Angelo Carusone, Sarah Longwell & Dave Weigel

circus show. But first we have the host of the focus group podcast The Bulwarks to Sarah Longwell, welcome back to Fast Politics, Sarah Longwell, Hey, great to be here, very excited to have you. I want to start with this Atlantic headline. I'm sure you read this piece in the Atlantic today from one of my favorite Ron Brownstein. Republicans are trying to stop Trump again? Are they? I read it and I was like, oh, how is this?

How is this happening again? It's definitely happening again. It's weird because we've definitely seen this movie before, So what you expect is that people will behave differently this time.

But they're not behaving differently, yet they're acting exactly the same as they did in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, which is that there's this big group of people that act like they're going to run for president and they all somehow think they can do it without taking on Donald Trump directly, and even worse in a lot of ways by not taking him on right. So the way that they're getting asked questions is like, well, are there any policies you disagree with Donald Trump on? Oh? No, no, no,

I agree with him on just about everything. And as a result, it's like all just a reinforcing idea that you know, if you're Tim Scott, if you're Nikki Hayley, otherwise purported these sort of normy Republicans, you still think Donald Trump is just aces and had all the best ideas, And why would anybody vote for some down market simulacrum when they can have the og real thing because he's in the race. It is incredible to me that this

we are just like living Groundhog's Day again and again. Yeah, I mean there's some differences, okay, so and those differences are real, and so I don't want to ignore them just to say, you know, Trump's still the center of the universe. He's the only thing going on because he's not. Because we did a poll at the Bullwark, we used Wiers. He's a very notable Republican polster. He was Rubio's guy in sixteen. He worked around to Stantis. I wanted to

ask a pretty specific question that I hadn't seen. There's a lot of head to head polling between Trump and a Stantists and bunch of Poles have Trump ahead, bunch of Poles have to Santis ahead. It's kind of hard to get really clear on what's going on. But in our poll, I wanted to The main reason I wanted to do it as I wanted to figure out if Donald Trump didn't win the Republican nomination, what would his

voters do. And we found that twenty eight percent would vote for him if he ran as an independent against Rhonda Santis and Joe Biden. And to me, like the reason I asked the questions, I was trying to figure out what's the universe of always Trumpers, the people who are just there for him and basically nobody else. And I also do a lot of focus groups. I talk to these always Trumpers and I realize there's a few characteristics.

One is they value more than anything the outsider status that Donald Trump is not a politician, and that's one of the things that holds them up on a rounda Santists like, even if they think he's a fighter, even they like some of what he's done, he's still a

traditional politician and they don't like that. The other thing is that these voters are the ones that are deeply hard committed to the idea that to twenty twenty election was stolen, so unlike a lot of the people who are kind of like maybe Trumpers, ready to move on, like Rhonda Santists, there's just this group of people it's like, this guy was robbed, We need our revenge store he

should get another chance. That's notable because that means that's Donald's Trump's floor, right, it means like he's already got twenty eight to thirty percent of people who after seeing everything, already knowing everything baked in deep, they're still there for him. And Ronda Santis's vulnerability right now is that he is all hype, right, He's he lives in their imaginations as a guy who sort of, you know, yells at teenagers wearing masks and yells at Disney and they see him,

you know, down there in the state of Florida. He won in a in a swing state in their minds, and so they like him, but they don't have like a deep relationship with him. They haven't gone through the insurrection and still decided that he's like the best guy ever. Yeah, and so while I see a meaningful movement both you can see it in the poll and you can see it in the focus groups. You know, I listened to these voters say, look, Donald Trump, he's been losing too much.

He's not electable. We want Ronda Santis. We think he's Trump without the baggage. He's Trump not on steroids, which, by the way, Trump is still at the center of their orientation around politics, right right, right. But so that's real that there's this cohort of people who want to move on. But this is my big question. I don't know the answer to it, but it's how I would

sort of think about this. All right, Let's say Rhonda Santis he gets in the race when he's done with his legislative session on May fifteenth, and he comes in and they start to see him and they see a guy who's kind of prickly, not super fast on his feet, maybe doesn't live up to the image that they have of him. In his imagination, Donald Trump's wailing on him and he's just got a glass jaw and can't take it. And they start to they start to decide, you know what,

maybe I don't love this guy so much. Here's my question, maybe take a stab at it. Who do you think that those voters go to. Do they go to the field, do they say, you know, now, Rona Santis isn't my guy. I'm gonna really give Nicki Haley a shot, or like maybe Chris Christie, our old governor Senunu, or do those people, at least a majority of them go back to Trump.

What do you think happens? I mean, I just think that DeSantis lost a debate to Charlie Kress, which strikes me as a sign that he may not be an incredible debater, or that debate looms so large for me in the way that I think about de Santis, because what Chris did at one point, he just says, well, Ronda Santist is going to run for president. He's not even going to be here to work for Florida, and

ron Da Santist like doesn't say anything. He just puts this awkward smile on his face and says, after grimacing for a little bit, like let's move on. And it's so weird. It's like such a weird way, especially because not only should he be prepared for that question, but also every person who's ever run for president has an answer for that question, which is like, no, no, no, I'm devoted to the people of Florida, and I will think about that when the time comes. And Bubba, you know,

like it's it's an easy one, yeah, hard one. Somehow he just like stood there like a weirdo yeah, and like stance right ahead. The other thing I wonder about is, and again this is not this is very superficial, but in the television age, we have never had a president who was under six feet tall. I know. This is always what keeps me from believing I can do it. Me too, This should be me, but I'm just so short. Yeah,

I don't know. I mean I think that the height is kind of baked into a larger question about what do you do with sort of an I hate to call him an alpha because he's so gross. But like this sort of alpha bully that Trump projects, right, I think a lot of this to do analysis on this. I think a lot of people can be I don't know, have strong feelings one way or the other about who might emerge. I actually have a debate later where I have to take a position, and I'm going to take

Trump in that position. But like Ronda, Santis is an unknown because we really haven't seen him on the national stage. We haven't seen him against a Republican right, because the thing about the Santis is that they like Santis and they like Trump. Right, they are They're the same people, like both of them, that's the question. And like Donald Trump, we haven't seen in a long time, and he's gotten

older and a little deflated. Yeah, yeah, we got these weird pictures coming out of Marrow lago, but you know, we haven't seen him have to like work at the level of campaigning and the constant talking and the rallies in a bit. And so the question is like, does he still have his fastball like Ken, is he the alpha or will it look sort of like a phoned in hatchet job. And one of the things that I also think is part of the dynamic that I'm not

sure how it plays. Is one of the things that the people who liked to Santis dislike about Trump is that he's attacking to Santis. And I wonder how many people does Trump alienate by attacking another prominent Republican or like, does he alienate them or does he chip away at how much people like Ronda Santis? Because Ronda Santis hasn't really faced anybody criticizing him yet. Yeah, I mean, this is like the big question that we don't really know.

But I think this polling that you have really shows that that trumpy base is not going to say, oh, well, the National Review likes to Santis. Banner right, Yes, the National Review is no longer the tastemaker or the populist right. And it's funny how the folks from the old days get really annoyed if you don't aren't aggressively pro to Santis?

Oh really? Really? You don't say? I have to tell you, no matter how many times we at the Bulwark say, listen, if if Ronda Santis is the one that looks like he is in a position to beat Trump, will all, you know, register everywhere we can as Republicans to vote the Republican primary for Rhonda Santis so that he beats Donald Trump. As Donald Trump is a unique an existential threat to democracy. That does not mean, though, that Rhonda

Santis isn't terrible and liberal and have all kinds of problems. Okay, So this is my question to you, because this is like something that I feel like I have started a conversation. I mean, I think that it was started before me, but it's something that I've certainly gotten involved in, which is I have a thesis. And again, you know, I

could be wrong. I have been wrong before many times, but I do have a thesis that both Rhonda Santis and Donald Trump are coming at this from the authoritarian right, and that do Santis, well, not as charismatic as Trump is, really does authoritarian things in a much more successful way. Yeah. So this is I've heard, you know, people make this argument, and it's sort of the the de santiss is actually more dangerous than Trump, more competent. Yeah, and I'm familiar

with it. I happen to not agree with it. I was just I was just arguing about this with Michael Steele last night. Michael Steele tell him, I say, Hi, Yeah, he's the best is the best. I guess my reason is this, and it involves a sort of a thought exercise, which is I ask you to think hard about what it would mean if Donald Trump was reelected in the

United States. It would mean several things. One, it would say a whole bunch about the United States that somebody who attempted to overturn the results of an election didn't engage in the peaceful transfer power, that we reinstated them in power. And I think that would be the kind of catastrophic blow that I'm not sure you can recover your democratic I don't want to say cred because that's too demolishing of this, but yeah, I mean it's a it's a huge blow to who we are. The other

thing is is like, think about a Trump administration. What does it do so he only gets one term? Hopefully hopefully. Every time I say whatever I make this, people are like, are you sure, and I'm like, actually no. But think about who is in his cabinet? What role does Don Junior have? Is he Secretary of State? Like is you know? I think what is Donald Trump doing to punish his

enemies over the past few years? Like Donald Trump, now he wasn't particularly competent in his first term, but like he learned the levers over time, he would be much better at it a second term. So I just think that if you think about it practically, what it means for Donald Trump second term versus a De Santis first term, I don't think they're comparable, right, There is an unhinged quality to Donald Trump that Ronda Santis. He's not unhinged

quite the same way. Right. I do think though, that one of the things that annoys me about the sort of natural review side of things, or the prota Santa side, that it is always accusing us of being like, well, you just want Donald Trump to stay on the scene because you guys love him. He's like your meal ticket. I would like nothing more than Donald Trump to go

away forever. But that doesn't mean just because Ronda Santis is the number one like opponent Trump, doesn't mean we have to say that Rhonda Santis is great in service to defeating Donald Trump. They seem to think that we have to withhold any criticism of De Santis otherwise we're just doing Trump's bidding. But the fact is that Rhonda Santis is a product of the forces that Donald Trump unleashed on the party. Right, if you think about that

he used to launch his campaign. It is him with his toddler daughter with blocks, saying let's build the wall together. He's reading the Art of the Deal to his baby in a Trump onesie, and then mister Trump said, You're fired. It's the most creepy, disgusting thing you've ever seen. And it's the first damage I ever had of Ronda Santis and I'll never forget it. And I've sort of loathed

him from the jump. He can still be bad and deeply bad and deeply scary without having to be worse than Donald Trump, because I don't think there's anybody who would be as bad as a second term of Donald Trump, just because of what it would mean. Right, all right, Well, that's really interesting and I think an important data point. So we're in this weird period of sort of early

seapack is what I like to call. At the beginning of the sea pack, we saw Mike Pence isn't going to Santis, isn't going explain to me how DeSantis can get the MAGA base if he doesn't appear before them. You know, it's a good question. I mean, I think it probably goes overall to De Santis's strategy and a little bit to what Trump's strategy is. So Trump's strategy right now is to try to get head to head

with DeSantis. So Trump is looking for any opportunity to kind of draw De Santis in, And he's not going after Nicky Haley because he doesn't see Nicky Haley as his competition. He sees Ron Santis is his competition. And for De Santis right what he's doing right now is he's acting like a governor. He is very selectively engaging, and when he does, usually the way he responds to Trump's attacks is to be like, well, you know, I don't smear other Republicans, but he doesn't. He doesn't get

into it with him. And I think that Seapack, which is much diminished, both because of Schlap's controversies and the fact that with Trump's somewhat diminished, he's not the rock star he was. He has a really committed base, but he's not the rock star that he was. Seapack is really his you know, Schlap turned it over to him. Basically,

Johnald Trump is the featured person. It's a lot of his people, and so de Santis just doesn't want that head to head right now, Trump's probably gonna win the straw pole, and so there's no reason for De Santis to participate in that. He will either gain traction once he gets in you know, in May, in April, and Seapack will be his next year or not. You know, I think that remains to be seen, but I do it makes sense to me that he's not going this time.

Mike Pence, what do you think the players there? This is why Mike Pence for a president is so funny, because Mike Pence doesn't go to places like Seapack because they thinks they will hurt him there. Yes, he's right, he might be correct. To me, Ron de santiss stuff makes sense because he has an actual strategy to deploy against Trump. Mike Pences makes no sense to me. How do you think you're going to run? Where do you think your lane is? Where do you think you're picking

up your percentage of people? If you can't go to Republican events outside of sort of the think tank donor world and like not be fearful for your life, you just that's there's no lane there, there's no opportunity. And when I do the focus groups, the funniest responses are about Mike Pence. Usually, and you know, I just did one the other day with people who don't like Trump. They're done with him, they're ready for de Santis. But when we asked him about Mike Pence, they were all

a kid. Now, he'd be a fine neighbor. He's a nice person, but he will never be president of the United States. I wouldn't vote for him. No one I know would vote for him. I don't know why anybody would vote for him. There was actually a great line in that group to where we were just asking about all the people and we were like, well, what about Mike Pompeo, And somebody was like, what is the point of Mike Mompo? Probably not the first time that's been asked. Yeah, yeah,

great question, great question. So they don't want to hang him now, not this group. And this is where, you know, one of the things I've really been exploring in the focus groups is what is the state of the party and what is the kind of desantist Trump split. And it's important to know that there really are only two camps, which is there are people who want to move on from Trump in a lot of ways because of electability.

Don't think he can win, think he's alienated. He lost three elections, right, that's right, And they seem unlike unlike back in twenty twenty when everyone wanted to kind of maintain that it was because of fishy things. Now they're a little more like, you know, he's lost too many times, he's alienated too many people. We need somebody new, and those people are de Santis people. Sometimes they'll be like, ay, I like, man, Nicky's nice, She's fine. They're pretty much

DeSantis people. But then the other half is Trump. And I think what's instructive about that is how there's Desantist, there's Trump, and there's the field and that like middle tier of Nicky and Pompeo and Pence and Christy. There's not a big group of voters who were excited about them. Now, could they somehow find a way to manage to get them excited about them? I don't know, maybe, but like no, I think we can't agree. Now. That's where the party is.

It is it is you either get the Aristotelian sort of the original og Trump himself, or you get the de Santists, which is like I'm sort of a trumpy orbon Those are your two choices in the party, right, incredible staff, Sarah Longwell, do you have anything you're watching right now in Republican world that you want to tell

us about? Oh my gosh, I'm watching so many things in Republican Well, you know, I think one of the things that I'm interested in, going back to the Trump to Santists divide, is how is Trump going to attack

to Santists? Like what is his method? And I think one of the things I'm starting to hear bubble up in some of the groups is Trump is going to define de Santist is like a rhino globalist standard politician, which I think can land because these voters have been told for a long time they like outsiders, they don't like politicians, and so like I am curious. I can see that there's this group of move on from Trump, and I can see that there's this group of always Trump.

I'm trying to get a grip on how big they are, and I'm just not quite sure, and I'm not quite sure how many of the move on from Trump are just like really happy to swing back to Trump if De Santist doesn't fulfill all their hopes and dreams, or

Trump's looking like he's bulling him. But so how Trump is going to approach it like he did that he went to East Palestine, you know, and that was sort of the first time you'd seen him look like he was going to do anything resembling campaigning, right, And maybe he's just waiting for round to Santist to get in before he actually starts taking shots. But I mean, I'm sort of watching how these strategies shape up. We're probably still two months out, but it's not that far away.

In the shadow primary. Oh sorry, I'm going to tell you one last thing I'm really watching, which is which is the calendar, the Republican primary calendar. I think people think, well, we're really far out, but this year twenty twenty three, there's going to be a shadow primary. Can you explain

to listeners what a shadow primary is? Yeah, So, basically, because we have all seen this movie before, these candidates should understand that there needs to be a consolidation around somebody who's an alternative to Trump prior to the early primary states, which means that by January of twenty twenty four or February of twenty twenty four, so a year

from now, basically someone has to be picked. Now, normally you'd be like, well, we're going to run this primary, but because of the way the calendar is, you do Iowa, you do New Hampshire, you do South Carolina, Nevada and the same day, and then you kind of bounce into this Super Tuesday that has a ton of Winter take all and Winter take most states, which means that whoever gets the momentum in those early states and then locks up the sort of the Super Tuesday delegate hall is

very it's really hard to undo that later on, which means that so much of the primary is going to play out in twenty twenty three, as early as May or June, when de Santist gets in and you have a real race, Like that's when we're going to see

what's going to happen. And like some people have alternative theories where Ron Desantist and Donald Trump, you know, they kill each other, they blood each other, and that creates room for Chris Christie Counter or Dim Scott and I think that's a silly theory, but that is there's going to be candidates to have that theory. Some real wish casting over there. Huh yeah, thank you so much, Sarah due Bet, thanks for having me. Angelo Carosone is the

president and CEO of Media Matters. Welcome too Fast Politics. Angelo, Thanks for having me. So I wanted to talk to you about our favorite topic, what's happening at Fox News. What's happening at Fox News? I think that we are watching it's sort of at the beginning of a cascade effect. And you know, this is something we talked about in the pod like a last summer when this ruling came through, that that dominion was going to be able to have

access to the Murdoch's in discovery and depositions. And there's significance of that because at the time I compared it to what happened with the phone hacking scandal, which is that you know, a little bit of a crack urged and then the second people were able to pierce the veil and get a slight look inside, it just unraveled. And I think this is a similar moment where what's going to happen is they're going to go to trial and it's you know, more information is going to come out.

There's still a lot of redactions in the documents, that we've already seen, and then I think you're going to see additional follow up. You're going to see shareholders to them, You're going to see pushback from cable companies. There's going to be some tensions within their audience. Like this is going to be a real tumultuous time for Fox and the Murdos. That's such bad news. Just kidding. I'm delighted

so far in the filing. What have been the things where you're like, holy shit, yeah, because I mean, obviously, the fact that Fox News functions like a political operation is not a surprise, or that Fox News lies like that, none of that's surprising, right, I mean, there are some people that are like, I can't believe this. For the most part, that's not surprising. But there really were a

few of these I can't believe that. One of them was In October of twenty twenty, the Joe Biden campaign made a national ad buy on Fox, and Rupert Murdoch himself took the ad before it went public and shared the ad and other sort of accompanying information that he got access to was a part of that ad by with Jared Kushner, who was with the Trump campaign. So essentially gave them confidential information about a competitor that was like in order to help them politically. I was surprised

about that, even for Fox. That's that's a pretty big breach of confidentiality. It's a journalistic integrity ha ha ha, it's sure right, no, And also the law possibly it actually really could amount to an incind campaign contribution, which is going to create additional legal problems for them, So that I was kind of I was shocked, and I was also shot that it was Rupert Murdock himself. I mean, just think about how help both sort of pathetic and

also how monumental that is. Is that like it wasn't like it was a staffer or you know, Hannity's producer or somebody. Right, it was Rupert Murdoch took the ad and gave it to Kushner. It just that that was surprising to me, where it's like I can't believe that, Yeah, I can't believe rich Republicans are corrupt? What this is right face everyone? And so that was the big one that I couldn't believe. And then the other thing that

I couldn't believe was the scale. So like we've always sort of known and that this kind these kinds of like political abash nations were happening. But there is a lot of direct instructions from Rupert Murdock to Susan Scott, who was the president of Fox News, directing her to re orient Fox News's coverage for very explicit political reasons.

So there was this moment where Lindsay Graham was getting a little pushback during his election run and he says, you know, he says to Susan, will try to get you know, Hannity to say some nice things about him.

And Hannity of course went above and beyond and hosted him like six times in rapid succession over the next week and a half, sort of just just flattering him in each segment, or telling him to telling her to redirect resources to help Republicans in tight Senate races in October and in the days leading up to the twenty twenty two election, or really getting into the substance of some of the programming because it was to ensure that

they were trying to win Georgia. Like I mean, there's just so many individual and explicit instructions and it all seems so normal that it should give you a sense of this is happening basically on a daily basis over there. And that part I was a little surprised by. I sort of knew it, but I thought mostly it was a somewhat autopilot and muscle memory. I didn't really expect there to be that much day to day explicit instructions at least written down that they were doing their politics.

That that was a surprise. I'm surprised they were stupid enough to write all of the stuff down. I know, they wrote it down like a lot. They wrote it down a lot that they this is murdockx over reliance on email and written communication. They're going to do bad things, don't write them down, you know, And they did. And I think also that is a reflection of their hubris. There is this sense that they were just untouchable. They

managed to avoid any scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. And I think at this point they just felt like it, you know, nothing can happen to us. We're untouchable. And I do think that that created a climate where they were so brazen about what they wrote down, and not only they had so much disregard for their responsibilities, but that they just didn't think that there was any chance that anything could ever come back around the bikele. It's funny because

it is true. This is not Rupert's first scandal, and in some ways there really is a sort of if there's a phone hacking on the wall in the first act, right, this has shades of that last scand all. Yeah, it does because it unravels, you know, when you obviously we've always known how politically corrupt it was, how how much they were sort of treating Fox and the Fox Corporation like their own personal piggy bank, when in fact it's not.

It's a publicly traded company. They have shareholders, and they don't own a majority of the company. That's the part about this that's so shocking is that, you know, because they don't own a majority of the company, they have obligations to shareholders to return investments and to have their

fiduciary duties. But they also have to, you know, a delicate balance because they need to basically ensure that there's at least another ten percent twelve percent of the voting stock that will always vote with them in locksteps so that they maintain control of the company. They're the largest shareholder, but they're not the majority shareholders, and so to me, that's the part where it's a little bit precarious, is that you know, they have overly relied on in the

past a few proxies. One of the ways they navigated the phone hacking scandals that you know, Prince Alaouid was the number two shareholder and he basically gobbled up a big part of the company to give them that functional proxy. That's how they were able to basically get through that period of time is that Prince Alouid voted with the Murdocks in lockstep so that they always had the majority vote. It was sort of an arrangement that they sorted out.

That arrangement no longer exists. They don't have a replacement for where Prince Aloid was. Obviously he had to divest his shares a while backas of stuff that was happening Insaudi Arabia. Right now, it's basically owned by institutional investors

that just want their money. They don't really care about the murdocksmosh Nations, and so they're in a much more vulnerable position now even just from a control perspective than they were back during the phone hacking scandal and there's this the thing that isn't surprising at all, but it just goes to show you what a weasel Paul Ryan is. And I really don't think that we should discount how much of a weasel Paul Ryan really was in some

of his communications. Is that when he's a board member and Fox has a very small board, there was like five people on it, and when he was reaching out about this, he was telling her that they needed to stop doing some of these things in terms of their coverage, and he explicitly said, I am contacting you as a fiduciary. This is a breach of fiduciary duties, Like he was

literally writing a document for the record. It seems so that if and when inevitably it came back around and the Murdos and Fox was in trouble and possibly the board for not doing their due diligence and their fiduciary duties, that he would get off the hook. He literally wrote himself a get out of jail free card. And I thought that for sure, given that one, I think that's

a little bit surprising. Maybe it's not that he's such a weasel, but that he was so explicit about it and to me that Murdoch both acknowledged that it was his email and his notes, but didn't do anything about it, even when Fox's legal counsel followed up and basically echoed the same thing. So this is why I think that they're in a little bit of trouble with their shareholders, is that it is going to affect their bottom line

and they don't have a proxy anymore. And what this basically shows is that the Murdocks are in a weird way, not only interested in money, which they are, that's their primary, but they are really interested in power too, and those two things they are willing to sacrifice money sometimes in the short term for power in the long term. A heartwarming story sacrificing money for power. It is very very heartwarming.

Some of the things I was surprised by, and I didn't read the entire filing, so you can correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the things I was surprised by were the text messages. Will you talk a little bit, because you know about this much more than I do. The hosts tech messaging to each other and to leadership at Fox. Yeah, the thing is, and you're right, that is a little bit surprising. I mean, I guess they always pretend that they're like that, they're just like

their audience, even though they're they're obviously not. They're very very rich and elite themselves, but the host kind of hate their audience, which kind of came out in these text messages because basically they were pushing what they called, you know, they were calling people who were promoting these conspiracies effing lunatics, you know, batshit, all kinds of stuff like, I mean, they were just insulting the conspiracies itself about

the election. They didn't believe them, but they were sort of lamenting that they had to push them because this is what their audience wanted. So that was the first thing. It's like they didn't believe much of the stuff that they didn't believe really anything that City Powell and really to Giuliani were pushing. They didn't believe the claims of the Trump campaign. So you're saying that Tucker Carlson didn't believe that there were ballots made in China through a

satellite to Italy. He didn't believe that. No, he said, believe it or not, He did not. He did not. Now he was happy to say it and promote it. And I think this is one thing where Rupert Murdoch, and this is the part that was shocking, and it ties into the host is that Rupert Murdoch during his deposition explicitly acknowledged that the hosts were not just giving a platform for these conspiracies and for these false claims,

that they were endorsing them. And he kind of threw them under the bus there because that is a significant admission on their part, and it obviously isn't It didn't get explosive in terms of the out out the immediate coverage of these filings, but from a legal perspective, it's a really big deal because part of their defense was that they were just giving a platform for these ideas and that they were not themselves active disseminators of it.

And during his deposition, Rupert Murdoch's actually said, no, they were endorsing it, and I should have done more to stop them from doing it, and to get back to what the hosts were saying as they were pushing more and more of these of these conspiracies, these false attacks about dominion. The same day or days after, they were texting each other about how incredulous and ridiculous and unfounded

and not true. They were, and yet and at the end simultaneously attacking the network for for some of the decisions it had made in the immediate aftermath of the election simply by calling the election for Joe Biden, and Chucker was texting people about how they didn't appreciate how much damage they were doing to their relationship with Fox News, this audience, and so those exchanges were they were revealing, I would say, because they were pretty explicit and how

much contempt they have for their audience or frustration for what their audience wants sometimes, but a recognition that they know that they're there to service their audience. And that's it. The central tension, which you kind of could see as an outside observer, which I think is pretty interesting, was this idea that if Fox did not give the MAGA crowd what it wanted, someone else might is that your sense and yes and yes and these are the two

so two things that are significant on that track. One, and we talked about on the pot a couple of times, is that you know, is that Fox News accepted the election results for a short period of time and then all of a sudden because one American News was out there in Newsmax, and One American News was on the ascent. You know, they're gone now because of these cable fights that happened against them, but at that time they seemed

like a real threat. Fox's audience was leaving Fox for these other two networks because they were essentially pushing these election conspiracies. And so Fox went from accepting the results to all of a sudden, on a dime, in the last two weeks of November, doing more than seven hundred

segments explicitly attacking the election results. I mean, they literally flipped and went all in on these election denials and did it much more intensely than One American News and Newsmax, in part because they really were afraid of losing their

audience and it was happening in real time. So that's one tension, and then the other tension is, and I thought this was revealing two, is that in the filings, one exchange comes out that Rupert Murdoch was talking and some other Fox executives about how Fox was unique amongst anyone in the media landscape because they were basically, as far as they were concerned, the only entity out there that could tell people that the election was not stolen

and that Joe Biden was actually the president or the president elect at the time, and Murdoch himself acknowledged this in these discussions about how they had a very unique

role and that they should do something. They should go out there and finally say, Okay, the election is over and Joe Biden actually won, even though they fully acknowledged that they were the only entity that could actually do that to take the wind out of the sales of this election denial sort of movement because their audience, a very large tunk of their audience would believe them when they said that, and they fully accepted this, they ultimately

decided not to do it, and that discussion that took place on January fifth, So they could have on January fifth if they had followed through with what they all said they were going to do, made a big push to say the election was not stolen, and January sixth might have looked a lot different because a lot of people would have been like, Okay, we're mad, We're mad at Fox remitted the world, We remitted everything, but at

least we know it wasn't stolen now. But they decided they ultimately didn't do it, and I do feel like that was a significant exchange, and it ties back to your question because part of the reason they didn't do it was that they were afraid that their audience would backlash against them, and so you couldn't find a host, and that's ultimately where they concluded that their host would get mad if they tried to force them to do this, and so you could see that tension playing out at

various moments, and when they felt like it'd served them, they did things like when they flipped on a diamond November and when they were trying to sort of grapple with their unique role. They ultimately didn't exercise the power that they had, even though they knew full well they were pushing lies. And this decision and seeing this happen in real time with tax, is that proof that there was actual malice and that dominion can actually win this case.

I think so there's a lot of evidence here because actual malice standards that you either knew that it was not true the things you were saying, that you push them anyway, or you acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

And one of the important things that came out during these filings, was that along the way, as Fox hosts and Fox News was pushing specific claims about Dominion that we're not true, Dominion itself was sending memos and messages to Fox News basically debunking these claims in real time and begging them to let them book somebody on air, offering up guests to basically offer a counter perspective on

these claims about dominions. So Fox very intentionally along the way said we're not going to We're going to ignore the things that Dominion is literally saying to us, and two, we're not going to let anybody on air that is going to challenge these claims. And in fact, Fox personalities a very hand, a small few had started to soft fact check some of the Dominion claims in reporting, and they got punished by network executives for doing it out

during these filings, Right, I saw that tweet, yep. And so that is a part of the actual malis standard. It's that it's very clear that they were knowingly pushing things that were not true and that they acted pretty recklessly when they were making very specific claims about Dominion. And so that is a standard here that definitely seems

to have been met and it is extraordinary. And I really want to emphasize this because I know this is like really in the Louise, but dominion filed for emotion for summary judgment that just doesn't really happen at all in a defamation case. It's it's nearly impossible to ever even seriously put together a summary judgment. Emotion, can you

explain to our listeners what a summary judgment as? So basically it basically says, hey, we're suing this this entity, and I know we're supposed to go to trial, but the evidence is so overwhelming already that judge, I think we could skip the trial and you could just ruin

off favor. Why that matters is that they thought, and I think that has born itself out so far, and the file in the pleadings is that their case was so strong that they could credibly go to the court and say we don't need a trial because it is it is plain now. I don't think they're going to win their motion for summary judgment, not necessarily because they don't have the goods. It's because it is such a monumental thing when it involves free speech in a purported

News channel, which obviously they're not. But that's the argument that they're going to make, and I think a judge is going to not try to sort of really go too far ahead. But the trial is set for April. But what it does give us is a chance now to look at a very large part of the record and say, Wow, look how bad this is. Yeah, I think that's totally right. So what is the timetable here?

Then it goes to trial in today shapel So they will probably get a decision about this summary judgment motion in the next couple of weeks, and then it's full steam ahead for the trial, assuming that dominion is not successful in their summary judgment motion. And it's worth noting that more things come out in trial, and you're gonna

have people testify. People are going to testify. There's a lot of stuff that was in the filings that was redacted that we still don't know or didn't see, so and I would say that some of that stuff going to be even more damaging. This will cost Fox millions of dollars. The trial alone will cost him a fortune. And one of the things that happened after Rupert Murdock's deposition is Fox said, up, We're not gonna We're no

longer going to remerge our companies. So even if nothing happens as a result of this, and I don't, I think that's highly unlikely, something really big has already taken place, because up until the beginning of January of this year, News Corps and Fox were on a glide path to remerging, to becoming one company again. And so something else we talked about this was part of a strategy for Rupert Murdock to reconsolidate his two companies and then buy CNN. Wait,

he was going to buy CNN. Who was going to make another run at CNN? Because it is his white whale. Rupert Murdoch has never attempted to buy something that he has not been able to successfully buy, even if he's lost a bunch of times. That's how we got the Wall Street Journal. It took him a couple runs before he got it. He's tried repeatedly to buy CNN. He's

failed every time. In fact, you know, he tried to get Donald Trump to lean on AT and Tay seventeen and force AT and t through the regulatory process to sell CNN. And I think it was pretty clear. All the indicators were there that he was gearing up to make another buy for CNN. In fact, he was so sort of excited about the prospect that he started teasing the first couple of days of January that he had one big deal left in them, and everybody in the

inside sort of knows what that means. But right after his deposition ended, they decided that they could no longer remerge the companies because the independent commission that they're legally obligated to hire to sort of assess the deal would not have been able to endorse it because it would have created too much liability for News Corps shareholders, which is now technically a separate company even though they're both

run by the Murdoch. So, if nothing else has happened when it thwarted that effort, and it weakened the ability for Lachlan, who was much worse than his dad, believe it or not, at a jointly confirmed you know, a joint a combined company, and that's a big deal in

it of itself. So there's already been repercussions from this litigation well beyond you know what will with all this, and the last thing I'll say on that is that where this is taking place is also significant because Dominion is suing for one point six billion dollars, but that's only in damages that they can say, look, this is how much damage we've experienced as a result of these laws. But they're suing in Delaware, which does not have a

cap on punitive damages. Yea. So unlike Alex Jones, where the states where he was getting punished had caps on punitive damages, Delaware doesn't have that. So depending on the scale of how egregious this behavior is, and it certainly seems pretty egregious, a jewelry can award a pretty hefty set of punitive damages on top of the compensittory damages. Angelo. I hope you will come back as this trial goes on. Really really great, you bet. Dave Weigel is a political

reporter for Semaphore. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Dave, Thank you every good to be here. Really excited to have you tell us where you are. I am at Seapack right now. I'm next to where between the Right Stuff dating app and the new federal state of China, which is Steve Bannon's combating the Changese Commnist party, and who are you sitting between? I am sitting between my elderly dog.

That's also interesting not there. Yeah, so I'm curious to know, first of all, is it like the new and improved Seapack? I mean, what is happening over there? Improved would not be the way to put it. So everyone wrote this story. I'm being a little bit apologetic because everybody wrote a verd of this story and I feel like we're in her and but it's just actually true that seapack lost sponsors over the last year. Some of that was due

to match lap scandal, though. Sponsorships for seapack, you know, they're kind of locked in pretty early, so or they can be. So you had a Fox Nation which put in the quarter million dollars. The last couple of years they didn't sponsor it. Um had the Liberty Health Share, which is kind of a falling apart. Yeah, that used to be quarter million dollars sponsor. They pulled out. So you have more obscure sponsors. People kind of shooting your

shot because there because there's a there's a vacuum. One thing I've heard walking over here was that one of the Perry Johnson, who's kind of a fringe Republican candidate for president. Um, he bought a booth, wasn't spending even more money to get a space on stage? That hasn't happened yet, and see if it does. And so you see it is um smaller than it's been in the past. I mean, I think the last times in this hotel was twenty twenty, right when COVID was coming to America.

I mean, I think the thing that is remembered Ben saying right now there are only twenty seven cases of COVID and the you invite it, you know, remember, yeah, and he's not here. He has not been back to Sea pack since then, although some stuff happened between twenty and now. Yeah. So yeah, it is a smaller by no mean, it's like dinky, but if you can tell if puts some costs back. I remember also that Mike

Penn's talk about how few cases there were. Of course there were cases of people who were at the events who had it, which is what we later found out he did. And I actually wasn't that that one that year because I was covering the Democratic primary for prosidence, so I was I think Arkansas or something which has a very low vaccinatory but nobody had any vaccinations back then,

so it didn't really matter. One of the things that I wanted to ask you about actually was a story you have been You wrote about in July twenty six, twenty twenty two, but it has come up again now, which is this story of Ron de Santis creating his own media outlets. This is something and especially I'm gonna make this a longer question in a very annoying way, but you are at Seapack, so you know that there

are these Maga news outlets. So can you talk to me about first sort of the origin of the Magan news outlet and then where do Santis has gone with that? Sea is actually a great place to ruminate on this because a dream for years, like the spot nick for the conservative move for a very long time, was how

do we great an alternative media. There have been setbacks, there have been advances, but right now there's a conservative media that through a bus enough where a lot of Republicans, you know, including Don Trump, I think they can just ignore requests from the main from the mainstream media or what the Santis called legacy media, and they can talk to their base through conservative media. That was the goal. I think there you can always take it further. They're

pretty much there. I mean a lot of what I do as a reporter has changed because ten years ago, um, you know, you might be able to have a sit down with a sertive congressan doesn't like media, and now he'll grow that requested in the tracks and talk to Newsmax or talk to real American news. They talk. I could. I want to lift them all because there's don and with de Santis did I thank you for the date.

Lots write about this, but I was one of the not that many reporters who went to the san The Santis has an event ironically called the Sunshine Senate in Floridas. It's been all the sunshines up for years, um, Like it was very very very normal for the media to show up. And actually when he won the governorship, who was eighteen, that same event, like Fox News was the guests and c SPAN was filmed in the debate, the

c spand the film into defeating Uh. They I went there knowing that they were going to keep most media out and actually Politico Mats and Politico obtained the list of media that was invited in, and that was that was not invited me. There's actually a very good story in created by Maggie Severns about some of the Florida sites that he was standing up instead the Florida Standard who I talked to there yours who was a conservative,

Brandon Leslie had Florida's voice. They were the halblets I had either been familiar with or just totally never heard of. But you know, we're not covering the event like news reporters. They were covering kind of their highlights and they were so I was there because I thought this is an interesting and because they were having these debates between house candidates and they didn't let the media come and cover them. So there's basically no record of what was happening in

these debates. The debates conterminative, not really. I mean, I just had to kind of chase people afterwards. One day I noticed that day was the Santis thinking made a joke about his staff was on Twitter making fun of reporters for being outside the room. These are people who, like whatever I am, kind of crop around the country, but people who have covered Florida for years or decades and were there to cover the event and quote people, etcetera, etcetera.

There's making fun of them and taking you know, taking photos of them being stuck outside. It was in the casino, So I worked a whole day in as cafe and I look that event. To me, was this proof of concept for what they were trying to do. Now, did did any normal non politics junkie Maybe they read the newspaper? Will they ever find out what happened in these congressional debates?

Well they won't, but that small group of conservatives in the room did, and Larda's Voice and the other the Santist news sites had their version of what happened, and that was enough. So the Santist I think, has been ahead of the curve among Republicans in creating this media and going around the main stream press. And like he's got his reasons. I want to like ramble on endlessly about it, but he does not. Like the press never

has back from me. You know how it covered the congressional baseball shooting to how it pumped up Andrew Gilling when he's running Gainstom for governor. He takes like real joy in this and has won elections by blowing the press off like his book which just came out this week, is a huge section about sixty minutes. They know not very well received the poor, and every one of these is feeds in the arguments like why why would I need to talk to like the prestigious quote unquote media

when I've got consertive outlets that asked me friendly questions. Right, I have my own media. One of the things that I thought was pretty interesting when I wanted to see Pack, that was the first time I realized that there was like an entire media ecosystem of these Maga news is one, two, three, these outlets that you never heard of, they'd have really a lot of readership in Mega world. They do, and

you can kind of pokeground for private metrics. One of the things I've noticed a Tea Pack since at least twenty twenty one, but I know since the Trump rails point twenty was, you know, the Epic Times media network, the anti anti Bade communists we've following gone we didn't work, made this big bet on American conservatives and it's been

very successful. It gets interviews with with with people again that would be repreated myself that like might talk the rest of the press, the press, and they have a gigantic presence here Newsmax. There's Newsmax is on stage seapack. Because of their fight over access to direct TV, OAM had its own flight over direct TV. In addition to these people, these the outlets being places Republicans to talk to a friendly audience, friendly questions, they're also being undermined

by cable organizations, by big tech quote unquote. It's just an interesting dynamic. It's it's as if the Nation Muger Jones, like liberal outlets, if they were getting banned and Democrats were promoting them on stage and not talking some Fox and not talking to you know, the Wall Street Journal.

It is. It is a considerably dynamic. And it's like I'm not saying it's hypocritical, because this is how this movement increasingly it habits a its own media landscape, and increasingly what happens in the baystream media it was not mattered to them. You know the story. One thing we do it's such more than it's kind of fun, is like checking out stories by by online metrics are what's the story that no concern I've heard about this week? What's the story that know liberal heard about this week?

There's always something. There's always something because people who are reading the New York Times cover to cover are completely unaware of things happening on you know, Florida news sites for the De Santensis boarding. People who are are watching Fox, they had no interest in reading what the New York Times is saying, unless it's like, oh, the Times are finally covering something we care about. That's as much price

as they'll give it. I mean, certainly there are things that the left doesn't cover, but I'm not or that it's quite the same, if that makes sense. I mean, I don't know. I mean I just think like the right is in this world where they don't They still don't believe the twenty twenty election was for real. That has been changing a little bit only because they're Republicans who want to be the presidential nominee. Is there interesting

like the actually down Trumpleblue Ning lost. But apart from that, yes, that is something that we've not advanced very much on these media networks. When you saw this and discuss this, the Fox needs intertal communications. Like it's pretty clear if you are not just kind of reading the public facing part of what Box is telling you, it is pretty clear that to capture this audience and to keep this audience, you need to have certain opinions that may or may

not be accurate. And look, I think there are some conserva critiques of the establishment media that like, like I said, mainstream pickure Pitt, you're active, and there's some of that's right. There's there's obviously stuff that the press doesn't cover as much. I mean, look at this kind of the protest of by Glad of New y Times. There's a lot of

anger that they're covering transitioner. So like some of that pattens, but not through this scale where it's it's basically right the twenty twenty election, Yeah, we're going to either not correct things that are false or not cover things that are unsettling to us because our audience is going to turn the channel. I mean, that really did happen to Fox in twenty at the end of twenty twenty, where people were switching over to Newsmax because Newsmax was saying

Trump could still win this and Fox wasn't. And I mean I just meant to the epic time on it. The first time I really kind of realized what their angle was was if you click on the Epic Times website up until January sixth, there is a big map every day. The first image was a big map that had the contested quote unquote states and it was pretending January fifth, twenty twenty one that, for example, like New Mexico was up for grabs. That was not true, right,

New Mexico. Yes, if you want to believe it was true, you click that. Yeah, right, all right, no, no, for sure. I mean that is what is so important, incredibly just unbelievable about all of this. So I want to ask you as a Nembo baby myself, and I'm not a baby anymore, so I'm like a Nippo oldie. I'm always sort of very impressed by how much the Trump kids have squandered their status? Are they there? Have they sort

of just seated that? So Don Jinger is here Don Jingior in the seapack and has a couple books that are set up by the Make America Great ag impact. The Trump superPAC one is modeled took the White House. One is also modeled with kind of like the White House, sorry, the Oval Office. One's more like the like I didn't run the White House. That is not an issue for people here like the Trump family remains incredibly popular mom by fans. I have not seen much pushback to that idea.

The idea the possibility of a Trump restoration and very exciting the people, and basically don't mind hearing from Eric or I haven't seen Eric here yet, but I've seen Don. Besides being smaller and slightly less lavish, how else is this different than other sepacks? Like I heard match SLAPPs say, would they sort of dismiss the idea that less electeds were there? Yeah? He leaned into that in the very beginning.

The conference kicks off this morning. The main sessions kick off on the morning of Birthday, and he says, the media is really focused on who's not here, but we have him Jordan with us. He is not. I trying to find him to talk him because he kind of he didn't connect on Tuesday and he's told me today he doesn't want to fuck. That's a question I have for him, is, Look, is there a reason round the santificate?

Is there a reason that Fox Nation pulled out? Is the reason that jo Fawley, who has come here before, he gotten good reception, didn't come I think part of that is due to I don't think that had a huge role, Ticket says. I mean, there are not many people. I can't speak for the and Argy Maras, there are not many people Conservatives who would be interested in seeing

it Don Frump speech. But let's give it if it just Jock Holly will not be there two days earlier, like like Trump being at this event is the draw. But there are Republicans senators who have been given a good reception here. The crowd's very supportive. Members of Congress who are not back, and there are leaders. One thing I'm kind of quivaling with a lot of articles. There's reporting on how Mitch McConnell did not Tom Mittercondd was

not comb to this, whichcon hasn't been in ely nine years. Right, it was odd that he was. It was kind of he was trying to promote sendicandis and Kevin McCarthy has skipped for places and miss Crew hates Mitch McConnell. Right. So that's that's what I'm getting too, is that there are Republicans who are in the leadership. If they show up in this conference, they will be bood the story

from the conference. They could deliver the greatest orations since ancient Greece, and the story will be Kevin McCarthy booth. They know that, and so they're not showing up for that reason. There's nothing Seefa I can really do about that. Mc McCarthy. I think we get some booze and then get the crowd back on his side by talking about investigations. Well, why bother, why bother, creween, you can do something else. You also right, he already has it already. Yeah, and

you have some competition for for candis for him. Who are going to plub for instead? But it makes sense that they are. I mean there's a get someone I was talking to here who often sets up happy hours around tea packer used to you after the intervents are over, running out a room, having a cigar party, that sort of thing. We say, just like, it's harder to do that now because people who would fun that sort of thing, DC lobbyists, et cetera. They just don't think anyone here

is going to be gettable or useful to that. They think it's it is older people who loved on Trump, which is true. I mean you see people wearing They're like I'm in the front row of Trump rally teacher, the front row Joe. You see people who have who are fear for Trump, and then you see younger people who are kind of finding their way in a movement. But a lot of the kind of DC conservative ink people,

it's just not worth the trom to coome anymore. So it's not worth it for what meetings is sketting The park you're going to have here at the city doesn't need to be there for I think there are bunch ofies the wind into that, but the overall right in that seapack, even apart from this slap scandal which broken January is, once got elected, this became a Trump conference built around his popularity, built around the Schlaps connection to him,

built around the media network they're trying to create, and it became more about I'd say that like kind of the second circle, or not just a Trump family, but the second circle of close supporters and less about the whole conservative So you can come here seven years ago less than that, and the Libertarian Party would be here, are the Constitution Party will be here or people who they know who know they're not going to get a good recepting the apeist liberty who I think it might

be back, but I haven't seen them yet. Like that's just not a priority for them anymore because they think this is a conference or Trump people. One thing I can say, there's been half empty today. That's not unusual. It's emptier, that's not unusual. Yeah, it's it's emptier than it used to be. But but you know it fills up for Trump. One of the keyback stories I was happiest with is like I shadowed Nagural Farage when he

came in twenty fifteen. He was not a big household day yet it sentity is now there's true Brexit, etcetera. And he spoke to a mostly empty room. I think it was like ten percentful if that so, everyone who was who was writing about him from the UK to said Karage speaks to have imperious kind, mostly empero. It was. That's the reason too, But it just it used to be more of a the pornucopia of the conservative movement.

Here is every everyone who wants to have a role in cons heard a movement here, everyone who might run from breadleton And it's not that anymore. I think it could be that again. I think the biggest threat to that if there is one um and this is important gathering to have is actually turning point. USA Charlie Kirsch organization which broke out here in a big way. It spent a lot of money, had big boots when it

was getting started. I remember meeting those folks in two under Cafeine when they held this Antiper and Sanders as well. They really were relevant here until this year and they pulled out. But they've been doing their own conferences that have not just suddenly the same guests, but a larger audience of mostly young people. They'll get people like lap or not really close to close to Trump per se. They are not afraid of offending some people that might

be offended if the match left the on stage. And they are trying to compete. It's kind of like a Microsoft versus Zero Sting. And I think they've got the Sea pack model. They're gonna they're gonna they're going to improve on it. So lots of competition. I wouldn't say few people showing up a tea pack means the movement is weaker in any way. This the way this has been designed and built inside the Republican Party, which at the moment is very bound to Trump and for that

reason and not winning as much as at once. Um, that is the way of life here, now, that is the way of seatpack. It's still very interesting to see who does show up and who and who ends up who ends up finding an art here? Yeah, I just want to ask you though, really the only member of Congress right is at least a fauna the leadership Yes, sorry sorry, if you want to leap, yes, I can say, like, yeah, at least to find is the only member of the

leadership team who's here. They are kind of some rising stars in the party and committee mean Jordan as a committee chair. He was introduced as the most powerful man in the Congress, which he probably is in some ways. Yes, yes, but for Republican leaders I think for that reason, I was saying, if Steve Stilly shows up here, he'd probably get a great reception, but he might get confronted by somebody who's angry if they haven't introduced articles to impeachment

against biding At or something. Marjorie Tellergreen will be here, He'll get a great reception. There's still some Republicans where they have the chance to not be on the same state before they'll take him thank you so much, Dave John Fast, Jesse Cannon. This Leonard Leo Fellow, a fellow so not nice they named him twice. He's really been

up to some bad stuff. His personal wealth appears to have accelerated, has seems to have ballooned as his fundraising prowess accelerated since his efforts to cement the Supreme Court's conservative majority. Already Basically, this is not a good guy. He's got the largest hall of dark money probably of all time that we know about at least. Yeah, this is peak trumps m right by the Supreme Court. Yeah, do dark money, you know, the whole thing. We should

be surprised that we are surprised. It really is. I feel like in recent weeks we see a new floodgate of like, oh wow, like the later effects of Trumpism and just the egregiousness. I've really really really ramped up when you see stuff like this. Yeah, And I mean I think also like every time you see this Supreme Court make an incredibly horrible decision like overturning Row and making sure that's you know, messing with student loans and the EPA and the many many ways in which this

conservative Supreme Court is shaping our country. You know, we have these people who are not elected, who are the most powerful people in America, all thanks to Citizens United, all thanks to Citizens United. So from that they are our moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send

it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.