What’s a Mike Johnson?

But first, the new speaker of the House is allegedly a guy called Mike Johnson, a name that seems intentionally difficult to Google. They just made that one up, so you google Mike Johnson. You don't know what you're getting. Over the last three weeks, Republicans went from a Kevin to a Steve, to a Jim to a Tom, before reaching outside their comfort zone and settling on a Mike.

The 51-year-old Louisiana congressman, who seems just fine with being everyone's fifth choice Johnson, won unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. He's extreme enough for people like Matt Gaetz, who calls him Maga Mike, Maga Mike. that's what Matt Gaetz calls him. That's what Donald Trump's calling him, too.

But he's apparently anonymous. Enough for the 18 Republicans in Biden districts who are betting that their constituents won't find out they voted for a speaker who talks like this. You know, we don't live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb.

Roe v. Wade gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America, period. You think about the implications of that on the economy. We're all struggling here to cover the bases of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest. If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn't be going upside down and toppling over like this.

And you know, the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with a software by Dominion? Look, there's a lot of merit to that. The fix was in, you know, I could.

And how did he succeed, where Scalise and Emmer failed?

What I think happened here is they were exhausted. He is clearly far right, he is further to the right, particularly on these social issues, than any of the other people who ran. He is, with the exception of Jim Jordan, more intimately involved in the coup than any of the people who ran. He just is largely anonymous.

He's less polarizing, I think he has a moderate demeanor in the halls of Congress, meaning he doesn't want to run around without a suit called Bullying. People like Jim Jordan does. He just seems like a pretty anonymous guy. And I think we got to the point where these Republicans were exhausted, frustrated. And he Mike Johnson was largely inoffensive to most of these Republicans, who largely agree with most of what he says. And Donald Trump was largely agnostic on him and appreciated his little motivational speech around the coup that Johnson gave Trump.

And so they just went for it. If Johnson had been the second candidate, or the third candidate, or the fourth candidate, he would have failed. But because he was the fifth, when everyone was tired and exhausted, he snuck on through.

You got mass shootings that you could draw a straight line, from the 60s and abortion and feminism to mass shootings today. He hates no-fault divorce laws so much that he's one of the leading proponents of something called Covenant marriage. Which I did not know what that was until I had to look it up because Mike Johnson is the speaker of the House now. Covenant marriage would make divorce harder, and it makes it harder for women to leave bad marriages. So it makes it harder to get a divorce because you sign up on the front end for a Covenant marriage.

He has called being gay inherently unnatural and a dangerous lifestyle that could lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy the entire democratic system. He wrote about the evils of sexual conduct outside marriage that's both homosexual and heterosexual sex. He said that the looting after he's from Louisiana. He said that the looting after Katrina happened because of too much gambling and not enough God. He thinks public schools should teach the Bible as an accurate record of history. And here's my favorite.

He tried to lobby, this is before he was a legislator, he tried to lobby for tax breaks for Noah's Ark theme Park in northern Kentucky. That would teach people that there were actually dinosaurs aboard the Ark. Did you know that, Dan? that there were dinosaurs aboard? That is one way to square the circle.

That's how he squares evolution with creationism. There were dinosaurs aboard the Ark. Teach it to the children. There'll be less mass shootings. Case closed, that's Mike Johnson.

That's Mike Johnson, Mike Johnson thinks the.

Is Mike Johnson so in some ways, thank you.

Like, that is so fucking crazy. It is they which he wants to, which he wants to gut, which he wants to gut.

All right, so, uh, what happens now? Johnson has opposed aid for Ukraine in the past, seems supportive of aid for Israel. Really doesn't like spending money on Americans. How do we get through the next few months without a government shutdown?

But then some of the right-wing members, like Ken Buck, came out this morning and said, Sure, we're for a continuing resolution. But we need to get something for it, like some cuts in funding or some border policy. So we are basically right back to where we were. It's possible the Republicans—Johnson's going to have some honeymoon period with these Republicans. So it may be that he'll get a couple of opportunities to do something that may anger some people. They'll just like, take it so we could get a temporary resolution.

How we avoid a government shutdown at some point seems quite hard to imagine, given the dynamics in his caucus. And he still has the same sort of damocles with the motion to vacate hanging over him that Kevin McCarthy did.

I think the president should show he can work with Republicans by working with a small handful of Senate Republicans. Who want to keep the government open and provide funding for Ukraine and Israel. There should not be some courtship of Mike Johnson, where Mike Johnson comes over for cookies and whiskey. And we just have a meeting with all the members, all the leadership, invite, Mike Johnson. But you're never going to be able to work with him or this Republican House, you cannot. The only way you're going to get things done is by coming to an agreement with the Senate, a bipartisan agreement with the Senate, and jamming the House. That is the only way it's going to happen.

And I think that Mike Johnson is a perfect punching bag for Democrats for the next several months. Here, there's going to be a race to define him to the country. We should win that race, the president and Democrats should be at the front of leading that race.

I think it's really important that Democrats show that there is an obstacle to progress on the things we care about, and that obstacle is this extreme. MAGA House and Mike Johnson in this new role is an opportunity to do that in a way that breaks through to some people.

And so if MAGA Mike and his crew want to throw in all kinds of extras and shut the government down, then Biden can go out there and talk about how those budget cuts are going to hurt people, how those policies are going to hurt people, and who exactly is standing in the way? And he's on the side of a bipartisan majority in Washington and MAGA. Mike and his kooks and Donald Trump, they're the extreme. So, you know? If nothing else, Republicans certainly gave Democrats some decent political ads over the last few weeks. Here's a sample of what.

We're now part of the dysfunction of Washington.

Or do you think it's more effective to focus on the Republican candidates? Vote for MAGA, Mike or Jim Jordan, which a lot of them did? Would you do both? Would you do?

And then I'd be done with it, I don't think it. You have to pick it, you have to pick a lane, right in this media environment, you have to. You need one story to hammer that story home, and I think that story is extremism, not incompetence.

Yeah, and so, and I don't think. And it's not the vote for MAGA Mike. That's what we're doing, that that's the thing we're doing, MAGa Mike, MAGa Mike.

Like, one of the things we we've talked about before you have to do is you have to keep abortion at the top of people's minds. If we want to have a chance to make 2024 look like 2022. And one way to do that is the fact that one of the most extreme anti-abortion politicians in America is the most powerful elected Republican in the country. And I think we can use that as a way.

It's not that they voted for Jim Jordan or Magic Mike, it's that Maga Mike, Magic Mike.

I put pictures of the two of them together everywhere that I ran ads. I mean, this is like what Republicans used to do this with, you know, Biden and the squad, right?

They could have worked with Hakeem Jeffries to still have a Republican speaker and merely kept the government from shutting down. That's all that we were asking, wasn't it? Democrats weren't even asking for more than that, they just just wanted to fund the government.

And they were still had a Republican speaker and, like, bring legislation to the floor that had a majority in the House. That's all nothing crazy. But instead of that, they chose Mike Johnson. That's the path.

Okay, that's that, that's where the House is, that's what the House, I do think it is like in 2024. For Democrats who want to take the House back. Like, you know, there's a lot of, uh, over exuberance on a lot of different developments.

This one is, I mean, this is, it's like you said, he has all the worst politics, not just worst politics for people like us who are liberals and partisan Democrats. But for, I can tell you, most voters in this country do not think that sex should be criminalized, that gay marriage should be criminalized, that all abortion should be criminalized, that there should be a don't say gay law. In every single state in the country, that includes federally funded institutions, uh, libraries, the military, I mean, this is.

So, yeah, he's nuts, okay? Before we had to break two quick housekeeping notes. Uh, we love carry him a shoes. I own a quite a few pairs. But love it likes them so much that he demanded his very own love it or leave it sneaker.

It's a really cool design, they come in pink and black. They have fun L.A. inspired designs, with lots of uh, love it or leave it inspired details that fans will recognize. So, head to Cricket.com Slash store to grab a pair. Also, quick shout out that we are rolling out extended episodes of Pod Save the World.

Now, add free for front of the pod subscribers, Uh, you can now listen straight through without interruption. And we've also added a new bi-weekly Q and a segment at the end of, Uh, each episode, where Ben and Tommy answer subscriber submitted questions straight from the friends of the Pod Discord. Uh, obviously, this is a time where Pod save the World. And Ben and Tommy have been doing a fantastic job covering the horrific world events that we're going through. And a lot of people, including me, when you don't know what's going on, they do.

And if you have questions now, you can ask them and maybe hear your question answered on an episode of Pod Save the World. If you're a subscriber, so highly recommend you sign up at Cricket.com. Slash friends, okay, when we come back, Dan talks to Andrew Weissman about Donald Trump's very bad week in court.

There's so much to talk about this week regarding all of Donald Trump's various legal challenges. The news is coming fast and furious, but I wanted to go through some of the big stories that all happens. You can help our listeners understand what's really happening and what it means for the former president's legal predicaments. And let's start with the report that ABC News published on Tuesday, saying that. Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff, had been granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith. And that he had met repeatedly with Smith and testified in front of a grand jury. Now, I recognize that other outlets have yet to fully confirm the story, but if ABC News is correct, what do you think that means about Donald Trump?

It means they got the number of times he met with Smith wrong or something like that. So funny, you said that, but it's a confirmation that's true. At the outset, that's exactly what I was thinking.

It's like, when it said that he met with Smith three times, it was four times. And when he said it was in the grand jury once, it was twice. It was just notable that it wasn't a flat denial. So what does this mean? So, if Mark Meadows, the chief of staff to the former president of the United States, was granted immunity. And has now gone in and spoken to Jack Smith and to a grand jury, could not be larger.

And the reason is you just as a prosecutor, you are not going to grant immunity to somebody unless you have been given. A very detailed proffer by the attorney for that person, and often even a sort of informal meeting called a proffer session with the person. So essentially, you're not buying a pig in a poke, as we like to say here in New York. And so it's just a big deal to decide to immunize somebody who could have their own significant exposure. And that means that you have to have made the evaluation that you could not otherwise prosecute them, and that they have information. That's so significant about people who you think are more culpable, and in this situation, that's one person, which is the former president.

But presumably, Mark Meadows will join in a litany of people who told the former president after the election that he lost. And so, you know, there already are just, you know, a boatload of people like that. But having the chief of staff on board with having said the same thing would be useful, just to be fair. He will be cross-examined with the statements from his book, where he is all in on the, you know, the fraud in the election, you know, he joins the Republicans who we all saw, you know, denigrating a reporter for even asking the question about that just yesterday.

But this is a huge development, if true. And, you know, in terms of dominoes falling, I mean, this is the biggest domino. The chief of staff, as you know, there's no one sort of closer body man to the president of the United States than the chief of staff. So it could be huge.

That may not mean what it thinks it means. And I'm going to get to Jenna Ellis in a second. But help understand what happened there and why. Are you a little more cautious than all the other, all the non-lawyers?

In federal schemes, I mean, it's which, you know, I'm a lawyer. It's just unbelievable to me that they would participate in this. That's, you know, that's obviously we're not immune from being criminals, but it's. It is fairly shocking.

So to answer your question, though, directly with Sidney Powell and with Kenneth Chesbrough. Especially when we end up looking at the language that was used for the agreement with Jenna Ellis, they did not agree to quote, fully cooperate, unquote language that is in the Jenna Ellis agreement. They did not agree to give repeated statements to the Georgia prosecutors, They did not agree that they would meet and be interviewed repeatedly by Georgia prosecutors. What they did agree to is testify truthfully, if called at a trial of any of the co-defendants. Well, Dan, you and I have an obligation to testify truthfully if we're called to the stand too. Because we will be sworn under oath. And we have to tell the truth.

The difference is obviously their agreement is on the line if they were to be found to say something false. But we don't really know that. They're fully cooperating. And and maybe it helps to know what's going on in the back of my head when I was a prosecutor. When you have a cooperating witness, let's say Dan, you were the witness before we signed you up. I would be meeting with you for days, if not weeks, to debrief you about everything you knew. To be comfortable that you have been telling the truth, to go over relevant documents and to, to be sure, okay, we could use you because we've debriefed you on everything you know and we're confident you're telling the truth, then we would sign you up as a cooperating witness. And that just doesn't seem to be what happened here, or the nature of the agreement that was reached between Chesbrough and Powell.

Now, that's not to say that they may not ultimately be good, but I think it's just. At the very least. It's premature to describe them as cooperating witnesses in the way that you would for sort of a typical federal cooperator. Or I actually think with respect to.

And I'm, you know, I just didn't want to jump to that yet. But I can give you a couple reasons why you might do this one. You avoid a five-month trial where you lay out all the evidence to people who you think are more culpable. The person who goes second or third has a real advantage. So if you're keeping your eye on the prize and you think Donald Trump is your main person here, avoiding laying out all that proof is a good thing.

Two, you avoid the risk, even if you think you have a really strong case. There's always the risk of either an acquittal or a hung jury. It only takes one juror to have a hung jury, and just to be clear if there was a hung jury here. I personally think the election would be over in many ways, because that will certainly be touted by Donald Trump and his allies as a huge loss. A hung jury is typically viewed as a loss to the government and a win to the defense.

So it avoids all of those risks and you have a sure conviction and there is the sense of momentum. Because if you do look at Powell. And when she pled to misdemeanors, but then you had Chesbrough, he pled to a felony, then you have Jenna Ellis, and she pled to a felony. But she had a much more fulsome cooperation provision.

So even though they're all no jail time, you do get the sense of at least it is escalating. It's going in the right direction, it's not getting weaker. Over time, the deals are getting stronger for the government. Does it put pressure on potentially other people?

Again, we'll turn to Jenna Ellis, but if you look at the pressure, Jenna Ellis. I viewed that plea as like a heat seeking missile directed at Rudy Giuliani. I mean, she pled to aiding and abetting, and it was two co-defendants, one of whom was Rudy, so that was just direct aim.

And that is how you do these cases, which is Fannie Willis had a great strategy and has a great strategy of indicting big, and when you indict big, you sort of try to roll up and have this domino effect and a sense of momentum. And to have defendants worried about the proof getting stronger and the deals getting worse, so there's an idea of come in now and strike the best deal you can.

Similar in that, she pleads to a felony like Chesbrough. So, you know, it's different than Sidney Powell, who pled to misdemeanors. She, though, agreed to quote, fully, cooperate, unquote. She agreed to meet and be prepared by and give interviews repeatedly to the Georgia prosecutors. She, I think those are the two key things, and obviously she also has to testify truthfully at a trial, but she'll be have been fully prepared.

And she also has agreed to give false statements she had not just that one statement, but to give repeated ones if necessary. So that looks so much like what a federal cooperation agreement looks like. So there's. There's just no way for my, you know, cynical, or what I would say, is, you know, just a little worried about the others. Skeptical, skeptical.

Yeah, exactly, and there's just no way to be skeptical about her. I mean, you know, cooperators can sometimes not turn out, but there's no question that at this point she is, she is signed on to be a full cooperator. She did give a statement to the court, which in which is much more typical in federal court and state court, it's not necessary.

I would caution there was something unusual about her statement, which her statement basically kind of said I, I made a mistake, as opposed to I did something intentionally, she did say. If I knew, then what I know now, I wouldn't have represented the former president. Well, you know, that might all be true and well, but that's actually not the standard for a criminal case, a criminal case, you have to.

It's not by mistake, you have to do something intentionally, or it's not a crime at all. So she obviously didn't say that's all she did. So it's not totally inconsistent, but it certainly doesn't suggest a complete acceptance of responsibility by her in her statement. But, you know, she did cry, and she seemed, you know, upset and remorseful, but you know that all of that remains to be seen.

Why she did it, not clear. Just remember she is somebody who people had talked about, being one of the more likely people to plead and to resolve. Because she had been talking about, you know, sort of not, sort of really divorcing herself from the sort of MAGA movement. She did have this proceeding against her in connection with her bar license. And so there was some sense that she, for whatever reason, you know, either because she had a pang of conscience, or she just realized, you know, she, as we like to say, when I was a prosecutor, she was sorry.

She got caught, you know, I don't know which of the two it is, but you know, she does seem to be doing the right thing at this point. And, as we used to say, she's now on Team America. Or the other way, just to give you as many prosecutorial phrases. She's on the other side, she wants to be on the other side of the V meaning in the United States versus, you know, defendant.

She wants to be on.

Can they plead the 5th if they were to lie or plead the 5th in federal? Does that affect their probation deal, or how does it? Just? How does that all interact?

And let me just this is why. So, Jenna Ellis, let's say there's a trial and she is required by her agreement to testify, and she's required by her agreement in state court to testify truthfully. So she hops on the stand in Georgia, and she testifies, and she says things that implicates her in crimes that could be charged federally, not just the state crimes. That she has a deal on, everything that she says. All of those statements are admissions that can be used by federal prosecutors. So let's say Jack Smith thinks that the deal with Sidney Powell is outrageous, that she's way too culpable to have gotten a misdemeanor offense.

And let's assume he makes that judgment. Well, if she now testifies, her testimony is something that can be used against her. If she takes the fifth in state court, she obviously won't hurt herself in terms of making statements that could be used in the federal case. But she will be in breach of her agreement because her agreement is that she will testify truthfully. That's what the Georgia prosecutors bought with this deal, which was her truthful testimony at any trial of any co-defendant. So they're somewhat in a jam if that were to happen.

Now the only thing I could think of as to sort of why this is happening is that one. There's no coordination at the prosecutorial level, and two, it doesn't look like the state cases are going to happen anytime soon. In other words, there was a trial that was scheduled for the end of October with Powell and Chesbrough that's now off. there is no other scheduled date. So this conundrum of what do you do when the trial comes and you have to testify truthfully? is one that the can is kicked very far down the road.

And if you are gambling, you may think, well, if Donald Trump or an ally wins the presidency. I don't have to worry about those federal cases anyway because they're going away.

The Donald Trump cases are going away, any case against Sidney Powell or Kenneth Chesbrough are going away. So I don't have to worry about this conundrum because the Justice Department will be in control of people who don't want to see that happen. I worked on the Mueller investigation I'm very aware of.

Donald Trump pardoned every single person who we indicted and convicted, except the people who cooperated, so Michael Cohen and Rick Gates, they didn't get pardons. But everybody else. Down to Alex Vanderswan, a name that I'm not sure rings any bells to you. But basically, this was the then president just sort of was like, I'm going to eradicate all of us, everyone.

Yeah.

And what tools does the court have to actually make him?

As I like to say, you can run for president and actually not obstruct justice. I know I'm going out on a limb. It's possible. Yes, obviously. Elephant in the room is.

He can go to jail or house arrest, there are restrictions on his liberty that you can have. I am very worried that the message of the $10,000 is going to be counterproductive. Because I think Donald Trump is extremely savvy about figuring out power dynamics and seeing what judges are willing to do and not willing to do. Just remember here. The judge found that he directly violated the order, that he was referring to his law clerk. That he lied on the stand, where he had a short hearing about it, so he also found that he under oath.

Yes, yes, and said, You know, I was referring to Michael Cohen, which made no sense. And that's what the judge found. It seemed totally logical to me that that's what he would say.

So I think that understanding that Donald Trump is sort of egging the judge on and he sort of wants to play the victim. But I feel like you, I just don't think. In my opinion, I don't think it was a strong enough sanction if you're really worried, as the judge, I think correctly, is is worried about violence because of Donald Trump's words. And again, just to be clear, this is not just a First Amendment restriction for no reason.

This is because it just got back to January 6.

This is the concern about words leading to violent actions. Last question for you as we look at the.

Extremely good, I think, if you think we will.

The only thing that could curtail it is this presidential immunity motion that Donald Trump has made. I don't think it's a terribly strong motion, but it is one that could go to the Supreme Court. So if it does that, there could be a delay in the trial because the Supreme Court may stay the case while it decides that issue. I think that's the biggest wild card, but I think absent that. I think that case is going to go to trial and there will be a resolution before the general election.

I'm less confident, obviously. In Georgia, I don't think that's the case, I don't think it's the case in New York. There will be an argument, I think it's November 1 in the Florida case about the trial date and the schedule there. I think that that one's a harder to tell, just because I'm not as confident that that judge is as committed to the trial date.

And obviously, the longer you wait on that, you really are going to start running up into significant issues in terms of how to schedule it. But I think that's why the March date, with that one caveat, I think, is in stone. That is great to hear, Andrew, thank you so.

They also dug into a group of up for grabs voters in those states who have a negative opinion of both Biden and Trump. These are the so-called double haters, and this poll found that Trump is slightly ahead with that group by three points 51 to 48. Let's start with the top line number. A tied race in these three battleground states is actually as good or better for Biden than some of his recent national polls.

And that has been a trend I've noticed in some of these state polls recently. Why do you think?

But Biden is doing a few points better in the battleground states. And I think the reason for that is that the race is more engaged in those states than it is in the rest of the country. Like I've said this before on this podcast, I think a lot of people have not yet fully comprehended the fact that Donald Trump is going to be the Democratic nominee. They've not been paying a lick of attention to politics for a couple years now. And the battleground states, where there was tens of millions of dollars of advertising spent in 2022. People are just more dialed into what the race is going to look like.

And we saw this dynamic. Democrats did better in the states where the races were more engaged, i...e. Those battleground states had a big Senate governance races than in other non-competitive states like California, New York, or more Republican states like in the South.

Who are these voters, what do we know about them and what do you think Biden can do to win them over?

Biden did better amongst them, and if they are tied in this, unite the country, the Super PAC that did. This polling points out that this Trump doing at this level with these voters means he'd win. The very close battleground states is their sort of assumption. Not very much, but enough, because they were so close last time. These people are not uniform in who they are or what they think.

And you're going to have to do two things sort of somewhat simultaneously, depending on various groups. In here. Part of it is you're just going to have simply strengthened. Biden, right? Joe Biden is underperforming across the board with a whole bunch of groups of voters, people on issues, on character traits. And we're going to have to remind people of not just like, sort of what he's accomplished, but who he is. And I think, particular strength, right?

Because I think one thing that's happening is the world seems incredibly chaotic. Biden seems old into some voters and I think unfairly, so weak, and so you're going to have demonstrate strength. The other thing we have to do is remind people what a fucking nut job Trump is, and how dangerous he is, and how in company he can be, and how chaotic he can be. Because people are not paying attention to that.

They have not seen Trump speak. These voters don't watch Fox News, they're not consuming Breitbart, They're not listening to Pod Save America, They're just not encountering, frankly, Biden or Trump.

And so they're kind of hearing some stuff that things don't seem great right now, Biden said. They'd be great. And maybe he's too old, and Trump they haven't really thought about at all. They probably know he's involved in some crimes.

Maybe they don't care about that that much. And they think back to the fact that the economy seemed pretty damn good before the pandemic started and doesn't feel as good now. And so I think part of this is just for a lot of these voters. We're just going to have to stick Trump's craziness in their face for the next year and a half. Make them focus on the dangers of Trump and put that in contrast and do a little bit to strengthen Biden, to make him a better.

We need more people in this country to be reminded of what he's like, because when they get that reminder, they do not like him again. This is the MAGA candidates in the midterms that lost. It was because the race was engaged in these states, and those voters were shown a lot of ads and a lot of election denying MAGA extremism. Shit, and they voted the other way, Trump campaigned in those states.

It is right, there's a lot of people, yeah.

I found this section pretty interesting. In the memo about these double haters, it says, despite being more aligned with Republican values, they express fear about Trump and about the future of American democracy. Their hesitancy toward Trump is rooted in various aspects, such as his role in leading a coup, multiple indictments, and praise for the Chinese dictator. So one thing that worries me about this group of people is the existence of no labels. Because it feels like these are exactly the kind of voters who would support a no labels candidate. They are more Republican.

They are more male, they are maybe a little more centrist. They don't like Trump because he's, you know, tried to commit the coup. They don't maybe want a convicted felon, but they are Republican, they have Republican viewpoints.

And so if you give them a Larry Hogan, a John Huntsman to land on, you could see them choosing that candidate. Which really worries me. I mean, there was some no labels polling.

They haven't gone all the way back to Trump, but they're not sticking with Biden as of.

There's probably some progressive voters and younger voters who don't like Biden and Trump because they think neither are progressive enough. Right? And they're thinking about a Cornell West or whatever else, or maybe not voting at all. So there are different groups of these, but I think the group that is to be more Republican, more male and cares more about democracy and Trump's indictments. These are more of the centrist Republicans that I think. This is like the you know, who the like the Lincoln project is going after. And like the Republican and Sarah Longwell's were more effectively Republican accountability project and the Bull Worker.

Like, that's, I think, that's those voters, and um, I, you know, I, I really worry about that.

I said, you might be wondering, who's Dean Phillips? I said, Isn't he the guy? They just elected? Speaker? No, that's Mike Johnson. Dean Phillips is the Mike Johnson of running against Joe Biden the Democratic primary. Uh, he's a little known congressman looking for a big promotion.

Mike Johnson got his now Dean Phillips is looking for his. The 54 year old three-term Minnesota Democrat, UH, will be announcing his presidential campaign in New Hampshire on Friday. That is the last day to get on the ballot in that state. Uh, there was already a Dean Phillips for President bus spotted in Ohio this week. Uh, what do you think, Dan?

How scared should Joe Biden be of Dean Phillips?

Whether they think it's, it's not clear. He's more electable than Biden, he's not an obvious, like, next, you know, generational candidate. You know, call for the next generation. If you're dissatisfied with Biden because he's not left enough or not progressive enough. Dean Phillips is not your guy. it just is not clear who, what itch Dean Phillips scratches, which may be sort of the story of his life, I guess.

What does that mean, I don't know.

That that deadline has passed, so he's not getting any delegates out of that. He's not getting any delegates out of New Hampshire because there are no delegates in New Hampshire because of the DNC rules. Because South Carolina is going first and New Hampshire is still saying that they want to go first, so they're going to strip them of the delegates. So Biden is not competing in New Hampshire.

Now, of course, Dean Phillips could win New Hampshire, partly because Biden's not competing in there. I think they're just trying to do a write-in campaign for Biden. There is he has he decided not to.

And we would like to compete in New Hampshire, but the Democratic Party rules have said that. You know, they've made a decision that South Carolina's go first and that we can't compete in New Hampshire. So Dean Phillips is sort of just going around that and probably, I guess, is going to try to embarrass Joe Biden in New Hampshire. But how? By beating Marianne Williamson?

Basically, it seems to be the message. What do you think about that?

Dean Phillips has every right to run. We said this throughout the year, as everyone was saying, Uh, you know, the DNC is rigging the primary, why is anyone running? Our view always was, if someone wants to run, that's their. They have the the the they have the opportunity to do it, they think they can make a case to win.

They should do it. Dean Phillips has chosen that path. We think he's a long shot, but if he wants to do it, he should do it. And there shouldn't be any effort to prevent him from making his case to voters. So I think the White House is doing the right thing.

Well, so, speaking of the DNC, they've.

I assume they're not going to hold any debates.

There's what is the public pressure from, the reason why it wasn't an issue with Marianne Williamson, all the Deanie acts, the Deanie, exactly.

Right, if, obviously, if for some reason, our assessment is incorrect, which is probably likely at this point, given our recent track record. And there's a massive political movement around Dean Phillips, much as there was around Howard Dean. To cite your, uh, your very dated reference. Then that could change, but as of right now, I just. The DNC is intertwined directly in the Biden campaign. They've been operating for a year as if there would be no true primary. Dean Phillips is a legitimate person.

He is a Democratic member of Congress who wasn't the Democratic leadership until he resigned that position to consider this presidential race. And so he is not the same thing as Marianne Williamson. Or, uh, someone like RFK Jr. who was running for the Democratic nomination under the encouragement and advice of people like Steve Bannon. But I don't see that that is going to be enough to force the DNC to change their approach. If he starts to get real support there, that could, that could change.

But as of right now, I think it is we're all heading in the same direction, which is prepping.

Why can't Joe Biden debate him? And that must mean that Joe Biden's afraid of debating Donald Trump, and why is he afraid of debate? So I could see a little, I could see.

He should give it a shot, he should follow all the rules about getting on the ballot and then making his case. But the people who are applauding Dean Phelps entry in this race are going to be the people who want to defeat Joe Biden in November. Who work for Republicans are on Fox News, etc.

They can, they can. My friend. Mary. Well, yeah.

Everyone have a great weekend. That's our show for today. What do we got to tell everyone? We're going to be in? Where are we going? We're going to be in Louisville Saturday night.

So a lot of podcasting. And Dan, I guess I'll see you in Louisville or Indianapolis. Is that where we're from?

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 Crooked.com. Slash Friends.