Hi, I'm Molly john Fast and this is Fast Politics, where we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's best minds. And Mike Johnson approves the National Prayer Breakfast to be held in the Capitol Church and state. Our state is a church. Talking fens is Harry Lippmann stops by to talk to us about Trump's incoming legal woes.
Ben we'll talk to the founders of find Out Pack, Gina Ortiz Jones and Lauren Miller, and they'll tell us about how they're fundraising to get rid of three Texas Supreme Court judges. But first we have the Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. Welcome back, Dana, Dana.
What's going on?
A great honor as always to be with you.
I'm sorry what is happening in Washington, DC with these Republicans controlling the House with their one majority.
It's very exciting because you know, it was just a well oiled machine when they had the five vote majority.
So from that.
From that point of view, was like, I don't really see it as being much different with the one vote majority. But if you do it, you know, if you have things like the impeachment of majorcas well, I suppose that could make a difference there if you've got.
A speaker who has never been really in leadership.
Well yeah, but you know, if you what you need is Ken Buck or a Tom McClintock, and suddenly the whole thing goes down. And then we saw it this week, you know, this tax bill, which is has huge bipartisan support. There were four New York Republicans. They call themselves moderates. I don't think they're actually moderates.
Right, but they are desperate to keep their seats, so in that way, they want to pretend.
To be moderates, right, And they want to pretend that they're doing something for the you know, state and local taxes for the you know, the wealthy residents.
Salt one of Jesse's favorite things.
Salt. Yeah, I'm a big fan. You know, it's not good for the blood pressure. But so they basically shut down the House floor for I think forty minutes this week, taking a page from the Freedom Caucus. So yeah, it makes it even easier to disrupt things and bring everything
to a halt. But since everything was already disrupted and at a halt, I'm not sure it fundamentally changes and in a way, we're now at the point where, you know, to pass anything then you need to do it without a rule, which means you have to have a two
thirds majority. So in a perverse way, this tiny majority, after defeating them for the last year and change, they're now deciding, okay, well we just have two things on a bipartisan basis, so you can get that two thirds vote, so you can avoid the Freedom Caucus and whoever else wants to bollocks things up. So it's actually suddenly, after all this time had something of a beneficial effect. I
don't expect that will last terribly long. In fact, Wednesday might have been the high water mark for that.
So basically what happened was Kevin McCarthy, in his incredible cravence to Pittoday, decided to put a few magas on the Rules Committee, which then made it completely impossible to bring anything up for vote.
Yeah.
I mean, so there are two, maybe three maga types the kind who are you know, really the rebels the Freedom Caucus types on the Rules Committee. So yeah, if they vote against the rule with the Democrats, it never goes to the floor. But I think even more to the point is that you have to pass the rule on the floor before you go on to any debate,
and that's always been a party line vote. You know, the majority party sets the rules for the debate, all the members of the majority party vote for it even if they're not going to support the bill at the end, and all the opposition votes against it even if they are going to support the bill. So you know, that's just been standard. And I think going back to two thousand and three, until these guys took over, there had not been a single instance of a rule being defeated.
And now there have been five or six instances of the rule being defeated, and a multiple of that they've pulled bills off the floor because the rule was going to be defeated. So it's now just sort of a routine practice to throw sand in the gear.
So let's take a moment here to think about how this never happened to Nancy Pelosi.
It is true. I mean, in fairness, it never happened John Right or the others either right.
I mean it didn't right exactly.
Many any competence speaker right. It's trou I mean, there are so many things now you just say, okay, well that was unheard of before, but you know, it's now just routine in this debauched chamber. But Pelosi was uniquely effective because people were afraid of her.
It's a good point. This is they have really hit silly season in the United States House of Representatives. And it's not there are not two sides to this. This is Republicans engaging in bad politics, right.
Yeah, and it's I mean, it's it's been. I mean, look, we're now in what month of fourteen of this constant dysfunction, So yeah, I mean, I you know, Pelosi had a Democratic majority of a similar size to what the Republicans have worked with, and they were able to govern. You know, this Senate is a split just as evenly, and sure enough, they're you know, despite all the odds, they're able to come up with things like you know, a bipart isn't compromise on a border bill, which of course the House
is now kind of kill. It can be done. It's just you know that it is a unique problem. It's a uniquely Republican problem, and at the moment it's a House Republican problem.
So let's talk about this border bill, because it's an amazing bit of real hypocrisy. Republicans said, we are not going to fund Ukraine. We want a border. We only want the border. We care about the border. The border is the most important thing. The border is a crisis. The border is this, The border is that because inflation's gone way down and we can't on that anymore. So
now it's the border. So then Chris Murphy, Kirsten Cinema, and James Langford sit in a room for three months and they put together something that's probably a lot of people and nobody's seen the text of it, but from what Chris Murphy said to me, it seems like it's probably fine. It's going to make everyone unhappy, which means it's probably okay ish. But ultimately then Republicans are like, well, we can't possibly pass this.
Yeah, no, it's an astonishing thing. I mean, you've been hearing about this existential crisis, an invasion at the border,
MS thirteen, MS thirteen, murders, Fendyl overdoses. It's just been this constant drumbeat and as you said, the absolute insistence on it, and you had people like Mike Johnson Steve Sclee saying this can only be done with legislation, Congress has to act and then making it a requirement, and then you know, essentially people called their bluff on it, and it might have worked had Trump got in there and said, Okay, blame me for the failure of this.
We don't want to give Democrats this issue during the election. So to Trump's credit, he was completely out there in the open saying we'd rather have this as an issue
than actually fix the problem. And now you see Republicans, particularly the House Republican it's just sort of all reversing themselves and saying totally fine, Biden has all the authority he needs, there's no need for legislation whatsoever, and then getting sort of further twisted up and saying, well, it would be good to have legislation if a were legislation like what we had. None of it particularly makes any sense. But what is completely obvious is that there is a compromise.
There is a consensus to do something about asylum policy and all the other things, the border security, all the other things that Republicans have been howling about for months and for years, and they're now going to torpedo that. You know, this is a little bit of a replay of what we saw back at twenty thirteen and twenty fourteen, the Senate worked out a compromise and House Republicans killed it. So, I mean, yeah, there's a lot that happens these days
to make one cynical. But if it really is the order that is, you know, causing this massive crisis and this massive invasion that they're going to do, right, if.
It's a crisis, you should at least want to fix it right.
Right, even if it's not perfect, you know, go ahead and try it. And look, it's all well and good to say that Biden has all the authority he needs. It's just plain nonsense. You know. First of all, he's taken more executive actions than Trump ever did. Yeah, Trump had a lot of policies that worked, and most of them have been struck down in the courts because they were illegal, so they can't be re implemented. Then there
are others like patch and release. Okay, end it, well, right, you can end it if you have the money to detain all these people, which Congress hasn't provided. So his hands really are tied to a great extent, and it does require congressional action.
Remember, Republicans have been so mad at Obama for executive actions. All right, Like this was how dare you use these executive actions? Now they're saying, well, if Biden wants to solve the border, you can use executive actions.
Right, you can just take out his pen. Yes, there are hypocrisies folded into hypocrisies here. That's like the third level hypocrisy on executive action.
This is like the underlying anxiety I think we all have in this political world. What is the information that people are getting. If people were able to absorb this information, they'd be like, this is absolute madness. But do you think that voters are following this and how would they?
Well, it's probably the usual story where you know, if you're in the maga Fox News silo, no, you're probably not getting this information at all, or to the extent you are. It's that Biden created this problem and he has the tools he needs to fix it. But I do think this is you know, if you look at there at the larger reality based population, which will after all,
to t the outcome of the election. I think this does change the debate, at least rhetorically in the sense of giving Democrats some ammunition saying right, there is a crisis at the border, or at least a really big problem. We got together with some sensible Republicans and came up with a solution, and Donald Trump said he will be happy to take the blame for bringing it down. So you know, at the very least it wants the argument against Democrats. But you know, I don't in a way.
I don't even like to think about this as a political matter. That Just think about how reckless and irresponsible that is. Unless the Republicans were making it up and they just weren't concerned all along about hundreds of thousands dying from opioid over doses and gang violence and all these murders and rapes and terrorists coming across the border.
So either you didn't really mean it in the first place, or worse that you actually do mean it and this stuff is going on, but you'd rather have a campaign issue than do something.
The problem for Republicans is either the threat is or the threat is not real, and here's an opportunity to solve the thread. I don't believe polls, but polling whatever for Biden is bad. People we know in New York and Washington are very mad at him for a number of reasons, But you look at the fundamentals of like the political landscape right now, right we have this miraculous you saw I'm sure you saw this piece of axios yesterday.
Of all of the G seven countries, America has sort of done the impossible and has this soft inflationary landing, right, which is sort of not in Paul Krugman's greatest dreams. Has this happened?
You know?
And we do ten thousand interviews a week, So how much time have I sat with Justin Wolfers And he says, am I optimistic? I'm optimistic, but do I know you know so much hemming and hawing, And it turns out they were right. So really, the Inflation Reduction Act, instead of being this terrible bite nomics punchline, it actually reduced inflation. So if this were a Republican president, people would say this guy is unstoppable because the economy is so good.
But for some reason for this, it's like, no, chicken prices haven't gone down enough and gas is only under three dollars. But it just seems to me like there's way more pessimism in the media landscape and also just in around may more important life.
I think that part of it's a media story. And I think part of it is that it's no longer the economy stupid, it's the tribal politics stupid. You know. I mean, it's funny. Biden was citing an op ed from The Times about the price of Snickers bar, saying that you know, people recognize that as inflation because they buy more Snickers bar. And then the RNC, you know, tweets that out as you know, he's talking about Snickers bar, it's evidence of dementia. So right, in a sense, it's like, okay,
that's what we're talking about here. Is they've you know, you know, they've convinced their voters that you know, this poor, druling, dodteran guy is running the country. So you know, they're not exactly focused on that. So I think the usual economic laws don't necessarily apply. And part of it is we in the media, Number one, we have allowed it
to happen. We haven't adapted to the new landscape. And the other part is we're just marginalized, those of us, you know, and what you would call the painstream media, we just don't get through to, you know, a huge swath of the population.
Let me ask you about this thing that I think we don't talk about quite enough, but is something that Trump did the last time he did it in twenty twenty, and it backfired on him then too. So his whole thing is that Biden is demented and that there's something wrong with Biden and that he's not really doing it. That really Kamala is the president and this is a you know, and Marxist Kamala and Marxist and whoever else
you can think of his wrong also fascist. But I don't know if you've seen Donald Trump speak lately, he has definitely lost a step, right, Like we could debate whether or not Biden whatever, he tripped on a sandbag, whatever, But Trump was convinced that Nancy Pelosi was NICKI Haley he was. You know, he thinks he beat Obama. I mean he cannot. He seems like he's really lost his step.
Yeah I did. This is my column last week from New Hampshire. Yeah, the things you've cited about Haley and Pelosi confusing Obama and Biden. But I just like, I sat through one hundred minute speech which I should get combat paid for or something.
I've sat through one of those before.
And then just like did a transcript of it, just went through over and he's just like he tells the same stories over and over again, with the exact same lines over and over again, you know. And sometimes he's you know, talking about, you know, we're going to get into World War two when he means world War three, you know, or he just starts reading random words off teleprompter.
I feel like you should know that one any.
Of which if Biden had done, it would be national news. The guy is, you know, affirmed that the guy has lost his mind, you know. And I think part of it is the you know, sort of the media's designated flaw about Biden is he's a senile, Like they've sort of embraced that, you know. The designated flaw of Donald Trump is he's an authoritarian an a racist, which I mean, it's not like that's wrong, that designated flaw. So I think we tend to give him a pass because that's
not his designated flaw. If Biden suddenly said something authoritarian, well we probably wouldn't take that much notice because that's not his thing. So, you know, I think it's just a natural in our shorthand, and we don't necessarily say Hey, wait a second. This guy, whether it's you know, age or stress or running around to a lot of different courtrooms all the time, either also in addition to Biden, or perhaps even worse than Biden, seems to be changing
because we forget that. Yeah, yeah, Biden's stiffer and all that now, but the guy never, you know, sort of completed a full coherent sentence. And that's when I was covering him in the Senate back in the nineteen nineties.
You know, I have this theory about Biden, which I feel like it is going to get everyone mad at me, which is and actually I said this to a straight reporter and he was like, you're wrong, But I actually think I'm right, which is this Biden is actually more coherent Biden Molly.
I would just say that's a low bar, right.
But I mean, he's sort of he can stick to things. You know, he was never a gifted orator, like that's not who he is.
Not at all. Well, first of all, just because he has a stutter, so he has trouble giving speeches, which is kind of Chris when Chi sideries the president of the United.
States, right, that's the job.
And he was always just sort of rambling, and just I remember listening to him in the Senate Judiciary Committee. You know, he gave like a thirty minute speech, you know before one of these nominees. They said, all right, and now I'd like to get to my speech. It's just it was, Yeah, I think what I think part of would you say is true that I mean, people would say, yeah, he's more scripted now and his staff's doing the work. But it's also a matter of more discipline.
That Trump makes fun of him for giving two or three minute speeches. I would take that over the hour and forty minute speech in which we have to keep hearing the same things over.
I remember at Seapac sitting through those speeches and being like.
Oh, yes, I feel the pain you felt ill and we're in this and the campaign is just beginning.
It is bad.
Thank you, Dana Bay. Harry Litman is a former US attorney and host of the podcast Talking Fads.
I just want to say, welcome to another law politics mashup with Molly john Fast and I'm Harry Litman, where we kind of have very few rules, but I try to shoot a political question at Mollie that's been on my mind, and she reciprocates with a legal question that's been on hers and it's a yes.
So I want to ask you first because there are all these core cases, the civil fraud case we're waiting for the number right that Trump is going to owe. Talk us through exactly what that is and why it hasn't happened yet.
Well, okay, I mean what he said. It's funny because we're waiting on two and one. We're really starting to get nervous. That's the immunity payd of d C circuit with the one you're talking about.
Talk about the immunity for a second on the DC circuit because I know Andrew Weisman has been expressing some irritation about that too.
Yeah, or consternation. So look back when it was argued, everybody tuned in because the question first you wanted to know, as always, which way are they going to go? And I thought, and I think every observer thought, they're going
to reject his claim of immunity. I hold to that view, but it's always within the substance game and the delay game, and the thing about there's two potential sources for delay, and as the time time goes on, they get more likely because the DC Circuit was out of the gate with a really fast briefing schedule. And when they've done that in the past, they've issued opinions within a week or two. They've clearly been writing before even the oral argument,
and that hasn't happened. Why not two possibilities? And first is the presiding judge, Florence Henderson, may not Florence Heenderson.
I was gonna say, what are the odds?
Yeah, may not be buying the same theory, even though I think she's not going to give him immunity. And the two of them, the other two childs in pan state some like different nuance theory of why no immunity. Here's why it matters, not just for the days that are elapsing. But if Henderson says something that's different, it could be that the Supreme Court would be interested in taking that. You know, the six Conservatives would like their view.
This is the president is and be king theory right, whenever the president does anything, it's fine.
The one they articulated in oral argument was he can command the Navy seals to gun down an opponent, and unless there's an impeachment and conviction, he can't be prosecuted. That's how for cocked it is. But the worry is that even though if they reject it, they'll do it in a way that gives him yet more time. One of two ways Supreme Court decides to take the case that could really drag on, or they state some theory that then goes back down to chuck In who applies it,
you know, easy, easiest, pissed that's happened before. But then would there be another round of appeal from the Remand so what's what's irritating Andrew and consternating me or both is the possibility that this delay augurs yet more delay after they issue the opinion. We've lost a month. We were at April. We can handle a month, but what if it turns into two or three? It gets really dicey when you're in the heat of the campaign, you know, a national campaign.
The central tension here really is that legally Donald Trump has sort of two defenses he uses. One is to run out the clock and just to keep trying to kick things up to hire and higher courts because he knows it'll get him time. Right, That's really his biggest way that he sort of solves his legal problems, right.
Yeah, I mean, what's the other that is the way when you look over the whole landscape, he can't you know, if he's not elected president. Let's just put it that way, he can't escape serious damage to liberty or pocketbook or both. His really only kind of you know, play here is to somehow win the presidency and then take it from there.
Shut down the FEDS, investigate Fonnie Willis, etc. So all of these, all of these, you know, he has some claims that don't stink, but not very many, but doesn't matter. When you look at the whole panorama, you know he's in deep, deep peril unless he can win. Obviously, that keeps you up night thinking I'm sure you too, can
he win? And so what I you know, I try to conceptualize in my mind, who is the voter who went for Biden in twenty twenty and will say, Okay, I think I'm for Trump this time around because he has to not just consolidate and keep the base. He's losing a little bit in the middle, but he has to gain. And I thought there is no such person, But it seems like there are some cohorts Mollie that are like actually expanding a bit for him. It I'm thinking of college educated males that was you know, it
was always that line that wasn't there as hispanics. Maybe what the hell is causing his base to actually grow a bit?
I don't think his base has grown. I think the problem and the reason why we have so much trouble with polling now is that there's a shifting electorate. So in twenty sixteen, the people who made Trump president were impossible to anticipate because a lot of them had never voted. Not a lot of them, but a certain percent. You know, it was a shifting electorate, a group that posters didn't know to look for. And since then they have been shifting the elector to try and predict these sort of
ghost voters that might come back. Because ultimately, right, we're only working on polls, right, I mean, what else are we working on? What other information do we have?
Right?
I mean, Sarah Longwell does these really good focus groups, But that's twenty people, you know, or so we're really working in polls. And like, I think there are some things that are like voter registration, for sure, you can work on that, right. You can see where people are registering but even that, it's not a science. One of the things that is like you could look at is primary voter turnout. Right, So like Iowa is a very religious,
tend to be very white and religious. They had very small turnout for Trump that was like he did really well, but it was you know, half of what it had been four years ago. So I think that's a question.
So your answer is that it isn't really like it's another foible with the polls. Maybe I would.
Say until the summer, we're not going to know who the likely voters are, so we really don't know. Does it seem to me I think there are people who will vote Republican no matter what.
I think did four years ago.
Yes, I don't think that those are people who voted for Biden who are leaving Biden. But I also think there are like these X factors, right, like a third party candidate. Also, like how information is getting to the electorate is a real problem too. I would say, like are people not getting news we've all heard the story of like the person who is like Biden is not pro choice because there are all these abortion bands that
are happening while he's president. So I mean there are unknown unknowns there fair enough?
Okay, your turk, because I want to try to get to three. I know your producer is tough.
Here.
My question for you is, okay, So the presidential immunitay again should happen sooner rather than later.
It should have happened a couple weeks ago, and that's that's why everyone's biting their nails.
Then there's this fraud number. What's the timetable on that?
Very very soon because the guy said, I'm aiming to do it by the thirty first. Now you know they don't subtract half a grade. Every day is late, but there's very big public focus. So I think the most likely day is today. The second we're on February first. Second, most likely tomorrow. And if you ask for the number, you know she started the ag James at two fifty then went to three seventy. I think he'll probably go under what she's asking for because he's thinking about view
on appeal. There's already a lot of chunky issues there, but still this is drawing real blood, even if they don't see it for a while. Egene Carroll and Leticia James. He's got to pony it up in order to appeal, and if he has even the kind of liquidity he says he's got, it still seems to be almost wipe. Yeah, it feels to me like it really has sort of
brought him a bit to his knees. And that's a that's a big deal because his voters seem to count on his not just doing whatever he wants but get away with it.
Can his donors donate to the settlement?
Yeah?
There, I mean there's some complicated election rules, but that's been that's been the weeks the Achilles seal. Right, he just you know, we know he paid all these legal fees et cetera.
I mean we've seen the filings for the legal fees that they're humong those, right, I mean.
Fifty million over the last year, and he uses it as a sort of uh what you know, toolover his co defendants to keep them close to pay their fees or not. Okay, I was really interested. That was a great article on Vanny Fair that you wrote, but it put me in mind, have you seen this finding really striking that young voters there's a really seems to be a pronounced division between men and women, not just on abortion or me too or whatever, but across the board.
You have significantly more progressive women in this young cohort twenty two to thirty or whatever. Do you buy that? And man, what is it augur for going forward?
That's from this data journalist called John Burns, Murdoch and the Ft, who we actually had on the podcast. I mean, I think it's a number of things, but I think Roe is the big one. I mean, well, you have one group of people where bodily autonomy, they used to have the right to have an abortion, federal right to have an abortion. They don't have anymore.
But no, that mays them more progressive across the board apparently.
Yeah, because they're furious you have the right to abortion gone. You have Republicans sessed with your body, right, like these stories about they're tracking your cycles. You have that woman in Ohio who had to face a grand jury for the disposal of a corpse because she had a miscarriage in the toilet, right. You have the woman in Texas.
You have these horror stories. And then I would add, you have Republicans fighting with Taylor Swift, right, so you have this sense in which they're saying the women we want are Kimberly Gilfoyle. That's a good woman, right, But Taylor Swift, the self made billionaire musician, that's not okay. And so I think people bristle when you tell them
what to do. And remember so much of America is about this, like weird and I'm not even sure it's good, but this kind of freedom, you know, to have guns and be crazy, I think women, I think there's a reaction towards that. And it's twenty twenty four. I mean, it's crazy. Everything else he can kick the can on except the Newer case. Is that right?
Not quite yet, but it's But that's the bad trend.
You know.
Eileen Cannon is really slow walking at the big mess in Fulton County with Fannie Willis and Wade et cetera. I think works to make it much harder to do that one on time. The big Hope always has been the most important and the most likely to move with dispatch the Chuck in January sixth case. And that's precisely why this delay in the immunity opinion is so worrisome, because that's really the focus. I think the New York case will happen conduct before he was president. They it's
somehow already I think been absorbed by the electorate. I see that as the least likely to be a serious game change it. It's Stormy Daniel's case, you know, right, No, no, I know.
It's a state that goes to a federal It's a weird statue that there's not a huge president for. But I wonder how much you know, Trump has this whole thing, and this is where he uses these him in all trials or civil trials as a kind of campaign event. So he says to his people, you know, he gets up there, he speechifies, this is America. He does all of his political stuff.
I'm your martyr. Yeah right, I'm your martyr.
But when he does it, it tends to backfire. These two things were not made to work together. So, like, you know, he brags about how rich he is, and then he gets his huge judgment. Right like if he had said, I have no cash, you know, that's what you're supposed to say when you're a defendant. He's in this situation where he just can't you know, he's sort of stuck in this hamster wheel. Even if New York
is not the best case. Having the adult film star back in court testifying that just doesn't seem like it helps grow the electorate.
Yeah, I agree, but he said ninety one counts against him, and it really doesn't seem to move the needle the polling, and you point out there's a lot to be still learned about the weaknesses and polling suggest if he's actually convicted, that would move the needle. Well, but this one seems like, you know, it's it's disgusting, and it was definitely done to corrupt an election, and you would think it has a real but it was already before the election, and
it seems like the least likely for that reason. It's all like in a parade of horribles. We've been fooled so many times. But it seems like I am confident in saying that it doesn't have the same you know, sledgehammer. It doesn't get to what's really wicked about him as president or what he did as president, et cetera, just him as a consummate, you know, jerk.
The question of like, does it necessarily matter what the case is in this low information ecosystem, him just being dragged in and out of court. I mean, there have got to be people who see that and are like I don't know that I want that on my next president.
I think that's part of Nikki Hailey. This would be more your value Wick again, but that's sort of we don't need the chaos and uncertainty. You don't have to hate Trump, but man, don't you want to put him behind you? And so and a jury standing up and saying conviction and you know his having some accountability? Is that it or is it the nature of the conduct?
And you're right, it's a low informed electorate. And that actually goes to my last question for you, which is for lawyers watching him, you know, in the Eugene Carol case has been mind boggling. You know, I feel like I'm reading a nineteenth century novel and he didn't stand for the jury, oh mine, but it does seem to be I really like no other litigan I've ever seen what an asshole that said. It's whether he just can't
help himself or it's a calculation. I've heard political analysts like you saying, you know, it actually helps him, that's his political strategy. So and my question is is it really the being a sort of fairal child or does
everything but shoot spitballs at the judge? Is that actually a plus for his political supporters, and you know, is it something they ignore or is it truly like add to his political luster that you know, he can throw whoopee cushions all over the courtroom and be astonishingly, you know, violating of all the rules of decor.
So when I talked to Robbie Kaplan on my podcast, I asked her, I said, like, well, because I had heard the deposition was really harry, but she actually said the worst part of the whole trial was watching Alina Hobba and Donald Trump behave so badly in front of this judge Kaplan, who's like a very formal judge, And she said, you know, when you get in front of judges like this, you can't behave like that. It's just
not how any of this is done. And you know, Alena Hobbit was like fighting with him because this is reality television lawyering here. So his people believe that like this was a deep state conspiracy against him, but a lot of them don't understand how things work right, like how courts work, and so I don't know is the answer. I mean, I think that it seems very embarrassing, but you know, this is the fuck your feelings crowd.
Right, yeah, okay, I'm thinking what, well, what it'll look like next time we talk. Will Haley still be there? Will there actually be a case about to go? So it'll be fine as always.
I hope there'll be a case about to go. Yes, thank you.
Great to see you, all right, thank you, hang in there, all right.
You two, Gina Orkeis Jones and Laura Miller are the founders of find Out Pas. Welcome to Fast Politics. Now I'm going to have you both introduced yourselves, but I'm going to call you the ladies of the find Out Pack.
Okay, well first.
Why don't you introduce yourself Gina.
Yeah, so Gena Artiez Jones, I am the founder of find Out Pack and for those that are wondering, yes, it is based on a scientific concept of f around and find out. Previously, a longtime public servant ran for Congress. I was not successful, but look, everything happens for a reason, and I was honored to serve as the twenty seventh Under Secretary of the Air Force. And am now I just mentioned the founder of this.
Pack, right, and Lauren Miller tell us how you got here?
I'm Lauren Miller.
I am read that in Texas, and in October of twenty twenty two, I had to travel to Colorado for an abortion because I had an unviable twin and I had to save the life of myself and the healthy twin that I was carrying.
Oh Jesus Christ. You know, as a mother of twins, who've known a lot of people who've had to have a selective reductions. Nobody does that because they're lazy. You do that because you want to save the other, your other fetus exactly. Yeah, I'm so sorry that you had to do that.
Thank you. We were just trying to do what was best for our healthy twin and it was shocking that we couldn't do that in Texas.
So will you tell us a little bit about that story? Can you talk about it a little bit more like how many weeks were you, what was the circumstances, and also what did your doctor tell you?
So I'll start with the last part of that in terms of what did my doctor tell me? So at the time, because it was so soon after Rogue fell, there was that there still is this huge culture of fear around reproductive health in Texas, and I would be talking to doctors, nurses, genetic counselors. They get halfway through a sentence and then just breeze, just scared to say
the word abortion out loud. I mean, it was like you had impacts then, or you know, the Texas Supreme Court just sitting there in the room with you, like they could have just been taking notes in the corner. And that's what it felt like. And all that any of these medical professionals could say was that every day that I continued this twin pregnancy, my unviable twin, put his twin and myself at greater risk. And so it
wasn't it really just wasn't even a decision. I was right out about fifteen weeks when I went to Colorado and got the abortion.
Jesus, Jesus. Did anyone ever say, is doctors, we know this is wrong. But I mean, like, was there ever sort of a moment where they were able to sort of explain to you there's no clarity in the law. So talk about that a little bit.
There's so little clarity in the law, and that's that's intentional, Like that is completely intentional. I stood, you know, about a year ago now in front of the Texas capital and called on legislators to add clarity and noted, they are killing us and they haven't done anything. They kind of did a little pass, a little something that really didn't do anything, and so this is intentional to have this lack of clarity, and you in the situation where
every's just apologizing to us. They were just I'm so sorry, I can't say more and just saying I'm so sorry, I can't do anything. I was in the er two different times, and I remember the second time it was after this diagnosis or tries me eighteen. Our son had just this list of issues, all of which were fatal, like half of his brain was fluid. And I'm with the er doctor just standing there holding the chart and just kind of shaking her head and saying, I'm so
sorry because she couldn't do anything. And I was in there throwing up so much that I thought the placenta was going to detach, and she couldn't do anything.
Right, And you were one of the blucky ones, right because you were able to go and have this treatment and save your surviving child.
I'm the best case scenario. I had every resource at my disposal, I had the money to travel, I had the time to travel, my husband can take off work, My work was flexible. I mean, we truly had everything at our disposal. I was texting with a doctor in Colorado because he was a friend of a friend, and that's not the reality for most people, and especially in Texas, where we've got one hundred and forty seven callies without an OB. I mean, think of the population of Phoenix
not having an OB. That's what we're dealing with in rural Texas.
I mean, and someone who had three children too pregnancy is I know how heartbreaking it is because I, you know, I had a number of abnormalities and stuff that when you have to have an abortion of children that you desperately fucking want, it's so heartbreaking. And then you're not even in your own home. I mean, it's just so incredibly dehumanizing and horrendous. Gina, will you explain your thinking behind this?
Pack.
So I grew up on the far west side of San Antonio, and I went to Jean Jay High School. And if you're from San Antonio that means something. And so I say that because my visceral reaction to read the seven page opinion in December, Now, this was specific to the Kate Cox case. But really, after I read that, what those justices essentially said is that this pregnant mother of two was not close enough to losing her life or close enough to losing her fertility, and therefore she
did not qualify for the medical exception. And so obviously that begs a lot of questions, right, Well, one, how close is close enough? Right?
How are we defining that? In two?
You know, who are these artisan justices? And they are partisan? We elect our judges and justices here in Texas. Who are these partisan extremist justices to say they know better than this woman's doctor, or frankly, any woman's doctor. It was really just infuriating for me to read that opinion, as nonsensical.
As it was. And so the visceral.
Reaction was, you know, f around, I'm going to find out. And so shortly after I started reaching out to some
folks well and thinking about how how would we approve this? Right, We're not going to have a statewide initiative like you see in other states, but we could have actually something on par right, because these folks are elected, that means they can be unelected, right, And so we've got three folks that are on the ballot in November, and it's Jimmy, John and Jane and that's really their names, Jimmy Blacklog, John Devine, and Jane Bland. And we've got the opportunity to unseat those folks.
So explain. They are Supreme Court judges.
They're justices. The justices here again are elected through partisan elections. They serve six year terms. There is no term limit. I think what's also important to understand is the Texas of pre Court has traditionally been a stepping stone for higher office for folks here right, look at Greg Abbott, he served on the court. You also look at somebody like John Cornyn, and so this has been a stepping stone.
But again, we can hold these folks accountable. This is you know, it's a little bit of a different ballot initiative, but this is absolutely an accountability measure because you know, this is not just about you know, what happened to to Kate Cox, but obviously, as Lauren mentioned, is happening to many many women. And you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't say on the very first day of Black History Month that we know that the effects of
these all laws disproportionately a flag effects. Excuse me, your black and brown Texans. Lauren mentioned earlier, she had every resource. You know, there are so many Texans that don't have the resources because we're that hasn't expanded Medicaid, right, just these basic things that we could have in our state, let alone access to reproductive care is affordable healthcare, and we don't.
We don't have those things.
So this pack is going to work to unseat these these three folks in.
November, and so there are other people running for those seats too.
The primary for the Democrats, that'll I mean, the primary in general is the first streak of March here in Texas. But Jimmy, John and Jane are the incumbents, and so those folks, I mean, I think John has a him Mary feel very likely be signed there. I should just mention the other thing that I thought about when I thought about how do we get, you know, obviously, to a better place, is looking into the backgrounds of these folks. So let me just give you just a little bit
of a snippet right of who these folks are. So I mentioned the first one, Jimmy Blacklock. All you've got to know about this guy is essentially what Governor Abbott said about him at a twenty eighteen Texas rally for Life. And I'm going to say this, it's I'm reading a verbatim Governor rabbitts, and I don't have to guess or wonder how Justice Blacklock is going to decide cases because of his proven record of fighting for pro life causes. All right, that's John, Now, John divine. This guy is
real special. He has campaigned actually on his wife's his own wife's high risk pregnancy. She lived, the child, you know, lived for an hour. He also campaigned on being arrested several times for protesting in front of abortion clinics.
So she had a baby that she knew was going to die.
It was a high risk.
Yeah, somehow having this baby that died is somehow more pro life than avoiding all of this.
I cannot speak to his intentions. What I can only speak to, and frankfully probly Laura can speak to this even better is if you are seeking justice and somebody has campaigned on this, has been very full about this, Like, what does that instill in you in any level of confidence about impartiality or like looking at the facts of the case, versus them just bringing in their personal biases on risk saying Lauren, please, Yeah, I.
Was just gonna say. It's always really mind boggling to me because and you'll hear people who say that that's cathartic and then at least they had a chance a light. That is just not light. I mean, in looking at my sign, it would have been torture.
And it might have killed your other twin.
Yeah, I wouldn't have either of my voice. And that's just the reality of it. And I don't think that it's fair to force people to risk their health and in my case, again like the health of a healthy twin for one that is not viable. That is an unrealistic demand.
It's insane that the thinking here is that you should have a baby that's going to die because somehow that is more pro I mean, it's just one of the craziest things I've ever heard. It just is so anti science and anti everything.
Yeah, why have science, why have ultrasounds? If none of it matters? And that's the thing. And you can just tell who has never seen somebody live in tremendous amount of pain that they would say, oh, yeah, let's put an infant through that like that is not for a life?
Yeah.
Can I just bring up the rear on this last justice? Yeah, Aane Bland. So she authored the opinion in a Little of Fun for Reproductive Equity versus Dickinson, a separate case, but in that the Texas Supreme Court ruled that anti abortion groups could not be held liable for defamation for equating abortion to murder. Like she wrote that opinion, so again like when you look at these three folks, can you can you imagine again?
Just I cannot imagine.
But I just going into the courtroom trying to seek justice when you've already been through a very traumatic experience and knowing that you really don't have a fair shot here with these folks. And that's why we're going to work to unseat them.
Gods have a lot of anxiety about Texas as a state. Why is your quest and winning this?
We have anxiety to I've got okay, We've got hope then, and that's honestly what this is about. We are not hopeless and not helpless, And honestly, that's why I am very optimistic about this. When you had initiatives put on the ballot in Kansas, when you had initiatives put on the ballot in Kentucky, again, compositions very similar to our
own state. Folks overwhelmingly voted to protect reproductive freedoms, right, and so this is again a little bit different, but this is a statewide These are statewide races, and we are closer in the state to flipping the state statewide.
Than we are.
You know, they've just gerrymanagered so many of these districts, so it's really going to be hard to flip the House or the Senate. But again, or elect folks that are going to product reproductive freedom. And that's why very optimistic about the ability to flip these seats and elect folks that are going to protect reproductive freedoms.
These state Supreme Court justices, they will hear a lot of these cases, right, they could create exceptions if there were Democrats in them. Right.
They have acted.
Several legislators, even the author of Senate Bill eight, actually has asked the Texas Medical Board to issue guidance on what counts as a medical exception to the states abortion laws.
I mean, I think what.
We have the opportunity to do is not have people in these seats that have campaigned on protesting abortion clinics, and right, we can have people that have at least some shred of in frankly, integrity when looking at these cases. And that's just not what we have in these three folks right now.
Right, that makes sense? You know, working on the judiciary is something that Democrats really are late on. Right there is no democratic version of the federal society, so it's such an important way to target these abortion restrictions.
Frankly, people have not paid just a whole lot of attention to the Texas Supreme Court, but now in the rulings of these cases and seeing the everyday impact in their lives, I mean, they are coming to certainly know the importance of the court and we will work to educate them on that continually, as well as the backgrounds of these individuals and why it certainly would serve better. I should mention to your point, this is the first time in our state that we have had a concerted
effort to change the makeup of the court. So again, I think based on what we've seen in two other states, Kansas and Kentucky on this issue, Frankly, as people are recognizing that you know, could happen within their own families, and Lauren doesn't know this because it literally just happened last night. But we launched the pack yesterday and one by a friend of mine that I haven't been in contact with for a little bit, reached out. It essentially
had like the exact same case as Lauren. And so I just don't think folks are aware of how common this is, and frankly, how many people in our community and our families and you know, in our in our groups of friends, this can easily be an issue for and this is a non partisan issue.
I mean, I'm not sure, you know, Molly.
If you're going to take maybe ninety seconds to play folks the ad for folks, But this is a non partisan issue. It now, obviously the two main parties have different stances on this issue, but I think that's probably more reflective of their values. There's nothing inherent about you know, somebody being able to listen to their doctor, or having a say in their own fertility or you know, having a seine when they're going to.
Have more kids. There's nothing partisan about that.
So you know, we'll continue to talk about the issue because I think that's how we reached to most non folks.
And that's what I think is really shocking about where we are, is that it has become controversial to speak with your doctor and get the best advice for your situation and to get medical care for your situation across both parties. It doesn't matter because there's a one in four miscarriage bodies don't care about your party. That's just going to be what the math is. And these types of bands and these types of rulings impact miscarriage care too,
and so this hurts everybody. And you see this, you know in the case, it went from the you know, the doctors saying this is what we need. I just want to have permission, and then you saw that just get overturned.
And we should also say that like this, on the issue of medical exceptions, Texans are with us on this issue, right And I mean so the University of Houstons Hobby School of Public Affairs, they did a survey, they published it in the February of last year, and in that survey, eighty two percent of those that responded supported medical exceptions.
It's not even close. The other thing is that I think we sh be very clear about the point that Lauren just made, which is the impact that this is already having on our inadequate level of one healthcare period. But obgyns in our state, the number of folks that are not coming here after their training, the number of obgyns that are preferring to not practice here now as a result, I mean, that does not bode well again in our state. One in ten kids in this country
lives in Texas. As goes Texas, so goes this country.
And that's why this effort is also important because we see that many of the most frankly extremist policies, extremist laws are sometimes tested in Texas before they're exported, right, And so I think we've got a real opportunity to send a message serbly to these justices as well as every justice in this state, as well as those other states who are thinking about brankly playing around with these women's lives in a way that it frankly just makes it more dangerous to be a woman.
Just to show real quick what a horror show it is. One of my friends is that Iobi and Austin, and she said just last week she's never seen this many pregnant fourteen and fifteen year olds. So that's where we are heading if things don't start changing Jesus.
So if folks would visit, you know, find out pack dot com, please donate, you know, please share the launch video. And you know we look forward to to making sure that we've got Supreme Court justices are that are worthy.
Of our state.
Thank you, thank you, Thanks Sally.
Thank you.
A moment pecto Jesse Cannon my jump fast.
You know, as much as I'm amused by Kristen Cinema's outfits, I'm not going to miss her if she goes.
What are you seeing here? So it seems like Kirsten Cinema, Arizona's senior senator, may not be running again. And the reason why we think this comes from the Daily Beast. Perhaps you've heard of it that she spent two hundred and ten thousand dollars in private air travel private air travel. You'll remember that this is a woman who wasally part of the Green Party. She is now part of the I don't fly commercial party. Either way, it's good news
for Reuben Diego. For that it is our moment of fuckery. Do not fly private, do not waste taxpayer money. And for that that is our moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear 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.