The New Yorker Radio Hour - Nancy Pelosi: “Timing Is Everything”

Episode Date: October 14, 2019

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a lot of fights on her hands. After she led the Democrats to victory in the 2018 midterm elections, her legislative agenda hit a number of roadblocks, including the Republican-controlled Senate. But it is Pelosi’s confrontations with Donald Trump that will go down in history. Through numerous scandals, Pelosi resisted pressure to move to impeach the President, frustrating many members of her party and leading some on the left to question her leadership. “There was plenty the President had done, evidenced in the Mueller report and other things, that were impeachable offenses,” she tells Jane Mayer. “For me, timing is everything. I said, ‘When we get more facts, when the truth has more clarity, we will be ready. We will be ready.’ ” While she has come around on impeachment, Pelosi still hews toward the center of the Party and resists some proposals from the progressive left, such as Medicare for All. “November matters,” Pelosi likes to tell colleagues running in the primaries. “What works in Michigan . . . [like] economic security for America’s working families—that works in San Francisco. What works in San Francisco might not work in Michigan. So let’s go with the Michigan plan, because that’s where we have to win the Electoral College.”   Pelosi, who has been in Congress for more than thirty years, has led the House Democrats since 2003. She spoke with the staff writer Jane Mayer in a live interview at The New Yorker Festival, on October 12th. New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

You're listening to The New Yorker Radio Hour. On this episode of the podcast, A Conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi sat down with Jane Mayer, the magazine's Chief Washington correspondent on October 12th for a live interview at the New Yorker Festival. So thrilled to have you here. I understand that things have been really dull in Washington recently,

and you have tons of free time on your hands to join us. So thank you very much for coming. We will talk about some of the issues. I know you want to talk about, but I have to say, I think we kind of have to start with impeachment. So I just wanted to get, if you could, an idea of when it was, if you could talk to us about the moment, when you felt it was time to go ahead and authorize the inquiry into impeachment, what was going on at that moment, and what were you thinking at that point? How did it happen? So you want to talk about that?

Okay. Now, if that hadn't happened, what would we be talking about? I hope we'll have a chance to talk about how we are lowering the cost of prescription drugs by HR3. And what we are doing right now, just to put this in context, we have been since we took the majority. So we're legislating. We're investigating, and we are litigating. Our investigations have led us to the court. where we won five cases in the courts.

That's just got to be a record. It's got to be a record loss for any administration, five rulings in one day. Hopefully they will recognize that. This is what this is about, just to, I'll tell you the moment, but if there is a moment, you'll be the judge. But here's the thing.

This is not anything to be gleeful about for our country. It's a very sad time when there is the thought that the President of the United States and the truth and the data and the fact show that the President of the United States has violated

his oath of office. And why is that important? Our founders at the time of the Revolution of the Dark Days Thomas Payne said the Times have found us. Times have found us.

to establish this democracy and the rest. You recall, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was adopted that day. When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall onto the steps, they said, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Frank, do we have a monarchy or a republic? He said, a republic, if we can keep it. The times have found us to keep that republic, because that republic is based on separation of power

co-weekly branches of government a check and balance on each other. Instead we have a president who says, I can do whatever I want and acts accordingly and tries to undermine the powers of the legislative branch. So this isn't about any disregard for him. That's for the election. This is our democracy at risk. If we do not have a system of checks and balances, separation of power, co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy, a republic, if we can save it, if we can keep it. Okay, so the moment. So he declared that he could do anything he wanted under Article 2 a while back, and so

what I was trying to figure out was, and you've been under a tremendous amount of pressure, particularly from the left, to do this. but you, it was interesting watching you because you're waiting till the moment when you felt you absolutely had to do this. And so what was it that changed? Was there some particular piece of information or a meeting you were in, a phone call with him? What actually happened? Well, let me just say that I don't view pressure as a reason for me to do something. However, it does give me leverage.

It does give me leverage. So as far as my members were concerned, whatever was right for them at their moment, because there was plenty that the president had done, evidenced in the Mueller report and just other things, that were impeachable offenses. For me, timing is everything. Timing is everything. So I said when we get more facts,

when the truth has more clarity, we will be ready. We will be ready. And when the, on September 17th, 2019 was the very day, boom, the explosion of the telephone call with the president and the president of Ukraine. That was a moment of revelation in terms of, okay, it's understandable. This had clarity. And so

it was the following Tuesday I have Now you want the moment It's the New Yorker We like those details I'm not sure Exactly what the moment was I think I maybe

Probably preceded this But the assurance of it It came President called me in the morning Don't tell anybody I'm telling you this Okay And he wanted to talk about all the things he was doing to pass what he knows is not only a passion with me, but

I just passion with me that I'm going to get it done, passing background checks legislation to end gun violence in our country. So they call, I want to tell you all the progress that we're making on the background checks and this or that. And I said, well, I would be interested to learn because I don't know of any progress. All the Democrats and the Democrats and the Republicans are working together. I don't know what Democrats you're working with, but we have sent a bill over 200 days before that call. So he goes on and on about that.

And I said, Mr. President, the bill we sent, this is giving me an opportunity to talk about something else. The bill we sent has over 90% approval in the public. 90% approval. Oh, there are some people who are. who disagree? I say, you're Mr. 10%. 90% of the people want back. They are Democrats, they're Republicans, they're independents, their gun owners, their NRA members, their hunters, their veterans, and all the rest. So then he decided to change the subject, which was probably

the purpose of the call. About the call, it's perfect. No, Mr. President, it's not perfect. it's wrong. It's wrong. And he said, there was no prid quo quo. I said, there doesn't need to be a prid quopo. Understand that.

But there is a prid quipo. And it should have had the sequencing of events a couple days before he withheld. And now he was probably going to grant that is a quid pro quo. However, even without that, just asking the head of state of a country to not dig up dirt,

create their on a political opponent. That's not right. But his insistence that it was so right was just made it so imperative

that we proceed. Now, I didn't tell them I was going to proceed. I said, actually, I was going to call you myself to tell you what we're kind of observing here. And I'll be talking to my members today because they were just coming back on that Tuesday.

Then he said, well, I have to go make a speech to the UN General Assembly right now, and you're telling me this, yeah. So anyway, his complete lack of any sense, and I said, you violated your oath of office, undermined our national security and jeopardize the integrity of our elections, which is fundamental to our democracy. It wasn't a pleasant call. Wow.

That's what happened. So we'll see. We'll have an inquiry, give him all the opportunity to introduce whatever exculpatory information he might have any evidence that might prove something to the contrary, to be very fair, because our founders, they gave us other guidance.

E. Pleibusunum from any one. They didn't have any idea how many we would be or how different we'd be from each other, but they knew we always had to strive to be one, one nation, undivided, indivisible. And they had their differences. They fought vehemently against each other, sometimes using canes.

But they always had to remember that we are one country. So in the interest of how we go forward, to not have it be further divisive for our country, but to try to begin a healing process for the Constitution, for the republic, for our democracy. We think that the times have found us to do just that. I don't want to get two. Maybe about 7.45 that Tuesday morning, something. Is that about that?

Okay. And you couldn't, I mean, I don't want to dwell on this too much. I think you do. I think you tell whether... But yes, we do. Did you think he just didn't know it was wrong? I mean, or does he just not care? Can you tell?

As I have said, sometimes my five children will tell you. My daughter, Alexandra, my husband, Paula Hill, will tell you that I do practice medicine on the side without benefit of diploma. But I haven't gone yet into psychiatry, anything like that. So I can't tell if he knows right from wrong or if he even cares. I just know he'd done wrong.

But it is sad. It is sad. It's sad to see that people around him. What is with them? Henshman. The president's henchman. I mean, that's just really what has come down to because they probably have some level of objectivity, perhaps.

Well, it's how you get a whistleblower, I guess, is that finally someone says, I can't take it anymore, and I'm going to report this. And I gather you had some part in creating that whistleblower law. Yes. Oh, yeah, thank you for asking. I did say to the president that morning when he starts saying, this whistleblower stuff, remember when I said, Mr. President,

you have entered my wheelhouse. I have 25 years longer than anybody will ever have because of just the way things are, an intelligence. as a member, as the top Democrats, are therefore the member of the gang of four, the gang of four, the Democratic, Republican, House, and Senate, who has to receive all of the intelligence

from the executive branch. So I was there when we wrote the laws about protecting whistleblowers, protecting them from retaliation. This is very important to our system, but it's especially important in the intelligence community because you don't have any options you can't talk, about something except within a classified world. So you have to have those protected.

So I kind of, I don't want to say, reminded him of that, I told him that. And then, and then I said, and I was there when we wrote the law establishing the office of the Director of National Intelligence. That didn't exist before 2004. And I know what the requirements and the responsibilities are of that office. I mean, the very idea that the President of the United States, whoever it might be, would say he wants to interview the person and this or that, really? I mean, it's stunning. The disregard for everybody's rights in all of this, because he's president of the United States. But again, potty mouth, all that, save that for the election. This is about the truth and the Constitution, the facts and the Constitution as to his responsibilities.

I'm curious looking ahead in this process what you think... She doesn't want to dwell on this. Do you? If the House does impeach, do you have faith in the fairness? of Mitch McConnell to hold a trial, must he hold a trial? Or can he basically sweep it under the rug with a quick up and down vote to acquit? I'm curious what you expect and think that the Constitution demands there. Well, let me just say that anybody who names himself with great pride, the Grim Reaper,

I don't have a lot of faith in doing it. Bright thing as we go forward. Here's our thing. As I've said to them, the courage of the House to honor its oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

is not affected by the cowardice of the Senate to look the other way and not honor their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So when they say, They're supposedly writing me a letter saying, don't bother going down this path because we're not going to do anything about it. Oh, really? I'm so glad you wrote to me. No, that won't have anything to do with it. But it does, it does, I guess demand is the word, require this,

that as we go forward prayerfully, that we do so strategically in a way that is ironclothed, glad, should we go down this path? That decision has not been made. I don't want to give that impression. Should we go down that path? If we should go down that path, that it would be written so focused, indisputable, in terms of where we are. So that if the Senate decides that they have better things to do that day, that the public will recognize that they have abandoned their oath of office. And so what are their options

they could say they acquit? So they acquit. He's impeached forever if we go down that path. You are impeached forever should we go down that path, if we should go down that path. But it cannot go unaddressed because any other president

might come along and decide he or she, she or he can just do whatever they feel like doing. Well, there's been some criticism that you haven't taken a formal vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry. And mostly from Republicans, though I saw that John Garimendi, I guess, was also being critical. Do you feel that, just tell me why no vote? I mean, it seems like a vote that might be very hard for Republicans to oppose, too, no,

to find the truth and see what's underneath these rocks when you turn them over. Why no vote? I don't, there's no reason there's nothing in the Constitution or anything that says we have to take that vote. When the time is right, we may take it. Do you think that's going to happen soon? I don't think. We'll see. I'm never big on putting out timing as the president found out that day. But it isn't required.

And in other words, we want to be fair. We want to be just. We want the public just to be healing and not dividing. but, and they don't have anything to talk about, so they're talking about process. Here the President of the United States is harming our national security, doing something so crazy when it comes to Turkey and Syria and the rest, so crazy. All of this stuff that he's doing, and people want to know, are you going to have a vote on the inquiry?

No, let's watch what's going on here. It's a big deal. We may decide to go there. route or not, but we don't have to. Well, it is interesting to see the level of criticism that the Republicans have thrown at him about what he's done to the Kurds, abandoning the Kurds. It's almost as if it seems like maybe it's a displaced way for them to criticize him without having to support the idea of impeachment, it seems like.

I guess I wonder, why do you think he's picked that particular fight right now? He's in the fight of his life, and he's just lost the Republican support. there. And so I wonder, you know, do you think he's tactical? Is he, is it ideological? Is it, what's driving this? Let me just say, I think you described it perfectly. The republic, it's like subterfuge. They don't want to criticize someone violating his oath of office and asking them to violate theirs. So here's some place. See how independent I am? I can criticize him on what he's doing to the Kurds and with Turkey and the rest of that. I'm not saying they're not sincere about their disagreement.

But when people say, oh, there's an erosion. Now, I'm saying this. So I can say, where I think he's doing the wrong thing, I'm ready to criticize. And that gives me cover to not have to do anything on impeachment. But we'll see as the events unfold. I mean, I often wonder, and I'm curious what you think about, why the Republicans are so in line with him,

I get the feeling from my own reporting that they don't necessarily, the Republicans in the Senate, they don't necessarily like Trump. And in fact, there was a quote recently from Mike Murphy, a Republican campaign consultant who said, if

impeachment was a blind vote, 30 Republican senators would vote against him. Courageous of them. How courageous. You know, what are they so afraid of? Let me just say about this. Because people ask me all this.

All the time, one of the Republicans going to bolt him. They must be in the cloakroom saying this or that. Forget that. That's not the kid. They wish he wouldn't tweet, but that's about as far as the criticism goes. Here's the thing. Donald Trump is there a guy. There is nothing that he has put out there that they haven't been for longer and worse.

name any subject. Deny on climate, women's right to choose, gun safety, respect for immigrants. Name any subject. Fairness in our economy and the rest. They've been there longer.

So he's their guy. He'd be like me in college with John F. Kennedy. Whatever he's, that's it. People have noticed that when it comes to the nicknames he comes up with for people, the ones he's got for you are a little bit more careful. He says, you know, nervous Nancy and things like that. And given his propensity to project, I wonder if maybe you make him a little nervous.

Well, I do believe, Jane, that everything he says is a projection of himself. When he calls me nervous Nancy, I know he's very nervous. when he calls Adam Schiff this or that, this one, that I think. He's projecting, he knows the argument that can be made against him. At least I think he should or does. So he projects it onto somebody else, and you think there's his weakness. He knows. For example, this ridiculous thing that he's doing about Joe Biden, his kids are so financially

invested in every place. So before you can say that about me, I'm going to make it up about you. I think maybe he doesn't have a name for me is because he knows I couldn't care less. Any knock from him is a boost to me. Well, I almost wondered if it was that you used that famous mother-of-five voice on him. And he's not used to really, if you look at his record,

I wondered, he hasn't had many peers who are female. Do you think maybe it rattles him a little bit to have a woman of power who sounds like his mom. Never mentions his mother. Have you ever heard that? I heard him once say, my mother said I like trucks. That was the only reference I ever heard him.

But you know what? Forget about him. It's only 13 months, fewer than 13 months, until the election. We've got to be talking about a wonderful future for our country and how we go forward. All these beautiful candidates up there, I'm so proud of all of them, showing their why.

Why they think they should be president, what their vision is for America, what they care about and know about, be it climate, education, social justice, you name any of those subjects, strategically how they think they can encourage people to work with them to get things done. And all of them, very different from him,

because they associate themselves with the hopes and features. fears, dreams, aspirations, apprehensions of the American people. This caucus, this House Democrat caucus, 60% women, people of color, LGBTQ. It's a beautiful diversity. And I say to them, our diversity is our strength. Our unity is our power. And that's what you'll call it fears most, the power of our caucus.

When I came to Congress, there were 11 women, 23 women, 11 Republicans, 12 Democrats. We made a decision, I mean, what, you must be kidding, 435 people here, 12 Democratic women, 11 Republicans. We made a decision that every election we would add more. This is the first Congress who has had over 100 women in the Congress. We have 106. 91 of them are Democrats. 15 are Republicans. One of those women is a fellow New Yorker, AOC, and she's, you've obviously had your ups and downs with her,

but I was interested. You had, it looked like a kind of a come-to-Jesus meeting with her that was quiet, and the two of you talked. And one of the things I wondered about was, it seems to me, she's rivaling you now if you watch Fox as the most hated face on the right. And I wondered if you talked to her at all about how you survive those kinds of attacks. I wondered also, do you think it's a coincidence that both of you are women that have become sort of the target on the right? And have you given any advice on how to get through the kinds of attacks? They're sexist attacks that come out, I mean, an incredible number came at you over the years. They spent, they had, they, the Republicans.

they had 137,000 ads describing me as a San Francisco liberal, something I'm very, very proud of. 137,000 ads, it just didn't work. We won 40 seats. It's a sign of their bankruptcy of ideas that they have to resort to these ad hominem attacks that they make. and women are shall we say an easier target for them because they can go out and say now she's a woman and she's going to spend

your tax dollar on immigrants coming into our kind of talk about some fairness issues that of course all of us care about men and women but it's more believable to them that women might if I showed you some of the ads you can see it's like she's a softie because she's a woman and that's what's going to happen

but I wouldn't you know I don't think anybody should pay it attention to what they are saying. I mean, it's about your why. And that's what I always say to my members. Don't pay any attention to them. Do you worry at all about the party going too far left in the coming presidential election? I know that you are not a fan of Medicare for all. and at least, you know, a couple of the front-running candidates are, there's also been talk of decriminalizing the borders and abolishing ICE. Are you worried about this?

Well, let me just say on the subject of Medicare for all. What I have said is put it all on the table, and let's just see where we get the best benefits at the lowest cost for health care for all Americans. Health care for all Americans is what our goal is. What that path is is a matter of discussion. And I think that our candidates are having a good discussion about that out there. I myself believe that the path is to strengthen the Affordable Care Act as we go forward

and not some people get kind of like a little taken aback when they say we're going to take away your private insurance, which is something that works for them. but let's have, it's a matter of discussion. Let me just say this. November matters. There are some who belong to a November. It doesn't matter, a club, and so it's whatever works in the primary.

Now, I am a left-wing, San Francisco liberal. So I can say this to them. You know all that stuff you're talking about? I have those signs in my basement from 30 years ago. I have been there, done that. I was chair of the California Democratic Party, my political home. I love it.

Very progressive. Very, very, very progressive. But in terms of winning the electoral college, I think we have so much common ground with the public, so much common ground on America's working families, climate, issues that are winning issues across the board. We don't have to lead with our differences. Let's lead with what we have in common and then try to persuade people to our other point of view. Because, because, and you can tell

people I said this, what has happened to our country in the last almost three, two and a half years, whatever it is, we can repair. It's a decision we must make to repair. We can heal some naturally, but we must proactively repair. Another term irreparable. The courts and the rest. We must win the presidential election. And we must win the presidential election. What is your greatest fear about a second Trump term? You don't want me to tell you. Well, it just can't happen. I mean, who thought it would happen now? But that's why we have to, shall we say, curb some of our enthusiasm. Not that we don't want them.

It's just about you have to win in order to get anything done. So let's win, baby, and then get done what really works for the American people. And what works in Michigan, for example, about helping for our children, economic security for America's working families. That works in San Francisco. What works in San Francisco might not work in Michigan. So let's go with the Michigan plan because that's where we have to win the electoral college.

We won by 4 million votes in California for Hillary Clinton, by 4 million votes. That was really the difference in the national, popular vote. Is it still harder, do you think, for a woman to be elected president? I certainly hope not. Frankly, I never thought about running for Congress. And the people asked me to run.

One person who was the incumbent asked me to run. So I go to Alexandra, who was 16 at the time, going to be going into senior year, young. And I said, Alexandra, Mommy has been asked to run for Mommy, has a chance to run for Congress. I wish it were one year later when you would be already in college.

but I love my life I don't even care that much about running for Congress but they're asking me so it's up to you you want me to stay here with you I'll probably be gone about three nights a week in Washington and when we're in session

so it's up to you from the depths of my heart it was up to Alexandra to which he said mother not mommy mother get a wife This is 30 years ago.

I had never even heard the expression before. What teenage girl would not want her mother out of the house three nights a week? So anyway, that. So then I'm in Congress, blah, blah, blah, and the people ask me to run for this, run for that. And I was like, no, no, I didn't come here. I'm deeply engrossed in writing the whistleblower law. My appropriations, I was forged two places, appropriations, and intelligence. and the Ethics Committee,

which is important right now. Then they asked me to run for leadership. Leadership, blah, blah, okay. But I never, the reason I ran is I was tired of losing. We lost in 1994, 96, 98, and I was going to get a little tired of losing. So, okay, I'll do that. Now, I always thought that American people

would elect a woman president of the United States well before the marble-ceilinged Congress of the United States would ever enable a woman to get in the pecking order to be in the leadership, and certainly the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But we did. And when I get introduced frequently now, they'll say the highest-ranking woman in the history of the United States,

like I'm supposed to smile, and I'm like heartbroken. I wish that we're not true. I wish that we had a woman president of the United States, United States right now because of how great she would have been, but also for what it would have spared the country in terms of our Constitution, our response on the way. So I think the country is ready for one person. It isn't easy. It's just a matter of time. It's inevitable, and to some people it's inconceivable. But as with everything we do, We shorten the distance between inevitable to us and inconceivable to them.

And it could happen any time now. We'll see. I think the American people, though, are ready. You do. Well, you know... It isn't without its obstacles. Don't get me... Nothing is without its obstacles.

Understand that. And by the way, don't ever assume that it's a natural thing that the incumbent might not get reelected. That's why we have to, again, make a decision to win. Make a decision to win. And when you make a decision to win, you make every decision in favor of winning. Is it important to have, as you're looking forward, the impeachment issue decided one way or the other before the election gets going? I mean, is it, you know, in reading about you, I was reading that your kids talk about you as a master sequencer,

because you had five kids, and so you needed to be able to tell them how to create those school lunches in an assembly line. And everything was sequenced perfectly, and organization was one of your strong points and still is. So in sequencing this, people, the conventional wisdom is that the House will try to come to some kind of vote on impeachment by Thanksgiving. Is that really realistic? The time that we will take is the time that the truth requires, having the truth come out. And the time we need is the time we'll take. So we'll see. I don't know. I really honestly do not know how long it will take.

I don't want it to take a long time because I don't want it to be further divisive in the country. And that was one of the reasons I was reluctant to go down this path because I know it's divisive. But then again, the president is divisive. So just, you know, we have to start to heal with the truth. One of the possibilities is that we may get to see more of Vice President Pence and I you served with him in the House I guess it must have been from about 2001 to 2013 or something

No was he not I mean he was there at some point I was going to say what was he like and would he be a very different kind of president do you think than our current one. Vice President Pence is who he is. He's an ideological right-wing conservative. Now, conservative is a word that is more universally, it's a legitimate place on the spectrum. What this president is is off the spectrum. People always ask me, how is it different to work with President George Bush or any other president? Well, they believed,

in our system. In this administration, they don't believe in governance. They don't believe in science. So they don't have to do anything. They don't know. They don't want to know, and they aren't going to do anything about it anyway.

So this is a completely different breed of cat. And so I think that, and I've said this to the vice president, when I was at the inauguration and had to make a toast I said he knows the territory he knows the territory so I would expect something a little bit different about respect for the Congress from but you know what why are we even talking about that well there's a possibility that 13 months is the election less 12 months and three weeks but who's counting yeah yeah no I mean it's a it's quite a team put it that way.

Quite a team. You know, I know you've been quite critical of the press, the mainstream media, nothing like the way the president talks about it. But what is it that I've seen that you've thought that we have in some ways, I don't know if we've been used or if we give too much attention to him or what is it you think we've done wrong and what should we be doing? differently. What I'm not saying you're doing, I'm just making an observation that I think in many respects

the press have been enablers for the Trump agenda. I just do. You ask why he did this thing in Turkey and Syria and all. He changed the whole stuff. He lost five court cases yesterday. That's a big deal. We should be paying attention to what he did in Turkey and the rest. But on a daily basis, he comes up with these things and all we hear about him for 24 hours

that he did this, this, this, and this. and frankly, we in Congress who are enacting laws that are for the good of the American people would get very little coverage. But I do believe that the press is the guardian of our democracy and the freedom of expression. We would not be as strong a democracy as we must be without the freedom of the press.

So it isn't about resorting to his level of... It's so irresponsible. Again, it's a matter for the election. But I do think that he's the master of diversion. He throws something, and for 24 hours we hear that he did this, that, or the other thing, without paying really attention to what else is going on. Now, maybe that's what the market wants, and that's what is being catered to. I don't know.

But I do think that there's been some, if not, enabling. not accomplice being accomplice, but enabling. So you think we should ignore the tweets more, basically? No, I mean, I think that you should talk about what else is going on. You know, I really do. I think there are other things that are going on aside from what he does 3 o'clock in the morning. And that's all, because it is, it's deadly serious for a country. He has dumbed down the discussion of what public policy is about.

He has dumbed down the respect for the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the rest. It's the tactic of an autocrat to undermine the press. So, you know, that's one of the things that they do. And then to dominate the news. So no matter what's happening, you're talking about me. Even if it's terrible, you're talking about me. You're not talking about what they're doing.

might be good for the country. You're talking about me. He is textbook in that regard. But I've never spoken this much about him. I never have. One of the things that I like the most that I saw this weekend was somebody, Mickey Hart, you know, I'm a grateful death. He sent me this, he sent me I guess it is, it's me. And I'm saying, Donald, you used to own a casino. You know the House always wins. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards with additional music by Alexis Quadrado.

This episode was produced by Alex Barron, Emily Boutin, Ave Cario, Riannon, Corby, Karen Frulman, Callalia, David Krasnow, Caroline Lester, Louis Mitchell, Michelle Moses, and Stephen Valentino. This episode was produced with help from Rhonda Sherman, David O'Hanna, and Danny Bonner. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.