The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, June 28

Episode Date: June 28, 2018

President Trump has announced that he will hold a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin, and as Supreme Court's Justice Kennedy heads into retirement, Trump promises to seat a judge who will dismantle Roe vs. Wade. Plus, more Supreme Court decisions and why Harley Davidson cites the president's tariffs as a reason to move some of its business overseas. This episode: political reporter Asma Khalid, Congressional correspondent Scott Detrow, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, political editor Domenico Montanaro, 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

Hey y'all, this is Joshua Milliken along with my dad and brother on our way to take the NPR tour in Washington, D.C. This podcast was recorded at 1.50 Eastern on Thursday, June 28th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. Alright, here's the show. And a fun fact, if you take the NPR tour, you walk right by all of our desks. It's true. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast here with a roundup of just some of this week's news. We're going to talk about President Trump and Vladimir Putin's newly announced summit, the impact of a Supreme Court justice's retirement on the legality of abortion, and an American factory leaving the United States because of President Trump's tariffs.

I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress. I'm Asma Khalid, political reporter. I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. And I'm Mara Eliason, national political correspondent. Okay, it is Thursday. This is already the fifth podcast we have recorded this week. And we are not even going to talk about all of the week's news because you can go through our feed and catch the previous things we did. Tune in tomorrow when we record number six. But we are going to do as much as we can here. And guys, let's all start with this because it just happened. News that next month, President Trump will meet Russian

President Vladimir Putin for a face-to-face summit in Finland. Trump and Putin have met at bigger gatherings of world leaders. This will be their first summit. So, Mara, Trump's going to be holding this meeting right after a NATO summit. How do you think his NATO allies are feeling about this meeting? Well, his NATO allies are worried about the meeting because what they don't want to have happen is a replay of the G7 summit where he trashes his allies and then goes off and makes nice with an autocrat. One thing that they were worried about, I was told, was that he would schedule the meeting before he went to the NATO summit. That isn't happening. It's going to be after he meets with the NATO allies. Then he goes to meet Putin. But one of the things that is making people nervous

is there was reporting that during that G7 summit, he told the other leaders that NATO was as bad as NAFTA. And when I asked the National Security Advisor, John Bolton's spokesman about this, the response on the record was to really push back against that idea. And the statement was, this is the greatest, most successful alliance in history. The president is committed to the alliance. Our commitment to Article 5 is ironclad. Of course, Article 5 is an attack on one, is an attack on all. So they're really pushing back against that. Domenico, you know, it's clear that the White House loved the summit with Kim Jong-un. They thought they got a lot out of it. It was a big political boost. Of course, as somebody who loves dramatic TV moments, you can't really top that. It seems like they think

they could get the same out of a meeting with Putin. Well, I think that the president certainly thinks that you need to have this relationship with Putin. You know, I don't know that he necessarily is looking for Russia to disarm nuclear weapons. Right. I mean, that's sort of the end goal with North Korea. It's a little different geopolitically with Russia. But, you know, the president was somebody who, when we talk about this G7 meeting that the president was at, and then ad-libbed saying that he thinks Russia should be back involved, you know, that is a clear sign that he wants to have a deeper connection and relationship with Russia because he feels like they're a big political power, big geopolitical power, and that he needs them to be

there. You know, you saw the president also tweet today that Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election and then went on to talk about the Democrats. Yeah. So, you know, domestically and internationally, Trump meeting with Putin is causing all kinds of consternation. Asma, I think Domenico mentioned this here repeatedly, despite everyone in Congress saying Russia was squarely to blame, despite a lot of people in the Trump administration saying Russia was squarely to blame. Most of the time, the president dismisses the idea that Russia interfered in the election or says, you know, they say they didn't and I take them at their word. I mean, how do you expect that to play either at the meeting or in terms of how Democrats criticize this meeting when it happens?

I mean, I think we've already begun to see some Democrats, right, criticize this meeting because there has not yet been a clear, I would say, acceptance from President Trump that Russia meddled to the degree that some Democrats feel that the Russians meddled in this election. You know, I don't know. I'd love to hear from you, Mara, about whether or not you actually get a sense that the president will push this issue when he meets with Putin in Finland. Well, the administration's actions do not incorporate the president's affection for Vladimir Putin or his desire to forge a closer relationship. And that's what's interesting about this. John Bolton was over in Moscow making plans for the summit meeting. And I was reminded of that dating service,

It's Just Lunch. I mean, he was in his press conference after his meeting with the Russians. He was saying there was a slogan to one of these dating services. It's just lunch. And basically he came out and talked to the press and described this. It's just a meeting. In other words, this doesn't mean that the president is going to be giving away the store, as many Democrats and some foreign policy hawks on the right are worried about. He said, basically, they're just meeting. Just a little background, John Bolton is a famously hawkish foreign policy figure. In the past, he said, there are perils

of negotiating with Putin. He always lies. Of course, he was asked about that in the press conference. And he basically said, we talked about Russian interference. I expect it will come up. No, we're not reversing sanctions. And no, we're not going to return any of the seized diplomatic properties that we took from Russia when we kicked out a lot of these Russian diplomats. So he is representing the kind of guardrails, the kind of toughness and skepticism of Putin that is reflected in almost every part of the administration except for on the part of the president. Right. And that's the difference here, because, you know, obviously the idea of just meeting with with a hostile foreign leader is not is not something that's necessarily bad or necessarily. Yeah, exactly. And I think,

you know, these these images of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev still last stick in people's heads. But it's just because Trump has been so openly, openly positive and openly admiring about people like Putin and the way he's talked about Kim Jong-un since the meeting. I think I think that's that's what what leads to this level of skepticism. A lot of Democrats have skepticism about this. But I have one question about Bolton, right, have skepticism about this. But Mara, I have one question about Bolton, right? Because you mentioned he's been critical of engaging with Russia in the past. And I saw that, I think it was our colleague Scott Horsley, who actually wrote this piece saying that, you know, he was asked about this and basically said, I am a part of the Trump administration,

right? I am an advisor to President Trump, and I'm carrying out his agenda. And he refused to discuss any of his previous criticism of Russia. So to what degree do you actually think he'll be this barrier, or sort of voice of sensibility, maybe around this relationship versus actually just executing what the president wants? Well, that's the big question. John Bolton is a bureaucratic black belt. He is very effective at getting his way and maybe even convincing the president that what John Bolton wants is actually what Donald Trump wants. And what's interesting is he was presenting this meeting as relatively harmless. That's what I mean. It's just lunch. It's just a meeting. And he was asked, there don't seem to be any deliverables. In other words, usually in advance of a meeting like this, the Sherpas, John Bolton and Sergei Lavrov, would negotiate some kind of a pre-agreement

that would be the deliverable, the result of this meeting. But he said the fact of the summit itself is a deliverable. In other words, it's not necessary to have anything beyond that. And I think that's what John Bolton in his former life would be happy with. They just talked, but nothing happened. The president didn't give away the store and the status quo anti remains. All right, let's shift gears now and talk about Justice Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court. We did a whole podcast yesterday about his legacy, and we previewed the fight in the Senate over who will fill that seat. Definitely worth a listen.

We had Nina Totenberg, our Supreme Court expert in that conversation, Ron Elving, too. Two people who know a lot about both of those things. But as the dust starts to settle, it's becoming clear this fight will pivot around a single issue, and that's abortion. As we explained yesterday, Kennedy has been the key vote on several high-profile topics, gay rights and abortion chief among them. On the Senate floor today, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that replacing him with an ideologue conservative would have major consequences. Because Justice Kennedy was frequently independent-minded and a deciding vote on important issues like marriage equality and a woman's right to choose,

a more ideological successor could upend decades of precedent and drag America backwards to a time before Americans with pre-existing conditions could affordably access health care, to a time when women could not be prosecuted as criminals for exercising their reproductive rights, to a time before gay and lesbian Americans could marry whom they love. And when it comes to abortion, what Schumer is saying really actually is not that far off from what the president is saying, though President Trump, of course, frames it in a much different tone and terms. But let's listen to what President Trump said during one of the 2016 presidential debates. Do you want to see the court overturn? You've just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment. Do you want to see the court overturn? Well, if we put another

two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be, that will happen. And that'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. All right. Well, this is that second justice. So let's talk about all of this. Let's walk through this and let's start off. Domenico, can you remind us what exactly Roe v. Wade said? Roe v. Wade is the 1973 landmark case that made abortion legal throughout the country. It essentially said that women have a basic right to privacy that's protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and that that right is fundamental. Just remember, in 1973, before the Roe decision, abortion was illegal in a lot of places, in a lot of states. In 30 states, it was completely illegal, completely banned.

And since then, there's been a couple rulings, of course, with Kennedy being part of them, affirming that. 1992 was a big example of that. But Roe v. Wade is what sticks in everybody's minds. And Asma, it's really been a powerful, motivating tool for both sides of the political debate to say, show up to vote because otherwise Roe v. Wade is in danger. It has been. And, you know, one of the things I will point out, though, is in the 2016 election, I heard about the significance of appointing justices and the significance of what a court could look like and what those decisions would be from far more Republicans than Democrats. And I would say that it has been seen, you know, you could argue it's being used perhaps as a political weapon far more on the right than the left, based on what we saw certainly in the 2016 election. I was just actually going through some tape for a big story we're doing on Republican

voters. And this is something I heard here even now after the election. When you talk to people about what they think about how President Trump has governed, people will say, I was lukewarm about this or that, but I've been very pleased with his appointment of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Certainly abortion is more of a motivating factor for a lot of Republican voters. It's something that Trump used on the campaign trail to talk about the justices he would appoint, especially for evangelical voters who might have been not as sold on Trump from a morality standpoint. Donald Trump has pointed to two things that he thinks were the main drivers of his win. One was strong borders, the wall, his stance on immigration. And the other was the fact that he

put out this list of 25 people that he would pick from if there were Supreme Court openings. And that's the way he told socially conservative voters, I'm going to deliver for you. And he has. So, OK, let's talk about what this could look like, though, because you have from Schumer on down, Democrat after Democrat warning, Roe is going to be overturned. Let's walk through what that could look like. Domenico, would that be one dramatic ruling that could happen sometime next year? Would it be a series of rulings? Do we have any idea?

You know, essentially what we're going to see is a lot of states and what a lot of court observers are starting to predict. You're going to see a lot of states push the limits of what's legal. Something that's been happening anyway. Something that's been happening anyway. are starting to predict, you're going to see a lot of states push the limits of what's legal. Something that's been happening anyway. Something that's been happening anyway, and this is going to open the floodgates for that, because a lot of activists, as Osmond was talking about on the campaign trail, this really fires them up. So a lot of those states with conservatives running legislatures or Republicans in charge of governorships are going to now, probably over the next year and a half or so, try to come up with restrictions that test the limits of Roe.

Whether it would be, and again, we're having this hypothetical conversation because, you know, as we pointed out, the hypothetical scenario of it being overturned would be much more real than it has been before. Whether it's a series of incremental rulings or one big sweeping dramatic ruling, let's just walk through, Mara, what do you think the politics would look like in a world where some states could legalize abortion, some states could make it illegal? I mean, we are already in a system where states like California and Texas have drastically different sets of laws. This seems like it would just further catalyze that. Yeah. I mean, that's obviously down the road. But once if Roe is

overturned, you'd have a bunch of states with different rules and you would have all these referendums, state referendums, where it's battled out on a local level and voters of the state get to decide. And maybe in the end, you'd have a kind of red-blue divide on abortion. And it might be kind of like those bathroom bills that if states totally criminalize abortion, maybe corporations won't want to locate there. It's impossible to predict this because one thing that has happened is on big social issues like gay marriage, the views of the majority of Americans have changed. That hasn't been true with abortion. In other words, abortion is still pretty split, even though the majority wants it to be legal and rare. It's hard to game this out, but you definitely have an even bigger divide than

we already have in our extremely divided country. That, I would presume, would only continue even more because to some degree, we already see states. I mean, I look at my home state, Indiana, and my current state of Massachusetts, and they have extremely different laws around abortion, right? This has already happened. And I think if we saw Roe versus Wade completely sort of dismembered and put down to the courts, that sort of distinction would only increase. And you perhaps might just see people living among like minded people even more than we see that now.

And, you know, this is not something that's really in the distant future because, in fact, the Supreme Court is already dealing with with cases like this. There was a big ruling this week looking at a California abortion related law. We're going to talk about that after a quick break, as well as a big ruling having to do with public unions. Support for NPR politics and the following message come from The League, a selective membership-based app for busy, high-achieving, career-focused people looking to connect with each other. The League is your hub for all things social. Date someone new, find your soulmate, make new friends,

or discover exclusive events going on in your city. Get complimentary expedited review of your application by downloading the app at theleague.com slash NPR politics. Entrance is limited. Waitlist time varies by city and by supply and demand of applicants. All right, we are back. We have been talking a lot about the Supreme Court this week with good reason. But, Domenico, there are even more cases we haven't even gotten to yet, but they're really important. And I think we should take a few moments to walk through them. Well, one that got a lot of attention, first of all, this week was this case that had to do with crisis pregnancy centers.

They're known as crisis pregnancy centers. They do not perform abortions. These are pregnancy centers that pop up near facilities that perform abortions, but are trying to convince women not to have abortions. So California passes a law. It's known as its truth in advertising law. That's essentially telling them you have to disclose what's legal. You know, that fact that you could get an abortion and that they wanted these centers themselves to disclose this. The Supreme Court said no. They said by a 5-4 ruling that that violated these pregnancy centers' free speech rights.

So, you know, there are over 2,000 some of these types of clinics across the country. And this decision basically outlines that they will have the right to disclose whatever information they want to. And they do not need to inform people of the option of an abortion. And it sort of just hits at the overall conversation we've been having around abortion. Look, it's going to embolden anti-abortion rights activists throughout the country. All right. And the second ruling to talk about, Domenico, the story that you wrote described it as a blow to organized labor. Absolutely. This was a blow to organized labor. The Supreme Court ruled again, 5-4, that government workers who choose not to join a union cannot be charged for the cost of collective bargaining.

So in other words, if you're somebody who's in a public sector union and you don't want to have to pay union dues, you don't want to be part of a member of the union because you disagree with their political activities, the court said that that's fine, even if you benefit from the collective bargaining that those unions wind up doing for the rest of the people who are within that union, the rest of those government workers who are within those unions. So this is, again, a further ch those government workers who are within those unions. So this is, again, a further chipping away of union rights throughout the country. We've seen the numbers of union households decline from the 1970s on to today. And, you know, what a lot of people on the left believe that when you've seen the decline of the middle class in this country,

a lot of it is directly tied to the decline of unions over the past generation. And chipping away at labor unions has been such a top level conservative goal for decades. And you've seen it on the state level. Remember, a few years ago, Scott Walker signed that law that that cut back on collective bargaining rights. This is the exact type of case that conservatives like Mitch McConnell had in mind when they made that play to not allow even a vote or a hearing on Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, and held that seat open with the hopes of getting possibly a Republican in that seat. And think about what's happened not just this term, but just this week with Neil Gorsuch on this court. Conservatives have gotten win manufacturer, one of the most iconic American companies out there, announced this week they'll be moving some of their production overseas. Asma, can you

explain why Harley made this move? Yeah. So the company basically is being hit by these EU tariffs that are being set in retaliation to the tariffs that the European Union is facing for steel and aluminum exports, right? So at this point, the EU has a 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum that it wants to export to the United States. And that's part of the broad-based tariff. So long story short, the EU said, okay, well, in retaliation for this, we're going to start tariffing a bunch of American goods. There's things like orange juice, Harley-Davidson, and many of these things, right, are not just random goods. They're goods that are manufactured in key states that they are hoping would potentially put pressure on lawmakers to push back against President Trump. So this was so interesting to me because I

partially grew up in Wisconsin and then I worked in Pennsylvania for a long time as a reporter. And Harley Davidson in the Milwaukee area and in central Pennsylvania is a huge, not just economic driver in these communities, but an emotionally important, iconic company, like a centerpiece of the community type company. So my eyes got huge when I saw Harley make this announcement because these are two states Donald Trump would not be president if he didn't win these two states. He won them by the slimmest of margins. And I thought, wow, this company moving production away in these two places could really hurt President Trump. So it was interesting to me that Trump so quickly put the blame on Harley.

He said, this isn't my fault. This is Harley's fault, waving the white flag, not sticking with it, and really looking for any sort of excuse to outsource their jobs. He has looked repeatedly to take on entrenched outfits that you would think would be untouchable. I mean, think about him going after Megyn Kelly in the debate, where he wound up making those controversial comments about her. He completely dug in and took her on and won. So repeatedly he has felt like he can do that.

The other thing about Harley Davidson that's interesting to me is that it's become such a conservative cultural symbol that for it to make this move is certainly, you know, harmful for Trump. Well, except for Harley-Davidson is different than Megyn Kelly. Donald Trump takes the decision of Harley-Davidson to move some of its production overseas. It already produced motorcycles overseas, but he takes it as a personal betrayal because Harley-Davidson was part of his brand. You know, guys on these big hogs. That was what Donald Trump was all about. And now he's seeing how his trade policies and his trade war that he sparked are playing out. So are we in a trade war?

Yes, we are definitely in a trade war. Yes, we're totally in a trade war by now. And he has started a multi-front trade war. And Harley-Davidson is doing what any American corporation who's acting rationally would do, which is if there are tariffs for us to export motorcycles, we better make them in the place we're selling them so we don't have to pay the tariffs. And what you see is Donald Trump is trying to get Harley-Davidson riders and workers to be against the Harley-Davidson company. That is a really complicated thing for him because he had hewed himself so closely to Harley-Davidson and its Made in America brand. It's kind of a tension between two parts of the Trump space,

the white working class buyers and workers at Harley and the business community, which doesn't like this trade policy at all. Then again, he got a whole lot of people who love the NFL to kind of hate the NFL. Well, that's the experiment. All right. We are going to take one more quick break and we will come back with what we can't let go this week. If you don't mind getting attacked for speaking your mind or asking a simple question. But 1A is different. You'll find the 1A podcast on the NPR One app or wherever you listen to podcasts. NPR's Code Switch tackles race and identity in America with humanity and humor. You'll laugh.

You'll learn. You'll get uncomfortable. It's worth it. Find Code Switch on the NPR One app or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we are back. And that is one of the more detailed stuff podcasts we have done in a long time on top of a week where we recorded a podcast more than once a day. So I really think it is time for Can't Let It Go, where we all talk about one thing we can't let go, politics or

otherwise hoping for a lot of otherwise this week dominico i'm gonna start with you well i've got a lot of politics and otherwise okay best combination uh this is it was a is a weird thing but it's this video that came out from emin agalarov i've heard of that name. If that name sounds familiar, it's because when you think of Trump and you think of Miss Universe and you think of where that was held in Moscow in 2014, this was that pop star

who befriended Trump. Trump appeared in one of his videos. Well, he's out with a new video. And he's the one whose manager made the connection with that infamous Trump Tower video. That's right. Let's take a listen to some of that. Domenico, it feels like the music is not the full picture. The music is not the full picture.

What you're seeing in a lot of this is this kind of surreptitious video of Ammon walking around with a phony Donald Trump, a guy who you're supposed to believe is Trump. He's got the hair, he's got the suit and everything. And there's like a security camera watching them as they're walking around what appears to be a hotel. A security camera in a hotel. Uh-huh. And then when you get into the hotel room, Emin is sprawled out on the bed and Trump is sitting next to the bed and you see all these women bouncing on the bed with Emin. And, you know, you see an exchange of briefcases briefly. You don't know what's going on here. I thought Emin was a – I thought these guys liked Trump.

Well, something – I don't know what it is. He's cashing in on the friendship potentially or there's a hidden message. Who knows? But he talks about how you really got me good is sort of the catch line in this all. And, you know, we don't know what that really means. Does Hillary Clinton, does a fake Hillary Clinton have to make an appearance? Yes. Hillary Clinton famously can hold her liquor. I don't know if you guys know this, but there's this great story about Hillary Clinton and John McCain in Estonia doing shots together.

And, you know. At a time when both of them thought they would be the next president. Yes. And Hillary Clinton held her own quite well. In this video, a fake Hillary Clinton is doing shots with Emin as well at some like club or bar. And, you know, the impersonator is pretty good. Asma, what can you not let go? Okay.

So what I cannot let go sort of fits into the overall, hmm, how should we say this? The overall kind of zeitgeist early in the week, which you might remember the conversation around Monday was all about public shaming and civility. So Mitch McConnell and his wife, the Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, were approached by some students on the

campus of Georgetown University, who asked essentially, you know, Mitch McConnell, why he's separating children from their parents. Long story short, there's this video that was posted on Twitter by one of the protesters, where you see Elaine Chao wagging her finger at the students and saying, basically, leave my husband alone. And it was just this really remarkable moment to me of seeing her stand up for her husband. He, I did not see him in the video, nor did I actually hear any responses from him. So there you have it. She stands by her man. Yeah. I mean, one of the guys had a Yankees hat on, so I don't know. I

guess that's how they roll. Just kidding, Scott. Georgetown? No, I mean, this is the environment we're living in now. I mean, where people are in each other's faces, you have Congress people calling on that and you have the president inflam flaming it. So obviously, the big story of the last few days is Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement. But yesterday afternoon, I thought I was covering what was going to be an interesting big story. Turned out nobody cared about it because other stuff happened. But it is long term interesting. And that's the Democratic National Committee has taken a key step toward eliminating the role of superdelegates. People will care about it.

They will care about it. And if you were listening to this podcast back in 2016, we sure talked a lot about superdelegates. What are those again? Just kidding. They have nothing to do with the point of the story, so we'll talk about them later. But on the call, it was the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee was having

this meeting via conference call and reporters were listening in as well. So they're going through the process of getting set to take this vote. And then Donna Brazile cuts in. And first of all, I thought, wow, they let Donna Brazile on DNC calls after she basically burned the DNC to the ground last year with a tell-all book? The former Democratic National Committee chairwoman who stepped in after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was basically unceremoniously ousted in 2016. And then wrote quite the tell-all book. So anyway, they're having their meeting. They don't know this news has just happened,

that Kennedy has retired, and Donna Brazile breaks it to a bunch of Democrats that this worst-case scenario is happening, and it was a moment of audio. Kind of a side note. All of you know that Justice Anthony Kennedy has just announced that he's retiring. Yes, he just announced it. CNN, NBC. Oh, my God. And this kind of kept going. The meeting got derailed with a whole bunch of, oh, my God. Was the oh, my God the guy who realized he wasn't on mute? You heard that button go. It just kept going. People went, oh, no, this is bad. This is not good.

Well, good timing for the Democrats, though, because nothing better to sort of unify than having a Supreme Court opening. I mean, you saw President Trump do that, too, this week, trying to rally people around that for the 2018 elections. But what I thought, Scott, is so powerful about that audio is so rarely do you get those instantaneous reactions, particularly from people where it's relatively unfiltered. And you could hear that in that audio. There is this moment of reckoning that feels extremely raw. All right, Mara, you can end it for us. What can you not let go? Okay.

My can't let it go moment is at this time of exponential polarization and tribalism, we had the loser in the huge upset race this week, Joe Crowley, number four in the Democratic leadership, who was beat by a 28-year-old female Latina in his district in a kind of generational demographic insurgency. He lost by a very big margin. And my can't let it go is his concession speech, where he was beyond gracious. He complimented Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for beating him. Then he pulled out his guitar and he dedicated a song to her.

This is for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This is even too dad for Domenico. You can play. I'm impressed. The thing that I took away from this is this guy was not a sore loser. In an era of really raw and often ugly politics, I thought Joe Crowley was a moment of grace. Said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's Bruce Springsteen? All right, so that is what we can't let go this week,

and we would love to know what you can't let go. We've tried this a couple times, and we're going to do it more often. Send us a recording of what you can't let go or send us an email. Either way, send it to nprpolitics at npr.org, and we might use it in the show in the future. That's it for this week. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress. I'm Asma Khalid, political reporter. I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. And I'm Mara Eliason, national political correspondent. Thank you for listening to every single NPR politics podcast that we did this week. All 850 of them. Come on.