The Dispatch Podcast - The Biden Files

Episode Date: January 12, 2023

Declan joins Sarah, David and Steve to break down President Biden’s classified documents scandal. The team then discusses McCarthy's backroom dealing, the proposed SANTOS act, and the riots in Brazil. Plus: An anatomically descriptive Worth Your Time(?) segment that made David deeply uncomfortable. Show Notes: The Dispatch: House GOP Moves to Messaging Bills and Investigations Proposed Bill Text: SANTOS Act  The Atlantic: Prince Harry’s Book Undermines the Very Idea of Monarchy   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How that could possibly happen, how anyone could be that irresponsible. And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? And it just totally irresponsible. Welcome to the dispatch podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Isger, joined by Steve Hayes, David French, and Declan Garvey, our senior editor for the Morning Dispatch. We're going to talk about those new classified documents that have been revealed from Biden's vice presidential office new house rules coming down for the republican majority what should be done about george santos and of course uh brazil's own january sixth moment and maybe maybe i'll get

steve to talk about whether he's team harry or team will at the end we'll see Let's dive right in. Declan, can you give us a lay of the land about what we know, what we don't know about these new Biden classified documents? Sure, yeah. So, I mean, it's important to clarify before we dive into this, the differences in terms of how we know what we know in each of the cases between the Biden docs and the Trump docs.

The Mar-a-Lago search and what we've learned over the past couple months there, that's from, you know, Trump himself has confirmed that that search took place. The Justice Department has been putting filing after filing under penalty of perjury in court. And, you know, we have kind of a little bit more confirmation in terms of what was actually found, how it was found, and the process that it took to get it back to the National Archives. With this Biden story, all we have right now are public reportings from CBS News, news, NBC News, citing sources familiar, and then a statement from President Biden's lawyer that explains kind of their side of the story and how this played out. So there's high likelihood that we're going to learn a lot more about how this came to pass

and so we can only really go off of what we know right now. But what that we do know right now is that in November, a couple days before the midterm elections, two attorneys for President Biden found in his. personal office of this think tank that they set up at the University of Pennsylvania after his vice presidency found about 10 classified documents in a locked storage container, is how they phrased it in a manila envelope, and immediately alerted the National Archives and turned, within 24 hours, had turned it over to the archives and the archives got in touch with the Justice Department and there's been an investigation ongoing for the past two months led by, I

a U.S. attorney out of the Northern District of Illinois, John Lausch. Yesterday, we're recording this Thursday morning. Last night on Wednesday, we got reporting that there is another batch of these documents that was found because after that initial batch was found in early November, that is when President's aides decided to do some more searching and see if this kind of thing could turn up elsewhere in where he worked in his vote, the post-Vice presidency period. And so we found that there's at least another one batch. And who knows, by the time this is released, we could have found two or three more.

So that's where we are right now. President Biden has maintained that he has no idea what these documents are. He says that he was surprised that they were found there and that his team has been cooperating fully with the investigation and that that should be wrapped up soon. But who knows? David, I want to get to the comparison in a moment. But first, what struck me about what Declan just said is the idea that classified documents were found in a manila envelope because that's not how classified documents are

kept when they're at home, when they're where they're supposed to be. So it means that it's not that, you know, folders were sort of accidentally put into a moving box or something. The documents themselves were removed from their folders and put into a different envelope before they were transported, which just seems everything about this seems really strange to me. Yeah. It does. I mean, if what it raises for me is you wonder, how are these things stored when they were moved from the, you know, from the Naval Observatory or the Biden offices,

how were these things stored? Because it strikes me as particularly egregious, say if somebody went into a skiff, grabbed some documents, walked out with them, and then put them in, you know, and then they're later shuffled in with larger document stacks, makes me wonder how these things were being handled beforehand. So there's a lot we don't know.

And look, we can draw distinctions between the Trump story that we know so far and the Biden story that we know so far. But there's so little, as Declan said, about the Biden story that we know so far. And so I think a lot of these sort of explainers that are saying, well, here's what is different about Trump and Biden are interesting, but perhaps premature. I mean, we don't have evidence of obstruction right now, but we just don't have evidence of much of anything right now except that the documents were not where they were supposed to be. And a second set of documents was not where they were supposed to be. And the one thing that I would just say, and Sarah, I'm sure this is your experience as well,

it is actually easy not to mishandle classified information. Like, I just want to be really clear about this. This is not the thing that's hard to do. Like, they set up systems that make it hard to mishandle the classified information. That's the reality. So it's not like this is a giant change. challenge in life to figure out how not to mishandle classified information. So let's just get that out there right now.

So this has to be investigated in all of the commentary about how this is clearly different from Trump. Again, yes, based on what we know, yes, based on what we know, but we don't know very much. Steve, do you think it's different than Trump in important material ways? Yeah. I mean, I think with the caveat that David offers, it is. If you look at what happened with Donald Trump, I mean, there was basically best case scenario, a reckless disregard for how these documents were handled. But I think abundant evidence in the reporting. And as David notes, in admissions that we've now gotten that basically Donald Trump said he wanted these documents and he was taking him regardless. And then the federal government, NARA, the national, archives, and I'm going to forget the rest of the acronym, NARA. As for them back, the FBI engaged in extended negotiations with Team Trump. They refused. They apparently engaged in some dodgy behavior to avoid returning them,

and they're still in effect claiming that there's nothing wrong. Those things, again, with the caveat that we don't know everything don't appear to be a play in the Biden document case. If the official story is to be believed, they discover these documents, they turned them over, and there's now an investigation. Having said that, the front end of this is similar, and the basic big picture takeaway, I think, does have some parallels with the Trump case. These are classified documents, some of them reportedly sensitive, compartmentalized information among the highest, most highly classified documents the U.S. government has in a folder marked personal.

Well, they're not personal. These are not personal documents. They had no business being in Biden's office. And the person who made a case against irresponsible handling of such documents most compellingly was Joe Biden himself when he went after Donald Trump for. what happened, making the argument that these documents belong to the government and have to be handled with extraordinary care. He failed on that. At the very least, the Biden team failed on that. We'll learn more about the details of exactly how. But the second part that I think

is really troubling at this point is the refusal of Biden world to provide really any information publicly about what's happened here. And their claim, if you listen to the White House press secretary, as well, we can't really talk about this because it's now in the hands of the Department of Justice and we don't want to get in the way of their investigations. Bologna. You can tell us what you know about this. Undoubtedly, they have done their own investigation. This undoubtedly, Joe Biden has said, if it is, in fact, the case that he didn't himself know how they got there, undoubtedly he has said, how did they get there? What's the explanation here?

You can begin to provide that information to the American people. I do think the fact that they were discovered six days before the election and that information was withheld at a time when Donald Trump's documents were being widely discussed presents additional problems. And the final point is just in the political sense here, I think this creates a lot of trouble for Merrick Garland, the potential prosecution of Donald Trump, setting aside the legal case, which I know, Sarah, you and David, have talked. talked about on that niche podcast that some people listen to. The political issues here, I think, are significant. And we've already seen Republicans do everything they can to jump on the fact that this is, that there are these similarities and that Joe Biden can no longer point at Donald Trump and say this was irresponsible without having to answer for his own problems. So I actually find the

timing of it, at least of what we know right now, to be the worst news for the Biden team, because it looks like they were trying to cover it up. It looks like they intentionally did not want this out before the election. However, I disagree with you on one point, Steve, which is that this is bad news for Merrick Garland. No way. This is the best news Merrick Garland ever got. This is Christmas for Merrick Garland because something that was going to be a very, very difficult decision just got much easier. And Merrick Garland also had another stroke of good luck. So there were two Trump appointed U.S. attorneys who were held over from the last administration, who are still in their positions out of the 93 U.S. attorneys that are out there.

One is in Delaware. He was held over because of the Hunter Biden investigation, and that is still ongoing, although seems to be wrapping up. We'll see. But the other one, and this is, you know, just coincidental. John Lausch in the Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, he was held over because of a basically political investigation going on into a powerful family in Illinois. And how lucky for Merrick Garland that he has this Trump-appointed U.S. attorney

who can now do the preliminary investigation into these documents and helps also. Part of the reason John Lausch was held over, that investigation was ongoing, but the administration got a lot of phone calls from the two senators in Illinois. They are Democrats saying you should keep John Lousch there. John Lousch has a ton of credibility with members on the Hill because of some of the document production work he did during the Trump years. So you've got this sort of impeccably credentialed, highly competent person who Merrick Garland has handed this off to. I don't know. I think Merrick Garland's having the best week of anyone right now.

David, I want to ask you about the timing thing, though, because to Declan's point on, there's so much we don't know. But the timing thing to me, this one thing we do know, is just so damning. The timing thing regarding this is something we've known since November. And that's even if you believe their timeline. Like they're presenting sort of what I assume is the best case scenario. And their best case scenario is they knew about it.

before the election and right before the election. And like, why were they starting to look? How did this all come about? Was it that the Mar-a-Lago raid happened? And they thought to go peruse some of this? And if that's the case, then how are they just now finding these additional documents? You're telling me that back in, let's, again, using their timeline, that on November 2nd, you found classified documents in Manila envelope.

And everyone was like, oh, no, give them to the National Archives right away. Anyway, back to my wordle game. and you didn't rip apart the rest of that place looking for documents. I don't understand. And just one more point before David answers. They didn't disclose this voluntarily. They only started talking about this

because CBS News had reporting that indicated that these documents had been found. So they didn't disclose this. You know, the self-described most transparent administration in history that drove this contrast with Donald Trump, they didn't disclose this on their own. Yeah, there is a spectrum that between we promptly find, we find classified documents that have been mishandled,

we promptly notify, issue a press statement, and are completely transparent and open in our communications, and evading a subpoena. Like there's a spectrum of behavior in between those two polls, and it seems like the Biden behavior will, of his, but the Biden team behavior and we don't know about Biden himself is at least right now somewhere between those two polls. And we just don't know where it is. And yes, it is absolutely a problem for them that this was discovered early in November. We only know about it now because of leaks.

And then lo and behold, what a wild, crazy coincidence that you then find the second batch. And you just wonder like when is it going to be the third batch when is the fourth batch if there is it's we're in a position where from the standpoint of public confidence let's back up just a minute public confidence that somebody can handle classified information I mean this is Hillary then Trump then Biden and again we can parse severity we can absolutely parse severity, but what we can't parse as propriety. Each one of them was improperly handling classified information to varying degrees of severity. And I'm sorry, that's just, it's not good enough. It's absolutely not good enough. And no one can be on their high

horse right now. I don't think we can overestimate just how much the Biden team is reliant on Donald Trump here to make their own political case on a whole host of issues. But like, you know, the press secretary, Steve mentioned it earlier. The Korean John Pierre's performance yesterday was pitiful, like getting up there. Of course, we all know that that President Biden takes this stuff very seriously. We don't know that. There's no indication. I mean, the fact that we have found this now in two separate locations, like maybe he takes it more seriously.

than Donald Trump does, sure, but that isn't a, you know, a useful argument if you're trying to make the case that he actually takes this seriously on its own merits. And we're just going to kind of, you know, you see that with Hunter's foreign business dealings. Well, at least it's not as bad as what Jared Kushner is doing in Saudi Arabia. Like there's a lot of just kind of defining the presidency down and defining the qualities down. And there's just this tacit assumption that I think a lot of Biden world holds is that, well, at least we're not as bad as Trump on any of this stuff.

And so, you know, give us the benefit of the doubt. Give us, you know, trust us, don't worry. Like, we know we're not as bad as the last guys. And it's just, and it's going to make, Sarah, to maybe set you up as a useful transition here, it's going to make the House Republicans job so much easier to, like the details that we do know on this story is that some of the documents,

documents were briefing materials on Ukraine that has something to do with the Hunter Biden investigation and that the center where this was found has received almost $60 million in funding from China over the past decade. And some of that was before Biden left office and it was set up and it was going to the University of Pennsylvania, not necessarily the center. But some of it was going directly to the center. And you know that that's going to be a huge talking point for for these House Republicans as they set up these investigations and it's just such a self-inflicted error

that they're not going to have to contend with this. I also, I just feel like because we don't know a lot, there's a lot of benefit of the doubt being given to one side of the equation here. Yes. And, you know, I think if we stepped back and just took the facts

without sort of the atmospherics, You know, when you find classified documents and call the National Archives, I would assume the National Archives says something to the effect of, okay, are there any more classified documents there? So one of the things we don't know is whether at that point they answered, correct, we have checked there are no more classified documents, only to then find more classified documents later, at which point these start looking very parallel.

And again, as Declan has said, there's a lot we don't know. And this is one of those things. My only point being, don't assume good faith on one side because we kind of know there's bad faith on the other side. We just don't know the faith on this other side because they're not telling us because they didn't come out with any of this. And that's where I think I'm having a hard time assuming good faith.

The Trump team, don't get me wrong, didn't tell us either. We learned through the execution of a search warrant. And everyone's like, yeah, so this was totally different. they call the National Archives themselves. All right, let's, I'm going to wait and see on some of this. Immediately is like, yes, it's according to their timeline, it's right after they found them. It's also six years after the documents who are there.

So like, it's not immediate in any sense of the word. And several months after the Mar-a-Lago raid, which again, if you're going to have your boss constantly talking about what an egregious betrayal of America's trust this is, I just find it hard to believe that nobody started looking and being like, let's just make sure our hands are clean here. I don't know. And Declan's point's point's really important.

Like if your predecessor is a bank robber, then the rule is not that all crimes short of bank robbery are therefore not crimes anymore. Or all scandals short of bank robbery are not scandals anymore. And that seems to be sort of kind of the talking point of, well, we're still, you should be relieved. We're better than the other guy. Okay, A, maybe probably,

not known. Those facts, objection, presuming facts not in evidence. We don't have the full picture. And B, so what? So what? There should be accountability here. I mean, don't forget, the first defense that we heard this week was, yeah, but it's way fewer documents. It's like, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of documents. Isn't that a distinction? And then they're like, well, we have some more documents. It's like, well, okay, so why don't we just hold off on too many comparisons when you're trying to make one okay and one egregious and indictment worthy. Right. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss and it was a stark reminder of how quickly

life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes,

same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ethos. Dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary.

And with that, Declan, I did enjoy your transition that I then steamrolled over, but we're going to come back to it on what the house looks like right now. And yeah, I mean, what do we know about the deals that Kevin McCrack? struck, what do we not know about deals that Kevin McCarthy struck? And how do you think it's going to shape the next two years? Oh, me. Oh, definitely you. Yeah.

So there is, there is, again, similar to the Biden document scenario. There's some that we know and there's a lot that we don't know that will come trickling out over the course of the next few months. You know, there was a rules package passed on Monday night with all Republicans except one voting in favor. of it and really the only kind of concrete change that was being discussed that ended up in that package was the reduction in the threshold to call for a vote to to oust the speaker down from I forget what it was under Pelosi but McCarthy was discussing five they moved it down to one so now any one member can force that vote but there's a whole lot that was discussed and bargained for and handshake agreements that did not end up in that document I think we're starting to see

some of it now in terms of who's getting placed on what committees as the steering committee meets and assigns those responsibilities, who's getting chairmanship gavels, and there will be a lot of frustration trickling out over the next couple weeks and months as we start to hear exactly why certain members got certain committee assignments and who voted for that on the steering committee and how that played out and seniority getting bumped and what have you. So that that will ruffle some feathers. We're also, you know, seeing the first couple days here, there have been a lot of symbolic messaging votes so far that the House has taken.

They voted to pass legislation clawing back or rescinding some of the funding that Democrats gave the IRS last year. None of this stuff is going to go anywhere. I think Jonah wrote a good G-file yesterday about how it's in both sides' interest for the Republicans to tout this legislation that they're doing that's not going to do anything, but Democrats to also tell the legislation Republicans are doing that's not going to do anything. And then yesterday we had a vote on the Born Alive Act that would require physicians to administer

medical care and do everything that they can to preserve the life of infants who are born after a botched abortion. I think one Democrat voting in favor of that one present. And so that's kind of, I think it tees up what we're going to see a lot of in this Congress, which is Republicans forcing Democrats to go on the record on tough issues, allowing their own members to vote on issues that they can pair it back home and say, look, I'm fighting, I'm doing this. It's not going to go anywhere. It's basically a trial run for if and when Republicans gain back the Senate and the White House in 2024. But buckle up. There are some big fights coming down the road. I'm sure we'll talk about the debt ceiling in the summer.

But that's kind of where we stand right now. Steve, what do you make of all of this in the wake of last week's 15 rounds of voting for McCarthy? Well, we're learning a lot more. I mean, I think some of the reforms that the House Freedom Caucus or Freedom Caucus adjacent protesters or McCarthy opponents pushed for are good and are things that have been talked about for all. a long time to help return power, sort of turn power down from a centralized speaker's office,

leadership office to members and to the committees. Having said that, I think what we're seeing here is the kinds of bartering and horse trading that took place to allow Kevin McCarthy to become speaker is exactly the kind of inside the beltway swampy maneuvering that Republicans have theoretically been against, you know, from, I mean, depending on when you start counting, either from the contract with America time or Tea Party time, but certainly in the Donald Trump area, I mean, this was what he ran against, was this kind of Washington swampy behavior, secret deals, punchable. reported that there were a number of secret deals or a secret deal with a number of different

component parts, many of which we don't know right now. We don't really have clarity on who was given committee or subcommittee chairmanship based on these deals and based on McCarthy's desperation to get the speakers' gavel. But there are indications that there might be some. I have a question about that, actually, before you continue, which is, didn't McCarthy assure his entire caucus that gavels were not part of any deal? Well, he did, but as we'll talk about with respect. So we find out that gavels were part of the deal.

Yeah, so there's, I mean, there's a, maybe we're setting up our next discussion about Congressman Santos. Look, I mean, Kevin McCarthy is a liar. He's a known liar. He does it easily. There's no reason to gloss over. the fact that the guy lies. If you look back at the reporting from Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns in their book, This Will Not Pass. You remember that they reported there was this call

that McCarthy made saying that he was going to ask Donald Trump to resign. And McCarthy himself and his staff repeatedly and unequivocally denied it, said it never happened. This is made up. Fake news from the New York Times, et cetera, et cetera. And then they produced an audio of the call in which McCarthy said exactly what they had said. The only discussion I would have with him is that I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation we should be done. This was, again, in my nearly 30 years history of covering Washington in politics, I'm not sure I'd ever seen such an obvious example of somebody busted in a demonstrable, provable

lie. And it didn't matter at all. So nobody in the House Republican Conference should be surprised if Kevin McCarthy is now lying to them about what he'll do to get power because they saw it and countenance that basically at the time. There are indications that some of the chairmanships of these committees were up for grabs. Certainly on some of the subcommittees, there's, I think, informed speculation about that kind of horse trading, Mark Green of Tennessee, getting the gavel over Dan Crenshaw in Tennessee on the Homeland Security Committee, certainly raises some eyebrows. Who knows exactly what we'll learn?

But this is, I think, a problem for Republicans either way. Either we're going to learn that there was this horse trading that seems apparent from just, outside observation, or we won't learn anything more, and we'll just have this vague sense that there was this kind of ugly horse trading that took place. Neither of which I think positions Republicans to make arguments very well that they're the party who's going to come in and clean up Washington. Speaking of positioning, David, I'm curious if you think any of these investigations will affirmatively help Republicans politically, if you think any of them will hurt Republicans, if you think it's a wash, you know, compare to Benghazi maybe, or if we'll learn

important things. I mean, God forbid, that's in theory, the point of congressional investigation. So I want to put that at the end because it seems so far-fetched, but you never know. So I want to know your opinions on that part of what we think the House will be doing for the next two years. Well, let me put it this way. The Biden administration argument that all these investigations or a mere side show and a distraction just got holed below the water line over the last week or so regarding their own handling

of classified information. Look, I think so much is going to depend on who's running the show. You know, I'm that the select committee regarding China, I think is really important and Representative Gallagher is a serious person and I am very interested in their work. I am very interested in unraveling

what happened with Afghanistan. The Hunter Biden laptop has been in the hands of people for a long time now. I'm not quite sure what else there is to expose there, this sort of committee on weaponizing the government. Again, there is an oversight role for Congress over federal law enforcement without any question at all. If it's going to go down weirdo rabbit holes, then it's going to be very, it will be to the extent that it matters at all,

like to the extent that the normal American is paying attention to congressional committees, to the extent that it matters at all, if you have conspiracy theory rabbit holes instead of serious investigations, then that'll hurt the Republicans and it'll give the Democrats a chance to say that they're just not interested in governing and getting us, you know, in making real and meaningful economic and policy choices. and then hovering it over at all is the debt ceiling fight. How serious do House Republicans seem to be?

And that's going to depend on House Republicans. And I have a feeling some of these committees aren't going to seem so serious. But we'll see. Steve, I actually have an interesting follow-up question for you. Maybe all of you. But do you think the Benghazi hearings help or hurt Republicans and bearing in mind the famous Kevin McCarthy line,

that they were helpful. Why? Well, she's not president, is she? Yeah, I mean, I think, I don't know, I was so, I cover them so closely, I may not be the best person to offer sort of a detached distance perspective on them. I thought that, I thought Tray Gotti ran the hearings well, overall, and despite the conventional wisdom,

the hearings and the investigation turned up a bunch of new information. including emails that Hillary Clinton was saying, of course, this was an al-Qaeda attack in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I thought it turned out some good information. Certainly that's not the perception of Democrats. They thought it was a crummy investigation, a partisan political investigation, and that wasted time and money. I think we're in such a polarized moment right now that almost no matter what Republicans do, Democrats are likely to oppose it. And that's...

I can't believe you think such a thing, Steve. I mean, I know crazy. This is why people listen to this podcast for that kind of deep insight. Republicans and Democrats will oppose one another. Look, I think Republicans have earned that skepticism, frankly. You know, some of the investigation, this, I think the investigation that they have apparently authorized looking into law enforcement agencies that Republicans are euphemistic. calling the new Church Committee, a reference to the post-Watergate, post-Intel, post-Watergate Vietnam-era intel investigations undertaken by Frank Church.

It feels like a committee to obstruct justice is what it feels like when you're talking about some of the people who are likely to be the subject or who we know are the subject of federal law enforcement investigations running committees or having a say on committees. looking into exactly what they did, I do think there are reasons that Democrats have to be skeptical of the kinds of oversight Republicans should conduct. And I think that's unfortunate. I mean, I would say that there is a lot of room

for Republicans to conduct real oversight into what we're learning about these documents. That would be a proper function of the congressional oversight role. I think oversight, to what happened in Afghanistan is another place to look. I still don't think we have the full story from the Biden administration. Unfortunately, I think those things are likely to be obscured by some crazy from Republicans at this point. I will just note that Representative Comer from Kentucky, who is leading the Oversight Committee,

is making an appearance on the Lou Dobbs podcast today, Thursday. That's not a great sign, if I can say. I mean, Lou Dobbs is one of the most non-credible commentators in American politics today. He's no longer at Fox, at least in part, because he provided a platform for people to come on and spout election lies. The fact that he would choose to go on there, I think should add to the concern that people have about Republicans taking that role serious. all right deklin i want to talk about george santos because it relates to all of this i think we're all very aware of how thin the republican majority in the house is and then there's george santos the glue holding it all together uh jewish or not two new york house democrats are introducing today the

stopping another non truthful office seeker act anyone anyone yep that's an act acronym for Santos. It would require candidates for Congress to file additional biographical information with the Federal Election Commission. But maybe most interestingly about this, Kevin McCarthy was asked sort of, what's you going to do? Are you going to ask him to resign? Kevin McCarthy's answer to the resignation question, and do you plan to discipline him?

What are the charges against him? Is there a charge against him? you know in America today you're innocent till proven guilty the voters are in power the voters made the decision and he has the right to serve here if there is something that rises to the occasion that he did something wrong then we'll deal with that at the time um on the other hand when asked whether santo should serve on some of those top committees McCarthy said no he will get committee assignments, but as one House Republican said, he probably shouldn't be serving on the Intelligence Committee.

What? Yeah, that feels like a bit of a no-brainer. I'm going to go ahead and agree with that person. So, Declan, where do things stand sort of publicly and privately in the Republican caucus and with Republican local officials in New York and otherwise? understanding, again, Santos is really pretty important in Republicans keeping this House majority if he were to resign or be kicked out. It would go to a special election in his New York district. That's not a gimmee Republican seat by any means. In fact, at this point, I think you would

be handicapping it pretty heavily for the Democrats if there were a special election. So Republicans need George Santos? They do. Yeah, I think I was a plus 10 Biden district. that he won in New York. It's one of the bluest seats held by a Republican. So it's, you know, maybe his lies were perfectly catered to that demographic. I don't know exactly the details there. But I'm going to say something. I think that might be a first on the dispatch podcast,

which is I think Kevin McCarthy is handling this correctly. When you start kicking members of Congress out of Congress for lying, you're going to end up with like four guys and and like 10 women. And as Steve just said, one might not be Kevin McCarthy. Correct. Correct. And so and you're and you're certainly not going to have somebody in in the White House if that is the new, the new barometer, you know, top of my class in law school. All these things that, you know, he says that end up not being even remotely true about his own residence. a mate. Yes, obviously, Santos is a con man, a fraud. So are a lot of these members of Congress.

And I think it's a difference in degree, for sure. I think the correct way to handle this situation is put him on some crummy committees where he's a backbencher, does nothing. He loses a Republican primary in two years. And then he becomes a trivia answer in 10 years after that. He's not. Oh, the Scott Desjardet plan. And he's still there. Thank you very much. Okay. Yeah, well, we're already seeing the beginnings of, you know, he's going to, Santos is using this as like a heel turn of like, he was setting up to be one of the more moderate members of Congress. And now because of this, he's now paling around with MTG, Matt Gates,

and the other, you know, attention seeking. He's attacking Adam Kinsinger. He's going on, you know, he'll be on the Steve Bannon podcast today, Thursday, guest hosted by Matt Gates. Not joking. Yes, it's, uh, he, you have to laugh or you'll cry. That's not, he's not going to win another race in a plus 10 Biden district doing that. So he'll, he'll, you know, have his two years of, of fame and just kind of become one of these people that we talk a lot about that has no power whatsoever within the house.

Um, I just like, let let the voters handle that and don't put him on any sensitive committees where his pathological lying has any real material. impact on our national security. But David, isn't this part of the problem that I agree with Declan? George Santos will have no power in the House of Representatives, and maybe we'd all be better off ignoring him. But how does that make him different from any other person in the U.S. House of Representatives? None of them are proposing legislation that's actually going to go anywhere. Committee chairman have been neutered. These new rules that were supposed to make Kevin McCarthy so weak, I guess we'll see, but I'm losing, I don't know, I don't know that we got what we needed from these rule changes. And so in that sense, George Santos is in the same position as the other

433. We still have a vacancy. I actually can do math. You know, 400 and other 33 members, the difference between a backbencher and a committee chairman has shrunk substantially in the last 30 years. And so then, you know, you strip Marjorie Taylor Green of her committee assignments. And as a result, she raises three million dollars and there's no difference because she wasn't going to have legislation, you know, a legislative record anyway. I think I wrote this in the suite, but when you're running for re-election, the difference between someone who wanted to be a legislator and tried and failed is no different than the record of someone who just sat on the Steve Bannon podcast hosted by Matt Gates. You both have zero legislative accomplishments. And so how are voters supposed

to, you know, we keep complaining that voters make bad decisions. Some of them rename post offices. That's very important legislation as well. Oh, I went through all of AOC's legislative accomplishments. You'd be stunned how many are co-sponsored post office renamings. Which is a common phenomenon, by the way. When you go back and you look at, like, I believe the DeSantis record,

lots of post offices when he was a member of the House. I think Steve King's only legislation that he passed in however many it was, 15 years in Congress. in Iowa, was renaming like one post office. AOC, by the way, was rated as one of the least effective members of Congress, which is kind of a race to the bottom. So it makes it sound like she's worse than she is. But nevertheless, she has had no proposed legislation

even make it for a committee vote. So here is what is most distressing to me. It is not that we have total liar members of Congress. That is, then it's like, well, be distressing. by human nature in American history. Like, this is something that has been around for a really long time. Here's what's really distressing to me. The worse you are, it seems, in parts of the GOP caucus,

the better off you are. Because, you know, at the risk of disrespecting Obi-Wan Kenobi, wasn't he the one who said, if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. I think that was Jonah. Yeah. That's like the Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gates' path, which is the more you expose about these people,

wild beliefs, conspiracy theories, unethical behavior, libertine lifestyles in the party of white evangelicals, right? The more prominent they become, the more powerful they become. You raise their name, ID. Then they can raise small dollar donations. And now they have a war chest of all this money, then that does make them powerful in a way that, because nobody's getting legislation done, that they are now the kingmakers is the wrong term, but they're the coin of the realm.

Yeah, it's a totally, it's a path that is deeply, it's an evidence of a deep and pervasive corruption within the larger right of the United States of America. Because who's imposing any standards in the right? Well, it's not the audience, right, of right-wing media. That's not what's happening. I mean, they're lapping it up. And if you, if you're somebody, no matter what you've done, as long as you can label that you have the right enemies, the New York Times came after me, George Santos can say, right? It was the times that came after me and you can't let them went well what did they come after you about the truth you know they can that you're a total fabrication as a public figure but if it comes from the wrong enemies then you become the right

person and this is something that's a real pervasive corruption on the right and and look we saw this after january 6th after january 6th there was this moment where an awful lot of republican politicians were like well now this is it for trump he's gone way this is this is it And then it took about 48 hours to realize that this is it phrase applied to Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell with a lot of Republican voters. Their approval ratings plummeted after January 6th, not Donald Trump's. And we keep wanting to sort of, and look, I mean, I think the Republican establishment in the Republicans in Washington richly deserve a lot of blame for the degradation of the party. But ultimately, but ultimately, no one is making anybody write a check to Marjorie Taylor Green. Nobody's making anybody vote for Marjorie Taylor Green.

Steve. Yeah, I take your point. I mean, I think one of the reasons that this is difficult for Kevin McCarthy beyond his own history of lying is the Marjorie Taylor Green question. I mean, he has basically, by embracing her the way that he has, even after her comments a few weeks ago, in effect saying that she wished the, the insurrection had been better run, and that if she'd done it with Steve Bannon, that they would have succeeded and been better armed. You know, it's hard to come up with something lower than that, right? So he looks at George Santos and says, oh, this guy lies like everybody else lies. But McCarthy himself has made distinctions before, and he's offered criticism of members who have lied. If you go back and look at the way that he handled Madison Cawthorn, When Madison Cothorn made comments suggesting that his fellow members of Congress, fellow Republicans, had been engaged in cocaine snorting and orgies, well, Kevin McCarthy found his voice then.

He really spoke out, I didn't do much about it, but spoke out against Madison Cawthorn and said at one point, it's just frustrating there's no evidence behind his statements. Well, contrast that with what McCarthy and his team are saying about Santos. He can't bring himself to condemn Santos, I think, because, as Declan pointed out, he needs to vote. He doesn't want to lose the Santos vote. But they really can't say anything. And they have instead been dismissive about these reports detailing in page after page after page. And again, demonstrable, provable false statements from Santos.

McCarthy's sort of dismissive. There's a report in Punchbowl this morning describing what McCarthy is doing and why. And the authors wrote behind McCarthy's posture is this calculation, according to those close to him. If the GOP leadership takes action against Santos based simply on media reports, Republicans would be pressured to move against every lawmaker who gets bad headlines. That's the new standard they're creating, but it's bogus. It's total nonsense. These aren't, this isn't just media reports. You have the people responsible for getting Santos elected saying he lied to us.

We don't want them in Congress. You have top New York Republicans who work to get Santos his seat in Congress saying the guy's full of it. He lied. McCarthy just chooses to ignore that. So there's a clear and obvious double standard for Kevin McCarthy. I think it's based almost entirely on politics and the fact that Kevin McCarthy, having lied himself,

finds it difficult to go after liars. Not to defend the new Speaker of the House in any way because I think, Steve, your point on his motivations is correct. But like, you bring up Marjorie Taylor Green. She was removed from committee assignments two years ago, and is she more or less powerful than she was then? I think, you know, the ability for these people, again, like, it's a collective action problem because he's easy to make fun of and, you know, he's going to be in the headlines and the punchline of late night jokes and what have you. But like ignoring him would be the best scenario to just kind of have him flitter away in two years rather than allowing him to then be like the Republican establishments against me and the New York Times are against.

me. I have all the enemies that you guys hate. So now, you know, give me twice as much money as you would otherwise donate. Like, I mean, you see during the speakership fight and, and kind of over the past week, like, his Republican colleagues are mocking him openly. Like, they think he's a joke. One was leaking to reporters, uh, or somebody told a reporter last week during the speakership fight. Like, Santos says it's a guarantee that McCarthy will win. So obviously McCarthy's screwed. Like, they're openly joking about how much of a clown he is. They don't respect him. He's hanging out with the coup caucus already. And I think it's just, just let him float away into oblivion and let voters handle it because they will if they are a plus 10 Biden

district. Yeah, in a different scenario. I mean, look, we're so far beyond this. It's sort of silly to talk about it. But I mean, if you wanted to do something short of pushing to have him removed from the seat because the voters did, in fact, elect him, the Republican Party just could refuse to let him into their caucus, right? I mean, they could say, we don't want people like this in our conference. We don't want, this is the kind of behavior that we abhor. This is the kind of behavior that we expect of Democrats or, you know, whatever partisan argument they want make out of it. But they're just not in a position to do it for all the reasons you suggested earlier.

With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and vary by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at mx.ca.com. All right. Steve, I'm actually coming back to you because I want to hear why Americans should be paying attention to Brazil's, quote-unquote, January 6th? Well, I think Americans should be paying attention to it because, well, for a number of reasons,

this is not necessarily a new thing in Brazil. We're just seeing the most recent manifestations of this power struggle in Brazil between super leftists and the populists. I do think that there is an element at which... And tell us what happened, obviously, as well. Yeah, yeah. So on January 8th, two days after the second anniversary of the January 6th uprising here in the United States, supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed and really trashed in a pretty ugly and violent way,

several of the seats of government in Brazil. the capital of Brazil. After the inauguration, about a week after the inauguration of Lula, who is a leftist who had previously served as president and had been reelected, Bolsonaro had been predicting before the election that the election would be rigged, sort of echoing the arguments that you heard from Donald Trump here in the United States, and making claims that it wouldn't be fair that he couldn't get a fair shake. He has since repeated the claims that these things have been rigged and his supporters took to the streets and really did some serious damage to these

government buildings, the Supreme Court, and other buildings in Brasilia over the weekend. the reasons that American voters should care, I think, is, one, we don't like this kind of unrest anywhere in the hemisphere. We certainly don't like it in a country as potentially powerful as Brazil. There is, it's a different kind of unrest in Peru. But ultimately, these things matter as it really. relates to the United States and our relations with folks in the hemisphere. But I think it does have some implications to the United States more directly. Some of the same people who were involved in pushing the lies and conspiracies that led to

January 6th were involved in amplifying the claims that were made in Brazil. And while I think some of the coverage here in the United States has had a two has had a focus that was too U.S. centered as it covered what happened in Brazil. That's not to say that what happened in Brazil wasn't in part following on what happened here in the United States. I mean, I think there's a very clear line between the two. David? I would agree with Steve. I think that, you know, the linkage of the right in Brazil with the right in America, in part because the efforts of people on the right in America had to link themselves with the ride in Brazil

is one reason why we should be paying attention to this maybe a little bit more than you'd even normally pay attention to that kind of event overseas. And this is part of something that we've seen over the last several years, which is the new right in America is trying to often cast itself as part of a more global movement. So Brexit, for example, would have been one of the opening rounds and sort of the new and the rights sort of narrative of the populist revolt.

So you start with Brexit. Then you have Donald Trump. And then for a while there was the argument that Boris Johnson was also part of this and that rising new parties in Italy. So you'll have the right will pay a lot of attention to the new government in Italy or to Victor Orban in Hungary or to the government in Poland. And sort of this, there's an argument that, well, this new rights, this populist right is all part of the same thing,

different flavors of the same thing. But then if somebody on the right overseas does something wild and crazy, well, no, no, no, no, that's there, not here. And so, but what we have here is sort of this sense for a while, almost a decade at this point, that there is something called an international right or international populist right movement that is different from the traditional,

sort of Reagan conservatism of the American right, or at least the recently traditional. Can something be recently traditional? The recent tradition of Reagan conservatism on the right, they're arguing this, they're linking in maybe to a deeper and longer tradition of populist rightism that you can see overseas and that's coming over here.

And so from that sense, when you see it detonating over, overseas by their own argument that might be a sign of its weakness here that the American version of this global movement might have its own weaknesses and in fact it does as we have seen

and in fact it has not heralded the beginning of a new balance of power in American politics. In fact it's been electorally repudiated time and again but yeah I think the interest of it in it beyond the normal interest you would have in a large country having its government buildings ransacked by a mob, which is of interest no matter what, the larger interest is related to this linkage you have explicitly coming from America between the American

New Right and the Brazilian New Right. Declan, I want to move to a different foreign policy question for you, and we'll move to our last segment, which is worth your time? I want to read a quote from a book that has recently hit shelves. The past is never dead. It's not even past. When I discovered that quotation not long ago on brainyquote.com, I was thunderstruck.

I thought, who the fuk is Faulkner? Do you know who wrote this book? It's the red-headed royal guy. right? That's right. So it is turned into a bit of an American parlor game of which team you're on, Harry and Megan or William and Kate. And I find it sort of fascinating that as a general matter,

it appears to fall along partisan lines. But what's stranger to me yet is that somehow the royalists are the conservatives? Okay, it feels like sort of the opposite of what we're trying to conserve here, but fine. But for myself, I feel like I have a bit of a unique position here. I am anti-Megon and Harry. Fair enough. But I'm not pro-William and Kate. And Helen Lewis wrote this piece in the Atlantic that we can put in the show notes that I thought perfectly captured, in fact, what team I'm on.

It was titled Prince Harry's book, undermines the very idea of monarchy. And basically she summarizes the book as someone who has a lot of complaints about their pretty amazing life. Some of the complaints probably are very difficult. But, you know, not so bad when you never have to worry about rent or food or whatever.

And that some of the complaints are just downright petty, like his room was slightly smaller than William's room. And so he felt like he was constantly being reminded of his place in the pecking order. Things of this nature. You know, how many kids even have their own rooms in that country or this one? But this is the part that really struck me

and it's actually the opening of her piece. Imagine a fairy tale city on the coast, perhaps with sailboats, bobbing in the breeze. This is Ursula K. Laguines' O'Mellas, a fictional utopia where the air of morning was so clear that the snow still crowning the 18 peaks burned with white gold fire. But O'Mellas holds a horrifying secret. Its continued existence relies on a single malnourished, unloved child being kept in a cellar,

alone and uncomforted in filth and fear. They all know it is there, all the people of O'Mellas. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not. But they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, even the abundance of their harvest, and the kindly weathers of the sky depend wholly on the child's abominable misery. Most citizens take the bargain.

A few do not. They walk away out of the city never to be seen again, and that's the title of this book, the ones who walk away from O'Mellas. Yes, that's the monarchy to me. It's all relying on the misery of these people and us somehow feasting off their misery because we think they deserve it because they're rich or something they were born into this they didn't get to choose it and so yes their privileged narcissistic lunatics who don't know who faulkner is and read things off brainy quote dot com

with their ghost writers i don't feel sorry for them in a traditional sense but at the same time i feel absolutely sorry for this guy he wasn't given a good education he wasn't given any good upbringing with you know true character formation all things he might have gotten had a hereditary monarchy not existed in this country so we can sort of make fun of the narcissist now but we created the narcissist and steve i'm just dying to know your thoughts on this but we are going to start with decklin decklin worth your time uh i don't have nearly as strong opinions as as you do on this unfortunately i wish i could could gin myself up to to have them um i i'm going to exhaust all my knowledge. I think Harry is the one who, did he sign up to fight in Afghanistan?

So kudos to him on that. That's a plus in his favor. I don't think he probably had to do that, but he did. Everything else, he just seemed kind of like a, I don't know how they do it in England, but like across the sea in Ireland, if you have complaints about your family, you just talk about it behind their back to other members of your family. You don't air it out in a book. that sells millions of dollars. I guess they have to supplement their income some way if they're cutting themselves out of the family. You know, they get this $100 million Spotify deal

and the best-selling nonfiction book of all time that will fill the, yes. And Netflix, and there's Hulu. I mean, it's so fun to me to complain about how you hate all this press attention that you get. you say during your Netflix series. Those are my thoughts. Those are my only thoughts,

and I will never have any more thoughts. David, I feel like your family. Y'all are still all living under one roof or we're up until quite recently. Surely, the other people in your family have thoughts on this? You're sort of like the Royals. I think that's where she was going with that.

All of that hereditary privilege that she possessed over there. I was more referring to the fact that you've got some ladies under your roof and this seems to have captured the attention of the women of the country, perhaps a little bit more than the men? I don't think it would be possible

to even measure the level that Nancy cares about this on an electron microscope. So, and then as far as like my oldest daughter, who is interested in the Royals, has watched every season of the Crown, we've not talked about it.

What? Nor has she. I know, I know. What kind of father are you? I have not been, one think piece. I've not read one think piece about this. I've not had one conversation about this. I don't even have a single fully formed opinion about this other than I appreciate his service in Afghanistan. And I think that all of the people who are knocking his masculinity and Twitter

need to chill out unless they've flown Apaches over the Hellman province. So. Well, David, I do want to just explain why that's happening there's a and i know many of you listen to this with your kids in the car so i'm going to use some anatomical phrases right now this is just your warning um there's quite a bit about his he didn't want david not the kids in the car i'm like what's happening what's happening there's quite a bit about his penis getting frostbite um and so that's where some of this is coming from there he talks a lot about the frostbite penis Hmm. Okay. Well, it has not changed my level of concern. That doesn't make you want to go get the book, Dave?

At all. No, no, no, absolutely not. Okay, drum roll, because the one I've been most excited for, Steve Hayes, tell me everything you think about this story. Don't leave anything out. Your way into the segment was to ask the question, not worth your time? And to me, the clear answer is no, absolutely not. It's, to me, this is the definition of a non-dispatch story.

It's meaningless. It's gossipy. There's really no way to understand where the facts lie on all of us. Almost by definition, the entire story is he said, she said, he said, she said. And it has no relevance to the lives of, anyone listening or any of our members. So, Declan knows this from the first... We don't know who's listening.

Maybe Prince Andrew is a dispatch podcast listener, or is he... Oh, he's the bad one. We don't want him. Right. What are you saying? That's how little I know. Gosh, Declan, trying to undermine the brand. King Charles.

Maybe he's a listener. He's a bad one, too, right? Yeah, I mean, who knows? Look, if their listeners, that's great. They should upgrade and become paying members. They can afford it. But it just is the kind of thing that we don't want to spend much time on. I think earlier, was it a quick hit you had in TMD or worth your time?

This is like a year ago. There was a Royals thing in TMD. And I know it was the queen dying. Oh, the queen dying. That's right. Which I think we have the right argument. there that we could mention the queen dying. I think it's fine to mention

the queen dying, but we did a, like we did a TMD on it, right? Like it was the thing. Yeah. And you made, I thought a, you made, let's put it this way, you made the best, most compelling argument that there were geopolitical implications that required us to do it

as a topic. And you were wrong. And you were wrong. The queen is a different category from Prince Harry. To queen is, no, I mean, absolutely covering the heck out of the death of the queen was the right thing to do because she's a world historic figure.

Let's wait a few decades on Prince Harry. I mean, is she? Is she? Yes. I know you wrote about her too. Yes. That was a lot more royals covered. This is what happens when people seek clicks.

People just want clicks for their stuff. And I'm just sort of powerless to do anything about it because we believe in giving people editorial freedom. This is what Declan may have more at his finger tips, but at the fastest selling nonfiction book in history is a national conversation. And also, I learned something really important about frostbite. I did not know that Remy Lindholm,

the Finnish cross-country skier, also got frostbite in that area last year at the Olympics. out this is a thing that happens. And frankly, the three of you should be concerned about this more than me. I hope you didn't find that out by Googling it. Raising awareness. That's what Prince... Raising awareness. That's right. That's what I'm doing on this podcast. I think it is culturally interesting what Americans choose to care about and that it tells you something about the cultural moment that we're in. And I'm being very serious about that. And that the fact that it has fallen along partisan lines. And this has become another partisan team sport in this country

is actually. Wait, who's on whose side? How is the partisan? Democrats tend to be on Harry and Megan's side and Republicans tend to be on William and Kate's side. But that's only because people feel like they have to choose sides. I don't think there are like three opinion leaders on either side who have set the tone for the entire country of like, oh, well, I like Obama and he likes Harry and Megan, so I guess I like them too. I have friends who feel very strongly about this. Well, with that, not worth your time? We will leave you for another week.

Thank you for joining us, and if you stay till this part, I feel like you got some real education on some medical issues that may be important this winter. And other than that, apologies. So, we'll talk to you next week. Your mockery gives me strength. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place.

With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated.

Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatched. to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.