0:02

Hello and welcome

0:05

to this late political gab fest. February

0:17

29th, 2024, Leap Day,

0:19

could they actually leap over Biden

0:21

and dump him a ditch? I'm

0:24

David Flots, Citycast. I'm joined. I'm

0:27

in Washington, DC, by the way. And

0:29

I'm joined by John Dickerson of CBS

0:31

Prime Time in New York City. Hello,

0:33

John. Hi. And from New

0:36

Haven, Connecticut, Emily Bazlana of New

0:38

York Times Magazine and Yale University Law School

0:40

from New Haven. Hello, Emily. Hey, David.

0:43

Hey, John. This week on the gab fest, anxiety

0:46

increases among Democrats as uncommitted

0:48

wins 100,000 votes

0:51

in an uncontested Michigan primary against

0:53

Joe Biden. In

0:56

the Supreme Court, here's a pair of

0:58

fascinating cases about social media platforms, censorship

1:00

in the First Amendment, and also dockets

1:03

the big Trump immunity case.

1:06

And then Mitch McConnell is stepping down

1:08

as the Republican Senate leader after perhaps

1:10

the most effective career of any politician

1:13

this century. Plus, of course, we'll have

1:15

cocktail chatter. And a reminder,

1:17

or not even a

1:19

reminder, an announcement. We are going to be

1:21

live in Washington, DC on Wednesday, March 27th

1:23

at 730 at the Hamilton. There's

1:27

going to be a pre-show cocktail party as

1:29

well. You can get tickets at slate.com/gab fest

1:31

live. That's going to be a live show

1:34

on Wednesday evening, March 27th here in DC. New

1:38

venue, the Hamilton. It's great. It's

1:40

going to fill up fast. So get your tickets. And

1:43

we have a special guest that we're going to

1:45

announce soon, or we believe we have a special

1:47

guest that we're going to announce soon. And it's

1:49

going to be really fun. So we'd love

1:51

to see you there. It's going to be our first

1:54

live show of the new year. It's going to be

1:56

coming at a moment of all kinds of legal

1:58

action and political action. and that's

2:01

going to be a great moment

2:03

for discussion. slate.com/gabfestlive for tickets. Hey

2:06

there, gabfest listeners. Before we start the show, I want

2:08

to let you know about a story coming up a

2:10

little later. It's from one of our partners, SAP.

2:14

AI comes at you fast. If

2:16

you don't get reliable and relevant advice,

2:19

your business might miss out. So

2:21

whether you're looking to automate tasks or

2:23

embed AI in your business processes, SAP

2:25

can help. To learn

2:27

more, head to sap.com/AI

2:31

and stick around for expert advice on

2:33

how to embrace AI with confidence. Uncommitted

2:36

had an amazing night in Michigan this

2:39

week capturing more than a hundred thousand

2:41

votes in the democratic primary. As

2:43

Zach Gorchow talked about on our Slate Plus

2:46

segment last week, any

2:48

number over 50,000 was going to

2:50

be a blow to Biden. And

2:53

Uncommitted just crashed through that to get to

2:55

a hundred thousand and 13% of the vote.

2:59

Uncommitted was a movement organized

3:01

originally by Arab Americans unhappy with

3:04

Biden's full-throated support of Israel

3:06

in the Gaza war. And

3:09

the Uncommitted vote won

3:11

majorities in two big Arab American cities

3:14

of Michigan, the two big Arab American

3:16

cities, Dearborn and Hamtramck. But it also

3:18

picked up big votes in Michigan's college

3:20

towns. So John, how

3:22

dismayed or shocking should this

3:25

be for Biden's team? I

3:27

guess when I think about that question, I think

3:29

about where does it

3:31

fit in the priorities that they have to

3:34

face to get reelected? Like they

3:36

have a lot of challenges for Biden.

3:38

And so is this

3:41

a challenge? Yes. How

3:43

big a challenge is it? And

3:45

more crucially, how much can they really do about

3:48

it? If the answer to solving

3:50

this problem is get

3:52

peace in the Middle East. Well, who'd have thought of that?

3:55

Right? Like the question, it's kind of

3:57

like what we were talking about with respect to what

4:00

biden could do to overcome uh...

4:03

the questions about his age well he could

4:05

go out and be vigorous and do lots

4:07

of public events well being very interesting a

4:09

lot of public events has all kinds of

4:12

downsides as we saw from president biden speaking

4:14

about the possibility of a hostage exchange while

4:16

eating ice cream ice cream cone is a

4:18

part of the seth myers appearance well

4:21

i hope by

4:34

the we can

4:37

immediately at

4:39

least my my my national security advisor tells

4:42

me that for close because not done yet

4:45

my hope is by next monday that

4:48

wasn't the greatest of visuals to be

4:51

talking about the exchange of prisoners and

4:53

hostages uh... so there are all

4:55

kinds of challenges to getting the least piece so

4:57

could you even fix the problem yes it's a

4:59

problem a hundred thousand is a

5:01

big number it's a big number because he

5:03

won the state by hundred fifty thousand against

5:05

trumps so but a lot of democrats turned

5:07

out for biden which made the percentage uh...

5:10

thirteen percent against obama in twenty twelve uncommitted

5:12

got about eleven percent now it got to

5:15

that that uncommitted but was only twenty thousand

5:17

votes so hundred thousand is a great deal

5:19

more than twenty thousand so i'm not trying

5:21

to downplay just trying to put it in

5:24

perspective then the question is really when the

5:26

choice gets framed uh...

5:28

between donald trump and

5:30

joe biden donald trump's policies not only

5:32

are going to be identical or worse

5:34

with respect to the uh...

5:36

israel-hamas war but people might be

5:38

reminded that donald trump was the one who wanted

5:41

to ban muslims from coming into the united states

5:43

so that might change it so the

5:45

question is could they can they do a lot about

5:47

it might gravity help them then

5:49

the final point of course is michigan

5:52

is a super crucial state for biden

5:54

in the general election one of the key battleground

5:56

states and and it's hard to think of how

5:58

he wins without winning michigan Michigan. Yeah,

6:01

right now it's the tipping point state for

6:03

Biden and he's polling behind Trump

6:05

and has kind of been consistently polling poorly

6:08

there, Emily. Do you think

6:10

to John's point that there's any

6:12

policy shift that Biden could realistically

6:15

make on Gaza or

6:17

on issues that are animating progressive students

6:20

that wouldn't hurt him

6:22

in other ways and be backfire in other

6:24

ways? Yeah, I mean, I

6:26

think it's really complicated and hard, but I

6:29

think, I mean, first of all, the war

6:31

could end. I mean, the war is serving

6:33

the interest primarily of Benjamin

6:35

Netanyahu keeping his government in power

6:37

in Israel and then Hamas, which

6:40

is watching Israel's acceptance around the world deteriorate,

6:42

which is something that the New York Times

6:44

columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about this week. So

6:48

that's, I think, a huge

6:50

part of what's happening is the war

6:52

and all the deaths of Palestinians in

6:54

Gaza. I also think that moving

6:57

toward supporting Palestinian self-determination and

7:00

statehood is really important and

7:02

the Biden administration has been

7:04

saying those things and distancing

7:06

itself from Netanyahu's government, but

7:08

not really pushing and not

7:11

confronting Netanyahu. I mean, there

7:13

is, don't you guys

7:15

think like it's in Netanyahu's interest for Trump

7:17

to get elected in the fall because Trump

7:19

will be much more pro his right wing

7:22

policies than Biden. I mean, you just have

7:24

this feeling that Biden

7:26

has not figured

7:28

out how to take on Netanyahu in

7:30

a way that's good for Biden politically.

7:33

And obviously, you know, the United States and

7:35

Israel have this longstanding friendship and

7:37

allyship and there's lots of history there, but

7:39

at some point it just seems like maybe

7:42

Netanyahu is taking Biden down and Biden has

7:44

got to figure out how to get out

7:46

of that trap. Well, Biden

7:48

might care about something more than the

7:50

politics at the moment. I mean, in other words, he's

7:53

not going to be able to do anything to fix

7:55

the uncommitted issue right now at this current moment. breaking

8:00

with Netanyahu might have all kinds of other

8:03

consequences, including the US's ability

8:05

to actually influence

8:07

events to the extent they can do anything.

8:11

It's got to be, the roads have to

8:14

lead through Netanyahu. I mean, play out what's

8:16

the strategy if he breaks with Netanyahu, or

8:18

if he had broken with Netanyahu a month

8:20

ago, how that works.

8:23

It doesn't seem like Netanyahu is really listening

8:25

to, particularly in a

8:27

public sense, pressure from the United

8:30

States. So Biden breaks with

8:32

him and then Netanyahu does what that is

8:34

in the positive aims of the uncommitted vote.

8:36

I mean, I don't think Netanyahu is

8:38

ever going to do anything in the

8:41

positive aims of anything that people are

8:43

voting uncommitted care about. But Netanyahu does

8:45

not necessarily stay in power. I mean,

8:47

there isn't an election scheduled for two

8:49

years, but he could get ousted sooner.

8:51

And I, you know, there has been

8:53

this argument that, you know, if Biden

8:55

confronts him, that that will only strengthen

8:58

him. But I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of

9:00

that and just feeling some sense of

9:02

urgency about that whole situation. I

9:07

don't think he can do anything right now. I'm

9:09

talking about looking ahead to the election. Exactly.

9:11

So if Biden can't do anything

9:13

right now, his maximum leverage over

9:15

Netanyahu is by not

9:17

publicly breaking with Netanyahu. If that's

9:19

true, which it feels like it

9:21

is, then the best way for

9:23

him to be effective with respect

9:25

to the actual crisis is

9:27

to work in the inside game with Netanyahu

9:30

instead of having a break, even though a

9:32

break might be more palatable to the people

9:34

in Michigan in who

9:36

voted uncommitted. Given how many

9:38

people voted uncommitted, there is

9:40

a new energy among Democrats who want

9:42

Biden to consider stepping off the ticket

9:45

to allow someone else,

9:47

someone they say could be more likely

9:49

to win against Trump to have a

9:51

shot. Is there? Emily.

9:55

Yeah. What do you mean there? Is there

9:57

new energy? Well, there's definitely lots

9:59

of. No, no, there are a

10:01

lot. Ezra Klein wrote a piece and, but

10:03

I mean, look at Dean Phillips. The guy,

10:06

he got fewer votes than Marion Williamson, who's

10:08

out of the race. If there was all

10:10

this huge energy to dump Biden that wasn't

10:12

related to this very specific point we've been

10:15

discussing, don't you think the alternative candidate would

10:17

have gotten more than two point whatever he

10:19

got? Well, I don't, but I don't think

10:21

anyone thinks that Dean Phillips is the person

10:24

who is, is the great standard bearer the

10:26

Democrats could run against Trump. I think they

10:28

have a Fantasia that, you know,

10:30

a broker convention puts forward, put a

10:33

Raphael Warnock

10:36

candidacy with Gretchen Widmer. Right. But

10:39

I mean, it is John. But Ezra Klein is Ezra

10:41

Klein is one of the most prominent

10:43

figures writing in the left in this country and

10:45

Ezra is hassarding it and there's a lot of

10:47

commentary on it. You can tell why it's, you

10:50

can explain why it's not a deal. No, no,

10:52

no, no, no, but there's commentary about it. My

10:54

point is if there was lots of unfocused active

10:56

energy that was anti Biden or that was we

10:58

got to get something else. It's

11:01

not crazy to think that it would show up

11:03

in some way in Michigan. What didn't a hundred,

11:05

a hundred thousand people write up and voted for.

11:07

We've already talked about how that has a

11:10

specific sense. And also if you look at

11:12

how Biden has voted in the rest of

11:14

the primaries so far, they roughly tracked what

11:16

Obama did in 2012, except in New Hampshire.

11:18

Let's agree that the punditry class is having

11:21

a big. That's for sure. But

11:23

the difference, but but but it's crucial. First of

11:25

all, that's the class we belong to. But

11:29

you've got to frame it with respect to the

11:31

punditry class because it's really important because one of

11:33

the things that Biden did well in 2020 is

11:35

his campaign ignored the punditry class and the

11:38

super online class. And that's why he

11:40

won. That's why he won the

11:42

nomination. Like it's a key skill of his. So

11:45

framing what's real and what's not is like

11:47

a super crucial question in this moment. You

11:50

accept it. It's it's just it's just

11:52

Ezra Klein and two people having dinner

11:55

with him who were talking about this.

11:57

If there are any arguments In

11:59

favor. Of what Ezra is saying,

12:02

I think the arguments are. That.

12:05

Biden. Is. Bidens.

12:08

Age, his frailty, his.

12:11

Apparent inability to campaign

12:13

effectively. Are. Extremely

12:16

damaging to him and and in

12:18

a race against Trump. Or

12:20

that in twenty two thousand Eight, he got more

12:22

or less a pass on campaigning. He didn't have

12:24

to campaign so nobody had to actually see him

12:27

campaign because of Kobe E P campaign from from

12:29

his his house. Ah, and to actually have to

12:31

go out and present an argument for what he's

12:33

doing and what he's done. Is

12:36

something he cannot do well. And

12:38

he's polling. Very. Poorly

12:40

against Trump and therefore it's

12:42

a possibility that someone who

12:44

has more energy who can

12:46

articulate a democratic this more

12:48

vividly. Could. Animate

12:50

younger voters. Animate somebody

12:52

voters who are turning

12:55

away and and wage

12:57

and effective campaign against

12:59

Trump and. When.

13:01

The problem Of course. I mean they're so many

13:03

problems you guys to now outline all the problems.

13:06

Low. One thousand is a magical

13:08

thinking about how we get to

13:10

this special someone else because the

13:13

obvious person is Vice President Palmer

13:15

has as I talked about her

13:17

as as deeply and ah appreciated

13:19

parties center underestimated politicians and on

13:22

didn't present the evidence that. I

13:24

don't. See any myself and then

13:26

you have this kind as fantasy of

13:29

this brokered convention. And to Malibu Yes,

13:31

I did a really good job of

13:33

explaining that the convention doesn't represent constituencies

13:35

in the way that it used to

13:38

that. Now it's like largely symbolic and

13:40

so the notion that if it, if

13:42

they did come up with the magical

13:45

Whitmer. Warnock. ticket it's

13:47

not clear that it would really have a

13:49

lot of legitimacy after everybody has voted for

13:51

biden and then there's the question of like

13:53

could biden really mean he would have all

13:55

the delegates they would has that they would

13:57

be committed to supporting him and so it

13:59

would be really up to him and then

14:01

it probably would be Kamala Harris and we

14:03

kind of get back into this loop of

14:06

whether this is really a stronger ticket. One

14:08

of the things that's been most,

14:10

I think, impressive about this public

14:13

debate among democratic intellectuals is, or

14:15

political intellectuals is... I like it.

14:18

They've gone from pundits to intellectuals now. Well,

14:20

I mean, I think you have to put

14:23

Jamel and Ezra in that category. I think

14:25

the super online reaction

14:27

is dumb, but the articles

14:30

that were written both in favor of

14:32

the idea and against it were all

14:34

serious, didn't like do a bunch of

14:37

stupid mode of questioning and actually

14:39

showed an incredibly sophisticated understanding of politics,

14:41

primaries. It was really a joy to

14:43

read all of the different arguments.

14:46

I think the only thing I would add to what

14:49

both of you have said is that

14:51

one of Ezra's terms also is

14:53

that there is a structure in place for a

14:55

Brokard convention and therefore it

14:58

could manage this kind

15:00

of open free for all. I think the

15:02

problem is that that structure is highly antiquated.

15:04

It comes from a time in

15:06

politics long before the

15:08

reforms of 1972 and the general increase in

15:13

the voice of the people over the

15:15

voice of the party. The structured convention,

15:17

the Brokard convention was a product

15:20

of a completely boss

15:23

centered party or a highly boss centered party,

15:25

which started to crumble in 1960 in the

15:27

Democratic party with

15:30

Kennedy's defeat of the bosses by using the

15:32

primaries. An amazing thing. And

15:35

then I think Jamel of all of

15:37

them really put most beautifully with the

15:40

important thing, which is

15:43

that what gives candidates legitimacy is

15:45

the process, not the Brokard part.

15:48

It's the getting the votes. Without

15:51

that legitimacy, you would elevate a weakened

15:53

candidate. And of course, the other point

15:55

which everybody made, but which is important

15:57

is that when you have inter-party fights

15:59

and actually it's not in the primary context where

16:01

you can all talk about how bad Donald Trump is.

16:04

The fights tend to be over really small

16:06

things and everybody gets pushed to the left

16:09

because they're all trying to distinguish themselves from

16:11

the other person, which means you would have

16:13

a national advertisement about the most liberal things

16:16

right at a time when you're supposed to be

16:18

looking for voters more towards the middle. And

16:21

then I'll add the one other thing, which

16:23

I would call the Ron DeSantis factor, which is

16:27

that all candidates, all

16:29

hypothetical candidates are unicorns who

16:31

fart cotton candy until

16:35

they are actually tested. And then you don't

16:37

know. It's entirely possible that

16:39

on a national stage Gretchen Widmer would

16:42

be the greatest candidate since Bill Clinton.

16:44

Very possible since Barack Obama. But

16:46

it's also possible that this person who gets

16:48

anointed turns out to be an absolute dud

16:50

as we saw with

16:52

DeSantis. So that's enormously

16:54

risky. I

16:57

want to give a huge thank you to our Slate Plus listeners

17:00

because of listeners like you. In

17:02

fact, not just like you, you.

17:04

We've been able to keep doing the

17:06

GAFS for so long and you get

17:08

so much good stuff for your subscription.

17:10

Bonus segments on every episode, special discounts

17:12

to live shows like our live show

17:14

coming up in DC, no

17:16

hitting the paywall on the site site, so

17:19

much more. This week for our Slate Plus

17:21

segment, we're going to be talking

17:23

about the increasingly elaborate, even unhinged

17:26

efforts by the Republican House to

17:28

pin some kind of

17:30

corruption charge on Joe Biden via

17:32

his family. But the segment

17:34

is just for Slate Plus members. If you

17:36

are a Slate Plus member, thank you. If you're not, go

17:38

to slate.com/GAFS Plus to become a

17:41

member today. This

17:43

podcast is brought to you by Slate Studios

17:46

and SAP. AI

17:48

is moving so fast. If you

17:50

don't get reliable and relevant advice,

17:52

your business might miss out. Welcome

17:55

to Dear Artie, an advice column

17:57

from SAP, where we tackle the...

18:00

questions at the intersection of AI

18:02

and business. Let's meet our experts.

18:04

Hi, I'm Ian Khan. I'm a

18:06

technology futurist, speaker, and author, and

18:08

I love to help organizations measure

18:11

their current state of readiness for

18:13

an AI-driven world. I'm excited to

18:15

dive into today's question. Dear

18:19

Artie, our finance team is

18:22

top-notch, but small. How can

18:24

AI support them? Signed, financially

18:26

drained. Well, financially

18:28

drained. A lot is happening in

18:30

finance and AI and the possibilities

18:32

are endless. First of all, AI

18:34

can help your finance team analyze

18:36

massive amounts of financial data faster

18:39

than any human or a

18:41

team of people could do.

18:43

Second, it can help perform

18:45

functions on data through algorithms.

18:47

This can connect different systems

18:49

together and really simplify decision-making

18:51

for your finance team. And

18:53

last but not least, AI

18:55

can help reduce the time

18:58

needed for data to provide insights

19:00

so that your leaders can

19:02

make faster decisions. Embrace

19:05

AI with confidence. Head

19:07

to sap.com/AI to learn

19:09

more. This

19:11

episode of the GAP Fest is sponsored by SAP.

19:14

First, the bad news. SAP

19:17

Business AI won't help you generate

19:19

cubist versions of your family's holiday

19:22

photos, but it will

19:24

help you understand which supplier is best

19:26

to help you roll out your plant-based

19:28

packaging in Southeast Asia and

19:31

identify the training your junior project manager

19:33

needs to rise up the ranks and

19:36

automate repetitive tasks while you focus

19:38

on big innovations so you

19:40

can be ready for the next opportunity. Revolutionary

19:43

technology, real-world results. That's

19:46

SAP Business AI. The

19:50

Supreme Court Heard arguments in a pair

19:52

of cases this week, challenging laws passed

19:54

by Florida and Texas designed to prevent

19:56

social media companies. Incidentally, What is a

19:58

social media company? Good question

20:00

from removing hiding or downplaying

20:02

conservative speech on their platforms.

20:05

A. Coalition of Tech Companies challenge the

20:07

laws and a whole set of

20:09

arguments that came out of really

20:12

quite fascinating. But before we get

20:14

the social media cases, let's start

20:16

briefly with the news that the

20:18

court will take its own sweet

20:20

time on the Presidential immunity claim

20:22

that Trump is making as regards

20:24

the January Six criminal cases is

20:26

facing. Ah, and. That.

20:30

May well delay any possible criminal trial

20:32

of Trump. Certainly be generous a case

20:34

until after the election. So so Emily

20:36

do want to just orient us around.

20:40

This. Immunity case and and when

20:42

they supreme court is going to hear arguments

20:44

on it and when that means a. Decision.

20:47

Is likely and what that would mean for a criminal

20:49

trial. The Supreme Court is can

20:52

hear arguments on April twenty seconds and

20:54

that means that it's likely that a

20:56

decision won't come until the end of

20:58

the court's time at the end of

21:00

June and now of course it's possible

21:02

they could rule sooner site they are

21:04

not losing this, the some you know

21:06

speed of Light alacrity, and all of

21:08

this just. Is. A big. Gift.

21:11

Wrapped president for Donald Trump because delay

21:13

has been his tacit all long. If

21:15

the court rules at the end of

21:17

June cleared a child really get under

21:19

way before the election? I mean it's

21:21

not impossible, but every day that passes

21:23

makes it more difficult. And what? To

21:26

me is just. And then I have to

21:28

say in a spurious thing about this I

21:30

woke up assuming in the middle of the

21:33

date about it is that this is a

21:35

slam dunk legal question that has been answered

21:37

cogently and soberly by to lower courts. The

21:41

Supreme Court could just let the

21:43

Dc Circuit ruling stands. That explains

21:45

in grated hell why a President

21:47

cannot have utter and complete and

21:49

in the for every single thing

21:51

he did in office. Like.

21:54

writ large i mean to think about that

21:56

it's breathtaking it's like saying that we have a

21:58

king that while you're and You can

22:00

do absolutely anything with impunity the idea that

22:03

the court has to take months to you

22:05

know Stroke its chin over these

22:07

arguments. I just don't get it one thing that

22:09

was confusing in the initial reaction to this is a lot

22:11

of supporters of or a Lot

22:14

of people on the left said this is this is

22:16

outrageous. They're suggesting there's a There's

22:19

some question to figure out here and then

22:21

other people said no the court is

22:24

deciding possibly We don't know what

22:26

it's exciting But one one avenue is that the

22:28

court could decide this is such an issue of

22:30

import that the court must speak because there's no

22:32

precedent for it and that it was still possible

22:34

that you could have a

22:36

nine to nothing on The

22:39

side of all the rational things you said

22:41

which is the country was not founded

22:43

with this idea in mind Oh, it's

22:45

totally possible. It'll be nine to nothing though. It

22:47

really did. It'll be seven to two Let's be

22:49

real like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are gonna

22:51

vote on the other side perhaps But

22:54

even if it's nine to nothing the

22:56

time they are taking is essential And

22:58

so yes in an ideal world with

23:00

all the time in the world the

23:02

Supreme Court would settle this ridiculous But

23:04

important unsettled question in American law and

23:06

not leave it for the next time

23:08

But we don't live in an ideal world We live

23:11

in a world in which it is entirely possible that

23:13

someone that's facing major criminal indictment Will

23:15

win the presidency with this shadow

23:17

unresolved and then the case will

23:20

be postponed Indefinitely and we'll never

23:22

get an answer and I just

23:24

feel like there is something Really

23:27

untoward about that like it makes

23:29

the country's legal system seem very

23:31

shaky and Unserious

23:33

and that will be happening Donald

23:36

Trump will have summed his nose successfully gotten

23:38

away with all of these dodges as he

23:41

becomes president again for the next four years

23:43

Think about that. It's at the argument Maybe

23:45

this is what I felt this is where you were going John

23:48

Isn't the argument that if you assume for

23:51

the sake of argument that Donald Trump is gonna

23:53

become president again? Isn't it important that the Supreme

23:55

Court will have issued such a ruling? Saying

23:58

that presidents are crazy criminally liable for

24:01

their behavior. And if they had

24:03

simply kicked forward a DC Circuit

24:05

opinion, you're missing this clarion, crystal

24:09

judgment by the highest court in the land.

24:11

And so it puts the Trump administration on

24:13

notice about that. That would be

24:15

an argument for it. That's an

24:17

argument. And then you just have to weigh it

24:19

against all the other problems. But yes, that's true.

24:22

And the other problems, can we just illuminate some

24:24

of them? I mean, so the one is basically

24:26

that the Supreme Court

24:28

takes its time. Then Judge Tanya Chutkin

24:31

says, okay, we can start the clock

24:33

again, which means some number of

24:35

months to allow the two teams to prepare because they've

24:37

been told to stop and put their pencils down for

24:39

the moment. So that takes some number of months, then

24:42

the trial itself has to

24:44

take place. That's if everything's moving along

24:46

on ice. Obviously, Trump's strategy

24:49

has been to delay. So there'll be lots of delays. And

24:51

then so basically, you could

24:53

have a situation in which the trial doesn't take

24:55

place. And

24:57

then Trump, if Trump wins, he basically shutters

24:59

everything because he now controls the Justice Department.

25:03

The other challenge is to Mayor Garland, right?

25:05

So let's say the court decides,

25:07

comes out, then suddenly, there are going

25:09

to be pieces every day in all

25:11

your major newspapers from people saying, well,

25:13

you know, shouldn't he let the people

25:15

decide and tell, you know,

25:19

Smith to step down? Now, presumably, Garland will say,

25:21

look, I didn't tell her what to do. And

25:23

so I'm not going to tell Smith, but it's

25:26

going to be a topic of conversation, you

25:29

know, every day. Don't you think? Yeah,

25:33

I mean, the more we

25:35

get into the heat of the

25:37

political season and campaigning, the more

25:39

legitimate the arguments against having someone

25:41

on trial while they are the

25:43

presidential nominee of a major party

25:45

become. Then I should also mention

25:47

that member of the

25:49

Mar-a-Lago documents case in Florida, that

25:51

judge, who is a Trump appointee,

25:53

is on Friday revisiting the

25:55

whole question of when that trial might happen.

25:57

I think it's currently settled for May. she

26:00

could postpone that. And of course, we have all

26:02

the issues going on with the Georgia prosecution, which

26:04

is a giant case. And it's really hard to

26:06

see how that could go on trial for

26:09

November, even if Fannie Willis wasn't

26:11

under scrutiny. So we're looking at

26:13

the hush money trial in Manhattan,

26:15

the kind of smallest least

26:17

significant case is the only one that seems

26:20

to be on track. Can

26:22

I raise one possible question, which is okay, let's

26:24

say the, the trial doesn't take away.

26:26

Is it a certainty in this world

26:28

that having January 6 and Donald Trump's

26:31

role in it, with all the footage

26:33

of the attackers on the sixth waving

26:35

their Trump flags, and all

26:37

the testimony from Trump insiders

26:41

at the center and his insistence

26:44

that that the election was stolen, which

26:46

is an act of delusion, that

26:48

having that in the center of the campaign all the way

26:50

to the end is so great for Donald Trump. I mean,

26:52

I get how how he doesn't want to have a trial.

26:55

But in terms of what the election is

26:57

about, I mean, if you look at Donald Trump assert

26:59

that he won in his interview with Brett Barrett Fox

27:01

News, it was the like the

27:04

locked teeth delusion of a person who

27:06

really believes that. And I is

27:08

having that all the way through to the election. Is

27:11

that super great for Trump? I

27:13

mean, the rational answer would be no, but like, is

27:15

it going to move enough voters? Let's

27:17

go to this case that was argued already

27:20

in the Supreme Court. So Emily,

27:23

it's such a fascinating set of

27:25

issues. And I guess they hinge on a

27:27

bunch of key questions. But one is,

27:30

are social

27:32

media platforms common carriers like telephone companies

27:34

where what is said can't

27:36

be constrained by the operator? Are they

27:38

more like newspapers or bookstores where they

27:40

make decisions about what to emphasize and

27:43

promote based on their judgment? And if

27:45

the federal government tries to

27:47

stop the platform from exercising editorial

27:49

judgment, is it protecting free speech

27:51

of politically, politically moderated

27:54

posters who are who would otherwise be suppressed?

27:56

Or is it infringing on the free speech

27:58

of the platform? to moderate it. So, whoa.

28:02

I know, it is really interesting. We are

28:04

talking about two state governments, Florida and Texas

28:06

here, not the federal government. You're absolutely ready

28:08

to kind of search for an analogy. And

28:11

I think the Texas law only

28:13

applies to platforms, right? And so

28:15

this analogy of the telephone company

28:17

seems to not be apt in

28:19

that context. Like when you're talking

28:21

about the things you see on

28:23

your feed that everybody else can

28:25

see, then this idea of, well,

28:28

you can't interfere with the private

28:30

messages, people, what people are

28:32

saying over the phone, that doesn't seem

28:35

like it really works. Whereas in Florida,

28:37

their law potentially covers like Gmail and

28:39

Facebook Messenger, the things that are people

28:41

talking to each other that other people

28:44

can hear and see. So that's like

28:46

one distinction here. Then there's

28:48

this larger question about whether

28:51

what the platforms do when they

28:53

moderate content is exercising editorial

28:55

judgment. And what the platforms are

28:57

saying is, yes, for purposes of

28:59

our First Amendment rights, this is

29:01

our speech. We're making decisions. We're

29:03

blocking hate speech because we think

29:05

it's offensive. That's our decision

29:07

about what to say. Florida

29:10

and Texas came in and said, you

29:12

can't do that because this is a public square.

29:14

But the long time doctrine in

29:16

this area is that if you're a private speaker and

29:20

social media platforms are

29:22

private corporations, then yes,

29:24

you can manage content.

29:27

And the government cannot require you

29:29

to talk or require you not

29:31

to let someone else talk. There

29:33

is a real irony here, which is

29:36

that last year, the platforms were arguing

29:38

to the Supreme Court that they had

29:40

immunity from lawsuits under Section 230 of

29:42

the Communications Decency Act because they were

29:44

not the same as newspapers and they

29:46

weren't really editors. And oh, no, like

29:49

what we do is not speech for

29:51

that purpose. And so there were some

29:54

fighting moments, an argument where Justice Alito in particular

29:56

was pushing Paul Clement, the lawyer for the Supreme

29:58

Court, to the Supreme Court. social

30:00

media platforms on that, and I

30:02

am really interested in that. But

30:04

these laws do seem like they're

30:06

really problematic for what

30:09

social media platforms actually do without being

30:11

able to moderate content with things like

30:13

hate speech and disinformation. They become total

30:15

cesspools, and then their customers don't want

30:18

to be there anymore, at least presumably.

30:21

Well, as from a public policy standpoint, couldn't you

30:23

make the case that, well, if that's the case,

30:25

and nobody wants to be there anymore, the market

30:27

decides, and it collapses because it's a cesspool, and

30:29

that that's a better outcome than having the government

30:31

pick winners and losers. Isn't the

30:34

public policy case that's more

30:36

powerful that they

30:39

become a cesspool and there's misinformation and people

30:41

still keep going, that customers keep flocking to

30:43

it and it then becomes the news source,

30:46

and that spoils public

30:50

life because you're basically giving

30:52

a megaphone to things that

30:54

undermine public life? Does the

30:57

government's interest in the First Amendment extend

31:00

to a duty

31:03

to help create spaces where

31:05

reasonable discussion can occur? I

31:07

feel like one of the responsibilities, obviously

31:10

there's a First Amendment which infringes

31:12

on the government's ability to stop people

31:14

from speaking, but does the government have

31:16

any affirmative responsibility to allow spaces where

31:19

conversation can be humane

31:21

and productive to occur,

31:24

or does it not at all? That's a

31:26

great question. Our First Amendment doctrine is

31:29

not about creating humane and productive spaces.

31:31

It's about saying that if it is

31:33

truly a public forum, then the government

31:36

can't discriminate on the

31:38

basis of viewpoint. Now, all this is different

31:40

from what social media platforms can do because

31:42

they are private entities. Yeah. I also

31:44

think there's this important point that I can't remember

31:46

who made it, is that Florida

31:51

and Texas explicitly passed these

31:53

laws to advance conservative speech, and it

31:56

seems like the Supreme Court should look

31:58

very much askance at a government... effort

32:00

to explicitly help a particular political interest. It's

32:03

not merely a neutral thing that they're doing.

32:05

They're literally doing this so that they would

32:07

advance conservative speech. They

32:09

said this in passing it, and that's a

32:11

problem. Yeah. And they

32:14

were making up a fake concern because the social media

32:16

platforms have been excellent for conservative speech.

32:19

Yes, the facts of the case were different. And

32:21

it was being suppressed. Isn't

32:24

that cause enough for somebody to step

32:26

in and say, wait, the three speech

32:28

rights of these pro-abortion rights people are

32:31

being suppressed in Alabama? I

32:34

mean, again, it just depends what your analogy

32:36

is. If you're talking about Fox

32:38

News as the analogy, then

32:41

we are used to the idea that

32:43

Fox News can promote certain political viewpoints

32:45

and suppress others, and nobody blinks at

32:47

an eye. If you're talking

32:49

about it being like the town square or

32:52

the telephone company, then you

32:56

know we become uncomfortable again. And the problem

32:58

is social media companies are none of those

33:00

things. I mean, my own favorite metaphor for

33:02

them is a mall, because I think

33:05

at a mall, you don't think a lot

33:07

about whether you're in private or public space

33:09

until maybe the mall cops show up and

33:11

they're not the police. And that is analogous,

33:14

right? The content moderators are not

33:16

government actors. They are privately hired

33:18

forms of security because this is

33:20

a corporation and you are in

33:22

a corporate space, right? You're in

33:24

Disney World, effectively. And

33:26

that is just really hard for us to

33:29

quite figure out what to do with because they

33:31

have so much power. I mean, in some ways,

33:34

because they're international and they can't

33:36

be governed by any one national

33:38

government, they're more powerful than anyone

33:40

else. But our First Amendment just

33:42

doesn't sit comfortably with that role.

33:45

One of the things I would also unclear on is how

33:47

much of this has to do with the

33:50

social media companies literally not

33:53

publishing speech, like stopping it from being

33:55

published, banning people, and how much of

33:57

it has to do with not emphasizing

33:59

speech. criticizing it, not giving it prominence.

34:01

Because I think there are different things.

34:06

You can publish a book, but a book start doesn't

34:08

have to stock it prominently, put

34:10

it in the window. And

34:12

is the main complaint that the social media

34:15

companies are literally preventing you

34:17

from posting your hateful screed, or

34:19

is it they are just declining

34:22

to show your hateful screed to

34:24

anybody except you? I

34:26

mean, they do both those things. They

34:28

do actually delete some posts. They much

34:30

more, I think, look at what

34:33

you're posting and then change whether they amplify

34:35

your speech or not. And I

34:37

think the argument that they

34:39

get to decide what to amplify and how

34:41

the algorithms are going to work and that

34:43

that's an editorial set of

34:45

judgments, like, to me, that totally makes sense. I

34:47

just also think it applies in the Section 230

34:50

context. And I think

34:52

this whole broad immunity from lawsuits is

34:54

something that the government, the courts and

34:56

Congress should revisit. One

34:58

of the interesting edge cases for me is

35:00

group chats and more like the WhatsApp, the

35:02

sort of group chats, which has lots and

35:05

lots of people in them, which are sort

35:07

of public, but not exactly

35:09

public, but can be filled with

35:12

extremely hateful or

35:14

incendiary speech. And

35:17

whether those, because those are, on the

35:19

one hand, are they private communication channels

35:21

more like the phone or are they

35:23

public because they're widespread groups and

35:25

they're almost like broadcasting? I

35:28

don't know if they'll decide on that. That's a

35:30

really good question. I mean, some of these

35:32

questions really should go back to the lower

35:34

courts for more perusal. And there's a whole

35:37

problem in this case, which is that they

35:39

were brought under what's called a facial challenge,

35:41

which means that a law that regulates speech

35:43

can succeed only if the challengers can demonstrate

35:45

that the law is substantially overbroad. Because

35:48

of that posture of the case, there's

35:50

just some confusion about how the court is

35:53

going to sort out these underlying questions. I

35:55

think they'll just figure it out. They'll issue

35:57

an order that probably strikes down the law.

36:00

That's what this direction they were seem to be going

36:02

in but also leaves a lot of the details to

36:04

get sorted out later That's my guess In-laws

36:08

love them or hate them You're pretty much

36:10

stuck with them and when you're a ruler

36:12

in the Middle Ages that can be a

36:14

serious problem It might even land

36:16

you dead. I'm Dan Jones

36:18

and on season four of this is

36:20

history I'm telling the story of England's

36:22

weirdest King Henry the third He's

36:25

in way over his head and he's surrounded

36:27

by bloodthirsty relatives with their eyes on his

36:29

throne To listen search.

36:32

This is history and follow wherever you

36:34

get your podcasts If

36:40

you want to understand what is happening in the

36:42

United States right now You really need to understand

36:44

what's happening with the courts the law

36:46

and the Supreme Court The

36:48

battle between democracy and whatever this

36:51

cage matches that we're witnessing It's

36:53

going to be won and lost at the ballot box, but

36:55

it's also going to be won and lost in the courtroom

36:58

I'm Dalia. Let's wait. I host late

37:00

legal podcast amicus and we are

37:02

doubling our output Bringing you

37:05

weekly episodes from here on in

37:07

because how else can we keep

37:09

an eye on the many trials

37:11

of Donald Trump? the conservative legal

37:13

movements assaults on our rights the

37:15

Supreme Court's latest slate of environmental

37:17

gutting gun safety is dis erating

37:19

cases on the docket So

37:22

follow amicus wherever you get your

37:25

podcasts new episodes dropping every Saturday

37:27

morning Mitch

37:31

McConnell will step down as the Republican Senate

37:35

leader and the longest serving

37:37

Republican Senate leader at the end of this

37:39

year, although he'll continue He

37:41

says to serve out his term which ends in

37:43

2026 It

37:45

has been an incredible run for

37:47

the Kentucky senator The undoubted

37:49

capstone achievement being the blocking of Merrick

37:51

Garland's appointment to the Supreme Court in

37:54

2016 to succeed Justice

37:56

Scalia Thus preserving

37:58

a conservative majority on the court the court and

38:01

then also quite likely very,

38:03

I mean, I think almost inarguably winning

38:05

Trump the presidency. He's the

38:07

most effective cold-blooded deal-making sender of our

38:10

lifetime and as he left, he offered

38:13

this wonderful analysis about why he was

38:15

going. Believe me, I know

38:19

the politics of the end-by-party at

38:22

this particular moment in time.

38:25

I have many faults. Misunderstanding

38:28

politics is not what I'll

38:32

say. That said, I

38:34

believe more strongly than ever that America's

38:36

global leadership is essential

38:39

to preserving the shining city on a

38:42

hill that Ronald

38:44

Reagan discussed. John,

38:46

what does he mean when he says he understands

38:48

the politics of the moment and

38:51

that's why he's believing? It's

38:53

such a great question and he's such a

38:56

fascinating character and in the same way McKay

38:58

Coppins wrote about Romney as a way to

39:00

think about politics in this moment, Mitch McConnell

39:02

and the course of his career starting as

39:06

a Reagan Republican and where he is now, actually

39:08

going back even to when he worked in the

39:10

Senate before he was a senator in a much

39:12

more liberal kind of Republican Party. He

39:14

was at the march on Washington. What

39:16

does it mean? Okay, I think what it

39:18

means, it can mean one of two things. I

39:20

talked to Paul Kane in the Washington Post about

39:22

this on Wednesday night and I said basically is

39:24

he admitting when he says that, that

39:27

this is Donald Trump's party and he

39:29

has no place in it. And Paul

39:31

said, not exactly. He's admitting that on

39:33

his position on Ukraine and his

39:36

view of the way the Senate works and should

39:38

work is out of step with his party, which

39:40

is effectively saying the same thing, but

39:42

I think makes a smart distinction, which is that a

39:45

lot of the forces that have now swamped

39:47

the kind of Republicanism and the

39:49

kind of institutional interest that McConnell

39:51

has started before Donald

39:54

Trump and Trump is both grew out

39:56

of them and then inflamed them.

40:00

So the Tea Party movement, the

40:02

kinds of senators who replaced the ones that

40:04

McConnell used to be able to work with

40:06

on his own team, those have

40:09

been brought in by forces that are beyond just

40:11

Donald Trump. One

40:13

of the great examples is Rob Portman in Ohio.

40:15

A guy who wanted to get stuff done was,

40:18

an old fashioned Republican, low tax,

40:21

pro trade, anti

40:23

Russia, but would work within

40:25

the institution to get things done with Democrats replaced

40:27

by J.D. Vance, none of those things. And

40:30

also J.D. Vance, a kind of public, Mike Pence

40:33

wasn't right to certify the vote kind of Republican

40:35

going out and talking all the time. Portman went

40:37

out and talked when it was about, lowering

40:40

marginal rates or other kind of

40:42

technical things. And so is

40:44

a more boisterous play to the cameras kind of Republican,

40:46

which is a harder kind of Republican to deal

40:49

with when you're a majority leader and whoever the next majority

40:51

leader is, it's gonna be a real

40:54

challenge. So Emily, I think

40:57

I admire McConnell. I obviously don't admire

40:59

what he's done, but I find

41:02

him a remarkable figure. Will

41:05

the country miss his

41:07

form of extremely conservative,

41:10

but pragmatic deal making or will it

41:12

not? Chuck Schumer was definitely like

41:14

pouring one out for McConnell, right? I mean,

41:16

they've worked together for a long time. And

41:18

I think Schumer said, obviously

41:21

we disagree, vehemently,

41:24

but I could trust

41:26

McConnell. I knew where he stood, it was

41:28

straightforward. You knew what you

41:30

were getting. What is likely to come

41:32

next is someone who is more beholden

41:34

to Donald Trump. And those politics are

41:36

so mercurial and whimsical, right? And that's

41:38

how you have the kind of collapse

41:40

of the deals that they've been trying

41:42

to make in the last few months

41:44

with McConnell standing there saying, it's really

41:46

important that we don't let Russia take

41:48

over Ukraine. Putin is our enemy. Not

41:51

a clear message that one hears from Donald Trump

41:53

or the elements of the Republican Party who are

41:56

so loyal to him. John,

41:58

how much of McConnell's success do you think had

42:00

to do with him not really

42:03

caring about being liked? Thus

42:05

he was willing to sort of

42:07

absorb the heat, to be unpopular

42:10

for things that he wanted to get a

42:12

win on, and to take the

42:14

heat off of his colleagues. Was that

42:16

what made him effective or was it something else?

42:18

I always admired in him

42:20

that he was such an unlikable figure. You

42:24

put your finger on a crucial,

42:26

if not the crucial thing. What a source

42:28

time Matt Storf used to say. The most

42:30

important thing to know about

42:33

Mitch McConnell is his pain threshold. He

42:36

has an extraordinarily high pain threshold. He

42:38

doesn't mind being disliked. His

42:40

autobiography is called The Long Game, which

42:43

is essentially in the course of human

42:45

history and American history, things even out

42:47

over time. If you trust

42:49

in The Long Game, the momentary

42:52

freakouts get evened

42:54

out. It's basically the same version people use

42:57

to invest in the stock market. And

43:00

Biden believed in that. I think The

43:02

Long Game is under real debate at the

43:04

moment. In other words, we

43:06

are in such a highly transactional history

43:09

gets written 10 seconds ago moment. That's

43:11

the topic for another time. But I think

43:13

you're precisely right, David, that he was willing

43:15

to take the heat that he only

43:17

spoke, as he used to say and was true,

43:20

only spoke to the press when

43:22

it was in his interest and he needed

43:24

to. He didn't feel the need to constantly

43:26

be in front of the cameras. That's, of

43:28

course, antithetical to the modern Republican Party. And

43:32

slippers, the Democratic Party, where being in front of the cameras

43:34

all the time is crucial. And

43:38

so I think that's quite

43:40

important and perhaps most important

43:42

when it came to blocking

43:44

Merrick Garland, which

43:46

was a break with Senate tradition and

43:50

something that basically McConnell

43:53

steamrolled. And it's

43:55

interesting, the notion of

43:57

power with a majority leader, because it has changed over

43:59

the years. under McConnell's feet. The majority leader

44:01

is not as powerful as people say.

44:04

It's just that he had people like Rob Portman

44:06

and Lamar Alexander and others, who

44:09

were senators with his own party, who sort

44:11

of shared the same worldview. And he could

44:14

corral them and they were the, you

44:16

know, his biggest part of his block. And that

44:18

could get other people like to kind of fall

44:21

in line over time. But it didn't always work.

44:23

I mean, Jesse Helms, when you talk about the

44:25

like most cold blooded, Jesse Helms

44:27

was pretty cold blooded too. Now

44:30

there used to be that McConnell had

44:32

to deal with like Ted Cruz, who,

44:34

you know, was ultimately embarrassed himself when

44:36

he tried to

44:39

kill Obamacare. But now there's like a block

44:41

of like, I don't know, 8, 10, 12

44:44

of these kinds of Republicans. So the

44:47

job was never one where you could rule with an

44:49

iron fist. And when you have a more restive caucus,

44:52

it makes it that much harder. And

44:55

so pain threshold only gets

44:57

you so far because there's,

44:59

you don't get any, there's no gain for the

45:01

pain you're experiencing. But that

45:04

pain threshold was not high enough

45:06

to stand up against Trump's election

45:08

lie much earlier than

45:10

he ultimately did. The

45:12

sender's touted as his most likely replacement are

45:16

John Thune of South Dakota,

45:18

who's the Senate WOLP,

45:20

Republican whip, John Cornyn of Texas,

45:22

who had had leadership for

45:24

many years. So it hasn't been in leadership.

45:27

John Barrasso of Wyoming, they're all kind of

45:29

in the same mode. Barrasso a little bit

45:31

more conservative than the others. They're all pretty

45:33

conservative, but also on the deal

45:35

making side of the ledger.

45:39

A, well, one of them certainly get it. And B, is

45:41

it, John, you're sort of implying that

45:43

it won't be possible to lead in the

45:45

way that McConnell has been leading, even if

45:47

you have that temperament. I

45:50

think it's not possible to, I mean, unless you

45:52

do what the kind of, I think

45:54

it, no, I think it's just not possible. There's

45:56

too much benefit to being, there's a great story that

45:58

was told about here at Humphrey. And I

46:01

guess it was maybe Mike Mansfield, who was a

46:03

majority leader at the time, who was the previous record

46:05

holder of the longest serving majority leader before McConnell, that

46:08

basically Hubert Humphrey came to the Capitol, came to Washington and was

46:10

like, I'm going to do this and that. And he had press

46:12

conferences and he was bouncing around. He was like, make it a

46:14

name for himself. And either Mansfield

46:16

or some other senior bull said,

46:19

you know, buddy, that's

46:21

cute and all, but like, you're never going to get

46:23

a committee assignment. You're never going to have any power

46:25

to actually do any of the stuff that you say

46:27

you want to do unless you, you

46:29

know, kind of follow the rules and norms of the

46:32

inside game. Right. So, okay,

46:34

that was just a very previous Senate. Now

46:37

all of your power comes from

46:39

showing up on TV, raising money,

46:41

being super online and being incendiary.

46:43

So that's really hard to control.

46:45

I think that again, I'm just

46:47

stealing from Paul here. Whoever

46:50

gets this job will have had

46:52

to have corralled and gotten the

46:54

blessing of the kind of new

46:56

MAGA, JD Vance, Josh Hawley, Ted

46:58

Cruz types. And

47:01

to do that, you will have to have the implicit

47:04

or explicit blessing of Trump.

47:07

And if that's the case, Donald Trump

47:09

will make you an unhappy

47:12

person very quickly. If for no other

47:14

reason than Trump likes to remind people

47:16

that they owe him and he embarrasses

47:18

them. I mean, look at,

47:20

this is not exactly analogous, but look at what he

47:22

did to Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham after he won

47:24

South Carolina and New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, he turns

47:26

to Tim Scott and says, boy, you must really hate

47:29

Nikki Haley. I mean, she appointed you

47:31

to a Senator and yet you're endorsing me, making Tim

47:33

Scott shrinking him down to a tiny little

47:35

person, embarrassing him at this

47:37

moment of glory for Trump. Like

47:39

he didn't have to go and embarrass the guy who had endorsed him. Lindsey

47:42

Graham, he introduces him to the crowd in South Carolina

47:44

after he wins and says, Lindsey's to the left of

47:46

everybody here on the stage and the whole crowd boos.

47:50

So when that is the kind of reward

47:53

structure you're dealing with, whoever

47:56

is named majority leader, Trump will take credit

47:58

for the naming in the way he... He

48:00

took credit for shooting down Tom Emmer in

48:02

the House speakership race. And

48:04

then that person will constantly have to deal

48:06

with Trump saying either, I got

48:09

you here and now you're bucking me or patting

48:11

them on the head and saying, thank you for doing what

48:13

I wanted you to do. By the way, just back to the

48:15

structural thing, the Senate's already doing, the Republicans

48:18

in the Senate are already doing that with respect to

48:20

Trump. I mean, they killed immigration reform because of him.

48:23

Chuck Grassley said he doesn't want to vote for the new

48:25

tax bill because it's going to help Biden. And

48:29

they are essentially killing Ukraine aide

48:32

Lindsey Graham says because Trump doesn't want it. So

48:35

either very explicitly or implicitly, they're already doing

48:37

what Trump wants them to do. And

48:41

that's going to be a mess for whoever

48:43

the next Republican leader is. God. All

48:45

right. Let's go to cocktail chatter.

48:48

When you're trying to drink one off, Emily

48:51

Bazlone trying to drink away the

48:53

despair that that final Dickersonian

48:55

comment left me with, what are you going to

48:58

be chattering about? I

49:00

unfortunately have only more to be gloom

49:02

to offer, which is that Louisiana seems

49:04

to be on the brink of ending

49:06

parole for people who are

49:08

in prison, much diminishing the power of

49:11

good time credits, like the idea that

49:13

you can spend a little less time

49:15

in prison because of your behavioral record

49:17

there and your accomplishments, like if you

49:19

do educational programs. And also

49:22

there, you seem to

49:24

be thinking about ending the

49:26

credit you get for the time you're

49:28

in prison before you're on trial, like

49:30

your pre trial time wouldn't count. Yes.

49:33

How can I be well, can't be

49:35

constitutional. It seems bananas to

49:38

me. I don't understand it. I mean, judges could

49:40

obviously still take it into account, but it's just,

49:42

yeah, I, that's, I find the whole thing breathtaking.

49:44

I mean, you know, the

49:47

thing about all of these mechanisms

49:49

is that there are ways of

49:51

making, giving people incentive to improve

49:53

their lives in prison, right? Like

49:55

good time gives you a

49:57

reason to take. educational

50:00

courses if they're available to you

50:03

and to not have a lot of

50:05

rule violations. And

50:07

parole, the data in Louisiana shows

50:09

that people are less likely to

50:11

be convicted again if they get

50:13

out and they are on parole

50:16

because there are things that are

50:18

actually helpful sometimes about having someone

50:20

who's monitoring and supervising you. So

50:22

obviously that can become burdensome as

50:24

well. Anyway, this all

50:26

just seems so draconian and back

50:29

to this kind of tough on crime

50:31

idea that you just like treat people

50:33

in prison as brutally as possible and

50:35

that's somehow like that is a form

50:38

of revenge that supersedes what we should

50:40

be thinking about which is like helping

50:42

them do better when they get out

50:44

for their own sake and for all

50:46

of our sakes. It's

50:48

really seems super misguided but

50:50

that's all too possible in Louisiana.

50:53

Great. Thanks, John. How about you?

50:58

Well, an anonymous bidder paid $3.72

51:01

million for a box of unopened

51:04

hockey trading cards from the 1970s at that

51:06

was at auction I guess about a week

51:08

ago. And so this brings

51:12

to the fore basically Schrodinger's

51:14

sports card paradox which

51:16

is not what anybody calls

51:18

it but what I call it. So as you

51:20

may remember the tale of Schrodinger's cat was a

51:22

paradox made up by the physicist in this thought

51:25

experiment the cat who was in a box that

51:27

was closed and with a sealed lid was

51:30

both alive and dead

51:32

right up until you open the lid of the box

51:34

but then you wouldn't know whether you had opening the

51:36

lid had killed the cat or the cat it was

51:39

dead in the box itself beforehand. Anyway, so this

51:41

box of hockey trading cards could

51:43

contain enormous treasures including so

51:45

there are 48 packs in there which means there

51:48

might be as many as 30 rookie cards from

51:51

Wayne Gretzky one of the greatest players to ever

51:54

play hockey and one of those rookie cards recently

51:56

sold for more than $3 million. So

51:59

that's what could be. in the box or the

52:01

box could contain packs and packs and

52:03

packs and packs of players who have

52:05

been long forgotten. To

52:10

everybody, but their mother and they have

52:12

in their rec rooms with

52:15

the paneled walls, faded photographs of them

52:18

on the ice from the 1970s,

52:20

you know, flashing a toothy

52:22

grin at people passing on

52:24

the shag rug and there could be

52:27

no value in these cards. And

52:30

so, plus it has some old

52:32

like discarded old rotten gum.

52:34

But anyway, so what

52:36

does the owner do if they want to

52:38

resell the box that is unopened for a

52:41

profit, the auction house said don't open it.

52:43

But I mean, oh my god, what if you opened

52:45

it and you had all of these amazing cards in

52:47

there? I feel like Schrodinger never had

52:50

a cat because have you ever tried to put

52:52

a cat in a box? It is practically

52:54

impossible. You know what? I

52:57

think that here's the thing. You're trying to

52:59

sneak by a theory about quantum physics and

53:01

you don't want other items to interrupt the

53:03

flow of thought. You make it a

53:05

cat because people have lower opinions

53:07

of the passage of a cat. Yeah, if you put

53:10

the dog in people are gonna be talking, they're gonna

53:12

be worried a lot more about the dog. Exactly. Exactly.

53:15

What kind of dog was it? It had a walk already. Oh

53:17

my god, it's a beagle. I love beagle. Did it

53:19

pee in the box. My

53:23

chatter is I read

53:25

a wonderful novel. A wonderful

53:27

novel, which I commend

53:30

to you, especially Emily Bazlond. It's called

53:32

Plain Song. It's by Kent

53:34

Haruth. Oh,

53:36

Emily is shaking her fist

53:38

enthusiastically. It's like Gilead, but if

53:41

Gilead were happy, Gilead

53:43

weren't gruesome and depressing. Or

53:46

it's like a modern Willa Cather novel. It's

53:48

about a novel set in a small town

53:50

in Colorado in the 1980s. And

53:54

it's about some various

53:56

sorts of lonely people who connect

53:59

and have experience. extremely minor problem that

54:01

they need to resolve and it's beautiful.

54:05

And you know what else it reminded me of? Actually

54:07

Emily is Understood Betsy. That's

54:10

a good book. It's a great thing. The

54:12

childhood. Yeah. The kids book

54:14

about a girl who's sent to live with a

54:17

family she doesn't know because

54:19

there's a person who ends up

54:21

living with a not her family in

54:24

this book and it's wonderful. Anyway, I

54:26

loved it so much. So Plain Song

54:28

by Kent Harouf. I think I'll go reread

54:30

that. It was so good that book and I don't remember

54:32

it. Yeah. And it seems to be

54:35

part of a trilogy. So I just got a notice actually as

54:37

we were taping that the next book is on

54:39

hold at the library for me. So I'm

54:41

going to go get that. Also self-interested chatter

54:43

which is that CityCast is hiring big time.

54:46

We are hiring in Nashville and Austin

54:49

and Houston. And

54:51

if you go to citycast.fm

54:53

jobs we're hiring podcast producers,

54:55

podcast hosts, newsletter editors in

54:57

those cities. And

55:00

we're going to be launching in

55:02

Austin and Nashville in the spring. And

55:05

in Houston we're hiring a new executive producer

55:07

to lead that great team

55:11

in the podcast newsletter that

55:13

already exists. So it's creating daily local

55:15

podcasts for those cities. So if

55:17

you're in Austin

55:19

Nashville, can be in Austin Nashville, love

55:22

Austin Nashville and want to cover them,

55:25

please reach out. You can

55:27

also email me DavidPlots at

55:29

gmail.com but citycast.fm slash jobs

55:31

for those listings. Listeners

55:34

you have great chatters. You've

55:36

emailed them to us at gabfestofslate.com. We really appreciate

55:39

them. There have been a lot coming in. There

55:41

were two glorious ones. One

55:43

we almost even turned into a Slate Plus

55:45

segment but it was Emily, Emily, it's

55:48

like a minute too late in suggesting that. But

55:51

our listener chatter this week comes from

55:53

Jacob in Chicago, Illinois. Hey,

55:55

GAP Fest. Jacob here from

55:58

Chicago, Illinois. chatter

56:00

I bring you a Gabfest favorite.

56:03

Strodes. The TikTok account

56:05

at Cities by Diana has some of

56:07

the best car-centric content on the internet.

56:09

Riley written as if for fans

56:12

of Strodes, what Diana calls oil-pilled

56:14

pavement princesses or dyed-in-the-wool auto brains.

56:17

This account rips into cities' poor urban

56:19

planning. My favorites were the

56:22

takedowns of San Jose, California and

56:24

Breezewood, Pennsylvania. There is,

56:26

of course, a ranking of the top

56:28

Strodes in America, including one so bad

56:30

it's considered a Stryway. As

56:33

a spoiler, number one is U.S. Route

56:35

19, the Strode in the Vox article

56:37

that started it all. The

56:39

sardonic, satirical content will make you laugh,

56:42

then cry, and then look at the

56:44

built environment around you with a more

56:46

critical eye. Happy Stroding!

56:59

That's our show for today. The Gabfest

57:01

is produced by Sheena Ross. Her researcher

57:03

is Julie Hugin back from her winter

57:05

vacation in Yellowstone. Ask her

57:07

about the bison. Ask her about the buffalo. Her

57:10

theme music is by They Might Be Giants. Ben

57:13

Richmond is senior director for podcast operations and Alicia

57:15

Montgomery is the VP of audio for Slade. Emily

57:17

Bazlawn and John D'Ibertson have your applause. Thanks for

57:20

listening. We will talk to you next week. And

57:22

please come to our live show in D.C. on

57:24

March 27th. Tickets

57:26

at slade.com/Gabfest live. How

57:39

are you? A key element

57:41

of the Republican investigation of the

57:43

Biden crime family appeared

57:45

to disintegrate last

57:48

week with the aggressive Alexander Smirnoff.

57:50

Smirnoff, you may have heard, appears

57:52

to be the only source of

57:55

the most explosive claim against Joe and Hunter Biden,

57:57

which is that they each took a $5 million

57:59

dollar bill. bribe to help

58:01

the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. But

58:04

rest assured listeners that Smirnov's arrest

58:07

will not slow deter in

58:10

any way alter the

58:12

massive investigation into Hunter Biden, presidential

58:14

brother James Biden, and others involving

58:17

claims that they conspired with President

58:19

Biden to corruptly do business in

58:21

China and Ukraine, and also computers,

58:23

and also drugs and taxes and

58:26

everything else. So there's this

58:28

amazing stat, I don't know if you guys saw

58:30

this in dramatic glaciers, which is that there have

58:32

been 70 hours of Hunter Biden hearings and

58:35

13 bills related to Hunter

58:37

Biden. I doubt there have been

58:39

70 hours of hearings about the budget or

58:41

Ukraine, congressional hearings, or Ukraine

58:44

aid or the Gaza war or income

58:46

inequality or anything. What is going

58:48

on with this obsession, John? I think what's going on

58:50

is what we were kind of talking about earlier in

58:52

the change in the reward

58:54

structure of the modern Republican party.

58:57

All parties have to one

58:59

way or another rewarded their

59:01

most partisan scrappers in

59:04

the public square. But I mean, this is

59:06

now the entire business.

59:09

I was just a snippet from our Slate

59:11

Plus conversation. If you want to hear the whole conversation,

59:13

go to slate.com slash

59:15

gabfestplus to become a member today. member

59:18

today.