Pod Save America - “Two maniacs and a bucket of chicken.”

Episode Date: May 15, 2018

Trump sends a couple of bigoted pastors to the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem, prepares for his meeting with Kim Jong Un, and stands by a White House staffer who joked about John McCain���s brain cancer. Then Michael Avenatti talks to Jon Favreau about his view that Michael Cohen will get indicted and flip on President Trump. 

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Today on the pod, we're going to be talking about Israel, we're going to be talking about North Korea, we're going to be talking about the White House and their leaking, mocking people who are dying problem. I got to tell you, there's a problem and there's not a problem. That's right.

And we're going to get into just which is which. I can't wait to find out. And later in the pod, my interview with the notoriously camera shy Michael Avenatti. How did we get him to do press? A lawyer who's representing actress Stormy Daniels as if he needs an introduction. Other pods, it says. Other pods. Love it or leave it.

I heard there was a super cut episode. That's what it says here. An awesome super cut episode of our live shows in Baltimore and Columbus where we talked about social media and Twitter with a bunch of great panelists, including social media experts and researchers to talk about the way social media is changing our politics. That show is really, really good, and you can check it out now. People are loving it. And then also, we're doing a-

People are loving it, Donald Trump. That's what I was doing. I'm just being, that's what we do now. We hype ourselves. Lie, cheat, and hype yourself. And we have a live show in philly on sunday and there are still a few seats left not many tommy it's a sunday we're doing one friday that'll be out saturday and we're doing another show sunday love to leave it never sleeps never sleeps

okay let's talk about the news uh the united states officially moved its embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem on monday reversing decades of american foreign policy in a move that many middle east observers have called, as it would take a crucial piece of leverage off the table for peace negotiations. Tommy, how big of a deal is this move? And why do many people view it as divisive? Tommy, give us the Netanyahu where, when, and why of this. He has been planning that line for seconds. That was amazing ad lib. So there are two significant events colliding this week.

As you said, John, on Monday, the Trump administration officially opened the new U.S. embassy, which had been relocated, sort of, from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I think they slapped a plaque up on another old building and they called it the new embassy. It is fraught, to say the least. Jerusalem has enormous religious historic significance. Both sides claim it as their capital, the Israelis and Palestinians. So Jared and Ivanka flew out. Mnuchin came. They had a ceremony that kind of felt like a Trump rally. It was also the 70th anniversary of President Truman recognizing Israel's independence. So big day there. But meanwhile, there is this horrific violence in Gaza as part of ongoing protests. The reports of more than 50 dead and 2000 wounded.

It's hard to verify these reports because they're coming out of the Hamas government in Gaza, but that is obviously staggering numbers. They were organized and hijacked by Hamas, these protests, which control Gaza. They are ostensibly about the Palestinians demanding the right to return to parts of Israel that they're driven out from or protesting the blockade of Gaza. But, you know, people were worried that this is going to get worse. You know, the reason this is such a sensitive issue regarding the embassy is both sides want their capital to be in Jerusalem. Who controls it? Who has their capital? Where is supposed to be decided in negotiations between the two parties in the Middle East peace process.

And many Palestinians feel like we're essentially handing over part of Jerusalem that will likely end up being the Israel's capital no matter what happens. But they're feeling like, OK, this is a big, important piece of this negotiation that we are recognizing by moving the embassy there today. What was the Obama administration position on moving the embassy? Every administration says they're going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as part of a campaign promise. And then everybody holds on actually doing it because the intelligence community, the Arab neighbors, a whole bunch of parties were concerned that it would lead to uprising protests, violence, bloodshed. So we did exactly that.

Obama said he would move the embassy, but ultimately never did because there was concerns about security. And essentially, more importantly, that it was a final status issue that needed to be negotiated. Can we talk about the violence in Gaza? Can. It does seem like, you know, you said that Hamas obviously hijacked some of these protests, but it also seems like from reports that Israelis were firing on some unarmed protesters who

were trying to climb this fence. Yeah. What justification do Israelis give for shooting and killing protesters in Gaza who are unarmed? Yeah, it's bad. You know, the Tuesday of this week is a date for Palestinians. They call the Nakba, which is referred to the catastrophe, which marks the day in 1948 when all these Palestinians were driven out of their homes. And so these protests have been going on for several weeks leading up to tomorrow to recognize this day. Hamas did hijack it and they took it over. And you know, what the the Israelis say

is when you have individuals storming the fence, trying to break into Israel that they will use force in sort of escalating fashion. So there is tear gas, there's rubber bullets, which don't really work from long distances. And then they have been using live ammunition. And apparently their rules of engagement are that you can only use lethal force, like shoot for the head when you see, quote, terrorist activity, whatever exactly that means. And that if it's shy of that, they're shooting for below the knees. But, you know, it seems like some people were shot in the stomach, getting shot in the stomach, getting shot in the abdomen, getting shot in the thigh or knee,

and then going to a hospital in Gaza, your odds aren't very good. So this is pretty horrific what's going on. It's also the context, too. They're protesting. Some of the protests were about the embassy move. Some of the protests also have been going on for quite some time about Israel's economic blockade of Gaza. So people in Gaza are essentially trapped in this area, right? And there's an economic blockade. And so they're trying to protest.

And now they're being shot at. Yeah, I mean, the situation in Gaza is awful. It's one of the most densely populated places on earth. There's no work. There are no jobs. There's sporadic electricity. The water's dirty. There's just no opportunity for these people.

Now, Israel withdrew their forces in 2005. But, you know, the UN still classifies it as occupied because the Israelis control, you know, the sea border, the land border, the Egyptians control their border, and it's rarely opened. So they restrict the movement of goods and individuals. So it's a dire situation in Gaza, and it's sort of been forgotten by the international community. So Jared Kushner acknowledged the violence in his remarks,

except he said that the protesters being shot at are, quote, part of the problem, not the solution. These comments were not included in the excerpts of his remarks that were delivered to the press ahead of time, and then they were omitted in the White House transcript afterwards. That doesn't seem normal, does it?

No. Yeah, you can't just edit the transcript with the parts that your dumb, dumb son-in-law said because he was in a fit of pique. I mean, do you remember when Obama would ad lib back in the day or even if we put out like a briefing transcript from Josh Earnest or somebody else and we had to edit something that was a typo or was incorrect or transcribed wrongly, we would update it with like a star indicating that we changed the official transcript. Now they're just putting out transcripts that are omitting key. Yeah, that are doctored.

Yeah, it's another one of those small ways they're undermining the kind of bedrock systems that live between administrations. I think one of the hardest tasks for the administration that follows Trump will be rebuilding the apparatus for for sophisticated, honest rendering of events because it's all been so broken. it's all been so broken. I mean, everything from every press release having a bunch of typos and mistakes all the way to sending out incorrect transcripts is something that is both incompetent and just sort of a symptom of the way this White House operates.

Well, I got something worse. Oh, no. Because this entire episode isn't fucked up enough, the Trumps also invited evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress to lead a prayer at the embassy opening. Here's some comments from the highlight reel from Robert Jeffress. He called Islam and Mormonism heresies from the pit of hell.

He suggested that the Catholic Church was led astray by Satan, said that gays live in a dirty and miserable lifestyle, said that Jews are going to hell. Jews going to hell. Yeah, at the happy opening of the embassy in Jerusalem, Jews are going to hell. Jews going to hell. Yeah, at the happy opening of the embassy in Jerusalem, Jews are going to hell. Yeah. They also brought, the other pastor they brought was John Hagee,

the pastor who famously said that in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, it was because God was punishing New Orleans for hosting a gay pride parade. Those are the people that were representing the United States of America abroad today, giving benedictions and opening prayers at the opening of the Jerusalem embassy. Cannot think of anything more disgusting. Did Joel Osteen say no? Or what happened?

I just like, I'm just trying to imagine, like, you know, obviously with Obama, we went through the whole Reverend Wright thing. The first time they heard about Reverend Wright's crazy comments was Obama's announcement speech in Springfield. He was supposed to give the benediction, and immediately they said, oh, no, absolutely not. Now we're bringing these people, these two people who are saying that Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, cults, people going to hell, we're bringing them overseas to represent the United States of America? What the fuck is that? It's again, there were so many ways in which our system was protected by human shame

and by a desire to not make people too angry or sad for no reason. And if you remove that, if you remove any compunction about elevating horrible people, about caring about what people said in the past, about respect for gay people or muslim people or catholics i mean like it's very old fashioned to be bigoted against catholics it's some of these yeah i mean it's it's uh it's real throwback uh but but but the the levers for saying this is wrong and having a concept having an effect by saying this is wrong is someone inside the White House has to give a shit. These people don't give a shit. And it's not like it's just a bunch of godless Democrats complaining about this. You have Mitt Romney saying a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.

But there is this professional class of evangelical leader that has decided that nothing Trump does or says matters anymore if he advances their agenda on other fronts. Like there's a big profile in New York Times, I think it was this weekend, about a guy named David Brody, who's like the lead anchor for Christian Broadcast Network. Yeah, it's a guy who used to hammer Democrats, still does all the time. And now it talks about his cozy relationship with Trump. They get lunch together. He goes to briefings. He gets exclusive access to Pence and never asks any of the tough questions

about affairs with the porn star or any of the things that you would think that the Christian broadcast news would care about given their past coverage of, say, Bill Clinton. There's all, I mean, we should also remember that we don't have anyone prominent on our side who we're bringing to events like that that are saying shit like that. But sometimes when someone even makes a minor comment that others deem offensive on the left, often we go into apology mode, say no.

Like, after this presidency, no. It's also just like – We need to really seriously think of when we, on our side, when someone says something that might be construed as offensive, what we actually decide to do. I mean, you look at Mitt Romney saying, I'm glad Mitt Romney said this. But the number of Islamophobic, anti-Muslim bigots, anti-gay bigots that populate this administration is staggering. this administration is staggering and that hearing it's it's interesting in that run of run of bigotry from that guy um the muslim piece is what we hear all the fucking time we've just decided that that that that there's a certain class of republican has decided they don't need to point that out every time when it's on their side you know we've made this point before imagine

if somebody said this about jews or imagine if somebody said this about. Well, this guy did. This guy did. You get a one way. You get a ticket to Israel. Yeah. I'm glad to be here. I do believe the Jews are going to hell.

But congratulations on that. I mean, what you'll be eventually be in hell. But right now you get to enjoy this wonderful embassy. Oh, it's a weird. I mean, that is that view that you know we need Israel to be controlled fully by the Jewish people before that Christ can return is

a big strain of like really fundamentalist Christian theology and a big reason that there is enormous support for Israel. It's this very weird deal where things are pretty bad. We're on your team now we're going to convert you in the end but for now let's talk. Let's do business.

Let's turn to North Korea. The White House announced last week that President Trump will meet in Singapore with North Korean head of state Kim Jong-un on June 12th to discuss a potential deal on North Korea's nuclear program. Over the weekend, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the two sides were already in agreement over what the ultimate objectives of the meeting would be. They both said that Trump will push for, quote,

complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. But then Pompeo said that Trump will be pushing to make sure that America is no longer held at risk by North Korea's nuclear arsenal. And then he hopes that they get rid of their chemical and biological weapons. So it does seem like Pompeo, either he misspoke or he has a different position than Bolton in the administration. What do you make of this, Tommy? Well, there's been a lot of Korea news. Like, you know, like any engaged couple, they finally did it. They picked a date.

So June 12th in Singapore, Trump, Kim Jong-un. Save the date. Two maniacs, one bucket of chicken. Episode title? I love it. Like you were saying, it does seem like the U.S. position is sort of like coming into focus, but they're a little all over the place. Like Trump has said, North Korea needs to get rid of this nuclear weapons period in any deal. Pompeo seemed to suggest they might be able to keep their current arsenal. And that's real objective is keeping them from striking the US

only. That will really make our allies in Japan and South Korea very happy. We also know that, you know, Kim said he will dismantle his most prominent nuclear test site. Trump tweeted how smart and gracious that was. But many experts think the thing basically caved in from, you know, nuclear testing so that it's no longer usable. So yeah, it's not quite that disposable camera situation. And that's quite the concession. Pompeo is also out there acting like any economic support that North Korea is going to get is going to be private sector businesses just like rolling in. I find that a little hard to believe there will be any direct U.S. economic aid because Bolton's kind of saying no. But again, I'm happy this is happening. Yeah. Get it done, guys.

Still a ways off from Grande Skin Lattes in Pyongyang. Yeah, that's right. So I wanted to ask, like, there's been some punditry that is like, why won't liberals give Trump credit for all that he's done around North Korea? So far, what has Kim offered Trump that past North Korean regimes haven't offered past presidents? What is new so far about what Kim has? Because we know he's offered the rest of the meetings. They just didn't take it. We know that they've destroyed testing sites before. Nothing. Nothing. Crossing. Nothing.

Crossing the border. Yeah, I mean, crossing the border to South Korea, having that conversation, you know, a wildly improved tone. There's a lot of, like, atmospherics that are shockingly better than the status quo five, six, seven years ago. Or 20 years ago. Or 20 years ago. But, right, I mean.

It seems like there's been these periods in the past where it seemed hopeful and there's been a change of tone and they've met and the North Korean and South Korean leader has met. Yeah, that's why the whole conversation about the Nobel Prize is so silly and everything else because we're just so far ahead of actual what success should look like, which is them getting rid of their nuclear weapons. I mean, that's the whole point of this conversation.

Yeah, so I was going to say, what is a successful summit short of them giving up all of their nuclear weapons, which seems... Do you think they will give up all of their nuclear weapons? Feels unlikely to me. So is there any success short of that, them giving up nuclear weapons? Probably. I think it's the only realistic success is they have some sort of program or some sort of weapons capacity or capability that they hold on to. Is there a scenario where they give up the capacity to strike the United States but not South Korea and then they still maintain something? I'm trying to figure out what Pompeo was saying there. I guess you could get rid of their entire ICBM program and call that a success.

I just don't know how you could shift the goalpost that much and call it a success or make your allies happy. Yeah, I think there's two things side by side. One is the fundamental situation, which we talked about before, which is we've created incentives and North Korea knows those incentives, which is if you want to be a closed off regime that tortures your people and threatens your neighbors. closed off regime that tortures your people and threatens your neighbors. Having nuclear weapons is one way to protect yourself and protect yourself from foreign invasion, protect yourself from bombing, protect yourself from regime change, protect yourself from American foreign policy shifts. You look at Libya, you look at Iraq, you look now at the Iran deal being torn up. You look at that and it's hard to imagine the incentives not being there for Kim Jong-un

to maintain nuclear weapons. They are an insurance policy against aggression. They are also a card you can play, which he's playing now. I don't know that any... Barack Obama didn't change that. George W. Bush didn't change that. Bill Clinton didn't change that. Donald Trump didn't change that. And I don't know that there is a way to change that. And this feels like the kind of locked policy problem that no one seems to have a way to unlock. Put that aside. I think the question that is harder to answer is, is Donald Trump's odd behavior and his refusal to kind of play by the logic of smart experts in the region who inevitably hedge towards a kind of moderate, sensible, slow boil, slow rolling approach, tit for tat, small steps, give a little, take a little. Put that aside. He doesn't care.

And it's boring. And he wants to win and he wants the praise and all the right. Did that shake things up to allow for the possibility of something short of giving up a nuclear program, but something better than another president could have gotten? And I think we have to be open to the possibility that the answer there is yes. But we don't know yet. But A, we don't know. And B, at the heart of all of this is the worst person we've ever made president who can break it apart, ruin it, listen to John Bolton, use an excuse for military action, not accept the terms, walk away, screw it up, lie, what have you. And so I just think we don't know.

And there's a lot of pieces that Donald Trump can mess up along the way. But I think we have to also be humble about it. Yeah, I just I think that the whole question, does Trump get credit or not, which seems to be coming up more and more in all the punditry, is such a premature, stupid question to ask right now because we just don't know. And in fact, I think we should also be prepared for the fact that after the summit, Donald Trump will definitely probably try to claim victory. And we still won't know until maybe months from then if it's a real good outcome or not.

I don't care. I don't give a shit about the conversation about Donald Trump deserving credit. Donald Trump deserves the credit for whatever Donald Trump does and doesn't do. He's the president, whatever. There's been a lot of people who thought what Donald Trump was doing for a long time was incredibly dangerous and incredibly risky. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. But we're at a point where in part because Trump is undisciplined, in part because Trump didn't care what people said, we are at a point where there is this moment of a possibility for something different. There is a true inflection point now.

And you have to look at that and say, well say well you know a lot of experts said this wouldn't happen i just want us to learn the right lessons from these things like i'm totally cool giving him credit for sanctions i'm cool giving him credit for being open to talks and accepting them quickly and pushing this thing down the road i think where we are being problematic is like to act like the madman theory of tweeting like oh fire and fury all that shit was somehow helpful i find it highly unlikely that that was a useful thing for him to do especially when his own staff was undercutting him on the side saying no there's no real military options steve bannon on the record and like unprovable it's speculative the real the you know so is criticizing it. What's important, I think, is, like, remembering that the person driving this train still is Kim Jong-un and South Korea and the sort of really big steps that they've taken, that rapprochement, and that were helpful, hopefully, and can help guarantee a good outcome here.

But, like, I don't want to pretend that threatening every country out there is the way to do this. What I was going to say is it's just as likely that if we end up having to give credit to Donald Trump for this, it's because his administration pursued a path that was not unlike what Barack Obama did with the Iran deal. Oh, absolutely. Which also, I mean, I realize that we could point out hypocrisy all day long on this podcast and it gets very old. But it's amazing seeing Pompeo be like, yeah, we'll give them freedom from economic sanctions if they get rid of their nuclear program. Like, gee, where did I just hear about this?

Oh, the Iran deal that conservatives think was the worst fucking thing in the world. Like what what is different about what would happen in North Korea and what happened with the Iran deal, except for the fact that North Korea possibly already has nuclear weapons and Iran didn't? I mean, we don't know the outcome yet. Right. But it's certainly the case that like all the there's all these additional activities that we don't like that Iran does that Trump rightly criticizes the ICBM development, the missile development, the, you know, messing around in Syria, messing around in Yemen, I think you could sort of draw up a similarly bad list of things that North Korea does, like throwing hundreds of thousands of dissidents in a concentration camp, or ICBM development, obviously, and make that, you know, make a similar argument. It does does feel like you need some consistency for anyone

who does deals with us to understand. The other part of it, I agree with all that. The kind of paradox at the heart of the North Korea problem for so long has been we can't accept any deal that involves them having nuclear weapons and they cannot accept any deal in which they don't have nuclear weapons. And I don't know the resolution of that. I don't know how you get around that. But what it seems that we were doing for a very long time and are maybe still doing, I'm not saying that Trump hasn't discovered some secret solution here, is, you know, creating sanctions, putting pressure on the regime. And then that regime still slowly and expertly move towards a more and more sophisticated nuclear weapons program because we don't have the tools to stop them and they know that it's the only key to their survival. I think the broader concern is that there's a treaty called the NPT, the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, that Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan, they're not a part of, but the international community looks to this treaty as a way to establish a norm that says no one else is allowed to get nuclear weapons except for the people already had them in like, I think 1970. And that those who have them commit long term to wind down their arsenals with the goal of no nuclear weapons and any expansion of the number of countries that it seems to have nuclear weapons, it seems sanctioned by the international community, whether through unilateral deals or what have you, is troubling and problematic and in a broader trend that, you know, goes against all sort of hopes for nonproliferation. Yeah.

Wonky, nerdy. No, I think it's just such a terrible, this is such a terrible, intractable problem that everyone has been arguing about for 30 years and it's never gotten better. Not one time. Yeah. Well, let's hope for a good outcome. Let's talk about the White House. We haven't talked about this yet, but last week the Hill reported that when White House staff were meeting to talk about Gina Haspel's confirmation process for CIA director,

one communications aide, Kelly Sadler, joked that it didn't matter that John McCain was opposed to her nomination because McCain, who has brain cancer, is, quote, dying anyway. So this is gross. But instead of reprimanding Sadler or apologizing for the comment, the White House has been attacking whoever leaked the comment, with Donald Trump calling that person a traitor. Sadler reportedly called McCain's daughter, Megan, to apologize and promised to issue a public apology, but that has not happened yet. Nobody hold your breath. Anyone surprised about this?

I think you should start by just saying that is people make off-color jokes and people say things that they think are gonna be funny that aren't funny. People screw up in meetings. People cross a line. It is still extraordinary

for someone to say that kind of a joke in the White House. We a joke in the White House. We all worked in the White House. People make jokes. But the idea that someone would make a joke like that is so crazy because everybody knows where you're sitting. You're sitting in this building and you're sitting in this place where you just don't make those kinds of jokes. And I think the fact that someone said it and then the fact that it leaks speaks to the fact that White House's reflect the person in charge and the person in charge is a scumbag who leaks all the time. And cruel and cruel.

They are cruel. Donald Trump is cruel. I mean, like, I'm not I wasn't totally surprised by the comment because they're working for a president who said of John McCain, I like war heroes who weren't shot down. who said of John McCain, I like war heroes who weren't shot down. You know, I mean, the way he's talked about Mexicans, the way he's talked about women, the way he's talked about African shithole countries, the man is cruel. His staff is cruel. John Kelly interviewed with NPR last week when he talked about, you know,

oh, if children come over the border with their parents and they're ripped apart, you know, foster care or whatever will take care of them, whatever. I was surprised and not surprised at the same time. OK, like if that's a horrendously bad joke to make and I'm someone who's made many, many, many horrendously bad jokes. But what I think this this administration normally does is try to stamp out PR problems that weren't created by Donald Trump himself. Everybody else, he's allowed to screw up, do whatever he want, and he goes to the mattresses for everything. Normally, if some flunky, lower-level aide screws up and does something shitty, that person gets slapped on the wrist or at least gotten in trouble,

and they try to fix it that way. Or Rudy says the wrong thing on Sean Hannity, and Trump goes, he's just getting started, he's a moron. He's my dumb uncle. You get slapped down a little bit. The fact that they still won't fix this is crazy to me because A, it's obvious you should. It's the right thing to do. B, you promised the man's daughter that you would publicly apologize. So they're chalking this up to the fact that, well, Trump thinks the way you show weakness is to apologize because you're never going to get credit from the left and yada yada. It's like no part of their thinking does doing the right thing ever factor in. It's all political. And like they're getting hammered by Republican senators.

Everybody. Everyone is. It's like there's there's no constituency for mocking John McCain as he dies. No, but that's I mean, I think you tweeted this, Tommy. It's like, it's one thing to make a horrible joke, to say something that bad, which is bad.

And you're right. You're in the White House. Never say something like that. But if you say it, the next move is, I am so sorry. I made a huge mistake. My bad.

I'm sorry. Call the family. Say it publicly. It was gallows humor. I regretted it. I shouldn't I'm sorry. Call the family. Say it publicly. It was gallows humor. I regretted it. I shouldn't have said it. Why? Why can't they do that? Why does the White House have to suddenly, and then, you know, Mercedes

Schlapp, who fucking left the correspondence dinner in a snit. Smoky eyes. Now the civilization is ruined. And she said, she said i stand put this on the record i stand by kelly sadler i stand by i stand by the woman who mocked someone who was dying but you know what i will leave this correspondence center to get to the fucking

after party 10 minutes early because i am offended by a joke and they're acting like fucking suck so and they're acting like leaks are the problem and the press is sort of leaning into this. I mean, what's funny is Sarah Huckabee Sanders lit everybody on the comms team up for leaking, and then five people in that room leaked to Axios about the meeting, about the leaks. And then Jonathan Swan over the weekend did a whole other story where all his favorite sources explained to him why they leaked. So these people have no respect for their team, no respect for the president, no respect for the office. It speaks to a bunch of mercenaries who were dumb enough, valueless enough to take this job in the first place. When you work in a Donald Trump White House, you are surrounded by the kind of people who would work in the Donald Trump White House.

And these are the dregs of Republican public life. These are people with no scruples or worse, Trump scruples. You know, these are and or and people that were that would not have been qualified, would not have been elevated in a Jeb Bush administration, a Mitt Romney administration, a Marco Rubio administration, because we don't have to agree with them. We don't have to like them. We don't like their worldview. But there are smart, talented Republican operatives who would kill to work in a White House that other than this one. And this is this is going to happen in the future. If we do not say as a society that these people, when they leave this White House, should not be rewarded in public life. You know, like this. The problem with a lot of these comments is they go right down the memory hole.

We all have collective amnesia because there's like a million scandals a day. And then seven months from now, when Kelly Sadler is announced as a Harvard IOP fellow in a press release, we're all going to be like, that sucks that that happened. And then someone's going to be like, well,

don't you think that Harvard should have Republicans as well as Democrats? You don't think anyone from the Trump administration should come to Harvard? No, these people should never. They shouldn't go to Harvard. They shouldn't get speeches. They shouldn't get book deals. They shouldn't get invited to the D.C. fucking fancy parties. They're bad people. They lie. They don't apologize. They're cruel. You know, the the the fact that we're going to I think there's a chance we get to the end of this administration and Republicans will develop a narrative about what Trump gets none. Trump people get none of the perks, get none of the none of the credit for what they were as Republicans, except for the money. you know, what, what Donald Trump, I never, never met the man, but, but then they'll still get their book deals and they'll still get, so there'll be, in, in the ways that are beneficial to them, they will be treated like ordinary Republicans in the ways that it will hurt the Republican party.

They will be ostracized. Yeah. I mean, look for a lot of people in Washington and the right wing in the, in the Breitbart world, Trump has been good business and look no further than Olivia Nessie's profile of Sean Hannity andity and Donald Trump and their symbiotic relationship. Someone in the story literally describes Hannity as like Trump's wife because he doesn't actually live with Melania. And so we need someone to decompress and chit chat with at night. And that is the role that Sean Hannity has played, according to a source in the story. And, you know, like Hannity has employed Michael Cohen as his attorney, never disclosed it, never paid a price for failing to do that. Journalistic ethics don't apply to these people anymore.

If they're in bed with the Trump administration, they're making a parent company money. I mean, it is disgusting. And again, the lesson for us is you don't take the criticism and the whining from the Trump administration or the conservative media seriously. Don't answer it. Don't take it seriously. Don't worry the criticism and the whining from the Trump administration or the conservative media seriously. Don't answer it. Don't take it seriously. Don't worry about it. Because these people are all bad faith actors and it's not worth our responding to them.

The thing that's sad is the world is treating Sean Spicer like he's normal. He's got the book deal. The book is coming out. Not the world, though. It's the swamp that Donald Trump was talking about. It's the elite. It's the elite world that after people leave these kinds of jobs, get speaking gigs or high-profile consultancies or what have you,

they are being – Sean Spicer is leaving the White House in a way that looks very similar to the way Ari Fleischer or Scott – No, I totally disagree. Sean Spicer has gotten kicked in the teeth publicly. a way that looks very similar to the way Ari Fleischer or Scott. No, I totally disagree. Sean Spicer has gotten kicked in the teeth publicly. He didn't get a network deal. That's true. Speaking fees are nowhere near.

Like he. He did get that Madame Tussauds wax museum. He's got the book deal. He got the book deal. He did a Madame Tussauds opening of the new wax bus. I think like, look, he's making his money, but like he has gotten. He got a little spot on the Emmys too though I guess I guess I guess the

answer is more nuanced I guess in the end he is being treated more respectfully than he deserves but with less you know solicitousness than a traditional White House press have gotten maybe that's true maybe that's the best we

can hope for in this broken fucking culture bad people okay when we come back my interview with Michael Avenatti That's the best we can hope for in this broken fucking culture. Bad people. Okay. When we come back, my interview with Michael Avenatti. Michael Avenatti, welcome to the show. I have to say when we started this podcast, I did not expect to be talking to the lawyer to one of the president's alleged mistresses about hush money payments and international bribery rackets. But, you know, 2018, here we are.

So when you tweeted out information about all the companies and foreign oligarchs who paid Michael Cohen for access to Donald Trump last week, you promised that there'd be more information to come. So my questions are, what additional information do you have? What does it tell us about Cohen and potentially about Trump? And why do you think it's important for all of us to know this information? Well, I'm not at liberty, at least today, to describe all of the evidence and all of the information that we have and that we're continuing to gather. You know, one of the positive aspects of the media effort that we've undertaken over the last eight weeks, John, is that we are now seen by many as the repository of information, and we are seen as a trusted source that people can come to if they have information that they believe should come to light

or should be run to ground, investigated, et cetera. And so I think that's been a very positive thing for us because with each passing day, whether it's Monday through Friday or Saturday or Sunday, we're acquiring more information for use not only in our case, but also information that I think is important for people to learn about and be disclosed. You know, as it relates to why I think is important for people to learn about and be disclosed. As it relates to why I think the information we disclosed last week is important, as it relates to Michael Cohen, I mean, there's a whole host of reasons for that. I mean, first of all, he was never a registered lobbyist.

He was never registered for an agent. There's no question at this point that he was selling access to the president, to the highest office of the land. We don't know yet whether some of those payments made their way to Donald Trump or one of his organizations. Excuse me, the entire thing does not sound, it doesn't pass the smell test. Let's just put it that way. You hinted that Cohen's payment to your client might have come from a company linked to a Russian oligarch. When you put something like that out there, are you doing it because you have certain information that might prove that, that you just haven't released yet? Or are you introducing sort of a new public narrative about the case?

What's the purpose behind that? Well, I want to be really clear. We didn't say that the money came from a company that may have ties to a Russian oligarch. We said that the money came from a company, Columbus Nova, that does have ties to a Russian oligarch. I mean, there's no question about that. I think that Columbus Nova has provided a number of different narratives or responses in response to what we released, none of which check out. I think Mother Jones did a pretty thorough job, I think, on Friday of debunking a lot of the denials where they're trying to now separate Columbus Nova from the overseas entity and from the Russian oligarch. And I don't think

any of it really passes any degree of scrutiny. I mean, there's no question that there's significant ties between that entity and the Russian oligarch at this point. So since you released the memo, you've been calling on the Treasury Department to release any suspicious activity reports around Michael Cohen's financial dealings. Do you know for a fact that those suspicious activity reports exist? Yes, I do. I know for a fact that there are suspicious activity reports. The Wall Street Journal reported on at least one of them, I believe, back in February or March. We know for a fact that there's multiple others. We don't know why the Treasury Department will not release them. I understand that generally they're confidential, but the reason why they're generally confidential is because they don't want to tip off the target as to their existence. Well,

in this case, we know that the target's Michael Cohen, and we know of their existence because of, among other reasons, the Wall Street Journal reported on it back in February or March. So that's not a valid reason not to release them. And this is a matter of significant public concern. Tens of millions of people have a desire to see this information. And look, if the information that we disclosed is inaccurate, or if Michael Cohen or the president have information that suggests that what we've said is inaccurate, then they should be wholly supportive of this idea of Mr. Trump's Treasury Department releasing the SARS. They should also be wholly supportive of the idea of releasing his bank records. And we're not talking about a lot of bank records. We're talking about 14 or 15 months of bank records on a single bank account for

Essential Consultants LLC. Well, there's a reason why they haven't released that information. And it's because not only is it going to confirm what we've already stated, but it's going to get far, far worse for Mr. Cohen and likely Mr. Trump. And that's why this information hasn't been released, John. Are you concerned that the Treasury's Inspector General has launched an investigation into how you have come to receive this information? Do you feel confident about how you got the information in the first place? Well, let me say a couple things about that. First of all, I have no problem with the investigation. We did not do anything wrong. We did not do anything illegal. So I'm not at all concerned about that. But what I am a little concerned about is the way the investigation has been reported. You know, a couple of things. First of all, the investigation,

there's no confirmation that I'm under any investigation for anything by the Treasury Department or anyone else. So any suggestion to that is completely false. Second of all, there's no suggestion that there's an investigation into the leak of a SAR per se. That has not occurred. What has been confirmed, I think, by Treasury is that they have launched some sort of investigation into something relating to some of this information, and that's about it. So I just think it's important that that be reported accurately, and some of the other news organizations haven't done that. Okay. So let's talk about over the weekend.

On Sunday, you tweeted a picture of Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, and former Qatari diplomat Ahmad al-Rumahi meeting at Trump Tower on December 12, 2016. You then asked, why was Al-Rumahi meeting with Michael Cohen and Michael Flynn? And why did he later brag about bribing administration officials according to a sworn declaration filed in court? Do you know if there have been Qatari payments to Cohen, Flynn, or other Trump associates? Well, unfortunately, John, I'm not at liberty to answer that question, but I stand behind what I tweeted out. And I believe the declaration that was filed in court is accurate. And I think all of this raises some very, very serious questions relating to Michael

Cohen and exactly what he was doing and his role. I mean, we got to remember that Michael Cohen, to the best of my knowledge, did not have a formal position in connection with the transition, never had a formal position in connection with the transition, never had a formal position in connection with the administration, never had a security clearance, never registered as a lobbyist, never registered as a foreign agent. So what is he doing meeting these two Qatari gentlemen in the lobby of Trump Tower and clearly taking them upstairs in the elevator? And then they depart about an hour and a half later. Michael Flynn is there that same day. This seems very suspicious. I mean, they're not going up in Trump Tower to purchase Christmas gifts or to have lunch or dinner. That's clear. How much do you think, knowing what you do, that a lot of this wrongdoing is centered around Cohen?

And how much do you think Trump knows or knew about what Cohen was doing? I think any suggestion right now or in the foreseeable future that Mr. Trump had no idea what Mr. Cohen was doing and Mr. Cohen was just off on his own, doing his own thing without any supervision or knowledge by Mr. Trump, I think it's complete nonsense, John. I mean, this is a president who has stated unequivocally in the past that, you know, he likes to know what's going on at all times. He especially has a problem with people making money on him without his pre-approval or knowledge. I mean, we've heard that in many, many circumstances. There's nothing to suggest that him and Mr. Cohen were not in regular communication. In fact, just the opposite is true. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that

they did have regular communication. I mean, the president did not hesitate in early April on Air Force One to refer the media and the American people to his attorney, Michael Cohen, for answers to questions relating to the reimbursement payments, which we know those statements on Air Force One now were flat out lies. So I think any suggestion that Michael Cohen was off on his own doing his own thing and the president never knew is complete nonsense. And John, you know, I'll tell you, I think, and I've been really firm in this prediction, and I stand by it today more than ever. There's no question Michael Cohen's going to be indicted.

There's no question he's going to flip on the president. And when he does, he's going to lay out, I am confident, in great detail about what Mr. Trump knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. So you've seen all the same smoke that we have coming out of the Mueller investigation. You've probably seen a lot more with the information that you have. Where do you think the fire is? And what would you be looking into if you were Robert Mueller right now? Well, I don't want to presuppose that or put myself in Robert Mueller's shoes because I got to tell you, those are big shoes to fill. And I have a lot of respect for Robert Mueller and his talents and the talents of his team. I mean, these are some very skilled prosecutors, very talented attorneys, and I'm sure they're doing an incredible job. But, you know, let me tell you this. I think that Russian collusion, I think that that's a very difficult thing to prove for a variety of reasons, including that a number of the witnesses, the vast majority of the witnesses are not on U.S. soil and are not subject to subpoena power, which is a real problem when you're an attorney trying to

prove a case like that. It doesn't mean it can't be done, but I just think that's a very difficult case to prove. It's a very complicated situation in my view. I think that it's much more likely that ultimately what's going to be proven are other crimes like bank fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, whether it relates to the hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment to my client or other business dealings of Michael Cohen. I think at the end of the day, that's going to be or those charges are going to be much easier to prove and also much easier to implicate the president in. That's my belief. So there's a little story this morning. You threatened to take legal action against the Daily Caller for potential defamation, according to tweets from one of their reporters. I always use that word loosely with Daily Caller. That included screenshots of an email exchange you had with him. Do you think their

story about you qualifies as defamation? What was going on with that story? Yeah, let me say a couple things. So, you know, not all attorneys are ethical because they're attorneys. And not all reporters or journalists are ethical and comply with journalistic standards because they call themselves journalists or reporters. And, you know, your statement I agree 100% with. I mean, look, I don't have a lot of respect for the Daily Caller. I don't think these are journalists or reporters. I think they're hacks.

I think they come to stories with a dedicated purpose. And I think in this instance, everything they've written, they've come to write for the purpose of taking shots at me and my client and degrading us and demeaning us and basically engaging in a character assassination. So, you know, look, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling out a journalist or a reporter when one believes that they have engaged in improper reporting, disregarded standard journalistic standards, if you will, and engaged in basically unethical conduct. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And just like I would not, if an attorney was engaged in unethical behavior or conduct, I wouldn't naturally jump to their defense just because they're a member of the bar without knowing the facts. And therefore, I think it's somewhat improper for other journalists to immediately jump to engage in this knee-jerk reaction and jump to the defense of the Daily

Caller without looking at the story, without knowing all the facts. So you've obviously been on television a lot over the last few weeks. You've been arguing a lot of your client's case in public. What is the rationale behind such a media-heavy strategy in this case? Well, this is not your average case, I mean, by any stretch of the imagination. And cases, you handle each case a little differently, but depending on where it's been used, depending on what the issues are, depending on the public interest, et cetera. And look, I stand behind our strategy. I think our strategy has worked nearly perfectly. We have forced them into making a series of errors, which have only strengthened our case over the last eight weeks. Because we've been so out front, again, we're acquiring additional information that assists our case, that also assists the American people in learning about what really happened here.

You know, I understand they don't like our PR strategy. They'd like nothing more than for us to just, you know, pack up and go home for a while. But we're not going to do that. I mean, what we're doing is working, and it's working really well. Now, that doesn't mean to suggest that it's always going to work that well. Things can change. I mean, this is a very dynamic situation. But right now, I'm very pleased on the strategy we adopted, and we're going to continue to use it until it breaks. You were telling people last week that they were sending you info and telling people, again, if they want to help the cause, they should send in info. What is your cause? At this point, is it bigger than Stormy Daniels' case individually?

Is there something else that you're after here? It seems like as you're talking more and more about sort of all the entanglements between Cohen and Trump, it's beyond the NDA between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump here? Our three primary goals, John, remain invalidating the NDA, seeking damages for the defamatory statements of Michael Cohen, seeking damages for the defamatory statements of Donald Trump, and also letting it be known that my client's statements were in fact true, even though Michael Cohen and Mr. Trump effectively called her a liar on repeated occasions. And then as an ancillary, I guess as an ancillary goal, ensuring that the truth and the facts are known to the American people and laying out the evidence for them that may come into our possession. out the evidence for them that may come into our possession. And to the extent that that evidence and those facts lead to other repercussions, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

People that are far more powerful and far smarter than me and my client will ultimately make those decisions. Michael Avenatti, thank you so much. If you have more evidence and information to share, you're always free to do so here on Pod Save America. Well, happy to be back anytime. Thank you, John. Appreciate it very much. Thanks again to Michael Avenatti for joining us today. And thanks to all of you. What a heavy show this was. A lot of substance.

A lot of substance. Some rants. Some substance. And you know. Some hanging out. Some hanging out. We'll talk to you guys on Thursday. you