The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, August 9

Episode Date: August 9, 2018

President Trump's lawyers are negotiating an interview with the special counsel. Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort's right hand man testifies against Manafort in court. And why is there a divide between what the president says and what his cabinet does? Plus white nationalists plan a rally in Washington, D.C. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, justice correspondent Ryan Lucas, political reporter Tim Mak, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, and national political correspondent Mara Liasson. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hello, everyone. This is Eric calling from Northern Virginia, where I'm making dinner for my kids and honey lemon lavender ice cream for my lovely wife. This podcast was recorded at 2.03 p.m. on Thursday, August 9th. Things may have changed by the time you hear this. I love you, Brie. All right, here's the show. What a nice husband. That's very sweet. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast here with our weekly roundup of this week's political news. We're going to talk about Paul Manafort's trial, that interview between the special counsel and the president, which may or may not ever happen, why President Trump and the Trump administration are sometimes at odds, and a white nationalist rally in Washington, D.C.

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Aisha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. I'm Ryan Lucas. I cover the Justice Department. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And Ryan, I want to start with you and a phone call you had yesterday with one Rudolph Giuliani. What was that about? Well, it's about this, a letter that the president's legal team sent to the special counsel's office this week with a counteroffer about a possible presidential interview with the special counsel's office as part of the Russia

investigation. This is the long running saga between the president's legal team and special counsel Robert Mueller's office. Giuliani wouldn't get into the specifics of what the offer was, but he said that it was a serious offer. It's something that if the special counsel's office can agree to, they can sit down and get this actually done. But he also said, kind of confusingly, he said that this was the last best chance that Mueller might have to secure Trump's testimony. But then he also said it's not a final offer. So it is the last best, but not final. Yes.

So maybe the offers only get worse from here. Or maybe he's just using a lot of words. Giuliani not being clear. I can't imagine that. The point of this is there are a couple of things. One, there's the potential for basically this to run out of negotiating rope and into territory of potential subpoena and having to compel the president to testify. And that is something that Mueller could do if push comes to shove and he decides that he's not going to be able to interview the president as he would like.

Is there any timeline that Mueller is working on? It seems like Giuliani and the president's legal team are talking about possible deadlines for Mueller to act. Is there a timeline for him? There is no concrete timeline for this. When I spoke to Giuliani, he said that he would like to see this all wrapped up by September 1st, which is, frankly, right around the corner. That's just a couple of weeks away.

There's no sign that the investigation itself is going to conclude in the next three weeks. But I think that the timelines that we've seen from Giuliani, and when I spoke to him a couple of months ago, he also mentioned this September deadline, is two things. One, it's an effort to try to put a timestamp on this investigation. And if it doesn't end by then, they can talk about how this is dragging on. We thought it was going to end several months ago. Why is this still happening? And it's also, I

think that there are legitimate concerns, and Giuliani talked about this about how it might bleed into the elections and potentially negatively impact Republicans in the campaign. There is at least an informal, if not semi-formal rule that the Justice Department doesn't make big announcements right on the eve of elections. Now, that rule held pretty firmly until, oh, I don't know, 2016. What it is, is it's a norm that you do not do anything to impact the outcome of an election. And what you're referring to, of course, is Comey's announcement regarding the Clinton investigation. That it was reopened some nine days before the election. Right, right. And there have been memos that have come out from attorney generals in years past, in election years, to say just remind the DOJ staff that we don't do this. But it's not a hard and fast rule, clearly. But so

and it seems like Giuliani also seems to be making the argument that just having the investigation continue could have an impact on the election. So that's why it needs to be wrapped up. Like, is that is that legitimate to just say, even if he's not making it, even if Mueller isn't making announcements, just having this cloud over the president is is could impact an election. I have some thoughts about how that cloud could go away. Maybe just possibly. I don't know. They could stop this really long, drawn out negotiation about an interview and either have it happen or not have it happen and let them move on with the investigation.

Well, remember, Giuliani also just wants the investigation over. He has said explicitly this should end. OK, I have one more question, which is a question I got from a lot of people on Twitter yesterday, and I want to throw it out to the room. So wait, the president of the United States can just like dictate when he does an interview with investigators. What's up with that? president as the institution of the presidency. And that's what, if you listen to Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, who's another of the president's lawyers, this is something that they really like to hammer on is that this is about the institution of the presidency. We're not about protecting this president per se, we're protecting the presidency itself. They didn't feel that way during Clinton,

but they certainly do now. But one of the things that hasn't been legally resolved is whether a president can be subpoenaed. And what happened during the Clinton investigations is rather than be subpoenaed, he agreed to sit down and talk to the special counsel. They worked out terms to voluntarily talk. He did not want to be subpoenaed. Right. Well, actually, I believe that he was subpoenaed, but then they withdrew the subpoena when they came to an agreement. Right, they withdrew it. But the point is that, yes, so they did come to an agreement. So the question is, with this president, it sounds like if Bob Mueller decided to subpoena him, if they couldn't come to terms in these negotiations, it sounds like the president's legal team thinks that that's a fight that

politically would be good for them or that they could win. And it's an open legal question, right? It is an open legal question. Giuliani told me that he thinks that they would win that fight. I've spoken to legal experts, including a constitutional law professor last night, who said the law comes down on Mueller's side and Mueller would likely prevail in this. It is not cut and dry, though. And would a president be served? Like, would they be standing outside of the White House? Like, could he just duck them? Could he duck them? Like a reality show about that. Anyway. All right, Ryan, you are here on double duty because

also you have spent the entire week now, two weeks, sequestered, not really, but in the courtroom watching the trial of President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, on charges of tax evasion and other financial crimes unrelated to his work on the campaign. That is correct. Okay. So when we last spoke, there was some question, though, it seemed likely that Rick Gates, Paul Mana days. And it was an incredible three days, quite frankly. You have Rick Gates, who, as you said, was Manafort's former right-hand man, who worked very closely together for years, around a decade, in fact. And Rick Gates comes into the courtroom, raises his right hand and takes an oath, and then takes a stand and testifies against his former business partners. Right across the room from him, would not look at Manafort in the room. Manafort, meanwhile, was staring at him the whole time.

Like with daggers. Like with daggers. It was, it's a bank and tax fraud trial. So this is not one of the most dramatic two weeks that you could spend in a courtroom. But these three days or so were particularly interesting because of this. There was the human element to it.

But why does this matter in terms of the larger Russia investigation or the president? Does this have any- The trial? Yes. Does the Manafort case have any bearing on the larger investigation? The Manafort trial does not get to the central question of the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the election and whether there were, whether there was coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. But we care about this because of who Paul Manafort was. He was the chairman of the campaign for three months or so in the summer. He was with it for longer than that.

Before he became chairman, he was at the upper echelons during some of the key moments, including that Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 with a Russian lawyer who was offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The assumption is that Manafort knows things that might be of interest to the special counsel. Manafort and his folks have said repeatedly that there is nothing that he has that would interest the special counsel. He doesn't have anything to offer. He's not going to cooperate. He thinks he's not guilty. And that's why he's fighting these charges. But because of who Manafort is, this matters.

And it does fall with under the purview of the special counsel's mandate for him to be handling this. What's your theory of the case as to why he hasn't decided to cooperate the way Rick Gates did? Because he believes that he's not guilty. Well, even with the focus on Paul Manafort, when Rick Gates was on the stand, a lot of it was about who Rick Gates was, right? Like, wasn't that kind of, did that become the focus? Well, it did. And what happened is you had about six or seven hours of the government eliciting testimony from him about how he helped Paul Manafort hide millions of dollars in income in overseas bank accounts, how they set those bank accounts up, what they use the money in those bank accounts for, how they made wire transfers for the ostrich jacket that we talked about last week. The ostrich jacket we can't stop talking about.

The $15,000 ostrich jacket. The suits, the landscaping, all of that stuff. How he worked with Manafort to make that happen and how he did it all at Manafort's direction. So they got that testimony, the inside look from Gates as to how this scheme worked. Then came the cross examination. And that was a very, very uncomfortable three or four hours for Rick Gates. Oh, do tell. He got grilled.

He got absolutely burned in many ways by Kevin Downing, one of Paul Manafort's lawyers, and basically walked Gates through a whole host of things that he had done that were not necessarily legal. He had to talk about how he had embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from Paul Manafort. He had to talk about other fraud allegations that Downing brought up. He also was had to talk about other fraud allegations that Downing brought up. He also was forced to talk about an extramarital affair that he had around 10 years ago with a woman in London. So this was a very uncomfortable stretch of time for Gates. And Gates up on the stand, he was relatively polished when he was talking to the government. When it came to

answering questions from the defense, he struggled to recall dates. He struggled to recall even not specific items, just kind of general terms. There was a lot of, I'm not, I can't really recall. Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure. And Downing even brought this up. He said, you seem to have perfect recall when we were talking about the same time period with the government. And now suddenly you can't recall anything that's going on. So it was a rough stretch. Gates did not look comfortable on the stand. He had this kind of blinking tick that I'm not sure how that went over with.

Like an eye twitch? With jurors, yeah. And if you are a juror looking for a reason not to believe some of the testimony, I'm not sure that Gates is somebody that you're going to come away with saying, I think he's credible. So is he the key to the case? He is not the key to the case. He is the most important witness that they've called, but the government has done a lot of work to present jurors with documents, emails, bank statements, all sorts of financial papers that can bolster their case, corroborate what they've also heard from witnesses.

And they also talked to tax accountants, bookkeepers, who all testified about how Manafort was hands on. He knew what was going on. They have emails showing Manafort calling bank accounts that were overseas, my accounts. One of the charges, he didn't declare foreign bank accounts. So there's a paper trail. There is a significant paper trail, yes. So what happens now?

You've had the kind of big moment with Rick Gates. What's next for this trial? Well, we have a number of government witnesses left starting today. They had eight that they wanted to call starting Thursday morning. The prosecutor said that they expected to finish their case up by the end of tomorrow, so by the end of Friday. And then the defense could call witnesses. They might not. If they don't, then we'll get to closing arguments and then it's up to the jury. So this could be over. I mean, I know we keep saying this, but this could be over really soon.

This could be over early next week or middle of next week. Okay. Ryan, this is clearly the hottest ticket in Washington. What is the one thing that you can't let go of about being in that courtroom this week? There are a lot of things that are really kind of amazing about being in that courtroom and watching this trial. But one of the things that's been most striking to me is who shows up for this. So there are tens of journalists. You see the same people day in and day out. You wait in line to get in in the morning and you're then sitting in these

seats waiting for the judge to come in. But you also have just random members of the public who will show up. There are people who live in the apartment buildings around the courthouse who will just kind of pop in and watch a morning session. And they'll do it every other day or maybe every day. And they show up. What do you mean they just walk in? Isn't there an incredible line to get in? How do they get in? They stand in line. They stand in line because they want to come watch a couple of hours of Paul Manafort's trial. There was a lawyer that I spoke to who was in town visiting family from Indiana. And he had a morning off, so he came to the trial to watch the morning session one day. There were a couple of people

who worked for the government who had taken time off. They had extra time built up that they could take off, so they took that time to stand in line and come watch Paul Manafort's trial for a day. Well, you know, it's not televised, so... And it is historic, right? Potentially. And that's what a lot of them have said. They've said, you know, I've come to watch this because this is a big trial. This is a big deal. This is something that, you know, you can tell your kids about. Oh, yeah, I watched that Paul Manafort trial. Oh, my God. You're going to be like, grandson, I was there for the most amazing tax evasion trial. Well, if we get a verdict in that tax evasion trial, we will be back here in the studio because we have a promise that if there is big news in the political world, we will be here.

But Ryan, right now we have to say goodbye to you. I got to run. Yeah. So thank you for being with us. And when we come back, Tim Mack will join us and we're going to talk about something called the shallow state. We'll be right back. Support for NPR and the following message come from SimpliSafe. Dedicated to creating a thoughtfully designed, easy to use system so users can blanket their homes with protection and never give it a second thought. The New York Times Wirecutter called it the best home security system. Plus, SimpliSafe donates a security system to a family in need when you order yours.

At simplisafe.com slash NPR politics. Support for NPR politics also comes from Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. Rocket Mortgage gives you confidence when it comes to buying a home or refinancing your existing home loan. Rocket Mortgage is simple, allowing you to fully understand all the details and be confident you're getting the right mortgage. To get started, go to rocketmortgage.com slash NPR politics. Equal housing lender licensed in all 50 states. NMLSconsumeraccess.org number 3030. Hey, I'm Sam Sanders. I host an NPR show called It's Been a Minute. Every Friday on the show, I talk out the week of news because sometimes the best way to process everything going on right now is through good conversation. Download the show and we'll process everything together.

And we're back and we've got a new face in the studio. Well, not that new. We know you very well. Hello, Tim Mack. Hey there. All right. So, Mara, I want to talk to you about this story that you've been working on, this concept that you have been sort of thinking about for a while, but we had a story on the air and also on the web about something that you're calling the shallow state. And I assume that has something to do with the deep state.

Right. Lesley, the president and his supporters often complain about the deep state, which is supposed to be a shadowy cabal of government bureaucrats buried deep inside the bureaucracy that are trying to impede him and undermine him. But actually, we found many, many examples where the people who maybe are impeding him are actually at a much shallower level right below him, his cabinet. Not hidden from view at all. Not hidden from view at all. For example, this week, sanctions were put on Russia in response to Russia's poisoning of the former Russian spy and his daughter in London.

The president has been very reluctant about sanctions. Recently, the president woke up in the morning, tweeted that he wanted Jeff Sessions to shut down the Mueller investigation as a hoax, but the whole notion of Russia interference as something that may or may not, maybe didn't happen. We had his national security team come en masse to the briefing room. We've never seen this before. His FBI director, director of the National Security Agency, his director of intelligence, the secretary of Homeland Security, his national security advisor, all of them came into the briefing room to send the kind of message to Russia about election interference that the president himself

has never sent. So we see this more and more. And my story was about, wow, what does it mean when there's a huge disconnect between what the president says and what the administration does? The distinction is especially pronounced on issues of foreign policy where the president has a lot of leeway, right? That he doesn't have a ton of leeway to just create laws out of nothing. But as the commander in chief and as the head of the U.S. diplomatic corps, he gets to kind of set the tone for how the United States is going to approach other countries in the world. So you mentioned Russia. There's a ton of other examples. You know, his views on NATO and our allies is another example.

He refused to commit to NATO's mutual defense pact. He went to NATO headquarters. He refused to do that. But then everyone around him, all his national security apparatus came and said, actually, no, he's actually very committed to NATO's mutual defense. You had right after he refrained from committing to Article 5, you had Vice President Pence out there giving a speech saying we are completely committed. It was almost as if his top cabinet level officials, secretary of defense, vice president are out there going to Europe, blinking in Morse code. Don't listen to him. We are. America has not changed its policy towards NATO. OK. And that seems to be the big question with this administration as a whole is, does the president speak for just himself or is what he says policy? And you saw kind of Secretary of

State Pompeo got caught up in that. And I think you talked about that, how he was at this hearing and he was kind of he seemed to say that what President Trump says isn't necessarily policy. But then he walked back and said, no, President Trump runs the ball, because I think the issue is when you if you discount what President Trump says, it does make him look like a weaker president. Right. It makes him look like a weaker president. But it's also confusing to our allies, sometimes heartening to our enemies, if there is so much confusion in the United States government. And, you know, one of the other examples of this is you have John Bolton interviewed on television where he'll be asked, gee, the president of the United States is suggesting

that we might recognize Russia's forced annexation of Crimea. And he'll repeat this point over and over again. That is not the position of the United States government. The thought that there would be a difference between the position of the United States government and what the president of the United States says is extraordinary. I think that part of the way I think about President Trump or the way to think about him is that he is a showman. And so he comes back from North Korea and says, you guys, we don't have to worry about a threat from North Korea anymore. And he's done. You know, he has said his thing. It's out there. He's put that message out. That's that is the thing that he is selling. Meanwhile,

his administration is like, oh, well, now we have to put some meat on the bones of an agreement that isn't even really an agreement. In part, it's like he just wants to sell this thing to take these positions for his base, for whoever is listening. And he's not selling it to the world leader, other world leaders. He's not. It's like it's just it's a. Well, the president, you know, Donald Trump promised he would run the White House like a business. And what he meant, I think, was the business that he was in producing a reality TV show and branding and branding. But also in a reality TV show, you create a crisis. There's tension. There's drama. Then the hero, him, comes in to save the day. He vanquishes his foes. He declares victory. That's the show that he puts on every day. And on that, by that metric, he has been phenomenally successful because he has forced every television network in the world, practically, to take the show that he's producing. I'm not sure it's that contrived, though. I'm not sure he's waking up in the morning.

No, this is his instinct. He doesn't have to think it through. and hawkishness that came through with the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq after 9-11, right? That his staff all have a certain worldview and Donald Trump is outside that worldview. And every time he says something, whether it's about NATO or about Russia, which historically has been just contrary to what Republicans traditionally believe, they feel, that's not what I believe. But it's not the policy of the United States government. and it's not the policy of the United States government. It's also not the policy of the United States government. But, you know, the other thing that's interesting about that is in all the ways that Donald Trump has reshaped the Republican Party and really made it his own party,

including getting large numbers of Republicans to say they think Vladimir Putin is a great leader. This is the one area. This and tariffs are the are the two areas where the Republicans in Congress have been willing to push back. Before he went to Europe, they passed that non-binding resolution that the United States supports NATO. There's talk about putting other pieces of legislation on the floor that would either make it harder for the president to pull out of NATO, make it harder for him to invoke national security when he's putting tariffs on other countries. So this is one area where he is almost alone in the Republican Party,

almost, in terms of elected officials. And I think another thing that is worth pointing out is kind of the troubling aspect of this, right? That there is, it looks like the president is saying one thing and then the people around him are doing something entirely different. And what's troubling about that is, love it or hate him, Donald Trump is the democratically elected president of the United States. And that when he says something, the folks who he's appointed to various agencies should be executing those orders if they are lawful orders. And John Bolton is not an elected or even confirmed president of the United States or anything else. He's not confirmed by the Senate. And they will say that they and part of the thing

that gets me is that they will say that they are carrying out the president's order. So when it comes to Russia, they say that the president wants them to be really tough on Russia. The president is very concerned about election security, even though his words don't actually match that. So they will say that they are carrying out what the president wants. But it's just we're not seeing that publicly. I want to move on to something completely different, though I guess it does relate to the president's rhetoric, or it did. We are coming up on the one year anniversary of the Unite the Right rally that happened in Charlottesville, Virginia, that ended in the death of one counter protester, that then following that was a press conference by President Trump, where he said both sides were at

fault, among other things, that it was a real low point in the Trump presidency. So, Tim, you are going to be covering there is an anniversary rally this weekend. Yeah, there's a what's called Unite the Right To that's also being organized by some of the white nationalists who were involved last year. And it's going to be Sunday afternoon into evening. Events haven't even started. And it looks like this is kind of a perilous event that a lot of these white nationalists are going to meet up at the end of the metro line here in Washington, D.C. on the very outskirts of the city. And then they're going to take metro trains into the city to the White House. That is essentially going to create a situation where you could imagine protesters and counter protesters get locked in metal boxes with one another as they travel into D.C.

I mean, that that just seems like a very kind of dangerous situation. It looks like we're expecting or at least the organizers of this Unite the Right to rally are expecting about 400 individuals to show up and demonstrate. There could be more media. There could be more media. And the counter protests actually are likely to draw far more people. You know, one counter protest group received a permit earlier this week, and they estimate a thousand participants. Now, Aisha, you are working on a story about this anniversary and what it sort of means for President Trump. What's changed in a year? And really what is striking is that even though this was this low point, as you said,

in his presidency, not really much has changed. Like right after it happened, he faced enormous pushback for seeming to equate both sides and saying there were fine people on both sides. But ultimately, no one resigned from his staff. There was some talk that maybe some cabinet members would resign. That didn't happen. There were two kind of business advisory boards for the White House that were more informal. They disbanded. But other than that, he has not really faced that much in the way of political pushback. And he's continued on to wade into kind of controversial areas. Just recently, he talked about LeBron James, you know, and questioned his intelligence and Don Lemon of CNN, two prominent black figures. He continues to kind of stir outrage on the issue of race. Yeah, I mean, this president, I think of all the ways he's different from previous presidents, and of course, that's pretty much all we talk about every day is how he's different. The biggest

difference is that other presidents have tried to be uniters and have tried to unite the country. And this president's instincts, his political strategy, everything about him is divisive. And he thinks that's a winning strategy for him. He doesn't even try to unite the country. Well, it worked for him in 2016. It certainly did. He goes back to the NFL players, which people feel like that's definitely racial because these are mostly black players who are kneeling. He goes back to these issues time and time again, and he seems to feel like this plays very well with his base. There is an argument that he's also helping to mobilize

black people, Hispanics, more moderate, even Republicans who are turned off by that rhetoric and who don't like that. Yeah, I just want to zoom out a little bit and look at the 40,000 foot view, right? That what's the context of this Unite the Right rally and the counter protests in our broader political conversation? And one thing that's worth noting is, you know, we talked on the podcast a little while ago, in a previous episode about these Facebook accounts being shut down. And these were accounts that were set up by what appears to be this Russian-linked internet research agency troll farm. And Facebook shut down over 30 accounts. And one of the accounts they shut down actually was organizing a counter-protest to this very white nationalist

rally that's happening this weekend. So this white nationalist rally is happening in the context of this deep chaos that's happening in our political conversation. Some of it, which is stirred up by foreign interests, and some of it, which is natural and absolutely homegrown, which is totally homegrown, that foreign interests are trying to take advantage of these deep divides in our society. And exacerbate them. That was the whole modus operandi of the Russian social media campaign. All right. We will be right back. And after this quick break,

can't let it go. Did cutting taxes actually grow the economy? What makes DJ Khaled the king of pop music? The Indicator, a daily podcast where we tackle the big economic questions.

And we're back. And it's time now to talk about the one thing each of us can't stop thinking about this week, politics or otherwise. Tim. Well, so the thing I can't let go is this Missy Elliott cover by, let's say, an older woman who is doing a funky rendition of the classic song Work It. Does everyone know Work It? Sure. I guess we'll find out when i hear it put your thing down flip it and reverse it you don't remember He does the sound effects perfectly. What you can't see on this podcast is a number of hilarious things. For one, the woman who's doing the cover is holding this gigantic horn. It's almost like a shofar. It's like a big

horn. It's like a... It's got a curve to it. I don't know exactly what's going on. But there's also this hilarious backdrop where there's a woman tiptoeing behind her with a snack. But she's jamming.

She's grooving. She's like the hype woman. So is this like at a karaoke bar? No, this was like outdoors. It looks like a picnic of some kind. And she works at a rehab facility. I don't know the exact context of it, except that Missy Elliott tweeted it out

and said that she loves her, quote, funky white sister, end quote. And it's just a great way to start the day. Yeah. Aisha? Oh, me, next. Yes, so what I can't let go of this week is, well, it's the Oscars.

I can let go of the Oscars, but. Many people have. That might be why they have a problem. That's the issue. So they are adding in this new category that will honor achievement and popular film. I'm going to guess that The Shape of Water would not be in the category of popular films. I mean, like, I think like a lot of the Oscar bait are movies that no one that people don't see. And that's the issue.

But what do you guys think? Do you think do you like the idea of kind of honoring more popular movies that everyone likes? The Lego movie will finally get its due. Awesome. Is this is this the number of people who saw it or the number of people who liked it? It will probably be based on the number of people who saw it. It's not clear yet, but it'll probably be based on the number of people who saw it.

I'm okay with that. It is a superhero character. I will say that when I go to the movies, I'm not really seeing these kind of slow or films with subtitles. I want to go to the movies and see big explosions. That's what I want. I want my popcorn. I want to go to the movies and see, like, big explosions. Like, that's what I want. I want my popcorn. I want to be jumping in my seat.

That's what I want to see. I want to see Jurassic World. Like, that's the sort of thing. Like, that's what I want to see. Move me. All right, I am going to go next. Here's the story of a lovely lady. And my can't let it go is the Brady Bunch house,

which was for sale. It's a home in North Hollywood, three beds, three baths, 2400 square feet. Should not be worth very much except that it's in Hollywood. And it's the Brady Bunch house. Based on what I see on Zillow, it went for $1.8 million. But the more important part is that Lance Bass from NSYNC was trying to buy the house. He thought he had gotten the house. And then at the last minute, a corporate buyer came in and said they were willing to pay anything. And he was very sad. And then he found out that that corporate buyer is HGTV, and they are going to restore it to its 1970s glory.

Yes. And Lance Bass can now host whatever shows on HGTV with them restoring the house. I mean, that's my idea. I don't even know what the Brady Bunch is. I mean, I've heard of it. What? I know that it exists. There's a family.

There's a family. But I don't, I've never seen an episode. That's all your Disney story of a lovely lady. It is a cultural phenomenon. I know, I know. They didn't even have the internet then. But the thing about that house is that, so they used the outside of the house, but the actual inside was never kind of like what it was on the show, because I think that was

filmed in studios or something. Well, but now. But now never kind of like what it was on the show because I think that was filmed in studios or something. Well, but now. But now it will be like it. And that will be. And already whoever lived in that house had to put up with people like on star tours driving by to see it and take pictures in front of their house. So it's probably good that it's now owned by a television network. And I like how they promoted it because at first it was like we're putting up for sale

and we think some people want to come and knock it down. And so then you had all these people rushing in to buy it. Save the Brady Bunch house. Mara, what can't you let go of? My Can't Let It Go This Week is about anniversaries. Today is the anniversary of Nixon resigning. It's the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki. But the anniversary that I can't let go. Yesterday afternoon in 2004, the bus driver for the Dave Matthews Band tour bus emptied his septic tank over the Chicago River, drenching passengers on a architectural tour boat. And I have taken one of those tours myself with 800 pounds of human poop and the article about this which is really worth reading Dave Matthews Riot Fest Riot Fest music news

said this is a day that will forever leave a stain on the city for a city that is used to getting dumped on this one is still pretty crappy. I blank you not. This is a true story. So basically, that's what I can't let go. It turns out that the bus driver pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of reckless conduct and water pollution. He was ordered to pay $10,000. Wait, he had a big penalty. $10,000 fine, 150 hours of community service, and 18 months of probation. And as we all know, keeping with our musical popular culture theme today,

the Dave Matthews Band continued to make music. It makes us all kind of need to develop in our minds contingency plans. If, you know, whenever we're just walking down the street. If you're on an open boat in the Chicago River. You know, not just in Chicago. This could happen anywhere. Let's be honest about this.

So just like there are, you know, preppers that stock food and water for a tornado. Always bring an umbrella, but I always have an umbrella. I think, no, my go-to is I'm in the river. I'm jumping in the river. Big mistake. You think that's a mistake? Why? Because the river's probably polluted.

No, I mean, but it's cleansing water. I think we are done here for now. Yeah, we will be back Monday, if not sooner, with a preview of Tuesday's primary election. Send your timestamps recorded for the top of the show to nprpolitics at npr.org. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Aisha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. I'm Aisha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. I'm Tim Mack, political reporter.

And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Oh, when your phone crashed into me, and I come into you