More Democrats Call for a Ceasefire
2023-11-21 01:14:45
Pod Save America is a no-bullshit conversation about politics hosted by former Obama aides Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Dan Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor. It cuts through the noise to break down the week’s news and helps people figure out what matters and how they can help. They’re regularly joined by journalists, activists, politicians, entertainers, and world leaders. You can watch on YouTube or listen to new episodes every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Ad-Free Pod Save America episodes available NOW through Friends of the Pod subscription. Head to crooked.com/friends to join today! For a transcript of an episode of Pod Save America, please email [email protected] (edited)
Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau.
I'm pardoned Turkey Jon Lovett.
I'm Tommy Vitor.
That's pretty bad.
Leave it in.
On today's show, President Biden celebrates his birthday with more bad polling. That's such a dickish way to say it. Sorry, that's how he feels about it, I know.
I'm just telling the truth. Trump tries to wrap up the primary in Iowa, and Fox News kicks off the holiday season with a war on woke Christmas. Then ProPublica's Andrea Bernstein joins to talk about Supreme Court ethics in her new podcast on right wing judicial activist Leonard Leo. And later, we inaugurate a new Thanksgiving tradition we're going to pardon some of our own turkeys.
Yeah, that's right, yeah.
All right, but first, President Biden said Monday a deal that would release hostages held by Hamas is close. And this comes as the number of House Democrats calling for a ceasefire has grown to 37, a group that now includes three Jewish Democrats, Becca Bailent, Sarah Jacobs and Jamie Raskin. Over in the Senate, Jeff Merkley became the second senator to call for a ceasefire, and Bernie Sanders released a statement saying that quote. Not one penny should go to Israel until they stop the bombardment, allow displaced Gazans to return home and pledge not to pursue a long term blockade or reoccupation of Gaza.
Other Senate Democrats, like John Ossoff, who's also Jewish, and Chris van Hollen have also started to talk about putting conditions on. The 14 billion dollars in aid that Biden has requested for Israel, let's listen.
Mr. President, I fervently want Israel to succeed both in defeating the threat posed by Hamas and as a historic effort to secure a safe homeland for Jews. But I do not accept that the total deprivation of millions of innocent civilians is necessary for Israel to secure its objectives or in the national interest of the United States. How Israel conducts this operation is important and so many of us learned. Just a few weeks ago, when one of the White House national security spokesperson was asked if the United States has any red lines.
And the answer was no, which means anything goes, and that cannot be consistent with American interests and American values. So that's why we're asking these questions.
It can't be consistent because that's not the policy for any other country that the United States provides military aid to.
That's right, look, we have a policy of trying to make sure that our funds are used in a manner that advances our interest in our values. And if you look at what's happening right now in Gaza, the desperate humanitarian crisis, clearly that's more that could be done.
So Biden wrote a Washington Post op ed this weekend, where he again rejected calls for a ceasefire at this time. And Punchbowl reported on Monday that the administration won't accept conditions on aid for Israel. Tommy, let's start with the calls for a ceasefire. What's your take on these ceasefire statements that are coming out from Democrats? I know you just talked to Congressman Raskin right before the show.
Yeah, so just just so, folks know, I mean. The ceasefire deal that is reportedly being negotiated between the U.S. Israel and Hamas would have Hamas release. At least 50 women and children being held hostage in exchange for, maybe, like, a five day ceasefire. There's a lot of details in there about sequencing, and there's speculation that Israel would then release Palestinian women and children in Israeli prisons. But that's kind of what's being reported on. You're right, though, that the calls in Congress for a ceasefire are definitely growing.
And it's not just the most progressive Democrats who have been more willing to criticize Israel, it's more kind of normie Democrats. And congressman Raskin's name jumped out at me because he's progressive, he's Jewish, and he's also just an incredibly thoughtful guy. So we talked briefly this afternoon. I mean, he wanted to stress that he is in no way trying to micromanage the negotiations or the administration's.
He basically said, like, the specifics of what they're talking about are up to Tony Blinken and the Biden team. But what he wanted to do was to speak out, to lay out some moral and political imperatives. And just move the conversation away from this kind of false binary that you're seeing of, you know, people declaring that you need to care for one side or the other, Palestinian or Israeli? He wanted to just focus on the common humanity. And so I personally like, I'm not sure how you can not call for a ceasefire if your goal is getting back hostages and reducing civilian deaths. I think the odds are that the way you'll get the most hostages home is going to be through some sort of negotiated deal.
The way you'll protect the most civilians in Gaza is through getting more aid in and reducing airstrikes. But, you know, Congressman Raskin is coming from a place of he has constituents that have lost family members in Gaza. He's met with the families of hostages, and so he's just focusing on the like, the humanity of it all, and valuing and protecting lives.
What do you make of Biden writing that op-ed? Rejecting calls for a ceasefire again? Do you think partly this is like he's in the middle of these negotiations over a potential temporary ceasefire in exchange for hostages? Do you think that, like, what's the administration reasoning? what's the administration's reasoning for continuing to reject calls for a ceasefire? Or more public pressure on Bibi as this war continues?
I don't know, it continues to frustrate me enormously. I mean, what Biden has said is he supports humanitarian pauses, which are sort of like brief cessations and hostilities to allow aid in or people out. But also, we know that the Biden administration is trying to help broker the broader hostage exchange deal that I mentioned at the top. So obviously they would be in support of some sort of ceasefire deal that got out dozens of hostages.
So maybe they're just trying not to get ahead of the Israelis. That has been kind of their approach to this situation from day one. Just to kind of back everything Israel does in public and then sort of push and prod them in private. But I agree with you. I mean, the op-ed was a little bit muddled because it was about Ukraine and Israel, and I assumed they kind of mixed those threats together. Because we were going to build up to a point about the need to get Congress to pass more aid, but it didn't even really do that.
So I'm a little bit confused by the messaging there.
Lovett, What was your reaction to seeing a number of Jewish Democrats in Congress call for either a ceasefire or conditioning aid to Israel?
Well, first thing is that it does seem like when you use the term ceasefire, it gets a lot of coverage and attention, but people seem to use the term differently. Sometimes. It's I believe there should be a ceasefire, the violence should stop immediately. It's a moral abomination, which it is. Other times. These are calls for a ceasefire conditioned on hostage release, conditioned on other changes on the ground. But regardless, like what I appreciate both from Bernie's statement, from Asaf's statements, from all of these statements, is they do have a kind of moral clarity. And to the point, Tommy made are moving away from this binary.
It's like, very heartening to see, you know, in many ways. I think sometimes, like, American politics puts America at the center of every debate, right? And like, calling for a ceasefire is like a bang shot, right? Like it's U.S members of Congress calling on another country to heed their call, or calling on Biden to do something. I do find the debate about conditioning aid to be really interesting and important.
It was something that was sort of off the table for a really long time for political reasons. But I think it's a very good thing that it's a part of the conversation again, you know? This is not like the idea of telling a country to which we are giving billions of dollars of aid that we expect certain things in return for giving that aid. I don't think should be seen as some like lefty concept. It was something George H..W. Bush did when he made aid conditional on not expanding settlements.
So it doesn't have to. First of all, it is something that has happened in the past, it is something that has worked in the past. And even just that, one example makes clear it's not like some farfetched lefty from the river to the sea thing. Like. It can be an important way the U.S helps achieve its goals.
And look, I don't understand the like, difficult, complex result of what it would mean to condition aid, how something like that would be implemented. But I think the fact that the politics are changing is important, and I think in a common sense way, providing this aid, I think, should mean. We are in a position to make demands of what we view not only as Israel's interest, but our interest in the region.
I mean, I also think that the debate that is coming up around the request for aid to Israel is sort of like a key moment in this. Because, say, you know, every Democrat in Congress, or most Democrats in Congress, started calling for a ceasefire. Say they were able to pass a resolution in the Senate because they probably wouldn't be able to in the House. Say then Joe Biden woke up, This is just imaginary. Say that Joe Biden woke up the next day. And was like, I'm going to tell Bibi that it's time for a ceasefire. Netanyahu could say, No, I don't want, I'm going to do what I want to do.
But now that we're talking about sending aid to Israel, that's where we actually have some leverage. And I, I don't see how any Democrat could just vote for really any member of Congress, but I don't expect much from Republicans could just vote to give. Bibi Netanyahu. Someone who does not even have majority support in his own country that has just been through this horrific terrorist attack, doesn't even have majority support there. A blank check to continue a war where he has not told us what his objectives are, where he has not, like, proven that he's not, that he's trying to avoid civilian casualties where he's. As of this, recording still hasn't brought back any of the hostages. Like, it just seems bizarre to me, and again, I don't like Tommy. How likely is it that you think Congress can actually impose conditions, and if they did, do you think that could force Israel to change its approach?
I mean, at the moment, I think it's unlikely, because Republicans will probably uniformly oppose this proposal, which kills in the House and then even among Democrats. I'm not sure there's consensus opinion on what conditioning aid means. Like, I agree with, Love it. I think it's a no brainer. It's basically diplomacy.
It's like a carrot and a stick approach to get someone to do what you want to do. But Biden is asking for $14.3 billion in additional funding. The U.S. already provides $3.8 billion in security assistance a year to Israel. It does, to me, seems incredibly reasonable to say. This aid will only be provided if the IDF agrees to some basic standards to reduce civilian casualties, which the level of civilian casualties in Gaza right now is intolerable and indefensible. And I think, you know, you could also argue like these weapons must only go to uniform members of the military. Because recently there was this right wing National Security minister of Israel, this guy named Itamar Ben-Gavir.
He posted a photo of himself handing out rifles to members of these, like civilian militia groups. You would want to make sure that these weapons, these rifles, aren't being used in the West Bank or given to extremist settlers. But, you know, back to the broader problem, like you mentioned, the top job. I mean, Bernie wants this to go much further. He's saying the U.S. should only give Israel more assistance if they rein in airstrikes. Promise to allow displaced Gazans to return home, promise not to reoccupy Gaza, free settlement, expansion. So these are conditions that go far beyond the current conflict and get to the core underlying tensions and challenges. You know, that are the driving sort of the tensions here.
But, you know, again, to your point, like, there's no guarantee that Netanyahu is going to listen, even if these bills are passed. I do think, though, the fact that Congress is having this conversation is a major inflection point in U.S. policy towards Israel. That goes beyond frustration with this military campaign in Gaza. Because part of my frustration at times with President Biden's messaging and policy towards Israel is I feel like it gets. The talking points don't evolve. We're still talking about Israel in the same way we were decades ago, but the reality is like this.
Current government is super right wing, ultra nationalist, ultra orthodox. There's a lot of extremists in this coalition, and Congress seems to be updating its view to reflect that reality faster than the White House is.
The two things that I took away from it were one. I appreciate that, like, what's happening in Congress, what Bernie is saying, what Ossoff is saying, what a lot of these members are saying. It has a moral clarity and it gives a place for progressives to go that somewhere in between, I think a more anti-Israel position and then some of the kind of strident right wing or kind of hyper pro-Israel positions that don't reflect the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The other piece of this, and maybe this, is glib, but it's very clear that, like whatever is going on behind the scenes. At one point, even Netanyahu referred to the fact that Biden facing his own political pressures. And there is like a little bit of like, good cop, Zionist cop, you know that, like political pressure from Democrats, including Democrats that support Israel like that will carry a lot of weight.
Well, yeah, I mean, I appreciated that. Ossoff and others are making the argument that, like, Look, you can argue that a blank check to Bibi is not in the interest of a secure Israel? Or getting the hostages back, or achieving any of the aims that, like the Israeli people, hope that they achieve as well, right? Like, it's just not this idea. Because I saw a couple of members of, I think I saw Congressman Gottheimer say, like, Oh, if you condition, if you condition the aid at all, that's just help. You're helping Hamas, you're helping Hamas, and it's like, Well, that's crazy.
Yeah, like, I don't think that is true.
Yeah, listen, I just a lot of people probably listen to this and frustrated and being like, why don't you call on Hamas to release the hostages? Why don't you call on Hamas to renounce terrorism? Like? I do all those things right? They're a terrorist organization, they're evil.
What happened on October 7th is indefensible. Where I'm coming from on this now, though, is I just firmly believe that. If your priority is protecting civilian lives in Gaza and getting hostages back, the way you do it is through diplomacy and a negotiated agreement. And I really, really worry. The volume of airstrikes that the IDF has been conducting in the Gaza Strip is unprecedented. You're talking about, like a year's worth of airstrikes on Afghanistan happening in a month in a place half the size of Manhattan.
Like, I worry that's going to kill the hostages, as well as civilians in Gaza. Which is why you want to hit pause on this negotiate and see if you can get people back.
And it's not going to end up creating a safer Israel, or a safer Gaza, or a safer Middle East, you know, like, and that's something that's in everyone's interest. And all of these Jewish Democrats and a lot of these other Democrats who put out the statements over the weekend, specifically said. We agree with the goal of rooting out Hamas, of getting rid of Hamas's leadership, of getting the hostage. Like, we agree with all of that. This is the way we think we can do that, this is the better way to think we can do that. And look, we used to. I mean, again, we talked. I know you guys have talked a lot about sort of the lessons we learned from 9-11. But like, we went through all these arguments at post 9-11. And around the Iraq war. Like, where? If you had a difference in strategy on the war and you didn't want to give a blank check? Suddenly you were, you know, against the troops and for terrorism and all this bullshit.
Yeah, look, in the near term, you can degrade Hamas's military capabilities, you can take out its leadership, you can take out the tunnels, you can take out the rockets. But the long term, like, you can't bomb the idea of Hamas away, you cannot, you cannot bomb away. Like the underlying political challenges that led to the creation of Hamas that have led to this movement, right? And that's where I think you're seeing people like Raskin and others talk about the need for the long-term negotiations to solve the underlying political challenges. And that is the only way, in the long run, you will get to a peaceful Israel and Palestine, living side by side.
Yeah, you have. Even in Raskin's statement, you're referring to just sort of the rebuilding effort that's going to have to take place in Gaza. And the one condition you didn't mention that Bernie also includes in what he would make conditional for aid is peace talks, like the broad peace talks that would have to begin, and like the idea that the U.S. would not make giving a country billions of dollars conditional on. The talks that we believe, and everyone believes, are necessary for the lasting peace in the region. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I'll just make one more point on the aid package itself and the negotiations in Congress before we move on. Like, I don't know that. This is going to get done. Because they want to package together Ukraine aid, aid for Israel and border security funding, and potentially policy changes around the border. At least that's what Republicans are asking for. They're all on the same supplemental bill that they want to pass around the holidays, or at least right after the holidays. And if you separated out aid for Israel just on its own, and it was a clean $14 billion request that they debated. You could see it passing the House because Republicans control the House, and then they'd get some Democrats too, especially more moderate conservative Democrats.
And then, you're right, you could see it pass the Senate as well. Because again, you have all the Republicans supporting it, and you probably get enough Democrats that support it. Even if a bunch of progressive Democrats said no. So, you could probably pass Israel aid on its own, but you throw in Ukraine, now you have a bunch of Republicans in both houses that don't want Ukraine aid. So if you lose those votes, plus you lose the votes of the Democrats who don't want to give a blank check to Israel, to Bibi Netanyahu. And then you throw in Republicans demanding border policy changes.
Like, I just don't know that any of this is going to get done.
Let's just be honest, a bill that's $106 billion, some for the border, most for foreign countries, foreign militaries is wildly unpopular.
Wildly unpopular, you know what I mean?
I mean, it's just like if you pulled the side of a random voter and said, What do you think about spending $100 billion this way instead of any other way? Like, they're probably not going to support this. So yeah, I'm with you. It's challenging.
Pod Save America is brought to you by Karyuma. Karyumas have been our go-to sneakers for a while now because they're really comfortable, go with everything, and they're made with consciously sourced materials. I wear Karyuma sneakers all the time, have many pairs at home in colors ranging from white to white to gray, and they're super comfortable. Last year, we collaborated with Karyuma to create No Steps Back sneakers, and we can't believe they've now designed a second limited edition collaboration with us, the Love It or Leave It sneaker.
And they're great and they're selling out as we speak. I'm looking at it, I'm looking at the website.
A lot of great boxes. What does it say?
A lot of great boxes.
They got some fun stuff, like Pundit on a surfboard. Plus, a portion of the proceeds from every pair sold is donated to Vote Save America's Every Last Vote fund. Our first Karyuma collab sold out super fast. So if you want a pair for yourself or the Love It fan in your life, make sure to snag one now. I just got one for Tommy for that very reason.
Thank you. They make the perfect gift for the holiday season with free returns. Just head to Crooked.com Slash store that's Crooked.com Slash store.
All right. In addition to all those challenges, Joe Biden also turned 81 on Monday and what a birthday it was. For the first time since 2019, NBC's poll has the president trailing Donald Trump 46 to 44 percent. Only 40 percent of voters approve of Biden's job performance, 57 percent disapprove. It's the worst rating of his presidency, driven in part by a huge drop in his approval among 18 to 34-year-olds, which is down from 46 percent in NBC's September poll to 31 percent.
Now, Biden's also getting record low ratings on foreign policy, low ratings on handling Gaza. Biden's age continues to be a concern to voters, though he did try to joke about that again on his birthday. Let's listen.
And by the way, it's my birthday today and they can actually sing birthday songs.
I just want you to know it's difficult turning 60 difficult.
He also, when he was doing the Turkey part, said that the first one was 75 years ago. And he said, Don't worry, I wasn't there.
That's funny.
But then he went on to confuse Taylor Swift and Britney Spears. So that's tough, so you win some, you lose some.
Who hasn't done that?
You win some, you lose some. Before we get to the age conversation for the hundredth time, what did you guys think of the NBC poll in general? Love it.
It was a pretty dismal poll. I will say, though, we're pulling out the Biden age question, and I would like to just point out that more broadly. It's awful. In a bunch of other ways, too. It's worth pointing out one number that really stuck out to me. 47 of registered voters say they prefer a Republican-controlled Congress to 45 that prefer Democrat.
And I think that to me, look, we can talk about Biden's 40 approval rating, not where you want it to be, but the fact that this right now, given what we have seen over the year with this Congress, that right now, in a poll, 47 to 45 people basically flip a coin. Don't give a fuck, which party controls Congress? Tells you, like, I think you step back and blow your eyes and you see a pissed off country. That's not fully engaged on the substance of the issues and not keyed in to exactly what kind of threat Republican control in Washington would pose.
Yeah, I almost saw that as good news. Oddly, because it's one of the first polls that has showed Republicans leading in the generic ballot. And it makes me wonder about the sample and about.
Look, we're not gonna unskew polls here, but there's a lot. Non-response bias is a thing, and non-response bias is when, like, one side is getting horrible media coverage. And then a lot of times, those voters just don't answer questions and it doesn't mean that there's actual shift in support. It's just like who you're getting answered in the polls. And so I'm sort of wondering if something like that's going on with this poll.
But that number was not.
That number is worse than it was before, but not by much. It's just sort of part of a slide down.
Well, that's still just.
I mean, you're gonna get a divided country too, like you, just like control of Congress, even if Biden didn't have his age issues. Even if Gaza wasn't happening like, you would still be like just a 50-50 country when you get to the electorate, which is really tough. But yeah, no, it's not good, it's not good, Tommy. Any thoughts on some of the numbers?
No, I think you guys nailed it. I mean, you know, like you turn on the TV and all you see is horrifying images out of, you know, Ukraine and now Gaza. So, of course, you know, I mean, Joe Biden doesn't have like a magic fix-it switch that he could flip if he wanted that he hasn't. But I think what it reflects is people are pissed off, they feel like the country's on the wrong track, and things feel very unsettled around the world.
And that's just that's the nature of the job, it's really hard.
Yeah, and just on Gaza, because they went pretty deep in this poll on Gaza. They asked about funding for Israel. Voters approved of sending aid to Israel 55-41 in favor. They also approved of sending aid to Gaza 58-36. But even more.
But 49 of Democrats oppose sending aid to Israel. They asked, Is Israel justified in what they're doing right now, or have they gone too far? 47 of voters say justified? 30 say too far? But when you ask Democrats, 51 of Democrats think Israel has gone too far, and only 27 say that it's justified. So it really is an issue that splits the Democratic Party, even if there's majority support in the country, which is, you know, particularly difficult for Democrats.
And in terms of issue salience, they asked people, is there an issue that you feel so strongly about that you would vote for or against a candidate? Based on this issue? Number one is democracy 19 chose democracy, number two is abortion 18%.
Immigration 14. Don't think we're getting a lot of those guns. 9. And then Gaza popped up as 5. And just in case, you know, they did approvals of different figures and organizations.
They did poll Hamas. Hamas only has 1 approval in the electorate, 81 disapproved. So I guess that's good, we like that.
But they haven't right. But that's before, you know, Hamas got the bin laden bump.
I'm sure that the bin laden standing on TikTok was happening during this poll, so they didn't quite capture it yet.
That's right, it takes a while for that kind of a message to really resonate and see it in the numbers.
Yeah, we'll be testing it in a few weeks.
Hamas is beating Chris Christie in Iowa, is my take on it. I do wonder, on the democracy numbers, what percentage of those are Democrats who are worried about Trump destroying our democracy, and Trump supporters thinking that the election was stolen? You never know, it's probably a potpourri.
Well, we do know that, though. Because there was polling that showed that there was some huge percentage of people concerned about democracy, but it was more Republicans than Democrats.
That's right, that's right.
So, you know, not a great poll.
So, and again, why we keep going on about these polls? because a lot of discussion after the New York Times poll, it's one poll. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All the polls, all the polls are like this. And again, we also say polls are a snapshot in time, but trends are important.
And the trends of these polls, especially the trend of the NBC poll, which back in August had Biden up on Trump by four points. I think it was 49-45 and then it was tied in September and now it's this so not a great trend, but, you know, year to go. Two more headlines from the weekend that I know the Biden folks must have been psyched. To see. In the Washington Post quote Biden campaign works to ease democratic anxiety over re-election chances. Classic of the genre.
And in Politico, quote Biden campaign facing heat over plans to deal with age? Anything you guys think the campaign can actually do to ease those anxieties about age? Or anything else? Beyond what they're already doing? Which is Biden's out there joking about his age? He's doing a lot, he's traveling a lot, he's, you know, he's communicating a lot.
Like, what else, what's going on here?
One thing you could do is take one of these anonymous, high dollar donors, march them to the center of Lafayette Square and cut their fucking heads off. Just send a message, send a message to the donors. It's a class warfare argument, so it's a good message. And it will let all these anonymous donors that if they have feelings, if these anonymous donors, if these donors have such really powerful feelings that they are feeling the anxiety. And they're not getting the answer they want from Mommy and daddy at the DNC, they don't need to go run to Uncle Politico and say how mad they are at their parents.
Because, like Biden's age, it is his biggest liability. It could cost us, the White House, and perhaps America. That's all true, that's absolutely true. But, like these individual sort of paroxysms of anxiety do nothing to address or change the fundamental situation that we're in.
Open to positive pitches, open to answers. What I am sort of done reading, is another donor saying they called a friend at the DNC and their concerns were dismissed. Because if you call somebody up that's working all day, trying to figure out how to elect Joe Biden, and you're just some rich asshole. Be like, I'm worried about his age, like, Yeah, yeah.
Us, too, call you, call you later, you know what I mean.
I, I would just like to to explain to people why we're in this situation. Because I'm sure there's some people with anxiety who do not want my cohost to put them to death in Lafayette Park.
No, no, no, no, not, not listeners.
Listen, only a few. Some of them don't, but some of them are probably thinking, well, I'm worried, too.
We're all worried.
Worried all the fucking time. I haven't had a solid shit in a month and a half.
Okay, well, that doesn't seem like it's related to Biden.
Plus, I've been reading the news.
Jesus Christ.
What? It's our last show for Thanksgiving. Gobble, gobble bitches.
Hey, I'm going to log off, I'll see you guys later.
So, uh, you know, we've said this a bunch before, but like, I think, the time, like, there's either Joe Biden steps down or Joe Biden doesn't step down.
That's right.
In the Joe Biden doesn't step down scenario, you're going to need a challenger. We got one now, Dean Phillips in this poll, you know who's? He was beating him by eight points in the Democratic primary. Marianne Williamson She's at 12, Deans at four, so that one's not working out so well. You want Gavin Newsom to run, go talk to Gavin Newsom, see if he's going to run, you want Gretchen Whitmer to run?
Go talk to her, you want Josh Shapiro to run? go talk to her, no one's going to run, go run yourself.
That's, I'm seriously, there's just not. There's only so many things you can do. You need a candidate to run against Joe Biden. First, the Democratic Party is not preventing. there's no magical DNC that's preventing these candidates from running, they're making their own choices.
If you want them to make another choice, go talk to them. Then there's Joe Biden stepping down, right? Joe Biden stepping down again, like, he's not, he's, he's. He's certainly not listening to all these newspapers.
Yeah, he sees the newspaper.
Some of his very favorite columnists and TV hosts have been saying this, that's that's not working. David Altshuler went out there, He, Yeah, speaking of Lafayette Square, he went out. There's a new cycle about that. And then where are we? Nothing, nothing happened, nothing really happened.
So it's like, again, it's Joe Biden's going to make a decision again. A lot of the filing deadlines for primaries are have have passed, more about to pass in the next coming week. So again, unless Joe Biden wakes up tomorrow morning or next week, or probably at the latest next month and says, I'm too worried about the polls, then he's running. And in that case, it's like, Hey, all hands on deck, because fucking Donald Trump could win the presidency.
Poor David Axelrod's got to wake up in the morning open. His New York Times start reading his Maureen Dowd column, and it's like, David Axelrod is not a prick. It's like, Oh, well, you know, that settles that. That's not an ideal sentence to read about yourself.
And he's not.
It's true, he's not a prick.
He's absolutely not. But when you're not a prick, you definitely don't want to read about how you're not a prick in the newspaper, right?
If it's a question that's being answered, something's gone wrong for you.
Exactly.
Axe has all kinds of weaknesses. He'll be the first to admit, I'm sure the Biden people aren't too happy with him, but he's not a prick.
One of the nicer guys.
Well, one of the nicer people, not a prick. Maybe he's wrong about Biden. Maybe it may be all the anxieties for nothing, but everyone think it's all coming from a good place, everyone.
Everyone's deeply concerned.
Deeply concerned. And it's not just because it's like Democrats who want to win Democrats, Republicans who are scared for the country that don't like journalists and two drinks.
The whole country is on edge. We do not want Donald Trump to win again, so that's where all the anxiety is coming from. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the leading contender for the presidency at this point, he sounded as presidential as ever at a rally in Iowa over the weekend. That was short on substance and long on crazy.
He was with four hookers. You think that was good that night to go up and tell my wife, It's not true, Darling, I love you very much. It's not true, actually. That one she didn't believe because she said he's a germaphobe.
He's not into that, you know, he's not into golden showers, as they say they call that. He's strong. I know him very well. President Xi of China.
And he's standing there, you know, he's a fierce, he's a fierce person. Now. The press doesn't like it when I say good things about, but you know, what can I say?
He runs one point. Four billion people with an iron hand. Our leader is a stupid person.
Our leader.
Our leader can't get off this stage.
You see this?
When he's finished with a speech, by the time, whatever it is he's taken wears off.
That's a just a spry, sharp individual who could really write this ship and probably bring peace to the Middle East, right?
Really unintentionally missed a revealing comment there when he was talking about the Golden Shower video. When he said that one, she didn't believe, what were the other ones?
Wow, wow, Tommy, good point.
Clearly, nice conversation we've had a few times.
Yeah, for sure. She's believed several of the allegations, some of which judges have believed as well.
And juries, yeah.
That's the other, the when, my when. I saw. When I saw this speech, it was also like one of the criticisms, you know, jokes aside, about murdering donors in public squares. The point that, like, what or why aren't we doing more to make this about Trump and make this about Trump's age issues? And I think, like, actually, you're starting to see that, and I think that's very good. But it is just a reminder that, like, we do have to point out that, like, people are concerned about optics.
You see all these stories about Joe Biden and people go to pains. I think, to truthfully say, I have been in meetings with him. He can hold his own, he is completely and totally mentally all there. He is a ferocious as like as an interrogator during briefings, he just seems old and he seems frail.
So he is, he is fit, but doesn't seem fit to people when they see him on television. Meanwhile, you have Trump's reception, where it's a perception, and then you have Trump. Trump, who we all know, including a lot of his biggest supporters, that he is mentally and emotionally unfit to do the job. Because supporters and people.
Who worked closely with him at the highest levels of the White House over and saw him every single day.
That was a Washington Post headline that came out today. Most of Trump's former aides no longer support him.
And yet he is, I think, more energetic on the stump and so like that crazy energy he's got. Yes, he does, and by the way, he is pretty. You know, we have no idea what's going on in the fucking green room before he goes out there. But when he says things like, I wonder what?
What happens when what he's taking wears off? You know, there have been many reports over the years that Donald Trump is not afraid of. You know, a little pep, a little pep in a step, whatever he's using.
Let's give Joe some of that.
Yeah, share.
I will say the post headline about the speech was vulgarities, insults and baseless attacks. Which is a completely accurate description of the rally, of Trump's speech, of the speeches, that intro Trump, which were also batshit crazy. But the whole thing gives me, gives me some 2016 vibes in terms of, like, what matters most to voters? Tommy, I think you were talking about this a little last episode, too. It's just like, I really keep wanting to separate out. These are things that Trump is going to do to affect your life if he gets a second term. Versus, Oh, could you believe?
He talked about the people in the Hoosiers, which again, I found entertaining and crazy. But I don't think that's going to move the, I don't think it's going to move the needle.
Yeah, I don't think it's going to move the needle. I also think, like, it's kind of why those people are all there at these rallies, like their their body and their fun for them and their entertaining. And like the golden Shower. A little bit there, it was weird, but it was pretty funny and everyone laughed in the room and like, no one thought less of him.
Seemingly that was a supporter of his to begin with. So yeah, I don't know that. That's the calling out. His vulgarity is the path to winning. I do think like the Biden people are basically approaching the age issue in a couple of ways. Which is to say, like, hey, look at us going to war zones all the time, like we're on top of it. To Trump is old, too, and he keeps saying loopy things like confusing who's president.
United States saying it's Obama all the time, and then three, like, but we have a better record, you know? Look at what we're doing. Let's make other issues more salient. I think it's an open question about whether you can convince people who have decided that you're too old that you're actually not. I do think you can probably make other things. The more higher on their priority list in terms of when they're voting than then age.
But, you know, it's going to take some, take some effort.
Yeah, I think it's just like, I don't know that. You can make Biden seem younger, but you can point out the ways Donald Trump seems quite old himself. And then make it a referendum between, you know, good grandpa versus evil grandpa.
Yeah, and again, it's not just old, it's this guy is dangerous, dangerous and an idiot. Yeah, you know, there's both.
I mean, like, some of the stuff is just. It doesn't sound like he is losing a step necessarily, though. I think he is Donald Trump. But like he in 2016, he was saying, shit that made people be like, this guy can't lead the country. What are you crazy?
By the way, some osteopath put out a statement saying that Donald Trump is as spry and fit as ever. And he's losing weight. Because of diet and exercise, excuse me from one, from one, from one of those epic bro to another. OK, diet and exercise, good luck.
Just throwing out all kinds of that's my just just just just an unfounded.
See what happens when you're not here in studio.
Tommy, This is like a defamation potluck today.
This is great. Trump also got some good and bad legal news. A state court judge in Colorado ruled that Trump did incite an insurrection on January 6th. You might be wondering, Well, then what's the good news? Well.
Well, the judge rejected the argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from appearing on the ballot because he incited said insurrection. She basically ruled that she wasn't sure the framers meant the provision applies to former presidents. Love it. You talk to law professor Larry Tribe about this. I don't know how long ago, some point on the show.
Did you see this coming?
What was that? Yeah, look, here's the thing. Just two to top legal minds going back and forth, me and Lauren's tribe. But like, my take on this was like, look, the people at Crew, which is the organization doing this like, they're incredibly smart, progressive, caring people. Trying to figure out how you face a fascist menace, which I like, completely respect.
But, like my non-lawyer view, just looking at it from the outside was like, we're not going to get Trump on the fine print in the Constitution. Like the idea that, like, a judge is going to say, Yeah, like it turns out, we. I can use my power to disenfranchise the millions of people who want to vote for Donald Trump. In a kind of never before explored circumstance for the using of this clause of the 14th Amendment. But so, you know, this judge said no. It could still go further, but of course, the place it will end is the Supreme Court, regardless of the legal merits, which I am obviously not expert in. To me, like, it always felt like a distraction because we can't decide what judges are going to do with a case like this.
We can't make them rule one way or another. And regardless of what happens. In this one case. There is a rising fascistic, dangerous, extreme right wing movement that wants to disenfranchise millions of people and seize and control power at all costs. We have to beat that, we have to beat that, and like we got to, we got, we got to persuade people to join us in voting to defeat them.
And there was a method of making sure that Trump never ran for president again and was disqualified, and that was convicting him in the Senate. Which Mitch McConnell decided that he was not going to whip enough Republicans to do, even though he wanted to. So they blew that play and now we have Trump running for president again.
And we also have him being held accountable in courtrooms across the country.
More, he's slowly being held more accountable than any person ever has before. He's going to go from never facing a fucking consequence to maybe all the consequences.
At once and again, though, because this is a democracy and voters have the ultimate decision here. If he gets convicted of those crimes, then it's up to the voters to decide. Do you want someone convicted of X, Y and Z crime to become president again?
And then it goes from old grandpa versus evil grandpa to old grandpa versus imprisoned.
Grandpa, you know, he's convicted. Yeah right, he's convicted out on bail.
Grandpa.
Awaiting sentencing.
Grandpa, because he is currently out on bail. Grandpa, yeah.
That's finally, finally the war on Christmas, it's back, it's back, at least, according to our boy. Jesse Waters, who dedicated an entire segment on his Fox News show last Thursday to complain about all the woke Christmas items on sale at Target.
Let's take a listen. Gay Nutcracker, complete with a rainbow hat, trans flag, full price twelve dollars, but right now it's on sale for eight. Target also sells Santa ornaments, but Target Santa is in a wheelchair and is black.
I think majority of people, parents, especially, they can acknowledge that gay nutcracker and black disabled Santa has gone way too far.
Look, there's what the fuck.
There's so much that divides us. I think we can all agree, we can all agree that gay nutcrackers and black disabled Santa is going to.
First of all, people.
What are you talking about?
The Nutcracker Listen, I don't care what target selling The Nutcracker has been gay from the beginning. All right, that's a gay fucking musical or whatever it is. I don't even remember what it is.
Is it a musical? It's a ballet? OK, Yeah, no, it's, but it's straight. Come on. Jesse Waters, You don't know what the fuck the nutcracker is.
I don't know, you don't know.
Wow, should I jump in on that? I'm losing it. Yeah, sure, Tommy.
I mean, what I think is pretty remarkable and downright admirable about Fox is, if you were a N.FL coach and you ran the same play every year for 20 years, you would probably get fired and be unsuccessful. Fox has been running the same play every Christmas for as long as I can remember, for like, four 8 p..m. hosts ago, right? It was back back when we were all laughing at Bill O'Reilly for mistaking a loofah for a sex toy or whatever it was that came out in his court case.
And they're still doing the shit, and it still works, and it still gets clicks, and people still believe there's a war on Christmas, somehow.
Yeah, I was wondering that that was my question, which is like, is that they did they successfully open a new front in the war? On Christmas? With this, I think so, it's it's getting a little boring, like I feel like their heart wasn't in it.
I don't think, I don't think people are really going to get all riled up over a black Santa in a wheelchair. I just, I don't even know what the problem. It's still pro Christmas, it's really just anti-black and anti-disabled people.
Well, yeah, it always has been.
I mean, I think that was the point of the segment.
What was really before, it was like, we don't have Santa, we're only doing happy holidays, like the war on Christmas. Yeah, it's about how, not, that's still a Christmas theme.
Megyn Kelly famously announced that Santa is white. It's the same play, it's the same shit. Rinse, repeat new idiot saying it.
No happy holidays, no Santa.
No inclusivity.
Older, older white man. No inclusivity of any kind. All the nutcrackers are straight. yeah, everyone's straight on every. all the Christmas characters are straight.
The nutcrackers, they just they love. they love hot chicks and lacrosse, that's it. These nutcrackers are so incredibly straight. these nutcrackers they are.
They, just they, that's all they want.
Holiday season is full of cishet white characters, as far as the eye can see.
The Nutcrackers watch Yellowstone, and that's it, that's it. Brown liquor only for fucking nutcrackers. They won't even have a, they won't even have a martini because it's a little bit faggy in those tall cups.
Can we get a studio gag order? What is the process on this?
I can stop now. I mean, it's honestly Tommy, you're not here, you can't tell. it's fucking crushing in here.
I listen, I can tell everyone I'm at home because I have Covid and I've been subjected to 45 minutes of this. I feel better, honestly.
Love it, love it, thinks it's killing and everyone's got their masks on.
I hear laughing, they're smiling with their eyes.
Anyway, a few quick housekeeping notes before we go to break this week. Shop the Crooked Stores Black Friday deals from the comfort of your couch. Everything is 20 percent off. Plus, you can look out for surprise flash sales all week long. Head to Cricket Dot com Slash Store to shop and make sure you're signed up for the email list to find out the moment each flash sale starts.
Seems like a lot. Pod Save America has only two more live shows left in the year. You can catch us in El Cajon on December 7th and San Jose on December 13th. Get your tickets at Cricket Dot com Slash events now and when we come back. Tommy's interview with reporter Andrea Bernstein about Leonard, Leo, the federalist society and all the ways they're influencing the U.S.
Court system.
I am so excited to welcome to the show today. Andrea Bernstein. She is a reporter for NPR and ProPublica, two of the best in the business, as well as the host of the We Don't Talk About Leonard podcast. Andrea, it's great to see you.
It's great to see you and talk to you too.
So I want to talk about your podcast in one second, but it's this interview is perfectly timed because the Supreme Court just rolled out a bunch of new ethics guidelines for themselves. Folks might remember that judges like Clarence Thomas have been taking all kinds of lavishly paid vacations by rich donors. And it created a bit of a kerfuffle. The court is now saying, essentially, we're going to, we're going to watchdog ourselves, we'll keep an eye on ourselves. What do you think of these new rules and do you think they're enforceable?
So probably not. The rules have been pretty widely panned by the legal community for a couple of reasons. I've heard the criticism that they say, unlike the federal judge rules, which say a federal judge shall not, they say a justice should not. Which is sort of more conditional. That they expressly carve out some permissions for things like fundraising, which I think was understood prior to this set of rules that justices should not do. However, all that said, I feel like it's a good thing that there are some rules out there. But that said, having a code, I think means that two things.
First of all, I think it means that the Supreme Court lives in the real world. There wouldn't be a code if there wasn't all of this outcry and all of this journalism, so that's a good thing. I think that the sort of the accountability, to the extent there is some, has to come from from public opinion and public pressure, and from the journalistic light that shed on it. So it feels like the beginning of a conversation like, No, this probably doesn't mean that you can impeach a justice or do any of the things that people might think a code should provide the basis for.
But I do think it creates an opportunity for a real discussion about what justices should and shouldn't do, and it's pretty detailed. I mean, I think that there's a lot of things in there about, you know, you shouldn't do, your wife shouldn't do, your spouse shouldn't do. That is really useful to have on paper.
Don't storm the Capitol, nor shall your spouse. You know, that's the thing, right?
I mean, it's sort of like, I mean, I've covered so much, you know, Trump legal stuff forever. And I feel like, you know, a long time ago, like 2017, 2018, people were asking, OK, is there a crime that he's committed now? Trump is charged with 91 felonies, but that hasn't solved the problem of Trump. And I think that shows you what it means to rely too much on a written code versus on trying to sort of enforce norms and change the way people think.
Yeah, well, let's talk about fundraising and big donors, institutions, because your podcast, we don't talk about Leonard, investigate a guy named Leonard Leo. He's a big Republican, muckety muck.
He's a donor, he has been running the Federalist Society for many years, He's part of a bunch of legal advocacy groups. And frankly, like, Look, I've been in politics a while. He was on my radar screen.
But he was sort of one of a handful of people of his ilk that I was aware of, and, you know, I knew they had influence. But then, late last year, there were these jaw-dropping reports about a massive, massive donation to a new organization that Leonard Leo had created. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Well, there was the donation to this organization called the Marble Freedom Trust, which Leonard Leo exclusively controls for 1.6 billion dollars. With a B, with a B, right.
Billion with a B, the largest political dark money contribution at the time in U.s history. And here was Leonard. Leo was somebody that people barely knew. I mean, one of the things about doing this podcast is, I would say, OK, we're doing a podcast about Leonard Leo.
And people would be like, who? And then I would say, Oh, yeah. He was the guy who made the list for Trump of potential Supreme Court nominees. And people would say, Oh, yeah, that guy. But that guy had 1.6 billion dollars and that was sort of the starting point of our research.
Who is he, what has he done and what does he want to do with all of this money?
Can you tell listeners who maybe haven't heard of him what has he accomplished at the federal level? Let's start with the Supreme Court.
Clarence Thomas and Leonard Leo became friendly when Clarence Thomas was serving as a judge in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.
C Leonard Leo, just out of law school, went to work on Clarence Thomas's confirmation, and his job was doing research. And for those of us who remember that, or those of us who've studied the history of that, Clarence Thomas's. One of the big part of his efforts was doing negative research on Professor Anita Hill when she came forward with her allegations of sexual harassment. So that was the the beginning for Leonard Leo. Fast forward to the Bush administration. George W.
Bush, he becomes the outside advisor for confirmations. He basically steers through the nominations of Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, which was contentious at the time. By that time, he had three members of the U..S. Supreme Court that he had helped to get there. But when Trump came along, Leonard Leo did a pretty bold thing. Which is, he offered Trump a list of justices that he thought were vetted by the conservative legal community.
And Trump said, I will only pick from those lists, and Leonard Leo and Trump both made good on that promise. All of Trump's nominees, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, were suggested by Leonard Leo and were vetted for not just being. It wasn't just important to Leonard Leo to have conservative justices, it was important for him to have hard line conservatives who would vote in a certain way.
And the sort of main thing that we looked at in our podcast was, with all of that, appointing six justices to the U.
S Supreme Court, That wasn't just what Leonard Leo did, he built an entire machine to get the right opinions and cases up to the Supreme Court. So that they could decide in a way that he favored and that his donors favored.
Some right-wing ideologues might be content owning six Supreme Court justices. Not our boy, Lenny. He has done a lot of work at the state level. Can you talk a bit about that? And in particular, I was kind of jaw-dropping. Discussion of the Missouri plan in the.
Podcast So, you know, just 20 years ago, Leonard Leo said, I'm going to start working on state Supreme courts. And he went right from Justice Alito and getting him on the U..S. Supreme Court to making a real run at state Supreme courts. And he came out. And he said, 90 of cases are decided in state supreme courts.
They went for Missouri because Missouri has a nonpartisan selection system whereby, you know, a panel of lawyers and justices and gubernatorial appointees select the next, the possible candidates for the next Supreme Court. Justice. And Conservatives didn't like this because they felt that it produced candidates that were too centrist or too left. So they decided to try to destroy the Missouri plan and they got deeply involved in trying to derail the nomination of a justice, Patricia Breckenridge, who just resigned last month. And they and Leonard Leo went right to the chief of staff of the governor and said, If you select this judge, the fury of the Conservative movement, the likes of which you have never seen, will come down on you and the governor.
And this was being involved on a really granular level, on a state level, but that was just one part of it. We saw after that Leo fundraising for justices all over the country, in states like Wisconsin, North Carolina, dark money groups that he sponsored. Really pouring money into these elections. And I know that you and your listeners have talked a lot about the Wisconsin judicial race that just took place back in April. And the sort of outcome of that, where there is all this discussion about, you know, maybe impeaching the judge, Judge Janet Janet Persewitz, who won? But that is the system that Leonard Leo and his allies have produced. Because they were the ones that started pouring money into state supreme courts a decade and a half ago. With the desire to make a system that was more partisan and more conservative.
And in some states, like North Carolina, they really succeeded, in Wisconsin this time around they didn't, but they broke the system. That's what justices of both political persuasions have told us, that you have a system where the future of the Republic depends on the outcome of a single Supreme Court race. In Wisconsin. That cost, you know, I've heard, estimates, up to $80 million, $50 million officially.
That is the place that we have been brought by the work that Leo, and you know, the people that he's sort of harnessed and worked with have brought to us.
Yeah, they built like a baseball farm system that just didn't exist, it seemed. So. I mean, these donors to the Federalist Society, to Leonard Leo, I'm guessing they're not doing this out of the goodness of their own hearts. You looked at whether judges put forward by Leo or the Federalist Society may have had been able to provide a financial benefit through their rulings to some of these donors. Can you talk about that?
So it's obviously impossible to say with certainty, but one of the things that we know, sort of Leonard Leo from all of our reporting, and you know, back to high school, was fiercely anti-abortion and was a real moral conservative. But understood pretty early on that the moral conservatives and the economic conservatives had to work together. So he began working with donors like Paul Singer, the hedge fund magnate, like Harlan Crowe, the real estate magnate, like Robin Arkley, who is a very shorthanded California mortgage magnate. And these are the people that he set up with these trips, with the justices. So, for example, when Sam Alito went on a fishing trip in Alaska, he went on a fishing trip with Paul Singer and with Robin Arkley.
And it was Leonard Leo that brought all these people together. They didn't all know each other before this fishing trip. So here's Leonard Leo and he sets up these trips. And it's tremendous access for these donors, who then give to these sort of moral conservative causes that Leonard Leo cares about. And it's this machine, Samuel Alito has said. There is no influence.
Clarence Thomas has said there is no influence, but there is a system where these very wealthy people, through Leonard Leo, can do something. Like, you know, have a dinner or sit around a campfire, or have a drink with a Supreme Court justice. And, you know, it sort of circles back to the ethics code that we were talking about. They have an access that most people don't. So you take the money of the economic conservatives and you harness it to the fervor of the moral conservatives.
And you know, that is how, from their perspective, they get what they want, and they've been so effective.
Yeah, well, and also for some of these big donors, be it a Paul Singer, be it a Harlan Crowe. I mean, look, if you can do things to elect a bunch of Republicans, odds are down the road they'll try to pass a big tax cut that will benefit you. But it also does seem like some of these donors had issues before the court.
Like, for example, Paul Singer, I think, was trying to make a ton of money off of Argentina, off their sovereign debt, right? And that that case reached the Supreme Court as he was building a relationship with some of these justices. Am I summarizing that correctly?
Yeah, I mean, that's, that's exactly right. I mean, he, he went on this fishing trip with Justice Samuel Alito, and, you know, they became friendly, as manifested by, you know, public speeches. I mean, there is this one dinner that we have in the at the Manhattan Institute, where Paul Singer has been on the board for many, many years as a conservative think tank.
And he's introducing Justice Alito, and you can just sort of see the warmth and the friendship he had. Not him personally, but his company had a stake in a case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court about Argentinian debt. And, you know, Alito's response has been, well, I didn't know it was Paul Singer, even though it was widely reported at the time. But, you know, there, that is what you have.
I mean, it was a 7-2 decision, it wasn't like it was the deciding vote. But I think, you know, all of us who sort of worked and covered and paid attention to politics for years, understand the way it works. Which is, it's not nobody's, you know, going around saying I'll give you this if you give me that. But by the closeness, you can convey a set of views that other people do not have that access, yeah.
And listen, you know, all politics is about personal relationships. We're all human beings. If someone's mean to you, you won't like them. if they're nice to you, you will. I think all of these justices, for example, we all saw this firsthand at Brett Kavanaugh's hearing when he had a meltdown and talked about punishing his enemies, right?
Like, these guys end up feeling like everyone is against them. There's this vast, you know, sort of left wing group of monsters like us who are trying to attack them. And then there's people like, you know, Paul Singer or Harlan Crow or Leonard Leo who've got their backs right. And I think that's an incredibly meaningful feeling when you're making a ruling down the road.
Yeah.
I mean, I think one of the things that's so interesting is, you know, from the beginning of Leonard Leo's career, you know, he was very young. He felt aggrieved. He felt like, you know, the left is winning and we conservatives need to stand up for ourselves. And early on, with the federalist society, there might have been some truth to that. So fascinating to me is that there's a speech that Leo gave just a year ago in Washington, at the Catholic Information Center, where he talks about barbarians at the gates.
And even though, by then he has his 1.
6 billion dollars that he entirely controls. He has six members of the U.
S Supreme Court, that he personally has been involved with. And he has won something that was a huge goal of his, which was to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. But even with all of that, he expresses aggravement. And that is, you know what, one of the reasons why I wanted this podcast. Because he is somebody that clearly doesn't think his work is done and it is very much ongoing.
Yeah, there's a real apocalyptic tone to it all, so listen, listening to your series, talking to you now. It makes me think about an old Hillary Clinton line, about a vast right wing conspiracy. You know, these donors, the judges, the federalist society, they're all kind of bound together here and then. But the opening scene to your series is at a party that really drove that home and made me think, maybe there really is a conspiracy. Can you tell us a little bit about that party, where it was, who was there?
Yeah, so Leonard Leo, you know, spent a lot of his life around professional life, around Washington, D.C. Living in McLean, Virginia. But during the pandemic, he moved to Bar Harbor, Maine, and quite a few of his neighbors in Bar Harbor started paying attention to Leonard Leo. In June of 2022, the night before the Dobbs decision, they noticed a U..S.
Coast Guard boat outside of Leonard Leo's house, protecting a party, a party with a big white tent and, you know, lights. And we thought, Huh, that's interesting? What were they celebrating? So we did a lot of reporting, we scoured the internet.
We filed freedom of information requests, we went to the U.S. Marshals Service, to the Coast Guard. What was that? And basically what we found out at the end of the day was. This was a party for some two dozen federal and state judges, very conservative judges, many of whom owed their careers or could owe career advancement to Leonard Leo.
And they were having this lavish party with champagne and deconstructed seafood, chowder and a tasting of American rare whiskeys. And they had come to Bar Harbor for a consortium that had been put on by George Mason University. But there was this party, this private party at Leonard Leo's house, where there were U.S marshals wearing earpieces, coast Guard. And to us, all of this was just showed the sort of power that that Leo had drawn.
And not only was he the host of this party, but, you know, he was there with three judges who were just one level down from the U.
S Supreme Court. But everybody at the party, according to people who described it to us, wanted to talk to Leonard Leo because they understood that he was the power person. And this is something that is widely understood among members of the judiciary. I mean, one of the things that surprised me was so many current and former state justices spoke to me of both parties.
And there were many Republicans who said, You know, we were told talk to Leonard, Leo. If you want to advance your career, go to Federalist Society events. So this is something that judges and justices have come to understand.
Again, remind me what news broke the day after this party.
So the next morning, 10 a.
M.
It's official the right to an abortion is overturned. This is a lifelong goal of Leonard. Leo's, his high school best friend told us that he had been working on this in high school and getting into raucous arguments with his classmates. So this group of conservative judges and justices has a party at Leonard Leo's house.
And the next day, the right to abortion is withdrawn.
On the eve of one of the most monumental Supreme Court decisions in decades, Leonard Leo has a party with a bunch of his most conservative judge buddies. Yeah, interesting, you can hear all about it.
It is, as you say, the opening to the podcast, and it's a symbol to us of the machine that Leo has built.
And honestly, you guys do such a great job of setting the scene. We learn about the sommelier, the wines that are being served. If it fits, it's some damn good reporting radio.
We got the dinner, the menu. Pursuant to a freedom of information request.
That's so great. I love investigative reporters. They'll just fucking go and go and go until you got it all. OK, Last question for you. I bet there's some people listening, feeling very sad and very depressed. Knowing that there's this massive ecosystem and structure on the right to put forward all these judges.
And they're wondering if there's anything equivalent on the left.
Well, one of the things that we look at at the end of the podcast is the pushback. The race in Wisconsin that we were talking about, you know, certainly was a big, big, big mobilization. But, you know, I mean, when I talked to, you know, and there are some. There are two former Republican appointees on state supreme courts that are, you know, in the podcast that you can hear. And when I talked to them about it, I mean, they're concerned because, I mean, you know, they don't want to sugarcoat it.
They say the way that people look at the judiciary, beginning with the state supreme courts, is as super legislators, is as people to ratify the decisions of legislatures. And in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, where the electorate, as you know, is roughly 50-50. But their state legislatures have these huge Republican majorities because of gerrymandering that Republican courts have backed up. So you know, what has happened is there's this huge arms race and the system is broken and there is no easy fix. The fix isn't simply just pouring more money into it. Because what ends up happening is that people don't trust judges. And the idea of the judiciary as an independent branch is slowly crumbling now.
Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of reasons for that, and you know, the former president is a very big one. But it is not an encouraging trend to see the judiciaries and the state judiciaries being controlled in this way.
Well, listen, I do think one part of the solution, frankly, is. For a long time. Coverage of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, was a little bit too chummy, a little bit too credulous and needed to be a bit more adversarial. And so I want to say thank you to you, thank you to the team at ProPublica for doing unbelievable, long term, brutally difficult, investigative work. To get some answers for all of us. And the podcast is we don't talk about Leonard. I cannot recommend it enough.
If you want to understand how money in Washington works, if you want to understand how the right wing has packed the courts full of judges. It's just incredibly well done. So, Andrea Bernstein, thank you so much for joining the show.
Thank you, it's really great to talk to you.
Lovett, Do you have something planned for us Turkeys?
Earlier today, President Biden issued pardons to two Turkeys, Liberty and Bell, though he did refer to one as Kamala several times. In honor of this annual tradition, we'll be pardoning turkeys of our own. We each will draw a political turkey and make a case for why they should be pardoned. Pardon legally, pardon socially, pardon by God, whatever you want. Could someone please bring me Brian's Babadook hat, which contains the names of said turkeys?
Thank you all right. Since Tommy is remote, I will draw for you. John. Why don't you kick us off?
Great.
All right, Mike Johnson.
Oh, that's a good one.
Oof, I just have to pardon him.
You just have to express some reason why he should. He deserves pardon, just pardon him.
He deserves pardon because he has been very good all year, as his Covenant Eyes app has told his son. Yeah, he hasn't been looking at any porn all year. Because he's been his son,'s been his accountability partner, and he's been good, so he gets a pardon.
Not a jerk, you're saying.
Not a jerk, not a jerk.
Yeah, there's no jerks around, unless he's got, unless he's got a burner from like a mobster. Which I wouldn't be surprised by, given he also has no bank accounts.
Stroke of genius, Tommy, That's nice, that's good.
Oo.f. we had the president on this show recently.
All right, maybe for the last time, Tommy, I'm drawing for you. Thank you, Lauren Beetlejuice Groper Boebert.
Oh, you know what? She's just a human being, going through a divorce, doing the best she can. She just absolutely deserves a pardon. The media comes down too hard on women, in politics in particular, and she deserves a reprieve.
Wow.
Coming down too hard is what got her into this mess in the first place.
Hashtag I'm with her over here.
Look at this guy, break that highest, hardest glass ceiling.
If you look at all the terrible things members of Congress have done, that is just like the lowest one on my list.
Oh yeah, totally.
Totally very entertaining, except the except the do you know who I am?
That's the worst part.
Yeah, no.
The groping fine.
No heroes ever said, You know, I am all right, I'm choosing, I'm choosing.
Jim Jordan Yuck.
Here's what I'll say about Jim Jordan.
Jim Jordan is so unable to not be an asshole that a bunch of people wanted Jim Jordan. Kind of in a disguise, who wasn't as loud and had good manners to be speaker of the House. And it literally created Mike Johnson from scratch, like Jim Jordan. Being so shitty as a person, being so unabashedly gross that he can't hide it, I respect that, I respect that way of being.
Oh, you know, I went a few different, I went a few different directions.
Well, I don't know how to defend Jim Jordan. Yeah, he sucks in every way. All right, John, you go again.
Oh boy, Chris, Christie.
Oh, come on.
Hey, he gets a pardon, because, you know what? He turned over a new leaf this year. Yeah, and decided to go after Donald Trump once, and he, and he, and he made it through an interview with John Lovett.
Doesn't matter when you got woke, pardon, you know?
Right, took him a while to wake up.
All right, let's do Tommy next.
Open AI head Sam Altman.
Who does he deserve a pardon? I read a New Yorker profile of him from about five years ago where he talked about.
Being a guy talking about fucking Tommy in the stacks, you know, he's looking at microfiche.
Five years ago, he talked about in this profile being a doomsday prepper because of his fear of AI. And then he went on to start an AI nonprofit, which he converted into an AI for profit, which he got pushed out of. Then he went to Microsoft. So I guess I'm just the biggest hypocrite in the history of the world. And you know, like, sometimes the superlatives get a break from us.
You know, he's the number one hypocrite in my book. Oh yeah, top guy.
OK, you got it, you got it. Some of these answers are a little bit like from all of us, he cares too much, he cares too much about AI.
All right, here we go, I'm going the Qanon shaman, who is now running as a libertarian in Arizona. I mean, here's what I'll say. Look, you can fight from the outside for as long as you want, but if you want to kill Mike Pence, sometimes change has to come from within.
My God, you got to pass a fucking law, you can't just do that, you can't do that as just a protester. You got to actually get in there and get into the nuts and bolts of changing laws because you can't. You know, he's working inside the system now.
I think that's a good, what?
I was going to say, I get the best. The best part is he served his time, recidivism, now he now he wants rehabilitation.
Absolutely, I'm sure his platform is going to be very progressive. Why don't we just wait and see? Yeah, why don't we wait and see, all right?
How many of these we're going to do?
You finish us up, you finish it.
Sam Bankman freed.
OK, great.
Hmm.
Why does he get a pardon?
Um, I don't know. A hundred years seems like a long time.
Yeah, yeah, it's a hundred years. yeah, that's too long.
That seems like, I mean, I think that it could be up. We haven't had sentencing yet, but I got an easy one for you.
He gave a lot of money to the Democratic Party.
Yeah, what are we? Bob MeNeNdEz? Yeah, I think it's a pardon.
Yeah, gold bars.
That's how it works, cleared.
We didn't know it was, it was, you know, we didn't know. Oh, I'll see what's in. One more for the road, one more for the road we cannot.
Will and or JaDa SmIth Oh, well, you know what? I hope I pardon them, I hope they find whatever happiness they're looking for.
And I hope they find it offline. Yes, yeah, I want them to be happy, and I want whatever psychosexual dramas unfolding inside of that house to stay inside.
It seems important you seem like you genuinely love and hate each other, and I get that, and so I keep that, just keep that in there.
Keep that in there, you know, keep it all in there.
All right, well, we need a break.
So so, we will everyone have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Thank you, Andrea Bernstein for joining this pod. You couldn't have known what the rest of it would sound like. So that's tough for you and we'll see you after Thanksgiving.
Hey hey, thanks to you both.
Thanks to this, thankful for, I'm thankful for all of you, all of you in the studio.
Everyone working on the show, every one of you listeners.
All right, feel better, Tommy.
Thanks, guys.
Pots of America is a crooked media production. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari, writing support from Hallie Kiefer. Reed Cherlin is our 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. 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, Kirill Palaviv and Molly Lobel. Subscribe to Pots of America on YouTube To catch full episodes and extra video content. Find us at YouTube dot com Slash at Pots of America.
Finally, you can join our Friends of the Pod Subscription community for ad free episodes, exclusive content, and a great discussion on Discord. Plus, it's a great way to get involved with Vote Save America. Sign up at Cricut dot com. Slash Friends.
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os