Pod Save America - "Trump Surrenders."

Episode Date: April 4, 2023

Donald Trump finally gets his day in court as his first indictment is unsealed. Former Mueller investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissmann  joins to break down the Trump charges as well as the latest developments in the Fox News defamation trial. And we bring you the best of this week's worst political coverage in another round of Take Appreciator. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. 

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, Donald Trump finally gets his day in court as his first indictment is unsealed. Former Mueller investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissman joins to break down the Trump charges as well as the latest developments in the Fox News defamation trial. And we bring you the best of the week's worst political coverage in another round of Take Appreciator. worst political coverage in another round of Take Appreciator.

But first, tickets for the Love It or Leave It The Errors Tour are now on sale. And a lot of those shows, almost gone. Wow. A lot of them, they're not almost gone. Which ones are not? Maybe we should focus on those. You need to go check yourself. The tour will kick off in San Francisco on June 23rd with 13 plus additional shows across the country through december of this year it's gonna be great man we're working you this year yeah i

know i'm excited i'm excited to get back out there i live a small life in los angeles there's nothing for me here i'm going on the road okay yeah okay get your tickets today by heading to www.crooked.com slash events one dollar of every love it or leave It 2023 Errors Tour ticket sold will be donated directly to the Vote Save America Fuck Bans Leave Queer Kids Alone Fund. You can take action, too, by donating at www.votesaveamerica.com slash fuck bands today. Speaking of Vote Save America, today is Election Day in Wisconsin, and polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the most important election of the year, And polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the most important election of the year, which will determine the fate of abortion rights and whether the state has a shot at a functional representative democracy. Wisconsin has same-day voter registration. So there's still time to help get out the vote.

Head to VoteSaveAmerica.com for more. Of all the things we talk about today, with the indictment, with the plane going to Manhattan, the thing that you can have the most impact on is this election in Wisconsin. And it will probably matter the most in terms of returning democracy to the state. Don't abandon your state like Aaron Rodgers. Go to the polls.

Yeah, don't, whatever, and what Aaron Rodgers did was wrong. And everyone knows what Aaron Rodgers is doing continues to be something that's offending to us. It breaks our hearts. And he can't fix it. What do you think he did? I think that he decided to take a job in a new city.

That's exactly right. That's exactly right. I'm proud of you. That's context clues only from this conversation. I've literally never heard about this. After he did a silent retreat and maybe some ayahuasca. Really? That's context clues only from this conversation. I've literally never heard about this. After he did a silent retreat and maybe some ayahuasca. Really? That's all true.

That's how I make all my big decisions. As you should. All right, let's get to the news. Donald Trump will surrender at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office today, where he will be fingerprinted, posed for a mugshot, read his Miranda rights, and then arraigned on criminal charges related to hush money payments he made to porn star Stormy Daniels. The specifics of the indictment will be unsealed in court. But it's been widely reported that Trump faces more than 30 counts, including at least one felony.

The twice impeached Republican frontrunner for 2024 is the first ex-president to be charged with the crime. And so far, the coverage has been as subdued as you'd expect. I look at all these people on the roadside, and yes, some of them are law enforcement, but a lot of these are citizens who know this route, and he's going to slow down a bit for this. Yeah, apparently he sent a box of hats out to some of those who were peacefully gathered over the weekend.

And, Vaughn, we can see the motorcade has turned into the entrance to the airport. He's approaching the airport. The plane is on the tarmac. And unless he stops, it should be very quickly. He'll be boarding that plane and it'll be taking off for New York. His plane is getting ready to take off now. They are on the move on the tarmac. And this is what we have been watching for. And we don't know what destiny looks like on the other side of this trip when he gets here in New York City.

Welcome back. You are watching the former president's plane take off, heading up in the air and heading back to his home state of New York. Certainly not the kind of homecoming that he had ever imagined when he went back from Florida to New York. But he is heading back on a historic flight. Al Cowlings. We've heard from Al Cowlings who says Trump will surrender. I think this is exactly the kind of homecoming he actually imagined for a long time, if we're being honest. But we do not know which destiny will await him.

The plane is taking off. It's in the air. I love it. I believe they have turned the fastened seatbelt light off. What are they going to cover, the news? They are now serving some drinks. 24-7 cable coverage was a mistake. I think that's what we're learning.

As like a society. Yeah, absolutely. Can you imagine, is there anyone on earth less likely to heed the Miranda warning than Donald Trump in the history of the Miranda warning? Is there anyone less likely to be like, oh my God, that's a great advice. I'll shut up now. I'm very interested today to see if the judge imposes a gag order on him because can you imagine him not being able

to talk about this trial as it unfolds? That's interesting, that's interesting. What will he do with his time? Play golf probably. What will he say? What will he talk about, issues? Yeah, issues. Will he talk about the issues? Talk surrender day guys thank you do you think we should have um did we make a mistake not doing a live show on the route to uh from mar-a-lago to the airport

i'm tailgating in my mind someone did put the fox news commentary over the oj bronco chase footage they really did it and it was very well done. All right. So we won't know the details of the legal case against Trump until this afternoon. That hasn't slowed down the takes one bit. Just minutes after the news broke on Thursday, the Washington Post editorial board was out with a banger titled, The Trump indictment is a poor test for prosecuting a former president. And the New York Times ran a guest op-ed by a former federal prosecutor titled,

Trump's prosecution has set a dangerous precedent. Basic argument here is that this crime isn't as serious or as easily proven as Trump's other potential crimes. And that it's unfortunate that this indictment has come first. Lovett, what do you think about those arguments? It's very, it's, it's, we're back in sort of optics land, which is... Did we ever leave?

It's a, it's a fun house mirrors where the problem is the, the prosecution for, because it is not on some level political, doesn't seem political enough to meet the threshold of being a political in the way that these writers would like.

You can't make the prosecution political, but you've got to have some political judgment in the prosecution. Right. You don't want the prosecution to be political, but then are worried that it's not being rolled out in the most politically expeditious manner. So it's like, what would have been right? You want the prosecutors to get on the phone, do a conference call, figure out the right order? No, that'd be reprehensible. You want you want Bragg to hold just for political purposes, because you know that the Fulton County or DC cases around the insurrection or overturning the election are more serious and fear more feel more fulsome and, and deserving of being the first charges to be leveled against the former president. You want them to hold? Of course not. That doesn't seem right either. So you can't really have it

both ways. You want it to be a political, you think this is not the best political move. Okay. Can we talk about the optics of you wearing a radical left defund Bruce Wayne t-shirt while giving this take? I heard that you kicked down the door of a retail location on Melrose. First of all, this is our merch. You make this. Oh, well, good. I mean, I love that shirt. I just think it's time we face the fact that bruce wayne uh uh should not have the amount of power in gotham that he has that's all okay okay um look i get why this is uncomfortable and that it's uncharted territory um but we haven't even seen the indictment right you know it's like maybe those editorials can wait till we saw the

specifics more broadly speaking a lot of countries have prosecuted heads of state and not not banana republics, like everyone is saying, France, South Africa, Israel, South Korea, their democracies have all survived. The only one that's imperiled right now is Israel because Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister, is fighting corruption charges and trying to gut Israel's judicial system to avoid the consequences of them. So I think we should just wait and see. And the bigger problem in our justice system as far as I can tell is that there's one system for poor people, and then there's one system for rich and powerful people where they get away with shit all the time. And maybe if this sends a message that rich and powerful people should

not be able to get away with any crime, white collar crime, campaign finance crime. That would be a good thing. Yeah. I mean, one of the bedrock principles of our legal system should be that no one is treated differently than anyone else. And so once you start making decisions on Trump's potential prosecution based on the fact that he's a former president, you immediately set up those two standards of justice and like so trump gets a pass because well there's a couple arguments trump trump should get a pass because he's committed more serious crimes potentially and this is a less serious crime then there's like the optics of the you know how do we order them but you're right like the prosecutors in this case a special counsel a doj a fulton County district attorney, the Manhattan district attorney.

Yeah, they can't coordinate the indictments and have like a political world. It's just not allowed. It would be a fun Zoom. It's just not. That would be horrible. I do think with this one, I think the critique of this is that this is, we hear it all the time, that this is a novel legal theory. The argument that conservatives, I think, somewhat fairly are making is that this is not a case that would have been brought against an ordinary citizen. That this is a complicated set of facts to get to a felony based on a campaign violation at the federal level that he's not being charged for related to the offense of falsifying his business records. We have to see what the actual indictment is. We should wait to see that. But I think

the point that they're making is we should be making the argument that no one is above the law. And I think that that will become even easier an argument to make as we see more indictments from other kinds of prosecutions. But I think the point they're making is that this is something that is being directed at Donald Trump and wouldn't have been directed at anybody else. And I think others would make the argument and have, you know, in just security today, you know, Norm Eisen, Ryan Goodman, a bunch of other lawyers pointed out that, like, first of all, falsifying business records in New York is one of them, a very common charge to bring to all kinds of people to charge all kinds of people with. to all kinds of people, to charge all kinds of people with. And also they have then connected falsifying business records to other state crimes to turn them into, to make them felonies. And that has happened. So again, we haven't seen the indictment, but it might not just be that they are connecting

falsifying business records to a federal crime, but to potentially other New York state crimes, which is what we have to say. Other people would be charged with. But I don't even like, that's almost beside the point. Stepping back from all of this, I think the broader argument about this being uncharted territory and dangerous is the same mistake that a lot of pundits have made, which is the Rubicon is not holding Trump accountable. The Rubicon is having a criminal president, right?

Like whether or not you hold Trump accountable after the fact. Yes, we're crossing a new boundary. We've never charged a past president with a crime before. Guess who crossed the boundary first? Donald Trump. Exactly. And so that was true with both impeachments. It's true with the January 6th hearing. It's like, oh, my God, look at all these extraordinary steps. We're taking these unprecedented steps to hold this person accountable. Yes, we we all recognize that he's an unprecedented threat and he's doing things in reckless, with a reckless disregard for the law in the way no president has ever before. It's also silly to be like an ordinary citizen wouldn't be charged with campaign finance violations. Like, well, yeah, right. You have to be a candidate to violate campaign finance law. And also, by the way, John Edwards, former United States Senator, who was the vice presidential nominee in 2004 was charged with very similar crimes. He was ultimately, I think it was a hung jury and he got away. But there is some precedent here. I think the bad thing would be if we get to a situation where you have Republicans do a tit for tat and they decide, OK, we need to indict a Democrat. Maybe they go after Biden or Barack Obama under sort of specious allegations.

But we're far from from there. Right. And, you you know they probably look they've all been they've either called for uh barack obama joe biden bill clinton hillary clinton we're locking everybody up candidates either to be locked up to be indicted they've all called for that hey you know what if you want we'll meet at the middle of the 69th street bridge we'll but we'll walk hillary clinton to you you walk us. Oh my God. I don't mean it. Okay, trying to get her on this show. We're going to get, I'm just kidding.

But pick someone you want and we'll do it. Who are we offering? I don't know. Someone we don't want on the show. Mansion, cinema. Look, if former Democrats commit crimes, then yeah, they should be indicted. That's just the way it is.

Don't commit crimes. Well, the other thing too is it's like hey we're not negotiating with terrorists here like hey if you charge trump for legitimate crimes uh we're gonna find some trumped up bullshit to charge joe biden with the next time he comes through fucking montana it's like okay well that's a terrible way to go about our making decisions right well yeah also thanks for the heads up we're not going there yeah there. So Republicans have been a bit less subtle in their reactions to the news of Trump's indictment. Let's listen. Well, if you got a pile of crap and you chop it up 34 times, it's still a pile of crap. And of course, this is not an isolation. This comes after the first impeachment ever of a sitting president over a phone call. One thing when you have a cancel culture, it's another when you have a cancel criminal justice system. And I hope that we're certainly not turning to that.

So this is not even about the, forget the federal government, because guess what? They just indicted Trump in a local area. So the equivalent is this. Okay, you indict Donald Trump in Manhattan. We indict Bill Clinton in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Figure it out. It almost feels like they're pushing the population to react. We think they're demoralized and passive. Let's see if they really are. We control the power of the purse, and we're going to have to look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies,

particularly the ones who are engaged in the most egregious behavior. So the DOJ and the FBI. We feel like the DA's time would be better spent trying to prosecute criminals. Maybe this is just my bias showing, but I find Marco Rubio's comment there that it's the first impeachment over a phone call to be the most stupid observation of all of them, even slicing the poop 34 ways. Well, it's just like the lamest Trump MAGA talking point that Marcoco rubio is just you know like i think trump used to tweet that all the time at issue phone call at issue wasn't the phone portion of it it was the conduct well it's like marco are you suggesting it's not possible to commit crimes over the phone what are you talking about i also i i liked personally uh jim jordan using the

manhattan da's case to then uh as an excuse to defund the FBI and the DOJ, which goes to tell you, it's not, it's not, it might not be the type of crime that they don't agree with right here, the charges. I don't know. I don't know if they're making the same argument as the Washington Post editorial board that, oh, this just isn't a strong case because, you know, Trump could go kill someone and they'd be saying the same shit. Well, right. There's no there's no legitimate there. You can't do it at the local level. The federal level is also corrupted. There's no legitimate place to hold Trump accountable. There's no example.

There's no there's no right way to do it. All of these arguments from Republicans, or at least most of them, boil down to the belief that Donald Trump should be immune from prosecution. Not not because he's a former president or presidential candidate. Not because of that. Just because he's Donald Trump should be immune from prosecution. Not because he's a former president or presidential candidate, not because of that, just because he's Donald Trump. Because they like him. Yeah. So Ron DeSantis, who initially reacted to the pending indictment by saying, I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type

of alleged affair, has since changed his tune and said that, quote, Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue. Tommy, what do you make of Tiny D's strategy here? I mean, he viewed this as a freebie, right? And he knows that he can sort of notionally support this safe space for Trump idea, but that it would never happen and that Trump was going to turn himself in. So, you know, well played, I guess. I liked Chris Christie's comment, which was basically, who the hell asked you? Funny. But I mean, look, to the extent Trump has any political genius in

him, it's that he has forced the entire Republican Party to support him. I mean, he, I think before DeSantis put out this statement, he tweeted something to the effect of many Republicans haven't weighed in yet, very disloyal, whatever. So he's baited everyone into supporting all of these existential issues that surround him. Like you can disagree with Trump on policy, but if you don't support the election lie, if you didn't fight for him around impeachment, if you don't get his back here, like he will go after you. Love it. Yeah. I think, I think saying the extradition thing, which first of all it's like

trump's like oh thank you i'm not going to acknowledge this i'm just going to go on my own i really would like to not give you any credit whatsoever instead i'm going to put out a statement talking about how i have expanded my lead over you in the primary so thanks for the thanks thanks for offering to harbor a fugitive but i'm not going to be a fugitive uh i'm going to turn myself in but thank you uh you you took a subtle shot at me a couple weeks ago, and then you've gone from that to offering to harbor a fugitive. Well, I do think it's the same. I don't know that he's, I actually think it's not a shift. I think he's just doing the first half. The first half is this prosecution is illegitimate. It's political. I can't stand

by it. I don't support it. The second half is I'm Trump without the baggage. He's just not doing the Trump without the baggage stuff today, but he will do it again. I am and have been like very sympathetic to the challenge of winning over the decisive group of Republican voters who are open to a Trump alternative, but still really like Trump. That said, why would they pick the guy defending Donald Trump when they can just pick Donald Trump himself? You know, like Ron DeSantis. I just think that no one's gonna remember this in three months or six months you know like he's just like let me get through this news cycle is my guess yeah but i think that this look i'm very much in the camp that he should be no i know you want to compete against donald trump throw a punch i think de santis is getting crushed in the polls because he looks like a wimp and this is part of

that argument well i and i think that this is not i think this is not going away this is the this trial there's gonna be potentially other indictments there's other investigations going like one alternative here i thought about um bernie during the debate in 2015 and when he said uh people are sick of hearing about your damn emails to hillary and so am i and then he criticized her on a whole bunch of other issues like de santis could have done something like look this is up to the jury and the voters to decide. Like, I personally think the Democrats are salivating over the chance to run against someone with as much legal and political baggage as Trump. And that's why I'm offering an alternative, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, I think he's I think he is going to get I think he'll let's see. Let's see if he gets there. I do think it becomes and we were talking about this in a previous pot. I think it's about electability. I think he needs the electability piece to start becoming more salient for people as we get closer but i don't think there's a lot to be gained right now in siding with the siding inciting with prosecutors in some way that makes him look like he's on the other side of this issue not just from trump but from rubio fucking joe mansion i mean like yeah this is this is a place where he can do that. I would say that his original answer where he took the subtle jab at Trump by saying,

well, I don't know what goes into paying, you know. Yeah. I think that was he was he was better off with that. Yeah. He attacks the prosecution. He says he gives takes a little shot and then that's it. He's not for a blanket safe space for all future crimes. That would be clever.

I think this one is just, this is pathetic. It's unclear if he's good at this, so we'll see. On the other end of the Republican spectrum is Asa Hutchinson, former governor of Arkansas and federal prosecutor,

who announced that he's running for president this weekend and called on Trump to drop out of the race because of the indictment. Hutchinson is the first unabashedly anti-Trump Republican candidate to announce, because Chris Christie hasn't jumped in yet. Think there's any constituency for him in this primary? This guy was shot out of a cannon this weekend.

Asa, Asa. Asa Hutchinson with finger on the pulse is like, I know what to do. I'm going to do it during indictment palooza, and I'm going to go to the place where the MAGA community gathers to get its marching orders this week with George Stephanopoulos. He's a former Clinton aide. It's ridiculous. It's a, he looks ridiculous. Yeah. What is he doing? Low name ID, too normal, hasn't owned the libs enough. Even if people are open to a Trump alternative, they don't think he should drop out. We're Republicans, Republican primary.

The problem in 2016 is, right, there were all these Republicans that got in the race and none of them wanted to attack Trump because they all wanted to get his scraps when he eventually flamed out. If Asa Hutchinson jumps in and actually runs against Trump and criticizes him and has a message against him for the duration of the primary,

like, I will be happy, but that interview was not electric. Here's what you kind of need. You need, if the goal for these anti-Trump Republicans, you still want the mega base, what you need is for somebody like Chris Christie, you need Ron DeSantis to grab Chris Christie by the haunches and push him forward

and run behind him as hard as he can while Chris Christie's doing all the fulsome anti-Trump stuff and then right when chris christie is completely battered and blue you throw him to the side and say i'm ron de santos so you're like a weekend bernie's kind of yeah you gotta like use him like one of those uh football pads you know those stocking horse like a shield what is it like when they're running with a shield yeah like one of those things yeah you know i think your metaphor here is a fullback okay i'm gonna block for you i said fullback yeah it's great hey i said fullback congrats you said you said fullback hey i said fullback i said fullback i nailed it you know you nailed it and aaron rogers was a football player correct let's talk about the early public reaction to

the criminal charges uh cnn poll released yesterday found 60 of americans approve of trump's indictment. Again, we don't know what's in it, but they approve, including 62% of independents and majorities of every demographic group except Republicans, 79% of whom disapprove of the indictment. No surprise there. Only 10% of all Americans think Trump did nothing wrong, though 76% believe politics played at least some role in the decision to indict Trump. Yeah, one of them too. And his... He got me in there.

That's why I was like, I'm not surprised by that. Absolutely. People can be like, yeah, no, he deserved it. I'm sure it was politically motivated as well. And it was... And I agree. It can be politically motivated and also the right thing to do. It can be both.

10% thinking he did nothing wrong is so funny. Because there's a lot of Republicans who'd be like, yeah, he committed crimes for us. He did it for me. That's where my DeSantis point comes in, because when DeSantis did the like, I don't know what goes into paying hush money for a porn star. He's talking to the people who are like, he definitely did something wrong, but I don't know. But I also think that it was politically motivated. And I don't know if he should have been indicted. Like, totally fair hit.

He was in good territory there. should have been indicted. Like, totally fair hit. He was in good territory there. This is, I think, one of the problems we've had for such a long time is if there's some, like, magic set of words some anti-Trump Republicans could say to the MAGA base to convince them that Trump isn't the right person. They know who he is. Being a lying and cheating and shady person, like, that wasn't just, like, baked into the price of Trump. It was part of his pitch. It was part of, they all know he's a shady guy. Like, that's a part of what he's offering. So like everybody kind of acknowledges that. Yeah. But what they can't figure out is if he's a real loser or not. Yeah. That's what, that's where, and that's what we keep saying this, but like, that's where DeSantis and racism have to get in there.

I thought those numbers were better than I expected, to be honest. Better for the 60%. Oh yeah. More anti-Trump. More anti-Trump. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, before any of the specifics of the indictment come out, I do think, I don't think you're ever going to be able to convince people that there isn't some political elements of this prosecution. The Manhattan DA indicting Trump, like, of course there is some sort of political piece to this. After, who for a while said he wasn't sure he could do it, right?

Like, came back to it. The thing about the 60 number, though, is like, this is, what you what you just said love it was people have made up their mind about trump 60 is also around where his disapproval rating has been hovering for years now it's like 60 think he has something to do with january 6 60 think he should be indicted for this document right like they're 60 of the country does not think he's fit for the job does not like him does think that he's probably a shady guy who deserves to go to jail like i just thought that is his i just thought some part of that number would have just general discomfort with the concept of you know prosecuting a former

president and so in some ways i was i thought those were good numbers i think on that most americans are like you know what politicians should not get any special treatment i don't care if they're presidents or not they probably say the same thing about joe biden, you know what? Politicians should not get any special treatment. I don't care if they're presidents or not. They probably say the same thing about Joe Biden or, you know, other. I think one of the reasons Donald Trump became president instead of Hillary Clinton is that there was more antipathy towards just sort of basic politics than we kind of that we had like that we had accounted for. Right. Like like there's a lot more throw the book at them people out there than we realized sure yeah um so his approval rating so far remain unchanged which again i don't think that's too surprising

um and other polls since the news broke also show that he's expanded his lead in the republican primary you know dan and i talked a little bit about this on thursday but to me that still is a result of like trump's in the news all the time. And now, you know, the the lib establishment and the deep state is out to get Trump. And so now we have to rally behind our guy. Well, it's not super surprising. And every figure of any authority on the right is saying that there's a political prosecution and unfair and not legitimate. And there's no. And imagine if they hadn't.

Imagine if everyone sounded like Asa Hutchinson. Tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons. I did find it interesting. He raised $4 million like in the first 24 hours since the indictment. I think seven total. Yeah, seven total now. And then I saw at least the Trump campaign is saying, you know, they're liars, so who knows, that like 80% of those are new donors.

Yeah, prove it. Don't buy it. I don't buy that for a fucking second. New donors? I don't believe that they have anyone smart enough in that organization to figure that stat out. Yeah, I don't buy that. That seems hard to believe. Where are these new donors coming from now in 2023?

I'm in. Give me a break. Bolsonaro. Just people who have come here. Bot farm in Romania. So with the huge caveat that it's still just the beginning of indictment season, how much do you think Democrats should talk about these charges and what should they say? I mean, I don't know that they have a choice.

They'll probably all get asked about it. And so, therefore, they will need to comment. I think Dan wrote a piece on this today that I thought was very compelling where he flagged that the Navigator Research Company polled it and they found the most compelling argument is basically no one is above the law, even a former president. And I do think you should also talk about how everyone is afforded the presumption of innocence. And then I would also, you know, from a political perspective, try to pair it with a message that like, aren't you tired of talking about this guy? Yeah. Wouldn't it be great to just move on from this soap opera? Yeah, I think that that's all true. I think like, if what we're talking about for a while are just these New York charges, I think no one is above the law. But you have to find a way to turn it towards other Republicans, because if we're spending all our time painting a beautiful portrait of why Trump is terrible, I don't think that's the best use of our time. him, putting party over country, backing him despite all the harm he has done and kind of

despite, you know, advocating for him instead of advocating for their constituents, whatever it may be. But we have to figure out a way to be talking about Republicans writ large and not Donald Trump. I think you have to do both because it's Donald Trump's not just an ex-president. Donald Trump is the leading contender for the Republican nomination, the likely nominee, I would say at this point, and thus becomes 30, 40,000 votes away from becoming president again. And we and in all the polls with him and Joe Biden right now, still pretty close, still pretty close. So I do think you have like there are people out there who are, you know, still haven't quite decided. There was in that navigator poll that Dan pulled out,

there was one part of the message, which I thought was actually useful and actually mirrors the way Republicans do investigations, which is this is just the tip of the iceberg. And I think as much as we've been saying, like, this is just Donald Trump is a shady motherfucker. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These people are defending this guy, even though he broke the law. Everybody should be treated the same. And we've got to like follow this to it. We've got to investigate this and find out what happened and find out what he did. I also think that both Republicans and Donald Trumpald trump you know over the last week have been suggesting oh just wait till we get in power again we're gonna punish all our enemies and we're gonna use the law to go after everyone else that gets it both the like the two

tiered system of justice and the drama point that you're making like so we want another four years where donald trump's back in power and he's just going to take revenge on all of his enemies and he thinks he can get away with whatever he wants. There's sort of two-tiered system of justice. And you made this point

earlier in the pod, Tommy, that there shouldn't be one justice system for everyday Americans and another for the rich and powerful where they pay no consequences for their crimes. That was like the next sentence

in the Navigator poll that they tested that was part of that very powerful message. I think getting that in there too, because you need to make it relevant to people at some point. You know,

it's not just about Donald Trump. It's not just about Republicans. It's about what it means for you. And like, if you did this shit, you would go to jail, but not Donald Trump because he's rich and powerful.

Yeah, and what I'm saying, we shouldn't be focusing, I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking about Donald Trump. We just can't focus exclusively on it. We have to make it

a larger story. You endorsed him. And I did endorse him. But the other thing too, is I do think it really will matter what, what, what specific crimes we're talking about, whether we're talking about the New York crimes. We also have the election crimes in Georgia. We have the documents crime and we have the insurrection related crimes. And I do think if we start to, if we start to see charges related to overturning democracy, I think we start to make a bigger case about Republican extremism, and their commitment to Donald Trump, even if it violates like the basic fundamental values we have as Americans. And then that starts to be, I think, a very much more useful, very direct attack on what the kind of the kind of government they're trying to put together

here. I do think it's worth noting that Joe Biden is taking a different approach where they are trying to draw a contrast where he's like running around going to, you know, factories that were started because of investments and bills that he helped get passed and just sort of put forward this image of a normie Democrat doing things that actually matter to you. I'm sure at some point he'll get asked about Donald Trump and he'll have to comment. But I don't think optically that is wrong for Biden to be doing. I think it's exactly what I would recommend. But yeah, and I think it's sort of his only option. I think the challenge is he needs a theory of attention here. And like he ain't getting much attention for those ribbon cutting ceremonies in the middle of this. And that's I don't know what the White House can do about that,

except for just exactly. They're trying to draw the contrast. He's a normal president trying to get things done for people, delivering for people, right? That's good. That's the message. It's just going to be really challenging to get attention. He's got to be standing in front of a fucking earth mover with a bridge being built behind him and saying like, you know, we're building bridges. He's getting fingerprinted. I want quotes like that out there.

You know what I mean? Come on, get nods all over the fucking studio. Ribbon cutting at a new prison in Palm Beach. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, we built this prison right by his house. Just in case we needed to fill it. Love it. You mentioned the documents case.

Washington Post broke the news this weekend that the Justice Department has found new and significant evidence that Trump obstructed the investigation into his decision to hide classified documents in his beach house. The story says, quote, investigators now suspect based on witness statements, security camera footage and other documentary evidence that boxes, including classified material, were moved from Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes. personally examined at least some of those boxes. Fox also reported that several Secret Service agents connected to Trump are scheduled to testify before a D.C. grand jury in the classified documents case. So, you know, and they're looking into whether he showed donors some of these documents. It is so funny that we're all these sort of nefarious conspiracies about what he was doing with the documents. And like he may be brought up on charges because he just wanted to show his fellow rich assholes like hey check this out look at this nuclear weapon china made yeah it's great how cool is this and i can't wait we're gonna get the

footage put the benny hill music on it just but i'm buying a bunch of but about with the with the boxes coming in and out of that fucking wine cellar i do think the at first glance you could look at the obstruction thing and be like, obstruction? That seems like a process argument. But now that you have the Biden case, too, it really is different that like, oh, Biden has some documents. And then Biden says, search my house, search everything, get them all out there. And then they did. Trump, they serve him a subpoena. And then after he gets a subpoena, he goes, ooh, better hide those documents.

And then. I mean, that's just easy to understand. It's just easy to understand they turned over a bunch and then they got the feds searched the mar-a-lago and they found like a hundred more right well they tried to hide them after they got a subpoena it's very funny because it's a little bit like um well that's gonna be hard to prove like with like dominion like well it's hard to prove malice then these guys are texting backstage we're like we're lying oh no let's keep lying let's lie harder and then trump gets there to subpoena for these documents and then they have a video camera of someone hiding it that's amazing he did an

interview with hannity after the indictment and hannity brings up the documents case and and trying he's like well you wouldn't like take something and you're not supposed to he's like i can take whatever i want he like basically admits it to hannity i love it i mean look i do think this just goes to show though if there are further indictments and or even if these investigations drag on and if the coverage of the campaign is filled with constant revelations that at the very least serve as a reminder to people that Trump brings constant chaos and drama everywhere he goes. You know, we've seen what happens. He lost the 2020 election. His candidates lost in 2022 after the January 6th hearings, after they were painted as election denial extremists, which they were. He's not fucking Teflon. The guy lost the last three

elections now. We have to see. I do think that like right now, I think what feels like it's holding is, you know, whatever, or just sort of base understanding is this is helping Trump in the Republican primary. It is hurting Trump in the general. And the question is, how long does that hold? And we will know how long it's holding based on how long do Republicans keep up this? It's a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt thing on his behalf. And how long and do some of these does one other Republican in this primary start gaining traction on an electability argument, which then kind of unlocks criticizing him on the substance of these cases, which unlocks a further electability argument and kind of snowballs from there? And it's just the drip drip of the revelations, right? There's so many investigations, so many possibilities for indictment, so much, so many news cycles could be taken up by this.

I don't have a lot of faith in people's memories, right? Like all of this coverage of the plane going and the indictment and him in court tomorrow, whatever, all that. Like everyone, if that wasn't the end of it all, people would like forget about it in a couple of weeks. But like these are legal cases. They're just going to keep going

and going and going. They could take years each. And also like people, like people believe what they read. Even if it's like an email full of conspiracy theories, people tend to believe it. So if they're reading article

after article about this guy breaking the law, it's going to sink in. And I think for sort of normie swing voters, they're going to be like, I don't want to be my president again. And then there is this electability argument that will come from DeSantis if he grows a spine to say this guy is going to lose to Joe Biden expert to break down the case here when we come back. Andrew Weissman will join, and Tommy will be interviewing him right after the break. Joining me now is Andrew Weissman. He is a former senior prosecutor on the Mueller investigation and former general counsel for the FBI. He's also an MSNBC contributor and co-host of the new podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump, which I assume is mostly sort of NFL scores and updates.

Yeah, exactly. I don't do sports actually. That's where Lamar is going. That's okay. That's okay. We don't do that here either. Thank you for coming on today. It's a great day to talk to you. Can we just sort of start with what the heck happens here with President Trump and this indictment? He shows up in court on Tuesday. And then what? I mean, do they unseal the indictment that know, this could be very unique because how many times is somebody under indictment who's under Secret Service protection? So I can tell you what the normal process is. The normal process is you get booked like anyone else. You go to the NYPD. You have a mugshot taken. You have fingerprints taken.

There's a certain name, rank, serial number. Essentially, it's called being processed. there's certain name rank serial number they essentially it's called being processed then um even though you can a lot of times you can self-surrender to the nypd so in economic crime cases where there's no risk of violence or flight you just it's fine for the person just to show up you know there's you know the person doesn't get arrested at their home and brought in cuffs to the nypd um and then normally you would be in cuffs to go from the NYPD to the arraignment. And then at the arraignment, it's a standard process. There's a judge, there's a prosecutor, there's a defense lawyer, and in this case, you know, a million of

your friends. It remains to be seen whether the judge will open it up to cameras. While I was teaching, he may have ruled on it, but I know that a lot of media organizations asked for that. It's up to the judge's discretion what he's going to do. The judge basically says to the defendant, how do you plead? The defendant usually says, not guilty. They talk about bail conditions. It's sort of a complicated issue in New York now because of a bail reform statute. But obviously, in this case, Donald Trump isn't going to be released. There could, though, be discussion in connection with bail. There could be issues about what he says that either could prejudice a jury or, more importantly, what he could say that could incite violence.

a jury or more importantly, what he could say that could incite violence. This issue came up in Roger Stone's case, which was while I was at the special counsel. I used to say just at the special counsel's office. Now I have to say special counsel Mueller because there's so many special counsels that no one knows what I'm referring to. So some of that process may get a little bit short-circuited because of the Secret Service. Like it's not clear he's going to have a mugshot. It's not clear he'll be in handcuffs. But what happens in court, the part of the arraignment, that is the way it's going to happen. And then typically, shortly before an arraignment, if not the day before, the indictment is unsealed because the defense lawyer wants a chance to read it. indictment is unsealed because the defense lawyer wants a chance to read it. And so the defense lawyer will certainly get it not at that court appearance, because if the defense lawyer gets it

at that court appearance, there's going to be a big delay because the defense lawyer and the defendant have a right to sit down and read it. And presumably, this is going to be something that's called a speaking indictment, meaning that it sort of lays out a lot of the evidence in the scheme. It's not just sort of a sort of very brief recitation of the actual criminal statute. been doing a lot of TV. Trump has been posting on Truth Social, including an image of the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg next to a photo of Trump holding a baseball bat. Does that kind of activity create any legal risk for Trump in your mind? And what do you think the odds are of a judge slapping a gag order of some sort on him? A couple thoughts. So one, you know, I was thinking that Michael Cohen and his lawyer are kind of doing the same thing. And you sort of realize there's a reason Michael Cohen and Donald Trump like work together and we're sort of peas in a pod because they're so similar.

And they managed to also get lawyers who seem to also have the same moth to a flame view of the media. Of course, there's huge risks for Donald Trump to be doing what he's doing. risks for Donald Trump to be doing what he's doing. He's obviously doing it for political reasons, but he's now going to have political reasons and legal issues that are going to collide. And the two risks are, if he does something that incites violence, he actually could be committing a crime and be charged with it. It also is the case that he could be violating his bail conditions. And then the judge has a lot of discretion to, at the very least, impose more the prosecutor, it was of the sitting judge who had his case with crosshairs. And as the judge said after a hearing where she didn't believe at all that Roger Stone did this innocently, she said, how hard was it to find a picture of me without crosshairs? but how hard was it to find a picture of me without crosshairs? So if he continues to do something like that, the judge can impose really severe restrictions. Obviously, if he was to be charged with incitement, he could end up in jail awaiting trial.

Wow, things just got serious. So there are reports that Trump is facing up to 34 separate charges and that at least one of them is a felony. We obviously don't know if that's accurate. There's been a lot of inaccurate information swirling around about this case. But would that volume of charges in the seriousness of at least one of them being a felony surprise you given what we know? It wouldn't, but I do want to caution you that the volume of charges, it's like, this isn't a sort of per pound way to look at this. This is, by all accounts, there's going to be charges relating to filing a false business record. So if you file that record, the same record repeatedly, let's say in a business, it's given to the business for one purpose, and then you file it with your accountants and you file it with your tax preparer, those all can form a filing of a false business record or the creation of a false business record. And you could charge it as a felony, and you could also charge it as a misdemeanor, the same filing. So I think I'm going to be more interested in what's the basic nature of the scheme than all of the ways you could slice it up. It reminds me when I did securities fraud

prosecutions, you could actually have thousands of counts because there's so many securities filings that are made and there's so many potential victims receiving false filings if that's the charge. But what you do is you sort of take a representative sample. So I don't think people should really think about the severity because of the number of charges. That's really helpful. Thank you. So speaking of severity, I mean, we know that there are these multiple separate investigations into Trump, his businesses and his conduct. When you step back and look at, you know, all four or five of them, or however many there are at this point, is there one prosecution or one investigation that

you think presents the most serious legal risk? Yes, absolutely. So I think that there's one question, which is what's under investigation that is the most serious, in my view, that's a sort of subjective. And there's another, which is what presents the most risk. And I think they're a little bit different. I think the most serious crime that's under investigation is the federal January, so-called January 6th investigation, because that's something that goes directly to the heart of our democracy. Hundreds of people have been prosecuted in connection with that, but they're at the foot soldier level. It's really important if they amass the right amount of proof that the leader of that conspiracy and scheme be held to account. And that's just so

fundamental and core to our democracy that to me, that is the most serious. I think the case that though presents the most risk to Donald Trump, and especially if I were looking at this as his defense lawyer, are the state crimes, whether it's Manhattan or Georgia, and probably Georgia more than Manhattan. And the reason I say that is because regardless of what happens in the presidential election, meaning regardless of whether Donald Trump or any Republican becomes president, those state charges stick because a federal pardon cannot affect a state charge. So if I'm Donald Trump, I have my eye on those state charges, and I will be doing anything and everything, presumably within the law, to see that a

Republican wins the presidency, because that will end any and can end any federal prosecution. Well, there's two other big cases out there that I want to ask you about. One is the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. On Friday, we learned that a Delaware judge ruled that the case will go to trial. What do you think that means for Fox in their odds of winning in this case? one of the most brilliant lawsuits out there in terms of trying to figure out what's the deterrent to making false statements. You know, political leaders and candidates can make false statements, and there's only sort of repercussions at the ballot box, which could be severe, but they also, as we know, can be ignored by the electorate. This is a company saying that I have been hurt by false statements that they have to show that they were deliberately made by Fox News. I use the news part of that in air quotes. And I think that the ruling that just happened is pretty devastating. It's not just the facts that we've

heard about, which are, I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but every First Amendment lawyer I've talked to said this is the strongest case they have ever seen. And usually, I don't really, I'm not usually rooting for someone who is suing a news organization. You usually think, you know, news organizations have to and are entitled under the Supreme Court law a lot of leeway, but not if it's done with sort of actual malice, including reckless disregard. And here the judge made a couple rulings that were really interesting. One, the judge said it was crystal clear, and I'm using that's quote, crystal clear that factually Dominion did not change any votes. So that is going to be a given in this trial. And that's huge when you think about everything that we've been hearing

from Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, so many people who are part of this conspiracy theory. That is now out of the case and that the jury will be told that. The other is that some of the defenses that Fox News wanted to bring, the court said they cannot because there's no or insufficient evidence to bring it. So Fox wanted to be able to say this was really just reporting that was opinion evidence and entitled to a, quote, reporter's privilege. And the court said, no, there's insufficient evidence of that, that this was opinion. Obviously, he can just look at the, as they used to say, he can just go directly to the videotape and see that that's not what was going on with Maria Bartolomeo, for instance, just take one example, or Jeanine Pirro.

And famously, Mr. Murdoch in his deposition said, no, they were actually endorsing these fake stories. They weren't just reporting it. They were actually endorsing what was going on. So it looks really bad in terms of what's going to happen in about a month. Yeah. I mean, I'm not a First Amendment lawyer or any kind of lawyer, but I imagine as a former prosecutor, you would be licking your chops when you found this body of evidence and includes emails and text messages from people being like, hey, let's do some actual malice later tonight on this broadcast. I mean, it's as close to that joke being literal as you could seemingly get. thinking about this case and this is when you really earth as a trial lawyer I think about how I would go about trying it and I think the first witness would be the the woman who was the source for the Dominion fake story and that information was given to one of the Fox anchors and she's gonna say she's

wrote down that her she sounds wackodle, that was her word, that she talks to the wind, that Justice Scalia was murdered in Texas. I mean, all these crazy things. And that would be such a great first witness because it would show just how crazy it was and that Fox knew it. And I think for the punitive damages part, you'd want to really hit home Murdoch's statement that this wasn't about red or blue, it was about green. And the theme is, okay, let's talk about green. What can you do to this company to make sure they don't do it again if they're really motivated by money? And that, by all accounts, is very much what they were focused on, which was that they were going to continue spinning out this false story, even though they were being told internally that it was false. And they said,

no, it's hurting our ratings, so we're going to continue doing it. So that to me means that the punitive damages component of this case has got to be something that they are actually really worried about, because that's where they really can take a substantial hit in terms of their business. Yeah. I think the first witness you proposed they call here claimed to be a decapitated time traveler in that same email. That was the source. You think that's unusual? It felt a touch off to me, but listen, again, I'm no legal expert. The final case I want to ask you about, which in many ways is the largest stakes for regular people in this country, a federal judge in Texas struck down a provision of the Affordable Care Act that forces private health insurers to fully cover preventative care services at no cost to patients. This is a very popular and I would argue critically important part of the bill. Do we have to wait until the Biden administration appeals this up to the Supreme Court to know the fate of this bill once again? What's amazing here is who's

against preventative care? I mean, just in terms of, just look at the economics of this, let alone the health of American people. I mean, there's a reason it's called preventative. I mean, this is something that's so beneficial to people in terms of their health and the economy. I mean, this is like a win-win. It's just unbelievable

that the sort of political sense that I just want to be against the ACA leads to this result. But to answer your question is we don't for two reasons. One, because the Biden administration can seek and is seeking a stay. The district court issued a nationwide ban. All of these nationwide bans are very controversial. Whether it's sort of liberal side or conservative side. It's this idea that one district judge can sort of control what

happens in the rest of the country. But the Biden administration can get a stay and will be seeking a stay of that. The other is, let's say they don't get a stay. A lot of healthcare companies aren't going to act on this immediately. I mean, they've got a relationship and it's mid-year. It's not even mid-year. It's mid-quarter. And so the idea that they're going to suddenly withdraw coverage based on a decision that may or may not be good, I mean, I could see that it'll be interesting to see whether any company actually

says we're going to act on this now as opposed to waiting. And remember, these can be these are private companies, they can decide to go forward with the coverage is the ruling is about it's not being required. So I do think that there is, in terms of the actual health of people, that there's that sort of reprieve in getting people funding. Yeah, I mean, look, I have no faith in insurance companies to do the right thing if it can save them money,

but they might do the math and decide that, hey, actually doing, you know, preventative cancer screenings will save us money in the long run. And what if they withdrew this and then the court decision is stayed or reversed

and then they have to give the money back? And what if someone was hurt during that time and they could have found something even if you're looking at it from their own economic interests this is one where you can imagine lawyers within the company saying you know what until this is really resolved this is not worth it and and there's a lot of downside if we were to take action based on one single decision. By one, I think Bush appointee judge, although we get mad about Trump appointees, but I think this was a Bush appointee from like 2007. So thank you for that, President Bush. Andrew Weissman, thank you so much for joining the show. The podcast again is called Prosecuting Donald Trump. You can find it anywhere you get your podcasts. I'm sure you guys are going to be covering the

trials on a weekly basis. Is that the plan? Absolutely. Excellent. Well, I will be subscribing as soon as we hang up. So thank you again for joining us. Glad to be here. Okay, before we go,

Chief Take Officer Elijah Cohn is back for another round of Take Appreciator. What do you got for us, Elijah? Guys, I've got some really exciting fare for you all today. In case you don't know how it works, I'm going to share some takes with you. The producers have seen these takes. John, John, and Tommy have not. They'll react. Rate them on a scale of one to four politicos, with four politicos being the worst. Are you guys ready to appreciate some takes?

Sure. I'm ready. I'm ready. Great. Let's start with Marjorie Taylor Greene's 60 Minutes interview. So Marjorie Taylor Greene did an interview on 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes promoted the interview initially by saying, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't afraid to share her opinions, no matter how intense or in your face they are. We have a clip from the interview. Let's take a listen. And things she says that are over the top, like the Democrats are a party of pedophiles. I would definitely say so. They support grooming children. They are not pedophiles. I would definitely say so. They support grooming children. They are not pedophiles. Why would you say that? Democrats support, even Joe Biden,

the president himself, supports children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries. Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to children. due to children. Wow. The question for her and the country is can she expand her brash MTG brand beyond the right-wing populist base? Is that the question? That is the big question.

We got to... People need to know what brash means we gotta help people understand what brash means kara swisher is brash i guess you know what i mean i guess they felt like they used a firebrand too much they were i will say her first response when she was like come on they're not pedophiles you know good for leslie stall though the wow the whispered wow i feel like she could have. There was a lot of churn about this interview on social media. I thought they did a good job fact-checking MTG in some other instances,

but just allowing the Democrats or pedophiles comments with a wow was terrible. She later goes on to just read a series of horrible quotes about other Democrats. That's like, what are we learning here about this person? What are we, what are we seeking to gain by this exploration of the, of the life of Marjorie Taylor Greene? Now I'll say controversial take. I think the sort of question about whether she can expand her base, I don't know, a couple of years after Donald Trump, is that such a crazy ask? Like terrible people get elected to national or federal positions these days. Yeah. Could be a senator, maybe. Yeah. Well, for sure. What my thought on that was, let's be like we all know what she's doing here.

Buddying up to Kevin McCarthy, trying to be more establishment, trying to give press interviews because she wants to run for Senate in Georgia. And she knows that to win in Georgia, which is now a pretty purple state, you have to be more moderate than she is because some right-wing really extreme candidates have gone down statewide in Georgia. Telling people that, or at least floating that during the interview might have been useful for listeners to let people understand the strategy behind why she's doing this shit. The right always says that there is a liberal media bias. And I think sometimes it's just that liberal media treats Democrats as protagonists and Republicans as antagonists. And this is like a good example of that, where like Democratic politicians get normal questions

that are kind of hard that explore their actual motivations and agency and political realities. And then Marjorie Taylor Greene gets treated like a new kind of ape we've just discovered, like seen coming through the fucking mist. What makes her tick? What kind of food does she eat? It's unbelievable. Oh, she has a family structure. It seems to be matriarchal.

So what is going on? Some good CrossFit shots. All right, let's rank this thing. Yeah, Politico rating, please. In your face style. Two for me. Tommy's endorsing marjorie taylor i think she's yeah tommy call me a time to call me a bedwetter in the meeting this morning when i brought this interview up so i'm pretty offended i did i don't know that i used those i won't give it a full

playbook because i did not see the whole thing originally i watched the i saw the twitter commentary and then um you know my and then my straight shooter friend Tom brought up that maybe it was a little over-torqued. And I will say, maybe just a tiny bit, but it was still pretty bad. So I'm going to give it 3.5. I'm not going to give it a 4. 3.5? Okay. I was going to say 3.

I'm going to say 3. Okay. I think it was pretty bad. Cool. Well, we'll see if we can get you up to 4 with one of these next two. You guys know this one's coming. You asked for it. Let's go to the New York Times. It's a in shame, as many facing the possibility of prison might, he frames it as just another Trumpian drama in a life filled with them, the latest reality show cliffhanger.

Guys, what do we think? Yeah, that's painfully stupid. It's a Peter Baker classic. Getting indicted is bad. It just is. It doesn't matter if you raise money, you don't want to be indicted. Remember when there was that guy, Baghdad Bob, who had said, you know, Saddam is winning, Saddam is bad. It just is. It doesn't matter if you raise money. You don't want to be indicted. Remember when there was that guy

Baghdad Bob who had said, you know, Saddam is winning, Saddam is winning. I think all these people, we should call them the Baghdad blob. That's my name from them. That's pretty good. This is one of the stupidest fucking articles I've ever read in the history of the New York Times. Truly. And you've read a pretty stupid part,

but it's stupid all the way down. There's an argument about how this is going to distract us from the war effort in Ukraine. He later complies Biden to fucking Gerald Ford based on the fact that I guess they were both president. It is truly it's inane. It is obtuse. It is everything wrong with the kind of cover. Like it is all the people that spend too much time focusing on the times. We try not to do it.

But my God, put this in a time capsule. What a piece of shit. The article. focusing on the times we try not to do it but my god put this in a time capsule what a piece of shit the article it does read like a parody of like like like the the doug j balloon the new york times pitch bot guy just like wrote the whole thing i mean it's very you almost think that peter baker knows what's going on and just wanted to troll everyone yeah that's sort of what i thought because it is pretty full play pretty Full playbook Three and a half again What are you talking about What are you talking about

This is why we do this This is why we're here This is in the dictionary for full playbook Are you kidding me What gets four stars I don't know we'll see maybe the third one I don't know what the third one is Peter Baker walking'll get peter baker walking behind kamala harris with a shame bell what do you need i think olivia and haley let's go ahead and keep this one for pundi's potential at the

end of the year i think this one is staying power solid i do think having and i i just i i disagree over the marjorie taylor green one having like really gone through the transcript that like it was really it was pretty bad yeah i can't i thought you just said you didn't watch it you watched the clip no no i read all the transcript okay i can't in good faith give peter you're pretty inconsistent today i can't in good faith give peter baker and that piece which was like a fluffy silly stupid piece like a higher rating than the damage that leslie stall did with that fucking interview with marjorie taylor green who is fucking nuts and has said nutty nutty things and was not challenged okay all right

there you go man's got his reasons all right well we'll see this last one i don't know that the way hold on a second i don't know that we're here to say which article did the most damage she did challenge her on a bunch of factual things. They had it up on the screen. Anyway, agree to disagree. Let's just agree that you're wrong. Yeah, we'll agree that he's wrong. We'll agree that John's wrong. All right, well, we'll see this last one.

It's not political. Well, it is political. It was sent in by PSA fan Crystal at the last minute. So thank you for giving me this one right before we recorded. It's from the Miami Herald. It's about Taylor Swift and it's titled Taylor Swift is a big liberal,

but she clearly loves capitalism too. Here's an excerpt. Stick with me. Democrats are socially more liberal and Swift is drawn to these values like many in the entertainment industry. Socialist ideas sound good on paper, all that sharing and equality, but in reality, Swift's cleaning up in a business that thrives on the advantages of the free market,

which most conservatives not only support but try to advance when possible by lowering taxes and supporting deregulation. Swift is a liberal in the sheets and a conservative in the streets. She mixed those up. As another liberal who also loves capitalism, I think that's a stupid take. Yeah, this person. Hey, guess what? Not a socialist.

Was this a high school debate tournament? I want heavy government intervention in the markets, regulated, good social safety net. But yeah, I think capitalism's good. She's making a ton of money. That is true. But I don't recall her signing up. Hope she pays a super high tax rate. Would like to make it higher.

Would like to make sure there's a hefty estate tax. Other than that, make your money. All right. You guys want to disagree? No, no. No, our takes are good i'm like yours today we're we're all over this um i just trying to understand like what was that what you didn't like that take of mine no i like that one uh i'm wondering i'm trying to think if i can say something and i don't think i can well just sort of like you know on one hand, she's attracted to capitalism. On the other hand, she's attracted to kind of socially liberal policies.

She's kind of attracted to a broad spectrum. And sometimes she's not comfortable talking about being attracted to a broader spectrum. Then she's kind of publicly acknowledged. See what I'm saying? Oh, you're back in the old conspiracy from many years ago. That's a terrible take. I don't know what you're talking about. It was nice knowing you.

No, it would have been a good take in, I think, 2019. That was when it was a... Oh, you don't think this is fucking white? This is a white hot issue? Olivia does. A lot of people were talking about it in 2019. Four years ago? Three years ago.

That was a bad piece. I've never done two full playbooks in the same show, but... I don't think that's good. I don't think, honestly, I think that it's too stupid. Is it too stupid to done two full playbooks in the same show but i don't think that's good i don't think honestly i think that it's too stupid that's why i'm giving it a two because i think part of the trigger is yeah you have to really kind of you're really trying to be stupid that's right that's my thing of take appreciator i think it's one i'm giving it a one i'll go to three it's a little bit like oh you believe in a you believe in social democracy and yet you participate in a little bit like oh you believe in a you believe in social democracy and yet you participate in society yeah i don't i don't get what it was trying i don't get what the take was trying to

do even after hearing it that's my problem like i don't get what the purpose of it was it was the meme that love it referenced there basically yeah yeah great round to take appreciator taylor swift more politicos than marjorie tay Greene on 60 Minutes, but okay. Yeah, I know. Elijah's with me. I can tell. Alright, that's it. That's our show for today. Thank you to Andrew Weissman for joining. Thanks, Elijah, for the takes, and we'll

talk to you soon. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producers are Haley Muse and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Sandy Gerard, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support.

And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montuth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash podsaveamerica.