The First (and Last?) Debate

If you're a regular Pod Save listener, you've heard us talk about the partisan right-wing echo chamber that enables conspiracy theories, nut jobs, and, oh yeah, Trump. The truth is, we should all get out of our bubbles a little more. That's why we have to recommend you add the Bullwork Podcast to your rotation. Tim Miller, my pal, and a former Republican operative turned anti-Trump crusader, interviews a wide range of guests from celebrities to politicians to everyone in between. It's non-tribal news, an opinion, not for Team Red or Team Blue, but for Team Democracy. He's also joined by other members of the Bullwork crew like Sarah Longwell, Will Salton,

former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, watching YouTube or listening and subscribe to the Bullwork Podcast, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm John Favreau. I'm Stacey Abrams. That's a little insulting. I'm John Loveot. Playing for the crowd here. I'm Tommy Vittor. I'm Dan Fifer. We have a great show for you tonight. Strix Grutney's Melissa Murray is here to break down all the latest Supreme Court decisions and non-decisions.

Our pal Amanda Lippman, founder of Run for Something is Here, is talking about yesterday's primaries in New York, and the amazing roster of progressive candidates running up and down the ballot this fall. And of course, we are incredibly lucky to be joined by Stacey Abrams in her first appearance as a Pod Save America guest host. What a dream. Thank you. Thanks for doing those. Thanks for having me. Huge cat. Huge cat.

Before we dig into the news, we are here in New York because it's publication week for our book Democracy or Else. How to Save America in ten easy steps. Raise your hand if you bought a copy. Thank you. The rest of you, what's going on? Raise your hand if you didn't. Raise your hand if you planned to, but he got you a little early. There you go. All right. We're trying to get this thing to the top of the bestseller list. Hey, expectations game on the bestseller list.

The top somewhere near the top. I don't know. I'm sorry to that. We're looking to do this not just to fill our insatiable hunger for public affirmation, which is even more insatiable for some of us than others. But because the more people who see this book and buy this book, the more money goes to vote Save America and twenty twenty four campaigns that are doing the real work to save democracy. So and luckily, Brooklyn's own Green Light bookstore is here in the lobby selling copies.

Stacy, you're a bestseller author of both political books and seven actual novels. You got any advice for us? Writing words down works. But I will say this. Having actually had a chance to read a bit of this, you should tell your friends because this is a book that lets you read fast and look really smart.

That's the best kind of book. I mean, if Dosey S. Get figured that out, he made it some time. That's what this does. It is a fantastic primer on what's happening, but it's an even better way for us to feel good about what we can get done. So I would just tell people that best pitch I've heard. That's incredible. I mean, Dosey S. Get's rolling over in his grave, but for us, good.

Thank you. Alright, let's get to the news. I don't know if you guys have heard. There is allegedly a presidential debate Thursday night in Stacey's hometown of Atlanta. Most important moment of the campaign so far. The current president versus the former president. Jacked up Joe versus Don the Con. Any match that nearly 60% of Americans claim they'll watch, even though 0% want to. And can you blame anyone because this is what happened the last time these two met up.

I look at New York. It's so sad what's happening in New York. And I'm not sure it can ever recover what they've done in New York. I want to make sure you are dead last in your last year. I want to make sure. President, can you let him finish sir? He doesn't know how to do that. He has you know, you pick a big surprise. A wrong guy the wrong night at the wrong time. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He was not a loser.

He was a patriot and the people left behind there were heroes. And I resent you talking about. I'm talking about my son, Bob Biden. You're talking about. I don't know. I know. I know. How do you want to call him? Give me a name? Give me a name. I'm proud of the question. Stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what. But why did you do it over the last 25 years? Because you are president screwing things up. You're the worst president America has ever had.

I'm not going to answer the question because the question is the question left. Who is your question? Who is hard to get any word in with this clown? The democracy is cool. Democracy in action folks. Who's excited for these two to give it another go? That clip makes me want to throw up. I'm also hearing Despacito. I don't totally know why. It just puts me in that headspace. Did everyone else get the pit in their stomach when they watch it? I got the pit every time.

So this debate will be 90 minutes, two commercial breaks, two moderators, CNN's Dana Bash and the man that Trump lovingly calls fake taper. There will be no opening statements, no pre-written notes, no talking to advisors during the break, two minute answers, one minute rebuttals. And when your time is up, your mic is muted. Yes, sure. Muted mics. Stacey, we have all talked probably too much at this point about our experiences preparing candidates for debates.

You're the first guest host to have actually participated in a debate as a candidate. Can you talk a little bit about what it was like, what your prep was like, and how much staffers like us annoyed the shit out of you? Given that some of them still work with me, no. I will say I was resistant to the rigor of debate prep in part because I don't like sounding stupid out loud in front of other people.

And part of debate prep is admitting all of the things you don't know to a group of people who are there purely to judge you. If I want to do that, I'll go and look at a mirror. But I will say part of what I learned about debate, and it was the best debate advice I ever got, it was that I wasn't debating the other person. It was an opportunity to talk to the people. And it's hard to ignore the person that you vehemently disagree with when they're standing that close.

But when you can focus on telling people what they need to know, it's a lot easier to do it. But debate prep sucks. It is over and over again. You're giving an answer, and much as you're probably thinking, shut up, slow it down, cut it off, and you're trying to count in your head to 30 seconds, 90 seconds. And did you remember that pithy phrase you were going to use that was going to make everyone tweet you the next day? And if not, you just pretend that you said it anyway. So there you go.

If you were in debate prep at Camp David, what would you be giving Joe Biden in terms of either advice or pharmaceuticals? He's debated a lot more than I have. He has acquitted himself well. I think I will say in grave seriousness, the biggest and most important piece of this debate is remembering that most people watching it already know what they want, what they need is to remember why they want it.

We have selective memory in this country, which is why we have to do this every four years, every two years, trying to remind people to vote. But the challenge and the opportunity that President Biden has is to tell people that this isn't about just what has happened. It's also about what can happen, not the, you know, sashes storm that is heading our way.

But he's put a lot on the table and I mean, I grew up in the South. So he's planted a lot. Now it's time to let those things grow. And I think if he talks to folks about what's possible and why he's the person we want tending the garden so I can completely butcher this metaphor.

That's the best way to get people to do this. But as much as that clip was interesting, watching the Fistikuffs is not going to be what changes people's minds, but what will get them motivated and engaged is the belief that if they go and do something, things will sprout and grow and life will get better. Yeah, that's good advice.

So Dan, a lot of smart, well-meaning organizations from the left of the center left have been releasing memos and polls about what they're hoping to hear and see from President Biden tomorrow night. I'm sure you've read every word, looked at all the numbers. What's most persuasive to you in terms of the message that Biden needs to drive at the debate?

Well, John, I have read every word of all the memos and you're not going to believe this, but just coincidentally, their advice for what Joe Biden should say at the debate lines up perfectly with the policy agenda of the organization. That's amazing. And what are the odds, right? It's very weird. Look, in all seriousness, there is good advice in there, particularly about how the President should talk about immigration and the economy.

But I think that the best way for the President to do this is to take it bigger, right, which is the story that people leave here, leave the debate with is that every single day Joe Biden wakes up, he's thinking about you, he's fighting for you. What does Donald Trump do? Thinks about himself. Right, he's running for President to avoid going jail, give himself a giant tax cut, go back in power so we can exact vengeance on his enemies. He's not thinking about you.

If he gets reelected, there's going to be no one in the White House who's fighting for you, right, and that is the right message because that is the most obviously an essentially true message. Joe Biden superpowers his empathy. The most obvious thing about Donald Trump is these narcissists who cares only about himself, right? What is so interesting about him is that he is a grievance politician, but the grievances are all personal, right? It's people who wronged him.

Not people who wronged you, right? People who took your job away, shipped your job overseas is about the deep state, and the New York Times, and the CNN, and all the people who have to have it, and that is absolutely true. Now, this part is very hard for people like us who have spent over a decade now screaming about how the press obsesses over optics. But what Joe Biden says is the debate is less important than how he says it.

Right, it is going to be, does he come off as forceful, strong, energetic? Does he answer the questions of, according to the New York Times, CNAPOL, that was released, hopefully, three hours before the spot cast? Three quarters of the country who think he's too old for the job? Right, is he going to address that? Because that, to me, is the whole kitten-cubuttle. That's what this is about.

This is why the Biden campaign wanted this debate this early on this day, because they thought this was their single best opportunity to address that. And so once they address that, that opens up everything else. Right, it makes people listen to him more on the economy. It makes people trust him more to protect them and keep them safe. Well, trust them more to keep the border secure, or to pass legislation like conference immigration reform. Because you have to do that.

And so you're going to get the right message out, but how he delivers that message is going to be more important than anything else. Yeah. And what people are like waking up worried about is not necessarily Joe Biden's age. They're worried about cost of living affordability. People are saying they were ready immigration. They're worried about abortion access. They're worried about democracy. And what they're looking for from Biden is that he is strong enough that he can do something about this.

And then that's where the age issue, I think, comes in. And so I do think like a lot of strong value statements up when he's up there is going to be like really important to let people know he's going to fight for them. And when it comes to the economy, like really digging in on, here's what I have done. It's a down payment on what I want to do for the next four years. And if you give me another chance, we'll keep working in this direction.

If you go with this guy, he only cares about himself and he's going to take us back. The worst mistake the president can make of this debate is to turn this into a defensive as record over the last four years. Just can't do it. Because what you're doing, and I get it, right? This is the mistake every incumbent makes. It's the mistake Barack Obama made in that first debate with Mitt Romney in 2012. Is you're proud of what you did. You're not getting enough credit.

This other guy across the age of him is lying about what you did. And so you want to defend it. You want to do that. But when you do that as the incumbent, you're accepting the premise that your opponent wants, which is this is a referendum on the past. So you got to make it about the future. You can mention the things you did, but as proof positive that you're going to do these things in the future.

Because the best comparison with Trump is not the economy during Trump's presidency and the economy now. It's what they're going to do the economy over the next four years. And Donald Trump is going to cut taxes to the rich people. He's going to pay for it by cutting social security and Medicare, and he's going to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Like that's his agenda. Like go future agenda versus future agenda is a good place for the president to bathe.

Tommy, you weirdly decided to rewatch the first Biden Trump debate from 2020. You guys did too. Without being asked. Well, Tommy and I flew here on Sunday. Our flight was delayed five hours. So we spent the day at LAX. We did. We finally got on the plane. And it was pretty late. And Tommy spent the flight watching the first debate. It was a good time. And then now we all felt bad. So we all started watching it today. And let me tell you, it's not a fun watch.

Tommy, what were your takeaways from that undoubtedly enjoyable experience? Yes, we had a great time on the plane. Biggest takeaway, unfortunately, is an optics one, which is Joe Biden looked a lot younger. And I know no one wants to hear that, but he looked younger and he sounded younger.

And so I totally agree with the data saying that there is a threshold question about his age that he has to answer that we saw in the New York Times Bowl, where 68% of voters were concerned about his age and fitness to do the job. So I think what he says might be, at some point, to the debate less important than how he says it or the vigor with which he sort of prosecutes the case.

The flip side of that was Trump was so much angrier and redder faced and angrier that he was so enraged in that moment. And I had almost forgotten how just caustic and nasty he was. And of course, we did later learn that he had COVID and he wound up in the hospital. So I guess on some level it's like kind of an impressive performance, you know? To get out there and just rage for 90 minutes with COVID. He played through it. He's like Michael Jordan in that game, the one fact about sports I know.

That was good, the flu game. Yeah, the flu game. Jordan flu game. It was like the flu game. Good for you. And then poor Chris Wallace was just a drunk guy at a bar holding on to the mechanical bull like, you agreed to the rules. But so we'll see how this goes. I mean, the takeaway was, Trump is going to attack from the very first second until the last second.

So you have to be prepared for that, but also Perry and respond and get him on defense and get that version of Trump, this angry, raging, red faced man back on that stage. I don't have, I don't think he has learned discipline in the last couple of years, but we've seen the more disciplined campaign so it is a concern. I think by nest to look energetic, as we discussed, he has to be sharp on the top of things.

And then the one thing it really did make me rethink was this question about the muted mics when they're not speaking and the impact. Because I do think muting their mics when the other is speaking is good for the republic. Because I think most people watch a debate like that and they shout over each other. And the response is not to blame one or the other. It's just to be like politics is awful. Like I'm changed, the ESPN is a channel away, like what are we doing here?

But I do worry that a muted mic could save Trump from himself and the ugliest side of him coming out. So it made me a little anxious about that. Yeah, because I remember watching that first debate and when they were yelling at each other, it was like, oh, this is just bad. To Stacey's earlier point about the most important thing you do is talk directly to the people, I do think to the extent that Biden shows anger or passion, you always want it to be anger on behalf of the American people.

Passion on behalf of the American people and not anger at Trump. Like when Trump tries to kneel him in a personal way, who can let that stuff go? When Trump tries to say something that you can then come back and be like, look, in 2020, you tried to throw people's votes away. You took the right to decide women's health care away from them. You tried to take 20 million people's health care away from them. Like get angry about things that affect people.

Don't get angry about whatever Donald Trump says about. You graduated last in your class, which he seemed really obsessed with in that first debate. Love it. One topic DC is yapping about ahead of the debate has to do with fact checking. CNN's political director said that the debate is, quote, not the ideal arena for live fact checking. And that Dana and Jake will be, quote, facilitating the debate between these candidates. They will not be participants in that debate.

There are some reports that this is annoyed the Biden camp. Trump then posted that nobody's as loose with the truth as Crook-a-Jo and accused him of lying about his golf handicap. What do you make of this? How much of any fact checking should the moderators do? Yeah, no, look, we're a couple of fact checks away from having this whole thing locked up. Get a couple more Pinocchio's out there. You can all get a good night's sleep. So, yeah, I saw these stories and look, I love working the rafts.

Let's work the rafts. Great. But we were just talking about what Joe Biden has to do. Joe Biden has to defy right wing caricatures of his performance, assuage people's concerns about his age while at the same time reminding people of everything they dislike about Trump as a narcissist and how extremious. The moderators can't do that. The moderators can't help him do either of those things only Joe Biden can do that.

And that would be true if the moderators weren't Jake Tapper and Dana Bash who are, I think, to reporters who are going to follow up, they're not going to just roll over. But we've seen them interview both of these people in the past and not only that, how does Joe Biden do both assuage people's concerns about his age and remind people of the threat Trump poses? By beating Trump in a debate, that's how he does it.

He will prove that he is up for the job by proving that Trump is not up for the job. And so I am less concerned about whether or not Dana Bash has actually inflation is technically down or Jake Tapper jumps in and says actually murder rates were higher in 2020. Then I am about any circumstance in which Joe Biden is just standing there and all of a sudden Jake is arguing with Trump and then Dana Bash comes down with a fucking folding chair on top of Trump's head.

And Joe Biden is just an observer. Like I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in that. Yeah. I love it. What are you talking about? I'm talking to myself into it. More broadly, like, there's a lot of reasons to be concerned about misinformation about Joe Biden's age, about the ways in which the media kind of has normalized Trump. But man, this debate is about Joe Biden answering the concerns that Americans have.

And really, I think any conversation about the moderators is a such a. Stacy, if the moderators don't fact check Trump, how much fact checking do you think Joe Biden should do? He should only fact check as a way to talk about the future. It's this is what should actually be understood. This is how we talk about it. Rule number one and misinformation is you don't repeat the lie.

And so using the lie as a way to show his strength, to show his future vision, to avoid Dana getting up with the chair, those are all. He could be doing a lot of services both for America and for CNN by using it as a point of entry to a larger conversation so that people see what possibilities look like. And to the point about being reminded of just how angry Trump is, not taking the bait, ticks him off more than almost anything else.

And so being unwilling to take the bait and instead being the grown up on the stage, which is what he is, that's the best way to fact check without having to call the question. I think that's so important because there is, and I think Biden fell into this and that last debate with the wrong guy, wrong time, wrong place. That is a version of strength, right? But what Biden needs to be a strong and steady.

People think Trump is strong. They may view that strength in a malicious way as many of us do and should, but he comes off as strong. It's a very long well, our friend who's on the spot, says he gives off raving lunatic energy. And so that becomes a quote of a strong. So Biden doesn't show strength by repeatedly punching Trump in the face, literally or figuratively, but by being strong in their jack-and-ass responses, but also seeming steady.

Because that's the difference between the two is that that's how Biden won was Trump, like you asked that debate and it's a reminder of just how chaotic and erratic and alarming Trump is. And that was particularly alarming at a time of national crisis, like we were going through in the pandemic at the time. And so Biden, and people looked at Biden and they said, that is a steady hand on the wheel in a dangerous time. And Biden has to show that because that's been lost over the last four years.

I mean, I think it's machismo versus maturity. Yes, that's right. We need to see maturity and that lets him lean into age because you get maturity from someone who's been here long enough to know what's worth fighting about and what's not. We got a whole lot of maturity on our side. Yeah, we got maturity. Yeah, we got maturity up the egg. We got so much maturity.

I think the where it gets a little weird for Jake and Dana is not like actually Mr. Former President, 27 NATO countries paid 2% of GDP for defense. You know, it's like not shit. It's like, would you cheer? No, it's like, no, actually Mr. President, you didn't win the 2020 election. And your own attorney general said there wasn't sufficient voter fraud to impact the outcome in any way.

Like those are the kind of threshold, like the sky is blue, the sky is red kind of reality based questions where I wonder if they start to feel like they need to start. Yeah, I mean, we're talking about this like it's a regular presidential debate. But one of the candidates is a convicted felon who tried to overturn the last election and then incited a violent instruction in the Capitol. So it's just like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's the elephant in the room.

Yeah, but like, right now, if you look at swing state polls, right, Donald Trump is currently leading Joe Biden is losing. Joe Biden needs to change something at this debate. If we come out of this debate and it's a story about how Donald Trump and Jake Tapper were mixing it up, well, that's a problem. And I don't, like, I think just as much as like whatever, I don't think Jake Tapper, Dana Bache, want to be the story out of this debate.

But I at the same time, I expect one way they will avoid any question about being biased is they're not going to go easy on Donald Trump. They're going to go really hard on both of them, right? Like everyone's talking a lot about what Jake and Dana are going to do with Trump. Like one of the ways Joe Biden is going to have to, he's going to get some pretty hard questions from the moderators too. And that's going to be that's going to be part of his test.

The story that comes out matters a lot, right? Yeah. Because I know 60% of voters that are going to watch the debate. That would be 90 million people. Zero chance. So, you know, if you pull people to ask them if you're going to go to Jim this week, they also say yes. So they said the country. Half the country is foolish. That's right. But so, you know, that Biden debate that we just saw 70 million people endured that.

Now, that's a time in which that was a general election debate in October to time in which you really have to do that. You really had no other option. It's not like you're choosing between the debate and going out to Dana with your friends. You're going to a baseball game, right? You were either watching that or watching something else, right? In that same poll where 60% of people said they'd watch it, only 41% of, quote unquote, swing voters said they were going to watch it.

And so the people we need most are probably not going to watch it. So they're just going to pick up the vibes off the debate. And if the vibe is God that was fucking awful, these guys yielded each other for 90 minutes, that doesn't change the dynamics of the race, right? If it is Trump's trying to asshole, that does help a little bit. But the one you really want is Biden was better than I thought. Yep. That's what you want people talking about, right?

And then when people see the clips, because the real spin war is going to be on TikTok after the debate's over, you want the clips to jive. Like, that's what I'll go viral is a bunch of people going, Biden was pretty good. I don't agree with them everything, but he was pretty good. Well, I am like this. You want a hot guy who normally makes pottery to be like, I actually watched the debate, and I was pretty surprised.

Now, you want to one of the clip guys, like Aaron Rupar being like, I can't believe Maria Barra-Romo said this, and you click the clip, and you're totally underwhelmed by the results. But yeah, you got to frame it. You got to frame it. Question for the group before we move on. The president of CNN called you, and said that Jake was having a dental emergency, and you had to be the fill-in moderator. What is the number one question you're asking Donald Trump?

Jake is ripping that tooth out with his bare hands. Remember the scene in Castaway where he put the figure skid against his tooth? And he banged it out of his face with a rock? He's like, cut me. Cut me. Cut me, Mac. Anyone got a question? It's a rocket show. None that don't have curse words in them. I'm... I... Don't challenge her to swear. I'm the daughter of not one, but two pastors. If I curse, I have to say, bless your heart when I'm done.

No, I mean, I think it's a question about... I don't know, because he's gonna lie. Maybe you just ask him how old he is, see if he can get that one right. Don't you want to ask, like, basic, sometimes, how does a bill become a law? That... No, no, no. How many states are there? What are the three branches of government? Where is Florida? Explain the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Oh, that's a good one.

Look, I wanted to ask this question because we know tomorrow morning when this podcast comes out, Jake and Dan are gonna be listening. Yeah, what about... They are the first thing they do, positive American. But how are you really? You know, like, see if you can get it open up. What do you see hope? What do you see hope? Drake or Kendrick? Love it to you, have one? You know, I was thinking about this question.

I really don't... I feel like the questions we actually want him to answer are also obvious, right? Because the truth is obvious. That's, I think, the challenge of being in this time, which is that the truth is blitheringly obvious to all of us. And it feels like our job is to go out there and say something that we believe is completely obvious to a country that is for some reason inexplicably, unavoidably, 50-50, no matter what fucking happens.

And so it's like, really the question, it's like, you end up at the place where you're like, how fucking, how do you fucking give your mother? How could you? And that doesn't do anything for anybody. What's the point? But I like questions though. I do think that there have been moments with Trump too, where you ask a question like, you know, we're so accustomed to it now. Like, the Trump world view is everything he's ever done is perfect.

And when he's present and everything's great and when he's not, everything's shit and that flips, that's a switch that flips the day he wins or loses. And like, what's your biggest mistake? Right? Like, what do you think he got most wrong when you were president? Like, what's your biggest regret? Well, same Mike Pence. Yeah. Ooh. Good answer. But that's interesting. Right?

But I remember early on, Hugh Hewitt, love its friends, conservative video host, asked President Trump, then candidate Trump, what is the nuclear triad? Which is like, the three means of distributing nuclear weapons, there's subs, there's nuclear silos, and there's bombers. And Trump clearly didn't know the answer. Unlike all of us. And just fudged his way through it. But Hugh is a right-wing hack who worked for Richard Nixon and I was a radio show, so we just kind of let it pass.

But like, something like that could just catch him on the basics of government. Yeah. He's very good at not answering questions. Yeah. Yeah. Like, he's greatest political skill, is that he has no capacity for shaving his body. And so, which is like, any other normal person would get that question and they would feel more and more uncomfortable as they were like trying to bullshit their way through it. It would be patly obvious. He does like, bulls through it.

Well, that's, I think that's why you can't, it can't be a question that he's just going to like lie through. Like, I want him to, I would ask him, all right, you have said before that you, this is kind of goes to the mic, Penn State. You said before that you hire the best people. But more than it doesn't, of your most senior aides last time you were president, are not supporting you.

Including multiple defense secretaries, multiple national security advisors, your vice president, multiple White House chiefs of staff. And they have said about you that you are a threat to democracy, that you are a danger to America, that you are a narcissistic moron. How can the American people trust you to lead this country if the people that you hired who worked closest with you aren't supporting you? I bet he gets that.

That's a good question. You said, you had a great question just in your back fucking pocket. You said that. He also, he was so good. I think I was a fucking contest. I just wanted to have a, that was really good. I think he was really good. Did Chris Wallace ask him that question? Chris Wallace? Yeah. When? On a faxing Sunday, I think. Oh yeah, recently.

When did he do an interview with, oh, oh, when does the last time he, I was wondering this, because like, this is the first time that Donald Trump has submitted himself to questions from someone who is not a, like, right wing, like a Newsmax person, like, when did he do Chris Wallace? Well, that was a long time ago, but that was years ago. That was years ago. Caitlin Collins, I think, was probably on CNN, was probably the last. I do. It is injury, I do.

Or the 90 minute time magazine or view that he did. Which is why I was alive TV. Yeah. I didn't think that, like, you know, we talk a lot about, oh, incumbent presidents, you know, they're not used to being questioned. This is a rare time. We have two incumbent presidents who are going to face kind of tough questions in a way neither of them are particularly used to. I also think Trump, too, like, if you ask him a question, he knows is meant to throw him off guard.

He's very kind of good at avoiding it. But actually, some of the most damaging things he's ever said, like, I think there should be some punishment for the woman. Right? Those are questions that didn't seem dangerous. Right? And he tried to bullshit his way through because he didn't know the answer and didn't know how fraught it was. So that's sometimes the most interesting space to get, Trump. Yeah. Give me your thoughts on tax policy, sir.

Yes, I think like, catch it, I'm being dumb is fine, but I also because he that'll happen. But I do think like some of the questions are like, hey, are we all crazy here? He tried to overturn the election. All these people, like, imagine if all of Joe Biden's senior officials were like, absolutely not the guys that threat to democracy. What are we doing here? Just like questions like that, I think are in the New York Times, Paul. Once again, release. I know.

Six percent of likely voters think the Donald Trump should be president and in prison. Eight. It was eight. That's registered. It's six and likely. I said that, I saw that. It's like, eight, this is he want to be really sad. Eight percent of the supporters think he should go to jail. It's tough. It's tough. Okay. Enough of that. It's going to be a great debate tomorrow night. Wonderful. It's going to be a... We'll see you on the other side. It's going to be a pageant of democracy.

But before we let Stacy go, she has generously agreed to play a game with some spicy pros that will seem very familiar to you. And I don't know anything about this. Stacy. Yes, John. I don't know if you know this, but Tommy and I and John sort of helped a little. We wrote a book. I've heard tell. It's called Democracy or Else. It dropped Tuesday and it's available at find bookstores everywhere, including here at this show and it hits the best sellers list, maybe airports.

You of course are not just a person who is helping to change the politics of Georgia while advocating for voting rights and democracy. You are also an author of multiple novels which you wrote under your pseudonym, JK Rowling. I read them all on the plane. It's Selina Montgomery, which is a beautiful name. I really like it. Thank you. I read them all on the plane here and boy are my arms tired.

So we thought we'd make voting rights sexy in a segment we're calling Kiss and Tell people to register. And it's very simple. Okay. I would just love if you could help our audience get a primer on the stakes around voting and democracy in this election. So John, Tommy and Dan are each going to ask you a question about it. Okay. That's all there is to it. I do not believe you. No, that really is. They're just going to ask you a question and that's all there is to it.

Dan, you're going to kick us off. Oh, no. Excellent. Here is your question for Stacy. Why don't you kick it off and please read it as written. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Hi, Stacy. It's me, Dan Fyfer. Hi, Dan. I lend a certain credibility to this whole operation. It's sort of a spectrum. But love it on one end and me on the other. Anywho. Hey, slow down. Hey, don't rush through it. Anywho. Anywho. In exchange in one of your novels, reminded me of the importance of mail-in voting.

Hunger raised in cider. Demanding to be sated. But it would mean nothing if you didn't understand. You're all ever wanted, she said. Ethan froze, stunned and humbled. He kissed her then. Slowly, tenderly. A benediction. And to beginning. Murmuring into the night. I've only ever been yours. Republicans in Nevada are suing to block the counterfeit mail ballots. That arrive after election day. There are efforts to restrict voting across the country.

In the hope of the Supreme Court will issue bed addictions for their policies. I see what you did there. But it is the hunger for democracy among voters enough to overcome these restrictions. Well, given that as a line from hidden sins. What we know. What we know is that the secret to their success was revealing to the world what was happening. So number one, the way we protect democracy and we ensure access is by pushing hard for the world to see what Nevada has been and what it could be.

Because Mars was a story of redemption. And we can redeem ourselves in Nevada in 2022 by making sure that the voters of Nevada believe they're not only is they're right to vote sacred. But it has been a addiction to put a stamp on that ballot and send it in so it can't. And John, John has a question for you as well. And John, I hate you. Okay. Hi, Stacey. It's me. Podcasting's John Favreau.

Poll show a lot of voters, especially voters who are less engaged and less likely to vote are skeptical of democracy itself, whether it can deliver that it's worth their time. Which reminded me of how much we admire your leadership and wisdom. Do we take for granted that people understand why a democratic system is best? How do you address that cynicism? He just got a nice one. What? I was reading it like, oh no. I don't think we take it for granted.

I think it depends on the state you live in literally. We have 50 different democracies. If you're in Oregon or in California, congratulations are Washington state. Yay. If you're in Georgia, God bless you because the governor won't. If you're in Florida or Texas, they're trying their best to stop you. So I think our opportunity is to remember that not everyone has the same democracy that you do, even though we live in the United States.

And so a lot of the work that we do, a lot of the work that vote save America does, that fair fight does, the work that gets done is about trying to ensure that for as many people as possible, we can start to take for granted how democracy should work. But until we get there, we've got to do the work on our, you know, for everyone who doesn't have a chance to stand up. Yeah. And while I'm talking about fair fight, make sure you check out fairfight.com slash LFGV. F stands for Freakin.

Let's freaking go vote. So go to fairfight.com LFGV, which is being done in partnership with vote save America because we can get this done. And I believe Tommy has a question for you. I, Tommy, I am sorry. Okay. Hi, Stacy, Tommy Vittor here. And I turn red at the slightest provocation. Hold for effect. I was thinking about the franchise while reading this passage in the novel Hidden Sins. Heats like an inferno, blazed in his veins.

It's amended that he slide his arms around her, that he trail his hand along her spine to sink into the silver curls at her nape. He wanted to pull away to resist the skeins. Thank you for the parenthetical there. That would bind his heart to her again, but he forgotten that she tasted of honeyed sweetness. Thanks. We are trying to resist the skeins of partisan gerrymandering and the purging of voter rolls.

But for Republicans, the proximity to choosing their voters rather than the other way around is just too sweet. How do we fight for democracy when it feels like the democracy itself is stacked against us? Thank you. We fight for democracy by remembering that we're entitled to it. The Constitution does not give us the right to vote, but our citizenship gives us the responsibility to demand the vote.

And so part of the effectiveness of gerrymandering is that it tries to convince us that our votes don't matter because we don't live in the right zip code or on the right side of the line. My response is that we do our best to erase those lines. We do that by making sure that people who don't, who, who, who, who are unfortunately drawn out of power, understand that there are other ways to gain that power. And we don't use voting as the only thing. It is one of the tools in the toolbox.

And just as the curls of the nape of Mara's head that curled around her fingers as he pulled her closer, we can too pull our country closer together. Amazing. So just so every thank you so much, Stacy. Thank you for having me. So everybody here knows we'll have more to say about it soon, but there is a very exciting project from Stacy Abrams and crooked media coming your way soon. But I won't kiss until. Stacy Abrams everybody. Thank you guys. The one and only.

Our guest tonight is the co-founder of Run for Something. And I'm. Thank you. The first time I've ever seen a new and amazing organization is recruited and trained thousands of progressive candidates all around this country to run for office up and down the ballot. She is one of the most inspiring and smartest people in Democratic politics. Please welcome to the stage of Brooklyn Zone. Amanda Litman. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me.

I promise not to make you read anything from Stacy's books. I've read a few of them. They're very good. While the presidential race is going to come down to traditional battlegrounds, it's like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, the race for control of the House of Representatives is a come down to this state right here, New York. Now, last night was a primary election here. We had a very divisive primary in coming to ball, a ballman lost. But going forward, this is going to be where it happens.

We have two Republicans in the state, the Joe Biden one, a bunch of really purple districts. What is your view of what's going to happen in the state? And can the party unite in time to take advantage of a bunch of contested, targeted, winnable house races in a very blue state in the presidential year? I think we're going to have to. New York is going to be a battleground this year, which is a little unfamiliar for us, New Yorkers, in most elections.

But we have seen what New Yorkers can do when it comes to going out to Pennsylvania and knocking doors when it comes to going down to Virginia and knocking doors when it counts. And I believe that New Yorkers can understand this is our time to shine. We can show up when it counts. We always do.

And there are some really competitive local elections that are going to be happening this year all across the state, including in some of these competitive house districts that are going to make the difference too. Are there any political races anywhere on the ballot here in New York that you're watching with particular interest? Do you think it was inspiring candidates, interesting, important races?

Well, run for something just had a bunch of candidates up on the ballot yesterday that I'm really excited about. We helped Claire Valdez win a union organizer, take a seat in the state assembly, up in Albany, Gabriella Romero. We want to see a very progressive, incredible young woman in a very competitive race. And I think there's going to be some really exciting races out on Long Island this year. So stay tuned. People often think that it is the presidential race that drives turnout.

And that was sort of in the premise of my question that this is a presidential year here in New York. But run for something thinks it's the opposite. You talk about something that's called reverse co-tails where local elections can actually drive turnout for the top of the ticket. Do you explain your theory and how it's impacted recent elections? So traditionally, people understand that the presidential candidate has co-tails.

The people show up to vote for Biden or against Trump and then also fill out the rest of the ballot. What run for something as you know, actually proved this out with some research back in 2020 is that contesting local elections, especially state-ledges, city council, school board, can increase turnout for the entire ticket to the tune of anywhere between 0.3 and 2.3 percent within that district, which can be the margin of victory for, say, Biden in Wisconsin or Arizona or Georgia.

Now, think about this a little bit. Your local candidates, your state-ledged candidate, your city council candidate is out there knocking doors, talking to voters. Hey, I'm Amanda. I want to talk to you about your property taxes or the book bans they're pushing or how we can fight for abortion access here in this state. You know them. You can yell at them directly if you want, which is kind of fun.

You can really build a personal relationship. It's like a field organizer with a ton of skin in the game. And more recently, we actually tested this out with young voters in particular. We fielded a question in a poll. We asked young voters in battleground states if there was a young, diverse, progressive, running for state or local office near you or in your area, how would that affect your likelihood to vote? 61 percent of young Democrats said it would make them more likely to show up.

That's huge. Especially in a year where let's be honest, a lot of young people, especially young voters of color, not particularly psyched to show up for Biden. So this is a tool in our toolbox. I was going to ask that because this is, you know, I think obviously reverse co-tails works all the time, particularly in, you know, red or parts of the state where the Democrats may not run all the time or there's not a competitive congressional race.

So, you know, you're not seeing ads to turn out, but maybe you're turning out for your local school board, or as you say, your city council or Alderman or local election official, I know, is something you guys focused a lot on. But this year in particular, it feels like with so many people being unhappy with the choice at the top of the ticket for whatever reason that this would be the most important, right?

You know, we just had a small gathering to talk about some of the work run for something does around school board races. And Luis As Santos, who's a member of the Miami-Dade School Board, who's a target for Ronda Santas, who's had proud boys like show up at her campaign events, who's been harassed, and also has done incredible things for Miami-Dade, bringing electric school buses down there, working for free lunch for kids.

She was telling us how she goes and knocks doors and she'll talk to voters and she'll be like, well, are you going to vote this fall? And they're like, no, psych, not interested. And they'll say, well, let me talk to you about what I've done for your kids. We don't even have to talk about Biden. We don't have to talk about Trump. Let's talk about what I've done for your kids and for our community.

They have a conversation. Will you show up and vote for me? And she's able to get them to say yes. And that, times a thousand, is what's going to win for democracy this fall. Right, because people, they turn out, they're unlikely to leave the first question blank, right?

It's just not really what people do. Sometimes people leave the down ballot blank, but what we're doing with the thousands of run for something candidates across the country this year, that we've recruited, and the hundreds that we're endorsing, is giving people more invitations, more reasons to show up. They'll probably do the rest of the ballot. Most of them, because most of them are Democrats. They don't want Trump. They're just like not super psyched about everything else.

In 2022, you guys spent a lot of time talking about electing the candidates at the local level who are going to help certify the elections, right? That in some cases, it's the recorder of deeds, right? Could you just talk a little bit about that effort? How are you doing in 2024? And maybe some of it, because we know when you talk local issues, right? You think local candidate school board, potholes, local excise taxes, right?

But how local candidates affect, like some of the national issues we think about, like education, abortion, healthcare, that sort of stuff. Okay, so we've brought this program, Clark work, because I love a good rhyme. And the idea is that we should elect pro-democracy leaders who actually oversee elections. That is a crazy idea. It's something Steve Vanan fundamentally disagrees with and has been running massive campaigns to recruit against.

We have been doing this now for about two and a half years intentionally. We've gotten more than 500 folks to run for pro-democracy positions that actually oversee elections. My favorite example here. So in 2023, we sent a bunch of text messages out in Pennsylvania saying, hey, you thought about running for county commission, because county commissions among their many other powers oversee the election decide where polling places are and how the election is certified.

One of the people we texted was a pastor in Doff in County, Pennsylvania named Justin Douglas. Justin had been fired from his congregation for being too welcoming to LGBTQ congregants. He had been working with the unhoused community in the area. And he was like, I don't know if I'm the right person for this, but I'll have a conversation with you.

Our Pennsylvania State Director and our team there worked with him to get him to yes, and then to help him run this incredible campaign for county commission in Doff and County, which is around Harrisburg. He was outspent 10 to 1. He was running against a Republican who had all the money and all the support and all the institutions. And Justin was leaving flyers on people's doors. I was like, the mayor in JAWS 1 is still the mayor in JAWS 2 local elections matter.

One of the things in his campaign. That's so funny. He's great. One of the things in his campaign besides democracy was that a number of prisoners had died in residents at the county jail system that the county commission oversaw. And he made that a core part of his campaign. Justin won by just about 150 votes.

Justin flipped control of the county commission for the first time since the early 1900s and over 100 years. One of the first things Justin did was expand the number of ballot drop boxes in Doff and County. Justin is making sure that ballots are available in Spanish and Nepalese and booties. He's ensuring that the anti-democracy and Republican incumbent he beat has no control over whether the election is certified.

Justin and the county commissioners that he is part of are going to make sure that Joe Biden is able to fairly win the election in Pennsylvania this year and win the White House. When run for something started in 2017 right after Trump won, you were became a vehicle for this tremendous sense of activism among people like what can I do? And you facilitated people who were looking for something to do to run for office at all levels. And there was a huge burst of people who wanted to do it.

In the ensuing years, right, we, you know, especially since 2020, there has been this sense that a lot of people have disengaged from politics. Either they thought Trump is gone and I'm exhausted and I can take a break, he's back or there maybe just burned out cynical whatever else. What's it been like trying to get people to run for office this year in this environment? Would you believe that we have built a list of almost 160,000 young people in all 50 states who want to run for office?

It is as far as we know the largest candidate pipeline of the Democratic Party. Thousands of people have signed up just in the last few months. They believe we're going to still have elections in 2025 and they want to be on the ballot when we do. That's amazing. You know, a lot of the candidates work with their young candidates, right? You've really focused on young progressive candidates.

All of the polling of the polling, we believe suggests that one of the challenges for the Democratic Party right now are young voters. Progressives, but also young voters writ large. What advice do you have for Democratic candidates running anywhere about how they can bring Democratic voters back into the fold? Young voters back into the fold. Talk about the things young voters care about. It really, in many ways, is that simple housing?

Young people disproportionately feel the impact of the cost of housing, especially because young people are renters and we do not have enough renters in elected office. So when we have conversations about housing, it's a lot of landlords. Abortion access. You know, I'm still technically a young voter. I'm six months pregnant. Reproductive health is on my mind. Congratulations. Mid-October due date. It's going to be crying in my house either way.

Think about the things that are really affecting young people now. Even here in New York, public transit. Go on a whole rant about congestion pricing, but boy, Kathy Hoke was making it real hard. In many ways, young voters really want to hear politicians and party talk to us about the things that directly affect our quality of life. Which is not to say that democracy isn't part of that. It absolutely is. It's not to say that restoring the soul of America is part of that too.

But for most young people, they just want someone to tell them, like, I can fix the things that are bothering you. I can give you hope. I can show you that there is a path to a better community and a better place to live. So I local candidates can really drive us.

Is that the granularity? Is there a sense that for a lot of young voters, maybe for a lot of voters, the democracy message may sometimes ring hollow because it becomes an endorsement of a political system that a lot of young people felt has not worked for them? Yeah, you know, you think about someone who's 18 in 2024, they've never known a political environment without Trump. They've never known a democracy that felt like it was reflective or representative of us.

I think it's one of the reasons why we've seen young voters or young candidates be such powerful drivers for young voters. It's both like practical tangible. Oh, this is someone who, when I say I'm really pissed about XYZ issue is going to personally understand it because they have dealt with it.

But also this is someone my age, my cohort, like, maybe I play basketball at the gym with them. Maybe, you know, our kids play soccer together, whatever it might be, who cares enough and believes enough in the possibility here. And I think it's one of the best things about this work is it is so optimistic and so hopeful to see young people who don't believe the system is broken.

Okay, John John and Tywin, not the only ones with book news. You have an upcoming book with us for Crooked Media Reads. It still in the works. Super not done, yes. I hope my editor is not here. Yes, in this book, you're exploring generational leadership shifts. Can you give us a little preview of what you'll be covering in the book? You know, I'm pretty, pretty behind, but I am writing a little bit about what it looks like to be the boss whose employees follow you on Instagram.

Or, you know, take me for an example to try and take maternity leave as the boss or like run for something does believe that work life balance is really important and want to implement as we have a four day work week and actually put that into practice. You know, when I say like, you know what a boomer leader, no offense to all the boomers, although my girls will live live in the water wars. So a little offense. But when I say like my boss is such a boomer, you kind of know what that means.

What I'm trying to do is define what it looks like when you say my boss is such a millennial and my boss is such a Gen Z. So coming to you next May, please buy copies. All right, finally before we go. I mean, you've been on our podcast many times, crooked media and potsy mercury huge fans have run for something. I found what you guys started in 2017 and what you've done to be incredibly smart and incredibly impactful.

It is exactly what the Democratic Party has needed in the pre Trump era. So many times Republicans were winning races because there was not a Democrat to run against them because we had no operation within our party to recruit and train people. And the point of entry for people who said I want to run for office, they didn't know who to call who were what website to go to Amanda and our co founders built this organization and made it.

I've been making a gigantic difference. And so I want to give you the opportunity to tell the people in this room and listening. Not in this room. How they can help support your work because no matter what happens in November. Good outcome, unthinkable outcome. We need to continue to get young progressive people running for office up and down that ballot because that's an action oration in the Democratic Party. So how can they help run for something?

Run for something.net slash donate $1 $5 $5 million. I will take it all. And I say that somewhat jokingly, but also anyone who's been sort of, you know, to your point earlier existing in the political space right now is tired. And we are feeling that on the fundraiser inside too. So if you believe in this work and you believe that building power sustainable power in all 50 states at the local level matters. Make a donation.

And if you are listening or you're here in the room and you're like, huh, you know, I really would like to do something about housing or childcare or abortion access or criminal justice form or whatever issue it is. Run for what.net. Look up what offices are available for you to run for next year or the year after.

We would love to help you because I believe that democracy is going to win this fall and we're going to get a lot of elections next year. And even when Trump is far gone, we're going to have all his little copycats all across the country who are running for school board and city council and state ledge. That we have to beat to and you either listening or here can be a part of that. Please give it up for Amanda let me thank you so much.

When we come back, Strix Crutney's Melissa Murray is going to join us for some more news. Please welcome NYU Law Professor and co-host of Strix Crutney, our pal Melissa Murray. A standing ovation for the people at home. So today was a day like so many others in June where sickos like us maniacally refreshed our feeds at 10 a.m. Eastern, 7 a.m. Pacific in anticipation of Supreme Court decisions that usually make us angry when they come and angry when they don't come.

Wednesday morning was slightly different and that the court rejected a challenge from Republicans in Missouri that would have prevented the federal government from simply asking social media companies to remove misinformation from their platforms. But despite the court's term usually ending in June, which is almost over, despite American democracy hanging in the balance, we still don't have the immunity ruling or about 10 other important rulings.

So Melissa will get to all of that, but first, how big of a deal was the six three ruling in Murphy versus Missouri? Well, thanks for having me. This chair is really deep. I feel like Martha Ann Alito made this so I could feel like a child. So, Murphy versus Missouri is a really important case about social media. It should be understood in tandem with a couple of other cases that the court still has not yet decided these net choice cases. I think those may come down in the next couple of days.

But the case was decided on procedural grounds. The court said that the litigants, which were two Republican state AGs and then a handful of social media users who said that Facebook and Twitter moderated their content to root out their COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

The court said they didn't have standing. So it was a purely jurisdictional question. So we didn't actually get to the substance of whether the government can lean on social media platforms to do better content moderation. But because it was a standing issue, this could come back at a later time. I think the biggest thing that this case did was that it allowed the court an opportunity to once again smack down the Fifth Circuit, which I always appreciate. And they did it in really excellent form.

On Sturkscourtney, we refer to the Fifth Circuit as a meth lab of conservative grievance. And the court seemed to agree with us. They basically said that this case, there had been no discussion of any of the facts that might lead to questions of standing whether these were the right litigants to bring this case to federal court. And so Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority and she said, you know, this is not a fact-free zone. And I guess that was encouraging.

Were there any hints in the decision about how they saw the substance of the case? Or was it just purely standing? Mostly standing. The dissents, though, were really interesting. There was a big dissent by Justice Alito. And I mean, wow.

Get out. Really? I mean, that guy. That guy. So he wrote this dissent where he just basically railed on the Biden administration and specific members of the Biden administration by name. So we name check Joe Biden, we name check Jen Socky, name check the Surgeon General. And basically talked about all of these people trying to censor conservatives.

I mean, it was almost like a fox grandpa getting a chance to write a Supreme Court opinion. Yeah, I think of them as people who might be upset about someone putting a flag on their house. That kind of thing. He is deep in the comment section. He's checking his mentees. A long time later, for a time call. Yes, exactly. I wanted to ask you about the dissent because first of all, like, just you dip into Alito. And he's just mad all the time.

He's mad all the time. But why? He's 70 something years old. He has the skin of a 50 year old. This man looks amazing for his age. No, seriously. Check it out. Yeah, it's like maybe maybe you get everything you want. And then you're unhappy. But. But something that something for him in his therapist. He doesn't. These people are not in therapy. But what was the I wanted to ask you about the dissent because you know the meth lab right now is contained to the fifth circuit.

But in the dissent, he doesn't just name check people, right? He says, these bozos writing the majority. They didn't even entertain the actual substantive question. But I will. And I actually think on the merit, this is a violation of the first amendment. Does that tell you like. I mean, it does seem like everyone's like, Oh, this, this opinion is this fifth circuit opinion is ridiculous, but not ridiculous to three people already.

So not ridiculous to three people who would be very happy to reach the merits of this case. And a dissent like that is essentially a road map to future litigants just find better plaintiffs who can actually make out plausible claims of injury. And then here's a path to deciding this on the merits and turning this into a first amendment violation. So I think that's a big part of what this was right because he even says right like they didn't even seek damages if they sought damages.

We could have talked about the damages. So it's like he's like really like no, no, come back and we'll. We'll get rid of any bounds on what you can say online. They do this all the time. The conservatives are always doing this in the Mifopristo case. Thomas and Alito were basically asking the solicitor general to identify who would be a better set of plaintiffs. And thankfully she was like, I don't work for you.

I work for the attorney general and so she declined to provide a road map for them, but they do this all the time. These dissents, these concurrences are often invitations to come back, do it better, do it again. It does seem like Alito is like Heisenberg and he does want the meth lab to go national. Who is Jesse in this Martha Ann. So always let's say someone reads Alito's dissent. They see two damages, whatever they get standing.

What is the actual decision on the merits in Alito's fashion mean? The government simply can't ask Facebook to take post down? I already have a little bit of a kind of inkling of where he's going because a couple of weeks ago the court decided another case, NRA versus Vulo.

It was decided much earlier in the, an earlier stage of litigation, but basically what had happened was Maria Vulo, who is a New York state official, leaned on some insurance companies, some banks to basically stop doing business with the NRA in the wake of the Parkland shooting. And the NRA sued saying that you can't do that if you're a government official. And the court in a very narrow unanimous decision written by Justice Sotomayor said, yeah, the government can do its job.

It can't use its position to lean explicitly or to coerce another entity to do something. And I think that's basically what Justice Alito is looking at. And he said specifically that Vulo should be the template going forward. So Tommy, does this seem like a defeat for the forces of disinformation? It seems like a mixed bag. I mean, I think the setting the government aside, I mean I think the challenge with disinformation at the moment is the platforms.

Speaking of Justice Alito's skincare, I think a couple of weeks ago I saw that on TikTok a bunch of influencers were saying that you don't actually need sunscreen to prevent skin cancer. That sunscreen can give you skin cancer. Who was, there's one famous person behind this, right? I don't know. Anyway, so like no dumb idea won't go viral over there. So TikTok's a problem. I think Metta's sort of washing its hands of all things, content moderation.

Twitter is obviously a disaster. I mean, we have Elon Musk is the number one super spreader of disinformation. I think they fired their whole trust and safety team. They have changed the verification process so that any bozo can pay a bucks for a blue check and get algorithmic amplification. And then if you go super viral, you can actually make money on your posts.

So every time I see in the news something happened in Gaza, there will be an account that is sharing a video from 2015 in Syria that they purport to be from today because they'll get paid off of that. So I think the platforms that are disaster, I think that you're seeing academics get in the crossfire of the political discourse here.

Stanford just shut down a research lab that was focused on disinformation and you have Republican members of Congress, crowing that like in the name of free speech, we just killed all this free speech and research. So I feel like the trajectory of our broader efforts of preventing the spread of disinformation are getting pushed aside because institutions are not prepared for the political fallout.

It doesn't seem like we're going to be able to address the supply of disinformation at this point because it's in so many different platforms, it's so many different places and whether people, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides if it comes back to them, there is legal pressure, the Stanford Internet Observatory shut down because of this legal pressure and because of pressure from people who are funding it.

So it's just like it does feel like it's becoming very, very difficult to just actually go after the different sources of misinformation and deal with the platforms unless we're going to actually regulate them which is all so difficult.

And there's very legitimate questions about what role the government should play here in terms of censorship, free speech, for a amendment rights, you can imagine a scenario where a Trump administration is shutting down disinformation that says things like, hey, you lost the 2020 election. So we have to be careful on that part, but I think broadly, there's a lot of non-government actors here.

This is also just like what we're talking about is so far, this is about individual staffers and people in the government seeing vast amounts of misinformation already on the internet and desperately trying to do triage. Like if you're at the stage where you're reaching out to Facebook about individual posts that are going viral, you've already lost, you've already lost. I'm going to say that you're going to be immature about it, but it's like putting a finger in the dike, I can't do it. Dan?

Yeah, I mean, that's where the point is, the matter? Do you have a metaphor? I don't know how I follow that, but... I was just going to say it's like whack-a-mole, but... That was the one I was going to use, but anyhow, even in a world in which we get the right decision in whatever the future case is on this, all that saying is platforms will still make the decision.

So ultimately, we are still our solution as a society for limiting the spread of dense information is to bet on the goodwill of tech billionaires. And then in the course of world history that has never worked, right? Just betting on... The cold barren. The cold barren. The oil barren. Betting on rich, rich business barrens to make decisions counter to their financial self-interest is not a good strategy.

And I think ultimately the way we're going to beat misinformation and disinformation is not to stop it at the source. It is to invest our time and energy into counter-vailing factual positive. And making our own. Damn it, love. We're going to make our own. Make our own. Okay. Melissa... So the counts vary somewhat, but it seems like there are about 10 opinions left to be released. What are the big ones other than immunity? We'll get to immunity.

So there are a couple of really big cases involving the future of a tality of the administrative state. So one SEC versus Jarkiszi, which is about the SEC's ability to do in-house enforcement adjudication. That's how most SEC cases are adjudicated. That will be huge.

There's another set of cases, two consolidated cases, relentless versus Department of Commerce, and Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raymondo, which are about whether in circumstances where a statute is ambiguous, whether it's the agency, who has the opportunity to determine and resolve that ambiguity or whether a judge, a Trump judge, should be able to do that. It's the Chevron doctrine, so that hangs in the balance. There's a major case on homelessness, grants pass versus Johnson.

There are major cases involving environmental law, Ohio versus EPA, which is about the good neighbor rule. If you've watched the Lion King, this is basically the Pumba rule, whereas states that are upwind have to take precautions to ensure that their downwind neighbors don't bear the brunt of smog or air pollution.

So a lot of really big cases, some of them, I think, too wonky to really get into on mainstream media, which is why you hear about immunity, you hear about Mifra Pristone, but you don't hear about these other cases. But these are the cases that are about government as we know it, whether we have clean air, clean water, whether government can regulate or whether we're going to allow judges, unelected judges to make these decisions.

It does seem like that the court later today may have accidentally posted a decision on a major abortion case in Idaho. What happened there? So you've got to ask at this point, who's doing IT at the court? Is it Martha Ann? Possibly.

So yeah, if you were refreshing this morning, I did not refresh hard enough to catch this, but apparently the court inadvertently uploaded the opinion in Moil, which is the Amtala case, Amtala is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, it's a federal law that requires when you present at a federally funded hospital,

which is most hospitals, since they mostly all take Medicare and Medicaid funds, you have to be served with emergency treatment that's appropriate, stabilizing emergency care, including abortions. And that has to be done even if you are in a state with a draconian abortion law like Idaho, for example.

At oral argument, when this case was argued, it seemed very clear that the conservative supermajority on the court was really skeptical about the prospect of women needing emergency abortions in cases of miscarriage or whatnot. And in their infinite medical judgment, the justices were sort of like, can't she just wait, maybe die? I don't know.

All of that, but it seems from this uploaded opinion that the court has made a decision to punt this case, they've decided that they are going to do what is known as a dig. They've determined that Sarshir Rari, or the court's decision to review this case, that decision was improvenently granted, and usually a dig happens when the court determines after or argument after review has been granted, that the circumstances are such that further adjudication would be improvenent.

So a dig is very unusual, right? It doesn't happen that often. And I've never really seen a dig happen so many months after oral argument, right? So, I mean, usually if you determine that there are circumstances that would require a dig, it's pretty obvious on the face. Yeah, we all know that. And we all know what improvenent means. Right, well, I know of it. We all know, but just in case somebody is listening and they don't want to feel dumb. I assumed you knew because I know about your ulcers.

Yeah, no, I'm saying I know. We know, but they don't, somebody out there, they all know, but somebody might not know. I can't be a legit ulcerscore, but... Well, I mean, he always tells me about it. I know, well, that's, you know. Like, we shouldn't have taken this case. Like, so a Mulligan essential. Let's just call it a Mulligan. Do you want to hear my crazy cockamimi conspiracy theory about the case? Yes, of course. Okay, right. What did love it say?

What did love it say? We're creating our own misinformation. That's what that, and Dan advocated it. Let's do it. Right, so here's my theory of this. The court got rid of the Mifrapristone case not by deciding it on the merits, whether the FDA properly regulated Mifrapristone, they ditched it on standing grounds, like not the right plaintiffs, not a clear claim of injury. And then this case gets digged, like, dismissed as improvinantly granted, a Mulligan, if you will.

I think they know that abortion drives women to the polls. I think they know that abortion gets undecided voters out, and it galvanizes support in electoral politics. And I think they've looked at the calendar and they realize November is coming. Yeah. And... And... And... And... And I think they're trying to figure out a way to get the court out of the crosshairs of electoral politics.

And if they decided this the way I think it looked like it was going, at oral argument, it would have galvanized so much support among women. I mean, like, they're basically asking, just go die. So, go to a parking lot and wait till we tell you you can have the abortion. And I think they just didn't want to do that. Justice Jackson writes a barn burner of a concurrence-slash dissent, where she says, I don't believe this was improvinantly granted.

I believe you bitches wanted to get to this, and you took it. And now, let's decide it, because you broke it, you buy it. Like, you need to decide this. And... Yeah. The lesson here that clearly the court took from Dobbs and all the political repercussions was not that you shouldn't take a constitutional right away from half of the country, it's that you shouldn't do it in an election year. I mean, and John Roberts said this at the oral argument in Dobbs.

He's like, listen, can't we get to some kind of compromise where we uphold this cockamé me, mips is be law, but we don't go all the way and overrule Dobbs. Wouldn't that be better, because there's an election coming, the midterms. And they wouldn't listen to him. Millions of women were energized by Dobbs and they went to the polls. I think they see the same thing happening now. Abortion is a salient issue for elections. And Justice Jackson said this in her concurrence-slash dissent.

She said, you know, there is comparatively a more convenient time for us to get to this and make no mistake. We will get to this. We're not getting to it now, because they've decided it's improvinant to do so. But we will get there. And there's already another case coming out of wait for it, the fifth circuit. So this is going to come back to the court. It'll just come back after November. So don't be fooled. Don't listen to all of the folks who are like, this is a moderate court on abortion.

They want to take this issue out of the public discourse around this election. I don't even know if it was a mistake that it got uploaded the day before the debate where the one thing Joe Biden needs to hammer is that Donald Trump is responsible. For whatever is happening on abortion. Sleeper cell IT person. Well, I was going to ask, on that note, so, where recording this Wednesday night, the debate is Thursday night. Tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, there's going to be more decisions.

There will also be decisions Friday. And then there will be decisions, I guess, Monday. And we don't know what's going to happen beyond that. What decisions could be released tomorrow that would provide fodder for either candidate at the debate tomorrow night? And like, how likely do we think that this court's going to release any decisions tomorrow morning that could potentially be fodder for the debate tomorrow night? Because it doesn't seem like they would drop the immunity.

But now I'm thinking of some of the other ones. Like, any case that would help Joe Biden make an argument against Donald Trump at the debate, it seems unlikely they would drop that tomorrow morning. So, maybe they drop the Amtala decisions since we all seem to know what it is. Right now, so, yeah, it's out there, cats out of the bag, like, let the chips fall where they may. Housing prices are so high, maybe they release the case on homelessness and, like, make that Joe Biden's fault. Possibly.

I think it's very unlikely that the immunity case comes out for obvious reasons. Although, they could literally be, like, Gremlins where they got wet and ate after midnight and just decided to do it. I don't know. Like, that would be the most chaos agent thing ever. Well, there's also the case. Actually, the eating after midnight would make them Gremlins. Is that what happens? The getting wet would make more Gremlins. Is that what happened?

Yeah. The eating after midnight turns Gizmo into Gremlins. Right. I actually never watched this movie. Oh. I just, like, know this. It seems like you raised it. It seems like you raised it. You raised it improperly. I did. I wish you were back on the island.

The one I was wondering if they would release tomorrow morning would be Fisher, which is a case about the January 6th insurrectionists who, and they were charged with obstructing the official proceeding, and they could throw out those charges. It seemed like they were leaning that way in oral arguments, and that would take away two of the four charges.

Not necessarily. Okay. So the Fisher case is about the statute, part of the Sarbians Oxley Act, that was passed in the wake of Enron, and it makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding. And the question in Fisher is whether obstructing the certification of the Electoral College is the sort of official proceeding that the statute's writers had in mind, or was it something like evidence tampering or witness tampering, like the kind of thing that happened around Enron.

And so, you know, this is going to turn this court's would-be textualists into knots, because on the face of it, this is straight up textual healing. Like, obviously, this should apply. But, you know, if your textualish, you know, you might not necessarily go this way, especially if January 6th hangs in the balance.

The reason why I think it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Donald Trump is that the charges in the January 6th indictment are not simply about interrupting the certification of the Electoral College, but about advancing these slates of false electors, and that could be the kind of corrupt act that would fall within the scope of the statute. Because that would be even more textualist, because in the statute, it says like, you can't, it's certificates, right?

I mean, when you get that feeling, you need textual healing, and you have to do that. So, you know, again, maybe, because I'm not sure how it necessarily works for Donald Trump. I don't think it's a get out of jail free card for him, even if they side with the rank in file January 6th. Though at that point, he would just say, he would say, the prisoners, the Patriots of January 6th, the court just ruled today, they're exonerated, and that's not going to help him. We all have eyes.

I was going to say one, it would help the members of his favorite choir, so, but if that IT, that possible resistance member who handles IT at the Supreme Court is listening, that is a decision that would be good for us to have out. Because there's nothing we would like more than for Donald Trump to be talking about the Patriots of January 6th, on a debate stage in front of 50 million people. And if that IT person is listening, I don't know this will happen. And you know they are.

I don't know if this would help, but please try turning the Supreme Court off, and then back on. So, Skoda's continues to do Trump a solid on Jack Smith's January 6th case by continuing to punt the immunity ruling Judge Eileen Cannon, keeps doing everything she can to slow walk Jack Smith's other case, which is Trump's stealing classified information. Can you take us to the latest on what Cannon has been doing, and how this might be different than what other federal judges would do?

Do you see the new picks today? New Marlago picks just drops. I did see those. All the classified boxes spilled over on the side. Yeah. That's great. I grew up in Port St. Lucie, Florida, which is right next door to Fort Pierce, where this court house is, and I was like, it's a wacky place. So, I'm never entirely surprised by what Judge Cannon does. I mean, one, she's not a very experienced judge.

And like when I say this on MSNBC, people always like get in my mind and like, stop making excuses for her. I'm not making excuses for her. I'm basically saying she's not that smart about this. But like, she's not an experienced judge on criminal matters. And so I think a lot of what we're seeing, you know, it's either a lack of experience. She's out over her skis, or she literally is in the bag for Trump, or some combination of both, which, you know, I don't discount either.

She's been doing a lot recently. So one thing that she's doing that I think most federal judges do not do is that she's making no use of the federal magistrate judge to whom she has been assigned. Like typically if you're a district court judge, you get assigned a magistrate judge. This is not an article three judge, but an article one judge that basically does a lot of article three functions. So they do a lot of pretrial hearings. They will handle evidentiary motions and things of that nature.

And they basically do a lot of the managerial work that clear space for district court judges to do their work and keep cases going on track. Bruce Reinhart is the magistrate judge who's been assigned to her. He's also the judge that signed the warrant for the search of Mara Lago. So it's probably real awkward for her to go to Judge Reinhart and ask him to help her with take on some of these issues. And so she seems to not be relying on him again.

It seems like an unforced error for a district court judge because it frees up a lot of time and keeps things moving. Last week and this week she had a couple of really odd hearings where she invited essentially a meeky to come into court and to argue. An issue that I think has been asked and answered by the Supreme Court and other federal courts, like whether the appointment of a special counsel is constitutional or not.

I believe this was decided in United States versus Nixon many years ago and has subsequently been reaffirmed by various federal courts, including the DC Circuit. I decided that the Supreme Court declined to review later so it seems settled. Some of you could have Googled. I mean, could have been an email, right? Did you say a meeky? A friend of the court? Is that what that is? Yes. If people just heard that term and they weren't sure what it was.

Tell me you don't listen to strict scrutiny without telling me you don't listen to strict scrutiny. I'm helping them. I knew the term. I knew that you heard that I knew the term. You're also at score again. There's a big amicus or amicus debate. The need to be answered. Did you say amicus or amicus? You go back and forth. I think I sometimes go back and forth. I want to be inclusive. Okay. Yeah. So she's doing that.

She had another hearing this week about whether or not the funding structure for the special counsel, what's constitutional, also asked and answered by a case this term at the Supreme Court. So just seems to be like having a lot of hearings. And I guess that's fine if the question of this case getting to trial weren't so urgent. I was wondering why she's doing all this because like didn't she are like the case is not happening before the election at this point? 100%.

So it's like I feel like she's just like spike in the football. Well, maybe she's trolling us. I don't know. But I mean, I do think it's worthwhile to put a pin under this. Like this is the most straightforward case. I know. Right. This is the easy one for real. And there are lots of people in federal prison right now for having fewer classified documents in their possession. Yeah. Right. And so.

And not obstructing justice when someone's like, hey, if you have classified documents, it's going to give them back. It's like, no, no, thank you. Array the video tape. I have a subpoena. No, thank you. No, I mean, so this one's pretty bad.

And again, I think you have to look at sort of, Tommy and I have talked about this, but Judge cannons on this case because the Southern District of Florida has two judicial vacancies at the Biden administration has been unable to fill because for district court seats, there is a custom of requiring the home state senators to provide their blue slips to any judicial nomination and Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have refused to sign off on anyone who tried to administer shocking. I know.

And so when this case went into the wheel for the Southern District of Florida, they're basically we're like only a handful of judges who it could go to. And one of them was Judge Cannon and lo and behold, it was Judge Cannon. It was a real deer hunter situation. That was for you, fine. I want you to know that you got me all pissed off about the blue slip thing and then I came into the next pot I did with these guys.

And I was like, Dick Durbin is trying to bring back the blue slip process and that's stupid because it means these Republicans and Fred states can spike these judges and then these guys, they made fun of me. They told me I was a dork for bringing up the blue slips and they made fun of me. I don't remember specifically saying that. I mean, it sounds like something we do. It does sound like something.

I mean, well, look, we do know that if the nightmare scenario where Donald Trump wins the White House and the former State of the Senate, the Republicans would continue to give that privilege to Democratic senators, of course. Obviously, 100%. 100%. So, all right. So the immediate decision we're waiting, it feels like we're not going to have a real January 6 trial. We might have a mini trial before the election. I can hearing, I hear. Yeah. I mean, I can't even do her thing.

We're not going to have that trial. The former president was convicted of multiple felonies in New York. We're clapping. We're clapping, bitch. Shout out. And by the way, seven of the jurors are here tonight. Hi, Hillary Clinton. No. Every one of them got a sign. That hasn't really moved the polls. Love it. You've been talking about how as much as Donald Trump should face a kind of ability from the law, that is not going to save us. Do you want to make that case again now?

Look, I do think there's like, I was thinking about this before the show, just that like, I feel like in the end, like Donald Trump is just the luckiest person in the history of human society. And we'll just have to face that at some point. Like, it just never a drop of rain will ever fall on this man. Like, I just, what he did in a past life must have been pretty fucking amazing. But no, look, I think, you know, there was this, you know, Joe Biden put out an ad. It was a great ad.

It was a contrast ad about Donald Trump being convicted in all the ways Joe Biden is fighting for ordinary people. And we talked about how that was a change from where Joe Biden had been at the beginning of the race, where he said, like, the courts won't save us only we can save ourselves.

And I think the hope that somehow, the judicial process, the legal process, the, I don't know, the moral character of primary voting Republicans, like there was going to be some path to getting rid of Donald Trump that didn't involve once again. All of us putting on our boots and our jackets and going and knocking on doors and getting people to do it. But I think with each passing day, it is very clear that no, like, there will be no legal accountability for Donald Trump.

And by the way, a media environment, this noisy and Republican party, this debased, telling all of us that it's acceptable for someone convicted of multiple felonies, by the jury of their peers to be the nominee, makes it acceptable to have the country. Like that is just the reality we live in. And I think, I think a lot of times, like, how can this be? How can this be? It is.

It just is. And there'll be plenty of time for us to figure out how to slowly but surely build a politics that doesn't make the stakes feel like this, and doesn't make us feel so worried all the time. But that is not our luck for the next four to five months. So, Liz, it wants to fly her flag right now. Right. This is so dystopian. How can you wear this outfit and be so dark in your predictions? He is. Oh, thank you, sir. So here's my take on it, right? Like, you're leaning in, okay?

Before you leave for Miami. Just between us and Miki. You are my best Miki, really, are. That's only true if Donald Trump wins. Right. Because if Joe Biden wins, these cases can actually happen. Right. They won't be killed by a new Trump DOJ. They can actually go forward. And if accountability is what you want, then going to the polls, getting your friends galvanizing people for Joe Biden should be a high priority. Good pick. That's how you get accountability.

Oh, absolutely. Less. These trials continue. I'm, I'm more making the broader point that like, we have to defeat not just Trump, but this movement, enough times, and so emphatically, that Craven, valueless people who care only about winning decide that the way to win is to moderate. Right. Like a couple years ago, it was Marco Rubio saying that the future of the Republican Party is a cosmopolitan and moderated party that brings in people from all walks of life.

I think it was called the autopsy because the party was dead. Yeah. Marco Rubio let us down. It's like, we have to, that's all. That's, that's why I'm making it. Well, I think they were just so freaked out by having a black president that they were like, we got to have a king. Definitely. And once you get to that point, and like, if that's not your bad, then this is the moment to stand up and fight.

Yeah. Let me give a pitch for that maybe is a little more of your, a baser pitch for why you should get involved in this election. So you're sitting there. We've been doing this for fucking forever at this point. We've told you every election since 2017 was the most important election of your lifetime.

You've been knocking doors, you've been taxing, you've been phone calling, but just imagine this scenario when you're sitting on the votes of America website and you're afraid to hit submit on your email address. We work our asses off Donald Trump loses. Then we get to watch Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gets sworn in again. Then a few months later, Donald Trump will stand trial in Washington DC for the insurrection.

And then he's convicted. Maybe he goes to prison. A few months later, he leaves prison. He goes to Fort County, Georgia. He has to stand trial again for having over throw the election. He gets convicted. Goes back to prison. A few months after that comes back. Goes to trial for stealing classified documents. He gets convicted. It's gonna be a pretty sweet 2025 people. And then the primary begins. And then, and then they're old and Sam Lito and Clarence Thomas are like, we gotta go.

And we've also not only reelected Joe Biden, but we've kept the Senate and we flipped the House. And now we are adding more free court justices. And then Apple makes all the chargers the same. Yes! This is the dream. This is the dream. There we go. All right, so that's the hopeful. That's the hopeful scenario. But it only works if everyone gets out there and volunteers and donates and does everything we can for the next couple months to actually make this happen. So that is our show for tonight.

We're gonna be doing a special debate reaction show tomorrow night that'll land early Friday morning in your feed. Check it out. Thank you, Stacey Abrams. Thanks to Amanda Lippman and Melissa Murray. Thanks to Greenlight Bookstore for selling our books tonight. If you haven't grabbed a copy of Democracy or Else, please do it on your way out. Thank you, Brooklyn.

If you want to get ad free episodes, exclusive content and more, consider joining our friends of the Pod subscription community at Cricket.com slash friends. And if you're already doom scrolling, don't forget to follow us at PodSave America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content and more.

Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. PodSave America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Ferris Safari.

Reed Churlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seguin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Keifer. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Mia Kellman, David Tolst, Kiro Pelviv, and Molly Lobelle.