Pod Save America - Trumpworld Takes on Taylor Swift

Episode Date: January 31, 2024

Strict Scrutiny's Leah Litman joins Jon Favreau to puzzle through the right's new Taylor Swift obsession, take stock of Donald Trump's mounting legal problems, and explain why some Republicans are threatening a new civil war over the Supreme Court's border ruling. Then, Dan Pfeiffer speaks to Biden-Harris deputy campaign managers Quentin Fulks and Rob Flaherty about their plans to mobilize voters, fight disinformation, and win the election. 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. And I'm Leah Lutman. On today's show, the standoff between Texas and the federal government over the border has some Republicans talking about civil war. Other Republicans believe that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey's relationship is a deep state psy-op to re-elect Joe Biden. And the president's most likely opponent has now been held liable for sexual assault by two juries and is about to spend more time in court than the campaign trail over the next few months as he faces 91 felony charges.

Just a normal week in politics. And I am so lucky to have Leah as co-host today because she happens to be a law professor and a Swifty who co-hosts Crooked's Strict Scrutiny podcast. Leah, good to have you here. It is wonderful to be here. Such a such an exciting week. We also have an interview later in the show that Dan did with two top Biden campaign officials, Deputy Campaign Managers Quentin Folks

and Rob Flaherty about their plan to win, strategy to fight misinformation, the ground game, all that kind of good stuff. So tune in for that. But first, it's been a while since we've talked about the many trials of Donald Trump. But the criminal defendant, Republican frontrunner, is now facing a set of rulings that could cost him hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as four criminal trials that could result in years of prison time. I'll note here that this doofus is currently beating every other candidate in the polls. But Leah, let's start with the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll trial, where a Manhattan jury awarded her $83.5 million in damages over defamatory statements made by Donald Trump. This lawsuit was the second of two from E. Jean Carroll. Last year, another jury found the former president liable for sexually abusing her and defaming her and ordered him to pay $5 million in damages.

him to pay $5 million in damages. Trump has obviously said he'll appeal the decision and his lawyer, Alina Haba, already made and then retracted a baseless accusation that Carroll's lawyer had a, quote, mentor-mentee relationship with the judge. And here she is at a press conference after the ruling outside the courthouse. I have not spoken because I respect my ethics while I'm on trial. But let me now speak about what has happened. I have sat on trial after trial for months in this state, the state of New York. Attorney General Letitia James, and now this. Weeks. Weeks, why? Because President Trump is leading in the polls and now we see what you get in New York. So don't get it twisted, whoever asked me that question. I am so proud to stand with President Trump, but I am not proud to stand with what I saw in that courtroom.

And the behavior I saw in there, some of which was reported widely today, gave us the most perfect record on appeal. And even if I needed it, which I don't, we were stripped of every defense, every single defense before we walked in there. And I am proud to stand with President Trump because he showed up, he stood up, he took the stand and he faced this judge. And you know what? I'll continue to do so with him.

Don't get it twisted, Leah. She respects her ethics. First of all, very excited that you're about to interview E. Jean Carroll and her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, for Strict Scrutiny.

That's going to be out as a special episode on Friday, right? Yes, we're so excited about that. It's additionally special because at one point, Robbie Kaplan was my lawyer and I also got to help

with some of the briefing in E. Jean's case when Trump was arguing that he was just carrying out the duties of being president when he was defaming her. So we're super excited about that interview. That's awesome. Let's talk about the case for a bit. Can you start by just quickly reminding us why there were two trials and what the juries found? Yeah. So there were two trials because they separated out defamatory statements Trump made while he was president from statements Trump made after he left office because there were legal questions about how and whether the case should proceed when it was about statements Trump made while he was in office and while he was president. So they just walled off the statements he made

while he was in office. And the initial trial, the one that occurred previously, was on the underlying assault claim and the statements Trump made after he left office. So the jury in that case, of course, found that Trump committed sexual assault and defamation. And Rudy, if you're listening, I just want you to know that I said sexual assault, not rape. He's really big on that and thinks that's a good line. So I just wanted to respect that. But this most recent trial was about presidential statements. So Judge Kaplan limited the trial that began this most recent time was about presidential statements. So Judge Kaplan limited the trial that began, you know, this most recent time to just one issue. And that's the damages that, you know, E. Jean incurred while Trump defamed her in office.

sexual abuse is because basically Judge Kaplan said, you know what, one jury already decided this. You don't get another bite at the apple here to try to defend yourself. And this is why Trump didn't speak a lot. And this is one of their complaints, right, that they didn't get to, that they wanted to like relitigate the sexual abuse claims. Exactly. It's a complaint against like very basic architectural rules for how federal courts and trials work. Like once an issue has already been litigated and decided, it is not consistently litigated for all perpetuity. So we heard Alina Haber there make a claim that some of the behavior in Kaplan's court gave her and Trump the perfect record on appeal. What do you think about their chances of winning on appeal? Not great. So, you know, just as a general matter, it's really tough to overturn a jury's findings that, you know, just as a general matter, it's really tough to overturn a jury's findings.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution actually limits court's ability to second guess jury findings and determinations. It says no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. So that's kind of the general rule. But she could, you know, challenge procedural stuff like did the jury receive proper instructions or was the judge correct in admitting certain evidence? And this is the big but, like the record on appeal is actually not so perfect because the lawyer at trial is supposed to preserve a challenge at the trial in order to make it on appeal. And Alina Haba was just forfeiting and weaving procedural objections left and right. You know, Judge Kaplan would say, do you have any objection to this video coming in? She'd say no.

And then she'd change her mind later. And he'd tell her, no, like you already told me this was cool. So, you know, if you don't make a valid objection to evidence when it comes in or to rulings when they're made, it's just tougher to challenge them on appeal. Are you saying that Alina Haba is not one of the great legal minds of our time? You know, I am saying a la Arrested Development, something along the lines of I have the worst fucking attorneys. And that's kind of what we got here. Well, did you see that Trump posted last night that he's interviewing law firms to represent him for the appeal? So I guess I guess that means she's out of a job. I mean, maybe I think part of the reason why he selected her is, you know, he thought she had

whatever charisma, you know, the MAGA world thinks makes for charisma. And that's not obviously the same type of skill you might want for appeal. But also, it's just, you know, evidence that even as she was so proud to stand with Donald Trump and say all of the insane shit that went into that, like he was still going to toss her to the curb and just utterly humiliate her after she humiliated herself. As he's done with almost every single person who's ever worked for him. Yes. So the Washington Post reported that Trump is convinced that he'll find a, quote, political mechanism to get around the fines, even if his legal appeals fail? Is that just nonsense or what? I really don't know what they mean by a political mechanism to get around the fines. I mean, he's going to try to appeal and maybe they will get,

you know, a court to possibly limit the punitive damages just because, you know, conservative and Republican judges have been hostile to plaintiff's lawyers and punitive damages. But I really don't know what kind of political mechanism they are talking about possibly doing here. So how do the courts, like, enforce monetary judgments like this one? Does Trump have to pay now? Can he pay later? Can he wait till appeal?

And can he pay with campaign funds? showing he could pay it. He could alternatively post a bond that would require him to pay some additional fees. But if, you know, he's not actually going to fork over the money, then there will be lengthy legal processes where, you know, E. Jean's lawyers basically try to get Trump's assets and use them to satisfy the judgment. So they might try to, like, attach some of his property and say, you know, if you don't actually have the cash to pay me, I get Mar-a-Lago and we're going to sell that and, you know, we'll use that to satisfy the award. So, you know, it just kind of depends what he does, but he does have some options, you know, as to whether he can pay with campaign funds. You know,

he certainly cannot just appropriate money that people donated to an election fund and use that to pay judgments. But depending on the terms, you know, that people gave to his PAC, he has been using his PAC money to pay for legal defense. And so it depends a little bit like what they told people when they were contributing to the PAC, like what that money could be used for. Oh, OK. So we're also waiting for a decision in Trump's civil fraud trial, which we could know by the time you all listen to this. The state of New York is seeking to recoup $370 million in illegal profits Trump allegedly made by lying about his wealth to get better loans. The judge has already said that Trump committed fraud.

The decision is about what he'll owe and whether he can keep doing business. How big of a deal is this case? Like, how bad is the crime? And how bad could the punishment be here? I mean, the crime is just difficult to describe just purely by the figures. This is so much money he has alleged just to have totally, you know, lied about.

I mean, James Office said he exaggerated his wealth something by like $3 billion and valued Mar-a-Lago at something like 10 times more than it was actually worth. That's just huge numbers. And the judge has already concluded he overvalued Mar-a-Lago at one point by like 2300% more than it was worth. And of course, Trump says all of this is like a fraud on me rather than like a fraud on the state of New York and the people. But as to how bad the punishment could be, you know, you noted kind of what the state of New York is seeking. We're also waiting on determinations about whether Trump is going to

be allowed to continue to do business in the state and whether other Trump entities, you know, the court will order dissolved. We know the judge is not exactly a fan of the Trump team's legal strategy, if you can call it that to date. You know, he called them like legally preposterous and said they were misstating black letter law and at one point sanctioned the lawyers $7,500 a piece. But, you know, as we've seen time and time again, like the courts are trying to treat these cases out of an abundance of caution and trying to give Trump every benefit of the doubt so their judgment can't be second guessed. And so I don't know

that we are going to see the sort of like huge number some people are expecting. Like, I think it'll be somewhere between like 300 and 400 million, not necessarily like the vast amounts that have been predicted elsewhere. Still you combine the eugene carroll uh damages with these potential damages i saw somewhere that he's estimated to be like 600 million have 600 million dollars in like liquid assets right now and so that would put a there go like two thirds put a pretty big dent in his. And I know he's like apparently worth billions, but that's all tied up in real estate and other assets. In foreign countries, in foreign banks. In foreign countries, of course.

And yet another reason why he, I'm sure, is running for president, because if he becomes president again, not only can he make a lot of the criminal cases go away, but he can also continue to collect money from foreign governments. Two birds, one stone. Moving right along, Donald Trump's next trial should be the federal charges for attempting to overturn the last election. But the case has been paused while we wait for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the defendant's claim that he should be immune from prosecution because he was president at the time. And I guess trying to overturn the election is just part of your official duties as president. Leah, it's now been three weeks since oral arguments. The three judge panel seemed quite skeptical of Trump's appeal, rightly so. What has taken so long? I mean, it's honestly really shocking and really disappointing that

it has taken them this long because this is now delaying the trial and we don't know to what extent. We know from the oral arguments, as you were saying, the judges were skeptical. We also know the oral argument had actually narrowed the issues to just like one pretty discreet one, which is whether a president, former president could be convicted before they were impeached or without being impeached. And so that's the only issue that is just like a completely frivolous legal argument. It should take two minutes to write the opinion explaining that. And so it's really anyone's guess what's happening. I mean, my

only guess, my best guess is one of the three judges on the panel who heard oral argument is a Republican appointee. And I wonder whether she is holding up the opinion because she could say, well, maybe I want to write separately. And therefore, the court won't issue its opinion until she finalizes her separate writing. Maybe she is the most senior. I mean, she is the most senior judge on the panel. And so she might have taken the opinion for herself and is just taking a really long time to get it out there. And it's really dispiriting. I don't know what's happening, but it's not good. And even though she's a Republican appointee who could be taking her time, she did express skepticism of Trump's argument during the

oral arguments, right? Oh, she did. Absolutely. But, you know, still, it is a partial win for him just to delay the proceedings, you know, and potentially until after the election. And so she might not be willing to just utterly embarrass herself by adopting these insane arguments. But, you know, maybe, right, she's at least willing to slow walk the proceedings and give him that. What's your best guess for how long the trial might be delayed past the proposed March 6th date? I saw on Politico today that even if the issue is resolved this week, now the trial wouldn't begin until late April at the earliest. I mean, I think we're looking at early April at the absolute earliest because, you know, we're now several weeks out from the opinion. And Judge Shutkin had basically assumed if all goes quickly, then I can start March 6th.

And we're now basically into April based on the D.C. Circuit's delay. And so even if Judge Shutkin does everything in her power to move this as quickly as possible, now we are looking at earliest April trial date and more likely later. And the D.C. Circuit's opinion here isn't necessarily the end of it because Trump could ask for the full circuit to hear the case and then it could the Supreme Court could decide to take it out. What do you do you think that both of those things are possible? Well, he's definitely going to try to delay it further.

And so there's no reason that he won't ask the full D.C. Circuit to revisit the panel opinion and then to ask the Supreme Court to do so as well. And that's where part of the additional delay comes in. It's not just the three weeks that the D.C. Circuit has held onto this case, but the additional delay from any further proceedings. And the D.C. Circuit can try to limit this and basically say, well, we are going to issue what's called the mandate and basically allow the trial court to take the case again and start up the trial unless Trump seeks further review within and start up the trial unless, you know,

Trump seeks further review within like a week or two weeks in order to try to basically speed things along. But they haven't really shown an inclination to do so, you know, to this date. And so it's hard to know, you know, how much additional delay those further proceedings might create. Clock is ticking. I mean, I'm trying to imagine a trial, which and this is probably the biggest of all the trials, but happens in like, May, June, as we're getting close to the conventions like that's, I mean, I don't hate that. If we're like going into the convention with the Trump trial and potential conviction, but at some point, you wonder as we get too close to the fall, what happens.

And if the Trump people start arguing that it's like, you know, I know that DOJ has a, you know, nothing within 90 days of the election, but I'm sure that doesn't apply to court cases that are actually ongoing. I mean, it's hard to say, right? Never really encountered this sort of situation before. And you add to that, you know, additional problems with delaying a trial and having a conviction, possible conviction, you know, closer to the presidential election would be, you know, depending what happens in the disqualification case that the Supreme Court is going to hear, it's possible the court will say something like, you can't actually be disqualified from office unless and until you are convicted of something that amounts to insurrection. And so there could be subsequent litigation after, you know, any January 6th verdict in this D.C. case where people say, well, again, assuming Trump is convicted in the event he is convicted, this criminal conviction

might actually provide a basis for disqualification that didn't exist, you know, before the verdict. Well, speaking of that, the Supreme Court will also hear arguments next week on whether the state of Colorado can keep Trump off the ballot because of the 14th Amendment's clause that bars government officials who, quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office. Illinois just dismissed a 14th Amendment challenge to Trump's candidacy. Maine's with Colorado. I can't imagine this Supreme Court ruling that Trump can be kicked off the ballot. But I'm curious what the liberal justices will do here. What do you think? What are your thoughts about this case?

I mean, they're the ones I'm definitely going to be watching because there's no way that the chief justice wants a 6-3 ruling reinstating Trump on the ballot with only Republican justices ruling in Trump's favor. So it's possible that the Democratic appointees have some power here at least to shape the ruling, that is to control how the court might reinstate Trump on the ballot. Of course, it's also possible like the real nihilists and like MAGA heads on the court, you know, the other five Republican justices will just ignore them and the chief and write a five justice opinion that says this was the most peaceful transition of power ever. So hard to know, but I'm definitely going to be listening to see like how the Democratic power ever. So hard to know. But I'm definitely going to be listening to see like how the Democratic appointees might be trying to signal they would possibly be open to some grounds for reinstating Trump because they do actually have some power here. You know, as far as my own

thoughts, you know, I think this case is hard because as you were saying, I also think there's just no way this court disqualifies Trump. On the other hand, all of his legal arguments for getting back on the ballot, they just stink. You know, they're like his first argument, the one they lead with is that insurrectionists can be president because the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to presidents. Like insurrections can't be in the House or the Senate. Right, right. But the one position that insurrectionists can hold is being commander in chief of the armed forces. Like this just does not does not hit, you might say. And so it's it's hard to know exactly.

And I think, you know, sometimes an opinion just doesn't write. But I still think the court is going to reinstate Trump on the ballot. It's just hard to know what they're going to say again, because the arguments for doing so are just so odd. to know what they're going to say again, because the arguments for doing so are just so odd. I know. I keep trying to think of how they could craft an argument that keeps him on the ballot, that doesn't deny the reality of everything that happened and that has been already. Like, I was wondering if they might say something like the even though the court found that he was, you know, guilty or that he participated or that he fomented what happened on January 6th. That's not what the Constitution was talking about. And that was the Constitution

was just talking about the Civil War. And this doesn't apply here. Like, I'm wondering if it's something like that. Yeah, I mean, who knows? Obviously, this is a court that is mostly fine, sometimes making totally embarrassing legal arguments in order to give Republicans what they want. And so who knows whether they're going to say that the events of January 6th didn't rise to the level of what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment calls an insurrection or whether, you know, what Trump did didn't actually engage in insurrection. I don't know that they really want to write an opinion and go through like every single Trump tweet and statement that says this is fine, this is fine, this is fine. But again, who knows? Yeah. Finally, Georgia, that's felony

racketeering and conspiracy charges against Trump, Rudy and their Ocean's 15 co-defendants for trying to steal the election in that state. The defendants are already asking the judge to disqualify District Attorney Fannie Willis and her entire office from the case based on an accusation that Willis had a romantic relationship with a lawyer she hired to help with the case, which allegedly has created a conflict of interest. Willis is supposed to file a legal response by Friday. The judge will decide in mid-February. And we just learned that both Willis and Nathan Wade, who's the lawyer that she's alleged to have the romantic relationship with, were just subpoenaed to testify. Can you talk about what the conflict of interest in this case is supposed to be? Yeah. So it's not how a conflict of interest arises in like the usual

way when it's about a prosecutorial conflict of interest. Like the usual case would be something like where a prosecutor has a relationship with the judge who's supposed to oversee the case or the defense counsel who's supposed to be their adversary or a witness who's supposed to be like a neutral fact observer or a juror who's supposed to you know decide the case and if two prosecutors you know within the da's office were dating like nobody would care and that would obviously not be a conflict of interest and so you know i like the the alleged conflict here arises, of course, because, you know, Fonny Willis hired Nathan Wade. And so the conflict of interest argument goes like, well, Wade used the money he got from Willis's office to buy, you know, some vacations they went on and that benefited Fonny Willis. Fonny Willis. But it's not clear, again, that that rises to the level of a conflict of interest that actually matters for purposes of the DA's posture vis-a-vis any of the defendants or the

case itself. I think it's a bad look. And if it's true, it's bad judgment. And it gives them something to harp on that there's no need to give them. But it's not the kind of conflict of interest that people usually think about when they're worried about prosecutors' conflicts of interest. Yeah, that's what I thought from reading all the stories about this. How likely do you think it is that Willis gets thrown off the case? I think it's pretty unlikely, again, because at worst, it's self-dealing, something that might kind of benefit her. But it's not clear, again, that that comes at the expense of fair proceedings involving any of the defendants or the process. And so, you know, that's just kind of my intuition.

If she doesn't get thrown off the case by the judge, can the Republican governor or legislature try to remove her? I mean, they can certainly try. You know, there's a bill in the works where the Georgia House of Representatives just passed a bill to establish the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission. This is something they had tried to do previously, but they said their new commission that would allow state officers to discipline or remove prosecutors had to be set up with the approval of the Georgia Supreme Court. And the Georgia Supreme Court basically said, like, get out of here. This is illegal and we

can't do this. And so now they're trying to do it again without the involvement of the Georgia Supreme Court. It's unclear if that bill will pass. It's unclear if it does, if, again, it would be upheld under state law. But, you know, it is possible they will try some maneuver to remove her. But hard to know exactly what that would look like. And even on the off chance that she is removed, like the case still goes forward, right? Like this does not damage in any way the case itself. No, it just causes additional delay as new prosecutors, right, come in and they have to get up to speed, you know, and of course that delay is going to benefit, right, the defendants. But, you know, yeah, it's not going to make the entire case go

away. Okay, so we talked about immigration last episode, but there's one part of the border drama we haven't covered yet. The standoff between Texas and the federal government that's gone to the Supreme Court and is causing some Republicans to fantasize about civil war. In case you all missed it, the fight is over who has the authority to control a park in the city of Eagle Pass on the Texas-Mexico border, a place where migrants often cross into the U.S. The federal government says that the U.S. border control, which apprehends and processes asylum seekers, says it should have control of the park.

The state of Texas, which wants to immediately arrest and deport the migrants, says its state officers should have control of the park and has put up miles of razor wire that Border Patrol says is too dangerous and preventing them from doing their job. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Border Patrol can take down the wire while the case plays out in the courts, or at least they can't be punished by the state of Texas for taking down the wire. But so far, Texas is still blocking access to the park. Republicans in red states and in Congress are siding with Texas, encouraging the state to defy the Supreme Court and casually musing about civil war. Let's listen. encouraging the state to defy the Supreme Court and casually musing about civil war. Let's listen. Instead, you do what Texas is doing. You dig in, you fight, you hold the line,

and you never give in when our national security is constantly being threatened by the traitorous actions of the executive branch. Stand with Texas, hold the line, and never back down. And you know, the thing is, the Supreme Court can't enforce its own rulings. So once red states decide not to go along with them, if the red states say, okay, I don't care what you think. We're going to do it anyway. What happens then? What happens when federal agents try to destroy border fencing and state troopers stand in their way?

Does Biden send in the military at that point? These might not be hypothetical questions for long. The last civil war was unimaginable until it wasn't. Marjorie Taylor Greene's absolutely right. The Supreme Court decision yesterday puts the, as Clay Higgins said, kind of a civil war between the federal government and the state of Texas on the defense of the realm, on the defense of the United States of America and her sovereignty. If you're going to defy, here's how it works. Press conference flanked by your most loyal Texas Rangers. I'm ignoring the Supreme Court's decision. I will enforce the border of Texas.

If you're going to arrest me, you have to go through the Texas Rangers. Great stuff. Great stuff. Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, got the Oklahoma governor in there, got a member of Congress from Texas. It's my understanding that Texas isn't actually defying the court's order just yet. Is that right? And can you explain the ruling and sort of what happens next year? defying it, although I agree they're probably not. But that's just because there wasn't much of a ruling at all. You know, the 5-4 decision offered no reasons. We don't know why the court said, you know, the federal government can cut down the wires Texas put up or, you know, Texas can't punish the federal government for doing so. We don't know why four justices thought, you know, the federal government can't cut down the wires or Texas can punish them for doing so.

So all we have is this like very technical bottom line holding of the court that allows the federal government to cut down wires without Texas, you know, imposing some penalty on them. But this was not a lawsuit by the United States seeking an order requiring Texas to like leave the area and give them clear access. You know, that being said, the bigger issue in the case and like the gist of the court's ruling is that the federal government can take down these barriers Texas has put up because Texas can't obstruct federal immigration officials from enforcing federal immigration law. So that seems to imply, you know, Texas can't obstruct them in other ways as well. But because the court didn't give reasons for their decision and didn't

come out and say that, you know, it's harder to say Texas is doing anything that really defies what the Supreme Court said, much less their holding or ruling. So that's kind of what's going on. And I think that's partially what is emboldening Texas, along with the fact that you have four justices who apparently think Texas can nullify federal law. I was listening to you guys talk about this on strict scrutiny. And that's the part that really jumped out at me, that there are four justices. And it is, of course, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas, of course. So federal agents, federal border patrol has jurisdiction anywhere 25 miles within the border. Right. And so that's federal law.

And they get to enforce federal law and the idea that the states can ignore federal law or federal enforcement of the law is just fucking bonkers so like i don't know where the four justices were and of course like you said they didn't write an actual opinion here so we don't know yeah i mean they're basically saying like texas could create a fortress around a crime scene and not allow the f to enter, even if the FBI had authority to investigate the crime. And we don't know why they think that. Like, it's truly not so.

And I think, again, part of what is emboldening Texas here is one of the justices who joined the majority and said, like, knock it off, Texas, is Justice Barrett. And she has some really kind of quirky views in this space where it is possible. She just didn't think that the courts had the authority to enter like the specific injunction or remedy that they did. But she might think that Texas is acting legally. And Texas is just kind of free to speculate here because she didn't explain like why she voted against them. And none of the other justices did as well. And so they're just pushing the limits of everything that the court has given them. Will the Supreme Court end up deciding

this larger issue about sort of who has authority here and actually write an opinion about it? I mean, it depends. You know, it's possible that the United States might try to file another case in which they seek an injunction against Texas from, you know, obstructing this area at the border, in which case that issue might go up to the Supreme Court. Whether that results in an actual opinion of the court depends a little bit on whether the court decides to write an opinion. And second, whether the case makes its way to the Supreme Court as a kind of final matter rather than in this emergency posture, just in the shadow docket.

And so just don't know. Liz Cheney said on last week's show that what worries her most about a second Trump term is that he'll just ignore rulings from the Supreme Court, much like Texas and many Republicans are now threatening to do. What is the history of disputes like this? And what are some potential resolutions that don't involve civil war is a question I have to ask now here in 2024. potential resolutions that don't involve civil war is a question I have to ask now here in 2024. So it's actually kind of like a long history and a somewhat complicated history because, you know, in the early days of the republic, you had presidents like Andrew Jackson basically saying the Supreme Court has made its decision, let them enforce it. You know, that's somewhat

apocryphal, but, you know, that was an instance where the Supreme Court told the state they couldn't actually, you know, prosecute individuals on, you know, federal Indian lands. And the state did it anyway. Then, of course, there was the Civil War. And then there was, you know, Brown versus Board of Education, where you have states just openly resisting and defying and trying to obstruct the Supreme Court's decision requiring integration. And then last summer, you know, you have Alabama basically thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court decision that invalidated Alabama's legislative map and said it violated the Voting Rights Act. And Alabama came back and said, how about we enact the same map anyway? So how do these, you know, all get resolved? Well, one, as you know, there was a civil war. You know, another is that the other branches of the federal government step up, you know,

in the case of states defying the Supreme Court's ruling on federal Indian law, there the states later kind of defied President Andrew Jackson on federal tariffs. And so he ended kind of standing with the Supreme Court and ordering, right, federal officers to enforce the federal tariffs and basically standing with the Supreme Court against the states. And that's kind of what happened in the aftermath of Brown versus Board of Education as well. You had presidents deploying federal troops in order to help, you know, enforce the Supreme Court's decision. And then, you know, the final option is the

Supreme Court kind of unanimously tries to shut this stuff down. You know, that was part of the story of Brown. You know, that was why it mattered so much to Chief Justice Warren to have a unanimous decision. So it looked like the court institutionally was putting down its foot and saying, knock it off. And I think that's also partially why Alabama gave up in the legislative map fight after the end of last term, because the Supreme Court, again, seemingly unanimously, basically said, Alabama, you can't just come back and adopt the same set of maps that a majority of the court just invalidated. And so some combination, set of maps that a majority of the court just invalidated. And so, you know, some combinations, some of these things might actually get the states to, you know, stand down, whether that is, you know, President Biden actually trying to say, no, like, we actually are going to cut down these

razor wires. And, you know, I'm going to deploy federal officers to enter this park, and you need to let us, whether that is the Supreme Court actually coalescing around the idea that states need to respect the court's ruling or some other combination. But it's tough because on some level, we want there to be some capacity for other institutions and politics to work around the Supreme Court. We don't want the fact that the Supreme Court overruled abortion rights because the court doesn't think women are people entitled to have rights mean that we all must treat women as like second class citizens as well. Like that seems bad. And the court is doing like all kinds of fucked up things. And for that reason, it's like lost some credibility and people on the left should be calling for the court to lose credibility and democratic administrations to work around decisions that the court reaches that are really lawless, like, say, the student debt relief decision. But instead, you have segments of the Republican Party screaming that the court isn't conservative enough. And if the next election or the following election results in a Republican president

with a Republican Senate, they're going to get an even crazier Supreme Court. And their Supreme Court and their Supreme Court appointees like they will be convinced that Taylor Swift actually is a dark state psyop. Like that's the future we are headed to. Yeah, I mean, there's two takeaways that I have from this one, which is like and you guys made this point on strict scrutiny. The next election is so important for the Supreme Court.

And people have not focused on that yet, because very likely that if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas retire and are replaced with much younger and even crazier right-wing judges. And the four justices who decided that states can just ignore the federal government in this case are proof of that.

And then also, if I think about Liz Cheney's point, like if Trump wins, the difference between a Democratic administration trying to get around a Supreme Court ruling in legal ways and looking for legal avenues to get around a Supreme Court ruling like rulings on abortion versus Trump, who could just say, yeah, basically pull an Andrew Jackson and say, like, go ahead and force your decision. Yeah, no, I think it seems it seems a little scary. Not great. OK, you mentioned Taylor Swift. We do have one last critical issue to cover before we get to Dan's interview with the Biden campaign. The MAGA movement isn't just at war with the federal government and the Supreme Court right now, but with two American institutions that are far more trusted and beloved, Taylor Swift and football. Now that the Kansas City Chiefs are headed to the Super Bowl, Trump world has completely lost its mind over the relationship between the Chiefs star tight end, Travis Kelsey, and the biggest pop star on the planet.

Here is just a brief compilation put together by the recount and us of the Fox News meltdown over Taylor and Travis. We have had enough of Taylor Swift for now. She shouldn't be liberal. She should be a total conservative given everything. The Pentagon PSYOP unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset. The New York Times just speculated she's a lesbian. Many end up devoting their entire childhood to competing in various sports, only to be cut from the team, at which point they become obsessed with some grown man who gets paid millions of dollars every year to throw a ball around

while promoting poison death shots and child slave labor through various brand deals and endorsements. So sad. Just imagine for a moment if people were as dedicated to Jesus as they are professional sports. So, Leah, Rolling Stone reports that the Trump campaign is planning on waging a, quote, holy war against Taylor. I truly, truly hope that they talk about her every day from now until the election. As a longtime Swifty, what's your take on this shrewd political strategy? So as Taylor Swift said in her most recent Vault Track, you're losing me. Like, what is going on here? When Elmo tweeted out the other day, like Elmo is just checking in,

how is everybody doing? He was talking about these freaks. And I don't want to perpetuate like the deep state psyop narrative about Taylor Swift, but it is a little curious that she basically predicted some of this in Mean from Speak Now, where the lyrics are, and I can see you now, like years from now in a bar talking over a football game with that same big loud opinion, but nobody's listening, washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things. And honestly, I could go on, but it's just keep doing this. I love it. Keep doing it.

Vivek Ramaswamy also, he thinks the deep state is rigging the Super Bowl for the Chiefs. The Chiefs who won a Super Bowl against the 49ers in 2020 when Donald Trump was president. But I guess the deep state was involved in that too. Pizzagate promoter Jack Posobiec said, Kanye tried to warn us about the Taylor Swift PSYOP and we didn't listen. And he also said that Travis and Taylor

are quote, high level ops used as info warfare tools of statecraft for the regime. Trump advisor and proud Islamophobe Laura Loomer said, Democrats are going to use taylor swift as the poster child for their pro-abortion geo tv campaign if only uh scott walker wonders why liberals are interested in the opinions of a white man who does work for big pharma

and his girlfriend who flies on private jets again scott walker was the governor of wisconsin and he ran for president what is fucking wrong with these people? I don't know. But again, I'm just living for this. Every day I wake up and I go and read the internet about their latest comments about Taylor Swift because it just, it gives me life. And, you know, as she said, like, I don't start shit,

but I can tell you how it ends. This is not going to go well for them. But, you know, like on like, slightly less humorous note, this is obviously part of just their whole, our strategy is misogyny thing. And they think, right, that like, they can use Taylor Swift as just kind of the image of that, like, let's punch on like some other woman, because like, we just think that is like a political strategy to get together, together all of the dads, brads, and chads and try to get that through 2024. I also think it's just a symptom of how these people are so fucking online and they all need to go touch grass. Like, just, you know, the Chiefs-Ravens game was the most watched AFC championship ever.

Over 55 million people tuned in. Taylor is currently on the highest grossing tour of all time. Over a billion dollars. 151 shows across five continents. 4 million tickets sold in the US alone. She's playing 72,000 people a night in the United States. Morning Consult

did a poll in 2023. 53% of adults in the United States said they were fans of Taylor Swift, of whom 44% identified as Swifties. Of the fans, 52% were women, 48% were men, and only about half were Democrats. So the popularity is so broad. Taylor Swift and football. This is what they have decided to pick a fight on Taylor Swift and football. This is what they have decided to pick a fight on Taylor Swift and football. Like a, they are threatened by a wildly popular American icon with Nashville country

music roots and a lovable meathead at NFL star. Who's from Ohio and plays with the Kansas city chiefs. Like it's just, it is. These are the people. It's so funny. It is so funny. It is.

Um, and yet like, of the people it's so funny it is so funny it is um and yet like i do not want to be overconfident that this like insane derange unhinged thing is just going to inevitably like result in like america realizing that these people are weird freaks and cannot rule the country because yeah like you look at it and you try to explain to people what's happening and it's inexplicable and it just underscores like obviously these people cannot be allowed to run things because I mean they really think that this is a deep state thing and that they are trying to rig the Super Bowl I mean don't you think that the deep state has like slightly better more important things to do than like

set up a pop star and an NFL star tight end I don't know know. I really love it and actually do think it's a it could be a bigger deal only because it plays into what I think is maybe the most damaging political caricature of Republicans that happens to be true is that they're fucking weird. And this is like why this is one of the reasons, one of the many reasons why the DeSantis campaign failed. And that's what people hate most about this Republican Party, right? They're going to tell you who to love. They're going to try to get involved in your health care decisions. They're going to tell you what to read. They're going to tell you not to like Taylor Swift. They're going to tell you not to like football.

Like, no one wants to be governed by these freaks. You know, there was a story about Donald Trump, you know and like it's like donald you know there was a story about donald trump um but noticeably even donald trump who kind of gets this has not been yet out there just like shitting all over taylor swift he said he likes her music last a couple years ago when she came out against marcia blackburn running in her home state of tennessee and she came out and endorsed biden 2020 but even he kind of knows like to to off. It's true. Although the Rolling Stone story did suggest he was bragging privately about how he was more popular than Taylor Swift, to which I say, like, say it to my fucking face, you fool. But yeah, no, it is it is something to behold for sure. I feel like a litmus test for a presidential candidate should be like,

to behold for sure. I feel like a litmus test for a presidential candidate should be like, okay, I say Taylor Swift, what's your response? And, you know, like Joe Biden's like, I don't know,

I'm in my red era. And Donald Trump is like, she's a deep state psyop. And the fact that they're, they've all also like trained their ire on Travis Kelsey only because,

because he did, he took a fucking COVID shot. He took the vaccine and he appeared in a Bud Light commercial because they also hate vaccines that save your lives and Bud Light. It's awesome. It's awesome. I can't get enough of it. Okay. Two quick housekeeping notes before we go to break. Vote Save America is back with a brand new political action finder that curates volunteer opportunities specifically for you. Just check a few boxes and Vote Save America is back with a brand new political action finder that curates volunteer opportunities specifically for you. Just check a few boxes and Vote Save America will pinpoint the volunteer opportunities that will make the biggest impact from your state all the way to the White House. We also have a beautiful and very helpful new website.

So check it out. Head to VoteSaveAmerica.com slash volunteer to get started now. Also, a new episode of Dan's exclusive subscriber series, Polar Coaster, just dropped. This one's about how exit polls work and what they tell us about the general election. To listen to this episode, make sure you're a part of Crooked's Friend of the Pod community by heading to crooked.com slash friends now. When we come back, Dan talks to Biden deputy campaign managers, Quentin Folks, and Rob Flaherty. Joining me now are two of President Biden's deputy campaign managers, Rob Flaherty and Quentin Fulks. Guys, welcome to Pod Save America. Hello. Thanks, Dan.

Thank you for having us. I got to start with the most important question of the day. Which one of you wants to take responsibility for scripting the Super Bowl with the NFL and Taylor Swift? Well, we've had a lot of meetings dating back to the beginning of the campaign about this, and we're just glad to see it pay off. That's right. That's right. Well, glad to see it's in the bag.

Today in the New York Times, there was yet another story about the Biden campaign battle plan. I've read some of the posts. I've read some in Axios, Politico. Everyone's got a story of the battle plan. Can you guys give me the actual, your actual short version of your plan of how you're going to go about winning this election? Yeah.

I mean, look, I think one of the things that we have to do right out of the gate is really define the choice that voters are going to have in November. Right now, we know a lot of voters aren't paying attention necessarily to this. They're living their lives. They're doing things. But, you know, we have to define the choice as much as possible. We've come out of the gate very quickly doing that. We've seen the president's travel, you know, Valley Forge, South Carolina, big speeches about the freedom and democracy of it all to really put into perspective what this campaign is going to be about, while simultaneously, that's the 30,000

foot. But look, we're going to win this in the states. We've got to staff up and build infrastructure in the states in order to be able to make sure that we have the folks on the ground knocking doors, doing the calls and texts. And then obviously, you know, Rob can talk about this a little bit more, but you know, there's going to be a paid media aspect of this too. But the messages coming out of this campaign are really going to matter, not just the contrast with Trump, but also the vision that President Biden and Vice President Harris have for America. And then we've got to have those firing from all these different places that I just mentioned. One of the things that was in some of these stories recently is that you guys have been ramping up in the states in particular. There's been some criticism late last year that you were behind sort of previous reelection campaigns. What's the status of the organization you're building out in the states?

different. You've got to build a campaign that's going to work for yourself. And, you know, I think that some of these historical comparisons, I mean, 2020 was COVID. But, you know, from the perspective that we are, all of our battleground states, we're going to have leadership teams in place before the end of this month. So we feel like we're tracking along there. We've got some exciting announcements coming up, hopefully today and tomorrow about that. But we've got, you know, state staff and all these battleground states, and then we're going to continue to build out from there and capacity build and really start bringing in the volunteer and the organizers, getting them trained up on our messages to then be able to get that out. So we feel very comfortable where we are. And also, you know, we've been advertising since last year in some of these core communities in our battlegrounds.

We've been running organizing pilots on the ground in a couple of states. We've been sort of experimenting with the tactics that are going to help scale us up, and we have a good battle plan from here. You mentioned that people are not yet paying attention. We've sort of seen that in at least diminished turnout on the Republican side in Iowa, sort of lower TV ratings for some of the election nights, and it's certainly in previous years. I read a report in one of these stories, I think it was in the Post, that was attributed to your guys' campaign point that showed that a sizable chunk of undecided voters did not yet believe that Donald Trump was going to be the nominee. Is that what you guys are really seeing out there in terms of the sort of the less engaged electorate? It's 100% true, at least in what we're seeing. You've got a lot of voters who are still making

up their minds because they've got a lot going on. They are not paying attention to politics. They are opting out of paying attention to politics. And, you know, Trump is sort of, you know, gone in their minds. And so, you know, in a lot of sense for these voters, the election hasn't even started yet. So we've got to do the work now of communicating with them, raising the stakes of the election, but also being ready for when they do start to tune in, which may sort of be more of a trickle than a bang. And so we've got to start, you know, communicating with them early and working on raising the stakes. Which is also why you see a concerted effort for us to do that, which is trying to bring the general election forward, right? Like regardless of what happens or delegates and numbers, again, this is going to be a choice

about, you know, what we feel like President Biden and Vice President Harris are bringing to the table and what the Republicans are putting forward. So we're intentionally trying to move that up to make these people, you know, really get to this mode where we feel like people are going to be paying attention. These are our candidates. Let's go. Let's have this throw down fight that we know we're headed towards. I take it from the statement you guys put out right after the race was called in New Hampshire that as far as you're concerned, Donald Trump is the nominee and the general election has begun and you're not trying to extend the Republican primary or holding out hope for Nikki Haley.

Is that right? Well, you know, ultimately we don't get to decide, but, you know, it looks like looks like it's going to be Donald Trump, we are in we are ready for him, we are in general election mode, he's getting into general election mode. So you know, we got to be got to be ready for all of that. And we're full steam ahead. In addition to people sort of opting out of politics, it's also never been harder to get political information, right? The information ecosystem has changed dramatically. And I was thinking about this, Rob, in your context, which is you oversaw a lot of the digital communications. You oversaw the digital communication efforts for President Biden in 2020. What has changed since then? And how are you adjusting your strategy to reflect those changes?

I think the biggest thing is, even since 2020, the media environment has gotten not just fractured, everybody says fractured, but it's actually, it's gotten more personalized. And that's like the TikTokification of everything, you know, all of that. But it's also that people are, there's just sort of like a, like a avalanche of bullshit coming at people in their day to day. And, and they are starting to retreat to sort of the people that they know that they can trust. I mean, even on, you know, one context and one thing in digital, Adam Masseri earlier this year, CEO of Instagram said 50% of the stuff that gets shared, the majority actually of stuff that gets shared on Instagram is in private groups. Like

people are talking to their friends more. And so you started to see this split between like, I think it's Ryan Broderick has Garbage Day. He talks about the public internet and the private internet. Like there's, that is the biggest thing. And so you've got where people are kind of consuming information and where people are talking to their friends. If you're doing a digital strategy or communication strategy, you need to, in the first bucket, be in as many places as possible through your paid and your earned.

And then in the other bucket, you got to be talking to people through their friends and family. That's why we ran the paid media sort of campaign that we ran last year to get those learnings on what is the best media mix with the right voters? How do we actually reach them? It's why you've seen the president talk to influencers and content creators.

And it's why our organizing pilots are focused on getting people to share content with their friends. Like you need a strategy to think about all of that. I'll say one other thing that is, you know, 70% of media spend in the 2022 cycle from political campaigns went to linear broadcast television, and 30% went to everything else. So when I say linear broadcast television, I mean, like cable broadcast, like all the, you know, you tune in. That's like not how people get information anymore. They're in more places than ever. They are when they are in those more places than ever, they are then in further more places than ever. And so it means that we can't have this sort of lopsided, you know, way of targeting voters. We just got to go. We got to go everywhere. So you sort of have to get, you know, I've heard some people also describe this as like the new, like if Twitter was where people talked about politics in 2012 and 2016, it's now family group texts, right? And WhatsApp, etc.

Yeah. How do, like, do you talk a little bit about how you try to, we want to get inside of those conversations, like by empowering people to share content? Just because I get that's a question I get all the time is if that's how people are communicating, how do we as volunteers help and how can they do that? Yeah. So there's a couple of different things. Like one, you know, we're sort of playing around with like relational organizing tools. Reach is sort of the big one that we use and it gives folks sort of a bucket of content that they can share at a regular basis with their friends and family. But also like there is like a fundamental to this, which is like, it's not enough just to share a graphic, like it needs to sound like you. And so it's how we train folks on messaging, authentic communication, like that's a whole new bucket of training we have to think about when it comes to what volunteers do with

their time. Obviously, like story itself, all that stuff has been around forever. But it's this question of, all right, how do you translate that to a Facebook post? How do you translate that to a text to friends? Because also, like, I don't know, I'm in group chats. Like if I'm just posting Biden campaign graphics all day, I'm going to get booted out of that group chat really fast. Which would be really embarrassing for you personally. It would be very embarrassing for me, which is why I don't have any friends because that's all I do all day. So, you know, it's like, we have to sort of train people on those authentic conversations. Like one example we always kick around is that actually like one of the things we've

seen to be most authentic is like, um, someone sharing an article that's like gas prices are going down. Like that is creating an ethereal commentary about the economy that is not necessarily tied to Joe Biden, but is achieving our goal. So it's gotta be a little bit subtle touch. So we're thinking about a lot of that in the context of, of how we train our vols and push them out, but also, you know, how we think about these sort of relational conversations that are happening in that space too. Quentin, talk to me a little bit about how you guys see the map

heading into 2024. Is it the same six states? Is North Carolina really a potential expansion state? Any other surprises out there? Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, you know, we, in order to win a presidential election, you've got to get 270 electoral votes. And the idea is to not put all of your eggs in one basket. I mean, I think we all know sort of the big ones, you know, in no particular order. But, you know, you have Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida. You know, these are all states that we're looking at. We have to make sure that we're going to be able to compete and make changes as these, you know, campaign goes along. I think if you look back at 20, I don't think people thought that Georgia was going to be in play until it was right.

And you've got to make sure that you're able to pivot and build and sort of, you know, mobilize at any given point in any of these states. And so, you know, when you're talking about, you know, the presidency, you know, being able to do that, this is not something that you can just stand up overnight. And so you have to have investment spread out across these states in order to be able to sort of turn that spigot on, for lack of better phrasing, when you need to, in order to make sure that you can capitalize on any moments that present themselves over the campaign. So you'll put staff in North Carolina and Florida in this early phase here? Yeah, yeah, we definitely will. Obviously, this is the question that everyone asks is the obsessive topic of the press, but it's also something that in any political conversation you hear is about President Biden's age. We had this Gallup poll out the other day, which showed that two-thirds of Americans wouldn't vote for a candidate over 80. They

also would not vote for a convicted criminal. So things are not great on either side here. Talk to me a little bit about your strategy for dealing with the age issue as the campaign goes on, particularly among members of President Biden's own coalition. Yeah. I mean, first of all, like the age, the age concern is nothing new. I mean, this is a thing we were dealing with in 2020. And we found it was actually pretty easy to dispatch with by showing voters the president doing stuff. And that sort of remains true.

I mean, there's just sort of an asymmetry. Like the president is governing to deliver results, but not necessarily, you know, be the most entertaining thing. And so we're up against, you know, all these sort of clips of things that are taken out of context or all of that. I think like one, the president has has started to acknowledge it and make jokes about it and all that. But but two, I think we have to recognize that, like the end of the day, like voters aren't going to vote on age. They're going to vote on the issues that matter to them. And so, you know, to us, it's like we got to go talk about that stuff, what we've delivered for folks, you know, the sort of policy agenda that we're on, and all of that. This is, in our sort of view, is a concern that is wide, lots of people talk about, but it's actually not that deep.

And, you know, the sort of people vote for who's going to fight for them. And at the end of the day, you know, this is an election between a 77-year-old man who has taken away people's right to an abortion, who has cut taxes for his rich friends, and, you know, is out for unhinged revenge, and a guy who's three years older than him. Right. I mean, the polling obviously shows that people, for whatever reason, have bigger concerns about President Biden than Donald Trump on the age issue. You guys have had some fun. President Biden did it in South Carolina. You've done it on digital stuff with Donald Trump getting confused between Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi at that rally and some other stuff. Is there an effort there just to sort of show that Donald Trump has lost it? Like, how do you how do you how do you factoring those two things in between building up your guy

to show he has the vitality to in the capacity to do the job and undermining the other guy? Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, you got to do everything. And so we're going to talk about the president's agenda and his accomplishments and, and everything he's been able to get done. And also, you know, we got a whole Donald Trump accountable, too. And he makes slip ups that if Joe Biden made, we'd be talking about for weeks, every single night. We got to make sure people see those at scale, too. And some of them are very perplexing and hard to understand as well. So, you know, it's all about service and doing both things. Yeah, I mean, I agree. It's both and, right? I know, it's all about service and doing both things. Yeah. I mean, I agree. It's both and, right? I mean, he's going to make mistakes and we're going to capitalize on them. But it is really important that we're getting out there what we

want to do for people and not making it. So, you know, this is not going to be over-indexed on, you know, just Trump negative and hoping that that's going to be enough. This is going to have to be a both and situation that I mentioned and talk about what the president wants to continue to do for the American people and then use that contrast to show that like, look, this is completely and wildly vastly different than what Donald Trump wants to do. All the polling shows, and I always attribute this a lot more to the media environment than anything that like the White House or the president has done, but it's just there's this huge gap between everything that was accomplished by President Biden and what people know he has accomplished.

And there were a lot of efforts, like some of the ads that ran last year, and you see this sometimes in some of your social and a lot from the White House is, these are all the things that we did in the past. How important is it to educate people about something that happened in the past as a predicate for what he can do in the future versus what a second term agenda looks like? How are you guys sort of thinking about the prioritization there? I think it's extremely important. I think one of the things is that there's just such a litany of accomplishments. Sometimes it's hard to get credit for all of them. I think you've seen the vice president say that, you know, this administration needs to brag more. But, you know,

at the same time, I think that they sort of put their heads down. And when this flurry of accomplishments were coming, they were just on to the next one to continue delivering for the American people. But I do think it's very important, particularly when you're talking about a lot of base voters who have sort of a apathy towards this electoral system because they feel like they're promised things and then nothing gets done. I do think that this monochrome of sort of promises made, promises kept is extremely important to those voters to say, look, I'm not just coming around again because it's election season. I came, you know, you voted for me. You sent me to the White House last time I got in there. I did real work and I said I was going to do these things on the trail in 2019, 2020.

And I got into office and I delivered them. And in some cases, I delivered them even when the Supreme Court, even when Congress was standing in my way. And I want to continue doing that work. So I think it's very important that we do that. And I think depending on who the audience is, it may be more important. I think a second term agenda is important for everyone. But I really do think that it is very, very important to let people know that this president made promises and he got into office and did the best that he could to deliver on them and in our minds delivered very well.

Plus, like the what matters, because I think it informs the why. Right. Like if you look at this election, it's a choice between Donald Trump is getting up every day and running for office to accrue power, get revenge for last time, keep peddling his unhinged conspiracy theories and get help him and his buddies like get rich and pay less in taxes. Or you have Joe Biden, who's running because he gets up every day thinking about what's best for working families. And like, that choice is articulated through the accomplishments that, you know, the president has been able to make. And also another thing to remember, Dan, is like, a lot of these voters, we talked about these undecided voters, not only do they think Trump's not going to be the nominee,

they like don't really remember the Trump years, you know? And, you know, like that, that's like a, I think a really key point is, you know, they, they need to sort of be reminded on, on, you know, all the things that he did to the negative too. So that I think in contrast also was like a really, really important point. It's, you know, obviously best campaign messaging is like larger narratives and stories about everything, but is that sort of the core contrast you're looking at, what you just defined there, which is Biden's out there fighting for you and Donald Trump's fighting for himself and his rich friends? Is that kind of the crux of the whole matter right there? Well, more or less. And also, you know.

If it's not, it should be, I think. Yeah. I mean. No, it is. And, you know, with that, it's, you know, I think people, we have seen this sort of resonance of the fact that he is out to get revenge and the fact that he is out to, you know, sort of increase the sort of ability for people to participate in the system through political violence, like all this stuff. It's that fundamental choice, though. It's like who's looking out for you and who's not? And this stuff adds up, too. I know that people, you know, when we talk about freedom and democracy, it sounds sort of, you know, ethereal and pie in the sky when we talk about it, but they all add

up. And like the president was sort of mocked when he ran against on this against Trump, you know, four years ago, but he's the only person to beat him. And I think that that really matters. And I think that there's pieces of these elemental things that they all add up. It's economic freedom. It's reproductive freedom. It's freedom to go to places of worship and go to schools and not worry about gun violence. It's all of these things that add up to this point that Rob is talking about here that we have to continue to make the case to. So it's exactly what you laid out. It's that Joe Biden's fighting for people and Donald Trump is not. And in the process of what he wants to do,

it's actually destroying our democracy and taking away your freedoms. I did notice that the president called Donald Trump a loser on multiple occasions in his speech in South Carolina. Was that intentional? You were to just remind people that he's a loser, undermine his strength, or was the president just getting kind of excited out there? Well, Donald Trump lost. And so when you lose, you're a loser. There you go. You would pass the Washington Post fact check with that.

I hope no KOs for you. That's right. No, but look, I mean, at the end of the day, the president's calling him for what it is. And I think it is important as Donald Trump pedals like conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory for his own political gain, and maybe to bruise his hurt ego, or help his bruised ego, you know, that he lost. obviously has been pretty divisive when the Democratic coalition is around Gaza and Israel, and you've had people showing up at events, protesting the president, and obviously all the polling shows that there's some division there. And there was this report that in a visit to Michigan, some local leaders did not want to have the meeting. How are you guys thinking about addressing that in your outreach and your messaging to try to bring the Democratic coalition back together?

Well, look, one thing, you know, in regards to sort of, you know, what you mentioned about Michigan is that our campaign and the administration is going to continue to try to engage with folks, even when they're upset. The president from the moment that this has started has never approached, you know, what's happening through a lens of being, you know, sort of politics and what it's going to do to numbers or, you know, he's honestly approached it every day from a position of being commander in chief and being a leader. And, you know, we feel like that is also, you know, in stark contrast with Donald Trump and the Republicans as well. And so even though there's policy differences, you know,

within our base on this issue, the one thing that the president has instructed both his administration and the campaign to do is continue to engage with these people, let them know that they have a place in the Biden-Harris coalition. But again, this contrast piece is that we clearly see what happens when people disagree with Donald Trump. He threatens political violence, he threatens revenge, you know. And so we feel like, you know, we have to point that out. And also on this issue, you know, in particular, getting into some of the nitty gritty on it, it's like, you know, Trump and the Republicans,

we saw the sort of rhetoric that they use. No humanitarian aid, let's level Gaza. We saw them, you know, Trump institute a Muslim ban, be extremely xenophobic. And so, you know, again, that's not to replace that. We're willing and have been trying to engage and have dialogue with leaders in this space and will continue to do so. But the way that the president has handled this situation is in stark contrast. And his experience to handle this situation on a foreign policy level with all the things that are going on across the globe these days. It's not a time for us to go back to somebody who literally would tweet and could start World War III. That is what I remember under a Donald Trump presidency, as I'm sure a lot of people do. And so we're going to continue

to engage with folks, listen to folks, have candid conversations, honest conversations with folks, and bring them into our fold on this issue. Rob, a lot of, you know, obviously reaching younger voters is the hardest thing in politics. So many of them are now getting their news on TikTok. For all sorts of national security reasons, the president, the White House don't have a presence on TikTok. How are you thinking about how to reach these young people on TikTok if the campaign and the president are can't or cannot be there officially for whatever reasons. Yeah, totally. Look, whether or not we had a TikTok on the campaign, I think would actually materially

change our strategy a whole lot. I think that the core dynamics of the platform are that, you know, like people, anyone can post things and they can get a lot of attention. That's kind of the magic of it. And so for us, it's actually the work of organizing and working through and reaching out to those content creators and validators that I think is key to the work. That's sort of one bucket. I think the second bucket is how do we sort of work to generate content through our volunteers and supporters? So I think that's sort of a bucket of business you're going to see the campaign start to

work with more. And then three is to like think of business you're going to see the campaign start to work with more. And then three is to like think about how people can kind of see the president through their own eyes. The example I give is when he was in North Carolina last week, the president sat down for a kitchen table conversation. And we the one of the sons who's at the table made a tick to TikTok that I think now has like 4 million views and got picked up by the shade room and complex and all this stuff. And, you know, I think that's like a really important thing. It shows the president out there. It shows people, him talking to people. And it also shows people like, you know, being down to hear what he has to say. And that permission structure work is really important. So all of that is the most important part of a TikTok strategy. It is 75 to 80% of a TikTok strategy, and it can be 100%. And so, you know, whether or not we have an own platform,

I don't think really changes a whole lot about how we approach it. So misinformation and disinformation were a huge problem in 2016, a big problem in 2020. Since then, it seems like a lot of the platforms have backed away from some of their efforts to try to stem misinformation, disinformation. AI is now involved. There was that robocall in New Hampshire using an AI-generated version of President Biden's voice to tell people the wrong election date. Inside the campaign, how are you guys thinking about the fight against misinformation and disinformation generally, but also specifically AI, deep fakes, and that sort of stuff? Yeah.

Well, first of all, it's important that the campaign has to be aggressive about it and vigilant about it. And both of those things are equally important, vigilant and aggressive. The thing with AI is that it's not necessarily bringing new stuff that didn't exist before the campaign. So you don't have to be worried about fake robo calls. That stuff's been going on forever. Missing disinformation that's been going on forever.

It is going to increase the speed, uh, and potentially the realism, uh, that, that, that, that stuff sort of presents. That means the campaign needs to be watching it. And, and, you know, we've had sort of a, a, a tiger team that's been on the sort of monitoring of this stuff from the jump. I think in terms of interventions, it's like, you know, we have to think about what a campaign can actually do. And, you know, at a certain point, sometimes mis and disinformation has the impact of inflaming people who are never going to vote for us anyway. If it's doing that, that is a society problem. But it is not necessarily a thing the campaign needs to spend a ton of resources on.

But if it is moving or demotivating voters, we need to care about. And so, you know, we do this research on a regular basis to see which sort of mis- and disinfo narratives are actually moving voters that we need and then run targeted interventions against them. And that might look like pay. That might look like organizing outreach, all that stuff. Um, but you know, all that stuff is, is, is stuff that is in the campaign toolbox. It's just going to need to move faster, more vigilant, be more sensitive, uh, and, uh, and be watching.

There are an exhausting level of narratives about this campaign, about how people are thinking about it. I think the New York Times in a straight news article called it a dispiriting slog that no one asked for. What do you guys think, which is totally objective and normal if you write in a newspaper? Bit different. As you guys look at the dynamics of this election, what do you think everyone who's talking about this election is getting wrong? Like, what are we missing about how you think it's going to play out? Look, you know, I can tell you from coming to work every day that, you know, there is no one who is approaching this like our campaign team. Nobody in this office is approaching it like it's a slog or like that democracy isn't on the ballot. That's not just something that we're saying to be catchy or for some slogan. We're actively working every day and building like that is the case. I think a lot of what people feel is sort of urgency and they're scared.

We're scared, which is why we're in this fight, right? I think that people are, you know, deathly afraid of what a second Donald Trump presidency could look like. And it sort of, you know, manifests itself with these types of remarks. But, you know, one of the things that we try to do is make sure that we first and foremost are giving people the tools that they can have to get involved, right? Whether it's your listeners, you know, here, we want folks to get involved. The last election was decided by less than 45,000 votes. This is going to be a close election no matter what we do. We know that. We've been clear about that, honest about that. And we've also tried to clearly draw the stakes of what could happen

under a second Donald Trump presidency by highlighting what he did in his first one, by what he's saying that he will do, the economy crash, repeal ACA, all of these types of things. But I think that, you know, we just need people to get involved. And I think that there is no lack of support, folks wanting to help get involved. And our campaign just has to continue to give folks the tools to do that. And so I don't want to take, you know, people's sort of fear and anxiety about a second Donald Trump presidency that's very real and be defensive about it, because I think that that's where it's coming from. And these folks, a lot of whom are Democrats and want to help. So that's how we view that. And we deal with those things and just try

to bring more and more people into the fold and give folks the tools that they need so that they don't feel that way or ease the anxiety a little bit, although it's going to remain there until we're past election day. Past inauguration day is my guess. And it's also like, it's only a slog if you make it a slog, right? I mean, one of the things that actually the vice president has talked to us about is how it's important to campaign with joy.

And Quentin's point is so right. A joyful, fun, spirited campaign is made up of joyful, fun, spirited supporters, and that brings new people into the fold. And to that end, like I get to look at the grassroots fundraising numbers all day, which is a fun thing. One third of the people who donated to our campaign thus far did not donate to us in 2020. Like that's new people coming in the door because they're excited about what we're doing. And so, you know, to Quentin's point, to the people who are listening to this, you getting involved and talking to your friends about why this election is important and why it's going to make a difference in their lives is the thing that makes this a joyful and a good experience. Defeating Donald Trump is a fun thing.

It is an important thing. fun thing. It is an important thing. It is a really meaningful thing for what it means to be in this country. And you being a part of that really matters. And so that's why, you know, it's a slog if you make it a slog. All right, well, let me tee you guys up here. So tell people exactly, tell our listeners exactly where you want them to go and what do you want them to do if they want to join this joyous effort to make Donald Trump a loser yet again? Well, you should joyously go to joebiden.com and sign up or donate there or text Joe to 30330

and you can join our campaign and we'll follow right up with you. Awesome. Quentin, Rob, thank you guys. Enjoy my hometown of Delaware. And now that I know you guys have a podcast studio literally down the hall from your office, we will talk to you again soon.

Come on back to Pfeiffertown, Dan. Anytime. Thanks, Dan. All right. Bye. Thank you, guys. Thanks to Quentin Folks and Rob Flaherty for joining us. And Leah, thanks for co-hosting.

This was so fun. Thanks for having me. All right. Everyone have a good day. We'll talk to you again on Friday. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doom-scrolling,

don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Kira Wakeem is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Tolles, Kirill Pelleviv, and Molly Lobel.