0:06

Welcome to talking fans. a round

0:09

table that brings together prominent figures

0:11

from government law and journalism for

0:13

a dynamic discussion of the most important

0:15

topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman.

0:17

T minus one week,

0:20

and the midterm's landscape is far

0:22

from settled. The Republicans seem

0:24

to have consolidated overall gains

0:26

in the last few weeks but most

0:28

polls remain well within the margin of

0:31

error and their baked in limitations

0:33

leave ample room to upset expectations

0:37

come election day. While

0:39

Biden and other government officials are

0:41

crisscrossing the country with the relatively

0:43

good, late breaking economic news,

0:45

An uphill battle given the continuing

0:48

deadweight of inflation and gas

0:50

prices. Other Democrats tried

0:52

to break through the political cacophony

0:55

with warnings of the consequences in

0:57

store for the country should Republicans

0:59

take either House of Congress. democracy

1:03

is on the ballot they scream.

1:05

But can that sort of message be

1:07

heard over the Republicans refrain

1:09

of inflation immigration, and

1:12

crime. The warnings about the

1:14

election's broader stakes are not simply

1:16

campaign rhetoric. There is strong

1:18

reason to fear that Republicans, hundreds

1:21

of whom are running state and federal

1:23

races on profess belief

1:25

in the big lie. would use the

1:27

legislative power they gain in the midterms

1:30

to undermine longstanding features

1:32

of American society and launch course

1:34

of meritless investigations of

1:37

Biden, merit garland, and

1:39

democrats in general, all with

1:41

an eye toward advancing their chances

1:43

to take the White House back in twenty twenty

1:45

four. Their toxic rule could

1:47

only further the breakdown in civil

1:49

society that had perhaps its

1:52

most vivid illustration last week

1:54

with the brutal attack on Nancy

1:56

Pelosi's husband by a hammer

1:58

wielding political extremist shouting

2:00

Where's Nancy?

2:02

Playing into all these difficult calculations

2:05

is the overall wildcard of

2:07

Donald Trump. who seems to be

2:09

and erase himself between an

2:11

announcement for candidacy for president

2:14

and an indictment for obstruction. to

2:17

call the race as it heads to the wire

2:19

virtually neck and neck touching

2:21

on its connections to the legal

2:23

threats against the former president We

2:26

welcome three of the most savvy

2:28

and knowledgeable political commentators

2:30

in the country, and they are.

2:33

Susan Glasser, an award winning

2:35

journalist and news editor. She's a

2:37

staff writer at the New Yorker where

2:39

she writes the weekly column on

2:41

life in Washington. She

2:43

served as the top editor of several

2:45

Washington based publications, most

2:48

recently founding political magazine

2:50

where she was the editor throughout the two

2:52

thousand sixteen election cycle.

2:54

She's written several books, including

2:56

the brand new the divider with

2:58

her husband, Peter Baker, which we're

3:01

really excited to be doing is a talking

3:03

books event next month in Los

3:05

Angeles. last but not least.

3:07

It's her first time to talking

3:09

Fed, Susan Glasser. Thanks so much for joining

3:11

us. Thanks for having me. Joe

3:14

Lockhart, not his first time. I'm happy

3:16

to say the managing director at the PR

3:18

firm, a rational three sixty. He

3:21

is one of the top communications and

3:23

public affairs professionals in the country.

3:26

Frequently you see him on TV.

3:28

He was press secretary under president

3:30

Clinton from nineteen ninety eight to

3:32

two thousand and before that to

3:34

a number of other prominent officials,

3:37

He founded the communications consulting

3:39

firm, Glover Park Group. He's worked for

3:41

Facebook, the NFL, and

3:43

many others. Joe, thanks very

3:45

much for returning to

3:47

talking feds. Glad

3:48

to be here. Glad to always come back.

3:51

Josh Marshall. a

3:53

journalist, blogger, and the founder

3:55

of Talking Point's memo,

3:57

which in two thousand seven became

4:00

the first and only blog to win

4:02

the George Polk Award for a legal

4:04

reporting and which I can

4:06

say first introduce me

4:08

to the art of blogging

4:11

and which I still think of as really

4:13

unparalleled in the country. but

4:15

Josh's writing also has been widely

4:17

featured in many leading national

4:20

publications and he hosts. The

4:22

excellent Josh Marshall podcast

4:24

where he provides insight into the big

4:26

political stories of the day,

4:28

always feel lucky to be able to

4:30

welcome him to talking vets especially

4:32

on such a critical week. Thanks a lot

4:35

for returning Josh Marshall.

4:37

Thanks for having me. Alright.

4:39

So we are staring

4:41

down the barrel of the mid turns, which are

4:43

next week. Last week on

4:45

this podcast, we talked about the

4:47

shift toward the Republicans, at least in

4:49

the generic ballot. I

4:51

guess, let's start there. As of last

4:53

week, the dam's fortunes had

4:55

sort of turned did

4:57

they do anything substantial

5:00

to shake up the dynamic

5:03

in the last week? I think

5:05

we're kind of late enough in the cycle

5:07

where there's not a lot you

5:09

can do to shake

5:11

things up things get shaken up often

5:13

for reasons that are just very hard

5:15

to suss out. I think

5:17

one of the things that I always try to remind

5:19

people is that in

5:21

the last 234

5:23

weeks before an election, you

5:25

have a small

5:27

but significant part of the

5:29

electorate that is tuning in for the

5:31

first time. And so

5:34

what can seem like some

5:36

sudden break to one side or

5:38

the other isn't necessarily a

5:41

break in the sense of anything changing.

5:44

It is a portion of the electorate just

5:46

kind of dialing in to the

5:48

election. And that is a, you

5:50

know, relatively small part of the

5:52

electorate kind of at this stage

5:55

in our politics. But by definition,

5:57

it's the people who are up for grabs.

5:59

Right?

5:59

The

5:59

people who have been watching constantly for the

6:02

last year they're committed. So

6:04

I think there are things that

6:06

Democrats did not do earlier,

6:09

that they are paying some price for.

6:11

But I think we're

6:13

in my read is we are in

6:15

that stage of the campaign where

6:18

it it's just sort of a sprint,

6:20

and I'm not sure that anything either

6:22

side is doing in an overt

6:24

political sense is making that

6:26

big a difference. So let me just ask

6:28

to follow-up that

6:30

suggests and it's always been a sort

6:32

of electric on a nice edge. that

6:34

there may be people not through any

6:37

strength or discovery of

6:39

either party who will still be in play because they're

6:41

just checking in. I wonder,

6:43

Susan and Andrew, if you thoughts about that and

6:45

if I can just put a finer point on

6:47

it, do you consider that

6:50

the house is now out of reach? Well,

6:52

I think Josh's point is an excellent

6:54

one. By definition anybody who's undecided

6:56

in this climate of, you know,

6:58

people having pretty fixed

6:59

views

7:00

might have less focus on politics to

7:03

begin with. The Congress is also true

7:05

though, which is that there's so much more

7:07

early voting and mail in voting.

7:09

There are millions of people who have already

7:11

cast ballots. So the premise

7:13

of a late surge or a

7:15

late change in message by the

7:17

parties and and and you see stories every

7:19

day this week that our Democrats will

7:21

now focus on this or, you know, Biden

7:23

is now making a last approach to

7:25

talk about Social Security and Medicare. Well,

7:27

that's irrelevant to the millions of votes that

7:30

are already one way or the other

7:32

now accounted for. So you know,

7:34

I think it's really almost a voting

7:36

period that we now really have

7:38

in the United States as opposed to a

7:40

voting day. which doesn't necessarily

7:43

cut in favor of either party, I

7:45

would point out, as to the more

7:47

general question about, well, is the house just

7:50

out of reach for democrats. Let's

7:52

put it this way that we're democrats to

7:54

keep the house at this point. That would

7:56

be a significant upsetting

7:58

of the expectations game,

8:00

certainly. Yeah.

8:01

I'm probably less in the

8:03

doom and gloom group for Democrats and I'm

8:05

the only partisan on this

8:07

call or professional politician.

8:09

I

8:09

think there are so many variables in

8:12

this race that it's really

8:14

hard to understand who's gonna

8:16

vote. And

8:17

the variables are the

8:19

Dobbs' decision.

8:20

How much does that motivate people?

8:22

the

8:24

attack on democracy. That is the

8:26

number one issue among Democrats in the state

8:28

of New York. The rate of inflation,

8:30

which people feel and

8:33

Trump's name not being on the ballot.

8:35

Again, all of these things I think are

8:38

so hard to model. And if the

8:40

posters get it right this time,

8:42

they've

8:42

done incredible work. The

8:44

track

8:44

record of the last few elections has

8:46

not been incredible.

8:48

So I agree with everything that Josh

8:50

and Susan said on messaging. I

8:53

think from

8:54

the beginning, democrats were laid on

8:56

inflation. there's

8:57

a couple of Democrats I think now who are

9:00

using a message and the question is, is it too

9:02

late that I

9:03

think could work,

9:05

which is that Culture

9:07

wars banning abortion does nothing

9:10

to impact inflation.

9:11

Getting rid of gay marriage is

9:13

nothing, but that's very late in

9:15

the game. and whether

9:17

that will have an impact or not I'm

9:19

skeptical of. But the only reason I'm

9:21

not willing to go

9:23

to the top of a tall building and jump

9:25

off at this point is

9:26

I don't know who's gonna

9:29

vote. I'll make

9:30

a broader point Every election

9:32

we have, somebody says it's the most

9:34

important election in the history of our country. Now

9:36

that can't possibly be true. But

9:38

I

9:38

think this might be the most predictive

9:41

election that we've seen about where the

9:44

country is going. You

9:45

have a very short term

9:48

economic pain that people

9:50

are feeling

9:51

versus very fundamental rights.

9:54

The right to have an abortion.

9:56

The

9:56

right to have your vote counted

9:58

for

9:59

democracy to

9:59

mean something. And I think if

10:02

inflation overwhelms those

10:04

two fundamental issues and we have

10:06

people like doctor Oz and Hershel walk

10:08

in Senate. That

10:09

is a big step

10:11

towards the failure of democracy.

10:13

We've

10:14

seen many steps already

10:16

former president Trump being sort

10:18

of

10:18

the instigator. But that

10:20

would be, for me, that

10:22

would be a takeaway from, I guess, what

10:24

people are expecting. which is

10:26

a big day for Republicans.

10:28

One

10:28

quick follow-up to all of you. So you

10:30

put your finger or sorry, your

10:33

fingers on what I take to be separate

10:35

rhetorical strategies. So, Donna,

10:37

Brazil, and the democracy point

10:39

said, to the extent it's a referendum

10:41

on Biden in Washington, dams,

10:43

lose, The only way it works out

10:45

otherwise is for the electorate to

10:47

grasp the democracy itself is on

10:49

the ballot. Susan, you

10:51

wrote, you know, about a possibility

10:53

that there are untold ranks

10:55

of especially, not only, but especially

10:57

women who are going

10:59

to come forward in midterms in

11:01

protest or fear of the mob's

11:03

decision. And then, of course, the

11:05

White House is on the hostings,

11:07

bride and emissaries all over the

11:09

country talking about pretty

11:11

good manufacturing results

11:14

and jobs, etcetera. Now

11:16

is that fine? Is it, you know,

11:18

if you were the the God of

11:20

the Democratic Party, and I know nobody here will apply

11:23

for that job. Would you

11:25

want to wrangle them in a way that

11:27

coalesced around one or another

11:30

of these fairly different themes?

11:32

And as you've just said, Joe, kinda

11:34

short range versus long range?

11:36

Or do you think IT'S

11:38

FIND FOR ALL THREE OF THESE

11:40

TONES TO BE SOUNDED IN THESE

11:42

LAST DAYS. Andrew:

11:43

WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A

11:46

CONFUSING MESSAGE to the extent that you can

11:48

call it a single message. I was struck.

11:50

I listened to all of Biden's

11:52

campaigning last week, and

11:54

there was this sort of technocratic

11:57

approach, a kind of all things

11:59

to all people, hey, we've done a

12:01

lot. We've passed these bills. infrastructure,

12:04

you know, it had a sort of bridge

12:06

to the twenty first century, quality

12:08

to it, and it's hard to imagine

12:11

that that's really what

12:13

people even potentially parts and

12:15

democrats wanna hear from the

12:17

president right now if there's so

12:19

much discontent it's

12:21

really hard to go out there with, hey,

12:23

we've passed a lot of bills that don't

12:25

necessarily address the thing you're upset

12:27

about. But, hey, you know, we've been working

12:29

hard for you. On the abortion

12:31

thing and the turnout there,

12:34

I do think there's this sort of but

12:36

what about Kansas? kind

12:38

of hope. And in general, I would

12:40

say that's right now. I saw an

12:42

Israeli analyst who's talking about

12:44

their upcoming election in which

12:46

Benjamin Netanyahu looks like he may

12:48

be making a comeback and and wrote about

12:50

the phenomenon of

12:52

election dread And it seems to me

12:54

that right now we're in the kind of

12:56

election dreaduncertainty phase

12:59

where it's like hurtling towards some

13:01

kind of disaster and people are just

13:04

waiting for something, but they don't even know what

13:06

the thing is per se that

13:08

might avoid it. Maybe it'll be a worsening.

13:10

Maybe it'll be you know, some

13:12

terrible realization that actually

13:14

democracy is on the line or that there will be three

13:16

hundred election denialist in

13:17

congress. I don't

13:20

think

13:20

that kind of generic

13:22

hopefulness is proven to be all that

13:24

successful in the last few years. It has the

13:26

feel of that kind of

13:28

deus ex machina, hope

13:31

about Donald Trump that there was gonna be

13:33

this transformative moment, this

13:35

accountability moment that would come, and he

13:37

would get drag off the scene and, you

13:39

know, into the orange jumpsuit or

13:41

whatever. You know,

13:41

I think if you look at

13:44

what

13:44

Democrats

13:46

are doing. If you

13:47

watch the ads in the senate

13:50

races and the congressional races, you'll see what

13:52

they think is working and not working.

13:53

I thought

13:54

Biden gave an incredibly strong

13:56

speech defending democracy now

13:58

about a month ago. And

14:00

Susan's right. It's now about

14:02

accomplishments. And

14:03

Susan, it will not take Bridge to the twenty first century

14:05

personally. Mhmm. That's going back

14:07

into the playbook, but it

14:09

doesn't have the power

14:11

that

14:12

defending democracy has. But

14:14

I'll

14:14

say this, around the country, if you

14:16

talk to media consultants, they

14:19

all shifted away from abortion about a

14:21

month ago. and went to the economy.

14:22

They didn't do that because they all just happen

14:25

to have the same crazy idea at the same

14:27

moment. So they were looking

14:29

at polling and the

14:31

consensus was we've got to

14:33

move back to the economy. As

14:35

I've said before, I'm skeptical

14:37

of the polling. but Democrats

14:39

have left themselves in

14:41

a position where they

14:44

haven't made a consistent argument over

14:46

the long term. They've shifted And

14:49

generally, those with a consistent

14:51

message do better than those, you know, who are

14:53

shifting. I

14:54

mean, it could be also they're

14:55

following the polls because my I

14:57

I believe in the summer and when they were

15:00

kind of bucking the odds,

15:02

the voters were mentioning

15:04

democracy as well as

15:06

gun control and abortion. And

15:08

those vary factors, I think, have

15:11

receded, you know, in recent polls. And of

15:13

course, the Republicans are pounding

15:15

the table on immigration

15:18

crime and inflation

15:21

Josh,

15:21

thoughts about, like, even the ability

15:23

of an electorate, any

15:25

electorate, but let's say, oh,

15:28

the US electorate in twenty twenty

15:30

two to be moved

15:32

by what it sure seems to

15:34

me and maybe everyone here to be

15:36

transcended most important

15:38

values, but were

15:40

told regularly

15:41

that they're drowned out by

15:43

immediate pocketbook issues.

15:45

So often, I go back to reconstruction or

15:48

civil war. I know your history about these

15:50

days. And you do think that people were

15:52

voting on transcendent

15:54

or national values. Is

15:56

that just not something you can

15:59

expect the electorate

15:59

to be doing? I guess

16:01

the thing to me is that we we can't

16:03

think of a thing the electorate.

16:05

we have maybe, you know, forty

16:08

five percent of the electorate that

16:11

is going to be voting on

16:13

the degradation of rights in

16:15

this country, the threats

16:17

against democracy, all, you know, all that kind of

16:19

stuff. We're talking about a very small portion

16:21

of the electorate that is in play here. So

16:23

it doesn't make sense to me to kind of, you

16:25

know, the public can't rise to the

16:27

challenge sort of argument. And

16:29

I guess I would also say that

16:32

we are often too literal

16:35

about how people think about

16:37

issues in an election. You know, you mentioned

16:39

before inflation crime,

16:42

various social issues. I

16:44

think for the right, those are really

16:47

one big issue,

16:49

which is a general

16:51

disorder in society that is

16:53

very threatening and

16:55

frightening. You know, we talk about

16:57

crime. In most respects,

16:59

crime has not gone up in

17:02

any significant way since

17:04

the pandemic. But it

17:06

has in some respect you know,

17:08

I was just looking recently at the crime statistics in New York

17:10

City. It's where I live, you know, I was just kind

17:12

of curious. And to me,

17:14

the the fundamental crime is always murder.

17:17

right, in many different levels, not just foundationally, but also

17:19

in terms of knowing whether it's going up

17:21

or down. Some crimes don't don't

17:24

get reported. when someone's murdered, you know,

17:26

there's a body, you have to account for it in some

17:28

way. Violence, you

17:30

know,

17:31

stuff like that is flat.

17:34

hasn't really gone anywhere. Burglary

17:36

hasn't, robbery hasn't. But

17:38

certain kinds of grand larceny

17:41

your car getting ripped off, or

17:43

people going into a store and

17:45

stealing stuff, that has gone up

17:48

significantly. in the

17:50

sort of the pandemic era. These are all

17:52

New York stats. These are New York stats,

17:54

but they are broadly mirrored, I

17:56

think, across the country. In this

17:58

sense, that Certain

17:59

kinds

17:59

of crime have gone up,

18:02

but other kinds of crime in some ways the

18:04

most fundamental ones,

18:06

again, murder, stuff like that. People breaking

18:08

into your house who have not. Obviously,

18:10

there's variation in different parts of the

18:12

country. So I think that is what is

18:14

propelling Republicans right

18:16

now. the sense that, you know, they

18:18

used to have those little, you know, snow

18:20

globe things. It's like someone took a society.

18:23

Right. Yeah. And just shook it out. and

18:25

that really is what has happened. During and in

18:27

the aftermath of the pandemic,

18:29

that affects people. That makes people think

18:31

that something is fundamentally wrong. Something is going wrong.

18:33

And that is something politically that

18:36

an incumbent party has to

18:38

deal with. And I think again,

18:40

at a very basic level,

18:42

if you are looking at society

18:44

and seeing that certain

18:46

core things that you have to buy all

18:48

the time become more expensive really

18:51

quickly. It is inherently difficult

18:54

for the people who are in

18:56

charge. to say, we didn't

18:59

do it. But if you elect us again, we'll

19:01

fix it. Right? And, you

19:03

know, that's kinda true, but that is

19:05

just inherently a difficult

19:07

argument to make. Just on logical

19:09

principles. If you're kind of

19:11

bummed about some core things,

19:13

about how things are going, who

19:15

are you gonna take it out on? The people who aren't

19:17

in power? Again, these are just some

19:19

kind of fundamental things that I

19:22

think we have to be

19:24

realistic about. I would share some of the Not even

19:26

sure I would say skepticism about

19:28

the polls. I think there is uncertainty

19:30

about the polls. And one

19:33

thing that I think hangs over

19:35

every political observer

19:37

right now is the fact that we have

19:40

had a couple big elections where

19:42

the polls were off

19:44

by a not a huge but a significant

19:47

amount favoring Republicans. twenty

19:50

sixteen, twenty twenty. Twenty eighteen

19:52

is a little less clear. It's

19:54

happened twice. Now if you look in

19:56

the broad scope of history,

19:58

it bounces around, you know, polls favor one site,

20:00

you know, kind of a wrong on one

20:03

side or another. It's hard to

20:05

ignore that. Quite possible

20:07

if you were to look in retrospect

20:09

in a few weeks and say, wow, democrats did

20:11

better than we thought. I think you

20:13

could point to some reasons why

20:15

polls might be underestimating

20:17

Democratic support.

20:19

It's also the case that the polls

20:21

are actually pretty close. But

20:23

we all assume that they are going to be

20:26

understating Republican support

20:28

by maybe two or three percent.

20:30

and not without some reason. Well,

20:32

they've also moved as the other thing.

20:34

Absolutely. No. There's definitely been a move. I

20:36

would say that there was a

20:39

significant move maybe two weeks ago to

20:41

a week ago, and then they seemed to

20:43

kind of settle. But again, a lot of

20:45

these things are just, you know, kind of they moved and then they

20:47

stopped moving a lot of that's just sort of noise.

20:49

But no, there definitely seems to

20:51

be a late trend

20:53

favoring Republicans. And I think there's good reason

20:55

to think when you look at a lot of

20:58

races that are basically tied. You say, you know what?

21:00

I'm gonna give that one to the side that seems

21:02

to have the wind in its back right now,

21:04

even if nominally the poles are

21:06

tied. But all of these things, you could

21:09

look back and say, you know

21:11

what, that wasn't the case. So

21:13

there's a decent amount of uncertainty. Made

21:15

silver would be the first to say, and it's through.

21:17

Yeah. And I think more than is

21:19

normally the case just with any polling

21:22

situation. If you

21:22

look at this Harry with a historical

21:25

perspective, a Republican victory, a

21:27

red wave, should be inspected.

21:29

Right. Chip O'Neil took Ronald Reagan

21:31

to the cleaners in nineteen eighty too, and

21:33

everyone thinks Ronald Reagan's the best politician

21:35

who was ever alive. Look at

21:37

Clinton in nineteen ninety four. Look at

21:39

Obama in two

21:41

thousand ten. So there is

21:43

a structural advantage

21:45

for the challengers. But again,

21:47

I come back to my original

21:50

point is don't know what the structure

21:52

is of this electorate. And

21:54

that's why I have some question

21:56

in my mind. The really interesting

21:58

thing and this is something that we

21:59

experienced in the White House with president

22:02

Clinton was it was a lot easier when it

22:04

was divided government.

22:05

When Democrats

22:06

were in charge of all three branches,

22:08

we owned every problem. And if

22:10

we didn't solve it, we got blamed for it.

22:12

And all of a sudden, when new

22:14

Cambridge owned some of the problem.

22:16

We

22:16

owned New Cambridge, and the

22:19

president was reelected running, you know,

22:21

going away. So if

22:23

I'm Democrats, there

22:25

are there are problems that will

22:27

exist particularly on oversight if

22:29

the Republicans take the

22:31

house. but there are also opportunities

22:33

there,

22:33

and it will change the dynamic for the

22:36

presidential race next time. I would

22:37

even say there's a good argument that it

22:40

actually helps the democrats. in

22:42

twenty twenty four. So

22:43

I've spent this week in Washington where

22:45

people are, you know, specialize

22:47

in double bank and triple bank

22:50

analyses But, yeah, that seems to be what the

22:52

conventional wisdom on the street so they take the

22:54

house, do the Republicans, they

22:57

impeach Merrick Garland, they

22:59

impeached Joe Biden, etcetera,

23:02

and they just go too far

23:04

being Republicans.

23:05

And in twenty twenty four,

23:08

it aids Biden in the Democratic threats

23:10

generally. I mean, that does seem like kind

23:12

of a pan glossy and view, you

23:14

know, that's, oh, just where we wanna be, but

23:16

what do you think? And more generally,

23:18

you know, what should we be

23:21

hunkering down for in the

23:23

event the r's at least take

23:25

the

23:25

house? I mean,

23:26

I think Panglassian is as good a word

23:29

as any. But that scenario, it kind of

23:31

reminds me of Democrats' approach in certain

23:33

of the contested races this year. to

23:35

be actually spending money on

23:37

behalf of the more extreme,

23:39

even election denying Republican

23:41

candidates in hopes of getting extreme

23:44

candidates. Now some of those extremists are going

23:46

to win election. And that has the

23:48

potential to backfire. We don't know how

23:50

on how big of a scale, but that has the potential

23:52

to backfire on Democrats. And it just it

23:54

reminds me in general of

23:56

some of the approach

23:58

of dealing with Trump that I don't

24:00

think was very successful necessarily

24:03

certainly not necessarily good for the country

24:05

over the the four years of Trump's presidency.

24:08

In a way, I think it speaks

24:10

to our ingrained desire

24:13

to fit these very

24:16

outlier times in American politics

24:18

into the frame of what we

24:20

perceive to be at least a more normal

24:23

status quo before Trump.

24:25

And that strikes me as quite

24:27

risky. You know, Marjorie Taylor

24:30

Green's House Republican Conference

24:32

isn't even anything like New York's House Republican

24:35

Conference. And so to therefore

24:37

project outwards from, hey, well,

24:39

you know, new one in the house in

24:41

nineteen ninety four and it was okay and, you know,

24:43

Bill Clinton got reelected. I've

24:45

heard that a lot. I just had a

24:47

conference here with senior foreign

24:49

officials who were making that argument to me because

24:51

that's what they heard in

24:53

Washington on their visits, the triple

24:55

bank shot, like, well, won't it be okay?

24:57

The other factor I think

24:59

that suggests that's a a risky

25:01

analysis to make is the

25:03

incredible weakness of the democratic potential

25:05

field in twenty twenty four. You're looking

25:07

at either Joe Biden

25:09

running again who is not

25:11

only, you know, very unpopular

25:14

by historical standards, the most unpopular

25:17

president right now, if anyone except for possibly

25:19

Donald Trump, at this point in

25:21

his tenure. But, you know, if he does choose

25:23

to run again, he's already the oldest

25:25

president ever. He would be

25:27

as old as eighty six at

25:29

the end of second term in office. That

25:32

strikes me as a potentially very weak

25:34

candidate for democrats and yet there's

25:36

no obvious other

25:38

candidate. We may be in a

25:40

situation, especially if

25:42

Republicans take both houses

25:44

of Congress where you have Donald Trump

25:46

announcing his candidacy for

25:48

president within weeks from

25:50

now. And so again, you

25:52

know, panlocity and strikes me as a polite way

25:54

of saying. That is a

25:57

Diluted.

25:57

Right? Well, I'll

25:59

I'll

25:59

leave adjectives you guys.

26:01

Let me push back on a

26:03

few of those points. Yeah. Because I really

26:05

disagree. Let's take first the issue

26:08

of I think but the extent to

26:10

which Democrats basically

26:12

ran ads

26:15

showing that more

26:17

extremist candidates were more

26:19

extremist on the thinking that there is a big

26:21

market for that in a Republican primary

26:23

electorate. I don't think there is

26:25

really any way that will backfire

26:27

on Democrats. First, because

26:29

I don't think many of them will win.

26:32

But I think the reason that was the right

26:34

decision is that

26:36

Democrats correctly

26:38

noted that in practice, it

26:40

has not mattered whether

26:42

you are an

26:44

election denier when it actually

26:47

counts. and how you vote in congress

26:49

versus one that is really

26:51

over the top about it. They end

26:53

up voting the same way.

26:55

the more moderate Republicans also

26:59

voted on January six

27:01

to try to deny the

27:03

electoral accounts. What we have seen is

27:05

that the more modern

27:07

Republicans with some

27:09

very, very small exceptions,

27:11

all of whom are now gone, end

27:13

up voting with those people. And

27:15

I think Democrats made what I believe

27:17

is the correct judgment

27:20

that in those cases, it actually

27:22

did not matter if

27:24

the more extreme candidate

27:28

one, because they end up voting the same

27:30

way. And I would go down the

27:32

list with you on all the kind of

27:34

significant actions, significant votes,

27:36

That is the case. On the point about, is

27:38

it actually, you know, work to the benefit of

27:40

the democrats in some ways if

27:43

Republicans win congress? No

27:46

one is saying it's the better outcome.

27:49

Democrats are out there working themselves to

27:51

death, trying to prevent it. but

27:53

it is also worth noting

27:56

that we have two examples of

27:58

this from relatively

28:00

recent history which is the ninety four election and the

28:02

twenty ten election. And

28:03

the Democratic president, one

28:06

reelection in both cases, two

28:08

years later. This isn't a matter of like,

28:11

it's an unsafe thing

28:14

to predict. I mean, there are

28:16

no safe options. I would

28:18

say for Democrats or for the

28:20

country generally right now,

28:22

we're out there kind of on our own trying to figure

28:24

out how to save the future of the country.

28:26

But the idea that Democrats are

28:28

like, oh, it'll it'll be fine. I don't

28:30

see any of I think that

28:33

there's making hard decisions in a

28:35

hard circumstances. You know, I

28:36

think there's the the elements of

28:39

both what you both have just said that are true

28:41

and that I would certainly agree

28:42

with. And

28:43

some of this depends on which chamber

28:45

the Republicans win if they win. Yeah.

28:47

If it's the house, you're irrelevant

28:49

to policy if you're in the

28:51

minority. Absolutely irrelevant. So

28:53

all your job is to do is

28:55

to play politics. That's the only reason they

28:58

stay, and I think you'll probably see a lot

29:00

of Democrats. If they lose the house,

29:02

there'll be a big retirement push

29:04

because you do have no

29:06

role.

29:06

in the

29:08

Senate, not a lot is gonna

29:10

change. And

29:10

neither side will have a working majority. I don't

29:13

see how anyone gets to sixty on

29:15

any controversial issue. So

29:17

I don't know

29:18

that

29:19

there'll be any significant impact.

29:22

Are you saying Even if the artists take

29:25

it, you don't think they'll push on the

29:27

filibuster and and the like, kind of doesn't

29:28

matter. Joe Biden's president,

29:31

Yeah. Pilvito anything that would have needed sixty votes. Yeah.

29:33

Yeah. And I think when it comes to

29:35

the Democratic field, field

29:39

you

29:39

don't have to two years out be

29:41

the candidate that everybody

29:44

wants. You know, the campaigns matter. And I

29:46

think back to, like, two thousand fifteen,

29:48

and people talked about what a

29:50

deep bench the Republicans had.

29:52

Look, we've got fourteen of the

29:55

best politicians in our party running for

29:57

president, and Donald Trump

29:59

kicked all their asses. And who

30:01

would have thought that into I didn't think it in two thousand fifteen.

30:04

So is there a

30:07

consensus strong

30:10

choice for if Biden

30:12

doesn't run, no, I don't think there is.

30:14

But I think there's plenty of time. And I

30:16

I've always found I've done five different

30:19

campaigns presidential campaigns in the primaries that one

30:21

of the ways you gain stature is by

30:23

winning. When you

30:25

win Iowa, you gain stature. When you

30:27

win New Hampshire, you win stature. When you

30:29

win South Carolina, you're on cover of the

30:31

magazine. And all of a sudden,

30:33

you seem bigger. even

30:36

though six weeks

30:36

before you were

30:38

not. And it's why we do

30:39

this, you know? And why it's

30:42

interesting to be

30:44

part of interesting to cover. I

30:46

agree with Josh that Democrats don't wanna

30:48

lose, but this will shuffle the

30:50

deck in a way that at the end,

30:52

whoever plays it better will

30:54

benefit in two thousand twenty

30:56

four. If I can make one quick

30:57

point about the senate, If

30:59

the Democrats lose senate, it'll matter a lot for the

31:01

federal judiciary because judge

31:04

confirmations will end. Right.

31:06

A. And if

31:08

Democrats lose one of the

31:10

two houses, which is highly likely at

31:12

this point, they are going to have

31:15

to deal with the debt ceiling

31:17

issue during the lame duck

31:19

session of congress. Because to

31:22

Susan's point, the ninety

31:24

five, ninety six Republican

31:26

House caucus was, you

31:28

know, statesman like compared

31:30

to what this new caucus. We I

31:32

think the country will go into

31:34

default if that happens because

31:36

Republicans are basically going to make some

31:38

sort of bargain like you have

31:40

to do these big cuts in Social Security or you

31:42

have to turn back the

31:45

legislation from the last two

31:47

years. There's gonna be no appetite

31:49

for that among Democrats. There's

31:51

gonna be no way to sustain that.

31:54

And I don't see that

31:56

House caucus bawking. So

31:59

Democrats

31:59

dammit

31:59

well, if they can get Cinema Manchin

32:02

to agree, which is a very

32:05

big if, they have it in their

32:07

power to basically

32:10

eliminate that danger before

32:12

Republicans come into office. I

32:14

think on the default, the people who are gonna like

32:16

it, the least, are the voters.

32:18

The voters are

32:19

gonna see a government not working. They're gonna

32:21

see the Republicans as the driver

32:24

it not working. They're going to see their 401

32:27

k's plummet even further.

32:29

The hostage in this is cutting

32:31

Social Security and Medicare.

32:33

from

32:33

a voters point of view, that

32:35

sets Democrats up. And so it's not

32:38

I'm not sure I completely understand

32:40

their thinking. there's plenty of other things

32:42

that aren't popular.

32:44

I

32:44

agree with your point show, and I agree it'll kind

32:46

of in a weird way help Democrats but

32:48

you will still have ended up with the government having a debt

32:50

default, which will have massive repercussions for

32:52

the rest of all of our lives. Absolutely.

32:55

And there's certainly no one in the Democratic

32:57

Party that wants that to happen. Oh, yeah. Of

32:59

course. And I don't think I think Republicans,

33:01

if you gave them a

33:03

lie detector test, would want that to

33:05

happen. think you're right about their

33:08

caucus. There are no adults. There

33:10

are no

33:10

adults in the room anymore in the

33:13

Republican Party. and they will do

33:15

and have promised and will do

33:17

reckless things

33:18

because that's what Trump would

33:20

do. I think that's how they view

33:22

things, which is Trump is a

33:24

god and he did it by destroying rather

33:27

than building. and

33:28

we

33:29

very well could see this

33:31

default. And, you know, as far as

33:33

the democrats is concerned,

33:35

the probably

33:37

biggest villain in the Republican

33:39

Party right after Democrats might become

33:41

our hero. It's Mitch McConnell.

33:43

because when I say there are no Republicans

33:46

who are adults, he has shown

33:48

a record of being

33:51

an adult. when

33:52

you come to this particular issue. But

33:54

I don't think he left the

33:56

backing of his caucus. In this

33:57

narrow

33:58

sense, I agree with you about McConnell,

34:00

but he doesn't run the house.

34:02

Sure. And you need both.

34:04

Susan, do you have any thoughts on this debt

34:06

ceiling issue and whether the dams are

34:08

likely to be able to repair

34:10

it prospectively? lame

34:12

session? I think judges

34:12

rate that if they lose, they're gonna have

34:14

to try. That's just the bottom line, and and

34:17

that's what we'll see because they're

34:19

gonna have to try. again, I

34:21

just feel like where we've gotten in trouble as a

34:24

country over the last few years

34:26

is people trying

34:28

to game out and being wrong about what's going

34:30

to happen, and that in many ways, that was

34:32

the enabling factor again and again

34:34

and again for Trump. And I

34:37

would just say, I don't know, you know,

34:39

what will happen, and that's part of the point is

34:41

that none of us really has a

34:44

good crystal ball at this point.

34:46

And so trying to sort of self soothe if you're a democrat

34:48

by saying, well, it'll be okay and we're gonna,

34:50

you know, like, maybe this will be to our

34:52

benefit. We're in a

34:54

different kind a political

34:56

moment is is my only point here with

34:58

this. And, you know, again,

35:00

again, you can look at many of the actions that

35:02

Barack Obama took in twenty

35:03

sixteen that were

35:06

mistakes that

35:06

he might say, that he

35:08

has said, were mistakes say in dealing with Russia.

35:11

because they were based on a false

35:13

sense of what was going to happen in the future

35:15

in our politics at a moment when

35:17

the politics didn't play out. And because

35:19

Trump and now his entire party

35:22

are willing to shatter

35:24

norms to go where they haven't been

35:26

willing to go before I just

35:28

think that makes us even less able to understand in

35:31

a clear cut way what

35:33

the consequences are of certain

35:35

political outcomes. And

35:38

I think people get in trouble is when they kind of have

35:40

an expectation that, well, you

35:42

know, this bad outcome will actually be fine because

35:44

then it will be a

35:46

good outcome.

35:46

It's time now

35:49

for our

35:51

sidebar feature,

35:54

which explains a legal or political concept that figures prominently

35:56

in the news, but isn't necessarily

35:59

ever explained there. And today,

36:01

we thought it was important to explain a

36:04

concept that we already

36:06

explained a few years ago in

36:08

another sidebar but is

36:10

completely front and center in the

36:12

Trump investigation in Mar a

36:14

Lago, and that is

36:16

executive privilege. And to read

36:18

executive privilege, I'm thrilled

36:20

to welcome Matthew Weiner,

36:23

an actor director producer writer

36:26

and novelist. He's the creator

36:28

as everyone knows of the television

36:30

series, mad men, also

36:32

the Romanoffs, as well as an

36:34

executive producer and writer of

36:36

the Sopranos. He's won

36:38

nine, count him nine Emmys, seven

36:40

for Madman, and two for the Sopranos as well as three

36:43

Golden Globe Awards. He also

36:45

published his first novel Heather

36:47

the totality in twenty seventeen.

36:50

Among as many other honors Matthew

36:52

was included in Time Magazine's

36:55

time one hundred as one of

36:57

the most influential people in

36:59

the world. I give you

37:01

Matthew Weiner on

37:04

executive privilege. What is executive

37:05

privilege and what are its limits?

37:07

Executive privilege is the right of the president of

37:09

the United States.

37:12

and other high ranking executive branch officials

37:14

to avoid producing certain documents and

37:16

information to congress with the courts.

37:19

The purpose of the privilege is to allow the president to

37:22

receive candidate advice from close

37:24

advisers without the threat that the

37:26

information will

37:28

become The Supreme Court has made clear that at least some of the

37:30

communications are protected under

37:32

executive privilege, but the scope of the

37:34

rule is

37:36

hotly debated. and executive privileged disputes rarely

37:38

result in judicial decisions.

37:40

However, some parts of the doctrine are

37:44

relatively clear, First, executive privilege is limited to

37:46

communications made in the process of

37:48

shaping policies and

37:50

making decisions. not all

37:52

communications in which members of the

37:54

executive participate. Where the

37:56

communications directly involve the president

37:58

or White House staff members with broad and

37:59

significant response ability for

38:02

providing the president with advice.

38:04

The claim of

38:04

privilege is at its strongest. The

38:07

stronger version

38:07

of privilege is

38:10

sometimes called the presidential communications privilege and is

38:12

distinguished from the weaker

38:14

deliberative process

38:16

privilege.

38:17

second Second, Regardless

38:18

of form, executive privilege does not provide

38:20

absolute immunity against producing

38:22

requested information. Instead, communications

38:25

are presumptively but

38:28

that presumption can be overcome by establishing a

38:30

serious need for the information.

38:32

In the water cake cases,

38:35

the special prosecutor established the need

38:37

for Nixon's tapes because they

38:39

contained evidence related to

38:41

pending criminal However, where the information could be obtained

38:44

through another source or is

38:46

merely cumulative of other

38:48

obtainable information

38:50

Executive privilege will stand. Third,

38:52

the courts

38:52

are reluctant to

38:53

step into an executive privilege dispute

38:56

between Congress and

38:58

the President. The courts will not resolve a dispute between

39:00

these two branches unless the parties

39:02

can establish that they have tried in

39:04

good faith to reach an

39:06

accommodation to obtain the

39:08

materials. For talking feds,

39:10

I'm Matthew Weiner. Thank

39:12

you,

39:12

Matthew Weiner for explaining executive privilege.

39:16

Just the latest indication

39:18

of Matthew Weiner's outsized and

39:20

continuing influence on our culture, The

39:24

song Lavender Hayes from

39:26

Taylor Swift's new album midnight

39:28

was taken from a madman

39:30

episode and was in broad

39:33

currency in the fifties, it's part and parcel that

39:35

is of aligners historical perfectionism about

39:37

the madman period that made

39:39

that show so

39:42

riveting.

39:42

Alright. It is

39:46

now time for

39:49

a spirited debate. brought

39:52

to you by our sponsored total line and more.

39:55

Each episode you'll be

39:57

hearing an expert talk

39:59

about

39:59

the pros and cons of a

40:02

particular issue in the world of

40:04

wine, spirit,

40:06

and beverages. Thank

40:06

you, Harry. In today's spirit of debate, we peek behind the wine

40:08

label to see who lays claim to

40:10

the best chardon me? California

40:13

or Burgundy France. As

40:15

we've touched on before, wines from the

40:17

US are classified by the Great, while

40:19

French wines are classified by the

40:21

region. In France, the region of Burgundy produces some of the

40:23

finest chardonnay's known as white burgundies, which are almost

40:26

always made from Chardonnay grapes. To

40:28

put it simply, when you see a white wine

40:30

from Burgundy, you

40:32

know it's a chardonnay. The cooler weather

40:33

and cloud cover in Burgundy creates wines

40:36

that have less of the rich fruit flavors

40:38

you might find in a

40:40

California chardonnay. But what white

40:42

burgundy's lack in fruitiness? They make up

40:44

for in highly aromatic and complex

40:46

flavors that range from tropical notes

40:48

and crisp green apples to fresh

40:50

Jasmine and exotic spices.

40:51

And you don't have to book a flight to France to

40:54

taste them either. Just swing into your

40:56

local Total Wine and More and

40:57

ask one of our guides for a tour

40:59

of our White Burgundies at great value.

41:00

Swinging over to California Chardonnay's,

41:02

you'll notice that they tend to be

41:04

rich full bodied whites

41:06

that have undergone malolactic fermentation

41:08

and heavier doses of

41:10

new oak. But that's actually a

41:13

great thing. because it helps create a creamy, buttery feel

41:15

and flavors of butterscotch, vanilla, and

41:18

ripe tropical fruits with medium

41:20

acidity, which make for an

41:22

ideal bottle. So when the

41:24

mood calls for Chardon A and your torn

41:26

between California and Burgundy,

41:28

come talk to our guides a total wine

41:30

and more. where it's always easy to meet in the middle and grab a bottle of

41:32

each. Thanks to our friends at

41:34

Total

41:34

Wine and More for today's a

41:38

spirited debate.

41:40

So

41:40

why don't I complicate it even further with the point that

41:42

you made? So I you said

41:45

earlier on that maybe development

41:48

on the ground might provoke

41:50

Trump to announce a

41:52

candidacy in this short term rather

41:54

long term. So we

41:56

now have The subpoena's been received, and that battle

41:58

is now drawn. And I wonder if you

41:59

have any thoughts about where it's

42:02

going, but you have the

42:04

final hearing of

42:06

the committee. This is more

42:08

my valiwick, but, you

42:10

know, every day things are getting

42:12

more serious for him, I think, in the Mar

42:14

a Lago. investigation.

42:16

Little things that I as a former

42:18

prosecutor recognize are putting

42:20

him in the crosshairs. So I wonder

42:22

if you have any sense of the

42:25

relationship between the dynamic of the midterms

42:27

and Donald Trump's fortunes

42:30

over the

42:30

next couple years.

42:32

Well,

42:32

in some ways, he faces the

42:35

same challenge

42:35

that Bill Clinton faced in

42:38

nineteen ninety

42:40

five. The number one job was to clear the field and to make sure

42:42

nobody ran against him. I

42:44

think Trump gets in for two reasons. One is

42:46

to try to clear out some of the fields before

42:50

one of them catches fire. The second and this

42:52

is a perverse political point

42:55

of view, but these investigations

42:57

I think help him.

43:00

Remember, there will be multiple candidates. He does not

43:02

have to get fifty percent of the Republican Party.

43:04

And the core Republican Party

43:07

believes that the entire systems

43:10

rigged against them, and the only person

43:12

who really understands them and has

43:14

their back is Donald Trump. Now,

43:17

out of the field, one

43:19

of these other politicians will

43:22

emerge, you know, and take the

43:24

mantle. And if I were

43:26

Trump's adviser I would say,

43:28

don't give them the

43:30

oxygen. You know, get

43:32

in and make them

43:34

oppose him. make Josh Hollie have to give a speech saying, I don't support

43:36

Donald Trump. Make

43:38

Tom Cotton give that speech. Make

43:40

Ron DeSantis. Make that speech.

43:44

Now there's people who can make it, Liz Cheney can

43:46

make it, but I

43:48

don't know how

43:50

Republican

43:51

candidates will thread the

43:54

needle

43:54

the

43:56

of what's

43:56

wrong with Donald Trump. You

43:58

can have Trumpism

43:59

without Trump, I don't

44:01

see anyone who's done that. just to jump in,

44:03

I agree

44:03

with that. There's two

44:05

other factors that

44:10

would sort of suggest that Trump

44:12

is leaning in perhaps even more than

44:14

he was, say, a year ago

44:16

to running again, One is

44:18

it's his economic model. Right? The

44:20

second, he is not a candidate

44:22

for president. His fundraising

44:24

goes down. His relevance goes down.

44:26

we all stop talking about him so much.

44:29

And it's hard to imagine that

44:31

that's something he's

44:33

willing to volunteer terribly do. And

44:35

the same goes for seeding the

44:38

field to his successor. That's not what

44:40

he's all about. Rather than taking the wind

44:42

and saying, well, yes, Ron DeSantis is

44:44

absolutely a Trumpist mini me made

44:46

in my image, and I'm so delighted that I've

44:49

reshaped the Republican party. We all

44:51

know that psychologically, that is

44:53

not how Donald Trump is wired. And

44:55

of course, he's immediately hostile

44:57

and suspicious of Ron DeSantis.

44:59

I made him he's not really me. I'm me.

45:01

He trashed him in the Maggie Abramsman book.

45:03

That just fits with what we know and we

45:05

know an awful lot about the

45:07

psychological profile of

45:10

the former president, he also seems to believe

45:12

and you can speak Harry to

45:14

whether that is an accurate belief or not

45:16

that there's some sort of magical

45:19

protection cloak that he gets by being

45:22

a presidential candidate that

45:24

might forestall an inevitable

45:26

federal indictment in any of

45:29

these case. and he may or may not be right

45:31

about that, but he does definitely seem to

45:33

hold that view that this is

45:35

useful for him as

45:38

he comes down to

45:40

decision time for these

45:41

federal prosecutors. Can I make one

45:43

quick point

45:44

on that? because because I'll I

45:46

don't and then I'll see it to Josh.

45:48

Oddly, I think he has

45:50

that absolutely wrong. I think

45:52

the establishment in Washington to

45:55

embed the Justice Department is struggling with, can we

45:57

indite a former president? Are we able

45:59

to, as a country,

46:02

use the judicial

46:04

system no matter what he did. I

46:06

think as a candidate

46:08

trying to win again and be president

46:10

again, I think that kinda solves that problem.

46:13

for people at the DOJ, people at the way or the people who

46:15

are gonna be making these decisions, Atlanta,

46:18

New York, all of these people

46:20

are now saying, he prospectively

46:22

can hurt this country again. We

46:24

need to use every tool we have

46:27

in the judicial toolbox. I'm not

46:28

sure I agree, and and it's more like I just

46:30

don't know if on Joe's last point,

46:33

like, my gut tells me

46:36

that being a candidate perversely

46:39

does just, you know,

46:41

kind of make prosecutors give

46:44

it a second thought and get a little more nervous about it. But

46:46

Joe could be right. I just don't know. I could

46:48

see that both ways. But what I think

46:50

is crystal clear is that

46:53

the conventional wisdom and

46:56

how Trump and his

46:58

advisers see it, that

47:00

there is no way that

47:02

getting in the race in two weeks makes

47:05

it more likely that he

47:07

will be indicted, or

47:10

more likely that someone else will be the nominee. And since

47:12

the man thinks with his brainstem, right?

47:14

And it's kind of what

47:16

maximizes safety and power for

47:20

me then, of course, he'll get in. because why wouldn't he?

47:22

Just why would he not? It's a way

47:24

to keep himself out of jail and fear of

47:26

losing, but Yeah. Well, I mean,

47:29

But then he comes up with some reason why he decides not to

47:32

run. Right. But I I don't think the

47:34

Republican base electric care.

47:36

In fact, they will

47:38

energize him. yeah, energize the the base if he is

47:40

indicted. Absolutely. Absolutely. He could run

47:42

from jail. I and I there's no Like,

47:44

gold amendment. If he's indicted

47:46

tomorrow, there's no trial for a

47:48

year. I'm hearing three votes

47:50

for Donald Trump candidate in

47:52

twenty twenty four relatively

47:54

soon in the next a few months. Is that

47:56

right? Agree. Yeah. Why not?

47:58

Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Alright.

47:59

Well, there's an end.

48:02

We got a minute left for

48:04

our top locking five where we take a question from a reader we

48:06

often

48:06

answer it in five words or fewer.

48:08

Today's question? Uh-huh. If

48:10

you were Elon Musk, what the

48:13

first rule you would make or change

48:16

on

48:16

twitter Twitter.

48:18

resign as CEO.

48:20

But with the letters being words,

48:22

so it's five. This is a variation on Josh,

48:24

which is stop

48:27

tweeting. Well,

48:29

right. The current best advice, best

48:32

practice is never tweet. Right? So I'm

48:34

not sure that is quite in line with

48:36

the premise of the question, however.

48:37

It's a pretty lose loose

48:40

part of the episode. And

48:42

I'm going with no

48:43

takebacks on

48:46

Twitter bands.

48:48

We

48:48

are out of time. Thank you so much to Josh,

48:51

Joe, and Susan, and thank you very

48:53

much listeners for tuning in

48:55

to talking fans. If

48:58

you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe

49:00

to us on Apple Podcasts

49:02

or wherever they get their podcasts

49:05

and please take a moment to rate and

49:07

review this podcast. You can

49:09

also now subscribe to us on

49:11

YouTube where posting full

49:14

episodes, talking books, and bonus

49:16

video content. You can

49:18

follow us on Twitter at talking

49:20

Fed's pod, and you can look to see our

49:22

latest offerings

49:24

on where we post bonus discussions with national

49:26

experts about special topics

49:28

exclusively for

49:30

supporters. Tonight, Halloween,

49:32

Monday, October thirty first, the

49:34

day we drop this episode, will

49:37

be hosting our monthly Q and

49:39

A with me live on Zoom for Patreon subscribers

49:41

at five PM Pacific and eight

49:44

PM eastern

49:46

time. So be sure to sign up

49:48

if you'd like to take part in that live q and a. Submit

49:50

your questions to talkingfeds

49:52

dot com slash contact. whether

49:56

it's for talking five or general questions about the inner

49:58

workings of the legal system for

50:01

our sidebar segments. Thanks

50:04

for tuning in and don't

50:06

worry. As long as you need

50:08

answers, the feds will

50:10

keep talking. Talking fans

50:12

is produced by Olivia Henriksen,

50:14

sound engineering by Matt Mercado.

50:16

Rosie Don Griffin and

50:18

David Lieberman are our contributing writers

50:21

production assistance by Laurel

50:23

Feldner, Kalenitano, Emma Maynard,

50:25

and David Emmett. Thanks

50:28

very much to the great

50:30

Matthew Weiner for explaining executive privilege. And our

50:32

gratitude goes out as

50:34

always to the amazing

50:36

fill of

50:38

class who graciously lets us use his music.

50:40

Talking fans is a production of Lolito

50:42

LLC. I'm Harry Litman. Talk

50:46

talk to you later to

50:50

you later.

51:01

Here in

51:01

the last archive, I've been trying to figure out what

51:04

happened to truth. I've been telling stories

51:06

about how we know what we know. And why it

51:08

seems sometimes lately is if we

51:09

don't know anything at all.

51:11

but I am done with the problems

51:13

of truth. I want

51:16

solutions. The season of

51:17

The Last Archive

51:18

is all about common knowledge.

51:21

that kind of knowledge still possible? I tried

51:23

to find out.

51:25

Coming soon. Listen

51:27

to the last

51:28

archive wherever you get

51:30

your podcasts.