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 Donald Trump sent seven COVID tests
Speaker 1: of Vladimir Putin in twenty twenty during the height of
Speaker 1: the pandemic. We have such a great show for you today.
Speaker 1: Talking Fed's host Harry Littman stops by to talk to
Speaker 1: us about the latest of Trump's legal woes. Then we'll
Speaker 1: talk to Professor Jeff Jarvis about his new book, The
Speaker 1: Web we Weave, Why we must reclaim the Internet from moguls, misanthropes,
Speaker 1: and moral panic.
Speaker 2: But first the news.
Speaker 3: Somali Bob Woodward been putting out blockbuster headlines for longer
Speaker 3: than you and I have been alive. He's got some
Speaker 3: more for us. What are you seeing here?
Speaker 1: Bob Woodward back with another blockbuster book, filled with information
Speaker 1: that might have been useful as a little bit earlier,
Speaker 1: but we'll take it. I think that we saw the
Speaker 1: COVID test, the Putin COVID test mailings came from that.
Speaker 1: But also, perhaps even more bafflingly and importantly, Woodward recounts
Speaker 1: a moment in mar Lago where Trump tells his senior
Speaker 1: aide to leave the room so he can have a
Speaker 1: private conversation. This is after he's left the presidency with
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin. According to Trump's aids, Trump and Putin have
Speaker 1: talked on the phone multiple times and maybe as many
Speaker 1: as seven calls during the period since he's been president.
Speaker 1: Woodward even went so far as to ask Chason Miller
Speaker 1: whether Trump and Putin had spoken after he left the
Speaker 1: White House. Chason Miller came shot back with the very definitive.
Speaker 2: Um, uh not that, uh not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: Miller told Bob Woodward, expect more of these shocking revelations.
Speaker 3: Smile as we learn this week. Trump didn't want to
Speaker 3: do sixteen Minutes because they would fact check him, so
Speaker 3: he went to the warm arms of Fox News is
Speaker 3: Laura Ingram, who then fact checked him.
Speaker 1: We were talking before this about the Trump fact check
Speaker 1: and putting it in the news section, and you said
Speaker 1: that was Laura Ingram and I said, no, that can't
Speaker 1: be right. I said it cannot have been that Laura
Speaker 1: Ingram fact checked Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: The funny thing is I had done this before because
Speaker 3: I didn't believe it. The only reason I was confident
Speaker 3: about is because I'd already fact checked.
Speaker 2: This, right.
Speaker 1: I went online and I said, oh my god, I'm shocked.
Speaker 1: So imagine the level of lying that has to happen
Speaker 1: for Laura Ingram to interject. Donald Trump was musing about
Speaker 1: how Vice President Harris was not where she should have
Speaker 1: been in North Carolina visiting people who had been ravaged
Speaker 1: by this most recent hurricane, not the hurricane that is coming,
Speaker 1: and Laura interjected, she was there today for three hours,
Speaker 1: I believe. Now, I would love to know what producers
Speaker 1: were saying in her ear and what the thinking was
Speaker 1: where they actually interrupted Trump lying to fact check.
Speaker 2: But whatever it was, whoe whoa whoa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was not in the sea of disinformation that
Speaker 3: I think a lot of us have been very shocked
Speaker 3: about how much disinformation has come out around this hurricane.
Speaker 3: I did not expect Laura Ingram to be a beacon of.
Speaker 1: Hope speaking of disinformation. Oh yes, it gets us right
Speaker 1: to our next thing in news, Well, what.
Speaker 3: Would you expect to happen when Elon Musk sits down
Speaker 3: with Tucker Carlson for his podcast.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk son of Pennsylvania because he went to University
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania for three years and is now saying that
Speaker 1: he actually lived in Pennsylvania. By the way, I love
Speaker 1: the idea that the right is claiming to be the
Speaker 1: party of the working man while having a Trump surrogate
Speaker 1: who is a nefarious South African billionaire whose only contact
Speaker 1: was the state was the three years he went to
Speaker 1: an Ivy League college there. Okay, sure, but this is
Speaker 1: not actually why he's on the news cycle today. He
Speaker 1: and you may remember Tucker Carlson, America's favorite frozen Fish Air,
Speaker 1: did a little video together where they're like sitting in
Speaker 1: space being served by a woman, which is like looks
Speaker 1: sort of like they're in some kind of afterlife simulation.
Speaker 3: I saw this as the anti Charlie Rose space right.
Speaker 2: A white box, a female assistant.
Speaker 3: Make it the White Power Hour, have its own aesthetic.
Speaker 1: They were joking because that's what these two humorous fellows do,
Speaker 1: and they were joking about killing the president and the
Speaker 1: Vice president. Elon Musk sits atop of tons and tons
Speaker 1: of government contracts. He's a contractor. In fact, he has
Speaker 1: security clearances, numerous ones. He is working on things that
Speaker 1: are being paid for by the federal government right now,
Speaker 1: and he is joking about why no one has tried
Speaker 1: to kill Joe Biden. Musk ads it's pointless, and then
Speaker 1: Carlson Fozen Fish Air to the Stars replies, totally.
Speaker 3: He actually said that's deep and true though, about them
Speaker 3: putting it a puppet, which really he's hit rock bottom,
Speaker 3: even lower than his Fox show about just aggregating the
Speaker 3: most unhingish conspiracy theories. Just Alex Jones, shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I also think that it's just sort of beyond
Speaker 1: the pale and just as shocking as one could guess,
Speaker 1: and one could expect it's even worse. So here we
Speaker 1: have two bits of news that make actually Fox seem
Speaker 1: better than elon a pretty low bar.
Speaker 3: I'll say, well, let's take the bar even lower. We're
Speaker 3: going to go a place where we should have a
Speaker 3: very high bar, which is the Supreme Court. And there's
Speaker 3: new news about how Justice Brett Kegstan Kavanaugh got confirmed.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes, you'll remember Justice Kavanaugh. Keggstand September twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump says that the FBI would have free
Speaker 1: reign to vet the claims that he had sexually harassed
Speaker 1: and assaulted women in college. Trump said the FBI was
Speaker 1: free to talk to everyone he had it on social media.
Speaker 1: I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate at
Speaker 1: their discretion. Well, guess what, I know you're going to
Speaker 1: be shocked to hear this. But Donald Trump was lying
Speaker 1: and those comments came as a surprise the FBI, who,
Speaker 1: according to a new report, which would not have been
Speaker 1: released had it not been for a friend of this podcast,
Speaker 1: Senator Sheldon white House, actually requested the directed them to
Speaker 1: conduct a very limited inquiry in a week's time, requested
Speaker 1: additional guidance from the White House, citing public remarks by
Speaker 1: Trump and other officials describing a free, willing investigation. But
Speaker 1: the White House never authorized the agency to independently probe
Speaker 1: these sexual misconduct allegations. So Justice Kavanaugh just got pushed
Speaker 1: in there without the formal vetting that he should have gotten.
Speaker 2: Why are none of us surprised?
Speaker 3: We have even more tour dates for you. Did you
Speaker 3: know the Lincoln Projects, Rick Wilson have Fast Politics. Male
Speaker 3: jug Fast are heading out on tour to bring you
Speaker 3: a night of laughs for our dark political landscape. Join
Speaker 3: us on August twenty sixth at San Francisco at the
Speaker 3: Swedish American Hall, or in La on August twenty seventh
Speaker 3: at the Regent Theater. Then we're headed to the Midwest.
Speaker 3: We'll be at the Bavariam in Milwaukee on the twenty
Speaker 3: first of September, and on the twenty second, we'll be
Speaker 3: in Chicago at City Winery. Then we're going to hit
Speaker 3: the East coast on September thirtieth. We'll be in Boston
Speaker 3: that arts at the Armory. On the first of October,
Speaker 3: will be in affiliate City Winery, and then DC on
Speaker 3: the second at the Miracle Theater. And today we just
Speaker 3: announced that we'll be in New York on the fourteenth
Speaker 3: of October at Citywinery. If you need to laugh as
Speaker 3: we get through this election and hopefully never hear from
Speaker 3: a guy who lives in a golf club again, we
Speaker 3: got you covered. Join us in our surprise guests to
Speaker 3: help you laugh instead of cry your way through this
Speaker 3: election season and give you the inside analysis of what's
Speaker 3: really going on right now. Buy your tickets now by
Speaker 3: heading to Politics as Unusual dot bio. That's Politics as
Speaker 3: Unusual dot bio.
Speaker 1: Harry Littman is a former US attorney and host of
Speaker 1: the podcast Talking Fans.
Speaker 4: Oh Yes, Oh Yes, Oh Yes, it's our latest Molly mashup.
Speaker 4: Really so happy to be joined by Mollie john Fast
Speaker 4: and are now I can't even count them. Regular gigs
Speaker 4: of exchanging political questions that I feeled I throw at
Speaker 4: Molly and legal questions she throws back in me. Thanks
Speaker 4: as always? Should I start?
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right.
Speaker 4: I don't normally go international, I don't normally go Jewish,
Speaker 4: but yesterday was the one year anniversary of the slaughter
Speaker 4: in Israel, and of course we're between Russia, shot and Yankipoor.
Speaker 4: So I just wanted to ask you, Mollie. You had
Speaker 4: an article in Vanity Fair about what you called Trump's
Speaker 4: efforts to divide American Jews? What inspired you to write
Speaker 4: the article and why now? And a quick follow up
Speaker 4: is what do you make of this claim that a
Speaker 4: lot of American Jews buy that Trump is, in fact,
Speaker 4: whatever else, he may be better for Israel?
Speaker 1: So, yeah, thank you for that question. I did write
Speaker 1: about that. I completely forgot I wrote about it, which
Speaker 1: is such a great moment to be in. I do
Speaker 1: think that this has been a long time thing where
Speaker 1: the right tells the laugh that they can't be good
Speaker 1: Jews because they should be more loyal to Israel.
Speaker 2: This is yet another moment where everything is weird.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: During that speech, which was about quote unquote fighting anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: Trump talked about how Jews are actually more loyal to
Speaker 1: Israel than they are to the United States, and so
Speaker 1: they should vote for him because he really likes Israel,
Speaker 1: which is of course an anti Semitic trope, right, the
Speaker 1: idea that Jews cannot be loyal to the country that
Speaker 1: they come from. I don't know, you know, my grandparents
Speaker 1: were all born in this country, so we've been here
Speaker 1: many generations.
Speaker 2: I've never been to Israel.
Speaker 1: I think that the reality of my Jewishness does not
Speaker 1: define how I feel about politics, and the idea that
Speaker 1: another country should take president over my feeling towards America
Speaker 1: is wild.
Speaker 2: So, but it's a long time thing.
Speaker 1: And it's funny because it's like my grandfather, who was
Speaker 1: a Communist writer or jailed for the House of American Activities,
Speaker 1: would often fight with these conservative Jews.
Speaker 2: And he was a Zionist as anyone, right, because he
Speaker 2: he really I mean, he had lived.
Speaker 1: Through the Holocaust and he had I mean, he had
Speaker 1: been in the United States, obviously, but yet he had
Speaker 1: worked for the United States government during World War Two,
Speaker 1: and he was as committed a patriot as anyone, but
Speaker 1: he understood the importance of a Jewish homeland after the
Speaker 1: you know, the slaughterer of so many Jews.
Speaker 2: But he also really did fight.
Speaker 1: It out with those right wingers who called liberal je
Speaker 1: just disloyal. I mean, it's just an argument that the
Speaker 1: right has been using against the left for a very,
Speaker 1: very long time, and I just wanted to write about
Speaker 1: it a little bit.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 4: I'll just say quickly, all right, what Trump has said
Speaker 4: about October seventh, if he had been president, it wouldn't
Speaker 4: have happened. You know, it's not at all clear to
Speaker 4: me that he's the better candidate.
Speaker 1: But anyway, he's certainly not the better candidate for Israel,
Speaker 1: and the idea that net Yahoo is the best president
Speaker 1: for Israel also is something that many of the Israeli
Speaker 1: people would disagree with. So my question for you is
Speaker 1: it seems like all of the Trump prosecutions are stalled.
Speaker 2: Is that correct? And how is this.
Speaker 1: Possible that this guy who has you know, he's out
Speaker 1: on bail, he's you know, Judge Cannon.
Speaker 2: I mean, where are we with all these Trump cases?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So the short answer is yes with two asterisks. But
Speaker 4: you know, we were fighting the clock and we've lost.
Speaker 4: You know, there was such a thirst for accountability in
Speaker 4: the manner in the guise of an actual trial, and
Speaker 4: apart from New York, which I'll get to in a moment,
Speaker 4: it hasn't happened. He's been able largely to forestall it.
Speaker 4: And now we're at a point where if it happens,
Speaker 4: it'll be after the election. If he wins, the two
Speaker 4: federal ones go away automatically, and the state ones, I
Speaker 4: think will in one fashion another be smothered or at
Speaker 4: least delayed. On the other hand, if he loses, justice
Speaker 4: will grind on. The two asterisks I wanted to note,
Speaker 4: Molly are first, he's gonna be sentenced in New York,
Speaker 4: and people are just wondering will he be after the election,
Speaker 4: And we'll have a short incarceratory penalty. Maybe after the election,
Speaker 4: maybe not, but it won't be a short incarceratory penalty.
Speaker 4: But if you've had friends, and I'm not saying you
Speaker 4: have who are subject to probation and parole, that's a
Speaker 4: fairly pronounced deprivation of liberty. And I think that itself
Speaker 4: gives the court a measure of control over him, so
Speaker 4: he's in the clutches of the criminal justice system in
Speaker 4: some ways.
Speaker 2: In the long run, I mean, he's basically gotten away
Speaker 2: with it so far.
Speaker 4: I think that's right. It'll all come down to the
Speaker 4: reckoning will be after One big exception that's been interesting
Speaker 4: is everyone wanted the trial in the Jack Smith case.
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court snatched it away. Then the mini trial,
Speaker 4: which I just didn't think was feasible, but he came
Speaker 4: out with a long brief that lays it out in
Speaker 4: chapter and verse. So to the extent people wanted it
Speaker 4: exposed to the American people as it was in January sixth,
Speaker 4: it's done that, and there's a lot of bombshells, but
Speaker 4: it really goes back to you political because it looks
Speaker 4: to me like it hasn't had quite a seismic effect,
Speaker 4: and it's not, you know, the big October surprise people
Speaker 4: might might have wanted, notwithstanding that we have it all
Speaker 4: laid out. But somehow even all these extra details you
Speaker 4: would know better, but seem kind of baked into the
Speaker 4: politics of things.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's sort of got a perfunctory news coverage,
Speaker 1: but largely just didn't capture the imagination of the public
Speaker 1: at all.
Speaker 4: It seems to me that's right. I mean, when he
Speaker 4: was convicted in New York, the polls kind of went
Speaker 4: down for him, and there are this is going to
Speaker 4: give rise to some other details. I just had a
Speaker 4: long YouTube with Marcy Wheeler. There's more stuff to mine there.
Speaker 4: But it just it hasn't been the huge thing that
Speaker 4: people were asking for.
Speaker 2: So does this mean the law has not.
Speaker 4: Just means they haven't done the job that people wanted
Speaker 4: them to do, but it's really not the law's job
Speaker 4: to do by this certain point, by the election. It
Speaker 4: means it's up to the people to decide.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I mean I understand that.
Speaker 1: But don't you think that ultimately, if you do a
Speaker 1: lot of crimes when you're president, that the law should
Speaker 1: hold you accountable. Yes, naked, so you can run for
Speaker 1: a president again, hot take.
Speaker 4: The Constitution says so as well, especially if it's a
Speaker 4: certain kind of crime like swearing an oath to the
Speaker 4: United States and then mounting an insurrection. We're in a
Speaker 4: very funky spot. That's a much longer conversation. And look
Speaker 4: to the US Supreme Court, which just started its term yesterday,
Speaker 4: But yes I do. On the other hand, if he loses,
Speaker 4: he is by no means out of the woods, right.
Speaker 2: Only if he loses. If he wins.
Speaker 4: If he wins, all that's left I think is some
Speaker 4: of the state stuff and you know New York, which
Speaker 4: has already happened, and I think the Supreme Court would
Speaker 4: put that on hold. If he wins. His big roll
Speaker 4: of the dice has succeeded if he wins, and people,
Speaker 4: of course will decide what president they want without the
Speaker 4: nawledg of you know, whether he's convicted on multiple cases.
Speaker 4: All right. Kama Harris has been fielding all these criticisms,
Speaker 4: but mainly from elite commentariats, guys like us and the
Speaker 4: right wing, which it seems to me, is flailing to
Speaker 4: try to get at her that she's got to be
Speaker 4: more open to the media and she's now begun to
Speaker 4: do it. She's going to do another sixty minutes. But
Speaker 4: is that right? We're down to three weeks. Does it
Speaker 4: really matter that she exposed herself to unscripted interviews and
Speaker 4: possibly make a gaff or should she just like forget
Speaker 4: this and pedal to the metal and what she's doing
Speaker 4: with rally after rally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think she should just do rallies and call
Speaker 1: her Daddy and the haunt ones and whatever else she
Speaker 1: wants to do and ignore. I mean, this is interesting
Speaker 1: in the fact that it shows that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: no longer matters. There are people who are fancy pundans
Speaker 1: who care about her doing sixty minutes, but she doesn't
Speaker 1: need to do sixty minutes. Like in fact, there was
Speaker 1: some statistic that if you read the newspaper, you're like
Speaker 1: significantly more likely to vote for Harris, right, if.
Speaker 2: You can even read right.
Speaker 1: So obviously this is the thing about like false equivalencies.
Speaker 1: She cannot make people not push her for comments, right,
Speaker 1: She cannot make people push her for policy. Trump's policy
Speaker 1: is childcare is childcare, and he's going to fix the
Speaker 1: price of housing by deporting millions and millions of people
Speaker 1: wait till he has to build camps to concentrate them in.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a like completely on an even
Speaker 1: sense in which these two people are being compared. And
Speaker 1: what Harris should do, I think is just ignore it.
Speaker 1: Do whatever the fuck she wants be out there, like
Speaker 1: doing realies, doing talks, doing whatever. But you know, she
Speaker 1: doesn't like those interviews where they press her and who cares?
Speaker 1: And by the way, like, I think that what is
Speaker 1: irritating the mainstream media is they think it's about her hiding,
Speaker 1: but I think the reality is it's about the diminished
Speaker 1: state of the mainstream media. Like, editorial endorsements don't move
Speaker 1: the needle anymore, editorial board endorsements don't change people's minds.
Speaker 2: Sitting for a.
Speaker 1: Long interview with the journalists for the New York Times
Speaker 1: might be great for you or me, but it's not
Speaker 1: going to do anything for her.
Speaker 4: And the question is always what vote is she going
Speaker 4: to get? That she wouldn't have any way by doing
Speaker 4: sixteen minutes right.
Speaker 1: Right and the call her daddy vote. Those are women
Speaker 1: that she really needs to win a lot of independence,
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans, and they need to care about
Speaker 1: their reproductive health care. I think that's very smart. I
Speaker 1: think that was really a hole in one. I think
Speaker 1: Walls should go on Joe Rogan one hundred percent. Put
Speaker 1: Walls on Joe Rogan. Do it because he Walls is
Speaker 1: a great candidate. Put him on Joe Rogan. That's my take.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I saw him just a couple of days ago,
Speaker 4: he's really winning. Okay, your turn.
Speaker 1: I just read some reporting today that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: that Roberts, who loves to like say bullshit, was upset
Speaker 1: by the pushback he got on the Trump is immune
Speaker 1: forever and ever and he is a god king. Make
Speaker 1: it make sense and also tell me what you think
Speaker 1: might happen here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Roberts, So first, you know he's wanted to be
Speaker 4: mister statesman. But the big story I would say last year,
Speaker 4: Mollie is it was latent all the time, which is
Speaker 4: when the chips are down, and by that I mean
Speaker 4: for the Republican Party. No, mister statesman. Really, he's in
Speaker 4: lockstep now. He wrote, you know, he's within the cocoon
Speaker 4: of the Supreme Court, and he wrote an opinion that
Speaker 4: he actually saw as being somewhat tempered. Had to go
Speaker 4: a little bit right to get Alito in talk and
Speaker 4: maybe Gorse it's not to right separately, but you know,
Speaker 4: we had this really remarkable I know it doesn't seem
Speaker 4: so astonishing if you haven't been in the court, but
Speaker 4: having corked there, the leak of that memo where he
Speaker 4: just is scathing towards the DC Circuit is you know,
Speaker 4: the whole thing with immunity, and that immunity opinion. You know,
Speaker 4: they're just living in a different world. It's not just
Speaker 4: judges everywhere, but academics and people who think something is
Speaker 4: deeply wrong about this. So what is going to happen?
Speaker 4: The first question actually is will Trump succeed in making
Speaker 4: it go up and down, up and down, up and down,
Speaker 4: because the goal of Chuckin and Smith is not But
Speaker 4: even that one up and down trip that's left, that
Speaker 4: means Smith is already accepted that no trials'll say twenty
Speaker 4: twenty six, And I personally think that Chuckin she's likely
Speaker 4: to be where Smith is, and I would have zero
Speaker 4: surprise if the court again smacks her down on what
Speaker 4: she says about the immunity, which is now going to
Speaker 4: be sort of sentenced by sentence on the indictment. So
Speaker 4: I did say, you know, eight minutes ago that he's
Speaker 4: not out of the woods yet. But it's a very
Speaker 4: long path, and you know there's going to be national
Speaker 4: fatigue and everything else over this most important and righteous prosecution.
Speaker 4: But I think the Supreme Court isn't done putting its
Speaker 4: stamp on. Okay to you, JD Vance and one of
Speaker 4: your recent podcasts, you noted how he in some way
Speaker 4: is Trump isn't without Trump. So what do you mean
Speaker 4: by that and what do you see as let's say
Speaker 4: Trump loses for this question just because it's a more
Speaker 4: interesting way to put it.
Speaker 2: Who is JD.
Speaker 4: Vance? And what is the Republican Party post Trump?
Speaker 2: Okay? So I would say two things.
Speaker 1: A lot of people watch that debate and thought what
Speaker 1: I thought, which was this eye is good at making
Speaker 1: Trumpism without Trump work, and the way he's able to
Speaker 1: do it is by lying. One of the things about
Speaker 1: trump Ism without Trump is that Trump he lies. He
Speaker 1: leaves open the possibility that he will not have a
Speaker 1: national abortion ban. Of course he's gonna have a national
Speaker 1: abortion ban. He leaves open the door to things that
Speaker 1: otherwise would be so unpalatable that people wouldn't vote for them.
Speaker 1: Jadevans takes a step further and he just lies. So
Speaker 1: for example, there was this exchange about Obamacare. Right, Trump
Speaker 1: wanted to end Obamacare, but the way jd. Van spun it,
Speaker 1: he was like, he wanted to fix the exchanges.
Speaker 2: They were too expensive. We were trying to cost cut.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were trying to cost cut yeah, but
Speaker 1: they were trying to cut cut and it struck me that,
Speaker 1: like one of Trump's things that he doesn't do because
Speaker 1: he's not organized and because he's so erratic, is that
Speaker 1: he gets so wrapped up in his craziness that he's
Speaker 1: not focused. And a really focused politician who didn't have
Speaker 1: the same kind of distractions. It strikes me that perhaps
Speaker 1: it's emotionality that's bubbling below the circumpus, who knows, or
Speaker 1: maybe it's some larger issue with cognitive decline. Someone like
Speaker 1: that would be able to sell trump Ism in a
Speaker 1: way where you wouldn't even know you were buying it.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem with DeSantis is when Desanta's got there
Speaker 1: up there and tried to sell trump Ism, none of
Speaker 1: that's very popular, right. People don't like the idea of
Speaker 1: losing Social Security. They paid into it, they feel it's theirs,
Speaker 1: they feel they are entitled to it as well they are.
Speaker 1: But like when someone like jade Van says like we're
Speaker 1: going to take away you know, he doesn't quite say
Speaker 1: it like that, but he tries to leave the door
Speaker 1: open the way Trump does. It doesn't work because he's
Speaker 1: not a charismatic guy. But what Vance did where he
Speaker 1: just lied about it. I thought, this is the way
Speaker 1: they're going to if they can do it, this is
Speaker 1: the way they're going to do it. I could see
Speaker 1: that as a future of Trump is I also think
Speaker 1: that if Trump gets elected now, I don't think he
Speaker 1: did so much actual running of the place four years ago.
Speaker 1: It's hard for me to imagine that, older, less interested,
Speaker 1: he's going to be doing more. So that makes me
Speaker 1: wonder how much of it will fall to Vance. And
Speaker 1: I think Vance is much more organized than Trump, and
Speaker 1: so ultimately he could get a lot more done. Also,
Speaker 1: you have Project twenty twenty five of all the GOP
Speaker 1: think tanks are ready to go the minute he wins.
Speaker 4: If he wins, last question this round to Molly Jong
Speaker 4: fast and I will make my answer short to please
Speaker 4: your great producer.
Speaker 1: Is there any chance the document's case is the most
Speaker 1: open and chuckcase. It is the case that has been
Speaker 1: dismissed for seemingly no reason.
Speaker 4: A lotless reasons, poor reasons.
Speaker 2: Is there any world in which that keeps going? I mean,
Speaker 2: what happens there?
Speaker 4: Yeah? So I think there is. As you say, it
Speaker 4: is the most open and shut It's conic when he
Speaker 4: isn't president that anything remotely like that would have been prosecuted.
Speaker 4: Cannon's in the tank. She's done all the work she
Speaker 4: sort of can for him, So we pause it. If
Speaker 4: he wins again federal case, he just orders DOJ to
Speaker 4: stand down. If he loses, I think the Eleventh Circuit
Speaker 4: in a matter of months will reverse that. The DOJ
Speaker 4: I thought was, we're kind of weenies in not moving
Speaker 4: to recuse her. But I think there's only so much
Speaker 4: she can do. Yeah, my betting odds would be I
Speaker 4: would bet that if he loses, that one will proceed.
Speaker 4: We'll go to conviction and will be a fairly substantial
Speaker 4: term of imprisonment for the former president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Pure false. Affluent white men can get away with anything.
Speaker 4: False, but more a lot more but false. And I'll
Speaker 4: say one more thing because I'm I'm a former fat
Speaker 4: and prosecutor. People who are charged mainly have done it,
Speaker 4: and yet good lawyering helps, and I'm not saying it doesn't.
Speaker 4: But get away with anything, nag I won't go that far.
Speaker 2: But he's gotten away with this so far.
Speaker 4: Yes he has.
Speaker 2: Thanks Harry, always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about Project twenty twenty five and how
Speaker 1: awful Trump's second term could be. Well, so are we,
Speaker 1: which is why we teamed up with iHeart to make
Speaker 1: a limited series with the experts on what a disaster
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five would be for America's future. Right now,
Speaker 1: we have just released the final episode of this five
Speaker 1: episode series. They're all available by looking up Molly John
Speaker 1: Fast Project twenty twenty five on YouTube, and if you
Speaker 1: are more of a podcast person and not say a YouTuber,
Speaker 1: you can hit play and put your phone in the
Speaker 1: lock screen and it will play back just like a podcast.
Speaker 1: All five episodes are online now. We need to educate
Speaker 1: a Maria Keons on what Trump's second term would or
Speaker 1: could do to this country, So please watch it and
Speaker 1: spread the word. Jeff Jarvis is the director of the
Speaker 1: tow Night Center of Entrepreneurial Journalism and the author of
Speaker 1: the Web we Weave Why we Must Reclaim the Internet
Speaker 1: from moguls, misanthropes, and moral panic. Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Jeff Jarvis,
Speaker 1: Too Fast Politics.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So you know it's reflexed to say, oh,
Speaker 5: thanks for having me, but I really mean it. I
Speaker 5: am a disciple of yours. I hang on your every word.
Speaker 5: I'm grateful when I see you on TV and grateful
Speaker 5: to MSNBC for making you a contributor. So really thank
Speaker 5: you for having me. I've been hoping for this conversation.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm I'm such a fan of yours because you
Speaker 1: were very much the pundits pundit.
Speaker 5: Oh well shucks.
Speaker 2: And you also do a.
Speaker 1: Thing that many of us don't do as much as
Speaker 1: probably we should, which is you hold people to account,
Speaker 1: which you know, the whole system of being in the
Speaker 1: media is that we're all you know, we're doing this job,
Speaker 1: but there's a feeling like maybe we're buddy buddy, and
Speaker 1: maybe we shouldn't say, you know, we shouldn't do media
Speaker 1: on media violands. You're here to talk about the state
Speaker 1: of the mainstream media, and hopefully you will come back
Speaker 1: many more times and do that. But you are also
Speaker 1: here because you have a new book out, and talk
Speaker 1: to me about this book.
Speaker 5: We can get rid of that pretty quickly. So it's
Speaker 5: a book about defending the freedoms of the Internet called
Speaker 5: The Web We Weave. And this is the first interview
Speaker 5: I've done about the book. So we'll make it quick
Speaker 5: because then we want to dish on media, but it's
Speaker 5: basically a critique of media's moral panic about the Internet.
Speaker 5: And my fear is the more that media treat the
Speaker 5: Internet as the enemy, the worse the policy will be
Speaker 5: about it. The same thing happened with novels and Nickelodeon's.
Speaker 2: Yes, printing press everything.
Speaker 5: I have another book out called the Gutenberg Parenthesis about
Speaker 5: the printing press, and I delve deeply into that. So
Speaker 5: this is an effort to say I defend the Internet,
Speaker 5: not the companies, but the Internet because somebody has to.
Speaker 5: And the only area where you and I have disagreed
Speaker 5: on the socials over time.
Speaker 1: That's right, and you actually know a lot more about
Speaker 1: it than I do, so I'd love for you to
Speaker 1: talk about it because it's a topic that is very
Speaker 1: misunderstood section two thirty.
Speaker 5: So you have said over time and you're among many
Speaker 5: who say something must be done and how can the
Speaker 5: companies get away with this? And then I respond to
Speaker 5: you and saying we need to have this conversation because
Speaker 5: Section two thirty is kind of a first Amendment for
Speaker 5: the Internet in that it enables freedom of expression. That
Speaker 5: you might say, oh, well, that's what the problem, but
Speaker 5: there's a whole bunch of awful expression. But it's also
Speaker 5: a case that the Internet has enabled communities who were
Speaker 5: always there but for too long not heard in big,
Speaker 5: old mass media run by people who look like me.
Speaker 5: Old white men now have their spot light and their
Speaker 5: microphone and their ability to be heard. And my fear
Speaker 5: is that if we hold platforms accountable and suable for
Speaker 5: everything that's said there, they will use that as an
Speaker 5: excuse to get rid of much speech, especially those who
Speaker 5: are not otherwise heard.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And that's a really good point. I come from nineties magazines,
Speaker 1: so I remember when you wanted to write a piece
Speaker 1: in Vogue, you had to get it through five editors
Speaker 1: and then Anna Winter, and it was like really a production,
Speaker 1: and sometimes people would change their minds about what they wanted,
Speaker 1: and so you really there was just such a barrier
Speaker 1: to entry. And now if you have a good idea,
Speaker 1: even if it's not fully developed, you can share it
Speaker 1: with you know, hundreds of thousands, maybe as many as
Speaker 1: a million people.
Speaker 5: Right, and we can hear voices and communities that otherwise
Speaker 5: are not heart Black Twitter is an amazing and wonderful thing.
Speaker 5: I don't know if you saw this as you're traveling
Speaker 5: from one weird city to the next. But right before
Speaker 5: we went on the air, Taylor Lorenz announced that she's
Speaker 5: leaving the Washington Post and starting her own substock. So
Speaker 5: now she can say what she wants to say without
Speaker 5: that kind of gauntlet she would have to go through
Speaker 5: and had to go through in the New York Times
Speaker 5: of the Washington Post. And I can't wait to see
Speaker 5: her unchained.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's still a lot to recommend a
Speaker 1: lot of these places, especially because they find well, we're
Speaker 1: on the opinion side, so it's much easier, you.
Speaker 2: Know, to write stuff we don't have to.
Speaker 1: But you know that there are a lot of journalists
Speaker 1: who are these Like one of my best friends is
Speaker 1: a reporter for the New York Times, and she writes
Speaker 1: these stories that take months and months to report out
Speaker 1: and need endless fact checking and legal and it's just
Speaker 1: a very intense process.
Speaker 5: And I respect that I started young, but I've been
Speaker 5: in the field for fifty years. I have some regrets
Speaker 5: now about how I've spent my life in mainstreams, so
Speaker 5: called mainstream air quotes, mass media. I'm disappointed, in disillusioned,
Speaker 5: especially these days with the institutions like the New York
Speaker 5: Times and the Washington Post and CNN, and the right
Speaker 5: has always gone after instream media, fake news, Lougan Press,
Speaker 5: a awful, awful right. One could track it back to
Speaker 5: the Iraq War and so on, but really, in the
Speaker 5: last I think two years or so, the disappointment and
Speaker 5: anger on the left about the New York Times, Washington
Speaker 5: Post at all is loud and palpable, and I think
Speaker 5: that there are things going wrong at those institutions that
Speaker 5: they're not listening to this criticism. They're getting all the
Speaker 5: more defensive about it. I was on a podcast this
Speaker 5: morning and recording one with someone from big Old Media
Speaker 5: who just was constantly defensive about big media, and they're
Speaker 5: not understanding. I think that there are huge issues there.
Speaker 5: What do you see in the reaction to big old media.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good point.
Speaker 1: It's something that I think a lot about because, you know,
Speaker 1: especially now that we're on this tour, people ask we
Speaker 1: do questions at the end, and people have complaints about
Speaker 1: mainstream media questions about it.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 1: I feel that the opinion side, and this is as
Speaker 1: someone who is on the opinion side, is such a
Speaker 1: small smattering of content, and while it can be you know,
Speaker 1: for example, there are certainly opinion columnists whose beliefs I
Speaker 1: do not share. I think a lot of the reporting
Speaker 1: is super important, and I think that some of that stuff,
Speaker 1: I mean, Pro Publica does it, The New York Times
Speaker 1: does it, the Washington Post does it, but not a
Speaker 1: ton of places do it, and that's because it's super expensive.
Speaker 1: And I think that is important enough. And we haven't
Speaker 1: seen substacks really be able to kind of do that yet.
Speaker 1: Now maybe there's a time when they'll be able to
Speaker 1: do it. But you know, if we don't have the reporting,
Speaker 1: it's hard to write those opinion pieces if we especially
Speaker 1: with an administration like if Trump comes back into power,
Speaker 1: like there were so many stories we would absolutely not
Speaker 1: have known about it were it not for reporting, Like
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about all the Scott prud stuff or the
Speaker 1: Ryan Zink stuff. So much corruption, and even with these
Speaker 1: court cases, with the Trump court cases, you need someone
Speaker 1: in there to like look at the filings and to
Speaker 1: know how to make sense of them. And even like
Speaker 1: I think of Jason Leopold, who does these amazing Foier requests.
Speaker 2: It's hours and hours and.
Speaker 1: Hours of work with very little content produced, sometimes for
Speaker 1: months and months and months. So I think that stuff
Speaker 1: is so important that people should just hold their nose
Speaker 1: when they don't like the opinion stuff. I also think
Speaker 1: the mainstream media has not met the moment. I think
Speaker 1: everyone who is that they the conventional framing highly problematic,
Speaker 1: does not tell the story, elevates the autocrat, creates a
Speaker 1: false equivalency. I truly believe that, and I think a
Speaker 1: lot of smart people do too. It's hard because there's
Speaker 1: not really a handbook for covering the rise of autocracy
Speaker 1: in a free press.
Speaker 5: But there is, and it's Hannah Arrant.
Speaker 2: Oh interesting, Okay, let's talk about that.
Speaker 5: I've been rereading Hannah Iran. I even reread William Shier's
Speaker 5: Rise and Fall of the Third Break, which might be
Speaker 5: you want to commit me because I'm wacky, but it's not.
Speaker 5: It's because I want to understand the parallels. And I
Speaker 5: have another book out called The Gutenberg Parenthesis, and in
Speaker 5: there I quote Errant at some length where she explains
Speaker 5: the beginnings of totalitarianism in a way that I think
Speaker 5: puts a different challenge on journalism. It's this, it's a
Speaker 5: challenge of belonging because what Arod says is that is
Speaker 5: that the totalitarians and authoritarians separate people from their communities
Speaker 5: so that they are lonely. And I don't mean lonely
Speaker 5: in the trivial way of the surgeon General and in
Speaker 5: sell people and not getting dates. I mean a profound
Speaker 5: loneliness in being alienated from society, and then they are
Speaker 5: vulnerable to the siren call of the cultist, the fascist,
Speaker 5: the authoritarian. So the problem becomes that we don't have
Speaker 5: a pluralistic society where some of these people have that
Speaker 5: other pull on them, and Arrant I think shows us
Speaker 5: what happens. So the most recent example of this is
Speaker 5: the Springfield Dogs and Cats story where Jamel Bowie did
Speaker 5: a great TikTok videos. TikTok videos are spectacular, folks, if
Speaker 5: you were subscribed, and he explained that as blood libel,
Speaker 5: as trying to stir race hate. Now we can see
Speaker 5: that and it's obvious, but in the coverage of it,
Speaker 5: we don't see that. We see, well, it was proven
Speaker 5: to be false. Bart Walls Retjournal. Okay, it's not about facts,
Speaker 5: because I also believe that when people say this crazy stuff,
Speaker 5: it's not about their belief it's about signaling, and it's
Speaker 5: about a loyalty test to their god Trump, And so
Speaker 5: what does a journalism look like that's not about facts
Speaker 5: and fact checking and information. I mean, all that's fine
Speaker 5: and we need that. But the deeper struggle in society
Speaker 5: right now, I think is about belonging and about education
Speaker 5: and about people's ability to think critically. And I'm not
Speaker 5: sure where a new journalism fits in there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that's right.
Speaker 1: I think that it's still very hard to kind of
Speaker 1: get our heads around it.
Speaker 2: That would be my take on this.
Speaker 1: And I also think that we are in a moment
Speaker 1: where mainstream.
Speaker 2: Media is really I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't want to defend the mainstream media because I
Speaker 1: think that what you're doing is useful, and I think
Speaker 1: that there's way too much like we're all buddies here
Speaker 1: kind of stuff, which I don't think is helpful. So
Speaker 1: I appreciate what you're doing, but I do think it's
Speaker 1: just a very tough moment an American life for a
Speaker 1: lot of us. And look, if Trump wins, the mainstream
Speaker 1: media will be off the hook because we'll all be
Speaker 1: in jail.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not to put too fine a point, on.
Speaker 5: It, but I think that's true, or.
Speaker 2: Losing our cable licenses or whatever.
Speaker 5: We become scum and not heard from. I haven't been
Speaker 5: on MSBCT for about four years. Joe Scarborough can drive
Speaker 5: me nuts every other day, but he's out there calling
Speaker 5: fascism fascism. Nicole Wallace, I think is the greatest, and
Speaker 5: she's a former Republican who's calling fascism fascism and racism
Speaker 5: racism and they're considered opinion, whereas our mainstream reported media
Speaker 5: aren't doing it. They won't call lies, lies, racism, racism, misogyny, misogyny,
Speaker 5: and fascism fascism, and I think that means that they
Speaker 5: ultimately lie to the public when they try to treat
Speaker 5: everything asymmetrically with their white glove euphemisms.
Speaker 1: For all this, I don't know that it's an intentional lie,
Speaker 1: as much as it's trouble addressing it. I think again,
Speaker 1: the answer there is ref working right, because the right
Speaker 1: is always saying, you know, this is unfair to us.
Speaker 1: You're making false equivalencies, and they're very good at it,
Speaker 1: and they're very good at being furious. I think that
Speaker 1: mainstream media is a little bit terrified, but there's also
Speaker 1: like a corporate structure for a lot of this media,
Speaker 1: so if the right push is hard enough, they can
Speaker 1: kind of unravel the whole thing by boycotting or saying,
Speaker 1: you know, someone's gone too far. It's ironic because then
Speaker 1: on their side, if one of them goes too far,
Speaker 1: they instead are like, you know, unapologetic, and if anything,
Speaker 1: they double down.
Speaker 5: What frightens me is I think the one out that
Speaker 5: we do have these days is MSNBC. It's on constantly.
Speaker 5: That's how I see you all the time. I don't
Speaker 5: think that's because Comcast is an enlightened company. I think
Speaker 5: it was because that was the market opportunity. It is.
Speaker 5: As someone inside the company once said to me, Jeff,
Speaker 5: remember it's a Republican company. So I fear that with pressure,
Speaker 5: even that outlet for us could disappear.
Speaker 1: I mean, the good news I would say is that
Speaker 1: the way it works with all of these now, especially
Speaker 1: where there is such a lower bar to entry, is
Speaker 1: that ultimately, if there's appetite, the thing will exist. Yes,
Speaker 1: And if you look at for example, one of the
Speaker 1: big problems right now is that the cable has been
Speaker 1: too slow to go to streaming, so you have all
Speaker 1: these people in this country who are under the age
Speaker 1: of forty five who do not have cable boxes because
Speaker 1: that's not how they watch TV. But they want to
Speaker 1: watch news and they can't right because they don't you know,
Speaker 1: they either have.
Speaker 2: To stream MSNBC. It's not organic.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a place for an organic streamer
Speaker 1: where you turn on your Apple TV and there's news going.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's going to happen pretty soon.
Speaker 1: As my guess, if there's appetite, it is the capitalist
Speaker 1: system still, and I think there is appetite for liberal
Speaker 1: news now.
Speaker 2: The thing that I worry about.
Speaker 1: Is someone who comes from magazines, is magazines were too
Speaker 1: slow to get online and so they ended up really
Speaker 1: sort of playing themselves. So my anxiety is more like,
Speaker 1: can news get online in the way it needs too
Speaker 1: fast enough to capture audiences.
Speaker 5: So not to overplug myself. But I have a third
Speaker 5: book out right now called Magazine. It's a short little book.
Speaker 5: I started the magazine Entertainment Weekly. I worked for people
Speaker 5: at Time Inc.
Speaker 2: I love magazines, really Time Magazine. Yeah, but I think.
Speaker 5: That magazines are coming to their end. They're at the
Speaker 5: end of their arc because of what you just said.
Speaker 5: They didn't understand how to update themselves for a community
Speaker 5: and conversational based media rather than a content based media.
Speaker 5: They still insisted that we have to make this thing
Speaker 5: that makes us special, when in fact, what magazines should
Speaker 5: have seen was that they were maypoles that people gathered
Speaker 5: around of common interest and taste. And they lost the
Speaker 5: opportunity and they wasted millions and millions of dollars to
Speaker 5: try to figure out the Internet and never did. It's
Speaker 5: a tragedy.
Speaker 1: As someone who loves magazines comes from magazines, there was
Speaker 1: a great opportunity.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think some magazines have survived Vanity Fair.
Speaker 1: It's much smaller than it was, you know, Vanny Fairs
Speaker 1: where I work, and I love them, and I'm very
Speaker 1: happy there, a New Yorker and a couple of different places.
Speaker 1: But I do think ultimately they had the market share
Speaker 1: and they gave it away.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I think they misinterpreted what their role in
Speaker 5: society was. As I went back to the history of magazines, Welly,
Speaker 5: it fascinated me that in eighteen fifty when Harper's Magazine started,
Speaker 5: it started in a time of the industrialization and mechanization
Speaker 5: of print Before that, the average circulation of a daily
Speaker 5: newspaper in the US was four thousand. It was a
Speaker 5: good substack newsletter, right, So long comes this avalanche of
Speaker 5: new content and new speech, and Harper's came along, and
Speaker 5: their mission at the beginning was curatorial. There's so much
Speaker 5: good stuff out there. Somebody has to find the good stuff.
Speaker 5: That's why we're here. And that's what it did before
Speaker 5: it eventually developed its own voice. And so I wonder
Speaker 5: where is the Harper's of eighteen fifty four today? Where
Speaker 5: is that role that magazines used to play to say,
Speaker 5: we're going to find the good and interesting and authoritative
Speaker 5: voices and experience not just the writers we assigned, but
Speaker 5: the people who were already out there on YouTube, on substack,
Speaker 5: on the socials. I think there's a huge opportunity to
Speaker 5: rethink a magazine's role in society around the speech that
Speaker 5: now exists.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean, I think that was the secret
Speaker 1: of Drudge too, was able to put together, was able
Speaker 1: to find everything in a way, and that was really
Speaker 1: the secret of Twitter now whatever it is. The thing
Speaker 1: that really haunts me, if you want to go down
Speaker 1: this wrap, is we are this enormous country right. Three
Speaker 1: hundred plus three hundred and thirty million people in this country,
Speaker 1: and very small amount of us read the news, So
Speaker 1: where are people getting their news? Where are they getting
Speaker 1: their information?
Speaker 5: So that I think is a failure of our old
Speaker 5: mainstream media. And I started newspaper sites for Advance, the
Speaker 5: same company as Vanity Fair, and my boss, Steve Neuhaus
Speaker 5: is now the chairman of the company, was brilliant about
Speaker 5: understanding that the Internet was fundamentally about conversation. But it
Speaker 5: was really hard to take what was seen as the
Speaker 5: content of magazines and bring it to online. Almost every
Speaker 5: magazine company out there thought we ought to have TV shows,
Speaker 5: we ought to have a website, rather than understanding that
Speaker 5: they should, I think loose their people onto TikTok as
Speaker 5: long as it exists, and Twitter I'll not call it
Speaker 5: X and other places to build relationships with this public
Speaker 5: in new ways. That's anathetical to how they think, but
Speaker 5: I think that's what's going to if anything can and
Speaker 5: rescue them. It's about letting the Taylor Lorenzs of the
Speaker 5: world Louis within the Washington Post, rather than putting handcuffs
Speaker 5: orders such that she can't do what she did wants
Speaker 5: to do and has to leave right.
Speaker 2: No, you have to be.
Speaker 1: I mean that is one of the nice things about
Speaker 1: being a vany fairs that I don't have the same
Speaker 1: kind of right.
Speaker 2: They want your voice right, and I just.
Speaker 1: Don't have the same kind of regulations that they do
Speaker 1: at the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: This is so interesting. I hope you will come back.
Speaker 5: Oh, I hope you'll have me.
Speaker 2: Yes, I absolutely will.
Speaker 1: And it's so interesting and I think it's a really
Speaker 1: important conversation.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Willy.
Speaker 3: No moment Thicko Jesse Cannon probly judged fast. I kind
Speaker 3: of consider myself the terrible culture reporter sometimes on this podcast.
Speaker 3: So to tee up what we're going to do here,
Speaker 3: I have to explain to our audience who theo Vona is,
Speaker 3: because I imagine some of them are smart enough to
Speaker 3: not realize that this is a comedian who got famous
Speaker 3: by powering around the Joe Rogan and Tim Dillon world.
Speaker 3: But that is like they're sober but seamstoned buddy that
Speaker 3: somehow has taken a real liking to interviewing all sides
Speaker 3: of politics. He's recently hat on Bernie and Mark Cuban
Speaker 3: in addition to Trump, and today his guest was Teamster's
Speaker 3: union president Sean O'Brien. Tell us what you saw here.
Speaker 2: Teamsters were in big trouble. They were rescued by a
Speaker 2: man called Joe Biden as a reward for that.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are being completely fucked over by the Teamsters
Speaker 1: who are not endorsing Harris and who are largely just
Speaker 1: going their own way. Teamster President Sewan O'Brien rips into
Speaker 1: Democrats on THEO Vaughn's podcast, saying that the party fucked
Speaker 1: over his union members and revealing that a recent meeting
Speaker 1: with Chuck Schumer got fucking ugly. I'm going to give
Speaker 1: this guy a hearty fuck. That guy can't wait to
Speaker 1: see what Republicans with their right to work states do
Speaker 1: to union members. Ain't going to be pretty. You guys
Speaker 1: should vote in your own interests. That's it for this
Speaker 1: episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday
Speaker 1: and Saturday to hear the best minds in politics make
Speaker 1: sense of all the chaos. If you enjoyed this podcast,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend or an enemy and
Speaker 1: keep the conversation going