The Daily Beast Podcast - All Those Republicans Were at the DNC for a Reason

Episode Date: August 23, 2024

This week on The New Abnormal, hosts Danielle Moodie and Andy Levy discuss all the big news from the Democratic National Convention. Plus! Author Steve Benen joins the podcast to break down the method the Republican campaign is using to rewrite recent history. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Kedden, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What a great episode we have for you today.

Danielle has been at the Democratic National Convention all week, and she's going to share with her for live reaction to Kamala Harris' speech, accepting the Democratic nomination, and her feeling about the vibes and energy of the entire week. Then, producer for the Rachel Maddo Show, Steve Bennett is here to tell us all about his new book, Ministry of Truth, Democracy, Reality, and the Republican War on the recent past. First, let's have some fought in. So, Danielle, as I suspect you know, the Democratic National Convention has been going on this week. And here we are. This is the first show we're recording since the convention started. And what better time to recap what we've seen so far with the caveat that this is Thursday afternoon when we're recording. We're going to do a separate section on Kamala Harris's speech because we both love and respect our listeners.

And we feel like they deserve that. Daniel, you've actually been in Chicago. What's your take on how the convention has been running? I guess, you know, I don't know if we want to go all the way back to Monday night, which was highlighted by Joe Biden's speech. I'll leave that up to you. Yes, I have been on the ground in Chicago this week. It has been amazing, exhausting, exhilarating. I think that, first off, like, shout out to the folks that organize this year's convention.

from the musical roll call to having a, you know, to having a DJ on stage, to having Little John represent Georgia. Like, it has just felt like such a vibe. And I know that that word is super overused, but it really has been invigorating so much so that even Morning Joe put out a split video of a tale of two roll calls. The RNC Handmaid's Tale Wake version? And then the DNC's supercharged like Americana, R&B, hip hop, country roll call. It has just been great. And the highlights, too, in terms of the speeches that have been given, my God, I mean, first off, yes, I'll go back for a hot minute to Joe Biden, his speech, which brought me to tears. Yeah.

I'm not even like kidding at all. I was sobbing and it was like so unexpected. But I think that to recognize that this man has dedicated 50 years of his life to public service that in those 50 years has lost not one child but two and a wife. And, you know, his other son suffer through addiction and being dragged through the media to see that he still has. such faith in this country even after he was treated so terribly by the media, by his party, frankly, to save democracy not once but twice, and then to end his speech by saying, America, I gave you my best. Like, my God, I really do hope that Joe Biden is remembered and that his legacy is cemented by what he has done for this country.

That was just lifted up in his speech that had so much vigor, so much raw enthusiasm, and honestly, real love and belief in his vice president and this ticket. And that was amazing. But I will tell you all that the fucking mic drops of all mic drops, the entire 21 minutes, was the forever flotus Michelle Obama. Yeah. That speech should, in fact, be studied. It should become a course from K through 12, all the way like and mandatory for liberal arts colleges in order to graduate.

It should be hung in the Louvre. It was extraordinary. And I believe that Michelle Obama has been holding that in since 2017, since that inauguration, and just watching that son of a bitch who had the audacity to ask for her husband's papers as the first black president. of these United States to say that he was illegitimate, to spread the vicious lies about him and her. The way that she cut him down to size, I mean, that convention went from speeches into a full-blown roast, and everyone, including myself, was jumping out of our seats, screaming as if that woman was preaching the gospel. I said, pass me the collection plate, because I'm going to give you all my money, every single fucking dime, because I've been waiting.

for Democrats to come with that type of fire and facts and elegance and grace and articulation. Yes. For me, the highlight thus far has been First Lady Michelle Obama. And yes, I did love Barack too, but she swept the floor with Donald Trump's entire face. I don't know if you guys saw it because the right wing is really upset that they roasted him. I wanted to call out Jessica Tarlov, who I don't know how she's saying, had a beautiful thing, which is she said that after everything, they put them through the Obama's to not know that. Oh, that man, any kindness. None. And I think that's fucking great. Yeah, 100%. I'll get to the

Michelle Obama speech in a minute. It's one of the best political speeches I think I've ever heard in my life. I want to go back just briefly to Joe Biden. The thing that stuck out the most to me in that was the graciousness of his words. And by that, I mean, there were a lot of people, and I'm not even talking about Donald Trump, who is trying really, really, really hard to convince everyone that Joe Biden is very mad and that this was a coup, et cetera, et cetera. But there were a lot of pundits who thought we were going to see, and it almost like they wanted it. Oh, they wanted it.

They wanted bitter Biden, and they absolutely did not get it. And look, he may have some bitterness inside. And I would even argue that's a little understandable. But he was smart enough and he was gracious enough not to show even the slightest hint of it. And everything he said in that speech was a tribute to. Kamala Harris and to Tim Walls and to the Democratic Party and to America. And I thought it was excellent that he did that. And it was also really important that he did. Even like I said, if in his heart of hearts, he does have some bitterness. I want to say real quickly, but I don't even think that

that bitterness would be directed towards his vice president. Oh no, not at all. Not at all. I think, yeah. And that's the thing too is that I think that that bitterness, if in fact he has it, it would be justified, but I think that it would be directed towards the media and be directed towards certain Democrats. Yes. Who decided instead of using back channels and conversation with him to bring their dirty laundry into the press. I 100% agree. There has been absolutely no even inkling that Kamala Harris was trying to push him out, you know, so she could replace him. And like I said, there's no even hint that that's what went down. And I certainly, when I was talking about bitterness, as I was talking about towards the same people you are.

Michelle Obama, I remember saying in, I guess it was 2016, I think, when she spoke at the convention, I remember saying the Republicans are really lucky that she doesn't seem to have political aspirations because she consistently knocks it out of the park. And that speech this week, everything you said should be taught. It was pitch perfect. The writing was perfect. The delivery was perfect. And Barack Obama, he's the same.

second best speaker in his family. I mean, that's just truth. And, you know, when I watched those two speeches and Barack was good. He went on too long. And that's what he does. And she, on the other hand, her speech was, it was like the perfect, even the length was perfect. Like she didn't overstay her welcome. She got the crowd fired up. She said everything she needed to say. She had that incredible line about, you know, affirmative action for the rich. And she nailed it. I, like, I hate the expression, no notes because it's so overused right now. But that's sort of how I felt when I was watching it. I was like, nothing I would change in that. Whereas with Barack, I was like, this is a really good speech. And he, you know, he's very, always been very charismatic. And I like listening to him talk.

He went on a little too long. She knew exactly how long that speech needed to be and that it was perfect and it didn't need to be padded. And it was just, it was jaw-droppingly good, I thought. I mean, the line of the affirmative action of generational wealth. That's it. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the line, even before that line, I think it was like in the same sentence of Donald Trump not being able to take too talented and successful people that happen to be black. The line of who's going to tell him that that job that he's going for is one of them black jobs. I mean, I was sitting there and I will say on one, on my right was one.

of my close friends and on a left of me was an older white gentleman who I did not know and I was hitting this man's leg like did you hear that? Did you hear that? Why can I absolutely picture that perfectly? Because it really did happen and I was like jumping up out of my chair and I was just like, like everything, people looking at each other and were like, did she just say that? Did she just like, Oh, like, it was just so real and just so regal. That's the thing, too. Like, everybody had been wondering, because 2016 was the, when they go low, we go high. Exactly.

And everybody is wondering, is she going to harken to that? Is she, you know, like, things have changed. And I would argue that she went even higher because the way that she came was not with name calling. It was with just a stream of fact. of things that Donald Trump has said, that Fox News has echoed, that J.D. Vance has echoed. They have nothing. And for her to talk about the whining, the smallness, the narrowness, it was like, yes, all of those things are true. And the bullying. All of those things are true. You couldn't point to that and say, oh, well, maybe she went too far. I'm like, do we know

the things that have been said about her and her family and her, like, her children? And so people were like, oh, no, Michelle went into the gutter. And I'm like, no, no, she did not. Because I could, you know, we all know what could have been said. And I would, you know, me, it would, that speech would have been one F bomb after another, right? It would have been one F bomb after another. So she knows how to speak to people in a way that is just like, you know, when if your parent says to you, like a parent you respect and love, I'm so disappointed in you. And it cuts harder than anything, any punishment or anything like.

like that, that's what Michelle Obama did. That's what she did. Yeah, it was also, you know, it was like, I love you, but I don't like you. I don't like you. I love you, but I do not like you right now. Yeah, this speech was just perfect. Before we get out of here, let's talk a little bit about the Wednesday night stuff. You had Bill Clinton, and as I posted right after that speech on Blue Sky, I hope this is the last time we see Bill Clinton speaking at a Democratic convention. It's completely unnecessary. He is the kindest thing I think I could put the kindest way I think I could put this is he's icky and I think it's actually a lot worse than that. And he doesn't even have the juice anymore. Like he at some point in the past, you could say, all right, but you know, he's former

president. We have to invite him. And you know what? He still gets the crowd all riled up. No, he doesn't. And with that, there is, you know, I would argue they, he shouldn't have been there anyway. But if that, that was sort of the last rationale, I think, for having him speak. And personally, I think that's gone. And I'm just, I'm hoping we don't have to sit through that again. I will agree. The Bill Clinton that I think that we grew up with and, you know, revered as like a, as a political animal, right? Like, is not the same.

And I think that this will probably, in fact, be the last. time that we do hear from him. He's what, what did he? 78, right? And so I think that the other thing that the DNC did really well is really showed us the bench that the Democratic Party has. Yeah. And so there are people who we've known who have made 30, 40, 50 year careers as career politicians, but then we got introduced and presented the next generation. Folks, in their 30s, in their 40s, you know, in their 50s, I think our bench is just so talented and so diverse and so crisp and fresh. So I do think that this is going to be the last time that it's necessary. And I don't even know if it was necessary this time around. I think to just

show how many presidents showed up for this as opposed to Hulk Hogan showing up for Trump. I think that that was it. Like look at all of these, you know, these presidents. So I think that that was like the only important piece of that. Yeah, no, I agree with that. And I want to echo what you said about the bench and I want to just, you know, I was talking to my mom. And that was like, one of the things she kept saying was, I can't believe how many good people they have. Like, she was so happy that there were all these, you know, younger 30s, 40s, 50s people that really just looked so excellent. And as you said, you know, it's such a diverse crew and it's such a nice change from the Republican Party. I'm curious what your take is on this, Danielle. I was surprised,

and I mean that in a pleasant way, I was pleasantly surprised by how much sort of focus was given to the LGBTQ plus community, because Democrats have an annoying history of running away from stuff like that in general elections. You know, video after video and a fair number of the speakers were queer, I was surprised and also honestly impressed. Yeah, the same. I don't remember this from years past, right? In that type of centering. I also think, like, one, as a queer woman, it was amazing to see and to see and be seen in that way.

But also, I think that that, too, is an appeal to Generation Z. Who, in a lot of ways, more young people in Generation Z identify as non-binary. or as LGBTQ than any other generation and use the terminology queer as a political label for themselves to showcase like their openness and their expansiveness. So I think that they were doing a both and there, which I thought worked really well. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And, you know, and I think with Gen Z, as you point out, I think more people are identifying as non-binary. And I think as both as a result of that and also just as a result of each generation,

tends to be better on these kinds of things. The ones who don't identify as non-binary, just kind of shrug at it. Like, it's just, oh, yeah, my friend is envy, you know, whatever. Like, it's just a fact of life. It's just the way the world works to them. And there's no, like, oh, my God, did you see what, what she was wearing or getting bent out of shape about simple little things like pronouns? Like, to them, this is just, well, yeah, that's how the world is. I was just so happy to see it at a convention because like I said, there are a lot of things about the Democratic Party right now that I did not think existed even like six months ago. And I like it. Shit, Andy, I didn't think it existed four weeks ago. I mean, you and I were on here eulogizing

every week. So, you know, we're not over the finish line, but it's a pleasant change of events to have a different spirit and a different energy and a different energy. And a different different Democratic Party. Right now, the one that we've been hoping and waiting for for a long time has finally arrived. And maybe, you know, God willing, it's right on time. The vibes are good. So Danielle, it's over. Kamala Harris just gave her speech. And we've already talked about the first three days of the convention. So let's talk about Thursday night and let's talk about what happened before Kamala first and then we'll talk about her speech. I know, look, because you're there, I want to get your take on it. How was the night? The night was incredible. The

energy in the arena was electric. I think that even like, I'll say this, I have never been in spaces where people are chanting USA, USA, USA, and, you know, waving American flags and felt like safe and good and patriotic. Because it's something that we have only really seen in action as Republicans have weaponized patriotism. And I feel like the last four days, but particularly the culmination tonight on day four, was a reclamation of Democrats taking back patriotism. It was electrifying.

There were so many tears and applauding and, you know, and just like people like talking to their neighbors, right? Like talking to the person next to them about, you know, why they're here and like the power that they feel. And so it's been extraordinary. and I feel like this entire campaign and the last, you know, a couple of days of convention have been Democrats taking so much ground back that had been seated to Republicans.

Absolutely agree. But I will add on top of that, that the theme for tonight seemed to me to be, hey, look, moderates, you know, and maybe disaffected anti-Trump Republicans, we're not loonies. And I absolutely get that. And it's a good message for winning an election. And, you know, it's a good night to do it because you figure this is probably going to be the night with the most viewers. And with the most viewers who are not hardcore Democrats because Harris was speaking, there were parts of it that where I was like, you know, you're not Republicans. We're not Republicans.

Stop sounding like them. But that's a quibble. It's an ideological quibble. And like I said, I get it. And I know why they have to do it. And I thought they did a pretty good job. I thought Adam Kinzinger was really good. I thought in line with what you were saying, Danielle, he went hard on the, you know, Democrats love this country.

And Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans. I wish he would have said more so than Republicans, but that's a little much to expect. I was actually a little surprised because throughout the whole, his whole speech, I thought he was not going to actually tell people to vote for Kamala Harris. and that he was just up there to say, I'm here because the Republican Party has become the party of lunatics, but I can't quite bring myself to endorse a Democratic nominee. But then at the very end, he absolutely did. And I really, really liked that. Yeah, you know, there were some people who I will say, like, on social media, but also around me in the state of the end, that were just like, you know, why are we having this kind of parade of Republicans, right?

like why are there so many Republicans that are speaking? And in all honesty, I thought that it was really ineffective. Yeah. Right? Like for so long, we've been saying that these people are crazy, that they are in a cult.

And these are the ones that actually broke out of the cult, right? That actually decided to say, you know what? I am going to put country over party. I am going to fight for democracy. And this is what this looks like. And like I don't have to agree with her on all these things. And I felt like it was almost a permissible.

slip that these Republicans are trying to provide to folks, you know, in their party that they talk to, their family members, their friends who are just like, oh, I can't bring myself, because that means that somehow I am betraying my Republican's chances. And I think that this kind of parade one Republican after the other gave folks, honestly, the permission to say, like, they have choices, they have opportunity, they have, you know, the possibility of doing and seeing more that Donald Trump is not the light at the end of the tunnel. He's more so the oncoming fucking train that we need to be of avoiding. Absolutely.

We were talking about this earlier today off air, and it really felt like, you know, I don't have the actual tallies. It felt like more members of the first Trump administration, hopefully first and last, spoke at this convention than did it the Republican National Convention. That is really, really wild. Oh, 100%. I think that there were more, I mean, look, there, what is, what do we have, Andy, like over 80 or 90 former Trump staff that will not endorse them, right? Including his vice president of the United States that he tried to have killed. So I think that, again, this was, this convention was a, you know, a force of unity, right?

That we can actually come together, like they have been feeding you life, right? But that's what I think the vice president. offered in her acceptance speech tonight is that like, you've been said a bunch of lies, right, that we can't come together, that we have no shared values, no shared mission, that someone had a monopoly on patriotism, on Americanism. And by showing, you know, independence, you know, Oprah shouted herself out as an independent, calling on other independents to vote for Kamala. You have the parade of Republicans doing that.

And I think that what she showed is like, no, no, I can bring people together. or all he's been doing is dividing us and putting us in silos to fight for the scraps that are left over after he sells off the fucking country to his crony and to foreign and to foreign leaders that he can make money off of. And she's not going to allow that to happen. So let's get into her speech while we're here. Again, I'm going to defer to you because you were in the room and I'm, you know, I know how it played to me at home. It looked like it played really well in the room. Oh, it played incredibly well. And I like, I just need to take privileges. as a black woman right now, that like, I am still in shock and awe of what I just saw.

That the first female president of the United States can be a black and Indian woman, right? Like, whose father is Jamaican. Like, I talk all the time about being a child of immigrants, about my family being from Jamaica. Like, I can't express enough the amount of pride and excitement and just, like, making me believe again that this country is actually possible for people who look like me, for people who are from a background like mine. It's wild. It's surreal in all of the best way as possible. Can I just say that, you know, as the co-host of a black woman, sorry, no, I thought the speech was really, really good. And I thought she did a great job of introducing herself to people who may not

know that much about her. I mean, she was not the most visible vice president ever, and vice presidents in general are not very visible. And obviously, given the circumstances here, you know, with Joe Biden dropping out, I think there were probably a lot of people tuning in tonight who were like, all right, let me see who she is, who this person is. I just don't know that much about her. And I think she did a fantastic job of introducing herself, of talking about her personal life story, And then and then sagging pretty flawlessly into, you know, if not specific policy. But again, what you and I, Danielle, have been talking about, about basically the vibe. And I just, I thought she did it really, really well.

And hardcore MAGA folks, I'm sure absolutely hated it. Who cares? They're voting the way they're voting. I kind of feel like if you're a, you know, one of those mythical undecided voters we keep hearing about that you came away. from this feeling pretty good about her. I mean, we have criticized on this show a lot about the, like, asking, where is Kamala, where is Kamala? Why isn't the administration utilizing her in a better way to essentially, you know, put her in places where she can show her strength. I think that we also have to remember,

too, that like the role of the vice president is not to show up the president of the United States. Of course. And I think that once the vice president was given this task, given this endorsement, we have all been like in a place of shock and awe that like, oh my God, how does she pull things together so quickly? Like, how has this been so seamless over the past, you know, four weeks? And, you know, I think that she's been preparing for this her entire life. And she's not really somebody that like plays second fiddle that when given the opportunity to show up and show out, like she is in her confidence, in her skin, like listening to the things that she was saying and the pool collected and calm wave.

that she was doing it, the passion that she was showing, the conviction that she was showing. I mean, it's like you were born for this moment, for this particular time in this moment, like it's yours and you're actually showing up fully in it. And I, you know, I have no notes on it. Like I have no, I wish she would have said this. I wish she would have said that.

The things that she was able to say also on Israel and Gaza, like the stadium erupted, right, erupted. And I think that folks are kind of waiting as she was, you know, talking about Israel and Gaza, and there were some shouts at free power crimes, but that was drowned out by her talking about their ability in life and creating self-determination. And so for me, that was incredible.

I thought she threaded the needle on a lot of things. And just, you know, in terms of overall presentation, I thought this convention pretty much, I thought they knocked it out of the park. You know, yes, I had quibbles, and I'm sure everybody did, and probably some people had the same quibbles. I don't know what the hell Leon Panetta was doing up there in prime time on the last night. But overall, I really do think they knocked it out of the park.

It was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. Danielle, what are your final thoughts from Chicago? Yeah, my final thoughts from Chicago is that, you know, this is only the second convention I've ever been to. The first one lived with Hillary Clinton. And, you know, when we say that this Harris-Walt team got the vibes right, that the energy was right, that they had D-Chryds and singing and dancing and, you know, and drummers and just, I mean, when they say that they are these happy warriors that are bringing joy back, you feel the joy, you felt the commitment, you felt the passion. I think that the people that were fortunate enough to be here are leaving with a sense of power and purpose to get her and Walt over the finish line.

Yeah, I would say to me, the biggest misstep of the convention was DJ Metro spinning born in the USA. Republicans make that mistake. Democrats don't make that mistake. It's not the song that you think it is, apparently. But anyway, thankfully, that was probably my biggest quibble. And if that's it, job well done. I concur.

My next guest writes that what matters isn't what happened. What matters is what the party can get people to believe happen. by rewriting, fabricating, and overpowering the public's understanding of recent events. Steve Bannon is a producer for the Rachel Maddow Show, the editor of Maddow blog, and an MSNBC political contributor, and he's got a new book out now called Ministry of Truth, Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans War on the recent past. He joins me now to talk about it. Steve, thanks so much for being here. Thank you, Andy.

So in the intro to the book, you write that this campaign of rewriting recent history is built on a foundation of pernicious pillars. What are these pillars? Right. So I think this is important to understand the context because in order to better understand how and why Republicans go about doing this, we have to understand the mechanics and in the systematic way in which they're doing this. The first of these pillars that I argue in the book is that they are indifferent to reality. And by then I mean that it is necessary for them to align. So brazenly, because that is necessary for them to complete their goal in order to rewrite history. The second is an indifference to shame because really if Republicans were in any way sheepish,

when approaching the public with these counter narratives and this gaslighting, then the public wouldn't fall for it. And so their indifference to shame is necessary in order to really complete the task as well. The third is the role of allies. I think that it's important to emphasize that no one person, no matter how politically influential, no matter how politically powerful, no one person can rewrite history by himself or herself. They need partners. And so in the case of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, you have Fox News, you have conservative radio, you have this larger Republican slash conservative media ecosystem that kind of creates a bubble for conservative voters to live in, and that is necessary as well. And the fourth, of course, is the fact that we rely heavily on repetition. And in fact,

they also rely on repetition. So how many times have you heard, for example, that Donald Trump's economy was the greatest of all time? Yeah. You've heard it countless times because Trump has said it to an almost comedic, almost cartoonish extent, even though it's not true, the fact that he says it over and over again, the message starts to seep into public understanding and corrupts our understanding of recent events. And so that is the fourth of the four pernicious pillars. As you do in the book, let's go through some examples of how these pillars are put into action. And I'll start the way you do with the quote unquote Russia hoax. This seems to me to be a perfect example of how the Republican Party and its allies and conservative media, as you talked about,

as the third pillar, turned something that isn't true, the idea that Trump's Russia scandal was shown to be nothing but a hoax. They just made it into their version of reality. So remind everyone what the actual reality is here. And it all started with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's computer network, right? Right. That was the beginning of the scandal. And when it first unfolded, our understanding of the controversy was one in which Russia was attacking our elections. And that in and of itself at the time was extraordinary. Most national security experts saw it as the most important breach of U.S. national security since 9-11. And so that in and of itself was important. But what ultimately happened was that the scandal

started to evolve in the months that followed as we came to understand that it was possible that Russia not only was attacking the U.S. elections, but they were in fact, had partners in the United States, collaborators, if you will, who were in effect assisting Russia in its electoral goals. And so, of course, as we now know, there was multiple investigations and there were indictments and there was a variety of trials. But when we step back and take stock of what we learned from that scandal, we now know, based on Robert Mueller's investigation and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation, we now know that the Trump campaign sought Russian assistance. We know that the Trump campaign received Russian assistance. We know that the Trump

campaign benefited from Russian assistance. We know that the Trump campaign lied about Russian assistance. And on top of that, if the case that weren't quite enough, we also know that when we came time to scrutinize all of this, Trump took steps to obstruct the investigation. Now, all of those details have not been contested by Republicans or Team Trump in any meaningful way. Those are just the basic facts that we know as a result of these investigations. And yet, if you turn, talk to Republicans, the very idea that the Trump pressure scandal is legitimate is considered ridiculous. As far as they're concerned, it has been discredited thoroughly. And when in fact, it is not. It's just the opposite that is true. The story has been rewritten in such a way as to obscure what really happened.

It's like an exemplar of the four pillars that you're talking about. First, they don't care about reality, obviously. They have no shame about the fact that really that Trump did collude with Russia and that all of this happened. The role of allies, you have, as you noted, Fox News, et cetera, repeating ad nauseum that it's the Russia hoax. And of course, the repeating thing, as you say that, you know, Trump and his allies have been able to just hand-wave this away because they repeatedly just say Russia, Russia, Russia, as if it was nothing. Exactly. You know, I led the book with this as the first real chapter because I feel like this is the quintessential example. We have a scandal that should necessarily rock Republican politics for a generation, you know, a U.S. foreign adversary, the great adversary of the 20th century for the United States, not only targeted our political system in order to put their ally, Donald Trump, in office, we have this situation in which the Trump campaign cooperated to a very real degree and then lied to the public about all this. This should be the scandal that ends Donald Trump's political career, forever. This is an unforgivable crisis in American politics. And yet, here we are, watching the Republican

Party and its allies and its barter apparatus, treating this as if it's an absurdity. And it's not just Trump. As you noted, it's the role of allies. Up and down the ballot throughout conservative media, the very idea that this controversy is meaningful is considered absurd because they've fallen for the con. They've fallen for this scam. The scandal was so severe that the Republicans couldn't allow it to continue. and so they didn't allow it to continue. They decided instead to just overpower our memories of what actually happened, disregard the findings of the investigations, and rewrite the story. And then they use it.

You know, they use this false narrative in the service of false narratives that come later. And you see this with the other charges against Trump. And it allows him and all these Republicans, you know, Ted Cruz, who absolutely knows better. And people like that to say, this is just like the Russia thing. It's another hoax. It's another politically motivated investigation. Right. Yes. In fact, we saw this a lot when Donald Trump was getting indicted over and over again. One of the standard Republican talking points, it's Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia all over again. The Russia scandal was discredited. Therefore, this other scandal should also be discredited, which is absurd on multiple levels. I mean, right off the bet, if there were false allegations against someone, it does not mean that all future allegations are necessarily false as well. But we need not go there because underlying claim is ridiculous.

The Russia scandal is absolutely true. It is bolstered by evidence. It has never been discredited in any meaningful way. And so for Republicans to use this as the basis to discredit other controversies, it simply falls apart upon any real scrutiny. Yeah. All right. So let's move on to what's become known as the big lie, the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. And as you write, he started laying the groundwork for this before that vote even took place. He continued it after. He had investigations done, all of which found absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud. and therefore were promptly ignored. He concocted legal challenges, all of which were laughed out of court. And again, all of this was done with the full cooperation of the Republican Party, conservative media, etc. Right. And this is a frustrating one for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it succeeded. That at this point, there is overwhelming public polling evidence that shows that the vast majority of Republican voters, rank and file GOP voters, are 100% certain that Donald Trump won that election. There is literally no evidence of that.

In fact, Donald Trump has had several years now to produce any shred of proof to bolster these ridiculous claims. He has failed spectacularly. His own campaign staff told him he lost. His own campaign lawyers told him he lost. His own campaign researchers told him lost. He hired outside researchers to feed his lies. They said he lost fair and square. And yet, here we have a situation in which roughly two out of three Republican voters nationwide continue to insist that Donald Trump won the election.

it has fueled his primary success in 2024 and made him the nominee again. Because as far as making file Republican voters are concerned, why not go with the guy who won the last time? Why mess with success? And so, you know, when we think about why Republicans go to such great lengths to rewrite recent history and attack the very nature of reality, this is a classic example of that helps underscore why it happens. They do it because they can. They do it because they've found time and again that the Republican base will fall for these lies because they're kind of, they've received no other outside information. They've been conditioned to disregard independent sources of information. And so Donald Trump and his party and his allies tell these voters that he won,

and they go right along with it. You know, and this is also true, I think, of the Russia hoax claim. One of the intended purposes of this is that once you have a majority of GOP voters believing this is true, and you point this out in the book, then GOP elected officials can say, look how many people believe this election was stolen. There must be some truth to this year. And the whole thing becomes what I like to call deplor Boris, trademark pending must credit Andy leaving. Well, you raise a good point, Andy, because it fuels this cycle. You know, on the one hand, we start with the lie. Republicans then convince their base to believe the lie. And then the same Republicans who did the lying say, look how widely believed this lie is. It must be taken seriously. But that's not how reality is supposed to well.

It's absurd on its face because you. You can't have the liar then point to their own lies as proof of the legitimacy of the lies. That's not how we're supposed to engage in a public dialogue. It's not how democracy is supposed to work. But yet this is the reality that we're confronting. So jumping slightly ahead from the election, January 6th, this has become just a wild example of the GOP saying, don't believe your eyes, believe what we tell you. And in order to even believe the Trump MAGA, GOP, revisionist,

history, you have to completely ignore things that they all originally said about that day, don't you? We do. And, you know, when I was putting the book together and I was doing a lot of research, I found this one to be the most frustrating because we all remember January 6th. We all saw the images. We all felt the anguish when we heard it and saw the videos. And I felt at the time like, well, this is one of those crises that at a minimum, we know Republicans will not be able to rewrite this history. They can't. It would be impossible. The whole world saw this unfold on camera, on multiple cameras, there was simply no way they could even try to overpower our memories and bully them into submission because it would just simply be impossible. But of course,

as my eyes, I explained in the book, we now know better. You know, the initial line was that the public was should believe that it was Antifa, that somehow left-wing radicals were pretending to be Trump supporters. And this was supposed to be this credible defense that was going to effectively exonerate Trump and his fans and his followers. Now, that, of course, quickly be proved ridiculous, at which point Republicans turned on a dime and said, no, no, okay, well, all right, so it wasn't Antifa, but it was instead the government. Maybe it was the FBI. Maybe it was secret, nefarious actors within the federal government who were responsible for this. And when that didn't work, they switched gears again. Trump and his allies said, okay, actually, we take it all back. The January 6th rioters are actually heroes. They're heroes. They should be freed from imprisonment and that they should be looked at as hostages of the Biden administration. And I think common sense tells us that these are obvious lies and there is obviously no way to defend any of these claims. But we're dealing with a situation in which the story is constantly evolving because there is no defense for it. It brings me back to the Trump-Russia scandal.

If the facts are accepted at face value, Trump and his party could never win another election in any cycle anytime soon. And so they find it necessary to rewrite that story as well. Even though we know it's absurd on its face, even though we know how ridiculous the claims are, they feel as if it's necessary because it's so indefensible. It's absolutely wild. And I want to talk about the chapter in your book that had to do with the federal response to COVID. Because I think out of all of these, except maybe the January 6th one, it's probably the one that makes me the angriest. We have over a million dead Americans from COVID, a fair portion of which might have been avoided if the Trump administration had been even minimally competent. But to this day, what we hear from conservatives, idiot libertarians is, you know, how much the government overreach

during the heart of the pandemic and we get insane conspiracies. And it just makes me so angry how they seem to have gotten away with this. Well, yeah, and I think adding insult to injury, in fact, adding insult to injury in a rather literal sense, we have Trump to this day going to rallies, appearing on conservative media and saying, well, why don't I get more credit for this great job that I did? As far as he's concerned, he's looking at this as a situation in which he should run on this as a plus. He wants voters to think that he should be rewarded for his extraordinary performance. And of course, we now know that that is a performance that included encouraging people to have disinfectant pumped into their bodies, sidelineing qualified experts

and instead bringing in cranks, having these statewide fights over materials that the federal government should be providing anyway. I mean, just failure after failure after failure. And yet Trump continues to run around the country right now and tell people that he deserves greater credit for his failures. It astonishes me that this is something that the Republican base has come to believe, but it is emblematic of this larger truth, which is, as far as they're concerned, that their memories have been bullied into submission just as their party has told them to do. Yeah, and it really is, you know, with all of these examples, because none of these examples happened all that long ago.

And as, you know, the book is about recent history, it is wild how quickly they were able to do this. And even when there is ample video evidence or we all lived through it and didn't even need to see video evidence, but somehow they just managed to pull it off. So I guess my exit question to you is, how do we get out of this? It doesn't feel at this point like Donald Trump going away, which at some point he will, will lead to any soul searching among the folks who currently constitute the Republican Party. So how do we best mitigate this complete assault on reality?

Yeah, I wish there was an easy fix, but there were a handful of things that I want to emphasize for your listeners. Stephen, I was told when I invited you on that you had the solution. All right, well, let me make my pitch. And do you tell me whether that's persuasive or not? All right. So I think there are a handful of things to think about here. The first is that I think all citizens have a role to play in defending reality and defending the integrity of the recent past. You know, Barbara McQuade had a recent book in which she argued that we had to make the truth and reality a part of our national purpose. And I find that very persuasive. And they think that's

something that everyone can do in their daily lives and dealing with their neighbors and we're co-workers and family members and so on. The second, of course, is the fact that there are those of us who work in media who have access to the public. The public turns to us for accurate information. And those of us who work in journalism and media have a responsibility to do a better job of fact-checking and telling people the truth and helping the public understand the difference between fact and fiction. But the third thing I emphasize in the book, and I know this might seem a little far-fetched, Andy, but I compare it to a magic trick. If you and I went to a magic show and we saw the magician, he or she pulls off an illusion, we'd be amazed. But if we learned afterwards how and why that trick was successful, well, all of a sudden, it's no longer as important. It's no longer as exciting to us.

It loses its potency when we know how the trick is pulled off. And that's really why I wrote the book. It's about explaining how and why they're doing this. Because to my mind, explaining the scam goes a long way towards defeating the scam. When we know how and why it's done, it loses its potency just like the magic trick does. And so I make the argument that once we know and better understand how and why this is, this scam is being executed, I think ultimately the war in the recent past can still be won. All I took from that is that you want me to go to a magic show with you. And I accept. Stephen,

thank you so much for being here. The book is Ministry of Truth, Democracy Reality, and the Republicans War on the recent past. Please go out and buy it and read it yourself. And also, maybe more importantly, buy it for people who really, really, really need to read it. Stephen, thanks again. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Andy. DNC Moody. Andy Levy. Close out this week. Who is your fuck that guy?

My fuck that guy is somebody that is not a stranger to our hall of fuck that guy. And came up with on another show, a better name for him. The pillow guy, Mike Lindell. Mike Lindell is a dummy, okay? And I don't think that he understands what the word incognito means. He shaved off his mustache and said to the world that, that he was shaving off his mustache and going to go incognito to the DNC.

So he made good on his idiot promise and showed up and handed his fucking hat by a 12 year old journalist who is a political influencer known as NOAA, K-N-O-W-A. And let me just, I just need to tell you, how old is Mike Lindell? Mike Lindell is 67 years old and he got handed his hat by a 12 year old because Mike Lindell found himself

in a back and forth with Noah on his false claims of 2020 election being stolen offering absolutely no facts when Noah said so this judge that you speak of or this person that you speak of what is their last name if they are a public official it is public record. So why are you not providing last names? And Michael Lindell is like going back and forth. Well, you know, let me tell you more news about your state of Georgia. And he's like, no, I know the news

because I know that you're bankrupt. And, you know, just continues to go back and forth. And finally, no, it's just like, so your response to me asking for facts is trust me, bro. Like, that's your response. Folks, if you have not seen the video, like, please go and watch it. Because Noah is a better journalist at 12 than most mainstream corporate media journalists that have access to these people and actually comes correct with follow-up questions. Imagine that. Mike Lindell looked like the fool that he is and he is just to me forever. Fuck that guy. Like what was your purpose of shaving your mustache and showing up at the DNC? Did you think that people were going to tremble in seeing you like, dude, I need to Google your name in order to remember what the fuck you look like.

That's how that's how unimportant you are. So I don't know what his purpose was, but hats off to Noah for doing the work that most corporate mainstream media journalists refuse to do. I think the problem was that he didn't like people comparing him to Paul Bearer anymore. So he shaved his mustache so he can look like that photoshopped image of what Guy Fierry would look like if you took all the Guy Fieryness out of him. Yeah. incognito thing didn't work too well, as you could tell by all the clips being sent around

that said, like, you know, 12-year-old boy owns Mike Lindell. That kid is amazing if President Harris makes him her press secretary. I'll be fine with that. I would love to see it. So, Andy, who is your fuck-that guy to close us out in this lovely DNC week? So my fuck-that-guy is, it's a group of people, and I'm going to use one person to sort of stand in for all of them. And the group is fact checkers. And you might be saying to yourself, Andy, why? Why are you mad at fact checkers? They're out there doing the Lord's work. And the thing is, yeah, they should be. But we have seen over and over again this week with the convention, fact checkers from the New York Times from the Washington Post and Associated Press and other places giving unbelievable benefits of the

doubt to Donald Trump and to Republicans. And it absolutely makes no sense to me. And look, there are people who say, well, the media really wants Trump to win. I don't necessarily buy that. I don't think fact checkers want Trump to win. I think they think they're doing the right thing. I just, I don't think they are. And so I'll start with. And the guy I'll use as sort of the example of all this is Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post. And he decided that there were a bunch of things. Colorado governor, Jared Polis, he said at the convention, speaking of Project 2025, he said, page 451 says the only legitimate family is a married mother and father where only the father works.

Glenn Kessler decided to rate this. It's a matter of interpretation. And he starts quoting page 451 where Project 2025 says, families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. And it says working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their children. And it goes on and on. And then he says, his conclusion for all this is, well, it doesn't actually say that the only legitimate family is the one it defines here.

But the implication is nonetheless strong. Yeah, the implication is strong because that's what they're saying. And Glenn Kessler knows this. It goes on and on and on. And Bill Clinton sort of now famously in his speech said that since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created around 51 million jobs. And he basically said, of those 51 million jobs, Democrats created 50 million of them and Republicans, one million of them. Kessler's response to this is, oh, this is a cleverly cherry-picked fact because he started with the end of the Cold War and he says, this is arbitrary. And he says, by doing this, you leave out Ronald Reagan who actually created jobs. That's like, well, okay. But his point was since the end of the Cold War, 1989. That's not a cherry-picked date.

That's kind of a big date in history. And this goes on and on and on. Tim Wall said that Republicans will repeal the Affordable Care Act. Kessler says, this is speculative. He says, well, Trump tried repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act when he was president but failed. And Trump dropped that talking point more than a year ago. Come on.

I mean, it's just the way they contort themselves, like they should be in carnivals. Because bodies are not supposed to be able to contort themselves this way. It is unbelievable that they do this. And it's not just Glenn Kessler, like I said, it's the New York Times was doing similar things. And, you know, they are thankfully getting a lot of blowback. One of the things Glenn Kessler wrote earlier in the week was that he was not happy that Hillary Clinton categorized the letters that Donald Trump wrote to Kim Jong-il as love letters. And he said, there's no evidence. We don't know what was in those letters.

And people were like, hey, guy, I stopped myself there. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Your own reporter, Bob Woodward, published in his book, what was in those letters. and they were called love letters. And the Washington Post had to then run a correction to the fact check the next day. But this, we're just, we're seeing this over and over, and it's infuriating and I'm sick of it. And, you know, the same people who clean up everything Donald Trump says to make him sound less crazy

will take normal political rhetoric and be like, well, Trump tried to do this in his first term, but we don't know that he would try to do this in his second term. And I'm just, I'm sick of it. And I think a lot of people are sick of it. So fuck those guys. I mean, is this even considered fact-checking or is it just fluffing? Because like, this can't possibly be considered fact-checking because it's just a load of bullshit that they are offering.

And I'm frankly, I'm so, I'm just so disgusted and I'm tired with these quote-unquote legacy outlets. And you're right. They should see doctors for the levels of contortionism that they put themselves through because their organs can't possibly be okay. Like, a fucking mess. Fuck those guys. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday.

If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline head to the dailybeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.