How Broke and Desperate Is Donald Trump?

And later, strict scrutiny's. Leah Lippman stops by to catch us up on all the Trump legal developments as well as the border war between Texas and the federal government. But first, Donald Trump's first full week as the presumptive Republican nominee has not gone as well as you'd think for the famously disciplined political savant. And you don't have to take our word for it. A senior Trump advisor told the staff it had been a bad press week for the campaign.

This is, according to Politico. Since clinching the nomination, Trump has floated cuts to Social Security and Medicare, teased a national abortion ban, promised to pardon violent insurrectionists, who he now salutes at his rallies, said that some immigrants, quote, aren't people, and claimed that any Jewish person who votes for Democrats, quote, hates their religion. He also hasn't yet won over Nikki Haley's voters, as evidenced in this week's primaries, by the nearly 20% of the votes she got without even being in the race. And Trump's got some cash issues. We found out this week that his campaign in the RNC raised less than half of what Biden and the DNC did last quarter.

And his super PAC has now spent more than $50 million on his legal fees without much to show for it, because Trump is currently scrambling to find someone, anyone, who will help him out with the $464 million bond he has to put up for the New York civil fraud case judgment. He doesn't have the cash, can't find an underwriter, doesn't want to sell his assets, and is reportedly worried about the political perception of declaring bankruptcy. So where will he get the money? Here's one of his lawyers on Fox. Is there any?

Noted investigative reporter, Joy Behar. The Woodward-Bernstein generation. It's working. They're good questions to ask,

Because one of Trump's bullshit appeals to some segment of voters is his idea that because he's this wealthy man, special interests don't own him. He lied repeatedly in 2016 about how he was going to fund his own campaign. I can't be bought. I can't be.

All of this is very bad for him and is clearly impacting his conduct on the campaign trail, because he is acting like the old-school Trump lunatic that he was before.

It's a very

He thinks about what is going to play politically well for him. Bankruptcy doesn't play well for him, but having her try to take his properties might. I don't care if this ends up being politically good or bad for him. I want to see Letitia James show up with the sheriff to seize Trump Tower. That's just my most resistancy.

take on this. I'm going to enjoy it. I think we all deserve it. I just want to see it, whether it's politically good or bad.

We went through multiple impeachments, multiple criminal trials, off-the-late criminal trials. It would be a nice little amuse-bouche to see her. take Trump Tower. Take Mar-a-Lago. Take the golf club.

Take the plane. Take whatever. I don't care. Repossess the plane. Just give us that.

We deserve that.

He might end up making a bunch of money from his fake Twitter website because he snowed a bunch of Trump fans into investing.

That would be annoying. That's probably what's going to happen. The most annoying thing.

He would have to sell his properties to do that, which he obviously is unwilling to do. Maybe she'll take them and then sell them. Leah and I talked about this, and you will hear it, but it'd be very amusing if that happens. I'd say that.

What do you think after the first full week of Trump as a presumptive Republican nominee?

That's the larger story. You need a larger narrative. What of the crazy shit he said this week? What are probably the most politically impactful ones? To me, it is pretty obviously putting cuts to Social Security on the table and proposing a national abortion ban.

Those are two issues that go with. the core of... Social Security, goes with the core of his working class base and his working class appeal, as bullshit as even that is. Abortion is the thing that drives turnout among Democrats and has helped power our victories in 2022 and 2023. We know from the polling as well, there's so much work to do to convince voters that Donald Trump is as far right on abortion as we have been able to convince them that the rest of the Republican Party is.

He gets a pass because he is a New York wannabe playboy cad who cheats on his wife. We've said this before in focus groups, Sarah Longwell said this once in her focus group podcast, that people, proactively, will bring up the idea. when you ask them if Donald Trump is anti-access to abortion or anti-choice, they will say, of course he's not. Personally, he's probably paid for abortions. We have work to do there.

He gave Democrats the opportunity to do that. Those are the two things I would hammer.

Republicans if they're not for him, doesn't like Jewish people if they're Democrats, wants to shoot people who are protesting against him, but pardon people who stormed the Capitol. It's all about him. If you don't like him, you're screwed and he's going to screw you over. If you're for him, he still might screw you over.

Because we're going to have to actually persuade people of this who are still on the fence, and there are a number.

The Biden campaign jumped all over this, as they should. And they said the budget is, quote, Donald Trump's project 2025 roadmap. Obviously, this is an aspirational document.

Donald Trump included cuts social security and Medicare in his budget every single year. he was president. He says he supports a national abortion ban. He tried to gut many of the programs mentioned here while he was president. There is a roadmap here.

He has said these things this week. And so I think you just have to attribute it to him. And because this is the reality, because if Donald Trump wins, he's almost certainly bringing a Republican house and Republican Senate with them. That's just how these things tend to go in presidential years. And especially given what the map is this year, it's hard to see a world where Donald Trump is winning Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan or one of those states and Democrats are winning Ohio and Montana.

Like that's just, it's not, that's, that would be, that would be highly unlikely. Uh, yeah, I was going to say the most,

The Democrats could still keep the house, but I think it's a lower possibility. This is Mike Johnson's plan.

what you have to do is you have to shout from the rooftops and yours. And here's the thing. You don't have to convince them today. You have to convince them tomorrow. You have to, you have six months to convince people.

And we're all going to have to do it individually, because the press is going to be so fucking annoying about this. They're just going to be like, just thrown Pinocchios left and right. Ooh, like, Oh, it's Donald Trump once didn't say this. And Ooh, it's the Republican study committee, not, not the freedom caucus or not the caucus. Like, fuck that.

This is what is going to happen. And we have to, we have to drive it. And we're all going to have to do it ourselves to our friends and family on this podcast through vote, save America, all of that. Like. I think there's a huge opportunity to help explain to people that the future Trump presidency is to a lot of people right now, something that feels a little more orderly than what they feel right now in lower prices or a return to 2019 prices at the grocery store.

And we have to explain that it's so much more, and here is a perfectly laid out.

In Nevada, he talked about his plan to build more housing and make it more affordable. In Arizona, he announced a grant that will help bring back thousands of microchip manufacturing jobs to the U.S. The president also relieved student debt for another 77,000 borrowers this week, where now over 4 million Americans have had their debt relieved by Joe Biden. He also announced a new climate rule to help ensure that two-thirds of all new cars in this country will be hybrid or electric vehicles by 2032.. Pretty big deal, especially the EPA rule on electric vehicles.

Trump and Republicans have been running against EVs, saying they're more expensive and will cost American auto workers their jobs. What do you think about the politics of Biden pushing electric?

Put the politics aside. This is absolutely the.

Globalization, changes in technology, the auto companies almost went bankrupt in 2009,.

and this is one more threat, right? And Trump, this is what all of what MAGA is about is that a bunch of liberals, people in California, elsewhere, are changing the country and that change is bad for you. So we're going to have to push back on that. And I think what Biden, his relationship with an endorsement from the United Auto Workers is a great pushback to that idea. And so I think he can be very aggressive and push for it, but it's an argument.

Great, right? 54% approve that. That could be higher too, but they also support government incentives to encourage electric vehicle purchases. 52% approve of that. And that gets support among Democrats, 69% and 72% of independents and even like a plurality of Republicans.

So if you're going to help people, if the government's going to help people be able to afford electric vehicles, they like that. But support for the phasing out of new gasoline vehicles is only at 30% and support for government restrictions on the sale of new gasoline vehicles is at 21%. So that's the mandate part, which is really tough. That's why they keep calling it a mandate. Now, of course, it's like a slow, phased in process to 2032, right?

So that's 12 years from now. Hopefully we still have a country by then. And a planet?

Yeah, a planet would be good too, a country plan, which will go first. So yeah, but it's important to know what the politics are before we go into this. Having said that, it is extremely important to do and good that Joe Biden has done it because we absolutely need to make this transition if we are to prevent the worst climate catastrophes from happening. But we have work to do on the politics. It's just the case.

I absolutely do think it can. John,

And that the only way to get those young voters back in the fold is going to be to talk to them from people they trust, about what Biden has actually done and what he is planning to do. So I think these are, this is huge. All of these things we've talked about today, the bad stuff about Trump, the good stuff about Biden, is ammunition to use to try to go make a case, right? These are data points we can use. And these are really important ones, I think.

And they, you know, a couple months ago, they protested at Biden's headquarters, campaign headquarters, because he hasn't yet declared a climate emergency. And they keep saying he's going to lose if he doesn't. And their spokesperson acknowledged Politico in the piece that, you know, protests like that could make Biden appear weak and help Trump, but that quote, it's hard to say right now exactly how we'll walk that line. So, first of all, on a climate emergency, a climate emergency would be Biden using sort of, you know, you declare a national emergency if you're president for natural disasters or the pandemic or other things. It would basically, as I understand it, free up some money in different agencies to pursue more climate resiliency, to sort of stop more oil drilling, to stop more projects, to stop crude oil exports.

So you can definitely make a difference. It will certainly not make as much of a difference as any of the steps that Joe Biden has already taken on climate. It would make some difference. But anyway, so they're very upset about that. That's fine.

Like, I realize that, even though Joe Biden spent his political capital on passing what is objectively the biggest climate bill in history, there are going to be climate activists who wish he'd go further. I realize that, even though he has now canceled student debt for over four million Americans, there's going to be progressives who wish he'd go further. And like, that's OK. Keep pushing, keep fighting. But like, we only get the chance to do more if Joe Biden wins.

And one way to think about it is your vote isn't about grading Joe Biden's presidency, and it's not about punishing or rewarding Joe Biden or Donald Trump. It is about what kind of future you want for yourself. And Joe Biden was not progressives first choice in 2020.. He won. Progressives kept pushing.

And this guy, who's been pretty moderate for his entire life, decades in politics, ended up passing some of the most progressive legislation in history. And if he loses, perhaps you'll have proved a point. But you will also have done deep damages to the causes that you profess to care about. And I think that's like really important, because a lot of young people and a lot of just voters in general are not paying as close attention as we are to politics. I said a million broken record on this.

And they're going to take cues from, as you said, you talked with John about, people that they trust. They're also going to take cues from organizations and activists and volunteers that are out there. And so, if you are part of these organizations, it is not contradictory at all to criticize Joe Biden, say he needs to do more, and then get out there and tell people it is vitally important to the cause of climate change to make sure that Joe Biden and not Donald Trump are president. That's just my thing on that, Dan.

I was like, what? Come on, come on. And I also know, look, and I know the Sunrise Movement, I followed them on Twitter and they have very strong feelings about Gaza. And I totally get that too. I have strong feelings about Gaza as well.

But it's like, what you guys want is a president who's going to be forward, leaning on climate and do a lot of work. And that's what you got in Joe Biden. Is it enough? No, it's not enough. But like, the way to deal with that is to keep pushing and make sure he's back in office and you can keep pushing to do more.

I don't know. I don't know. Sorry. I just went on another rant. That's great.

People love it. Another goal of Biden's campaign swing when he's out in Nevada and Arizona was to shore up support with Latino voters, who, the polls show, he's also struggling with, despite winning 60 percent of Latinos in 2020.. On Wednesday's episode, Tommy Nadesu talked about the interview where Biden said that Trump, quote, despises Latinos. And they also mentioned that his campaign released this ad targeting Latino voters.

Political views depend on where your family's, from, where you live, how old you are, all that. So, with all that said, what is your take on both Biden's interview and the ad and just sort of the general outreach to Latino voters that?

is youth voters. True with everything, yeah. Yeah, young voters, black voters, Latino voters, women voters, voters named John, like any group, you can lose no people, right? So that is true here too.

I've seen some and I've heard some critique of the ad, that people maybe thought it was boring, didn't love it. Here's one thing I say, because, John, as you know, I also host a very popular YouTube show called Political Experts React, where we react to campaign ads, yes. Are you going to do a second organic plug here? Wait till I get a message box. plug into the section of Latino vote.

I'm just kidding. But anyway, one of the things, I'm not subscribed to, the Positive American YouTube channel, but anywho. Life's just on.

And just, we have to remember always that the campaigns test the living shit out of these ads. And so it obviously works with some group of voters, otherwise they don't run it. But I think it, it goes to a point that Adisu made, which is, especially with the Latino vote, simply talking about issues and what you've actually done and going to do for the country and the community is incredibly important, right? So it's going to be not as exciting as a Lincoln Project ad about, you know, Donald Trump's father not loving him, or January 6th. It's just like, this is blocking and tackling, we've seen it in the polls, it's not just for the Latino community, is people love the idea, that, of $35 insulin, and no one knows that Joe Biden did that.

So you got to tell them, even if it seems boring at the time. So I think that's the right approach. You know, I think the ad, I like the ad better than the interview. And I think getting, because the interview, I think, doesn't get to those issues in the same way, but outreach is important. Just being out there, showing up, and it's, you're not going to win back voters today with one ad and one interview, but you have to keep doing it.

So I hope that, I imagine this is going to, these ads will be up the whole time. I hope that this sort of public outreach, you know, focus on Latino media continues all the way through the campaign.

Because I just think if you, again, the only people you're trying to persuade here are people who are like open to voting for Donald Trump or for a third party. And if they are open to it, then just saying, oh no, no, he despises you, is not, is not necessarily the most persuasive.

He says racist things. He very clearly holds tremendous racial animus. I mean, he's a bigot across the board, but one thing that we just have to come to terms with as Democrats is we made that case from 2016 to 2020, and he showed dramatic improvement. With voters of color. Yeah.

He's right. He showed real improvement with voters of color in over that period of time. So it's possible that that's not the best argument with the voters who are, who are open to voting for him. And so I understand why Biden said that, but I think it's going to, you're going to win them back by more showing what you've done and what you will do and what Donald Trump would do. that is bad for your community.

It's not just immigration. It's cut. It is repealing the ACA. in 2012, when Obama did so well with Latino voters, the most important issue with the Latino voters in our polling was not immigration. It was Romney's, uh, support for repealing the ACA.

So it's going to be that sort of stuff.

And so this debate ranges from some people saying it could just be a polling issue to others saying we could be in the midst of a full blown racial realignment. And it is true. If, if the polls, if the polls right now, and the sub in the, you know, cross tabs, demographic groups that we're seeing in the polls, if this is correct, then it probably would be one of the largest racial realignments, big F, big F. But anyway, what do you think? What do you think?

We're seeing smaller shifts, but so that's point one. So who knows what the polls are gonna say? That's point one. Point two is even if you just take all the polls, you average them together. They're all kind of showing the same thing, which is that Biden is doing less well with voters of color, and Latino voters in particular, than he did in 2020..

And so whether the polls are right, the polls are wrong, which polls right, which was wrong is largely irrelevant, in my view, from the perspective of activists, organizers, campaigns, operatives, because what are we gonna do differently, right? What are we gonna do with this debate? We're just gonna say, Oh, everything's fine, let's do nothing, right? We're gonna have to go get every single one of those voters, whether the polls are right or wrong. And so that's ultimately what I think the Biden campaign is doing.

But there we have seen, and the reason why people are so worried about this is Trump made real gains, those gains mostly held in 2022. We didn't see a snap back to 2016 numbers with Latino voters, but we didn't see it worse, but Trump wasn't on the ballot. So what's gonna happen this time? And if the polls are correct, especially the higher end polls, like the New York Times-Santa Poll, would show a dramatic shift. There's no math where Democrats can win elections anytime in the future.

You can't do as poorly as we do with white non-college voters and not just crush it with voters of color. And if working class voters of color are starting to perform like working class white voters, that's the ballgame. You can't win a national election that way in the electoral.

We don't know. that's where we're headed. Like we are still getting a good, good chunk of non-college educated voters, especially non-college educated voters of color. in terms of the results. Most of the actual election results we have, if you just put the switch from Democrat to Republican over the last several election cycles tend to be people who would always held more moderate or conservative views, but we're still voting for Democrats based on either a historic attachment to the party or because they thought that the party was more welcoming to voters with more moderate or conservative views.

And so some of this is ideological sorting. So if you had a black Democrat who's conservative or a Latino Democrat who's conservative or even more moderate, maybe they voted for Barack Obama. And then, as the Democratic Party, as they think they saw the Democratic Party, get a little more progressive or a little more like ideologically polarized. And then certainly the Republican Party become more ideologically polarized. They either started voting Republican, or what's happening a lot is, some of these voters are saying, I'm not, neither party speaks to me.

And this is also why you are not seeing as much attrition among older voters of color, both Latinos and black voters, especially like older black voters, are still like these men and women, like strongest demographic group for Democrats. And that has been true the last several election cycles. And that really hasn't changed that much, but younger voters of color, especially in younger black voters too, do not have the same attachment to the Democratic Party as the party of civil rights, as their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, did. And so that's part of what we might be seeing as well. And I also think that there is a, it's like a more of a populist streak among younger voters of all races and voters of color who are just like very anti-establishment, anti-institution sort, of like angry about economic inequality and maybe a lack of attention to economic inequality by politicians of both parties.

So there's a lot of different stuff going on here that could be going on, but at least in terms of the election results, you are seeing that some of this is more ideological sorting than it.

Which is let's just, let's operate like we're in the middle of a historic racial realignment, invest all the resources and time and energy and intellectual capital we can to stop it from happening, and if it turns out we did all that shit and the polls.

It almost certainly will not. It almost certainly will not, by definition. And so knowing exactly what those concerns are will help you try to figure out how to persuade them, and I do think that's why it's important. This debate is important, it's not necessarily as important like, are the polls going to be right or wrong? That doesn't matter as much, but why this is happening, if it indeed is happening, I think is very important in terms of how we persuade people come this November.

Okay, a couple of quick things before we go to break. Oh, you already did a Polo Coaster. Just one quick thing before we go to break. But anyway, I'll do another Polo Coaster plug. Go, sign up for Crooked.com slash friends and listen to Dan.

talk to smart people and have smart conversations about the polls. It's great. We are also about to talk to Leah Lippman, one of the hosts of Strict Scrutiny, and we are thrilled to announce that all the Strict Scrutiny co-hosts are doing a special live show in Washington DC on June 22nd at the Howard Theater. Head to Crooked.com slash events, to grab tickets to this show, or see if Pod Save America or Love It or Leave It are coming to your city. When we come back,

John and I are definitely not lawyers, and we didn't take the LSAT, like John Lovett, but here, to help us understand the latest updates in Trump trials, is an actual lawyer and constitutional scholar and, perhaps, most importantly, co-host of Crooked, Strict Scrutiny, Leah Lippman. Leah, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me. I'll tell you, John and I were talking about what we're going to do on this show. Obviously, we felt like there was so much legal news.

We tried to read the stories. We read them. We tried to understand the stories. We failed, and we said we had to get someone from Strict on this show immediately. So here you are.

So you have to help us and our listeners walk through everything that's happening, because there's a lot happening, and, from what I can tell, none of it seems great.

So, in the classified documents case, which, as you mentioned, is being overseen by a Trump-appointed judge named Eileen Cannon, she has issued an order this week, giving the defense and prosecutors two weeks to file submissions that outline proposed jury instructions based on two different scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act. This has people, seemingly, like yourself, confused and alarmed. To whatever ability you have, try to explain what is happening here, and.

so the jury can make their designated decision about what actually happened and whether the defendant is guilty of a crime. So a jury instruction might explain a super complicated crime that contains like 17 elements and tell the jury, you know, if you find these three things, you don't have to find this other thing, you know, and things like that. Or it might explain to the jury like who bears the burden of proof on certain defenses or whatnot. Judge Cannon's proposed instructions basically tell the jury if the president does it, it's not illegal. Like it just utterly eviscerates the Presidential Records Act and the charges that Jack Smith actually brought here, because what her jury instructions convey is, I mean, again, essentially like the president can basically declassify things with his mind.

So the jury instructions say, look, you need to define and decide whether something is personal or presidential, but essentially a president's categorization about whether something is personal or presidential is authoritative. And a president can categorize something as personal, you know, after he leaves office and basically doing whatever they want. And that's just not how the law works. And so the concern is the jury instructions tell the jury to basically acquit, and they do so without a basis in the law. Okay.

I have a lot.

And so what happens next? The defense and prosecutors file their competing jury instructions and then she picks them out of a hat? How does she make a decision?

Yeah. So I should say she is a.

She has very limited criminal experience. now. It's been reported that two of her law clerks quit under what circumstances we don't really know over the last year, although she's fully staffed now. So I think some of it probably is inexperience. But I think it is really hard to say all of it is when she has gone so far over the line, you know, earlier stages in the case, essentially saying Trump had, like a personal interest he could assert in the documents that would prevent the government from actually, you know, conducting an investigation and proceeding forward with the case where she got unanimously reversed by some of the more conservative judges on the 11th circuit.

So I.

An actual conflict of interest or her doing something that was pretty close to illustrating explicit evidence of bias. So, you know, judges in other cases have been disqualified when they've made like discriminatory marks that reveal animus toward, like one of the litigants, you know, or, you know, one of their characteristics. And she hasn't done that. All right, let's move to.

What happens now? What happens if?

is Tish James tries to seize control of Trump Tower.

And then I saw, it's always hard to tell with these moves, like what's real and what's not, but that she did something in Westchester County today, which suggested that maybe she's putting herself in a position because he has a golf club in Westchester County. Is that, would that be the next step to begin to move the case or move aspects of the case there so that she could go after those properties? Well, so what you do is.

So, you know, in order to get a.

You know, I think the attorney general has said she's not totally convinced that he can't get a bond, as is. Um, and so we just kind of need to see how it plays out. And that's essentially like how someone,

Um, so you put up a certain amount of money.

Um, but they know they're good for the money again, either through them or through some combination of them in the bond company.

So that there's a sense that maybe the trial can move forward. Just help us understand what's going on there. And are we going to get to see Trump at a defendant?

So here, obviously, the prosecution is going to call some people who have had some run-ins with the law. Um, and so there is potentially information, you know, within the federal prosecutor's office, within the Southern district of New York, that is relevant to those individuals credibility. And so I think there were some concerns that among this vast amount of documents that were turned over, there were going to be things that potentially change the nature of the witnesses or potentially change the nature of the prosecution's case against the defendant. And again, based on kind of credible people who said they have looked at the thousands of pages of materials, and, you know, DA Alvin Bragg, it doesn't seem like that is the case. that is, it doesn't seem like there is anything that the SDNY turned over that really alters the nature of the charges or the nature of the case or the nature of any of the witnesses against Donald Trump.

And therefore, you know, the case might proceed. Now, of course, the defense is going to say, we need more time to look at this. Maybe they think, or they will say there were some leads in there that, like we need to chase down. Um, but it's not clear, you know, as to whether the judge will actually force them to go to trial, you know, pretty close to the original date or initially after the 30 day deferral, you know, that DA Bragg gave, um, Trump. So, you know, as to whether we should see it soon, maybe, but you know, everything that has unfolded in all of these cases has always felt like Lucy and the football where you think it's.

The fifth circuit is something else. Help explain what the hell is going on. Can Texas start deporting people as if they were the federal government? And if you want to just rant about the fifth circuit for a while, feel free, this is a.

But basically, the fifth circuit had previously suggested that Texas could effectively be immigration law as we know it. And that runs afoul and violates every basic principle of constitutional law, flies right in the face of the Supreme court's previous decision in Arizona. But this is what the fifth circuit has kind of been set up to do. You know, Mitch McConnell and Republican senators have blocked, you know, Democrats appointing judges in States with Republican senators by abusing the blue slip, thereby guaranteeing that Republican presidents could fill that and other circuits where there are Republican senators with people who are so unhinged. They think justice.

Antonin Scalia is a Democrat. Like they think that guy is basically a communist. And so they've started citing the writings of Robert Bork, who was Ronald Reagan's like failed nominee 40 years ago. Cause they're like, that's the guy who, like, we, want to treat as the authoritative guy on this subject. And so the fifth circuit has just completely gone off a loose cannon.

and it's not just the immigration case, right? That is the circuit that gave you the injunction that barred the Biden administration and the federal government from even talking to social media companies about content moderation. This is a circuit that gave you the medication abortion ruling that effectively slapped on a bunch of additional restrictions on medication abortion that the FDA deemed medically and scientifically unsound. This is the court of appeals that just said Texas could enforce a law that gave parents the ability to prevent their minor children from accessing contraception, beginning the next wave on a tax on contraception. This is the court of appeals that green-lighted SBA, the notorious bounty hunter law that nullified abortion rights and row in Texas before the court formally overruled row.

This court is just where hope and law and dreams go to die. And they are just pushing the Overton window so far off of this galaxy that they are making this Supreme court look less insane. And I think that is part of the game. And, you know, they came close again to allowing Texas to enforce a federal immigration law that allows a state, rather than the federal government, to deport and remove people, which is not how any of this has worked for the better part of 200 years. But, you know, this court is just going to keep on pushing the boundaries of this because this Supreme court is not inclined to really rein them.

Leah Levin, thank you so much for being with us again on Pod. Save America. As always, great to talk to you. Likewise.

And if you're already doom scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farrah Safari.

Kira Joaquim is our senior producer. Reed Cherland is executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer.

Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pelaviv and Molly Lobel.