, that he wants to go to the Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan standalone bill, which is what they were trying to do before the border hostage taking took place from these Republicans. And again, the reason Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan are tied together and why Mike Johnson tried to do Israel alone is because the belief was so many people want to do the Israel and Taiwan funding that it will be enough to make sure that the Ukraine funding passes, which again, a majority in both the Senate and the House want to pass. So are we actually back to a standalone? And did Republicans fall right into the Democratic trap set from the very beginning? I mean, that's what I'm it's funny, I'm seeing a lot of takes. And it's a lot of

Republicans saying this is what Democrats wanted in the first place. But as a reporter that has covered this from the very beginning, there was good faith negotiations on this. And I don't think that that is at all what the intention was from Democratic leadership is to have them just go right back, you know, waste the last four months and then have these guys who negotiated for weekends. And we were working weekends to covering these negotiations. It feels. And I don't want to forget about that. And I'm sorry I didn't mention that. All right. When these people work, you have to work on the weekend. And now you're following these people around. And that sucks. Well, that's sweet of you. But I think I mean, we know what we signed up for. And that's right.. I think if this all ends up being, and I don't know yet, I think this is all, I think even senators don't know yet as I talk to you what's going to happen next because this fell apart so quickly and there was no plan B.

there, if this all ends up being that it's just a supplemental funding package without border security measures, it really shows just truly how crazy things are right now. It's, it does, if that is actually what happens, it really does feel like Republicans were like little kids demanding an ice cream cone. And mom and dad handed them the ice cream cone, then because they were, they were still so upset and they didn't know how to deal with their feelings, they threw the ice cream cone on the ground. And then mom and dad said, fine, we'll leave without ice cream. And now they're like, wait, no fucking ice cream?

You know what I mean? That's a very good, interesting, very good way to describe probably truly what the chaos that just unfolded in the last week. And it's not even over. Sometimes I'm reminding myself it's just Wednesday. It is. And it is only Wednesday. Hump Day, as it were. So one of Thomas Tom Massey tweeted this morning, a platformer no longer on getting rid of Speaker McCarthy has officially turned into an unmitigated disaster. Is the Mike Johnson honeymoon over? Do they miss McCarthy now?

You have Matt Gaetz saying McCarthy would be a great RNC chair. I know I did see that. I did see that. I mean, I would say probably the Gaetz eight. That's what they that's what they're unofficially called on Capitol Hill would would not ever admit to making a wrong move when it came to booting McCarthy from the conference, but all of his allies. And a reminder, he had most of the support of the conference. Most of them wanted to keep him. Most of them don't like that this is all taking place. I mean, I think that they're missing him a lot right now and also feeling the effects

of what happens when you have someone in leadership that really hasn't done it for very long. Because it really, having experience in leadership means something, of course, as we've seen with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was leader and she was in leadership for so long. And then the other members of the Republican conference who are, And then the other members of the Republican conference who are most of them are new in the last six years. So Republicans are really feeling that. What's the meanest thing a Republican has said about a Republican to you? Off the record or on background?

Well, I can't. I remember someone saying, and I can't recall, and this was on the record, that Republicans don't deserve to be in the majority. Wow. Which I thought was pretty intense. And I shouldn't have the name of who said that, but I mean, Republicans have been saying that about themselves for a long time. And I've heard a lot, and I should say, I've heard a lot of cussing in the last 48 hours.

It's just like members being like, what the hell is happening? I mean, you know, bad, worse words. I don't know if I'm allowed to cuss. Am I allowed to cuss? Oh, for sure. Oh, yeah. They're just like, what the hell is happening? I mean, you know, bad, worse words. I don't know if I'm allowed to cuss. Am I allowed to cuss? Oh, for sure. Oh, yeah. They're just like, what the fuck is happening?

Like, why, who is, why is this happening? And then this is embarrassing. And, you know, and these are members that vote always with leadership and do want, you know, to pass legislation and move things along. So it's some crazy times, some presidented times, as everyone always says about the times we live in. Daniela Diaz, thank you so much for your time. Good to see you. This was fun. Really appreciate it. And, you know, hey, have a great time at that House Democratic Leadership Spa Day that you're out there. Thank you.

Thank you. a caucus on Thursday, and that's where the actual delegates will be at stake. Trump is competing in the caucus, but not the primary. Haley was competing in the primary, but not the caucus. Somehow Trump is going to win both. Here to explain why the Silver State's primary voting process is so confusing this year, and if the results matter, if at all. It's the CEO and editor of the Nevada Independent, one of the most celebrated journalists in Nevada, the Dean of the Press Corps in Nevada. It's John Ralston. Thanks for being here. Dean of the Press Corps just means I've been around a while.

No, I know. It's yes, for sure. Well, I think that if you were an asshole, it wouldn't matter if you'd been around longest. You know what I mean? I think we could probably get some commentary about whether I'm an asshole or not. So that's a different podcast, I think. For sure. So quit dodging my questions.

Let's focus here. What happened? So Nikki Haley, just so people understand, this primary didn't have delegates. It was low turnout. But still, somehow, she managed to lose to none of these candidates by 33 points. What happened? So this is a very quirky, strange year, even in our quirky, strange state, right, John? So it's her fault that this happened, by the way. I think she could have prevented it. She ignored Nevada. She said Nevada is not a fair state,

that the process is rigged. And she is correct about the caucus. But as you know better than anybody, the delegate count early on is not nearly as important as gathering momentum, controlling the narrative from the national media to say that you're still viable, you're still in the race. People get tickets out of Iowa, then they go to New Hampshire, and they have momentum coming into Nevada. Nikki Haley is a long shot. Everybody knows it. Everyone thinks Trump is going to win. But if indeed she is serious, then she can't ignore Nevada because South Carolina is still two weeks plus away. You've got to try to maintain some momentum, minimum investment or a cheap date, come here, do a rally

or two, run some ads. Say that Donald Trump is a coward. He's a chicken. He's afraid to face me in the real primary. So he created a caucus that he's rigging like he accuses everybody else of rigging elections. Come vote for me. Would it have headed this off? Maybe not, but certainly she wouldn't have lost by the huge margin that she lost by more than two to one, as you pointed out. And now the headlines across the country are not Haley wins Nevada primary. It's Haley loses to none of the above. Ouch. Worse than you can ever imagine.

People are making fun of her now. And as you know, the worst thing that have happened to you in politics is mockery and ridicule, much worse than castigation. You mentioned that Trump's participating in the caucus. How did we end up in a situation where Nevada had a primary without delegates today and a caucus with delegates on Thursday and candidates had to choose which one they wanted to participate in? Yeah, I mean, it's a crazy situation. It's confused a lot of really smart people and some voters who aren't paying close attention and wondered yesterday why Donald Trump was not on the ballot when they got to polling places and either voted for none of these candidates or didn't vote

at all. Nevada was a caucus state for many, many years, as you know. But then after the nightmare caucus in Iowa in 2020 in Nevada, essentially had the same system. Harry Reid, the late Harry Reid, who then controlled the Democratic Party and his allies said, listen, it's time to stop this caucus. It's not a pure process. Strange stuff happens. Let's go to a primary. Democrats controlled the legislature, but it ends up in a bipartisan vote. Not all Republicans voted for it, but a handful in each house did. Yeah, let's go back to a primary. Only been a primary here, you know, there hasn't been a primary in Nevada since 1996, but let's go back and do it this way. That's the state law. But they left open the possibility

for the parties themselves to choose how they were going to allocate delegates. Didn't seem like an issue at the time, John, but then last year, the Republicans suddenly said, oh, we can't let this happen. We need more secure elections, raising all the election integrity nonsense again. We're going to have a process that you can trust with voter ID, no same-day registration. process that you can trust with voter ID, no same day registration. And oh, by the way, you have to pay us $55,000 in extortion fee to participate. And if you participate in the caucus, you can't be on the primary ballot. And they even put in rules. I'm sorry for belaboring this, but it's so crazy. They even put in rules that said super PACs cannot attempt to influence this election. Obviously, trying to box out DeSantis when never backed down actually didn't look like it was going to back

down and had $200 million in the bank and could have been a force, right? So DeSantis filed for the primary, for the caucus, excuse me, and Haley got at the last second, said, I'm going to go in the primary and then didn't do anything. So we have this caucus tomorrow. What are you looking for? I mean, is there any, how's none of these candidates doing? Is none of these candidates visiting the state? Is none of these candidates running any ads? How's their campaign looking? None of these candidates has had some rallies, I understand, but no one showed up. So there is no none of these candidates on the caucus. They control that ballot. Oh, that's right. That's right.

And so it's essentially just, it's Trump versus a guy no one's ever heard of named Ryan Binkley. So Trump is going to win all the delegates. He's going to win all of the votes. But the process is far from transparent. They're not letting the media view all of the counting processes. Now, let's be clear about this, too. The state party chairman, Michael McDonald, has been with Trump since 2016. He's openly endorsed Trump despite promising to be neutral. And so that is added to the perception, which really is the reality, that this whole thing has been fixed for Trump. The only one interesting thing to watch, though, and that is this. Nikki Haley got about 21,000 votes. The turnout was about 15, 20 percent.

She got 21,000 votes, even though she got crushed. I'm not sure 21,000 people are going to show up to caucus. Maybe they will. That would be a relatively large turnout for a caucus for the Republicans. And even if more than 21,000 show up, you know, is he going to get more votes? Is Trump going to get more votes than Haley? Because if he doesn't, that's going to be a real embarrassment for him. So other than this idea that the election fraud justifies not doing a primary, but actually doing our own separate caucus, which obviously is silly, but like what is the logic for rebuffing this effort to switch to a primary? It's not obvious on its face why that's, you know, why the MAGA types would prefer a caucus versus a primary. Trump has not,

you know, Trump would have had no problem winning this primary, right? He would have won the primary. There's no question about it. But I think what they were concerned about, because they want to show Donald Trump dominating he, and every election that he's in, we're a universal mail ballot state since COVID. So every Republican got a ballot. You could make an argument, and I think some people close to Trump did, and some people in the state party here, that if every Republican gets a ballot and a lot of the non-MAGA types vote, that maybe his margin of victory while he would have won wouldn't be as great compared to a caucus where they can only vote during a certain time. And by the way, this is not a pure caucus either. Caucus used to

be, you go in, you argue with your neighbors, 15% threshold, you win old people. And then people could just drop off ballots. So it's not a real caucus. They can drop off a ballot and leave. And they did that, I think, so they could increase turnout in the caucus to make sure Trump gets a lot of votes. Also, whoa, what kind of, you look, I'm sure Binkley has a great, has a great argument, but what kind of caucus, it's not like there's like, what kind of ferocious debate inside of the caucus amongst neighbors could there possibly be? Like, I don't know. Like it is, it is, even if you didn't have the fact that you can just drop off ballots, basically a person running unopposed in a caucus is a weird way to spend a

Thursday evening. It is. And that's why there's some sense that maybe turnout won't be great. Now, that's why Trump came here a few days ago and urged all of the Republicans to go caucus. Don't go into the meaningless primary. They've come up with some spin. And as Trump's want and his campaigns want, outright falsehoods about what the primary was versus the caucus and who kept his name off of the ballot to try to energize people to come in caucus. It's going to be interesting to see how successful they were in doing that. Anything to learn from Joe Biden defeating none of these candidates and Marianne Williamson? None of these candidates came in second. Marianne Williamson came in third. He won 89% of the votes. I'm not sure how much you can take away from that, but did you have

anything that you observed? I think Marianne Williamson is not going to win the nomination. Right. Okay. You heard this first on this podcast. Take that. That's a prediction. But seriously, here's a problem. I mean, the Democrats are touting they had much better turnout than the Republicans. Biden got 90% or close to it. This shows that they're energized, et cetera. But there is no correlation in my experience between what happens in a February 6th primary and in November, totally different universe. There's going to be 70, 80% turnout in November. But as a trial run for the so-called Reed machine here, the Democratic organizing machine, they did fine.

But that's nothing really to brag about or to project going forward, I don't think. So Nevada, obviously, in November will be an important swing state for the presidential. It's also going to be an important Senate race there. What are you seeing right now? We've seen some polls that I think are pretty concerning for Democrats, obviously, with Trump winning the state. That Senate seat is obviously incredibly important. What what are what's the situation on the ground right now? What are you seeing? Smart Democrats I talked to, including those involved with the read machine, they're worried they're they're concerned. I mean, Trump only lost the state by two and a

half points in 2016 and 2020. And so they think it's competitive. They are correct. Some of the demographic shifts are concerning. Catherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina ever elected to the U.S. Senate, only won by 8,000 votes, and they had to essentially drag her across the finish line. Jackie Rosen is not nearly as skilled a politician or experienced a politician, although she's become a formidable fundraiser. And so they are very, very concerned. What bolsters them, though, is that they still have that machine, and the Republican candidates generally are not great in that Senate race. The NR. And the Republican candidates generally are not great in that Senate race. The NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has banked all

of its hopes on a guy who's never won a race and who's barely lived in Nevada for very long, got crushed in the primary for the U.S. Senate last time. And so they're praying every day he gets through the primary against a couple of MAGA types, either of whom, if they win, especially one of them who's a pure conspiracy theorist, one of the worst in the country, that's over for the Republicans in the Senate here. And that could affect the presidential race. John Ralston, thank you so much for your time. This is very helpful. Next time I'd like to be in Las Vegas.

That's where I'd like to be doing these conversations. That's where I'd like to be doing these conversations. That's where I prefer to have them. But thank you so much for your time. I hope you do come to Vegas. You don't have to ask me twice. Thanks for having me. When we come back, Kate Shaw walks us through the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling against Trump's claim to presidential immunity and what it means for the timing of Trump's many criminal trials. On Tuesday, after making us wait a very long time, the D.C. Circuit unanimously and forcefully rejected Donald Trump's legal argument that

he is immune from prosecution in the 2020 election interference case because he took those actions as a sitting president. Here to talk us through the ruling and what it means when this case and several other trials begin is the co-host of Strict Scrutiny, our very own Kate Shaw. Welcome back to the pod. Thanks so much for having me, John. So let's start with the opinion. Nobody really expected the judges to agree that presidents are not subject to the laws of the United States while executing the laws of the United States because it would be too confusing. But this was a smackdown nonetheless. You did a great bonus episode on this yesterday that everybody should check out. But can you just walk us through it? What stood out to you the most? Sure. Now, it did take a bit longer than we wanted. And that's because every single day of delay moves us closer to a world in which Trump cannot be tried prior to the November election. But, you know, now that I've sat down and read it carefully, it is a very good and very thorough opinion. And it did involve a lot of historical research and, you know, like really intentionally selected quotes from conservatives on the Supreme Court like John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. So, you know, this stuff takes a little time to craft. So, you know, now that it's out, like the quality is just fantastic. And a

couple of things that I thought were striking. One is it is a per curiam opinion, meaning just an opinion of the court. There is not a single identified author. And that's pretty unusual in an important case like this. That's more typical in routine and short orders. And I think it might suggest a couple things. One, it is not crazy to be concerned about attaching your name and identity to an opinion ruling against Donald Trump in this moment in time. And so no one can, you know, inveigh against a Judge Pan opinion or a Judge Childs opinion. It's just the D.C. Circuit opinion. And in a moment where judges are getting swatted and threatened, I think that might be why it's a per curiam opinion. You know, in terms on the substance, there's just like a couple of lines that are worth flagging.

One is, you know, just the bottom line holding, right? We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time. Like, that's kind of the bottom line. And I also liked that the opinion quotes, and it kind of can't improve upon, Judge Chuck in the district court, who wrote that every president will face difficult choices, whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them. Real mic drop in the district court gets a second airing in this opinion. So those are a few takeaways. So you and Melissa and Leah broke down all the ways in which Trump's arguments were sort of indelicate legal terms laughed out of court. What, to your mind, is Trump's best argument? Or what is the best argument for some form of immunity that wasn't made by the Trump team? None of these arguments are good arguments. They're just not. They're

all bad arguments. I mean, there is an argument that has some intuitive appeal in general terms, and it has some support in the law, which is that presidents, while they are presidenting, do kind of accountability, including for doing crimes, just doesn't really have any support in text, in history, or in logic. And that's, you know, essentially what the court concluded, you know, in 57 pages. are a lot of people that work in the White House and around the president whose job is to make sure that the president is not breaking the law. And those lawyers don't always agree. There's disagreement about what the law requires the president to do, what the president's powers do and do not allow. And could you see some argument made in that area where there is a legitimate dispute as to whether or not a president was upholding the law or breaking the law? And then why is that kind of more delicate question not an issue here? Well, I mean, that's mostly a question about civil liability. And the law has long made clear that you can't sue a president because of some official act that they took

even after their president. So that's the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case where some disgruntled ex-official who said that he was unlawfully fired sued then ex-president Nixon. And there the court said, actually, even ex-presidents get absolute civil immunity if we're talking about actions they take within the scope of their official duties. So that's something that presidents have long been able to operate kind of secure in the knowledge of. They're not going to get sued civilly because of things they did as president. But no court has ever said that the same logic applies to crimes committed as president. And so when Trump makes this argument that it would be totally chilling and destabilizing to future presidents to have this specter of possible criminal prosecution hanging over them. That's always been the case because they've never had any kind of immunity from

criminal prosecution. And back to the Judge Chuckkin line, like if what that does is chill presidents from doing crimes, I don't see why that's a problem. That sounds like a feature, not a bug. So let's talk about what happens next. Doug. So let's talk about what happens next. Will Trump appeal to the D.C. Circuit or was the order that went along with this ruling written in a way that means that Trump will go directly to the Supreme Court? Yeah, it was very carefully crafted, I think, to make sure he's going to just go to the Supreme Court. So a lot of the time, if you lose before a three-judge panel, which Trump did here, you can ask the full court to review the opinion of the three judge panel as kind of an intermediate step before going to the Supreme Court. And he could still do

that. But what the order accompanying the opinion said about the mandate, which is just like the thing that sends the case back down to the trial court, is that the mandate is stayed until Monday. So nothing happens until Monday. Monday, the case goes back to the trial court and proceedings can resume, except if he asks for a stay in the Supreme Court. But asking for the full DC Circuit to review the opinion isn't going to have any effect on the mandate. So that essentially disincentivizes him asking the full court to review. It means he'll go right to SCOTUS on Monday, and that will stay the mandate. So that'll mean things are paused, and then the ball is in the Supreme Court's court. So as you pointed out, it was a long wait for this opinion. The opinion wasn't authored by a

single judge. Now you pointed to this, one reason might be that they were just worried about the attention that comes with having written an opinion. But another reason might be that they are aware that they are writing for history, that this is a matter of incredible importance, and that potentially the reason they took so much time and did this opinion by the court, not by a judge, is to send a signal to the Supreme Court that they don't necessarily need to take this up, that they can just allow this ruling to stand. Do you think that's possible? Or do you feel like the Supreme Court will both from a political standpoint and a legal standpoint feel an obligation to have a say in a case this important? not chance, but a real chance that just as you suggested, the strength of this opinion,

the fact that it's an opinion of the court, and the correctness of the opinion means that maybe the Supreme Court just denies cert, and this stands as the final word on absolute criminal immunity, and then the trial happens. So I think that is a possibility, and doing the opinion the way they did may have increased that likelihood, but I do think that it's still more likely that the Supreme Court will think it's the final answerer of all the important questions. And so it should actually have a chance to speak on this question. And one thing to say on that, and, you know, timing is, of course, critically important here. I think if the Supreme Court grants this, and then just proceeds kind of business as usual, like decides the case, decides to take the case in a week or two, hears arguments in April, you know, decides the case, decides to take the case in a week or two,

hears arguments in April, you know, decides the case in May or June. We basically should understand that as the Supreme Court having like emblazoned in the sky that the court itself is taking away from the American people the opportunity to have a jury decide whether a former president who is a candidate for president is guilty of crimes, and in particular, the crime of attempting to subvert a presidential election and unlawfully remain in office. Because that's what it'll mean if it takes the case and waits to decide it. It will mean that people will never know what a jury thinks about these charges, which are incredibly serious. And that means people both who support President Trump, former President Trump, and opposed. So in some ways, I think everyone should want this to be before a jury so we get an answer. And the court slow

walking this, which again, business as usual, tempo is slow walking, will mean. And that's how we should understand it. Yeah, we'll talk about this in a minute. But they did not slow walk the question as to whether or not the 14th Amendment bars Trump from being on the ballot. That they're moving very quickly on. And given that, I think a lot of people would be surprised to see this court rule that Trump is immune from prosecution. What you're basically saying is if the court were to delay, even if they ultimately ruled in that way, it would be akin to siding with Trump and not showing the same concern about a case that might harm Trump's

political prospects when they have shown a lot of speed on a case where everyone expects them to rule in Trump's favor. Right. Well, and also like where the thing that happened below in the Colorado case ruled against Trump. So Trump, you know, loses and needs to change the status quo, right? And so they're accelerating wildly this 14th Amendment case. And then most likely, although I don't think it's 100% certain, will rule for Trump and he gets to stay on the ballot. And then again, maybe they take, you know, their time and they do rule against Trump on the immunity. And again, on the merits, I agree. Ultimately, it's very hard to see them coming down any other way. But as a functional matter, that will also be siding with Trump. So

the takeaway shouldn't be, well, they give and they take. Trump wins one, loses one. It'll be he wins both because the function of the delay will mean no trial. And so they deserve zero credit. And actually, I think they deserve the public knowing that they have been complicit in, again, taking from the American polity, the voters, the right to know what a jury thinks about this conduct. So how quickly will we know whether or not the Supreme Court is going to move quickly? What does a court that's going to hear this fast and make sure the trial can take place before the election look like? And what does the Supreme Court that's acting to slow this down look like? Yeah. I mean, I think, so Monday, I think he files his application for a stay. And again, that automatically pauses the proceedings. So starting then, every day, the court doesn't act,

that's a win for him because the trial can't or the trial proceedings can't resume. I think in a week or two, we probably will get some action on the request for a stay. And maybe they just deny the stay and then the proceedings resume. And that would be really significant. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't consider and actually take the case up with a cert petition. But I just I don't really see them doing it. I think they'll deny the stay and say the D.C. Circuit opinion will just stand and the trial will happen. And that, again, could happen within a couple of weeks. Now, the trial wouldn't happen immediately, but the pretrial proceedings would resume. And so I think then the trial could happen like in April, not March 4th as originally scheduled, but maybe a

month or maybe two months later. And if they decide to take the case, they could do what they did with the 14th Amendment argument, which was to really accelerate the ordinary timeline. They scheduled a special session for tomorrow. It's not ordinarily early February. They don't hear cases. They're taking the bench just for this one case. So they could do the same thing in late February if they wanted to. The briefing was done in the D.C. Circuit.

The briefing will have to happen in the Supreme Court, but it can all happen in a number of weeks and not months. Then they could hear an argument in early March and decide it very, very quickly. But again, like, you know, once they're deciding things in late April or May or June, a trial is not off the table under those circumstances. It's just tight. circumstances it's just tight and any additional delay might mean that there's no way to have the trial because i think the trial like right before the election is something that you know a fair minded and conscientious judge might be really nervous about it's mid-october we're going to start a trial we can't we can't do that so i think you kind of yeah and then it starts okay now the election has happened and right god forbid trump wins now they're going to have they're going to

have a trial before he's sworn in right like these It starts to become, I mean, we've never been in a circumstance like this, but it all starts to feel impossible. So how does this ruling affect the other sundry federal cases against Donald Trump? Well, you know, this is really not about the underlying question of Trump's culpability for the alleged crimes, right? It's not about, you know, the merits. It takes the allegations and the complaint as true and says, if true, if he, as alleged, tried to overturn the election results and unlawfully remain in office, is he still immune from criminal prosecution? And of course, the answer there is no. So I think it's mostly got impact on the other cases from the perspective of scheduling, because there's this delicate dance with at least the New York trial, which, you know, of the four cases, you've got Georgia, you've got New York, you've

got this case, you've got the other federal case, the documents case in Florida. That's the other case that could go in the relatively near term. And so I think actually if this gets back on the calendar, that one probably won't go first. There were some chances this continued to delay. I think New York would go first, and I don't think that's a great outcome. So I think that reduces the likelihood of it. But really, this is just the defense that he has asserted that he's absolutely immune, which isn't really on the table in the other cases. I mean, he could make absolute immunity from state prosecution claims as well. I mean, he's made lots of immunity claims. So I suppose, sure. But I don't think that's directly controlled by this ruling. Although obviously,

it's hard to see how if a president doesn't have immunity here, he might have immunity from state prosecution, although the arguments are a bit different. running for office again. I am not a lawyer, but this has always seemed silly to me, as you know, and I was no match for Lawrence Tribe, but I was not convinced. I remain unpersuaded. What is your take on the merits? And then I'd love to hear what you're kind of looking for in the oral arguments. Sure. And I, look, I don't know that I'm going to persuade you if Tribe didn't, but I mean, your concern, I take it, John, is that there's something that feels anti-democratic, right? About the Supreme Court doing this thing, removing the choice from the voters. Is that right? So I do have that concern. And that sort of makes me suspicious of this. And by the way, I think it's important that some of the best legal minds in the country

do come on a podcast and try to convince a comedy writer of what the Constitution means. That is what America is all about. But so, yes, I do have an anti-democratic concern, but I actually stepping back from that, I have a practical political concern about a system in which the self, the self-executing idea puts in the hands of random political bodies, elected officials, individuals in different states, and gives them the authority to question whether or not someone has a legitimate claim to being on the ballot and the kind of world we will live in if that kind of subjective opinion becomes important in how we decide who gets to be on a ballot or not. That's my concern. Yeah, and I think those are both fair.

And I honestly was pretty apprehensive about this issue at first. And I've sort of very much actually come around. And I think for a couple of reasons, I think having both to do with democracy and this question of, well, what would the consequences of the court, right, siding with the Colorado Supreme Court be

versus the consequences like on the ground of a different ruling and, you know, keeping and taking off? Sort of how does the world look in sort of both scenarios? And in terms of the anti-democratic piece of it, you know, it's just like, as I've really, as I thought about it, there are provisions in the Constitution, in particular as to presidential eligibility that are just anti-democratic, right? Like the 22nd Amendment says you can only serve two terms as president. And that is anti-democratic insofar as it means we can't vote for Barack Obama for president. Like he can't run again. And that takes from us the choice to vote for him. And if we had an amazing prospective presidential candidate who

was a naturalized but not natural born citizen, we couldn't vote for them because the Constitution says that. And that is anti-democratic. and it takes off the table certain choices. And I think this provision of the 14th Amendment is understood in the same light. We just can't choose an insurrectionist. And then you have these questions of, well, how do we determine if somebody's an insurrectionist? But then those are the questions about what the text and the history and kind of pragmatic considerations tell us about how to read that provision. But that, I think, is why the kind of anti-democratic piece of it, to my mind, is not actually dispositive, if you kind of press on it. And in terms of sort of allowing the proliferation of a lot of decision makers, you know, I think that it's, here is my concern. If the court says, yeah, he can run, the Colorado Supreme Court

either didn't have the authority or was wrong on the merits. There's a bunch of different ways they can decide it. I don't think that in any way takes off the table either Trump pushing on other eligibility rules, like, for example, the 22nd Amendment. I think in a world in which he's told he can run again, he runs again, he wins. I'm not the only person to observe this, but it's not hard to imagine four years from now, him mounting a campaign on the grounds that like he was deprived of a real first term by the Russia hoax and the 22nd Amendment can't be enforced by the Supreme Court. And so, and under those circumstances, you know, do we want or do we not want state officials deciding to throw him off

or keep him on the ballot? I mean, I'm not sure which way it cuts, but I guess I think that we are now in a world where there have been, there are challenges to these kind of core principles or, you know, settled, previously settled principle about who is eligible for president. And I don't think that the Supreme Court allowing Trump to run in any way removes the danger that you just identified of other individuals deciding to make politically motivated judgments about who can and can't run for president. So to my mind, that's actually not a reason to rule for Trump either. Did I in any way add anything to Tribe's case? Well, I just, here's my, so my problem with that, right, is we go from what I think we would all agree is a subjective and difficult question. I actually do

think it's a legitimate question. And by the way, if we were in a situation where I thought that there was a real chance that a Supreme Court would keep Trump off the ballot, I do believe Trump poses a direct threat to this democracy, and we should be doing everything within our power to keep him from returning to office. That poses a mortal danger to the country. And if I thought this was a political strategy that might result in a victory, I might be more circumspect because I would view it as having a real chance of leading to Trump being kept from the ballot. But because that's not the case, it does feel quite intellectual. You switched from a subjective question, which I think people of good faith could disagree,

to more of a kind of classic Trump claim, which is, no, I didn't rob that bank. I actually think all the money in there is mine. Right. That's what the the the serving beyond two terms would actually be. It would be just an objective lie that he would be trying to get the country to go along with. And I think I would be more open to this claim around the 14th Amendment if there was some kind of structure in which there was a law. He had violated the law that was either somehow ratified by Congress or by the legal system, there was something you could point to and say, that is the proof that Donald Trump committed what we are all collectively calling insurrection or aiding and abetting insurrection. And therefore he is not eligible. Other, you know, court, you know, even political,

political actors in states could choose to ignore that, right? That's something that could potentially happen. But if a Democrat or a nonpartisan official or even a Republican decided to say he was ineligible, there would be kind of a basis for looking at that claim in the way, in a kind of fair minded way. But we don't have that. Now, the response that I've heard, which I think is a fair response, like I'm being critical of what the Constitution should say, but that's not what it does say, right? Maybe that would be a better system, but these lawyers are looking at what the Constitution says and saying this bars him from office. But then if we're going to start getting technical about the text, if this was meant to be applied to the president, presumably the text would say

the word president. It wouldn't have just skipped over. It wouldn't go from members of Congress and then worked its way down to government officials. And then, oh, by the way, that includes the president. We didn't feel the need to mention the most powerful figure in our system of government. But once you take this in a couple hundred years, you go run with it. You can apply it to the president. We just forgot to include that name. Like if we're going to get technical, presumably that's a problem, isn't it? Well, I think that's right. But the text, of course, is not the only thing that matters. And I do think that all of the historians who have really, really grappled with the kind of, you know, drafting of the 14th Amendment say it's really not a close

question that the drafters did intend to disqualify from the very highest office in the country, you know, individuals who had engaged in insurrection. So I think that, but I hear you on, there are more contestable arguments within the 14th Amendment than the 22nd. That's right. The two terms is much more straightforward, but it does seem as though when you immerse yourself in the evidence, both drafting and history, and kind of practical considerations, it's not a case that is as clear, I don't think, as the immunity case, but I think it is a case in which there is a clearly correct answer. And so then we're talking about degrees of difference as opposed to difference in kind from a two-term limitation scenario. And even though this is ultimately almost certainly going to result in the Supreme Court deciding whether in a narrow way or

in a broad way that this clause doesn't apply in this situation and Trump must be allowed to be on the ballot, you believe it is still worth pursuing this argument, even if it might lead to a new kind of culture in which people are trying to find ways to disqualify their opponents from the ballot, often for subjective and inappropriate reasons. I mean, I was not an enthusiast about pursuing the strategy, but we are here now.

And I mean, I think that the concern you raise is one that people raise with the Trump impeachments, too, that we would all of a sudden be in an age of impeachment in which anytime, you know, a party controlled the House, we would all of a sudden see rampant impeachments of members of the other party. Obviously, we are just the morning after an attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, we may see another attempt. So maybe that all was true. And it just took a couple of years to really take hold. And I guess I there, I still thought it was worth pursuing actually both Trump impeachments in particular, though, the second one. And so because we just don't know what is going to be set in motion. And it also just feels like we are in

such kind of maximalist partisan warfare in an asymmetrical way, right? More, I think, one of our major political coalitions has decided to just pursue completely maximalist goals. But I think we're there, and I think we are in this 14th Amendment debate, and we can't avoid it. And I, again, shared the trepidation for a while. And yet, now that we are here, I think that it's actually really important to continue to publicly press the argument that the Supreme Court should disqualify him if it takes seriously its role and obligations here. So given how persuasive this is, what do you expect in oral arguments to be the ways in which the conservative justices question this? And if you were betting on what kind of arguments they'd make to prevent Donald Trump from being kept from the ballot, what would those look like? I mean, one, I think, is the, you know, the officer language, I think, in terms of what they might how they might rule in favor of Trump.

So the president is not an officer. And so that's kind of a narrow textual basis on which to rule for Trump. There's also something else you alluded to this idea of self execution, there's some support in the limited case law on this provision for that idea, that this is in the Constitution, but it doesn't actually have force until Congress passes a law actually making, you know, real, the general prohibition in the Constitution. That, I think, is really hard because there's a separate provision in Section 3 that gives Congress the power to remove the disqualification if it votes by two-thirds to let somebody who would otherwise be ineligible serve in office. And that, I think, means that the baseline

assumption is that they're ineligible if they engaged in insurrection. And Congress presumably doesn't have to pass, doesn't have, Congress has not passed a law that says you have to be 35, because it says it right there on the Constitution. It's in there. Yeah, exactly. So lots of provisions of the Constitution are what are known as self-executing. So the question is, is this self-executing? And, you know, I also think it's possible they may say that the process used in Colorado to decide that he engaged in insurrection was just an insufficient process. I actually think that's not right. There was a lot of testimony and evidence. There were pretty careful findings in the trial court. And, you know, there's nothing in the Constitution that says, or the 14th

Amendment or anywhere else that says you have to be convicted in a court of insurrection or charged with insurrection or that there's any specific procedures that need to be followed. And here, I think Colorado was sort of trying to figure out what to do in a, you know, kind of meaningful and robust way. And I think did devise a process that was pretty thorough. But that too, I think, is a basis on which the court might say this isn't enough. They might not say what would be enough, but they might say this isn't enough, which might leave the door open to another state, Colorado even, or another state trying to use a more, you know, extensive process to determine that he engaged in insurrection and then also try to disqualify him. So that leaves the door open, I think, to other efforts.

The other two, I think, pretty decisively shut the door. So those, I think, are probably the three most likely candidates. Would there be some way the Supreme Court could rule on this case that makes it so other states and other secretaries of state can't remove Trump from the ballot and force the court to rule again. So they can't do it. So force the court to rule again. But I mean, they would have to have somebody else would have to try to get the court to rule again. Right. Right. They would have to. So basically, so they, but what I'm

saying, this ruling, even if they did it, if they do a narrow ruling, there would be nothing to prevent, say, another official from trying another path. And they'd have to just quickly smack that down. It would depend on what, yeah, on what narrow ruling, but it is possible that they might do something that says this isn't good enough, like the process, but yes, another state could try. And in some ways, that's kind of the worst of all possible worlds, because we're going to be in this sort of limbo and uncertainty of the sort you alluded to with the, you know, kind of the sort of earlier disqualification argument until, I don't know, the election potentially. I mean, one other possible kind of narrow or like an avoidance route would be to decide that because we're talking about a primary here, the court is, you know, not going to rule because

actually he's not being taken off the ballot at all in the, you know, general election sense. And so somebody has to come back with a similar argument, you know, before the general election and then the court can decide. I mean, an even further kind of kick the can down the road approach would be to say, well, you know, either we'll rule when we have it more in the general election phase or this is actually something for Congress to decide when it actually gathers to count the electoral votes, whether he's disqualified. And so we'll kind of leave this kind of protracted moment of uncertainty until the actual counting the votes, which obviously will happen once there is a new Congress. And that seems like a recipe for something that would make January 6th, 2021 look like extremely small time activity. And so I think that those are the possibilities and none of them are attractive possibilities. And I just want to also say for the record, if the Supreme Court decides that Trump can't be on the ballot, I support it completely. I don't want, I'm in, you know, I'm in. And I think we should talk, I think that a lot of the

debate and the discourse has assumed, and I think kind of everyone protecting their hopes and expectations probably, that obviously this is a foregone conclusion. And that's still most likely right. But I just think that a lot of people who are very on the fence, I think across the spectrum, as they really grapple with the arguments, find this to be a case that is much harder for Trump to prevail in. And, you know, I think a couple of the justices are never going to be gettable on this. I can't imagine Thomas and Alito keeping a genuinely open mind. I'm not sure about Gorsuch. But I do think that this is a case where there is at least some sliver of uncertainty about how some of the justices, you know, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh

and maybe Coney Barrett maybe, might rule. And so I think there's a, you know, there's a way in which we, you know, we're not willing it into being, they're not actually listening. But I think that from the public's perspective, I think that if we sort of say it's a foregone conclusion, I think the worry is people check out. And I don't think it's a totally foregone conclusion. Yeah, I do. Just like my non-legal objection to all of this and concern about all of this is so much of what I think the anti-democratic fervor on the right has led to is a kind of going to the rules and looking for new and previously undiscovered loopholes. who the president is. Actually, state legislatures reign supreme technically. And that way of thinking about what the law is and what the constitution means is really dangerous. It's really dangerous to have everybody going to comb the records for a justifiable argument

for not having to face their opponents or not having to face defeat. It feels like the left is doing that here. That's your concern. Yes, it does. It is what the left is doing that here. That's your concern. Yes, it does. It is what the left is doing here. Now, it may be justified, but we discovered a new, we discovered a way to remove Trump from the ballot based on a constitutional amendment clearly designed to target insurrectionists. Insurrectionists growing out of a particular moment with broader application, like so many provisions in the constitution.

And it's not just the law review article, right? Right after January 6th, there were people in kind of pockets of academia who were talking immediately about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifying him from a future run, even when it still looked like he was going to be impeached, like, right away. So it is something that is not, I don't think, I think it's an uncharitable description to suggest we are literally just looking for any opportunistic argument. I agree. I know. And I share the concern. But of course, the alternative is, well, we let democracy flower and we have a candidate who has demonstrated unwillingness to participate in genuine democratic competition.

And so I'm not sure just letting democracy run the show, you know, and rejecting legalistic arguments is going to get us there either. You know, I guess there are no good routes is the answer. But this is where we are. And I think that the best reading of this provision of the Constitution and one that the court should actually try to grapple with seriously is that he's disqualified. One last question. You interviewed E. Jean Carroll and her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, after their big win in the defamation suit. Is there anything you learned

from that discussion about Trump and his legal strategy in general? Is there anything you learned from that discussion about Trump and his legal strategy in general? It was a really fun conversation. I do think that hearing them talk about Trump in court was pretty illuminating. I wasn't at the trial. A lot of folks did kind of dip in and out. But it did feel like he sort of lost control. And the loss of control made him further lose control. And I don't know what exactly that tells us about all of the many other sites of legal jeopardy that Trump is in at the

moment. But it does seem as though when there's the prospect coming into view of genuine accountability, he takes actions in ways that are wildly counterproductive to his own interests, right, like legal and otherwise. And so it made me think that, you know, that things could get pretty explosive in some of these cases, if, for example, the DC case goes to trial. You know, he was only a civil defendant in the E. Jean Carroll case, and still, I think kind of walked up to the line, as Robbie suggested, of conduct that would have gotten himself, you know, maybe hauled into custody if he were anyone but a former president. And so I don't exactly know what to expect, but it does seem to me that really unpredictable conduct is likely to ensue if some of these legal cases actually look like they're

going to result in genuine accountability. And so that's what we have in store, I suspect, for the next nine months. Kate Shaw, thank you. Thank you for indulging me in a conversation about the law when I only have really just a great LSAT score to my name. Probably better than mine, John. But I enjoyed it. Thanks for having me. This coming Tuesday, there's a special election to fill queer icon George Santos' vacant seat in New York. Here to chat with us about this race and about what Vote Save America is going to help you do over the course of this election. It's Vote Save America's fearless leader. It's Shaniqua McLennan. Hi, John.

Shaniqua, why are we watching what's happening in my childhood district, New York's third? Well, I did not know that was your childhood district, but we are watching because because it's a vacant seat right now because George Santos got kicked out of Congress. But the margins in Congress are pretty small. And so every additional Democrat we can get in matters. And it's something that people can start doing now. You know, one of our big goals for this year is to help Democrats take back the House. And this is like one step toward doing that.

And yeah, it matters. And there's ways that people can get involved right now. Now, this seat is in a closely divided district. That's how George Santos was able to win in the first place. Republicans are trying to use immigration as a wedge issue in the district. Democrats are hoping for a pickup. What can people do at Vote Save America in this one race right now? Yeah, you can actually volunteer.

If you go to votesaveamerica.com slash volunteer, we have volunteer opportunities up for this district right now. And the election's on Tuesday. So pretty much this weekend is going to be really important for people to knock doors, make phone calls, and just make sure people know the election is happening. Turnout wasn't what it needed to be when this election actually happened in November in 2022. So people just knowing that it's happening, that it's close, will make the difference and hopefully getting another Democrat in Congress. Yeah, a bunch of things went wrong,

I would say, that allowed George Santos to be elected a member of Congress. So, you know, a little bit of research might have been helpful. So, Vote Save America. Yeah, listen, don't be sad because it's over. Smile because it happened. Vote Save America launched a new action finder. What should our listeners know about it? It's great. Honestly, we have thought a lot about. It is great. It is great. We've thought a lot about people coming to the site and what experience they have when they get to the site. And so the action finder is an easy way if you want to do something.

But, you know, maybe you want to stay at home and do something or maybe you're willing to go outside and knock doors. to stay at home and do something, or maybe you're willing to go outside and knock doors. Maybe you live in a place where there's not a lot of opportunity or a lot happening right now, or you live in a place like Arizona where there's a ton or in New York where there's a ton happening now. You can go on, check a few boxes to say how you're interested in getting involved, how much you're willing to do, where you want to do it. And then we will serve you the best options that come up for you to do that. So, yeah, like we and Shaniqua has led this team to figure this out.

Like at Votes of America, at Crooked, we're trying to figure out in a moment where you are overwhelmed with requests for fundraising, for volunteering, when the news can be bleak or confusing, where you're not sure exactly where you can plug in. And maybe a lot of people in your life aren't exactly excited to engage or at least aren't aren't yet amped the way we're going to need them to be amped. Vote Save America. If you go and you sign up, we're trying to make it easy for you. So you can just go sign up and we will show you ways you can help. We will make sure that if you donate, those dollars are going to the places that make the biggest difference. Can you talk a little bit about one way we're doing that on the donation front?

Yes. So we also launched our new anxiety relief program, which I know is very important to love it. You actually, it was very helpful, all the feedback you gave us. I just want everyone to know you all are involved. It's not just like, you know, you host the shows, you're involved in the stuff that we're doing, and we appreciate it. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. But we launched the program pretty much. We wanted to take a lot of the guesswork and anxiety out of donating. So the way it works is you set up a recurring monthly donation at whatever amount feels good for you,

and then we send 100% of that donation to grassroots organizations and down-ballot races, send 100% of that donation to grassroots organizations and down ballot races, often the organizations and races that, you know, aren't as sexy to people and they don't pay a ton of attention to but are really important. And then at the end of each month, we are going to send an email out to anyone who's part of that program to let you know where your money went and what it's being used for by those organizations or candidates. And it's, you know, it's an important thing for the organizations and candidates as well. So often, so much money comes in at the last minute. It comes in around September when people start paying attention, but it's really hard to make decisions with money that

doesn't come in until right before the election. So we're hoping to make things easier for the organizations we work with and some of those down-ballot candidates so that they can plan out their work for the whole year. And, you know, across the board, I'm sure people have heard about progressive fundraising being down. And so this is another way we can just create a little bit of a cushion and certainty for the organizations that we work with. Now, there's some, you have some news. Yes, some breaking news. You heard it here first on Pod Save America. We're really excited. We launched the anxiety relief program last week, and we're already over 27,000 in monthly recurring donations from 600 donors who are really grateful to. Any additional that

people can add to that will help us help more organizations. So the more money we have coming in each month, the more organizations we can make sure have the resources they need to turn out voters. And I mean, we've seen donations as small as $2 a month, all the way up to $1,000 a month. So literally, whatever you can give is greatly appreciated. And on our Action Finder, 3,400 people have already used that tool to find something to do. So we hope you all will join them. And you know what, honestly, those are good numbers. They're not good enough. There's a lot of people listening to this show. And here's the thing, if you're listening to this, man, you're really paying attention. And what's it all for? All right, just to, you know, just so you can know things. That's not enough. So anyway, we're asking everybody, we're just asking everybody,

So anyway, we're asking everybody, we're just asking everybody, 2024 is here. It's time to put all of your anxiety and energy and enthusiasm into actually having an impact. We all consume the news. We are all stressed out about what could happen. We all know the stakes. So please, please, please. Now is the time to sign up at votesaveamerica.com and to get your friends and family to sign up too. Shaniqua, Thank you as always.

Boatsaveamerica.com. Thanks, John. All right, that is our show for today. Thank you so much to Daniela Diaz, John Ralston, Kate Shaw, and Shaniqua. We'll be back on Friday with another episode with Dan and John. consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Kira Wakeem is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer.

The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Thank you. You've been overwhelmed with headlines all week. CNN's One Thing slows the news down and focuses on one story. Host David Ryan interviews CNN's world-class reporters to tell us what they are covering and why it matters to you. New episodes of CNN's One Thing come out Sunday mornings and are available wherever you get

your podcasts.