Pod Save America - "Trump's Tamper Tantrum."

Episode Date: July 14, 2022

Donald Trump tries to cover up incriminating January 6th testimony with some light witness tampering, Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto joins to talk about the fight for abortion access and her very tight midterm race, and Jon and Dan debate the debate over whether Joe Biden should run for re-election in 2024. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Donald Trump tries to cover up incriminating January 6th testimony with some light witness tampering. Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto joins to talk about the fight for abortion access and her very tight midterm race. And we debate the debate over whether Joe Biden should run for re-election in 2024. But first, check out this week's Pod Save the World, where Tommy and Ben chat with our old White House friend Danny Russell, now Vice President of International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, about the shocking assassination of

Japan's former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And if you haven't yet, make sure to listen to their excellent special episode about Boris Johnson's Brexit. Also, if you'd like to help register millions of women voters across the country and stay caffeinated all the way through to the end of our podcasts, we've got you covered. Crooked Coffee is now live on crooked.com slash coffee. It tastes great. We got it in medium and dark roast. For those of you who can tell the difference, that's not me.

The original copy said, I'm a pour-over kind of guy, and it tastes good for that. I'm like, you guys think I'm a pour-over kind of guy? What about me has said pour-over? I mean, literally everything. Everything about you. I've been drinking fucking Dunkin' Donuts since I was five. Literally everything. Everything about you. What are you talking about?

I've been drinking fucking Dunkin' Donuts since I was five. That is the exception, not the rule, my LA friend. Anyway, well, now my tastes are more refined, so I like cricket coffee. Anyway, most importantly, we're donating a portion of the proceeds from all Cricket Coffee orders to Register Her, which is an organization that's helping millions of women across the country vote it's a great cause go to crooked.com slash coffee to get your crooked coffee today all right let's get to the news the january 6th committee held another banger of a hearing this week uh the focus was on the connection between Donald Trump's attempted coup and the violent extremist groups who coordinated the attack on the Capitol.

I want to cover four key moments, starting with a stunning description of a December 18th White House meeting by Liz Cheney and Jamie Raskin that for the first time featured testimony from former White House counsel Patsy Bologna. I love it. Also, Patsy Bologna and more testimony from his colleague, Eric Hirschman. Take a listen. The strategy is to blame people his advisors called, quote, the crazies for what Donald Trump did. This, of course, is nonsense. President Trump is a 76 year old man. He is not an impressionable child. On Friday December 18th his team of outside advisors paid him a surprise visit in the White House that would

quickly become the stuff of legend. The meeting has been called unhinged, not normal in the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency. I walked in. I saw General Flynn. I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. I was not happy to see the people in the Oval Office. Explain why. Well, again, I don't think they were providing... Well, first of all, the overstocked person, I've never met this guy. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him, and I said, who are you?

I was asking, like, are you claiming the Democrats were working with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans, and whomever else? uh general flynn took out a diagram that supposedly showed i pdss all over the world and i speed who was who was communicating with whom via the machines and some comment about like nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet i just i i mean it's fucking terrifying but it is also very funny um before we get into the uh what was called the the craziest meeting of the entire trump presidency which is a high fucking bar who do you think liz cheney's opening message was for there can only be one answer that question john the person her dad shot in the face it's like would she just say the name eric garland like it is so it's so donald trump is a 76 year old man not an impressionable child i have to say you can be both yeah he is yes he is both um so that was her message let's talk about the

six-hour meeting which apparently involved rudy giiani, Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, the Overstock.com CEO. I'm not even going to ever say his name. He's just going to be the Overstock CEO from now on out, like he was in the testimony. And they were all screaming at a bunch of White House staff for six hours because they wouldn't let them help Trump stage a coup or propagate theories like you can control votes from your nest. Your nest thermostat also controls votes. That's what we got from General Flynn. We should also just point out, as Tommy always does in his very world away, which is Hugo

Schaaf has died in 2013. So it's like... is there's a good note. It's a good note to keep in mind when thinking about the ghost of Hugo Chavez using Nest thermostats to help control the 2020 election. All right. Why do you think the committee focused on this shit show? Well, first, I think they feel like they have a patriotic duty to remind every person at every opportunity that Donald Trump is a fucking dangerous idiot surrounded by some of the dumbest,

worst people in America who we take seriously. And so that is like a public service. They should do that every day. We should all take that upon ourselves to remind everyone of that so we don't forget it. I think the presence of the overstock.com guy is just so goddamn funny. It's like hard to get over because it's like it's basically like you and Lovett were writing a White House Correspondents Center joke about that meeting. Like the punchline would be the overstock.com guy. Like you would have made that up, but it's like too good to be true. Yeah, there's no joke.

Yeah. But there is a serious reason for doing this, which is one, it is another chance for the committee to point out that Donald Trump was advised that there was no evidence that the election was stolen, that he had no legal authority to do the things that he was pushing, and he did them anyway, including, in his own mind, appoint Sidney Powell, the craziest of all the attorneys, a quote-unquote special counsel, i.e. the title that Robert Mueller had when investigating Donald Trump to investigate the election fraud that he had just been told

by several people over and over again at apparently very high decibels, did not exist. He knew it was a lie. It was also premeditated. The whole thing, Motherones got a clip of steve bannon in october of 2020 saying quote our strategy is for trump to claim victory even if he hasn't won so the whole thing about voter fraud they knew it was false from the beginning trump knew the staff knew and then this is a meeting where all the people he employs all the white house staff are telling him there's no voter fraud that he lost and because these outside wackos are telling him there's no voter fraud and that he lost. And because these outside wackos are telling him otherwise, he decides to plan the coup anyway. He literally sent the tweet about be there.

January 6th will be wild at the end of the six hour meeting after the whole meeting. I also think, too, you know, your point about being a public service, about how crazy these people are. We should also understand that if Donald Trump wins again, Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, the Overstock.com guy, they're not just outside advisors. They're running the government in the second term because all these other people are out. It's all Jeff Clarks going forward. It's all Jeff Clarks. It's all people who are going to do the next coup, like, just very happily. So those are the top advisors running the country.

Fingers on the nuclear weapons for the next four years. Donald Trump wins again. That's how dangerous it is. The timing of this meeting is also important because it takes place immediately after the states certify the elections and vote on their electors, which means that Donald Trump's legal recourses to contest an election, as every candidate has a right to do, are now exhausted. And the only thing left is illegal insurrection. And this begins the planning of that 24 hours later. Well, so then the second moment of note in the hearing was when we learned that the insurrectionist march to the Capitol was planned in advance by Donald Trump himself. Here's committee member Stephanie Murphy reading a draft tweet that Trump saw but ultimately didn't

send. The committee has obtained this draft, updated, undated tweet from the National Archives. It includes a stamp stating, President has seen. The draft tweet reads, I will be making a big speech at 10 a.m. on January 6th at the Ellipse, south of the White House. Please arrive early. Massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the steal. I have to say, please arrive early. Very concerned with timing, which is interesting. The committee also showed multiple texts from Stop the Steal rally organizers that said they'd heard Trump would call on them to march to the Capitol, including one from former Trump aide Katrina Pearson that said, quote, POTUS expectations are to have something intimate at

the Ellipse and call on everyone to march to the Capitol. Just something intimate at the ellipse, a quiet, cozy overthrow of the U.S. government, right? Were there going to be picnic baskets, wine, brie? Is this Shakespeare in the park or is it an instruction? What is that? Sharpened flagpoles, the whole thing, the whole thing. polls, the whole thing, the whole thing. No, I think this was, look, it seems fairly important here to prove that Trump had planned the march the whole time, right? Yeah, absolutely. They have tried to play this as a spontaneous demonstration, something that happened,

that got out of control. That has been the Republican message. It's a protest to get out of control. And what is very clear here is that there was a plan put in place in, and we'll talk about this in a second, in coordination with and including right-wing militant groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys to try to stop the certification of an electoral college by force. Donald Trump was a part of that. He was involved in planning it. He signaled his intention to participate in it. And he wanted to do all those things, even though we know from Pat Cipollone and Cassidy Hutchinson that he had been told on multiple occasions that marching to the Capitol would bring him open to criminal charges. All the crimes in the book, or whatever the original quote was from the Hutchinson testimony. And so

this is once again proving that it's not spontaneous, it's not an accident, and Donald Trump was intimately involved in it. And he didn't just ignore legal advice that doing that could be a crime. He just opposed that advice actively because we know Stephanie Murphy later said a single scripted reference in the speech to Mike Pence became eight. That was in reference to Trump wanting Mike Pence to overturn the election, even though he was told that's illegal and wanting mike pence to overturn the election even though he was told that's illegal and that mike pence can't overturn the election and then she said a single scripted reference to rally goers marching to the capitol became four with trump ad-libbing that he'd be joining uh former white house speechwriter uh c plus anemonic fascist

stephen miller we saw him testify that was fun. He testified that the White House lawyers wanted the lines about Pence out of the speech altogether. Miller did what they said and then was ordered to reinsert the lines by Donald Trump himself. Again, I've been through a lot of tough editing processes on speeches. That sounds like a tough one. That sounds like a, that's a tough one. Hey, I know the lawyers want the crimes out of the speech. The president wants the crimes back in the speech. Also, ad libs can often be the bane of a speechwriter's existence. You spend all this time working on the speech. President gets up there, gets a little loose, just takes a number of crimes, multiplies it by eight in the speech.

It's like, oh, I had the speech just right. And then the president ad-libs a violent insurrection. Fuck. Well, I mean, in fairness, they only included one reference to the violent insurrection. And then he- Right, yeah, I know. He really pumped that part up.

The third important moment in the hearing was about what happened as a result of the now infamous tweet that Trump did ultimately send big protest in DC on January 6th, be there, will be wild. moment in the hearing was about what happened as a result of the now infamous tweet that Trump did ultimately send big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild. Jamie Raskin read a few messages posted on pro-Trump extremist forums in the days that followed. And then the committee heard testimony from Jason Van Tatenhove, a former national spokesman for the Oath Keepers, and Stephen Ayers, a Trump supporter from Ohio who was convicted of storming the Capitol. Here's a clip.

Some of the online rhetoric turned openly homicidal and white nationalist, such as, why don't we just kill them, every last Democrat, down to the last man, woman, and child? And it's time for the day of the rope. White revolution is the only solution. I think we've gotten exceedingly lucky that more bloodshed did not happen because the potential has been there from the start. And we got very lucky that the loss of life was, and as tragic as it is, that we saw on January 6th, the potential was so much more. So why did you decide to march to the Capitol?

Well, basically, you know, the president, you know, got everybody riled up, told everybody head on down. So we basically were just following what he said. For me, I felt like I had, you know, like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time. Biggest thing for me is take the blinders off, make sure you step back and see what's going on before it's too late. How compelling was that testimony, do you think? Do you think it added to Trump's legal jeopardy? Or do you think it just sort of added to the political case against him? I think it added to the moral judgment of him, of Trump as someone who is responsible for what happened morally, historically. He told the crowd to be there.

The crowd went there because he said that. He told the crowd to get – he riled the crowd up. They got riled up because he riled them up. And then they marched to the Capitol because he told them to. And what is clear from this testimony I think is most important and potentially most important legally is it is clear that if at any point Trump had told them to stop and go home, they would have done it. And if Trump had been willing to do that, lives would have

been spared. I mean, it was fascinating to listen to that testimony too. You know, Stephen Ayers was saying, I was pretty hardcore into the social media same same come on come on offline but i i do think it was um it was indicative of the power and influence wielded that that not only donald trump wields but that republican leaders wield

that right-wing media pundits wield, right? Like they have tremendous influence on their followers. If they had simply, like you said, if they had simply told the truth and said that Joe Biden won, a truth that we know they knew from their text messages with each other, whether it was Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram or Donald Trump's advisors or Donald Trump himself, if they had simply told that truth, there would have been no violence in the Capitol. There would have been no insurrection and people would still be alive today. And more importantly, going forward, if they continue to tell these lies about Democrats, about democracy, there will be more violence and more people will die.

They have the power to prevent this kind of violence in the future. And that's why, like, MAGA Republicans shouldn't be in office anywhere. And we should defeat every last one. And it's not just about Donald Trump running again and potentially winning. It's about every single one of these MAGA Republicans who went along with this and knew that Joe Biden won and knew that there could be the potential for violence and knew that these extremist groups were coming and said nothing, even though they knew the truth. That testimony obviously made me mad at Donald Trump, although I'm not sure. There's no there's no I'm not capable of more rage at Donald Trump. He is right.

Like he is. I'm tapped out there. Yeah, we have we've reached the top of the meter. But it did make me so fucking angry at other Republicans and Fox News personalities. Because if someone, anyone was willing to stand up and just speak the truth, someone with some credibility in that party had done that. And that I put, I include George W. Bush. I include Mitch McConnell. I include Kevin McCarthy.

Anyone of them that just stood up and said, Joe Biden is president of the United States. He won the election. It would have dramatically reduced the danger that happened on January 6th. But they were so busy trying to win two Georgia seats they were going to fucking lose anyway that they all kept their traps shut. And this is what happened. So yes, Donald Trump is absolutely 100% responsible for what happened there. He's responsible for people being there. He's responsible for people storming the Capitol. He's responsible for what happened there. He's responsible for people being there.

He's responsible for people storming the Capitol. He's responsible for what happened at the Capitol. But every single Republican who wanted to, quote unquote, humor Donald Trump for a few months is absolutely just as responsible as Donald Trump, in my opinion. And just one more anecdote about why this threat still very much exists today. very much exists today. Brad Parscale, who's Trump's campaign manager for a time in 2020, they showed texts between him and Katrina Pearson. And Parscale says, basically to Pearson, he says, Trump's rhetoric killed someone, killed someone. And she writes back, it wasn't the rhetoric. And he said, yes, it was Katrina. Yes, it was. He is now saying, oh yeah, I'm on board with Trump 2024 again. I'll be back. So there was this moment in time where people like Pascal

and McConnell and McCarthy were all telling everyone, and Lindsey Graham, I'm done. I'm out. Donald Trump's a threat. The violence is too much. No more. We're all done with Donald Trump. And now they're all back on the fucking bandwagon for 2024. And that's why none of them should hold power. Not a single fucking one of them. All right.

Per usual, there was one last twist from Liz Cheney that was such a final twist that I thought the hearing was already over and I actually missed it. Me too. It's like the after the credit scenes in all the Marvel movies. I always leave. Anyway, here it is. And one more item. After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness

in our investigation. A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us. And this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice. Talk about one of the most buried leads of all time.

Liz Cheney just dropping that at the end. And one more item. time. Liz Cheney just dropping that at the end. And one more item. The former president of the United States who was the subject of these hearings, we just caught him witness tampering, by the way. Tune in next week.

So CNN also reported Wednesday night that the person that Trump called was a White House support staffer who could corroborate Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony and someone that Trump never usually talks to. Is Trump going to get in trouble for witness tampering or witness intimidation? Or is that just cool now?

Is Merrick just fine with that too? I'm getting steadily angrier at Merrick Garland. I went from, I just remember being on stage at one of our live shows, talking to Melissa Murray about this and being like, I'm trying to put myself in Garland's shoes. And what a big decision this is. And every time I hear, see a new hearing and a new piece of evidence drops, I'm just like, what the fuck are you doing, man? I think one thing we've really learned in the seven or so years since we were in the White House is that a lot of shit that we thought wasn't okay turns out totally fine. Hatch Act, more of sort of a blinking yellow light than a rule.

More of a guideline. Yeah, witness tampering. It's really in the eye of the beholder. I mean, this is pretty – we don't know who this person was. The description that you pointed out suggests it's not someone who was hired by Trump as a political staffer in the White House. It could be a valet. It could be an usher. It could be someone who works in the facilities of the White House, takes care of the grounds.

It could be any one of those things. And the fact that Trump called them is very notable. Trump could probably pawn off just checking in with Brad Parscale or someone else as part of the daily course of business. But if he is calling someone who worked on the service side of the White House who he doesn't normally speak to, that's pretty notable. And that person must know a lot of stuff that Trump is pretty concerned about. Yeah, look, and all the legal folks say that witness tampering charges aren't like it's not the most common charge. They're not yet. There's sort of hard

to prove, but like at the very least, testimony from this witness that Trump directly called them and presumably said something thuggish to them about their testimony seems like at the very least enough to open an investigation into witness tampering, considering that this is an official proceeding and one of the subjects of the official proceeding decided to call one of the witnesses that he doesn't usually talk to and, I don't know, send a signal. And we have that along with the meadows text to cassidy hudgenson that said donald trump reads all the transcripts which is a signal anyway uh before we move on to the next segment what's your latest feeling on how effective these hearings have been on persuading both the ponderous judge who runs doj and the public at large no idea on the ponderous judge who runs DOJ and the public at large. No idea on the ponderous judge.

No one does. We can't get in his head, unfortunately. All we know is anonymously sourced Department of Justice stories in the New York Times, which suggests that the evidence that has been uncovered has been influential to them. It's also alarming that it's been new to them. That's concerning. But so maybe it's having an effect. Maybe it's been new to them. That's concerning. But so maybe it's having an effect, maybe it's not. We won't know until one day smoke comes out of the top of the Department of Justice

and we find out what happens there. In terms of the public, I think they have done a tremendous job at getting the nation's attention. Even the daytime hearings are doing incredibly well in terms of viewers. They're getting a lot of people to tune in. The nighttime hearing, the very first one, the primetime one, got 20 million viewers. Some of these daytime ones have done incredibly well on par with some NBA finals games. That's incredibly impressive for a congressional hearing. I think the way they've presented it is very good.

We see there's real evidence in, there's real, I think there are indications in the polling that what they're doing matters. Our friends at Navigator did a poll where they looked at – they read to the respondents a series of revelations from the hearing. And all of – whether witness tampering, taking the metal detectors down, all the sort of big blockbuster things we've talked about on this podcast. And every single one of those had more than two-thirds of Americans who were concerned by them and more than 40% of Republicans. And you still have, you know,

you have two in 10 Republicans who think that Donald Trump should be charged with a crime. That's kind of a big deal in my opinion. We need to get one particular person to think Donald Trump should be charged with a crime, but we'll get to that. But the other thing that I think is, remains alarming is that we have no dent has been made at any point in the 7 in 10 Republicans who believe Donald Trump is a legitimate winner of the election. And that is a threat to democracy that goes beat whether Donald Trump runs or not. It creates a context and permission structure for a lot of very, very dangerous things, from voter suppression to election theft to justifying violence at the

transition of power in 2025. And that's what happens. Yeah, I do want to bring up the New York Times poll on all this, since we're going to talk about it in relation to Biden later in the show. You know, New York Times Sienna poll, A-plus poll, high quality poll came out with, they had a whole bunch of numbers this week. and they talked about Trump in one of the stories in January 6th. Only 39% of voters think he was just exercising his right to contest the election. 55% think his actions threatened American democracy itself. That includes 56% of independents and 20% of Republicans. Obviously, you'd want that number to be higher. But when then they asked, who would you vote for in 2024? 49% of Republicans say they would vote for him in a primary in 2024,

25% for DeSantis. And then Trump trails Biden 41, 44%, even though Biden has a 33% approval rating. And then when you go into the numbers inside the Republican Party, 64 percent of Republicans under 35 and 65 percent with a college degree would vote against Trump. So you do see some whether it's movement or some significant sector of the Republican Party that does not want Donald Trump again, whether or not they think he was the legitimate winner in 2020. he was the legitimate winner in 2020, you know, what's probably most urgent is making sure that he doesn't get another, get the nomination again. So some possible good news on that. Yeah. What worries me about that is that they want someone else, not because Donald Trump tried a coup, but because Donald Trump failed a coup.

Right. Which I'm, exactly. So, all right. When we come back, Dan's interview with Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. We actually caught up with her three weeks ago at the steps of the Supreme Court immediately after the Dobbs decision came down. Take a listen to that interview and then Dan will be back with his interview with her right after the break. Tomorrow, our daughters will wake up with less rights than our mothers had for the last 50 years. And really, government officials should not be making this decision for

women. This is a woman's right to make this decision around her reproductive freedom, health care, and rights in this country. And it really requires us all to come out now and stand up and really fight for those rights. Joining us now to discuss the response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the upcoming midterm elections, and so much more is Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. Welcome to the pod. Dan, I am so pleased to join you. Thank you. Earlier today, you were on the floor of the Senate and you were trying to pass your Freedom to Travel Act, a piece of legislation you introduced after the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court.

Can you tell us about that bill and what happened? I will. It is actually the Freedom to Travel for Healthcare Act. Because of the repeal of Roe versus Wade, we want to make sure we can protect women who travel to my state. My state is a pro-choice state that travel for their healthcare needs and see a provider. We want to make sure we're protecting women, healthcare providers, and employers who want to help women travel to states where they can seek

their reproductive services and medical care. Why? Because right now we're seeing across the country too many state legislators that are looking to introduce legislation to actually prosecute women for crossing state lines to states like mine, which is a pro-choice state and proud of it. They're also looking to prosecute or go after employers who want to help women travel and also go after the providers. But the worst part about, you know, that's bad enough, right, Dan? But here's the other thing that's happened. Just because they're even talking about passing this legislation, it's having a chilling effect in my state on my health care providers because they're concerned that some of these states,

if they pass this legislation, some of these prosecutors, these crazy radical prosecutors and legislators will cross state lines and start going after and prosecuting my providers for doing something legally they have every right to do in my state. So this legislation actually protects them and gives them the right to provide those services in the states like mine, where we are a pro-choice state. And if anybody tries to infringe upon that right, it gives the attorney general of the country the ability to enforce the law to protect women and providers and employers across the country. country, the ability to enforce the law to protect women and providers and employers across the country. So the Republicans blocked passage of your bill this morning, I guess, shocking on the

substance, unsurprising, I guess, on the politics of these people or what they seem to stand for. But where do we go from here? What are the next steps to try to get this done? Yeah, let me say a couple things, because it was shocking. You would think for so many times I hear my Republican colleagues say they support states' rights, right? The Roe versus Wade decision is about states' rights and returning it to the states. But when I introduce legislation

protecting states' rights, like my state to provide the services, they're opposed to it. So it's very convenient, obviously, for them to make these arguments when it benefits them. And that's constantly what I have seen. That's why we need this legislation. But more importantly, that's why we all, there's so many across the country, including my state, that care about this. I was

just in Las Vegas during the recess. I was in Northern Nevada and did a press conference with some Republican women in my state who are outraged by the repeal of Roe versus Wade. Because you've got to remember, I'm coming from a state in Nevada. In the 90s, we actually codified Roe versus Wade and then put it on a referendum to further protect it. And a majority of Nevadans voted to support it, and they still do. So right now, our goal is, listen, we've got to start electing pro-choice candidates. We've got to, elections matter. I'm working to not only protect my state, but my state legislature, but everybody across the country

from a federal abortion ban. There's no doubt in my mind, I have my colleagues right now, some of my Republican colleagues who are already drafting a federal abortion ban that they want to pass because they think they're going to be able to flip the Senate. Mitch McConnell's already said he would support it. And that would come in and preempt my state law. And I will tell you,

I'm running against somebody who believes that the Roe versus Wade decision was a joke, that it was a repeal of it was a historic victory for this country and he's disappointed that Nevada's a pro-choice state. So if he were to win this election in Nevada there's no doubt he would be that vote to overturn, to continue to overturn the rights in the state of Nevada but push forward a federal abortion ban. So they're not stopping. So we have to be on guard, we have to not only figure out who these people are that are running for office and make sure we don't vote them into office, and then do everything we can to protect women's rights across the country when it comes to reproductive freedoms. As you point out, your opponent has been a, you know, as you said, he called Roe v. Wade a joke. He has attacked your state for being pro-choice. He has tried to hide some of his previous positions and rhetoric on his opposition to Roe v. Wade and abortion rights.

How do you run on this issue? How do you make it a centerpiece of your campaign in a political environment where inflation, gas prices, recession, all of that is happening? How do you center or focus people's attention on what the stakes are for people's personal freedom in your state? Yeah, well, here's what I do know. Listen, I'm third generation of that and very proud of it. I do know this for Nevadans and the people I talk to, the issues that matter to them are those kitchen table issues, right? It is food on the table, being able to get a good job, access to

healthcare and be able to afford your health care. But it also is, for many, the opportunity to seek that health care, even when it comes to your reproductive rights. And so it's a combination of things that people care about that will pull them out. It is about how they're feeling at the time and what we're working to do to lower health care costs. I think we should have a prescription drug negotiation. I voted to support it already in the Senate. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell blocked it. But we still have a chance to get that done.

That will help us lower costs for families, capping the cost of insulin. Same thing. We can get it done, lower costs for families, and we can still fight to protect women's reproductive freedoms across the country. So, Dan, I just think it's a combination of things that people care about that will pull them out to vote. And I think that is important because this day and age, this is the first time really that I've seen the Supreme Court roll back a fundamental right of so many people, particularly women across the country. And, you know, when I saw that draft opinion come down,

no doubt in my mind, it would galvanize this country and so many women and men in this country. And I saw it in Nevada. I was getting emails and letters. And when I got home, people were talking to me about it and they were outraged. So it has, it has had an impact on people recognizing what's at stake here. And if we don't elect individuals who are going to stand up and protect our rights, then they're going to continue to be eroded. My opponent will be part of that process, as you well know. Listen, he's part of the big lie in the state of Nevada. My gosh, he's gone around the state of Nevada claiming the election was stolen from Donald Trump.

He chaired Trump's campaign. And that couldn't be further from his truth. And it was proven false by a Republican secretary of state. But so they, so what they did to her, they censured her. So, I mean, it's just, it's crazy. And there's too many radicals like my opponent who are out there and we've got to stand guard. And that clues showing up in election time and making sure they do not get elected. There have been reports that congressional Democrats, including some Senate Democrats, are interested in an idea to bring forward, as you just did with your bill, a series of measures that would try to enshrine the freedoms that we now believe are at risk from the Supreme Court,

Republican legislatures around the country, right to access to contraception, marriage equality, the right to privacy itself. And so they would sort of bring those up, hold votes on them and see if the Republicans would block them or let them go through. Is that an idea you think has merit you'd be interested in? Yeah, well, there's a couple of things I do know, just being in my home state, in a state that wants to make sure we continue to be able to provide services to women around the reproductive freedom. And what I am learning, because talk to my doctors, some of these crazy state laws and radical laws are having a chilling effect on

providing those services. I'm also learning, and we already know it in Texas, look at Texas passed legislation that put a bounty on women, right? It basically said, if your neighbor thinks that you're getting an abortion or seeking that type of a service for your health care and your rights, your neighbor can get $10,000 for calling you out. And so we have seen other that wants to do the same thing and give folks in that state the ability to go after employers who want to help women across state lines to get the essential services they need around their health care. So there are things that we have to look at that are happening to further protect women. One of those, though, and you'll appreciate this, Dan, is data privacy. You're walking around with your cell phone. It's collecting the data, your location, where you are, where you go. Not only the HIPAA protections that are in place, but making sure that your location, when you're going to a healthcare provider and that is being tracked by your phone,

somebody in a state that wants to go after you should not be able to be able to access that information or prosecutors should be able to access that information or prosecutors should be able to access that information to be able to prosecute you. So I do think that a federal level, we have to continue to be aware of that possibility and fight to pass legislation to support it. To me, part of this is awareness. Part of this is by bringing that attention, that awareness publicly in a forum, by forcing our colleagues to vote, we're also letting the American public know what is going on and why it's essential we all have to be in this fight together, whether it's at the federal level or in our state houses or at the local level. There is a role for all of us to play, but we have to understand the ramifications of what has happened with this recent Supreme Court decision that has overturned Roe versus Wade. In the absence of federal data

privacy legislation, would you advise people to stop using the apps that track your menstrual cycle or location or any of those sorts of things to be much more cautious in this period we're in? Well, I think part of it is we have to understand there's a role for our state legislatures to play. There's a role for our governors to play. I mean, I know my governor has already issued a proclamation saying he was going to protect our service providers, protect women, protect employers who want to help women coming to our state.

And I think there is also a role for our legislators, like my legislature, who would pass a state law that would protect women's privacy. So when I say we are all in this together, it's not just waiting for us at a federal level to pass something or move forward. We've got to focus on our state houses and our constitutional offices and our governor's races, because there's a role that we all can play to protect women across the country. I almost hesitate to ask this question because I feel like I've been able to ask it in basically every interview of a congressional Democrat for two years now. But there are reports that Senator Manchin may be nearing a deal on some sort of climate legislation would include,

as we understand it, some climate funding, potentially negotiated decision on prescription drugs paid for in some way, shape, or form by raising taxes on corporations. The wealthy may be simply repealing the Trump tax cuts. That has led to some excitement from some folks, but also there's a story in Politico today about trepidation from some congressional Democrats about raising taxes in election year. You're in a very close race in a very closely divided state. Is that something that you're worried about in your race, the possibility of raising taxes in election year. You're in a very close race in a very closely divided state. Is that something that you're worried about in your race, the possibility of

raising taxes on corporations to pay for climate funding and other stuff? Well, a couple of things. Let me just say, part of this reconciliation to me is important for us to lower costs for families. And particularly those families making less than $400,000 in my state, I know, are challenged. That's why the negotiation around healthcare costs and prescription drug negotiation, capping insulin is important and should be a part of this. I also think that the climate provisions are essential, as well as helping families. Listen, in my state, we have really led with a clean energy economy. And we've seen the benefits of solar and wind and geothermal, all of that on the jobs it creates.

And the impact is positive impact it's had in our economy, let alone. Listen, you want to come to Nevada and know what it's like to have a whole ecosystem around lithium ion batteries from the extraction to the processing to the manufacturing of the battery to the recycling of the battery come to Nevada. And you know, and I'm also in a state if you are driving electric vehicle, and you happen to stop in Lovelock, Nevada, where most people don't even know where it is. But if you're on Interstate 80, and you stop and need to charge your vehicle, we've got a charging station for you. So there's benefits to moving and leaning into addressing the climate crisis through a clean energy economy. And we see it in Nevada.

So I do support that. I also know this. There is a way to actually ensure we're lowering costs and not adding to the inflationary measures by doing the pay force. And at the end of the day, for me, I can guarantee you a billionaire can afford to absolutely be a part of our clean energy economy by paying a little bit more. And to me, it's about lowering those costs for families that are making $400,000 or less, because they're the ones that are really struggling in my state that I see it. And we can balance this out. It is okay,

by the way, for billionaires to pay something. Zero is not enough. Yes. Right? So they should be paying something to contribute to what we know long-term will have a positive impact on our economy, on jobs, and just this country as well. It will position us to be leaders economically around the world and be able to compete with these other countries as well. Last question for you, Senator, before I let you get back to your very busy day. The New York Times had a recent story about the parallels between your election in 2022 and the one that the late, great Senator Reid had in 2010 when he was able to win,

and you're in a closely divided state with a terrible political environment. Are there any lessons you take from that lesson or from Senator Reid as you were thinking about this election? Yes. Nevada is a purple state. The elections are always challenging and always close, so you can never take anything for granted. I'm third generation. I have run for office before statewide twice as attorney general. I know that at the end of the

day in Nevada, it is just about showing up, talking to voters, asking for their vote, listening to them and making sure you're following up and doing things that benefit our state. So let me just say this, anybody who wants to engage and help me in this race, please, please, we welcome you, whether you want to contribute or come in and knock on doors, because we have a strong, coordinated campaign where we can get out the vote and knock on doors. Reach out, CatherineCortezMasto.com. Please, we'll make sure we put you to work. But at the end of the day, you just can't take it for granted. And you just got to show up and talk to people about the importance of what's at stake and listen to them and hear what matters to them most. This is such an important race. We need to

keep people like you in the Senate. And if you want to help, you can donate to our Senate-funded votesaveamerica.com slash Senate. Senator, thank you so much for your time. Dan, thank you. It's great to talk with you. Okay, before we go, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge a debate that has set the internet and cable ablaze over the last few weeks. And that is the debate about whether Joe Biden should run for a second term in 2024. There have been endless stories about this over the last few weeks, but I wasn't going to bring it up until two things happened. One, the high quality and very popular New York Times-Siena College poll found that only 26% of Democratic voters believe that Biden should run again. A poll where he also has a 33% approval rating among all voters.

And two, perhaps more importantly, this topic was the subject of Wednesday morning's message box by Dan Pfeiffer. So here we are. Dan, why are you so intent on talking about Joe Biden's reelection chances? Well, two reasons, John. One, I've become what I hate. That's one. Look, those subscribe buttons are not going to smash themselves. I'll tell you that. Second reason is I am very concerned that as a Democratic Party, we have reached the clean your dorm room the night before the exam period of political reckoning. What are we doing? We have a midterm

where there's an authoritarian party led by a fucking lunatic trying to grab the reins of power in this country. We're like, what's going to happen two years from now? Makes no sense. The point of my message box is to tell people there is a time and place to worry about whether Joe Biden can, should, will run for president. That time is not now. And look, I get the interest in this. You and I were talking about this, like how many people in our lives over the last several weeks, months have, when we talk about politics, say, is Joe Biden going to run again?

Is Joe Biden going to run? It is a topic of conversation, partly fueled talk about politics, say, is Joe Biden going to run again? Is Joe Biden going to run? Like that is the, it is a topic of conversation, partly fueled by the media, partly fueled by the fact that, you know, he is not doing well in the polls right now, and he is quite old. And so it is a question on a lot of people's minds. But your point remains that before we get to 2024, which we will have plenty of time to talk about so long, we will talk about it so much. You're going to be so sick of it, everyone. That's how much time we have to talk about 2024. But in the next several months, we do have a midterm election.

Of course, Joe Biden himself has not been able to escape this question. Of course, Joe Biden himself has not been able to escape this question. After the New York Times poll came out, a reporter, some reporter shouted a question at him about it. Here's what he said. Mr. President, what's your message to Democrats who don't want you to run again? They want me to run. Two thirds say they don't. Read the poll. Read the poll, Jack. You guys are all the same.

That poll showed that 92% of Democrats if I ran would vote for me. A majority of Democrats say they don't want you to run again in 2024. 92% said if I did, they'd vote for me. Read the polls, Jack. I don't think his name is Jack to you. I was going to say, what are the odds his name is Jack? Very low. Very low.

I felt for Joe Biden in that moment because what a fuck mr president mr president what do you say to the poll what do you say to the numbers in the poll mr president now joe biden was you might be wondering yourself okay joe biden said 92 percent of democrats would vote for me how is that true and also true that only 26 percent of democratic voters believe that joe biden should. In fact, both are true. Yes. Because what they did is then they said, OK, only 26% of Democratic voters want Joe Biden to run again. But if Joe Biden does run again and if he does face Donald Trump again, what will happen?

Well, and we mentioned this earlier in the show, Joe Biden wins that matchup in this poll 44 to 41 percent. in the show, Joe Biden wins that matchup in this poll, 44 to 41%, and he gets 92% of Democrats, which sort of sums up both where we are right now and why it's so difficult to actually, and perhaps pointless, to really dive into this debate. What do you think? Yeah, well, it's the difference between would you order something and would you eat it if it was served to you right like that i mean that's what that means yikes i mean let's the whole thing is so stupid like i i i hate that we're now like we have gone from saying don't worry about this and now we're talking about it yeah well we're going to talk about it and then that's it we're that's why it's a it's a c block here we're going to uh it's been talked about we're going to put a pin in it, and then that's it. That's it.

Maybe John and Tommy will have something to say about it in a future pod, and then we're done. We're done until after the meeting. I mean, can we just do like the contours of the debate? Yeah, let's do the contours of the debate. Okay. All right. Or do you want to do the timing first? Oh, yeah.

That's a good way to start. This is all just process. We've both been part of a presidential reelection campaign. Help people understand the normal timing and process around deciding and announcing that you're running for reelection if four or so hours after he took the oath of office in 2021. That is unusual. Pretty early. Pretty early. That is unusual. That was largely a way to basically create a shell corporation for political grift and

hush money. So he had that at his disposal. That's not really how Joe Biden and most presidents roll. So President Obama announced his reelection in April of 2011, so about a year and a half before the election. There are reports that Joe Biden, who I would note, has said he is running. He has reiterated he is running. His staff is actively preparing for said campaign.

So that's a very important piece of context for this theoretical debate. So we should just – that's a very important piece of context for this theoretical debate. He has said that he was planning on using a timeline similar to the one that the Obama-Biden campaign did for the 2012 campaign, which means if we want to have this debate, we can have this debate from the day after the election in November 2022 until sometime in the spring of 2023. That will give us plenty of time for the tweets and the takes. And what officially announcing means is that he would file a statement of candidacy. He would open a campaign office. He would begin raising money. He would have staff working for him.

That would all happen in April or around that time if the reports of his timing are current. Okay, so to talk about the debate. I mean, I do think whether you're someone who believes Joe Biden should run again or believes that he shouldn't, Joe Biden making an announcement, like, of course, Joe Biden is saying he's going to run again now because even if Joe Biden is not going to run again in 2024, saying that now would certainly not help Democrats in the midterm election. Would it? Well, you know what also doesn't help them this debate that, well, that's what I'm saying. I mean,

like anything that take, look, we are, we are fighting MAGA Republicans who want to destroy democracy. We are also fighting in the attention economy, right? And we are trying to get everyone's attention on this midterm election. And so every cycle, every story, every debate that's about this

takes a little bit more attention away from that, which I think is, and look, is Joe Biden's political standing important? Yeah, it's very fucking important. It's going to be important for this midterm. But how that standing relates to what happens in 2024, it's probably important it's going to be important for this midterm um but how that standing relates to what happens in 2024 it's it's probably it's probably too early to talk about that and we should point out in that vein that the same new york times poll after the biden story and after the trump story then ran a story about the same poll um that showed uh the midterm horse race and it has democrats up 41 40 i think when it did a likely voter model it had republicans up one point but that's still much closer than one

would assume in a midterm um for the party in power to be one point ahead particularly when the president of that party that's in power has a 33% approval rating, which, let's be honest, is fucking terrible. And terrible by comparison to Donald Trump. Barack Obama never had those numbers. Bill Clinton never had those numbers. It's a very, very bad approval rating. And yet with a 33% approval rating, Democrats in the midterm ballot are 41 and up one on the Republicans. What do you think's

happening there? Well, there are a couple things happening there. One is that in an era of high polarization and negative partisanship, where people are largely voting against the other party as much as they're voting for their own party. There is, I think, a disconnect that did not exist as much before between a president's approval rating and vote choice. You're going to have a larger number of people who disapprove of a president who will vote for that president or vote for their party. And so that's where you see that delta between Biden's numbers and the Democratic numbers, Biden's approval rating and Biden's vote share against Trump. Now, I just want to stipulate

you do not want to go into a midterm where the president had a 33% approval rating. You do not want to go into a general election where one of your candidates has a 33% approval rating. But two things can be true at the same time. Biden's approval ratings can be historically depressed and his party can outperform him because of polarization and negative partisanship. Yeah. There's clearly a lot of not only Democratic voters, but independent voters as well, who think that Biden's doing a bad job, but very clearly see the dangers of a Republican Congress and more MAGA Republican governors and attorneys general and secretaries of state. That's what's going on here. And they're

right about the dangers, right? Like, and look, the House is going to be very hard to hold in this political environment. The Senate is very possible to hold. And if we do, if we hold the Senate, we can keep appointing judges. And we've just seen how important it is

to appoint judges, for Democrats to appoint judges. Like, the reason that Dobbs happened, the reason the court was able to overturn Roe v. Wade is because Democrats lost the Senate in the 2014 midterms because not enough people turned out when Barack Obama's approval rating wasn't great. It's because we lost the 2016 election, the presidency. And it's because we didn't take back the Senate in 2018, even though we did pretty well in the House. That's it. That's the reason that all these stories about like

Republicans were crafty and poured all this money in and did all this all these years. No, no, it was three elections, 14, 16 and 18. 14 is why Obama couldn't get Garland through. 16 is why Trump got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh through. And 2018 is why Barrett got through. through. 16 is why Trump got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh through. And 2018 is why Barrett got through. That's it. Those are the three judges that overturn Roe v. Wade. So that's why elections matter, and especially a fucking midterm election. And if we hold the Senate, Joe Biden and the Democratic Senate will have the power to keep appointing judges. And holding the Senate is making sure that Catherine Cortez Masto wins again, that Maggie Hassan wins again, that Mark Kelly wins again, that Raphael Warnock wins again.

And by the way, if one of them don't, make sure that John Fetterman can flip Pennsylvania and the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin can flip that state and take it from Ron Johnson. And then we have a Democratic Senate. Also, governor's races, right? The difference between Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro or Republican Governor Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania is the difference between a state where millions of women will have access to abortion and a state where abortion is criminalized.

The same is true as Michigan. The same is true in Arizona. It's the difference between waking up in states all across the country where you have people running the states who will help Donald Trump pull off his next coup or people who will stop that coup from happening. These are very real stakes in the midterm election that are coming up. And then if we want to have a debate about whether Joe Biden should be our nominee, we'll do that. He'll have to make his case. I promise you we'll have it.

I promise you we'll have it. You're going to be so fucking sick of that debate. Just circle December to April on your calendar for a bunch of annoying shit. But that is what is going to happen. Because I'm sure the White House has circled those dates as well. Tough, tough times. But like I said,

it is unusual. I have been surprised by the polling around the midterms because I do think it is unusual in a midterm year with the president's approval this low, with the wrong track number in the country this high, with everything that's going on economically, inflation, everything else, for the Democrats to still be in the game.

But I think people have seen the dangers of the radicalization of the Supreme Court, the radicalization of the Republican Party, the radicalization of the Republican Party. And so even though people aren't happy with what's going on in the country right now with leadership, they see very clearly, especially in this poll and other polls, the threats from the Republican Party, which puts us in the game. This is very, look, as you said, we have to be honest about the headwinds we are facing, about how the history plays here. But as we have said on previous pods, ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the generic ballot,

the question of who do you want to control Congress, Democrats or Republicans, has moved in the Democrats' favor. While we got a terrible inflation number yesterday, that's a backward looking measure and gas prices have gone down for nearly a month consecutive. There is a world in which we can upend history and the headwinds and hold the Senate, do better in the House than people think, win these governorships. That can happen, but it's not going to happen if we are debating what's going to happen two years from now instead of focusing on what we can do for an election that's happening four months from now. And again, we all have the power to control this.

We all have the power to make a difference in this election. You go to votesaveamerica.com, sign up for Midterm Madness. We'll get you volunteering opportunities to donate, to volunteer, to talk to voters. Look, go talk to, there's a whole bunch of undecided voters in this poll too, which means there's a whole bunch of undecided voters

in the country. And you talk to those voters and they're going to be pissed about inflation. You say, you know what? Maybe you're pissed about inflation. You think Republicans are going to fix inflation if they get to Congress? Or do you think they're going to spend the entire time investigating Joe Biden and trying to criminalize abortion in all the places where it's still legal? Because it seems like that's what they want to do. They're not going to fix your problems. They're

not going to fix inflation. They're not going to make your cost of living go down. They're going to do all of their extremist crazy shit that they've been doing for the last two years only now they're going to have more power in congress do you want that to happen make that case to voters if you feel like large trillion dollar tech corporations should pay zero in taxes and the government's not intimately involved in your personal affairs enough what republican right exactly exactly um anyway okay so that's our comment on that, on the 2024. Talk to you guys in late November. Talk to you guys in late November.

Thank you to Catherine Cortez Masto for joining the show today. Please go help her in her Senate race. It's very important that we win Nevada. And everyone have a great weekend. We will talk to you all next week. Bye, everyone. Hot Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez.

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