Judge May Shush Trump….in America??

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau, I'm not under any gag order. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's pod. Donald Trump's lawyer tests out some novel defense arguments on all five shows.

Believe is mentally ill, and it is an outrageous criminalization of political speech. They're trying to make it illegal to question the results of an election. So they rigged the presidential election of 2020, and we're not going to allow them to rig at the presidential election of 2024. Because our country is not going to survive.

CASE Let's start with Jack Smith's request for protective order. Tell me, why does the government want one? And why did they include Trump's threat in their filing? So it's the.

Smith team wants the judge to prevent Trump from making public evidence that was handed over to his lawyers and discovery process. That evidence will likely contain personal identifying information about witnesses that Trump could then use to harass them on Twitter. Docs them have his supporters, docs them otherwise intimidate them. So it seems like that's what's driving a lot of this, as evidenced by the inclusion of the truth.

Would be one of the nicer things his supporters would do, and, of course, aside from their own safety, which is important to protect. If he publicly threatened people on the witness list, perhaps they wouldn't want to testify, which is another issue. Yeah, I mean, if you.

Will reading a little too much into this? Presumably, Joe Biden came after Donald Trump.

It's just a statement. Oh, I can't believe, I can't believe. Laura didn't use that one.

Oh, you know, he, he's. He's the best lawyer Trump's ever had, but that's not saying much.

And of course, this would still Trump saying that I go, this is a restricting my First Amendment rights. Trump would still see all the evidence against him. He just wouldn't be able to get his own copy shared around or posted on TRUTH Social. So Trump's lawyers filed their opposition to the protective order. They argue that it's overly broad or restriction on his First Amendment rights. And they also accused Joe Biden of quote capitalizing on Trump's indictment. Because he posted a tweet where he drinks from a dark Brandon mug, that.

They're selling in his Merch store. Yeah, it's, um, well, they're, they're, you know, this is no. Rudy Giuliani is like, a more serious lawyer, and so he's. They're making an argument.

That bars low, as you said, but he's not part of it anymore.

They're trying to argue that he has to be able to that, that that these legal proceedings are part of the political process. He needs to be able to talk about them publicly. Of shadowboxing, because Jack Smith is saying, Hey, we want to protect sensitive information. What is the sensitive information that they're referring to right now? Well, none. They're referring to the fact that Donald Trump is already issuing vague and ominous threats.

And so he was specifically told not to by the magistrate judge when he was arraigned.

And he said, Yes, sure, well, by the way, he's been through this rigmarole in several of the other legal proceedings that have already taken place. And that in I don't Remember trial affecting the E. Jean Carroll trial, the E. Jean Carroll trial affecting the Civil Fraud trial.

There was one instance where he posted on True Social that death and destruction could follow if he were charged, and I think that led to him being admonished.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that, man. What a journey. The other part of this, too, is Trump's lawyer. Has they kind of redlined the order to try to kind of make it about sensitive stuff which would free Trump?

Redline is they just like, commented on it, they cut.

Didn't you like that? It was like a standard contract.

Yeah, well, it was sort of like, I've never. Like normal Trump lawyers try to fuck Borat's aid and then get drunk on Newsmax. They don't usually open up a document and make edits. That's a kind of a twist.

It's a blanket threat.

Yeah, just a loose general umbrella threat.

And look, one of the reasons he's on trial is he famously did this with his vice president.

There are unique First Amendment implications in this trial because he is running for president. I do think they have a bit of a case that to not be able to talk about anything in discovery would be challenging. But I think there is a real risk of Trump, you know, Brow, beating a witness out of testifying or otherwise intimidating prosecutors. I mean, he's calling Jack Smith the deranged psycho at events.

Yeah.

This is why it's sort of like you're dancing on the head of a pin here. It's like, Oh, you can redline any fucking document, all you want. Oh, only talk about the non-sensitive ones. This is Donald Trump on the toilet on a Sunday. There's no controlling him.

Yeah, I do think on the witness list. Like, if the judge agrees to the redline, he would then have freedom to disclose witness interviews, recordings and other evidence. From outside the grand jury proceedings, basically, the Trump lawyers stipulated that whatever happened in the grand jury should remain a secret, but that outside the witness. So you could.

You could tweet GPS coordinates for Mark Meadows exact location, exactly, and the hoard.

Well, you keep saying like, Well, he's going to blow through all these red lines. Like, what can the judge do if Trump keeps making threats? Can she throw him in jail?

It brings me no pleasure to say that she could. It's obviously all. It's like, it's hard to. This is all so unprecedented, so it feels ridiculous and very resistancy. And online to be like. The judge could revoke bail and lock him up until the trial.

Straightforward from here.

But all of this is unprecedented. And I was remembering an example of a federal defendant who had their bail revoked because they were, it turns out, accused of committing crimes while on bail. It was Michael Avenatti. Remember that, Oh?

So, I mean, do you think that the special counsel filing to request a pre-trial detention would just say, lock him up?

That would be good. I mean, there are they could baby step up to lock him up. The judge could impose additional conditions in the least restrictive way possible. That will make sure he shows up at trial and not put other people at risk.

It feels like she would probably give him a warning first, like this is the last time.

Or make him explain himself.

Yeah, for sure. And then I do think that beyond the pre-trial detention option, which does seem like the most extreme option in this case, she could. I mean, like, if he continues to piss off the judge, the judge has a lot of power here, she has a lot of leeway. She can rule against his request for recusal, which she'd probably do anyway, because he said he has a very powerful case for her recusing herself. Even though his lawyer's like, we're not sure if we're going to call for recusal yet.

Hey guys, I decided to do a little pro bono work here for Harry Trump and see if this argument would fly. There is some precedent that he could cite. One Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who. His lawyers got a judge in Oklahoma to move the trial to Denver. Because the entire state of Oklahoma was prejudiced against them for conducting what was then the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil ever.

So I guess they can move it to fucking Antarctica.

That's an argument you can go for.

Well, and also I would say this.

Who on the planet doesn't have an opinion of this guy?

I would also think about what Timothy McVeigh would say about whether or not it worked, and I don't think it's very much.

No, it was good.

Just so everyone would understand he was executed.

Didn't go good.

And the other thing she could do, of course, is his biggest play here is to delay, delay, delay, delay. And if she gets pissed off enough, she's just going to rule against all of his attempts to delay, yeah.

Stepping back from, like, Yes. Obviously. This judge is well aware of the public attention to this and is going to go to great pains to avoid detaining the former president of the United States before the trial. That said, Donald....

By the way, if you want some fun reading, there's a Washington Post story from last week about, like, could he go to jail? What happens with the Secret Service Protection? It's a real fun read.

Solid.

But like everything about what Trump is doing, the reason he feels so safe sitting in his house. Saying threatening things about every lawyer and prosecutor is because he is counting on the fact that he is not treated like everybody else. And at a certain point, he is going to push this. Either to the point of being threatened by the judge one last time, or actually at some point, potentially being detained. Or just as close as he could possibly get to it, that's it, that's what's going to happen.

I wonder, what do you think would be worse for him being detained? Like, like, I could see her, maybe like as a house arrest kind of thing, or just saying you're not allowed to have a phone.

Well, I think SBF Sam Bankfree just got sent to jail because he had been making hundreds of phone calls to journalists and talking to people. Oh, really, yeah, he got in trouble. So, you know, there are ways around this.

Why do you think Trump seems intent on trying this case in the Court of Public opinion, which has been what's happened since all of the indictments?

I just I think that this is the only way his brain works. He only thinks in terms of publicity.

I just think in every way he believes the rules don't apply to him. And even the act of showing restraint and discipline in in the hopes of actually helping his own defense and his own ability to operate in the legal system. Feels like a capitulation that normal people have to do, but that does not apply to him. And so, of course, he's going to say whatever the fuck he wants, because he's Donald Trump, and he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And there's not much more logic to it than that.

I think his audience is not the jurors or potential jurors, I think it's the electorate. If he wins the election, he is a free man. He'll either make the DOJ drop the case, he will pardon himself.

Yeah, sure.

I think he'd like to win the cases as well, you know, I mean, I think, I think it's a both end here.

Yeah, but I think I mean, but if he wins, the only thing that matters to him, if he, yeah. Obviously he doesn't want to be convicted, but if he's convicted, all he's going to say is like, I was convicted by an unfair jury in D.C. And blah, blah, blah. And they were out to get me. And now I'm going to win, and if I win the election, then I win.

The odds of winning the election when you're sitting in jail go down a little bit, probably.

And also, I don't think he's doing the thing like sending off a menacing tweet about the judge is not the way. It's not. Obviously it's not the best way to persuade the American people, but it doesn't show like. He's like trying his best to win in the court of public opinion, I mean, he's just spouting off because he's furious.

In his mind, this is his argument, right? That I'm being persecuted, that they're all coming after me, and that's, I mean, this. I think this, the whole race is going to be about this. Yeah, like there is, there's going to be all the other issues, like all the economic stuff, everything else we're talking about.

And, to your point, before he can run in the general election, he's got to win the nomination. And all this is about keeping attention on him and focus on him. And that is, and it is popular.

Oh yes, certainly for the primary, this is a great argument for him. So, John Laureau, Trump's defense lawyer, made the case for his client on all five Sunday shows. Where he again tried to argue that Trump's attempted coup was merely an exercise in free speech. And that he truly believed in his heart of hearts that he won. He listed out a few other novel defenses during his interviews. Let's listen.

What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything, he asked him in an aspirational way.

If he had proof he won the state, why did he threaten the secretary of state with a criminal with a criminal charge?

That wasn't a threat at all. What he was asking for is for Raffensperger to get to the truth. That was an aspirational hold on one second, that was an aspirational ask.

He said the president asked him to violate the constitution, which is another way of saying he asked him to break the law.

He never said, No, that's wrong, that's wrong. A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law.

What do we think about John Laureau, guys, and where'd he come from? Where'd Trump get this guy?

Tampa.

Tommy, I'm so glad you said that line. I laughed so hard when I read that. I wanted to, like, put that up on there.

He defended the manager of the Pink Pony Gentleman's Club, so he's got good act going for him. Do you guys remember when Liz Truss became the prime minister of England? And the tabloid put up a live stream of Liz Truss versus a rotting head of lettuce? That's what I think about every time Trump gets a new lawyer.

Didn't the lettuce win? the lettuce won.

So I think you're underestimating my man, John Laureau, who I love.

He wasn't bad on the Sunday show.

One of Tampa's most decorated defense lawyers.

Yahoo, This guy went to Georgetown. This is when I fell in love with this man.

So did Donald Trump Jr.

This is when I fell in love with this man. A guy named Ralph Paul went to an Italian restaurant in the Tampa area. He ordered a dish called Shrimp and Scallop Verdura. He ate all the shrimp and scallops.

Not enough.

Right up your alley.

Then sent it back and said, take it off the bill. This was a pasta dish.

Eric Trump went to Georgetown. He did run circles around the Sunday show.

Keep your head on a swivel. This isn't Rudy. And then that guy at the impeachment who said, Philadelphia, who I still think about all the time, we'll do the deposition at my office in Philadelphia.

He also defended the N.B.A. ref who was betting on games he officiated.

Yeah, I didn't know. There was a whole Netflix documentary about that, that's pretty good, and Laureau says in the Netflix doc This is all from that great Washington Post story that we got all this from.

But that same story also was like, well, you know, he actually got into the business by doing low profile cases and working things out behind the scenes. And then he, you know, did this famous case and fought in public. So I don't know. I guess he's decided that he likes these bruising PR battle cases now.

Would you call the shrimp Verdura case a low profile?

I think it's a pretty, that's pretty big time. Yeah, okay, just below impeachment.

We talked a little bit about the, uh, the free speech defense on Thursday's pod. Though. Laura seems to be expanding on that argument to say that these were all just aspirational asks and political disagreements over thorny constitutional issues. What do you guys make of that? what do you make of that argument?

Look, you can stand outside a bank and say all the money inside is yours, but you can't do a heist. Even if you find a dumb ass lawyer who will write a brief saying that you know, they're all his diamonds.

I mean, I think the broader point is, you know, you can say whatever you want. And you can pursue all legal avenues to make your case. Which Trump did in all the courts, subjecting to various counts and rule changes, et cetera. But when you create a slate of fraudulent electors, that's no longer a constitutional dispute, that's a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Yeah.

Seems like a bad idea there.

The one thing that I, I'll tell you if I that has worried me a little bit, is. And Trump has made this argument himself on Truth Social a few times. Is that like? I wonder if their ultimate plan here is to argue that the Electoral Count Act was vague enough about the vice president's role and about what happens with dual slates of electors. Et cetera, et cetera. That, you know, there was some advice from counsel, but also, how was anyone to know exactly what the law said, when you know it was vague? Because Congress last year just decided to clarify the role of the vice president by changing the legislation. You know what I'm just? And I don't think that's necessarily a good argument for jurors, because I think that you can, like Jack Smith, can bring a strong enough case. I start to worry then about the Supreme Court, and how the Supreme Court treats fraud definitions. And how they throw out the Bob McDonald corruption scandal and all that kind of stuff. That was just one thing that I thought about.

Yeah, you know, sometimes it reminds me of like true crime documentaries where they get somebody basically red handed, trying to plot the murder of a spouse or something. And then. But, but they never actually say, kill my spouse. They say, like, Hey, would you consider disposing of this issue? Cause they watch mob movies and they think you can, like, like, that works.

John Eastman even said he thought his argument would be rejected by the Supreme Court. So that I think challenged makes your approach harder. I mean, Jamie Raskin pointed out that you have people currently in jail for counterfeiting one vote in an election. The idea that it's okay to counterfeit an entire slate of electors, or steal an entire election from an entire electorate, and that that's okay is just irrational.

Well, as you say, my argument to my concern would be that, like the real dummies here are Congress for thinking that they needed to pass legislation to clarify the vice president's role. Because if you really think that our whole constitution was set up so that we can have all these elections. But if you happen to be the president and you have a vice president of the same party, that that vice president can just throw out all the votes, and that's okay. I don't think anyone believes that, I don't think there was vagueness in the law about that.

And I remember we talked about it at the time. That you can try to reform your way out of a coup in all the ways you think you should to strengthen a law. And sure, have at it. But in the end, this was about power and they were going to justify it anyway they could.

But I could tell from his whole like violation of the constitution and not the law thing, I was wondering why he was doing that. I do think that's part of the reason he's trying to say, like, well, this was a constitutional dispute and maybe it was violation, but that's handled by the Supreme Court.

They just want to make it all political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.

Political speech and political argument, that's what they're going to end up being like. This is not a crime, this is politics, this is what happens in politics.

Because he has no better argument. So what they're trying to say is.

It's only true if the word ultimate means final. Ask.

But also there's other strange like throughout there's one moment in the indictment.

Yeah, and Pence got asked on CBS, and he goes, quote was, That's not what happened, it's pretty clear.

I think the other thing they want to do with Pence is have him on the stand.

Yeah, I do believe that you can't ask a witness in a trial to say whether or not you think the jury should convict them. So there's some they have to just ask about what happened. But yeah, I do think it's like, clearly Laureau is trying to. You know, there's a kind of whatever bravado thing about saying like, Pence would be our best witness, not our worst. Not the guy that could confirm all the crimes in exactly his state of mind.

Yeah, but it does, it does totally go to the like. This was just a political disagreement between two men.

Why'd you sell out the people?

Why'd you sell out the people?

Why'd you sell out the people? Why'd you sell out the people?

Why'd you sell out the people?

Why'd you sell out the people?

We couldn't see it, but there was just a guy holding his duncans, going, Trayda, Trayda.

Thank you for asking, I do love Concord.

And then he went, Ha ha ha.

I've said many times the election is what it is. All those theories that were put out did not prove to be true, but what I've also said is the way you conduct.

A good election.

That people have confidence in you, don't change the rules.

In the middle of the game.

So you recently said the election is what it is. So can we just put this to bed so you don't have to be asked about this a million more times? Yes or no? Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on January 20th every four years is the winner. After the election, they were talking about Maduro stealing votes on the voting machines or whatever, and none of those theories proved to be true. But at the end of the day, Donald Trump helped facilitate that whole set of circumstances.

Okay, but respectfully, you did not clearly answer that question. And if you can't give a yes or no on whether or not Trump lost.

Then how can you?

Trump lost the 2020 election.

Joe Biden's the president.

I love that. Ron DeSantis plan is to just give extremely basic civics lessons and basic facts. The person who gets inaugurated is the president, Joe Biden is the president.

It is incredible the contortions this person is doing. As if he's three points ahead, he's running like he's ahead. He's just trying to protect his lead by being super careful and not giving the base anything they don't want to hear.

Also, the argument was that Dominion voting systems had ties to Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013.

I was wondering about Maduro. Look, I get what we talked about in our last pod about this in the New York Times poll. There's the 37 of the MAGA base, there's the persuadables, and there's the 25 that are never Trumpers. And clearly, DESantis is looking at the persuadables and the never Trumpers. And is like, the never Trumpers believe that Joe Biden won, and the persuadables believe that Donald Trump won. So I'm going to have to straddle both.

Yeah, slit the throats of the bureaucrats, you know? The Venn diagram you need, though, is the people who want a president who doesn't look like a weak loser who can answer a question directly. Like, Oh, I think she's such a petulant, whiny little fucking baby about it, too, like, Oh, you're annoyed you're getting asked this question.

Meatball.

It's so fucking dumb, it's also just like....

He looks like a meatball.

That was the best nickname.

It's also like, I can't stand being distracted by this major liability for my opponent. Let's get back to talking about my failing campaign.

Let's get back to attacking bud light in the Florida pension programs or whatever nonsense you're talking about that day.

If we're so focused on Trump's indictment, we don't have time for your many questions about why. I'm unappealing to any person I meet.

Now, now, now wait. He did get some shit for his crowds, maybe his answer wasn't great, but he got some less horrible news. From the New York Times Iowa poll. He's losing to Trump 44-20 in that poll, compared to 54-17 in the national poll.

I think it's good now, first of all, I do like that. Our friend Tim Miller single-handedly created a terrible narrative for Ron DeSantis. By posting a photo where he sort of went to the top of the steps at Spanky's livestock auction house and took a photo of how empty.

The crowd was, you know, Spanky's.

Now, in Ron's defense, Tama, Iowa is like 3,000 people. It's the middle of nowhere. And he had other events that day.

And none of them showed up.

But it did suggest that more people would be arriving. When you pick a venue that big, it's like rule number one of advance. But I do think that poll shows hope is the wrong word. But it does show that he's doing better in Iowa than he is nationally. And it suggests that they might be getting a little traction in Iowa, where they've been running ads and actually campaigning out there. It could be that Iowa Conservatives just don't like Trump and never have.

And then 40, say in Iowa say Desantis is the best candidate to beat Joe Biden, and just under 50 say that for Trump. But nationally, Trump beats him by 30 points on that measure of who's the best to go against Biden. I was just trying to look in the cross tabs of that poll for any details. Months from now, when Ron DeSantis is suddenly the GOP nominee. And we look back at all of our old pods of America. And we're making fun of him if we'll be wrong.

I just also think this is less about Ron DESantis showing strength and there's a little bit more weakness for Trump. And I do think that if we do look back on these pods, and I hope we do. And I hope we just come back and share a memory.

Like, we listen to all the primary ones in 2016.

In 2016 Game of 1600.

This is a every single pod. The second you hear it, just think of it as a brown banana. It's now or never, that's it. Once it's over, it's over.

You can make some good banana bread with the brown ones, though. Yeah, sure.

Or a smoothie, I do like, if you're trying to come up with, or a smoothie, or a smoothie, or a smoothie. But Desantis saying, Yeah, Trump lost the first time, he's asked, as opposed to the fifth time. I don't know if it's going to really move the needle for him or for the overall Republican race. But maybe there is some logic to, kind of, if what you're seeing is, hey, maybe there's softness there. That's happening because of the events of Trump being charged for multiple felonies and facing six months of endless trials and scrutiny. Like, let's hang back, let him hang himself without me pissing off the people I need to win.

So, I mean, the hopeful sign here is ostensibly Iowa voters are the ones who have been paying more attention, getting courted, seeing ads, seeing candidates in person. So getting a little traction there is a good thing. I don't think I'm not ready to count Desantis out. I think what I've learned about him is he is a less talented politician than the hype machine set him up to be. But he's still sitting on a ton of money. He has quite possibly the most flawed opponent in political history. And, like, stranger, things have happened. I mean, it's only August 7th.

He's.

Why does everything say Ron DESantis on it? Do you think people don't know who you are?

I think when people just wear their own merch all the time, it's um.

Sorry, it's just really driving me crazy.

Awful.

I also in the UH, in the New York Times write up of their poll, they interview some of the poll respondents. And one of them said, You know, I'm with Desantis now. But every indictment makes me lean more towards Trump, which is just so like two on the nose. But I'm just like, okay.

Our house is on fire quick, all the valuables inside.

The other thing I didn't get from the poll is, I don't know, it's just the way they ask questions. This is why you can't pay too close attention to polls. So yeah, you said, you, said Tommy. 47 of Trump supporters said they'd consider other candidates.

I also think like this, you know, we've talked about like polls that show like, oh, they'll never support this person. 43 say they'll never support that person. And people are very bad at knowing what the will or won't do. I remember, like Bill Clinton, famously at a poll where a majority of Democratic voters said they would never support him. And then the next thing we knew, he was the nominee, not us. We were children, but the people at the time.

Democrat like panic, yes.

Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, what you need is a few polls. It could change slowly and all of a sudden.

You need, like that New York Times poll, or a few polls of that caliber, to suddenly actually no. You'd need it to break through the right wing media ecosystem. You can't. If it's just if it's just a New York Times poll, that's not gonna work. But let's pretend, just for the sake of it, that suddenly there's a Fox News poll out that shows that suddenly Desantis is tied with Biden, or beating Biden. But Trump is now down 5 10 points on Biden, and now he's at 25%.

It's sort of like, possible, it's possible, and it's not gonna happen. Then all of a sudden it could, and then there's this. Just these, just a scramble up, a greasy poll by these like six people.

Who are also greasy?

Also pretty greasy.

The poll and the poll, and the candidates.

They come with their own grease, these guys, what you're?

What you're describing is basically what happened on the Democratic side.

The only difference is Joe Biden didn't clown himself as much like Ron DeSantis did for nine months.

He absolutely did not, but he the campaign struggled for a long time.

Yeah, it struggled, the difference is it struggled kind of quietly. The other thing too is, if you so Trump's at 44, DeSantis is at 20. If you could think back to 2016, in Iowa, there were nine candidates. Ted Cruz wins with 27.6, Trump comes in second with 24.3, Rubio with 23.1. And then everyone else is in single digits. Now there's eight candidates and Trump's already at 44.

Well, it just has to be like, they're just waiting around. There has to be like a surprise, like a sudden collapse, like a monumental collapse. But it could happen.

Iowa has not historically picked the ultimate candidate for Republicans. New Hampshire It's like, you can have this crossover voting from Democrats, so it's taken a little less seriously. Then you get South Carolina, it's like, alright, now some real Conservatives are gonna vote.

There's also there's something in common between Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis, which is which is, you know, Ted Cruz.

Picking issues that no one cares about.

Yeah, but also like Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Is like, Yuck, like, No, thank you. We're not doing what they did. That's some fucking Midwest shit. No way, Ew.

It's like dipping everything in ranch, like, No thanks.

Thank you, deep fried nonsense speaking of.

Speaking of future frontrunners, I just want to do a quick world of segment here. Tommy Did Chris Christie end the war in Ukraine?

I don't think he did, you know? It's an interesting strategy to make a high profile visit to talk about a policy that's deeply unpopular within the Republican primary electorate. But look, I give him credit for it.

Do you think Lovett gave him that advice?

To do that, I don't know that, he did you, I don't know, was that a yeah? But he did the whole like train from Poland thing to get to Kiev. And he went to Bucha, where there were horrible, you know, war crimes and atrocities committed, I don't know.

Didn't he, didn't he gift Zelensky something? yeah.

What did he bring? He brought like handwritten lyrics from Bon Jovi.

It's My Life by Bon Jovi and honestly, I can't make fun of it. I think it's the sweetest thing. He's like, I brought you something from my favorite person in America, and it's about, it's about, it's about living your life.

There was a video of, like, some town in Ukraine where people were sandbagging, preparing for the invasion, listening to that song. And so that got in his head. And then he went to Jon Bon Jovi and he told him he was going over, and Jon Bon Jovi, like, had, you know, fedexed him. Like handwritten lyrics or something? It's a very nice story, it's just super corny.

And when good for Chris Christie, and when Dan's out, he's co-hosting with you, Chris Christie.

He's our fifth host.

Jon Bon, he's going to host.

In another example of how far these candidates will go to get some attention who aren't Donald Trump. DeSantis has tentatively agreed to debate Gavin Newsom on Fox News, with Sean Hannity as the moderator. They're currently arguing over the rules. I honestly haven't been able to follow the back and forth on Twitter, but it's supposed to take place this November, I guess, so there will be one.

Newsom proposed two dates, Desantis proposed four. Yes, so basically, Newsom said, I'll debate you. Sean Hannity can be the moderator. No audience, four minute open statements, mono e mono.

Let's fucking go, I'm in. I think this is a win-win. I was hoping one of you would take the other side because debate.

You know who, I bet would take the other side, who we need here right now, Dan Pfeiffer?

Oh, no, I don't like disagreeing with Dan.

Famously anti-Fox.

Well, we're all, oh yeah, no, we're pro-Fox.

Yeah, no, we're three big Fox fans we all tried out for Tucker Slott.

Here's my pitch. DeSantis has to do something drastic to break through. This is something different. He has to look like a fighter. This might help look. This thing is completely stacked in Ron DeSantis's favor, with Sean Hannity as the moderator, right? So I don't know if you have to take a week off the trail to prep.

But also there's a little bit in which there's sort of no losing for Gavin Newsom. Because he's walking into a debate where everyone knows he's being moderated by fucking Sean Hannity. So it's like, he does okay, that's amazing, he gets bullied, he gets like, he gets like. Tag teamed by Hannity and Desantis.

I think, yeah, I cannot argue against it being a great move for Gavin Newsom, I think he has nothing to lose. The expectations are going to be low. He did great with Hannity when he was one on one with Hannity and his whole brand, you know?

He's not running.

A fantasy campaign against Gavin Newsom? He's running in a primary that he's losing very badly, like he should go try to win the primary. It's like, Were you debating this random California governor? Get back on the fucking trail.

Short of beating up the sketch artist in Trump's courtroom, like, I don't know how he's going to get covered.

It's not a bad idea, that might be a better idea.

He should just be in the background of the sketches.

Desantis on his best run.

You know who loses this? Gavin's staff they are going to be doing.

To prepare him for this. Because you know that Gavin is going to go into this thinking, too, that, like, it's a I'm going to beat him. On the policy details, that's not what it's going to be.

Righteous facts.

Yeah, alright, we've talked about this a bit in the context of the Republican primary. But we are headed into a 2024 campaign where the likely Republican nominee could be facing. 7 trials 4 criminal, 3 civil. That he is already making a central part of his message, Politico just this Morning called it the courtroom campaign.

I loved it, the Uh.

The visit of 2020 was the Zoom campaign, which, like, wasn't, I don't remember that being the Zoom campaign.

I don't remember anything about 2020.

Same, and this is the courtroom campaign. How do you navigate that if you are Joe Biden's campaign?

Can I first of all, just say that? I just want to be honest and say that? I lost track of one of the civil trials. I actually, I thought it was 6, and I actually forgot one of the two federal civil trials.

So there's.

Or one that's divided?

Eugene Carroll One Eugene Carroll, The sequel Are we counting?

This is what I didn't understand.

And then there's the business fraud one, Okay, I feel like there's.

One other fraud, I think there is.

There might be, oh, is it the truth? Social fraud one. Are we counting that?

I think there's another fraud there might be.

The period, Yeah, anyway, I don't know. And then the four criminal, of course, the three that already happened and we're all waiting on Georgia.

Great.

Anyway, you're sitting, you're sitting in Wilmington, Delaware, which is where the campaign is right, or maybe you're in the White House. What are you doing about all this?

This is hard. I mean, I think that Trump is going to say that Joe Biden is weaponizing DOJ against me. This is all political persecution. I don't think you want to help him with that. I think everyone in the country is going to hear about these cases.

Yeah, it was a poll that came out today. What that, like? 71 of people have heard little to nothing about the Inflation Reduction Act. So he's going to go out on the campaign trail. Anytime he says anything that touches on any of this, that will be news, but he's going to be trying to make.

I mean, you can even make a character argument against Trump, or a culture argument against Trump. That isn't based on these trials, too. I mean, you can do the whole thing. It's really hard to talk about what your own DOJ is doing.

This is an unprecedented situation, so, you know.

Yes, for sure. I think you absolutely cannot comment on the trials or the indictments, right? I do think I've thought about this for a while. I think that, like, he has to just say what he has said in the past about this. Which is that, like, Trump, is a threat to democracy, and this election is about whether democracy survives or not, just like he said it in the midterms. And then when they say, and of course, Trump is going to say he politicized this, and he's. They just said today and they're filing right that Joe Biden capitalized on the indictment just because of the fucking dark brand thing.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know, it's tough, I'm not sure that's the thing.

Voters care about.

That's why I don't know that's what voters care about. I feel like you're trying to figure out what the you're saying like, Oh, that's what the contrast should be, and maybe that's right, or maybe you just trust.

Because you have a conversation happening that's getting picked up by all the press about whether a judge in Washington, D.

To help you the most. I mean, I went through a whole midterm election and had done all those focus groups. And I will tell you that, like, the voters will sit there. And if you ask them what matters? They're not going to say this trial matters. They're not going to say all this shit matters. They're going to say economic concerns matter to them, for sure.

I just I think Joe Biden has to obviously make an argument about how Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. I'm just trying to think about how Joe Biden can make a positive.

Yeah, it's just a couple more chip sack events, it's going to be complicated.

Again, I pitched this, I pitched this in our company, Slack. I think we got to start getting stuff. In the background of old episodes of suits, everyone's watching. apparently the whole country has just decided they're watching fucking suits. If you're not watching suits, be careful.

I have an idea Joe Biden and the cast of Suits sit down and they do a retrospective.

That's a good idea. I love that rewatchables kind of thing.

Yeah, that's great, especially their most prominent cast member.

It is very fun, yes.

Nearly toppled the monarchy, yeah.

Yeah, that's the power of suits, that's what I'm saying, Suits has already....

One authoritarian down, one to go.

The suits run Hollywood.

Yeah, let's get suits on this. I don't know. I honestly, I don't know what suits is, I just know what they wear.

It's one of those shows where I've seen the pilot three times now, I haven't gone past.

The pilot I've seen like six episodes and one of them's a lawyer, one of them is not a lawyer, but one of them says they're a lawyer.

It is fun that all these people like Jason Miller and Susie Wiles. And all these Trump staffers who are part of the indictment are going to have to be on the campaign and comment on it. That's even more complicated than the Biden case.

And they're going to testify, and then they're going to have, and then Trump's going to see that they testified, because he's going to see the transcripts and then he's going.

Not enough ketchup in the world? Also, I like that. Mike Pence was asked. All these guys are so afraid to just answer a question. Mike Pence was asked like, will you testify? will you testify?

You're not hosting an event.

Yeah, it's not a baby shower. Yeah, you know, you don't have a plan. it's not a plan thing. You haven't been asked to testify yet.

I like when he also got asked about whether he kept the journal and how many notes he was taking. He's like, I would on occasion write things in my calendar like, Oh, did you, Mike? I think it's a little more comprehensive than that.

Remember when there was that Senator Nelson, not Bill Nelson, the other Nelson?

Oh, no, no, you're thinking of Bob Graham.

I'm thinking of Bob Graham. Yes, Bob Graham, he ran for president. Yes, he ran for president.

And guess what, he did not do well in the primary.

No, he did not, did not work for him.

Ran for president? The intense, detailed journaling did not work for Bob Graham.

You know what the twist is? That's kind of interesting to me, it's so. One of the Mike Pence was asked about what would happen if he testified or what happened. And he says that, like, I, you know, I will tell the truth and uphold my oath to the Constitution and Almighty God.

Yeah, he's crossing the Delaware a lot in these statements.

He absolutely is, but I just like thinking that after all these years of Mike Pence using religion to justify every fucking heinous thing. There's a little part of him. That's and God will see, and I think that's cool.

Yeah, no, he, he, he believes it. I love it. Yeah, whether it's.

I think that's cool as hell.

Yeah, that's his thing. Um, anyway, we're going to talk more about this. I'm sure we're going to have seven trials to go through, or maybe there's six, who knows? Okay, two quick housekeeping items before we head to break.

I know Maria Bamford, Ike Barinholtz, Ian Harvey and Bridger Winneger.

That's right, if you have a tinge date, you have to work late and head to Crooked.com Slash Events to get your tickets now.

Nice.

Just read what's in front of me when we come back. Tommy talks with Desiree Timms, the founder and CEO of Innovation, Ohio, about the big abortion rights vote happening there today and where the fight goes next.

A critical fight for abortion rights and democracy is playing out today in Ohio, where people are voting on a ballot measure called Issue One. Joining us today to explain this hugely consequential fight is Desiree Timms, the President and CEO of Innovation, Ohio. Desiree. Thanks for doing the show.

Thanks so much for having me, I'm thrilled to be here.

So let's just start with the basics. What are folks in Ohio voting on this week?

So Republicans in Ohio have pulled off the what I call the ultimate scam. That is this special election, which is today August 8th. Now a few weeks ago, meaning weeks, because we have not had a ton of time to prepare for this election. We had roughly 85 to 90 days, but we knew that this was coming. Republicans decided to push for an August special election to increase the threshold for passing constitutional amendments in Ohio from a simple majority. 50 plus one, like the way democracy has always worked in this country, to 60 percent.

So I guess the Republican position on abortion rights is that it's an issue for the states, but only in states where proponents of abortion access can get a super majority. So that's what we're saying now.

That's exactly right, and they have a pro-life movement and air quotes on pro-life, right funding this campaign. And so they tried to change the rules. Offer a very last minute election, we don't even have enough poll workers in every area of the state. Because it was such a last minute effort to pull off this special election for a very special scam.

Well, I want to ask you about the funding question because it's a lot of money coming from out of state, it seems like from conservatives. But in addition to raising the threshold from 50 percent to simple majority, as you said, to 60 percent. Issue 1 would also require petitioners to get a certain number of signatures from every single county in Ohio. So there's 88 counties in Ohio currently, you have hit this signature threshold, and I believe only 44 counties. What would that change mean for grassroots organizations like yours?

So I want to be very clear to all the listeners, it is already hard to change the constitution. Do you know how hard it is to track grandma and Annie and Johnny down in the parking lot to sign a petition, right? It is already hard work.

Yeah, it's like a horrible little mini electoral college for just Ohio. You mentioned that there's some amazing early turnout numbers. Almost 600,000 people have already voted, that's way above turnout for the recent Senate primary. It's below sort of a general election level for governor or president.

So we feel really good about the early vote number. We have been holding rallies in many town halls in every corner of the state, and not just big cities, small cities and rural areas. And what we know from the early vote data is that a lot of the folks who have requested ballots, who turned in ballots, who voted early, are registered Democrats. And so we hope and pray that those folks have voted no. But I'm also personally optimistic about some of the Republicans, because we know that this issue is not just about abortion.

Yeah, it's interesting you see Republicans whining about the 2020 election, when Democrats tried to make it easier for folks to vote. In the middle of a pandemic. They're complaining that's changing the rules in the middle of the game. Meanwhile, in Ohio, Republicans are trying to make it much harder for people to vote in the middle of an election. Which would also, as you mentioned, it wouldn't just apply to this effort to enshrine abortion rights into the Constitution. If you are a Republican who wants a fair congressional maps and nonpartisans of anti-gerrymandering language put forward, this could stop those efforts too, right?

That's exactly right. It's a very, very important issue. And I also want to add that we have the strictest voter ID law in the country. You have to have a photo ID in order to vote. So not only have they wrote out this election during the middle of the summer. You also have to have voter ID, an ID that matches your address, or you cannot vote, you will be turned away.

So I saw that. One of the biggest donors or spenders on the Yes campaign, which is the folks we're fighting against here, is an Illinois Conservative mega donor named Richard Uline. He contributed $4 million to the Protect Our Constitution PAC. His contribution made up 82.5 of the Yes campaign's funding. I believe, according to The Washington Post. Why do you think this out-of-state multi-hundred millionaire, billionaire? I don't know what he is, is spending so much money on this race?

That is something that perplexes all of us. Why is this guy from Illinois with no ties to Ohio so invested in ruining our lives? We deserve to have good things, we like nice things, too. And you would think after? Everyone in the country and around the world heard the story about the nine-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and had to travel to Indiana to have an abortion. That people would think and see, this is a bad thing.

Yeah, so obviously abortion access will be a huge part of the 2024 campaign across the board. Are there things that you guys have learned from your organizing, from the work you've done from? I don't know how, like what messages work on the doors that the Biden campaign or other candidates can learn and steal from.

Absolutely, I think. When we are talking to young voters and communities of color, and people who don't pay attention to politics as much as us. It is very important to make sure that the voter is the hero. It is not about what XYZ politician has done for you and how they make your life better, it's about, hey, because you voted in the last election. We were able to cap insulin at $35..

I love that you have to make them feel like they've accomplished something. Last question for you. So, no matter what happens, your team is going to be fighting for abortion rights and access in November. How can listeners get involved and help out?

Yes, so what listeners can do is visit innovationohio..org and chip in. We also launched the Ohio Voter Guide. You can share that link ohiovoterguide..org to every single Ohioan you know. And make sure that they have the information they need to make an educated and informed decision. To hopefully vote no on August 8th, but we will also use Ohio Voter Guide again in November in the following election after that.

Excellent well. Desiree Timms, thank you for the work you're doing. Thank you Joe. And you know, I think we're going to win. I feel good about this one.

I feel good, too, I'm fired up.

Yeah, yeah, this is like, I don't think anyone wants the rules to be changed. I don't think everyone wants the government making it harder for citizens to have their voices heard. So fingers crossed here.

Thanks.

All right, before we go, Elijah's back with the things he holds nearest and dearest in life, his takes. How's it going, Elijah?

It's going great, John, great to be with you again doing the take. Appreciators, let's just jump right into it because we're on a tight schedule. I'm going to share some takes with you. All the producers have seen all of them.

Oh my God, what do you guys think?

That's very triggering.

Where's the lie?

Look, I will definitely thank a few individual Republicans for not joining the conspiracy that Trump is now being tried for.

Congrats, you didn't do it too.

Thank you for not thank you, no, that was very good of them. But the Republican Party as a whole is, of course, why we're in this mess, because it is controlled by Donald Trump and his supporters.

Well, that's obviously an issue as well.

Look, I think the headline is the most triggering thing, so I feel like that gets.

How many? What are the numbers? Again? One through four?

It's just one through four.

It's been a while.

That's a one and a half for me.

Okay, I'll give it a three. Okay, I'm sorry, it's been a while we never play.

Do you want to have a side meeting about this?

Elijah, with his head down, walking a little radio flyer.

Yeah, babe, why don't we play take appreciators anymore?

Jesus Christ.

There is like there were so many people on the internet yesterday rooting against the United States because they don't like the political views. Of some of the players on one of the teams. What is wrong with you? You know, it's broken brain people on the planet.

Sick stuff, sick stuff.

Because we lost to Sweden.

From the man who wants to lead our nation. Full playbook, Full playbook.

I really do hate the rooting against our. It really gets me, it really gets me.

I was trying to think to myself, like, was there a time when the U?

Remember that baseball player who then was on Survivor who said that he didn't want to ride on the 7 train because of some homophobic and racist things?

John Rocker Yeah.

Did he ever do the Olympics?

I don't think so he might have.

That's the only person I could think of.

That was probably an era when pros weren't allowed on the Olympic team.

I mean, Curt Schilling is a big Trumper, but I still love the 2004 Olympics.

Yeah, I will always appreciate what he did.

Well, if you guys couldn't root for assholes, you'd never be able to watch sports.

Yeah, that's a compromise we all make.

Like America's team, the Patriots.

Yeah, no assholes on that team.

It's right in the title, you're welcome.

Alright, so we're at a full playbook for that truth.

Sure are, yeah.

Great, alright. Let's end with something that we don't normally do a letter to the editor. There are lots of takes out there that say Biden should pardon Donald Trump. But here's something from Gary to the Salt Lake Tribune, and I have to say, I think Gary is cooking.

Fucking deep, deep reach.

A letter to the editor Hey Gary, you know what we call those today? they're called the X's.

Get ready to have your world rock, Gary, because Pod Save America is coming.

Who the fuck is writing a letter to the editor anymore? Just go you fucking post something?

I love what Gary is cooking up here. As an intellectual exercise, it's titled For strategic Reasons, Biden should get into the self-pardon game. Here's a quote. I don't think Biden has committed any crimes. But doing a pardon would test whether it's constitutional. And, if it is, it would protect him from retribution by a potential President, Trump in 2024. This would put Biden's opponents in a position that if they complain or try to block the pardon, it would apply to Trump as well.

Gary, I'm for it, I'm for it. He should definitely self-pardon.

Gary you just, Hey Gary, I like what you're cooking. I got a bowl right here, serve it I'm in.

I think it should be pardons for him, pardons for Barack Obama, maybe us, I don't know.

Honestly, I'd sleep better.

A little prophylactic pardoning going on.

Pardoning an ambient. I'll sleep like a fucking baby. That's what I've been missing.

Joe Biden needs to issue an executive order that says Gary can't read political news for at least two years. I think that is you're thinking your D's in your chest are too high, too many D's in your chest.

D's.

4D, 3D, 5D Chest.

Oh, oh, chest.

I thought you said, chest.

I was like, What?

You got your d's on his chest, what the fuck?

I don't even know what, What are you up to? I don't know nothing, I've been up to nothing.

Where was Gary's letter printed?

Salt Lake It was in Salt Lake.

Oh, you're looking at the salt, Wow, how did you find that? Here's the thing.

But that tells me something about Gary, Gary-.

I think the subs sent it to him.

Gary, not the Doms, Gary, fuck you, Gary is in fucking Salt Lake with a candle, you know, in a red state.

But he's a Romney-Biden voter.

Yep.

Gary's being slandered.

Sorry, Gary. They try to overthrow the government. I don't think a little rhetorical, you know, flair is going to convince them otherwise.

Constitutional argument.

Politico rating for Gary.

One, I think Gary did a great job. yeah, do your. yeah, maybe zero zero. Gary's great.

Nice.

No bad ideas in a brainstorm, Gary, he's just trying to save democracy.

Yeah, you're right, fun idea, Gary.

Turns out it was Gary Busey.

Did not see that coming. ElIJAh COHN, Thanks for a great take. Appreciators. We'll try to have you on more frequently.