Pod Save America - What’s a Mike Johnson?

Episode Date: October 26, 2023

And the winner of the House Speaker showdown is ... Congressman Mike Johnson! You probably haven't heard of him, but his resume will sound familiar: election denial, a thirst to end Medicare and Social Security as we know them, a fondness for national abortion bans, and a desire to criminalize gay marriage, among many more MAGA favorites. Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann joins the show to break down Donald Trump's week of bad legal news. And then: President Biden is about to face a new primary opponent. Should he be worried? For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Joe Biden is about to get a primary opponent, Mark Meadows flips on Donald Trump, and former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissman joins to help us break down the week of bad legal news for the criminal defendant Republican frontrunner. But first, the new Speaker of the House

is allegedly a guy called Mike Johnson. A name that seems intentionally difficult to google they just made that one up so you google mike johnson you don't know you don't know what you're getting over the last three weeks republicans went from a kevin to a steve to a jim to a tom before reaching outside their comfort zone and settling on a mic. The 51-year-old Louisiana congressman who seems just fine with being everyone's fifth choice. Johnson won unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. He's extreme enough for people like Matt Gaetz, who calls him Maga Mike. Maga Mike. That's what Matt Gaetz calls him. That's what Donald Trump's calling him too.

But he's apparently anonymous enough for the 18 Republicans in Biden districts who are betting that their constituents won't find out they voted for a speaker who talks like this. You know, we don't live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. OK, it's not just majority rule. It's a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like. Roe v. Wade gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America, period. You think about the implications of that on the economy.

We're all struggling here to cover the bases of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest. If we had all those able bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn't be going medicaid and all the rest if we had a all those able-bodied workers in the economy we wouldn't be going upside down and toppling over like this and you know the allegations about these voting machines some of them being re-created software by dominion but there's a lot of merit to that the fix was that you know i could give you example after example and all these states

after he wins uh... the speakership mike johnson holds a press conference with all of his Republican goon friends. And a reporter asks about his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. And here's how he and the House Republicans responded. boo elections go away democracy boo so the republicans have chosen as their highest ranking elected official in the country someone who's been called a key architect of trump's attempted coup who wants to end medicare and Security as we know it, who wants a national abortion ban, who's tried to criminalize gay marriage, gay sex, and introduce a national version of Florida's don't say gay law that would apply to not just schools, but any federal institutions, including public libraries, hospitals, and the military. Dan, how was Mike Johnson acceptable to the Biden district Republicans who thought that Jim Jordan was too extreme?

And how did he succeed where Scalise and Emmer failed? I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest that these guys didn't really think this one through. What I think happened here is they were exhausted. He is clearly far right. He is further to the right, particularly on these social issues than any of the other people who ran. He is, with the exception of Jim Jordan, more intimately involved in the coup than any other people who ran. He just is largely anonymous. He's less polarizing. I think he has a moderate demeanor in the halls of Congress, meaning he doesn't want to run around without a suit called bullying people like Jim Jordan does.

He just seems like a pretty anonymous guy. And I think we got to the point where these Republicans were exhausted, frustrated, and he, Mike Johnson, was largely inoffensive to most of these Republicans who largely agree with most of what he says. And Donald Trump was largely agnostic on him, and it kind of appreciated his little motivational speech around the coup that Johnson gave Trump. And so they just went for it. If Johnson had been the second candidate or the third candidate or the fourth candidate, he would have failed. But because he was the fifth, when everyone was tired and exhausted, he snuck on through. I mean, people are now digging up all of the things that he has said, his positions, videos of him speaking. I mean, this guy is further to the right on a lot

of social issues than any Republican politician in America that I've heard about over the last several years. Like just to just to go through a list. So people in Maine right now are currently grieving the worst mass shooting in the state's history. In 2016, Johnson gave a sermon in which he said that in the 60s, we invented no fault divorce laws, the sexual revolution, legalized abortion, radical feminism. And all of that is why decades later, we have mass shootings.

You've got mass shootings that you could draw a straight line from the 60s and abortion and feminism to mass shootings today. He hates no-fault divorce laws so much that he's one of the leading proponents of something called covenant marriage, which I did not know what that was until I had to look it up because Mike Johnson is the Speaker of the House now. Covenant marriage would make divorce harder, and it makes it harder for women to leave bad marriages. So it makes it harder to get a divorce because you sign up on the front end for a covenant marriage. He is called being gay inherently unnatural and a dangerous lifestyle that could lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy the entire democratic system. He wrote about the evils of sexual conduct outside marriage. That's both homosexual and

heterosexual sex. He said that the looting after he's from Louisiana. He said that the looting after, he's from Louisiana, he said that the looting after Katrina happened because of too much gambling and not enough God. He thinks public schools should teach the Bible as an accurate record of history. And here's my favorite. He tried to lobby, this is before he was a legislator. He tried to lobby for tax breaks for Noah's Ark theme park in Northern Kentucky that would teach people that there were actually dinosaurs aboard the Ark. Did you know that, Dan? That is one way to square the circle. That's right.

That's how he squares evolution with creationism. There were dinosaurs aboard the Ark. Teach it to the children. There'll be less mass shootings. Case closed. That's Mike Johnson. That's Mike Johnson. Mike Johnson thinks the government should have no role in helping you have health care

or have a secure retirement, but it should have a highly intense, very involved role in your sex life, your marriage, your health care decisions. I mean, Mike Johnson represents everything about Republicans that voters hate. Hate. Hate. Yeah. Paul Ryan's economic policies, Mike Pence's social policies, Donald Trump's wacky views on the election is Mike Johnson. So in some ways, thank you.

I know. He also connects them too. I wanted to pick apart that quote we heard about Roe v. Wade. I wanted to pick apart that quote we heard about Roe v. Wade. He wants to force women to give birth so that those children can then be able-bodied workers to help fund Social Security and Medicare. That is so fucking crazy. It is. Which he wants to gut. Which he wants to gut.

Social Security and Medicare. This man is second in line to the presidency, just to end this thing on a sour note. Second in line to the presidency. Second in line. Every Republican voted for him. Every single one who was there voted for him. No one voted against him. They cheered him and chanted Mike, Mike, Mike, as it happened.

Mega Mike. The first time any of them said his name. Do you know what John Fetterman said just now when he was asked about him no he said maga loves a big johnson all right so uh what happens now johnson has opposed aid for ukraine in the past seems supportive of aid for israel really doesn't like spending money on Americans. How do we get through the next few months without a government shutdown? It's a great question, John. It's possible. We're not making predictions here. But before he was actually won the nomination, Johnson put forward a bit of a plan to the Republicans that included a temporary bill, a continued resolution, if you will,

to keep the government fund at current levels for some period of time, could be 45 days, could be a little bit longer, so that the House could pass the appropriations bills they said they would pass, but mostly failed to pass. So it seemed like maybe as he was elected, we were going to avoid it. But then some of the right-wing members like Ken Buck came out this morning and said, sure, we're for a continuing resolution, but we need to get something for it, like some cuts in funding or some border policy. So we are basically right back to where we were. It's possible the Republicans, Johnson's going to have some honeymoon period with these Republicans. So it may be that

he'll get a couple of opportunities to do something that may anger some people. They'll just like take it. So we could get a temporary resolution. How we avoid a government shutdown at some point seems quite hard to imagine given the dynamics in his caucus. And he still has the same sort of Damocles with the motion to vacate hanging over him that Kevin McCarthy did. Yeah. I mean, the dynamics haven't changed. The fundamental dynamics, right? Like you could see maybe a CR passing for a couple months, but like eventually the hard right MAGA crew that ousted McCarthy in the first place is going to want their pound of flesh in terms of the policies they get, in terms of budget cuts. So I don't know how we're going to, I don't know how we're going to get past that. How do you think

Biden and the Democrats should handle a Johnson-led-led house uh is it is it possible for the president to show he's willing to work with republicans but also remind people that they're a bunch of arsonists who just elected mike johnson to lead them it's so funny when you say mike johnson because it doesn't seem like he's a real person i don't know if he is i don't know i mean we only discovered his presence i think his presence. I think we have an AI speaker. I think the president should show he can work with Republicans by working with the small handful of Senate Republicans who want to keep the government open and provide funding for Ukraine and Israel. There should not be some courtship of Mike Johnson where Mike Johnson comes over for

cookies and whiskey. Just have a meeting with all the members, all the leadership, invite Mike Johnson. But you're never going to be able to work with him or this Republican House. You cannot. The only way you're going to get things done is by coming to an agreement with the Senate, a bipartisan agreement in the Senate and jamming the House. That is the only way it's going to happen. And I think that Mike Johnson is a perfect punching bag for Democrats for the next several months here. There's going to be a race to define him to the country. We should win that race. The president Democrats should be at the front of leading that race. I think it's really important that Democrats show that there

is an obstacle to progress on the things we care about. And that obstacle is this extreme MAGA house. And Mike Johnson is in this new role as an opportunity to do that in a way that breaks through to some people. Yeah, I think the president can do both, right? I mean, he already congratulated him and said he wants to work with him, which is obviously what he has to do that in a way that breaks through to some people. Yeah, I think the president can do both, right? I mean, he already like congratulated him and said he wants to work with him, which is obviously what he has to do. But like, he should be very firm in holding the house to the bipartisan budget deal that he struck with Kevin McCarthy and label anything that deviates from that as extremism that's actually going to hurt people. And like you said, he has Mitch McConnell and some Senate Republicans who want that bipartisan budget deal to go through. And so if MAGA Mike and his crew want to throw in all kinds of extras and shut the government down,

then Biden can go out there and talk about how those budget cuts are going to hurt people, how those policies are going to hurt people, and who exactly is standing in the way. And he's on the side of a bipartisan majority in Washington and MAGA Mike and his kooks and Donald Trump. They're the extreme. So, you know, if nothing else, Republicans certainly gave Democrats some decent political ads over the last few weeks. Here's a sample of what Republicans are saying about themselves. What what what they're doing right now is walking the Republicans off the plank. We don't deserve the majority. I have to say, it's my 10th term in Congress. This is probably one of the most embarrassing things I've seen. And the dysfunction in the Republican Party right now seems to be

saying, we want to lose. We might well have hakeem jeffries and the democrats control the congress this whole episode will fight to the house glb at this moment oh very poorly very very poorly we're now part of the dysfunction of washington yes they're now part now part of it that was the fucking well-oiled machine it was before. I mean, that was just, you know, our, our, Saul put that, that super cut together in a couple minutes. Just think of the ads. Think of the, think what Democratic ad makers could do with the last few weeks. If you were running a house campaign in a swing district, would you use some of this material in your ads? Or do you think it's more effective to focus on the Republican candidates vote for MAGA Mike or Jim Jordan, which a lot of them did? Would you do both? Would you do neither?

What do you think? I would take that super clip. I would play it at a Democratic party convention. I would have a great laugh with it and then I'd be done with it. I don't think it, you have to pick, you have to pick a lane, right? In this media environment, you need one story empty hammer that story home. And I think that story is extremism, not incompetence. Yeah. And so, and I don't think,

and it's not the vote for MAGA Mike. That's what we're doing that? That's the thing we're doing? MAGA Mike? MAGA Mike. I mean, that's what Donald Trump's saying. That's what Matt Gaetz is saying. And they're all calling him MAGA Mike.

We've never not listened to those two, so let's do it. We know from polling that voters actually know the difference or see a difference between MAGA and Republicans, which I, by the way, would not have guessed, but apparently they do. I think it's a little more nuanced than they voted in October for this guy in a, what is this, what essentially to most voters is like a high school class president election. It is that we take the positions of the speaker and we apply them to everyone. We use it as a way to tell a story about an extreme Congress that will do

these things. Like one of the things we've talked about before you have to do is you have to keep abortion at the top of people's minds if we want to have a chance to make 2024 look like 2022. And one way to do that is the fact that one of the most extreme anti-abortion politicians in America is the most powerful elected Republican in the country. And I think you can use that as a way. It's not that they voted for Jim Jordan or Magic Mike, it's that Magic Mike. That's the part of the story you didn't know for maga mike that he he has probably introduced legislation to ban that movie the whole series yes it is what mag what maga mike stands for as a way to tell a larger story about republican extremism yeah i mean look if i was like mike lawler is one of those republic who's in a Biden district, right?

If I was a Democrat running against Mike Lawler, I would make sure that everyone in Mike Lawler's district knows who match knows who MAGA Mike Johnson is, knows what he said about gay people, knows what he said about abortion, know all of his views. I would make him famous in that district. I'd put pictures of the two of them together everywhere that I ran ads. I mean, this is like what Republicans used to do this with, you know, Biden and the squad, right?

Nancy Pelosi for a decade and a half. Nancy Pelosi for decades, yeah, for years and years and years. And look, I think that like, and a lot of times Republicans are just exaggerating the connection. In this case, all these Republicans just voted for him as speaker. They could have had a choice. They could have worked with Democrats. They could have worked with Hakeem Jeffries to still have a Republican speaker and merely kept the government from shutting down. That's all that we were asking. Wasn't he? Democrats weren't even asking for more than that. They just just

wanted to fund the government and they would they still had a Republican speaker, and bring legislation to the floor that had a majority in the House. That's all. Nothing crazy. But instead of that, they chose Mike Johnson. That's the path they chose. The most powerful Republican in the country wants to put people in jail for having sex. Yeah. Yeah.

And dinosaurs were on the ark. That's the important thing. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Need to make sure our kids learn that. Yeah. And they and dinosaurs were on the ark. That's what we're that's that's the important thing. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Need to make sure our kids learn that. OK, that's that. That's where the house is. That's what I do think it is like in 2024 for Democrats who want to take the house back. Like, you know, there's a lot of over exuberance on a lot of different developments. This one, I mean, this is it's like you said, he has all the worst politics, not just worst politics for people like us who are liberals and partisan Democrats. But for I can tell you, most voters in this country do not think that sex should be criminalized, that gay marriage should be criminalized, that all abortion should be criminalized, that there should be a don't say gay law

in every single state in the country that includes federally funded institutions, libraries, the military. I mean, this is fucking nuts. This is nuts. And you think you hate his social policies? Wait till you check out his economic policies. Right, yeah.

No kidding. And he just voted for a CR that cut like a 30% across the board cut, which doesn't sound like much except when you actually get into the programs that that would cut and what that would mean for people. So yeah, he's nuts.

Okay, before we head to break, two quick housekeeping notes. We love Kari Yuma shoes. I own quite a few pairs, but Lovett likes them so much that he demanded his very own Lovett or Leavitt sneaker. It's a really cool design. They come in pink and black.

They have fun LA-inspired designs with lots of Lovett or Lievett-inspired details that fans will recognize. So head to cricket.com slash store to grab a pair. Also, quick shout out that we are rolling out extended episodes of Pod Save the World. Now

ad-free for Friend of the Pod subscribers. You can now listen straight through without interruption. And we've also added a new bi-weekly Q&A segment at the end of each episode where Ben and Tommy answer subscriber-submitted questions straight from the Friends of the Pod Discord. Obviously, this is a time where Pod Save the World and Ben and Tommy have been doing a fantastic job

covering the horrific world events that we're going through. And a lot of people, including me, when you don't know what's going on, they do. And if you have questions now, you can ask them and maybe hear your question answered on an episode of Pod Save the World if you're a subscriber. So highly recommend you sign up at crooked.com slash friends. Okay, when we come back, Dan talks to Andrew Weissman

about Donald Trump's very bad week in court. Here to talk about Donald Trump's major legal troubles is Andrew Weissman, a former federal prosecutor, MSNBC legal contributor, and host of the truly excellent podcast, Prosecuting Donald Trump from MSNBC. Andrew, welcome back to the pod. Nice to be here. All right. Thanks for doing this.

There's so much to talk about this week regarding all of Donald Trump's various legal challenges. The news is coming fast and furious, but I wanted to go through some of the big stories that all happens. You can help our listeners understand what's really happening and what it means for the former president's legal predicaments. And let's start with the report that ABC News published on Tuesday saying that Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff, had been granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith and that he had met repeatedly with Smith and testified in front of a grand jury. Now, I recognize that other outlets have yet to fully confirm this story, but if ABC News is correct, what do you think that means about Donald Trump?

Yeah, so it's sort of interesting because this is the biggest story, but it's the one that's least confirmed. Because everything else, it's happening in court, so we know a lot, not everything confirmed um because everything else you know it's happening in court so we know a lot not everything but we know a lot about what's happening um so one of the pieces of corroboration here which is interesting is his as meadow's own council uh basically issued a statement saying this is essentially largely inaccurate, which Dan, you probably know, both in my world and probably in your world is basically a confirmation. Yes.

You know, it's just- It means they got the number of times he met with Smith wrong or something like that. So funny you said that. But it's a confirmation of the truth, yes. That's exactly what I was thinking. When it said that he met with Smith three times, it was four times. And when he said he was in the grand jury once, it was twice. I mean, it was just notable that it wasn't a flat denial. to the former president of the United States was granted immunity and has now gone in and spoken to Jack Smith and to a grand jury could not be larger. And the reason is you, just as a prosecutor, you are not going to grant immunity to somebody unless you have been given a very detailed proffer by the attorney for that person,

and often even a sort of informal meeting called a proffer session with the person. So essentially, you're not buying a pig in a poke, as we like to say here in New York. And so it's just a big deal to decide to immunize somebody who could have their own significant exposure. And that means that you have to have made the evaluation that you could not otherwise prosecute them and that they have information that's so significant about people who you think are more culpable. And in this situation, that's one person, which is the former president. Right. There's only one person indicted in this case. That's Donald Trump. So this is not something that could affect some other person. He's obviously telling them something, if this is all true. Yeah, exactly. I mean, it could affect, yeah,

it could affect somebody else, but it's not going to only affect that person. They have to be giving something up on the president. That's where, you know, the reporting has various pieces of information attributed to Mark Meadows. That's where the reporting could be wrong. But presumably, Mark Meadows will join in a litany of people who told the former president

after the election that he lost. And so there already are just a boatload of people like that, but having the chief of staff on board with having said the same thing would be useful. is all in on the, you know, the fraud in the election. You know, he joins the Republicans who we all saw, you know, denigrating a reporter for even asking the question about that just yesterday. But this is a huge development, if true. And, you know, in terms of dominoes falling, I mean, this is the biggest domino. The chief of staff, as you know, there's no one sort of closer than a sort of closer body man to the president of the United States than the chief of staff. So it could be huge. to Fulton County now, where over the course of the last week, we've seen three people who have worked in and around Donald Trump's legal team, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesbrough, and Jenna Ellis plead guilty. And when Sidney Powell and Chesbrough pled guilty, there was a lot of triumphalism on Twitter. We got them. This is a terrible day for Trump. You and your podcast with Mary McCord had some caution for why that may not mean what it thinks it means. And I'm going to get to Jen

Ellis in a second, but help understand what happened there. And why are you a little more cautious than all the other, all the non-lawyers on Twitter who are popping champagne bottles right now? Yep. So first for my, my kind of snarky line, which is like, it's hard to keep track of the number of Trump lawyers uh who are going to be witnesses against him many of whom have now admitted their criminality and complicity um uh in in federal schemes i mean it's which you know i'm a lawyer i i it's just unbelievable to me that that they would participate in this. Obviously, we're not immune from being criminals, but it is fairly shocking.

To answer your question directly, with Sidney Powell and with Kenneth Chesbrough, especially when we end up looking at the language that was used for the agreement with Jenna Ellis, they did not agree to, quote, fully cooperate, unquote, language that is in the Jenna Ellis agreement. They did not agree to give repeated statements to the Georgia prosecutors. They did not agree that they would meet and be interviewed repeatedly by Georgia prosecutors. What they did agree to is testify truthfully if called at a trial of any of the co-defendants. Well, Dan, you and I have an obligation to testify truthfully if we're called to the stand, too, because we will be sworn under oath and we have to tell the truth. The difference is, obviously, their agreement is on the line if they were to be found to say something false, but we don't really know that they be meeting with you for days, if not weeks, to debrief you about everything you knew to be comfortable that you have been telling the truth

to go over relevant documents. And to be sure, okay, we could use you because we've debriefed you on everything you know, and we're confident you're telling the truth, then we would sign you up as a cooperating witness. And that just doesn't seem to be what happened here, or the nature of the agreement that was reached between Chesbrough and Powell. Now, that's not to say that they may not ultimately be good. But I think it's just, at the very least, it's premature to describe them as cooperating witnesses in the way that you would for sort of a typical federal cooperator, or I actually think with respect to Jenna Ellis. Yeah. Before we get to Jenna Ellis, if that is the case, why would Fannie Willis cut these deals with them if it's not going to deliver what we hope it might deliver? So one, that could cut the other way. I mean, it could be like you'd agree to a non-jail time

plea disposition because they have given you something important. So to be clear, maybe that is what is happening, but we don't know that. And I just didn't want to jump to that yet. But I can give you a couple reasons why you might do this. One, you avoid a five-month trial where you lay out all the evidence to people who you think are more culpable. The person who goes second or third has a real advantage. So if you're keeping your eye on the prize and you think Donald Trump is your main person here, avoiding laying at all that proof is a good thing. Two, you avoid the risk. Even if you think you have a really strong case, there's always the risk of either an acquittal or a hung jury. It only takes one

juror to have a hung jury. And just to be clear, if there was a hung jury here, I personally think the election would be over in many ways, because that will certainly be touted by Donald Trump and his allies as a huge loss. A hung jury is typically viewed as a loss to the government and a win to the defense. So it avoids all of those risks, and you have a sure conviction. and you have a sure conviction. And there is the sense of momentum because if you do look at sort of Powell and when she pled to misdemeanors,

but then you had Chesbrough, he pled to a felony. Then you have Jenna Ellis and she pled to a felony, but she had a much more fulsome cooperation provision. So even though they're all no jail time, you do get the sense of at least it is escalating. It's going in the right direction. It's not getting weaker over time. It is the deals are getting stronger for the government.

Does it put pressure on potentially other people to cut deals if they feel like they can be the last one? You don't wanna be the last one standing, right? You didn't get a deal. Absolutely. Again, we'll turn to Jenna Ellis. But if you look at the pressure, Jenna Ellis, I viewed that plea as like a heat-seeking missile directed at Rudy Giuliani. I mean, she pled to aiding and abetting, and it was two co-defendants, one of whom was Rudy. So that was just direct aim. And that is how you do these

cases, which is, you know, Fannie Willis had a great strategy and has a great strategy of indicting big. And when you indict big, you sort of try to roll up and have this domino effect and a sense of momentum and to have defendants worried about the proof getting stronger and the deals getting worse. So there's an idea of come in now and strike the best deal you can. Let's get to Jen Ellis because, as you point out, she has a different agreement, a stronger agreement. So how is it different? And do you think the reason she took that deal was because of the pressure of these previous ones? Or is there potentially a stronger case against her or a stiffer penalty that she's trying to avoid? First, let me just deal with why her agreement is different.

Yeah, of course. Yeah, yeah, please. So similar in that she pleads to a felony like Chesbrough. So it's different than Sidney Powell who pled to misdemeanors. You know, it's different than Sidney Powell, who pled to misdemeanors. She, though, agreed to, quote, fully cooperate, unquote. She agreed to meet and be prepared by and give interviews repeatedly to the Georgia prosecutors. She, I think those are the two key things. And obviously, she also has to testify truthfully at a trial, but she'll have been fully prepared. And she also has agreed to give full statements.

She had not just that one statement, but to give repeated ones if necessary. So that looks so much like what a federal cooperation agreement looks like. So there's just no way for my cynical or what I would say is just a little worried about the others. Skeptical. Skeptical. Yeah, exactly. And there's just no way to be skeptical about her. I mean, cooperators can sometimes not turn out, but there's no question that at this point, she is signed on to be a full cooperator. point she is um she is signed on to be a full cooperator uh she did give a statement to the court which in which is much more typical in federal court and state court it's not necessary um i i would caution there was something unusual about her statement which her statement basically kind of said i i made a mistake as opposed to I did something intentionally.

She did say, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have represented the former president. Well, you know, that might all be true and well, but that's actually not the standard for a criminal case. A criminal case, you have to, it's not by mistake. You have to do something intentionally or it's not a crime at all. So she obviously didn't say that's all she did. So it's not totally inconsistent, but it certainly doesn't suggest a complete acceptance of responsibility by her in her statement. But, you know, she did cry and she seemed, you know, upset and remorseful, but all of that remains to be seen. Why she did it, not clear. Just remember, she is somebody who people had talked about being one of the more likely people

to plead and to resolve because she had been talking about really you know, sort of not sort of really divorcing herself from the sort of MAGA movement. She did have this proceeding against her in connection with her bar license. And so there was some sense that she, for whatever reason, you know, either because she had a pang of conscience or she just realized, you know, she, as we'd like to say, when I was a prosecutor, she was sorry she got caught. You know, I don't know which of the two it is. But, you know, she does seem to be doing the right thing at this point. And as we used to say, she's now on Team America. Or the other way, just to give you as many prosecutorial phrases, she's on the other side. She wants to be on the other side of the V, meaning in the United States versus defendant.

She wants to be on the left side, not the right side. All of these folks are thought to be involved in or even unindicted co-conspirators in the federal January 6th case. Do their various stages of cooperation deals or their pleading guilty in the Fulton County case affect how they could participate or could be compelled to participate in the federal case? If they're required to testify truthfully, does that only count for Fulton County? Can they plead the fifth in Fulton County? Can they plead the fifth if they were to lie or plead the fifth

in federal? Does that affect their probation deal? Or how does it just how does that all interact? Yeah, so that is just the perfect question. Because it's it's not usual to have somebody a defendant who is charged in both federal and state court, but from time to time, it happens. And the most unusual thing, whether you ask, you know, I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. If you ask any prosecutor or defense lawyer what is the most unusual thing that they've seen in connection with Powell, Chesbrough, and Ellis, it's that there isn't what's called

a global deal. The idea that you would just have an agreement with one jurisdiction when you know you're facing liability in another makes no sense. And let me just, this is why. So Jenna Ellis, let's say there's a trial and she is required by her agreement to testify and she's required by her agreement in state court to testify truthfully. So she hops on the stand in Georgia and she testifies. And she says things that implicates her in crimes that could be charged federally, not just the state crimes that she has a deal on. Everything that she says, all of those statements are admissions that can be used by federal prosecutors. So let's say Jack Smith thinks that the deal with Sidney Powell is outrageous, that she's way too culpable to have

gotten a misdemeanor offense. And let's assume he makes that judgment. Well, if she now testifies, her testimony is something that can be used against her if she takes the fifth in state court um she obviously won't hurt herself in terms of making statements that could be used in the federal case but she will be in breach of her agreement because her agreement is that she will testify truthfully that's that's what the georgia prosecutors bought with this deal which was her truthful testimony at any trial of any co-defendant so um they're somewhat in a jam if that were to happen now the only thing i could think of is to sort of why this is happening is that, one, there's no coordination at the prosecutorial level. And two, it doesn't look like the state cases are going to happen anytime soon. In other

words, there was a trial that was scheduled for the end of October with Powell and Chesbrough. That's now off. There is no other scheduled date. So this conundrum of what do you do when the trial comes and you have to testify truthfully is one that the can is kicked very far down the road. And if you are gambling, you may think, well, if Donald Trump or an ally wins the presidency, I don't have to worry about those federal cases anyway, because they're going away. The Donald Trump cases are going away. Any case against Sidney Powell or Kenneth Chesbrough are going away. So I don't have to worry about this conundrum, because the Justice Department will be in control of people who don't want to see that happen.

I worked on the Mueller investigation. I'm very aware of Donald Trump pardoned every single person who we indicted and convicted except the people who cooperated. So Michael Cohen and Rick Gates, they didn't get pardons. But everybody else down to Alex Van Der Zwan, a name that I'm not sure rings any bells to you. But I mean, basically, you know, this was the then president just sort of was like, I'm going to eradicate all of this. Everyone. Yeah. Let's move quickly to the criminal fraud trial. I know you've been in attendance multiple times, the one there in Manhattan.

Yesterday on Wednesday was quite a scene where Donald Trump testified and then immediately fined $10,000, then stormed out of court. You know, this is now – Donald Trump's now been fined $15,000. I know you don't like the term gag order. It's the only term I know. It's fine. It's fine. I've been beaten down. Yes. gag order. It's the only term I know. It's fine. It's fine. I've been beaten down.

Yes. I know it's not technically a gag order, but he's been fined $15,000 for saying things the court has told him not to say. $15,000, even if Donald Trump really, really inflates his assets as the court has found him doing, $15,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to him. What was your reaction to what happened yesterday? And what tools does the court have to actually make him adhere to the rules they're trying to set in place? So obviously, greater fines. Two, you can say that any truth social posts or social media posts have to be reviewed by counsel.

reviewed by counsel. Three, you can say you can't do any truth social or any other media posts that are in any way related to the case or the cases that you're on. They have to just be political speech. As I like to say, you can run for president and actually not obstruct justice. I know I'm going out on a limb. It's possible. Yes. And obviously, elephant in the room is he can go to jail or house arrest. I mean, there are restrictions on his liberty that you can have. I am very worried that the message of the $10,000 is going to be counterproductive, because I think Donald Trump is extremely savvy about sort of figuring out power dynamics and sort of seeing what judges are willing to do and not willing to do. Just remember here, the judge found that he

directly violated the order that he was referring to his law clerk, that he lied on the stand where he had a short hearing about it. So he also found that- Was he under oath at that point? Yes. And said, you know, I was referring to Michael Cohen, which made no sense. And that's what the judge found. It seemed totally logical to me that that's what he would say. So I think that understanding that Donald Trump is sort of egging the judge on and he sort of wants to play the victim. But I feel like you, I just don't think, in my opinion, I don't think it was a strong enough sanction. don't think it was a strong enough sanction. If you're really worried, as the judge I think correctly is, is worried about violence because of Donald Trump's words. And again, just to be clear, this is not just a First Amendment restriction for no reason. This is because

it just got back to January 6th. This is the concern about words leading to violent actions. the concern about words leading to violent actions. Last question for you. As we look at the scope of all of these trials, particularly the criminal ones, what do you think the odds are right now that we will have a resolution in one of them? I guess most likely the January 6th federal trial as relates to Trump before the election. Extremely good. You think we will? Yes. I think the March 4th trial, if it's up to Judge Chutkan, that March 4th trial,

as she has said, I'm not saying anything she hasn't said, that trial's going forward. When they were arguing the gag order, I've been beaten to say that now. Yes, thank you, thank you. That she has said that case is going forward. The only thing that could curtail it is this presidential immunity motion that Donald Trump has made. I don't think

it's a terribly strong motion, but it is one that could go to the Supreme Court. So if it does that, there could be a delay in the trial because the Supreme Court may stay the case while it decides that issue. I think that's the biggest wild card. But I think absent that, I think that case is going to go to trial and there will be a resolution before the general election. I'm less confident. Obviously, in Georgia, I don't think that's the case. I don't think it's the case in New York. There will be an argument.

I think it's November 1st in the Florida case, about the trial date and the schedule there. I think that one's a little harder to tell just because I'm not as confident that that judge is as committed to the trial date. And obviously, the longer you wait on that, you really are going to start running up into significant issues in terms of how to schedule it. But I think that's why the March date with that one caveat, I think, is in stone. That is great to hear. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us. Everyone check out Prosecuting Donald Trump.

It's an excellent podcast to follow all the ins and outs of Donald Trump's various legal challenges and cases. Thank you so much. Thanks, Tim. So even though Donald Trump's co-defendants keep flipping on him, he's still on a glide path to the Republican nomination because I guess Republican voters would rather risk having a convicted felon at the top of their ticket than take a chance on Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley or any of the big pro-Biden super PACs surveyed 3,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, 1,000 voters in each state, that's a big sample, and found that if the election were held today, Joe Biden and Donald Trump would be tied at 50%, exactly 50%, in a two-candidate race across those three swing states. They also dug into a group of up for grabs voters in those states who have a negative opinion of both Biden and Trump. These are the so-called double haters. And this poll found that Trump is slightly ahead with that group by three points, 51 to 48. Let's start with the top line number. A tied race in these three battleground states is actually as good or better for Biden than some of his recent national polls.

And that has been a trend I've noticed in some of these state polls recently. Why do you think that is? What's going on there? Just so people understand why it's better is that the country as a whole is more democratic than the battleground states, which is why Biden can win the popular vote by several points and then win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona by a point or two points. And so the opposite is happening. Trump's actually leading in the national polls, something Biden led in the entire time in 2020. But Biden is doing a few points better in the battleground states. And I think the reason for that is that the race is more engaged in those states than

it is in the rest of the country. Like I've said this before on this podcast, I think a lot of people have not yet fully comprehended the fact that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. And frankly, that Joe Biden's going to be the Democratic nominee. They've not been paying a lick of attention to politics for a couple of years now. And the battleground states where there was tens of millions of dollars of advertising spent in 2022, people are just more dialed into what the race is going to look like. And we saw this dynamic.

Democrats did better in the states where the races were more engaged, i.e. those battleground states that had big Senate governance races, than in other non-competitive states like California, New York, or more Republican states like in the South. Yeah. So we're going to be hearing a lot about the double haters over the next year. Hillary lost them in 2016. Biden won them in 2020. And now, at least in this poll, Biden is losing them by a few points, but statistically probably tied. Who are these voters? What do we know about them? And what do you think Biden can do to win them over? At least in this poll, they are a little more Republican than the overall electorate.

They are a little more male than the overall electorate, and they're more college educated than the overall elected. So the fact that Trump did so overwhelmingly well with these quote unquote double haters was why something no one expected. The assumption was going into the election in 2016 that Hillary and Trump would basically split them. That's usually how that has worked in the past. Although there had never been a race with such a large pool of double haters.

Biden did better amongst them. And if they are tied in this Unite the Country, the super PAC that did this polling points out that Trump doing at this level with these voters means he'd win the very close battleground states is their sort of assumption. Not very much, but enough because they were so close last time. in who they are or what they think. And you're going to have to do two things sort of somewhat simultaneously. And it's going to be a little bit targeted depending on various groups in here. Part of it is you're just going to have simply strengthened Biden, right? Joe Biden is underperforming across the board with a whole bunch of groups of voters, people on issues, on character traits. And we're going to have to remind people of not just like sort of what he's accomplished, but who he is. And I think particular strength, right? Because I think one of the things that's happening is the world seems incredibly chaotic. Biden seems old into some voters,

and I think unfairly so weak. And so you're going to have to demonstrate strength. The other thing we have to do is remind people what a fucking nut job Trump is and how dangerous he is and how incompetent he can be and how chaotic he can be because people are not paying attention to that. They have not seen Trump speak. These voters don't watch Fox News. They're not consuming Breitbart. They're not listening to Pod Save America. They're just not encountering, frankly, Biden or Trump. And so they're kind of hearing some stuff that things don't seem great right now. Biden said they'd be great. And maybe he's too old. And Trump, they haven't really thought about at all. They probably know he's involved in some crimes. Maybe they don't care about that that much. And they think

back to the fact that the economy seemed pretty damn good before the pandemic started and doesn't feel as good now. And so I think part of this is just for a lot of these voters, we're just going to have to stick Trump's craziness in their face for the next year and a half, make them focus on the dangers of Trump and put that in contrast and do a little bit to strengthen Biden to make him a better vehicle for their concern about Trump. And this is why the liberal laments that you hear a lot online that we heard a lot in 2016, and I think it was more warranted in 2016, of like, do not platform Trump. Stop platforming Trump. No, no, no.

Do platform Trump. We need more people in this country to be reminded of what he's like, because when they get that reminder, they do not like him. They vote again. This is, again, this is the MAGA candidates in the midterms that lost. Again, this is the MAGA candidates in the midterms that lost. It was because the race was engaged in these states. And those voters were shown a lot of ads and a lot of election denying MAGA extremism shit. And they voted the other way. Trump campaigned in those states, was on their local news.

Right now, most Americans are not seeing Donald Trump. Many of them do not. But you hear this in focus groups all the time. seeing Donald Trump. Many of them do not, but you hear this in focus groups all the time. A lot of people, people who voted for Biden in 20 and maybe are disenchanted with the way things are going right now, they think Trump's going to be in prison, not on the ballot. And some of them think Biden's not going to run. It is. Right. There's a lot of people. Yeah. A lot of people would be very surprised to learn that the most likely matchup is Biden and Trump. And it's like a 95% likelihood.

I know. And a lot of those people, it's not even like a lot of those people think that both of them are going to be the nominee. A lot of people think that neither of them are going to be the nominee of the party. I found this section pretty interesting in the memo about these double haters. It says, despite being more aligned with Republican values, they express fear about Trump and about the future of American democracy. Their hesitancy toward Trump is rooted in various aspects, such as his role in leading a coup, multiple indictments, and praise for the Chinese dictator. So one thing that worries me about this group of people is the existence of no labels, because it feels like these are exactly the kind of voters who would support a no labels candidate.

They are more Republican. They are more male. They are maybe a little more centrist. They don't like Trump because he's tried to commit the coup. They don't maybe want a convicted felon, but they are Republican. They have Republican viewpoints. And so if you give them a Larry Hogan, a John Huntsman to land on, you could see them choosing that candidate, which really worries me. I mean, there was some no labels polling that leaked out via Politico Playbook this week, which no labels tested Biden-Trump head-to-head, Biden-Trump head-to-head with a no labels candidate with a Democrat, like a Joe Manchin or a Kyrsten Sinema, a generic Democrat, but thinking her head like a Manchin or a Sinema type of ticket, and a no-labels candidacy with a Republican type of ticket. And the Republican one

significantly outperformed the Democratic one. It was much more devastating to Biden's chances. And this is obvious because these are many cases, Republicans who don't like Trump, many of them bit the bullet and voted for Biden in 2020 and are trying to figure out what to do this time. They haven't gone all the way back to Trump, but they're not sticking with Biden as of yet either. Yeah. And again, like you said, there's different groups of double haters, right? And this sample, just in the statistics that you read, is just like the majority of them are this, or they tend to be disproportionately male Republican. But there's probably also a group that we've talked about of less college educated voters who are more in tune with the economy and who are struggling and are worried about costs more. There's probably some progressive voters and younger voters who don't like Biden and

Trump because they think neither are progressive enough. Right. And they're thinking about a Cornel West or whatever else or maybe not voting at all. So there are different groups of these. But I think the group that is tends to be more Republican, more male and cares more about, uh, democracy and Trump's indictments. These are more of the centrist Republicans that I think this is like the, you know, who the, like the Lincoln project is going after and like the Republican and Sarah Longwell's were more effectively, Sarah Longwell's Republican Accountability Project and the Bulwark, I think that's those voters. And I really worry about that. I mean, as you said, when Donald Trump and Joe Biden both have approval ratings that are around

40% and are bleeding a significant part of their own party, and Biden's actually bleeding more of his own party, you're going to end up with a wide swath of voters who fit that category, and you're going to need specific strategies for the different elements of it. Well, in case any of you were losing sleep over Joe Biden's reelection, don't worry. Dean Phillips is here to save the day.

The Mike Johnson of Democrats. I have that. I said, you might be wondering, who's Dean Phillips? I said, isn't he the guy they just elected speaker? No, that's Mike Johnson. Dean Phillips is the Mike Johnson of running against Joe Biden in the Democratic primary. He's a little known congressman looking for a big promotion. Mike Johnson got his.

Now Dean Phillips is looking for his. The 54-year-old three-term Minnesota Democrat will be announcing his presidential campaign in New Hampshire on Friday. That is the last day to get on the ballot in that state. There was already a Dean Phillips for president bus spotted in Ohio this week. What do you think, Dan? How scared should Joe Biden be of Dean Phillips? It's a hard question to answer, John. There is clearly, in all the polling, a significant number of Democrats who would be very open to an alternative to Joe Biden.

significant number of Democrats who would be very open to an alternative to Joe Biden. And I think even with that case, if any significant Democrat like Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro or Raphael Warnock or Gavin Newsom were to run, they would be a significant underdog to the incumbent Democratic president of the United States. Dean Phillips is the longest of long shots for several reasons. No one knows who he is, but also he is a centrist, multimillionaire congressman who doesn't seem to me, at least at this point, and we'll see what he says on the campaign trail, but does not seem to me to be a likely vessel for whatever anti-Biden sentiment sits out there in the party, whether they think it's not clear he's more electable than Biden. He's not an obvious next generational candidate, call for the next generation. If you're dissatisfied with Biden because he's not left enough or not progressive enough, Dean Phillips is not your guy. It just is not clear what itch Dean Phillips scratches, which may be sort of the story of his life, I guess.

What does that mean? I don't know. No, what I mean mean he's also getting uh he has a primary challenge now uh partly because he's he's done this in the in his house race so look it's it's also he faces a few obstacles here he's a few uh just a few a few other obstacles sorry um he's he's already too late for nevada uh to qualify in nevada that that deadline has passed so he's not getting any delegates out of that he's not getting any delegates out of new hampshire because uh there

are no delegates there are no delegates in new hampshire because of the dnc rules because south carolina is going first and new hampshire is still saying that they want to go first so they're going to strip them of the delegates so biden is not competing in new hampshire now of course dean phillips could win new hampshire partly because because Biden's not competing in there. I think they're just trying to do a write in campaign for Biden there. Is he is he decided not to be on the ballot? I meant to ask this before we started recording, but his Joe Biden decided not to be in the ballot. I believe so. Yes. Yeah. Because I think that they said that that's the I think the campaign said, no, that we're not going to be on the ballot because that's the rules. We're not going to be on the ballot because that's the rules. And we would like to compete in New Hampshire, but the Democratic Party rules have said that they've made a decision that South Carolinas go first and that we can't compete in New Hampshire. So Dean Phillips is sort of just going around that and probably, I guess, is going to try to embarrass Joe Biden in New Hampshire.

But how? By beating Marianne Williamson? I guess. The only other who I assume is on the ballot in New Hampshire? Yeah. But like you said, I know you're like, Dean Phillips is probably someone who, if they knew him, maybe those double hater voters we were just talking about would like. But again, this is a Democratic primary. And you're right, like a multimillionaire moderate unknown in a Democratic primary is not maybe the best fit right now for the party. I don't know. I just think while a lot of Democratic voters will tell pollsters that they would like another option than Biden, it is just worth noting, we should remind ourselves that for most of this year, Joe Biden's approval rating among Democrats has been exactly the same or a point or two higher than Donald Trump's approval rating among Republicans. And Donald Trump is

walking away with that primary. So this idea that Biden is somehow extremely vulnerable to anyone, let alone Dean Phillips, has not yet borne out the polling. It's really hard to beat someone who has a 77, 78, 79% approval rating among the people who are going to decide the election. How would you handle the Dean Phillips candidacy if you were on the Biden campaign? I think the White House was asked, they put out a statement that mentioning how he's almost completely supportive of Biden, almost because he's obviously running against him, but he has voted with Biden nearly 100% of the time.

So I think they're trying to say, well, he has supported the president up until now. He's, he has all the president's positions and support all the president. And we don't know why he's running. Basically, it seems to be the message. What do you think about that? That's fine. That's sure. I think the, a written statement delivered in response to reporter queries is not like a sign of some huge strategic calculation on their part. My guess is the plan is to largely ignore him. We should say this. Dean Phillips has every right to run.

We said this throughout the year as everyone was saying. Of course. You know, the DNC is rigging the primary. Why is anyone running? Our view always was if someone wants to run, that's their – they have the opportunity to do it. They think they can make a case to win. They should do it. Dean Phillips has chosen that path. We think he's a long shot, but if he wants to do it, he should do it. And there shouldn't be any effort to prevent him from making his case to voters. So I think the White House is doing the right thing.

Well, so speaking of the DNC, they've already formally endorsed Biden and announced that they won't be holding any primary debates. That's when it was just Biden, Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr., who's now running as an independent. Do you think the DNC can get away with not holding any debates now that Dean Phillips is entering the race? I assume they're not going to hold any debates and I assume they're going to get away with it. I'm not sure. What is the public pressure from, the reason why it wasn't an issue with Marianne Williamson.

All the Deaniacs, the Deaniacs. Exactly, right? Obviously, if for some reason our assessment is incorrect, which is probably likely at this point, given our recent track record, and there's a massive political movement around Dean Phillips, much as there was around Howard Dean, to cite your very dated reference. Then that could change.

But as of right now, the DNC is intertwined directly in the Biden campaign. They've been operating for a year as if there would be no true primary. Dean Phillips is a legitimate person. He is a Democratic member of Congress who was in the Democratic leadership until he resigned that position to consider this presidential race. And so he is not the same thing as Marian Williamson or someone like RFK Jr. who was running for the Democratic nomination under the encouragement and advice of people like Steve Bannon. But I don't see that that is going to be enough to force the DNC to change their approach. If he starts to get real support, that could change. But as of right now, I think it is, we're all headed in the same direction, which is prepping for a Biden-Trump

general election. Although I wonder, yeah, if he starts to get real support or he starts to get fake support. And by that, I mean, people are going to look at this as an opportunity to cause trouble. And the Steve Bannons, the people on the right, the Elon Musk, the tech bros, like lefty progressives cornell west people you know like you can see a number of people being like why is the dnc rigging the primary now this is a congressman from minnesota even if they don't actually like dean phillips there's a congressman from minnesota and joe biden's refusing to debate him why can't joe biden debate him and that he that must mean that joe biden's afraid of debating donald trump and

why is he afraid to debate so i i could see a little, I could see people causing trouble over there. Oh yeah, for sure. This is going to be, and this is the ultimate, the question that Dean Phillips is going to have to ask himself is, given the long odds of success, how much of what he says and does can end up being weaponized against Joe Biden to affect that race on the margins. Like I said, he has a right to do it. He should run the race he wants to run. He should give it a shot. He should follow all the rules about getting on the ballot and then making his case. But the people who are plotting Dean Phillips entry in this race are going to be the people who want to defeat Joe Biden in November, who work for Republicans or on Fox News, etc.

are going to be the people who want to defeat Joe Biden in November, who work for Republicans or on Fox News, et cetera. So you don't think we will see Joe Biden, Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson debate? Are we hosting one? Sure. No, I don't. What? Yeah. Our door's always open. Yes, we are not. Come on. I would be surprised to see that, John. That's what I was. I'm not making any predictions, but I would be surprised. I think it's a good trial run for Joe Biden. We don't have first term presidents.

The first debate, it's always pretty tricky. We lived through that with Barack Obama. Didn't do too well against our friend Mitt Romney in that first debate. Maybe this would be good practice for Joe Biden to take on Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson. Your friend. My friend, Marianne Williamson. Your friend, Mitt Romney. Your friend, Mitt Romney in that first debate, maybe this would be good practice for Joe Biden to take on Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson. Your friend. My friend, Marianne Williamson. Your friend, Mitt Romney. Your friend, Mitt Romney. Oh, my friend, Mitt Romney. Sorry. I thought you meant my friend, Marianne Williamson, who I have interviewed here. Yes, you have. Keep in mind, I have interviewed Marianne Williamson. All right. So Dean Phillips, not a problem, but we are sponsoring a primary debate.

Just get that all squared away. Mike Johnson. Also, if you want to come on, great. We, you know, we're opening up a pod.

Save Mary to all kinds of people. Everyone have a great weekend. That's our show for today. What do we got to tell everyone? We're going to be in, where are we going? We're going to be in Louisville Saturday night. We are for a show.

You can still get tickets to that show. If you're going to be in Louisville, just go We are. For a show. You can still get tickets to that show if you're going to be in Louisville. Just go to cricket.com and find some tickets there. We're going to be in Cleveland Sunday night, and you're going to hear both of those pods next week. So a lot of podcasting. And, Dan, I guess I'll see you in Louisville or Indianapolis. Is that where we're flying? I'm going straight to Louisville.

Good for you. Well, it's not straight. There's several legs to that flight, but I eventually? I'm going straight to Louisville. Good for you. Well, it's not straight. There's several legs to that flight, but I eventually will land on a plane in Louisville. This is one of the more challenging trips. Just wait until our five and a half hour drive from Louisville to Cleveland. That's going to be fun.

I cannot wait for the discussion over where we're going to stop for lunch. We've got to start that when we get in the car. Yeah, well, I love it's already got one in mind, I'm sure. All right, everyone, have a great weekend, and we'll talk to you soon. Bye. Yeah, well, I love it's already got one in mind, I'm sure. Alright, everyone, have a great weekend, and we'll talk to you soon. Bye. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media

production. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producer is Farah Safari, writing support from Hallie Kiefer. 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.

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, Kiril Pellaviv, and Molly Lobel. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube to catch full episodes and extra video content. Find us at youtube.com slash at Pod Save America. Thank you.