Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And Ron DeSantis is Trump has to
Speaker 1: attend the GOP debate to quote unquote earn it. Good luck,
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis. We have such a great show for
Speaker 1: you today. Senator and Reverend Rafael Warnock tells us about
Speaker 1: the struggle to reaffirm voting rights and why he's not
Speaker 1: giving up on fighting for it. Then we'll talk to
Speaker 1: CNN anchor Jake Tapper about his new book, All the
Speaker 1: Demons Are Here and his recent interview with Governor Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1: But first we have Washington Post columnist George Conway. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Fast Politics, George Conway. Mind Eric, So, let's
Speaker 1: talk about all of what's happening right now. The Michigan women.
Speaker 1: That was kind of a surprise, yet.
Speaker 2: The know there were rumbling from Michigan earlier. The Attorney
Speaker 2: General there had indicated that she had referred the whole
Speaker 2: thing to the Justice Department. Really, you're back from the
Speaker 2: Justice departments that she said several months ago that she
Speaker 2: was going to do her own investigation, and she did,
Speaker 2: and there she is. She should be pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: To see the framing of it, and you see people
Speaker 1: from the alt right, people like Pizzagate Jack talking about
Speaker 1: how they're just prosecuting them for supporting Trump. Explain to
Speaker 1: us what the fake elector's case is.
Speaker 2: It's a simple case. Look, if you submit a false
Speaker 2: application to the government for anything, you're a false piece
Speaker 2: of paper to get I don't know, welfare benefits, a
Speaker 2: driver's license, cash grants, or to work, register to vote.
Speaker 2: You submit false paperwork to the government. There any number
Speaker 2: of statutes that you can be sent to jail for violing.
Speaker 2: And that's basically what this is about. It's basically of
Speaker 2: attempt of forged documents to overturn the presidential elections state
Speaker 2: of Michigan. And the documents were sworn, they were false,
Speaker 2: they were submitted to the Commerce Senate, and if you
Speaker 2: faical work, we're violating all sorts of laws. But they did.
Speaker 2: It's not that hard and it's sort of amazing that
Speaker 2: it's taken this long to bring some of these cases
Speaker 2: against these individuals who clearly signed paperwork that was just false.
Speaker 2: In the particular case of Michigan, they didn't put any
Speaker 2: in cautionary language saying that, oh, this is the contingency
Speaker 2: if the election is overturned or something like that. They
Speaker 2: just basically said we are the duly elected electors of
Speaker 2: the state, which is false because they were never certified
Speaker 2: as such. And then there was also the fact that
Speaker 2: they said that they were meeting at the state capital
Speaker 2: and they didn't meet in the Republican headquarters. And I
Speaker 2: don't know which town the city it was in Michigan,
Speaker 2: but they met at Republican headquarters because they were not
Speaker 2: the official electors. And it's really amazing that some of
Speaker 2: these people were pretty sophisticated, including some of these little lawyers,
Speaker 2: actually signed this false documentation. It was actually a one
Speaker 2: the Publican party official who said, oh, I talked to
Speaker 2: a lawyer. This isn't a good idea because these statements
Speaker 2: are false. These fake electors. They were also told that
Speaker 2: might hide your cell phone, don't bring yourself here, don't
Speaker 2: tell anybody. Secrecy and the secrecy is reflects that date
Speaker 2: because you don't conceal things that you are doing if
Speaker 2: you take their own the up and up, and these
Speaker 2: people are consaling what they were doing because they knew
Speaker 2: it wasn't on the which is straight out fraud.
Speaker 1: That should be pretty simple case in the January sixth case.
Speaker 1: In that sort of world, this is the only other
Speaker 1: group of people who have been prosecuted.
Speaker 2: We're going to see a whole bunch of people. I
Speaker 2: think it's yours. And then we're going to see with
Speaker 2: Jack Smith indicts this week, because then we will hear
Speaker 2: that in the next forty eight hours or certainly one
Speaker 2: day or Tuesday next week because it sounds fight today,
Speaker 2: we'll see.
Speaker 1: What do you think that Jack Smith's charges will be?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I think we already heard some reporting.
Speaker 2: I guess it's based upon people down in Florida who
Speaker 2: have heard or see about the seeing the Faria letter.
Speaker 2: It's going to be conspiracy to for the United States.
Speaker 2: But it's been predicting for our long time, which essentially
Speaker 2: means that the neuro submitting false paperwork to get the
Speaker 2: government to do something it shouldn't be doing. And then
Speaker 2: there's also obstruction of an official proceeding, and there are
Speaker 2: eighteen USC. Fifteen twelve C, which would be the electual
Speaker 2: boat counting in Congress. And then there's a there's a
Speaker 2: provision that talks about the deprivation of rights sectionally to
Speaker 2: forty one. People haven't talked about that much, but that
Speaker 2: provision of the criminal Code has been used in the
Speaker 2: voting context. In fact, there was a case in nineteen
Speaker 2: forty one called the United States even this classic where
Speaker 2: people were trying to keep boat count somewhere for some
Speaker 2: race somewhere, to keep it false, not count the votes
Speaker 2: correctly and spring or Eld's propriately chargement.
Speaker 3: The two forty one.
Speaker 2: If you're taking away people that you're right, it's a
Speaker 2: vote in the free parent election. That's a violation and
Speaker 2: that's statute. So it's pretty straight. Or it seems like
Speaker 2: he wants to bring any simple case just judging for
Speaker 2: what we're hearing. But we'll see, we'll see, you know,
Speaker 2: we'll see if it's a big case of small cases,
Speaker 2: the case directed at the top, or case directed at
Speaker 2: multiple levels at the top, just one person, and we'll see.
Speaker 1: You think that we're going to see that case be
Speaker 1: charged in Washington, DC or in.
Speaker 2: Florida again, right, I think that case is overwhelmingly likely
Speaker 2: could be charged in the district of Columbia. That's what
Speaker 2: the grantury. The critical events occurred in the district, Yes,
Speaker 2: and that would be a case, and I think he
Speaker 2: would be the principal defense clearly, that's why he released
Speaker 2: the target letter. We haven't heard any indication that there
Speaker 2: are any other defendants. We'll see target letters in the
Speaker 2: same period of time. It maybe he's the only defendant,
Speaker 2: may not be. We don't have a lot of speculation
Speaker 2: on that. I'm not sure it really is construction. Speculate
Speaker 2: until we actually see the document.
Speaker 1: And if it's in the district and not in Florida,
Speaker 1: then Trump won't be able to run out the clock.
Speaker 2: There's no venue this. This will have to be an
Speaker 2: admission of Columbia or any of the states when they're
Speaker 2: actually resental false electures. So you couldn't bring little federal
Speaker 2: cases elsewhere but Columbia, which is good because the Juddies
Speaker 2: are there, very smart generally, and the pretty.
Speaker 1: Well and they're not judge a Leen Canon.
Speaker 2: They're not, although I don't know. I mean, we'll see
Speaker 2: how she handles the case. She may be chasing.
Speaker 1: Do you ever feel like when we look at all
Speaker 1: of these like, are you are you surprised ever that
Speaker 1: some of these judges have turned out to be so partisan?
Speaker 1: Like certainly I think about like smart people we know,
Speaker 1: like Neil Katya, people who've written pieces about judges they
Speaker 1: knew who maybe they were conservative, but they thought that
Speaker 1: they might grow into the judge ship. Have you been
Speaker 1: prized at how that hasn't happened.
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm going to take issue there. I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know what judges you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm thinking of that piece of Cabinaugh and
Speaker 1: how he you know, can't conceptualize, you know, the sort
Speaker 1: of talking.
Speaker 2: About virginiual re sects Trump stuff. I mean, the guy
Speaker 2: has not done very well with these judges the fact,
Speaker 2: and I mean except schedual and state court, including in
Speaker 2: some cases he got slammed in by his own ploytasy
Speaker 2: you know, and ultimately the judge Cannon thing he is
Speaker 2: that sequence of ruling before she based. She tried to
Speaker 2: blomb up the investigation of the law Laga documents. She
Speaker 2: got reversed handly by a considerative panel of the Letting Circuit.
Speaker 2: The judge, the chief judge of the circuit, who was
Speaker 2: on Trump short list in twenty seventeen, and he just
Speaker 2: slammed hell out. I disagree with the premises somehow that
Speaker 2: you know that there these judges are acting in his favor.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he got lucky once, but other
Speaker 2: than that, he's been getting getting its heady very consistently
Speaker 2: by the courts, by judges of all political persuasions, including
Speaker 2: you know, and these these these junior sixth paths are
Speaker 2: think getting hammered in the district of Combia by Trump judges.
Speaker 1: Do you think, though, that it's wrong that this didn't
Speaker 1: happen sooner? I mean, it was clear in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two that Trump had decided to run in the hopes
Speaker 1: that it would prevent Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I mean I think all there are a
Speaker 2: lot of things that it should have viewed more quickly
Speaker 2: in a number of ways. But I think they're really
Speaker 2: just fine now and they think we shouldn't go to
Speaker 2: the flow. That's what's happening now.
Speaker 1: Do you think he'll still be the nominee?
Speaker 2: Yes, of course, there's no all.
Speaker 1: Periods because there's just no way that the base would
Speaker 1: change course.
Speaker 3: Now they're not.
Speaker 2: They don't know any better, and that's they're.
Speaker 4: Going to do.
Speaker 1: And to them, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: None of the best modest to them.
Speaker 1: Do you think Trump is trained by all of these
Speaker 1: legal you know, maybe he's indicted federally to state indictments.
Speaker 1: Now there's another federal indictment likely and another state indictment.
Speaker 1: Do you think he's stressed by this? Do you think
Speaker 1: he understands the magnitude of this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I think he does. It's at a certain level.
Speaker 2: I think he's delusional in some ways. But if you
Speaker 2: think he understands that he's in deep trouble on a
Speaker 2: certain way, I don't think it's possible to really understand
Speaker 2: his mental processes because they're so bizarre. He's a sociopathy.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have any moral compunctions. He doesn't have any
Speaker 2: ability to feel remorse, he doesn't have any ability to
Speaker 2: feel empathy. He's just, you know, he just does what
Speaker 2: if he thinks and then hist in any given movement.
Speaker 2: And I think he does realize his control, but it doesn't,
Speaker 2: you know, to him, there's no he can't contect up
Speaker 2: his own conduct to the trouble that he's in. So
Speaker 2: it doesn't he can't reform his own conduct.
Speaker 1: For example, I'm just thinking about this idea of not
Speaker 1: being able to reform his own conduct with the Egene case,
Speaker 1: So a jury Trump owes Egene five million dollars defamation.
Speaker 1: Then he cannot stop defaming her, and now Robbie's going
Speaker 1: to bring the case again.
Speaker 2: But I mean every time he says that it didn't happen,
Speaker 2: that's another libel. I mean, the question is what the
Speaker 2: damage is look at this point, but I think one
Speaker 2: of the things that you're going to play out in
Speaker 2: this additional trial that occur in the aging cattle case
Speaker 2: is that Canada damage is our issue. What is it
Speaker 2: going to take. The idea of IP and damage is
Speaker 2: to punish send it for daging in this sort of
Speaker 2: this conduct, and so that to defer people from engaging
Speaker 2: in that kind of misconduct in the future. Well, I
Speaker 2: don't think he's the terrible so what I mean, you
Speaker 2: know what quantum be put on that. That's a very
Speaker 2: interesting question. It will be interesting to see how the
Speaker 2: judgement Thedora resolves.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and don't you find it a little bit strange
Speaker 1: that he can't just keep his mouth shut because of
Speaker 1: the cash component.
Speaker 2: He looks he is very strange. I mean, it's mental ill.
Speaker 2: I mean he's always beenamentally ill. He's in mentally ill
Speaker 2: for decades, and he doesn't know how to act any
Speaker 2: other way. That's it. He just you know, his view
Speaker 2: is he's just you just need to say where to
Speaker 2: keep so he seeing regardless of the confluence, you know,
Speaker 2: that's why you and that's why he keeps talking. He
Speaker 2: gets speeches, He get speeches very you know, makes pay
Speaker 2: the increditation, you get respect to the stole the plata
Speaker 2: by documents. He's always continually. I mean, he's just you know,
Speaker 2: it's just a combination, it's just the combination of he
Speaker 2: just he can't help himself. He's not very smart. He
Speaker 2: doesn't listen to people who are smart, who advising. He
Speaker 2: shops around for advice, he gets bad advice.
Speaker 4: And then you know, all he does.
Speaker 2: Everything he does is is impulsive and it's impulsive. But
Speaker 2: that's nature, sociopathy and everything.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: His view is that the lies don't catch the first time.
Speaker 2: He is lie Louder, lie Haarder. That's what he does.
Speaker 1: There's also cases against the family business, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is also I mean there's one case that
Speaker 2: people forgetting about is there's a case called ACN. And
Speaker 2: ACN was a pontic scheme. It was essentially, you send
Speaker 2: your money in and then other people send their money
Speaker 2: in and you get something back. And it was a total, total,
Speaker 2: total ripoff. Thousands of people. I wrought about hundreds of
Speaker 2: people lost money. It's something that was promoted that he
Speaker 2: his kids promoted on the countess. And he has a
Speaker 2: class action brought by Robbie Tappolo and Bath people who
Speaker 2: are sleeps, and that's going to go to trial college
Speaker 2: early next year. That's about the serious point. He's got
Speaker 2: that case. He's got the the state civil tax case
Speaker 2: that's pretty big. He's got the state criminal indictment where
Speaker 2: he was invited for paying off support Star and he's
Speaker 2: creating false books and records. He's got that. He's got
Speaker 2: the January sixth coming up right now. He's got the
Speaker 2: you know, he's got the lark with documents. He's got
Speaker 2: the second case of the Eugene Foul trial, and he's
Speaker 2: got and he's going to get invited almost early in Georgia.
Speaker 2: And then we don't know, it's possible. You know, we
Speaker 2: saw what happened in Michigan the other day. Attorney General
Speaker 2: Nesshole says, our investigation contains I mean, I think her
Speaker 2: focus is no principally people what happened in the state
Speaker 2: of Michigan but they were directed to do that by
Speaker 2: people elsewhere, so others can see the bull bit that
Speaker 2: somebody else could be charged outside of Michi. But we'll see.
Speaker 2: And then I think there are suggestions out there that
Speaker 2: that both Georgia and the Michigan are going to prompt
Speaker 2: I mean, there's apparently some activity in the Arizona and
Speaker 2: Nevada from state prosecures there, so we could see, you know, this,
Speaker 2: this is what''s going to go on for quite a while.
Speaker 2: I mean, the level of criminality is just not that.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was just everything from the people who
Speaker 2: are on the ground at the Capitol on January sixth
Speaker 2: to people who are comitting the fraud with the fake
Speaker 2: electors calling them the Secretary of State of Georgia to
Speaker 2: get him by exactly votes were needed to attempts to
Speaker 2: course Vice President pens to essentially violating his open office
Speaker 2: and the Constitution of the United States through what it
Speaker 2: requires in the county of votes. There are so many
Speaker 2: different ways, so many falsehoods that were made, and there
Speaker 2: are just so many ways to charge this under funerals,
Speaker 2: state laws, because if you know, it's just false documents,
Speaker 2: false representations generally, and we are submitted to the government.
Speaker 2: You know, they subject to the potential criminal live open.
Speaker 2: Any of people did this and grow.
Speaker 1: You think that one of those things that helps Trump
Speaker 1: is that there's no legal precedent for some of this stuff.
Speaker 1: There is legal precedent, but I mean like for a
Speaker 1: president running from jail or running with multiple federal indictmonds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think people are intimated by that fact. What
Speaker 2: I how many people the fact that it is if anything,
Speaker 2: it can effect across the tutorial discussion adverts man of
Speaker 2: adverse and because it's like of all the peoples that
Speaker 2: should have be known better will be the man who
Speaker 2: has sworn uphold and protective, defended the Constitution of the
Speaker 2: United States, and yet he was ready to abandon, he
Speaker 2: was ready to destroy it in office. And there were
Speaker 2: people who just ever seen in the United States before,
Speaker 2: you know, arguing the Civil War. People succeeded authority.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, George Conway. Senator Raphael Warnock represents
Speaker 1: Georgia and the United States Senate. Welcome to fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Reverend Warnock. You're Senator Warnock, but you're also Reverend Warnock.
Speaker 3: Senator, Reverend reverend. Senator just called you a time for lunch.
Speaker 1: I interviewed you before you won your Senate post. You
Speaker 1: have had. You have basically been running for this Senate
Speaker 1: position for the last four years. I mean, the way
Speaker 1: that it works in Georgia is so insane. But you
Speaker 1: do do I do still preach, right, I do.
Speaker 3: I still lead my congregation. I preach at it the
Speaker 3: Ebenezer Baptist Church, of course, the spiritual home of Martin
Speaker 3: Luther King Jr. And John Lewis. It keeps me rather busy,
Speaker 3: but I've decided to stay in my pulpet because I
Speaker 3: think the last thing I want to do is spend
Speaker 3: all of my time talking to politicians. I'm afraid of
Speaker 3: my accident with the come one, and I intend to
Speaker 3: be a public servant who serves in politics and hopefully
Speaker 3: never become a politician.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about Martin Lither King. Is Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King's pulpe at originally a well.
Speaker 3: Actually the church was founded in eighteen eighty six. It's
Speaker 3: most it's famous mostly because of doctor King, obviously, but
Speaker 3: we both five pastors. I'm number five, and the church
Speaker 3: was founded a few years after reconstruction. And I mentioned
Speaker 3: that only because Doctor King. Although He was an incredible activist,
Speaker 3: and he's the reason why the church is famous. It
Speaker 3: has a history of activist pastors that actually predate Martin
Speaker 3: Luther King Junior, including his own father, who led a
Speaker 3: voting rights struggle in the heart of the South. Listen
Speaker 3: in nineteen thirty five, and I.
Speaker 1: Actually was getting around to talking to you about voting
Speaker 1: rights because that is the legacy of doctor King, and
Speaker 1: it sounds like his father. Can you talk to us
Speaker 1: about what you were doing around voting rights?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I was proud to reintroduce alongside my colleagues, the
Speaker 3: freedom to vote at There is nothing more important for
Speaker 3: us to do in this moment, in this season, in
Speaker 3: this Congress than to preserve the House of Democracy itself.
Speaker 3: To be sure, there are a number of issues that
Speaker 3: confront us and concern us. Climate change, for example, is
Speaker 3: a real present and existential crisis.
Speaker 1: Hot is summer ever, right, We're.
Speaker 3: Dealing with the issues around gun safety, as we've seen
Speaker 3: so many mass shootings this year. Of course, jobs and
Speaker 3: opportunity to economy, all of these things matter. But the
Speaker 3: democracy is the framework in which we get to fight
Speaker 3: for the things that matter. And so when you talk
Speaker 3: about voting rights. When you talk about making sure every
Speaker 3: voter has access to the franchise and can know that
Speaker 3: their vote is counted, that's the heart of the thing itself,
Speaker 3: and that's why I introduced the Freedom to Vote Act.
Speaker 3: Our democracy is in a nine to one one state
Speaker 3: of emergency right now, and we've got to do everything
Speaker 3: we can to preserve the integrity of the democracy.
Speaker 1: Why is it so hard for Congress to pass this
Speaker 1: voting right spill? Because, like, obviously they're unable to codify RAU, Yes,
Speaker 1: but also they were able you guys were not them.
Speaker 1: You were able to pass this codifying gay marriage.
Speaker 3: Well, what we have seen over the last few years especially,
Speaker 3: is an all out, unabashed, unembarrassed assault on voting rights.
Speaker 3: And your question is it's really a good one? You say, well,
Speaker 3: why can't we get this pass? Because voting ranks in
Speaker 3: recent decades has been a bipartisan issue. We reauthorized the
Speaker 3: Voting Rights Act time and time again. The last time
Speaker 3: we did it was actually under a Republican president, George w.
Speaker 3: It passed the United States Senate ninety six or ninety
Speaker 3: eight to zero, and many of my colleagues who were
Speaker 3: here then, some of them were serving on the House
Speaker 3: side at the time, But they're folks in Congress right
Speaker 3: now on the Republican side who supported the reauthorization of
Speaker 3: the Voting Ranks Act the last time was passed in
Speaker 3: two thousand and six. But there's been a sea change,
Speaker 3: and I think that as the country has been changing,
Speaker 3: the folks who are losing the argument have decided that
Speaker 3: they're much more committed to preserving their power than they
Speaker 3: are to democracy. And and since the Supreme Court gutted
Speaker 3: the voting rights law in twenty thirteen and Shelby versus
Speaker 3: Holder and ask Congress to update it to fix it,
Speaker 3: we just haven't been able to get our colleagues on
Speaker 3: the other side of the owl to cooperate and to
Speaker 3: ensure that every American has access to the franchise. I
Speaker 3: think when the history of this moment is written, this
Speaker 3: will be a scar on the soul of our country
Speaker 3: that so many elected officials were either quite willing to
Speaker 3: aid in the bet this kind of assault on voting
Speaker 3: rights or to attack it outright. And that's the moment
Speaker 3: we're living in. But I'm not about to give up.
Speaker 3: You know. I was John Lewis's pastor. He had no
Speaker 3: reason to believe when he was crossing that Edmund Pettis
Speaker 3: Bridge with police and billy clubs on the other side
Speaker 3: of that bridge, he had no reason to believe that
Speaker 3: he could win. But he stood up for right because,
Speaker 3: as doctor King said, the time is always right to
Speaker 3: stand up for right. And I think that time is
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right. It does seem like to
Speaker 1: me the fact that these Republicans who used to support
Speaker 1: voting rights no longer support that. I mean, doesn't that
Speaker 1: seem like the party, the Republican Party, has really shifted
Speaker 1: to the right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, this is a sea change. And this
Speaker 3: is why I'm not willing to let them off the hook.
Speaker 3: Some point out that they're in charge of the House
Speaker 3: this Congress, so why do we think we should get
Speaker 3: this pass? Because this should be a bipartisan issue. It
Speaker 3: always has been. And when you think about those historic
Speaker 3: watershed moments when we did get progressed on voting rights
Speaker 3: in the Civil Rights era, for example, we were able
Speaker 3: to get it done because there were folks on both
Speaker 3: sides of the aisle who joined the fight. And I
Speaker 3: think this is another one of those moral moments. And
Speaker 3: I would say to my colleagues who maybe didn't live
Speaker 3: during the Civil rights era, who maybe like me or
Speaker 3: post Civil rights generation babies, you don't have to ask
Speaker 3: yourself what you would have done when John Lewis was
Speaker 3: standing up. You don't have to ask yourself what you
Speaker 3: would have done when martinther King Junior was giving eloquent
Speaker 3: boys to the urgency of passing voting rights in this country.
Speaker 3: When Byola Luisa, white woman out of Michigan, gave her
Speaker 3: life fighting for voting rights, When Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman,
Speaker 3: two Jews and an African American stood up and paid
Speaker 3: the ultimate sacrifice for voting rights, you don't have to
Speaker 3: ask yourself where you would have been on, what side
Speaker 3: would you have been of that valiant struggle, what you
Speaker 3: would have done? Then you're doing right now, and the
Speaker 3: moment to stand up for voting rights is right now.
Speaker 1: My grandfather, Howard Fast, who was very involved in Peak
Speaker 1: Skill riots, and you know, was very tight with the
Speaker 1: good Men's and I mean, it is really a question
Speaker 1: of being on the right side of history here. It's
Speaker 1: strange to me to think that these Republicans don't know
Speaker 1: what they're doing. I mean, I feel like on the
Speaker 1: Senate side especially, I mean not all of them, but
Speaker 1: they I mean not Tommy Tuberville, but they but a
Speaker 1: lot of them are quite smart.
Speaker 3: Let me tell you. They know exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 3: And I know exactly what I speak of when I
Speaker 3: say that, I think people look at the fact that
Speaker 3: I won in Georgia and they say, what do you
Speaker 3: mean access to voter There's no voting rights issue, after all.
Speaker 2: You won.
Speaker 3: In fact, I've had Republicans in my state, even as
Speaker 3: they engage in voter suppression, I have tried to make
Speaker 3: hay of the fact that I won. Well, the fact
Speaker 3: that people overcame barriers doesn't mean the barriers doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: It just means that the people refuse to have their
Speaker 3: voices silence. The truth is, when I entered the runoff
Speaker 3: this last time, I won, and I won five times
Speaker 3: in Georgia.
Speaker 1: It's so crazy that you had to run five times.
Speaker 3: When I entered the runoff this last time, First of all,
Speaker 3: they cut the runoff in half because they studied my
Speaker 3: victory and they tried to change the playing field. Then
Speaker 3: as we entered the runoff, the Secretary of the State
Speaker 3: and others announced that there would be no Saturday voting
Speaker 3: the first weekend of the runoffs. And I think there
Speaker 3: are only a couple of weekends when people could vote.
Speaker 3: There would be no Saturday voting the first weekend of
Speaker 3: the runoff. And he and others said, because of a
Speaker 3: state law that was already on the books. And they said,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm sorry, it's just the plain letter of
Speaker 3: the law. If you could vote, if we could let
Speaker 3: you vote, we would, but it's the letter of the law.
Speaker 3: And so they said, I'm sorry, our hands are tied.
Speaker 3: So I decided to do them in favor. I took
Speaker 3: them to court and I untied their hands. And then
Speaker 3: those who claimed that their hands were tied then showed
Speaker 3: us their hands. Because after the court's ruled in our
Speaker 3: favor and said yes, you can vote on the first
Speaker 3: weekend of the runoff, those who said their hands were
Speaker 3: tied then showed their hands by appealing the ruling. Think
Speaker 3: about that, as we're enterating a runoff election. The Secretary
Speaker 3: of State, who should be busy trying to facilitate the
Speaker 3: voting of the citizens of Georgia, was busy, along with
Speaker 3: other Republican operatives, trying to stop people from voting. They
Speaker 3: appealed the ruling we want again, and then they appealed
Speaker 3: it again, asking for emergency relief, relief from what the
Speaker 3: voices of ordinary people, working class people who want to
Speaker 3: be able to vote on the weekend so that they
Speaker 3: don't actually lose time at work in order to exercise
Speaker 3: their franchise. Students who were home for the weekend, who
Speaker 3: were citizens of Georgia and wanted to be able to
Speaker 3: vote as we went into that Thanksgiving weekend? Are those
Speaker 3: the people they were asking for emergency relief from. We
Speaker 3: had to win in court and then win two appeals
Speaker 3: just so the people of Georgia could vote. About one
Speaker 3: hundred thousand people voted that first Saturday, which, by the way,
Speaker 3: is around the margin of mind victory. This is how
Speaker 3: voter suppression works. It's not huge margins. It's about mitigating
Speaker 3: people's voices. It's about shaving a little bit of people's
Speaker 3: voting strength a little here, a little bit, and after
Speaker 3: a while, you know, what is the difference in an election?
Speaker 3: What do we hear in Georgia? Can you find me?
Speaker 3: Somebody said about eleven thousand votes, that the margins and
Speaker 3: when the margins are closed especially voter suppression matters. What
Speaker 3: this Freedom of Vote Act will do is it will
Speaker 3: provide some federal guidelines, really just the baseline. The states
Speaker 3: will still be very much in charge of their elections,
Speaker 3: but it will say here are certain just basic standards
Speaker 3: that we will have in this country. That in this country,
Speaker 3: election day will be a federal holiday so that working
Speaker 3: class people are not unfairly disadvantage. We will have automatic registration,
Speaker 3: people will be able to vote on the weekends. These
Speaker 3: are just basic kinds of standards. We won't allow partisan
Speaker 3: actors to dip in and rob local boards of elections
Speaker 3: of their ability to administer the election. These are the
Speaker 3: kinds of things that make basic sense, and they are
Speaker 3: about ensuring that every eligible American can vote and the
Speaker 3: voices that their voice can be heard in our democracy.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about insulin. You have
Speaker 1: become a champion for thirty five dollars insulin.
Speaker 3: Talk to us about that insulin should not be expensive.
Speaker 3: Here is a drug that was invented one hundred years ago.
Speaker 3: When it was invented, the patent was sold for one dollar.
Speaker 3: And what we have witnessed in recent years especially is
Speaker 3: price couching by big pharma. Literally, people have not been
Speaker 3: able to afford insulin, which again speaks to the issue
Speaker 3: that we're talking about. Primarily, the people's voices are being
Speaker 3: squeezed out of their democracy, and their voices are being
Speaker 3: flooded by dark money from big pharma, in this instance,
Speaker 3: from the big oil and gas corporations, which is why
Speaker 3: we can't get the movement we need on climate change.
Speaker 3: That's the state of affairs, That's why we find ourselves here.
Speaker 3: It is at root of democracy problem. But thankfully we
Speaker 3: were able to get progress on the question around insulin,
Speaker 3: and I introduced to bill last Congress at cap the
Speaker 3: cost of insulin to no more than thirty five dollars
Speaker 3: of out of pocket costs. I was trying to get
Speaker 3: it for everybody, but we did manage to get it
Speaker 3: for seniors on Medicare and they are enjoying that benefit
Speaker 3: right now. And then this Congress, I reintroduced the bill,
Speaker 3: the Affordable Insulin Now Bill, with my Republican friend and
Speaker 3: colleague John Kennedy out of Louisiana. And why has he
Speaker 3: joined me in his effort Because he's got more diabetics
Speaker 3: in Louisiana than we have in Georgia. This is not
Speaker 3: a partisan issue. Some twenty states have already capped the
Speaker 3: cost of insulin, many of the red states, like Alabama,
Speaker 3: like Oklahoma, like Utah, and I'm hopeful that we will
Speaker 3: get insulin cap for people with insurance or people with
Speaker 3: no insurance at all, that we will get this done
Speaker 3: very soon. And I think this will make a difference.
Speaker 3: Number one for the people who need insulin, because when
Speaker 3: you need insulin, you need insulin. You shouldn't be rationing insulin.
Speaker 3: It literally can be deadly. And then number two, managing
Speaker 3: diabetes is a win for our total healthcare system. One
Speaker 3: dollar out of four dollars in our healthcare system is
Speaker 3: spent on people with diabetes. So when you talk about diabetes,
Speaker 3: you're talking about the consequences, the human consequences and the
Speaker 3: costs of amputations of having to go on dialysis because
Speaker 3: of kidney disease, and the number one cause of blindness.
Speaker 3: In real sense, it's a point of entry into the
Speaker 3: larger landscape of our healthcare system, which is why I'm
Speaker 3: so narrowly focused on this issue, even as we address
Speaker 3: the issues of the cost of prescription drugs more generally.
Speaker 1: I think that it seems like such an important thing,
Speaker 1: and it's just so crazy that it's so hard to
Speaker 1: do this. John Kennedy is No one is accusing that
Speaker 1: man of being a liberal, though he used to be
Speaker 1: a Democrat right way back.
Speaker 3: I got friends with whom I disagreed.
Speaker 1: Right, But I'm curious. So that's a real like. You
Speaker 1: two are very much on different sides of the partisan divide.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that means you'll be able to
Speaker 1: get it through the bonkers GOP house.
Speaker 3: I think that we need the people who are listening
Speaker 3: to me to call your congress person, to call your
Speaker 3: senator and tell them to get this done. Listen, everybody
Speaker 3: knows somebody with diabetes. This will make a difference in
Speaker 3: the lives of ordinary people. It's not a partisan issue.
Speaker 3: It's a health care issue. People ask, can we afford it? Yes,
Speaker 3: this is what we can afford. We can't afford to
Speaker 3: not do it. Not doing it would be far more expensive.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you so much. Thank you so much, Senator
Speaker 1: Warno for joining us. Hi, it's Molly and I am
Speaker 1: wildly excited that for the first time, Fast Politics, the
Speaker 1: show you're listening to right now, is going to have
Speaker 1: merch for sale over at shop dot Fast Politics Pod
Speaker 1: dot com. You can now buy shirts, hats, hoodies, and
Speaker 1: toe bags with our incredible designs. We've heard your cries
Speaker 1: to spread the word about our podcast and get a
Speaker 1: tow bag with my adorable Leo the Rescue Puppy on it.
Speaker 1: And now you can grab this merchandise only at shop
Speaker 1: dot fastpoliticspod dot com. Thanks for your support. Jake Tapper
Speaker 1: is the host of the Lead with Jake Tapper on
Speaker 1: CNN and author of All the Demons Are Here. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics, Jake Tapper.
Speaker 4: It's so great to be here. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So we are talking about your books, but your most
Speaker 1: recent book, I want to do two seconds on this.
Speaker 1: It's called All the Demons Are Here. It's a trilogy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you don't have to read the previous two. I
Speaker 4: write them as standalones. But yes, it's the third and
Speaker 4: the series about the Martyr family, the fictitious Martyr Family.
Speaker 4: The first book takes place during the Joe McCarthy era
Speaker 4: in nineteen fifties Washington, and the stars of that book
Speaker 4: are Congressman Charlie Martyr from New York and his zoologist
Speaker 4: wife Margaret. The second book has Charlie and Margaret out
Speaker 4: in LA investigating the rat pack. And the third book
Speaker 4: is their kids, and that's all the demons are here.
Speaker 4: It's Ike and a wall Marine and Lucy, a twenty
Speaker 4: two year old aspiring journalist in Washington, d C. And
Speaker 4: it's their adventures in nineteen seventy seven America.
Speaker 1: So funny. I was born in nineteen seventy eight, and
Speaker 1: my parents had this car with this enormous gas tank.
Speaker 1: I don't know why the seventies are just so stuck
Speaker 1: in my head.
Speaker 4: It's a weird time. I was eight in nineteen seventy seven,
Speaker 4: so I don't really remember much. I remember gas lines,
Speaker 4: and I remember Elves Steine and Go. But when I
Speaker 4: went to do this book, which you know, since the
Speaker 4: books take place in the fifties and sixties the previous two,
Speaker 4: I thought, Okay, the seventies now, and I found this
Speaker 4: year in nineteen seventy seven, where so many bizarre things happen. Obviously,
Speaker 4: Jimmy Carter's inaugurated, but Evil can Eevil stunt, Daredevil and
Speaker 4: Superstar literally jumps over sharks. This is months before Fox.
Speaker 4: He does Elvis Dies Studio fifty four opens. This is
Speaker 4: a New York City blackout. Son of Sam murders take place,
Speaker 4: the lives of tabloid journalism because of Son of Sam
Speaker 4: in New York City takes place in New York post
Speaker 4: Horizons and so many other weird things. The cult membership
Speaker 4: is rising, UFO sightings throughout the country, and so it
Speaker 4: was really fun, even though I lived through this era,
Speaker 4: because I didn't remember much of it to write about
Speaker 4: this time, which was really kind of an underrated, bizarre
Speaker 4: period in our nation's history.
Speaker 1: What are your sort of thriller writer influences?
Speaker 4: Well, there are a lot, because there are a lot
Speaker 4: of great ones and a lot from whom I admire
Speaker 4: different parts. I'm a Gillian Flynn is a hero of
Speaker 4: She's just amazing, and you know, obviously David Baldacci and
Speaker 4: Harlan Coben. James Patterson's career is unbelievable. There are just
Speaker 4: there really are so many. Michael Connolly, Scott Tureau. I'm
Speaker 4: a big reader of thrillers, and so it's humbling to
Speaker 4: try to join this elite club.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what are you are? More sort of literary influences
Speaker 1: because you write incredibly well and oh.
Speaker 4: You're so crying.
Speaker 1: It's true. I mean no, and it's funny because it's
Speaker 1: like this is a very boring topic, so our listeners
Speaker 1: can tune out. But I believe this truly, Like there
Speaker 1: just isn't a ton of focus on pros in what
Speaker 1: we do political journalism, which is fine. You know a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't care, but you know, when you
Speaker 1: have really good pros, it does really stand out.
Speaker 4: Well, it is, I mean, it's fun. As a journalist
Speaker 4: you kind of like are influenced to write in not
Speaker 4: a writer like you that gets to have more fun.
Speaker 4: But like you know, C and N writers or whatever,
Speaker 4: we tend to be more straight, more like the asseach.
Speaker 1: As I say to whenever I have a straight journalist
Speaker 1: on here and try to bait them into giving their opinion,
Speaker 1: I say, like on the opinion side, you know, I
Speaker 1: have a lot more space.
Speaker 4: But yes, but also, you know, writing for even if
Speaker 4: you're writing a straight up news story for Vanity Fair,
Speaker 4: Rolling Stone or someplace like that Slate, you can have
Speaker 4: more fun. And that was in you know, earlier in
Speaker 4: my career when I wrote for Salon, and I would
Speaker 4: when I did more freelance stuff eating you know, even
Speaker 4: for the Weekly Standard or whomever that. You know, it's
Speaker 4: more enjoyable to have that kind of freedom. So exercising
Speaker 4: those muscles as a fiction writer is enjoyable. You know,
Speaker 4: Matt clam is a good friend of mine. I think
Speaker 4: you know Mary, Yeah, yeah, I love Matt and he's
Speaker 4: obviously in the influence. He's also an editor of mine.
Speaker 4: I hire him to all my books and then but
Speaker 4: you know, in terms of like people, I read a lot.
Speaker 4: Like I said, Gillian Flynn, I think is a beautiful writer.
Speaker 4: I really was a or am a big fan of
Speaker 4: Pete Dexter, the writer. He wrote Paris Troud, he wrote
Speaker 4: The Paper Boy. I just think his his pros are beautiful.
Speaker 4: Richard Price is another one who he's ever written.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you and I are both power Twitter now
Speaker 1: threads users.
Speaker 4: I'm on everything now me too, me too. If I
Speaker 4: have something, I just like, okay, and here's what I'm doing,
Speaker 4: whether it's a book promotion or an observation or a
Speaker 4: nice photo of you know, I was in South Carolinia's Gename.
Speaker 4: I took a picture of McCary Sellers with his adorable
Speaker 4: little kids. Then I'm like, okay, here it is and
Speaker 4: I go Twitter, Blue sky Red, personal Facebook, professional Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 4: if it's worth it, TikTok. I mean, it's just like it.
Speaker 4: It's like a full time job because there's so many
Speaker 4: different places and they're all they're all so different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Bacari sellers twins are really cute, which but let
Speaker 1: me ask you, it's funny because it's like, actually really
Speaker 1: love to do these social media sites because I really
Speaker 1: like interacting with people. I really like reading what I mean.
Speaker 1: For example, for me, one of the most useful things
Speaker 1: about all of this is like you tweet something or
Speaker 1: you read something a story, and I guess Twitter doesn't
Speaker 1: have us anymore, but you could read a story and
Speaker 1: then see what everyone you follow. A lot of people
Speaker 1: are very smart, many of whom are smarter than I am.
Speaker 1: Think of a story.
Speaker 4: Yeah, including smart regular folk out there who aren't in
Speaker 4: the media or political world. And that was one of
Speaker 4: the great joys of Twitter, and that I find has
Speaker 4: pretty much gone.
Speaker 1: You can't find those people.
Speaker 4: And just the way that threads exist, I don't even
Speaker 4: I mean, threads is fine, but I can't find people
Speaker 4: and it's you know, it's just strange. Also, like just
Speaker 4: because I'm following somebody on Instagram doesn't mean I want
Speaker 4: to follow them on threads. Instagram is a very visual
Speaker 4: is a very visual medium, and Threads is the opposite
Speaker 4: and very They're very different. So I don't know. Look,
Speaker 4: I remember, I'm old enough to remember when the Internet
Speaker 4: was still relatively new and comment sections of a blog
Speaker 4: could be a joyous place. I remember I had a
Speaker 4: blog at ABC News. It was very experimental for ABC
Speaker 4: to do this, but I had a blog. It's ABC News.
Speaker 4: I started there in three and I was there for
Speaker 4: about ten years, and it was great. There were like
Speaker 4: ten commenters that were regular, my dad, my father in law,
Speaker 4: and it's like just a few other randoms, And no
Speaker 4: matter what I posted, they would post, and it was
Speaker 4: like this nice little you know. It's just like a
Speaker 4: bunch of folks, like at a diner. Yeah, and then
Speaker 4: all the circus freaks and angry people and the haters
Speaker 4: and the whatever discovered it. And then that ended, and
Speaker 4: then it just it just inevitably. This is what happens
Speaker 4: in social media. Unless you like really have this small
Speaker 4: discrete group of people, you know, which necessitates locking other
Speaker 4: people out of it, it just becomes unpleasant and all
Speaker 4: the pleasant people and all the interesting exchanges and by
Speaker 4: the way, even polite pushback or constructive criticism, all that
Speaker 4: that stuff, you can't get at it because there's just
Speaker 4: jerks and Nazis. Life's too short.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I have actually found really interesting and
Speaker 1: useful pushback from normal people. Yes, but it's you can't
Speaker 1: but you can't find it now because it's a sea
Speaker 1: of like we are, verified accounts that you never that
Speaker 1: are not operating in good faith.
Speaker 4: One of the things that really bothers me when I
Speaker 4: when I mute somebody, especially if it's somebody that I
Speaker 4: think probably I would agree with on ninety five percent
Speaker 4: of the stuff. But like you know, I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 4: one strike. You're out just because I don't have the time.
Speaker 4: If I don't know you and you're coming at me
Speaker 4: in a personal way, nasty way, I'm going to mute.
Speaker 2: You on that.
Speaker 4: One of the things that's disappointing, and I want to
Speaker 4: say this all the time, is do you not realize that,
Speaker 4: like I read this stuff and I'm really willing to
Speaker 4: be criticized, to improve, to hear your ideas, to hear
Speaker 4: your thoughts, to hear your story ideas to want to
Speaker 4: you know, like I am, my mind is open, and
Speaker 4: I do not think that everything I do was great,
Speaker 4: But I also just for self preservation, like I'm not
Speaker 4: gonna subject myself to that kind of vitriol. So it's
Speaker 4: just such a waste when normal people, not the people
Speaker 4: who are like professionally jerks, but like when normal people
Speaker 4: fall into this knee jerk, I'm just gonna be nasty
Speaker 4: because that's how people talk on social media mindset, because
Speaker 4: it's just a loss for me because I would have
Speaker 4: liked to have heard from that person if they weren't
Speaker 4: in a bad mood.
Speaker 1: Yeah no, I mean, I got what did this show?
Speaker 1: Morning show? Nighttime show on Monday? And like if I'm
Speaker 1: doing something annoying, like saying right after I say something,
Speaker 1: which sometimes I do, I want to know that I'm
Speaker 1: doing it. But like you'd be good looking if you
Speaker 1: took off your glasses, not helpful, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: And I do think like also it is this idea
Speaker 1: that like we are actually people.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well I don't mean like, no one, I'm not
Speaker 4: saying this in a pity party.
Speaker 1: No, no, I mean, and I'm just saying like there
Speaker 1: are people reading it, and that's useful, but I want
Speaker 1: to get onto you had this humongous interview. You're like
Speaker 1: the first mainstream media maybe not the first, but.
Speaker 4: First non conservative I think, the first non conservative member
Speaker 4: of the media to have a sit down interview with
Speaker 4: Governor DeSantis in years, I think, not including I'm not
Speaker 4: including Florida media in that person.
Speaker 1: But which is a very strange situation over there in Florida.
Speaker 1: But shockingly, that is quite anxiety provoking in a strange way,
Speaker 1: especially with the way that conservatives are towards the mainstream
Speaker 1: media and especially CNN. You know, just talk to me
Speaker 1: a little bit about that.
Speaker 4: So it is kind of an interesting situation because a
Speaker 4: I think that in many ways, the more ideological channels
Speaker 4: have kind of broken everybody's brains in terms of like
Speaker 4: what the purpose of an interview with a presidential candidate
Speaker 4: in July twenty twenty three should be. Which is not
Speaker 4: about me like coming in, you know, looking for a pelt,
Speaker 4: or by the way, him coming in looking for a pelt.
Speaker 4: It's just about I had fifteen minutes. Here are some
Speaker 4: questions I have for you about issues of the day,
Speaker 4: the new policy you introduced and you know, some other
Speaker 4: things on my mind. What do you think it was
Speaker 4: not meant to be like a hugely adversarial showdown. This
Speaker 4: is a beginning of the campaign interview in which you
Speaker 4: are like as in previous years, you know, establishing a
Speaker 4: relationship with the campaign, trying to get some answers to
Speaker 4: some questions that you have not been able to get
Speaker 4: answers to, and hoping that the person will come back
Speaker 4: so you can ask, you know, the three hundred other
Speaker 4: questions you have. So I think probably the DeSantis campaign
Speaker 4: wondered if we were entering it, in entering the conversation
Speaker 4: in a good faith way, certainly, you know, I'm sure
Speaker 4: there were people at CNN, although you know, not me,
Speaker 4: who wondered if DeSantis was entering it in a good
Speaker 4: faith way. And I think we both were, which was,
Speaker 4: here are some questions, what your answers? And you know
Speaker 4: I pushed back on this. I pushed back on that.
Speaker 4: But again, it wasn't going to be a Jake Dabber
Speaker 4: destroy his run. That's not where we are and that's
Speaker 4: not necessarily journalism. I mean, that's in some ways showmanship.
Speaker 4: And the interview was about his thoughts and opinions not mine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know this is not what I do. So
Speaker 1: I'm not the arbitrar by any stretch. But it's interesting
Speaker 1: because it's like he's so much more intelligent than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Like you could see the shift between how he interacts
Speaker 1: in the conservative media and in the mainstream media right,
Speaker 1: Like I saw in my mind, like a clear move
Speaker 1: from like that kind of very partisan right wing media
Speaker 1: talking points. What I think is pretty interesting is over
Speaker 1: the last since twenty fifteen, but really since the Trump
Speaker 1: administration got going, we've seen this sort of shift to
Speaker 1: extreme partisan rhetoric. I think more on the right than
Speaker 1: the left, but I'll agree that there certainly is some
Speaker 1: on the left, but that you know, in order to
Speaker 1: get small dollar donations and to become popular. And I
Speaker 1: thought it was pretty interesting you didn't see so much
Speaker 1: of that in this interview.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I thought he's obviously a very different
Speaker 4: candidate than Donald Trump. I mean, interviewing Donald Trump is
Speaker 4: like stepping into a cyclone, right, I mean, it's this
Speaker 4: big force of nature and you try the best you
Speaker 4: can to get your questions in, but it's not like
Speaker 4: a normal human interact. It's true, DeSantis is very conservative.
Speaker 4: He rejected the premise that I said, like, you know,
Speaker 4: there are people out there who think that he's gone
Speaker 4: so far to the right. You know, he's perceived among
Speaker 4: many Republicans as being not electable in November anymore. And
Speaker 4: he rejected that premise. But I thought it was, you know,
Speaker 4: a decent exchange of ideas for a fifteen minute interview.
Speaker 4: I thought it was interesting that he was doing it.
Speaker 4: It definitely shows that, like his campaign thinks he needs
Speaker 4: to step outside of just the conservative bubble, which is
Speaker 4: you know, strong, but only represents a small percentage. One
Speaker 4: of the reactions I had to in two thousand and
Speaker 4: twelve the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,
Speaker 4: Barack Obama did not do well. And one of the
Speaker 4: reasons I thought, and look, I was biased. I was
Speaker 4: a White House reporter who had not gotten an interview
Speaker 4: with Obama in more than a year at that point,
Speaker 4: I think. But one of the reasons I thought he
Speaker 4: didn't do well is because he had only been giving
Speaker 4: interviews to friendly outlets. And I just think that if
Speaker 4: you don't take the time as a candidate or a
Speaker 4: politician to know have your the tires of your car kick.
Speaker 4: Then you're not going to be as quick. You're going
Speaker 4: to think, well, I can handle any of this. And
Speaker 4: in fact, I remember in two thousand and eight, I
Speaker 4: remember he got an interview with Brian Williams, and I
Speaker 4: remember his staff telling me, this is what Brian Williams
Speaker 4: was anchor chief anker of NBC News, and I remember
Speaker 4: his staff telling me that Obama didn't He wasn't particularly
Speaker 4: impressed with the questions. He thought they were so easy.
Speaker 4: And this is back in two thousand and eight. So
Speaker 4: I mean, I think there is a part of politicians
Speaker 4: who have a brain and look to Santus whether you
Speaker 4: like him or not, he went to you, Yeah, he's
Speaker 4: a jag. I mean, like he has a brain. Again,
Speaker 4: you might not like what's in that brain, but he has.
Speaker 4: But like people like this, they need to have their
Speaker 4: ideas tested. I just think it's good for every candidate.
Speaker 4: And that goes for you know, liberal candidates too, going
Speaker 4: to you know, not necessarily the friendliest outlets either, it's
Speaker 4: better for everybody.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of Jessica Tarlov who's.
Speaker 4: On the five God Blesser. That's a tough environment.
Speaker 1: I mean that's a killer. And like I like, you know,
Speaker 1: I go on GB News, which is like this incredibly
Speaker 1: right wing British news channel, because I think it's really
Speaker 1: like you don't change hearts and minds on MSNBC. Not
Speaker 1: to say that I don't love MSNBC, but just like
Speaker 1: you know, you go on GB News, you might be
Speaker 1: the first non insane person anyone has ever heard. No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that's wrong.
Speaker 4: Look, all I can say is this, like I'm selling
Speaker 4: a book right now, I'm selling a novel. No no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 4: I'm not I'm not criticizing. I'm making a point. I'm
Speaker 4: selling a novel right now. Like I wrote a novel.
Speaker 4: It came out a week and a half ago. And
Speaker 4: you know, I know that CNN people, because because my
Speaker 4: fellow anchors and colleagues have been so generous and talking
Speaker 4: to me about my book on air, I know that
Speaker 4: the CNN audience knows that my book came out, and
Speaker 4: they'd probably have heard about it by now. But there
Speaker 4: are other audiences that haven't your audience and other audiences,
Speaker 4: and it's important to get my message out there about
Speaker 4: like this is what my book's about. I would be honored.
Speaker 4: If you take a look at it, I think you'd
Speaker 4: find to find it a fun read, et cetera. And
Speaker 4: I am just trying to sell a book. I'm not
Speaker 4: trying to sell myself as I should be running the world,
Speaker 4: you know. So I do think there is something to
Speaker 4: be said about going everywhere you can go to make
Speaker 4: the sale. All the more so when you are trying
Speaker 4: to win votes and you're trying to get ioins to
Speaker 4: go to their local classroom to stand in the middle
Speaker 4: for the middle of in the middle of the caucus
Speaker 4: for hours to advocate for you, you really need to
Speaker 4: convince people. And that means going everywhere. That means talking
Speaker 4: to everyone you can talk to.
Speaker 1: In this DeSantis interview, so you have fifteen minutes. Doesn't
Speaker 1: it seem like every time DeSantis tries to get and
Speaker 1: this is and by the way, this is happening to
Speaker 1: all the other candidates. We saw this with Asa Hutchinson.
Speaker 1: I remember this split screen of Asa Hutchinson trying to
Speaker 1: talk to Andrea Mitchell while Trump's plane was landing in
Speaker 1: New York for his Alvin Pragg indictment. And I thought like,
Speaker 1: here's Asa Hutchinson. I don't necessarily agree with him politically,
Speaker 1: but this guy has been around and he can't even
Speaker 1: like get this full screen.
Speaker 4: That's a tough metaphor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, but like, but the same thing happened
Speaker 1: with Desantas for this one. There's a third set of
Speaker 1: indictments that Michigan. You know, we this target letter and
Speaker 1: then we had these Michigan fake electors. Not even indictment
Speaker 1: of Trump, but you know, certainly his group's plan what
Speaker 1: that looks like, you know, and we don't know how
Speaker 1: involved he was, But do you feel like this was
Speaker 1: heavy on the DeSantis interviewed? Did you feel that he
Speaker 1: continually was upstaged by this?
Speaker 4: I was going to ask one Trump question because Trump
Speaker 4: and Seen were in court that day and then for
Speaker 4: the classified document's case, and then this news came, Trump announcing.
Speaker 1: You can't not ask, it's malpractice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I can not ask. And also, you know, it's
Speaker 4: interesting timing because Trump is down this on Sunday and
Speaker 4: then literally minutes before DeSantis gives a big speech on
Speaker 4: military policy and sits down for his first non conservative interview,
Speaker 4: Plump announces this. So I asked what I asked, and
Speaker 4: you know, I didn't lead the interview with it because
Speaker 4: I knew he wanted to talk about military policy, and
Speaker 4: I felt like I had some good questions for him
Speaker 4: on military policy. And you know what he calls, you know,
Speaker 4: wanting to rip the woke out of the military. But yeah,
Speaker 4: Trump is a not literally, but he is an eight
Speaker 4: hundred poun guerrella. I mean, he's just there. And I'm
Speaker 4: sure that DeSantis would rather not be asked about Trump,
Speaker 4: would rather have be asked about his his vision. But
Speaker 4: at that point there was nothing I could do. So
Speaker 4: I asked those two questions and we moved on. I mean,
Speaker 4: I had roast of my questions were about his views,
Speaker 4: his policies, trying to get him on the record when
Speaker 4: it came to Ukraine, China, what should what should trans
Speaker 4: Americans expect from the Santus administration, his position on abortion,
Speaker 4: and on and on and on. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 4: you can't avoid Trump. You can't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jesus, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4: It's so great, great talking to you, Molly, Thank you
Speaker 4: so much. All the demons are here is out now
Speaker 4: wherever books are sold, no moment.
Speaker 1: Thickly, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 4: Molly, Jong Fast, Kevin McCarthy always licked Trumps boots all
Speaker 4: day and all night.
Speaker 1: Well, he made another deal, right, Kevin McCarthy, King of
Speaker 1: the Secret Deals. Trump was mad that Kevin McCarthy had
Speaker 1: not endorsed him. I mean, it's so ironic, right because
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, who completely rehabilitated him after January sixth, didn't
Speaker 1: actually endorse him yet and Trump is mad. So Trump
Speaker 1: has made Kevin McCarthy promise that he will expunge these
Speaker 1: two charges from the record. There are six days left
Speaker 1: in the session. We shall see. This is our moment
Speaker 1: of fuckery. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the
Speaker 1: best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
Speaker 1: a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.