Speaker 1: In the days after the presidential election, CIA director Gina
Speaker 1: Hasspell flies to Frankfort, Germany on a secret mission to
Speaker 1: secure a computer servers that contain evidence that the election
Speaker 1: has been manipulated. These servers, owned by a bankrupt Spanish
Speaker 1: company called skital, could prove that the election was rigged
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. Hasspell and a team of Special Forces
Speaker 1: troops to send on Freightfurt to destroy the evidence, but
Speaker 1: in the reign five troops and the CIA official are killed.
Speaker 1: Hasspell herself is injured, flown to Guantanamo Bay and given
Speaker 1: a tribunal for treason. In two thousand nine, Venezuelan leader
Speaker 1: Hugo Chavez creates a voting system that could change votes
Speaker 1: in elections in any country using this advanced technology. One
Speaker 1: of the technology companies that uses it is called smart Mannock,
Speaker 1: which supplies voting equipment to a single U. S county
Speaker 1: in the election. The scheme between smart Mannick and Hugo
Speaker 1: Chavez is a secret and successful effort to ring the
Speaker 1: election for Joe Biden, even though Chavez has been dead
Speaker 1: for seven years. Patscara Italy, a rogue employee at the
Speaker 1: Defense and Aerospace company, Leonardo Spa, hacks into military satellites
Speaker 1: to change the margin of victory in US states where
Speaker 1: Trump has beaten Biden. It's a variable coup data and
Speaker 1: it would go down as the most extraordinary effort in
Speaker 1: history to overturn a presidential election. Oh you know what,
Speaker 1: that one actually sounds pretty fun. Italian military satellites, Mamma Mia,
Speaker 1: These sound great. Oh I'm forgetting one. How could I
Speaker 1: not mention the Hungarian vector? There's been so many bizarre
Speaker 1: stories going on through the media. You can have some
Speaker 1: pretty far fetched ideas on both sides, and what we're
Speaker 1: doing is simply proving or disproving as many of those
Speaker 1: as we can. Speaking at somebody on the outside, this
Speaker 1: feels like it's just feeding into conspiratorial thinking. We're MythBusters. Great, okay,
Speaker 1: we're doing things we think are foolish, but people believe
Speaker 1: it's real. If we validate that something they think might
Speaker 1: have happened didn't happen, then we're not throwing fuel on
Speaker 1: the fire. Are you looking into the Hungarian vector? I
Speaker 1: didn't know about that one, or it's a bullshit thing
Speaker 1: I just made up. That sounds cool and a little
Speaker 1: bit spooky. This is Jordan Clapper figures the conspiracy. And yes,
Speaker 1: those election conspiracy theories do sound a lot more exciting
Speaker 1: when we put public domain suspenseful music underneath them. You
Speaker 1: may have heard a few of those theories, partly because
Speaker 1: the White House and Republicans in Congress were publicizing them
Speaker 1: in the weeks after the election to convince Americans that
Speaker 1: the election was stolen, and it worked to an extent.
Speaker 1: Republicans still believe the election was stolen, according to a
Speaker 1: Monmouth University poll from September of this very year. Today,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk to someone who has had the most
Speaker 1: legal success against Trump's efforts in court to overturn the election,
Speaker 1: and we're also going to talk to Supreme Court expert
Speaker 1: about the cases in front of the court now that
Speaker 1: could determine how few elections here are conducted. But before
Speaker 1: we get there, I really want to go back to
Speaker 1: the Italian military satellites. This is what became known as
Speaker 1: Italy Gate, and it's filled with more juicy content than
Speaker 1: a piping hot cal zone. And the craziest part of
Speaker 1: this conspiracy theory is that Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: was emailing details of it to the Attorney General Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Rosen to try to get him to do something or
Speaker 1: anything about it. I can't unpack Italy Gate alone. So
Speaker 1: let's introduce Eric Lavay. He's a digital research analyst at
Speaker 1: the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and a former investigative journalist
Speaker 1: who wrote extensively about the Italy Gate conspiracy theory, or
Speaker 1: as I like to call it, lasagna gazi. There's good,
Speaker 1: There's just there's gonna be a lot of these, Eric,
Speaker 1: So I hope you're ready. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: Let's start at the very beginning of this conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: which comes from an organization called Nations in Action, The
Speaker 1: group apparently based in Sarasota, Florida, which published a press
Speaker 1: release titled Senior I t expert at Global Defense country
Speaker 1: actor that testifies an Italian federal court. He had other
Speaker 1: switched votes throughout America in the US presidential race. Can
Speaker 1: you explain some of this for US? Yeah, definitely. So
Speaker 1: it emerged, it's sort of in late and it's still
Speaker 1: a little bit murky about where it came from. The
Speaker 1: Washington posted a really good article on it, but it
Speaker 1: possibly was It had sort of origins in an article
Speaker 1: in Italian media and then a um an x C
Speaker 1: I A station chief named Bradley Johnson UH put out
Speaker 1: a video. But the ones who really pushed it forward.
Speaker 1: To answer your question were Maria's Zack from Nations in
Speaker 1: Action and a woman named Michelle Roosevelt Edwards, let's start with,
Speaker 1: let's let's break down. Talk to me a little bit
Speaker 1: about Maria Strolo ZAC. You've talked to her, correct, I
Speaker 1: talked to UH. I called her number and an identical
Speaker 1: voice answered the phone, UM who said it wasn't her. Uh,
Speaker 1: So theoretically talked to somebody who a bit herself pretending
Speaker 1: to be somebody else. That's why I'm reporting, like, that's
Speaker 1: why I hate phone calls and I like emails. The
Speaker 1: air of zoom works for you because you did what
Speaker 1: that person looks like as opposed to distrusting. But but
Speaker 1: who is this person? Who is Maria Strolo's at So
Speaker 1: she's um a conservative activists and an ex Georgia lobbyists
Speaker 1: who I guess was pretty successful. And um, I think
Speaker 1: she ran for office a few times herself, just on
Speaker 1: the local level, just at some point got very involved
Speaker 1: in this Italy Gate. Conspiracy and pushed it very far.
Speaker 1: I feel like, if you're in this world you're talking
Speaker 1: about Italian satellites, those things flipping, you're probably a character.
Speaker 1: Is she a character? I'm guessing it's interesting because when
Speaker 1: I watched the videos, like, she's clearly like a very
Speaker 1: intelligent person. That's what's also like, so there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of, uh, you know, you have this conspiracy theory obviously,
Speaker 1: which is which is false, but then you have a
Speaker 1: person who's like, you know, she's laying it out with confidence.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about Michelle Roosevelt Edwards. So
Speaker 1: she um runs another organization called the Institute of Good
Speaker 1: Vernance and uh, she sort of worked closely with Maria
Speaker 1: zack On on Italy Gate. So the Washington Post had
Speaker 1: a big article that at some point in icelandic film
Speaker 1: crew went to interview Michelle Roosevelt Edwards. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that was for. But in the house, um, I
Speaker 1: guess there was remember that movie The Game where there's
Speaker 1: like there was something weird and like the house and
Speaker 1: she really like in Michael Douglas is like, no, like
Speaker 1: this isn't a real house. That the film crew was
Speaker 1: in there and They're like, is this your house because
Speaker 1: it's something and she's like, yeah, it's my house. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it turns out that it wasn't her house. It was
Speaker 1: some other woman's mansion and she's just a realtor, like
Speaker 1: in the area and it's not her house. And the
Speaker 1: poor woman her husband died. She didn't even know. She's like,
Speaker 1: why is this woman in my house? Um? Wait? Was
Speaker 1: that woman in the house at the time. She's like,
Speaker 1: dear lord, dear lord, who was interviewed in my living room?
Speaker 1: She was somewhere else or something. But it was like
Speaker 1: I felt I felt bad for her. No, it's like
Speaker 1: she was just using this house for like, uh, I
Speaker 1: don't know business. You're telling me this person who put
Speaker 1: up an entire false front to show that she's more
Speaker 1: successful than she has she's somehow connected to this whole
Speaker 1: Trump world. I don't buy it. I don't buy it.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't It doesn't sit well with me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's tough to believe that was like that was
Speaker 1: that just that killed me? Okay? And I want to
Speaker 1: I want to dig into sort of their roles within this.
Speaker 1: But this this initial thought was sort of revolving around
Speaker 1: an employee. Are turo Delia? Correct? Yeah, there's um. I
Speaker 1: was thinking about this last night. This is the hardest
Speaker 1: thing about Italy Gate, is I mean, to stay at
Speaker 1: the obvious is like explaining it. The short version is
Speaker 1: Italian satellites based in Piscara, Italy. Uh altered the votes,
Speaker 1: giving Joe Biden enough votes from Donald Trump to win.
Speaker 1: That's the short version of Italian satellites. And they're the
Speaker 1: bad guys. Well, there's a lot of players in this. Uh,
Speaker 1: the c I, a former president Barack Obama, A the
Speaker 1: hacker that you just referenced, and a lawyer who put
Speaker 1: out an affidavit. There's like those four. Those are the
Speaker 1: four and so the hackered. He worked for something called
Speaker 1: Leonardo Spa. Yeah, he worked there. Um they said he
Speaker 1: left in two thousand seventeen, which is another problem because
Speaker 1: he when he was indicted for a separate Uh. I
Speaker 1: think it was like data theft. He didn't even work
Speaker 1: at Leonardo. What is Leonardo Spa? I mean it sounds
Speaker 1: like a massage parlor and like a cheap one just
Speaker 1: outside Rome that like you you splurge because you're on vacation,
Speaker 1: but you don't have enough money, So you're something like,
Speaker 1: what's the cheaper one, like, come to Leonardo Spa. It's
Speaker 1: right next to Michelangelo nails. That was a very specific Uh,
Speaker 1: not that this is a hypothetical. I've not had that experience.
Speaker 1: I imagine if you're pouring in Italy and just had
Speaker 1: had a hard time on a long plane because those
Speaker 1: seats there's not a lot of space, and you're a
Speaker 1: tall person, hypothetically you're gonna be looking for Leonardo Spa.
Speaker 1: This is not that kind of Spa exactly. No, it's
Speaker 1: a uh someone more boring military, you know, like a
Speaker 1: military they make military equipment and satellites stuff like that,
Speaker 1: like a like a Boeing so a bow. And then
Speaker 1: this is this Arturo Delia. Delia does he actually work
Speaker 1: for Leonardo Spa. Uh My understanding is at some point
Speaker 1: he did work there, but he was gone by two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen. And is there any information that says that
Speaker 1: he had access to these Italian satellites in a way
Speaker 1: that could alter election zero zero? Okay, okay, okay, but
Speaker 1: so walk us through this. So the head of uh
Speaker 1: Nations in action this group to personate Maria Strolo Zach
Speaker 1: who you've spoken with in your reporting. What she what's
Speaker 1: she like? Well? And to be clear, I was telling
Speaker 1: your producer that was that was a funny story because
Speaker 1: when I called Maria Zack for comment um obviously being
Speaker 1: a phone, I can't I don't know for a fact
Speaker 1: that I can say that. The person answered sounded exactly
Speaker 1: like her, but told me very quickly it was not
Speaker 1: her um and actually said it was her secretary and
Speaker 1: could she the phrases could she return? And I was
Speaker 1: I was telling that. I was like, it's this is
Speaker 1: a cell phone. But anyway, I was like, you know,
Speaker 1: sure of course, but so did you ever did that
Speaker 1: person then pretend to hang up, put on a gruff
Speaker 1: voice and then attempt to then answer the phone. It
Speaker 1: was the same voice, but they were just like, you know,
Speaker 1: can she return? And I was like, you know, when
Speaker 1: you're a reporter, like it's things like that happened. So yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: of course, no comment. Just to be where if if
Speaker 1: you're also like a public figure and somebody calls you
Speaker 1: and you pretend to be your own assistant just because
Speaker 1: you think it gives you status, that doesn't make you weird.
Speaker 1: That's just a savvy media person thing to do. And
Speaker 1: if my parents or my friends think that's a desperate
Speaker 1: attempt or that I'm not in a good place, well
Speaker 1: that's more on them. Can you verify that? Yeah? What
Speaker 1: what jumped out of me? I always remember about that
Speaker 1: was how quick it was. It was very I mean,
Speaker 1: you know your comedian, you're an improviser. It was real quick.
Speaker 1: There was no plause like like that had happened before.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's you know, that's I mean, that's an interesting
Speaker 1: way of looking at it as opposed to just somebody
Speaker 1: who's quick on the on the go. Um. All right,
Speaker 1: so you had a quick interaction with this Maria strolo Zac.
Speaker 1: But again to what what what? What? What is our
Speaker 1: understanding of this story? So she is head of Nations
Speaker 1: and Action. What is Nations in Action? If you go
Speaker 1: on their web page, there's a lot of sort of
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories, and I think they say that their statement is,
Speaker 1: you know, good government bringing transparency. Obviously whether that's true
Speaker 1: is up to to be determined. And so, but she
Speaker 1: was able to get this conspiracy and this idea in
Speaker 1: front of important people. Can you walk us through some
Speaker 1: of that? Yes, So she she used to be a
Speaker 1: lobbyist in Georgia's So she's got like close relationships with UM,
Speaker 1: as I reported on UM Congress from Barry Loudermilk, one
Speaker 1: of the one of the top five names in all
Speaker 1: of Congress. Like, if if you're going to you know,
Speaker 1: if you're going to articulate what it feels like to
Speaker 1: hear a Southern Republican droll on louder Milk feels right,
Speaker 1: it feels feels obnoxious and white, which d Yeah, he's uh,
Speaker 1: he's an interesting guy. I think I think they were,
Speaker 1: he and his staff. Uh, I think we're getting pretty
Speaker 1: tired of my emails. After a while they stopped, they
Speaker 1: didn't ever respond to me, but then they added me
Speaker 1: to their mailing list. So that's how you shut somebody up.
Speaker 1: But just give him the spam. Um, she got it
Speaker 1: to him. She got it to Devin Noon as his staff.
Speaker 1: I mean she you know this thing about last night,
Speaker 1: Like the ordinary person has so much trouble reaching their
Speaker 1: elected officials, and yet this person pushing a complete you know,
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory that's not true, is able to reach
Speaker 1: very high up people. She claims she gave documents to
Speaker 1: louder Milk do we know what was in those documents? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Did you I know you guys are
Speaker 1: probably always working. Did you get a chance to see
Speaker 1: the affidavit that this is all based around, No tell
Speaker 1: us tell us about it. So the whole thing is
Speaker 1: that she delivered an affid David. Um. Basically, what it
Speaker 1: is is it's a photograph of an actual document, which
Speaker 1: right away is a little you know, unusual. It's not
Speaker 1: the document, um, it's it's a lawyer stating that this
Speaker 1: hacker that you mentioned in the beginning, uh, sat in
Speaker 1: front of him and told his story. That's what it is.
Speaker 1: No one's been able there is a lawyer that matches
Speaker 1: this name, but no one's been able to actually show that,
Speaker 1: like really that he uh, that it was that lawyer.
Speaker 1: So it's not clear if this thing is even real.
Speaker 1: You can't even verify that that conversation took place. No,
Speaker 1: and the document, you know, I'm I can't say I'm
Speaker 1: an expert on court documents in Italy, but there's no
Speaker 1: numbers on it, like it's just it looks like someone
Speaker 1: like wrote it on Microsoft Word. And she's also Uh.
Speaker 1: Maria Zack was doing an interview about Italy Gate from
Speaker 1: the back of a car in Washington, d C. On
Speaker 1: January six. What's going on there? This happened. It's very real.
Speaker 1: The president and his right foreign interference did occur and
Speaker 1: people need to be prosecuted in our country who actually participated.
Speaker 1: That was the show called America Can We Talk? And
Speaker 1: that's a very strange interview, just because, as you said,
Speaker 1: it's taking place while our capital is being attacked. But
Speaker 1: there's no mention of it till the end. They're like,
Speaker 1: I think Marie has actually something like, well, if they're
Speaker 1: able to, you know, get this under control, we can
Speaker 1: you know, get this affidavit to more people. It's like
Speaker 1: whoa like, you know, it's very strange. Um. So there's
Speaker 1: there's a lot of interesting red flags and characters within this.
Speaker 1: But after all these conversations, meetings, talking to Congress has
Speaker 1: been louder Milk, how high did this go? Like, who
Speaker 1: in government was actually taking this theory seriously? That's a
Speaker 1: great question. Seriously, I mean in terms of as you
Speaker 1: said yourself, Meadows, I guess would be the highest ranking
Speaker 1: person to get it. But taking it seriously, you know
Speaker 1: a lot of work with conspiracy theorist you wonder who's
Speaker 1: an opportunist who's not? Well, I mean, it's interesting question,
Speaker 1: you say, like taking it seriously. We we we don't
Speaker 1: exactly know what people actually thought, but I I would
Speaker 1: argue that part of the whole game plan here was
Speaker 1: just so doubt so the fact that there were different
Speaker 1: threads for people to hold on to to grasp. Clearly,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is somebody who was just flooding the marketplace
Speaker 1: with any thought out there, so that it's getting in
Speaker 1: people's heads, like who had awareness of it? We're talking Meadows,
Speaker 1: Meadows knew about this, which means trumb had awareness on this.
Speaker 1: How did this thing get into more mainstream culture? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And Zach too. Um, she says she delivered or she
Speaker 1: told Trump about this at maral Lago in twenty I
Speaker 1: can't confirm that, but she said that a number of times. Um. So,
Speaker 1: I guess to answer your question, if if that's true,
Speaker 1: then that reached Donald Trump. Now what all this is happening?
Speaker 1: Is it fair to say that we didn't know how
Speaker 1: much of the or fraud conspiracy theory would stick. Uh,
Speaker 1: These stories were so autlantish that it didn't seem possible
Speaker 1: that millions of people would believe them, And yet even
Speaker 1: today the majority of Republicans say they don't think the
Speaker 1: election was legitimate. Does that encourage Republican lawmakers to push
Speaker 1: more conspiracy theories? No, either probably won't be consequences, and
Speaker 1: that doing so probably will at least help them in
Speaker 1: some way. Consequences are like obviously incredibly important. Like when
Speaker 1: there are no consequences, we're giving a wide latitude to
Speaker 1: speak and that's a good thing. But as you know,
Speaker 1: some of these conspiracies are incredibly harmful. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: In cases like I don't know, let's saying, Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: when people are actually held accountable makes a huge difference.
Speaker 1: Some of them stop tomorrow and you never hear from
Speaker 1: them again. What do you think it was about Italy
Speaker 1: Gate that made it so sticky and interesting to people?
Speaker 1: So there's a conference call I think it was on
Speaker 1: January four. It's between Maria Zack and supporters. Uh so,
Speaker 1: it's right before the attack on the Capitol. It's like
Speaker 1: forty five minutes long, and it's just she lays out
Speaker 1: Italy Gate, and then it's weird, like all these random
Speaker 1: people are popping in, Like like I said, like Marlon
Speaker 1: Maples pops in and just like it's just she's the
Speaker 1: only everyone else is just a first name, so you
Speaker 1: don't even know really who they are. What's one of
Speaker 1: the Maple's doing there? I I don't know, like, uh,
Speaker 1: a supporter, I guess, uh, very strange. And all of
Speaker 1: this was sort of to just hip everybody to the
Speaker 1: Italy gate theory so that they had it in their
Speaker 1: back pocket. I mean, I don't want to say that
Speaker 1: she comes right at and but there's some hints of
Speaker 1: to continue this work. I we will need funding. Um
Speaker 1: like a private plane has talked about at one point,
Speaker 1: so no, she's she's she's asking for a private plane.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It might have been um one of
Speaker 1: the other people, but there's definitely more than one hint
Speaker 1: there about like we need, you know, money, This sounds
Speaker 1: like a timeshare situation. She it's everybody on a conference call.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about this fascinating Italy situation. If
Speaker 1: you give me your attention and enough money for a
Speaker 1: private plan, I have something that is going to take
Speaker 1: your breadth away. In pops, Marlon Maples was like, oh,
Speaker 1: tell me more. It's like thanks, Marla, Marla has been
Speaker 1: on this for quite some time. Herder family are big
Speaker 1: Italy Gate supporters, and you too could be an Italy
Speaker 1: Gate supporter. For just a mirror two thousand dollars, we
Speaker 1: can give you the correct mindset to keep you happy
Speaker 1: from this day forward. Listen to the last seven years
Speaker 1: kind of feel like a time shared. Like do you
Speaker 1: ever feel like that, like you're just trapped? Yes, I
Speaker 1: do feel like I've given over a portion of my
Speaker 1: life to live in a different reality every year. And
Speaker 1: you look at it, you like, I think this is
Speaker 1: a bad investment. I think the time share is giving
Speaker 1: in to all of this bullshit that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: It just it sucks away so much time that I
Speaker 1: could be using for something else. It's not a time share.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's maybe what we're describing as a time suck.
Speaker 1: We've all invested in a time suck that we will
Speaker 1: never get back. We can all agree is a really
Speaker 1: bad investment. It's wild. I mean, this is the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory that like I think I was telling your producer,
Speaker 1: Like even other conspiracy theorists are like like, like, that's
Speaker 1: how far this one is is out there? Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: what does this Italy Gate conspiracy rake in terms of
Speaker 1: all the conspiracies related to the election, I would say,
Speaker 1: in terms of the ones that are like the wildest,
Speaker 1: this has to be at the top. I can't think
Speaker 1: of I know you guys have been doing this for
Speaker 1: a while and on your podcast. If there's another one,
Speaker 1: I can't think of one. You've got Hugo Chaves so dead.
Speaker 1: Hugo Chavas is a fun one. It's definitely takes a
Speaker 1: stretch of imagination, but there's intrigue their sexiness to this. Uh,
Speaker 1: I'd have to put it up there as well. It's
Speaker 1: also like the little details that kill me, Like the data.
Speaker 1: It wasn't enough that it was the Italian satellites. They
Speaker 1: routed it through Germany. It's like like why, Like that's
Speaker 1: what don't understand, Like, but it's just fascinating there's somebody
Speaker 1: on the ground or in the air in Germany that
Speaker 1: was getting this information or or or working through the
Speaker 1: satellites through Germany. Yeah, they're saying like at some point
Speaker 1: they never got into the sort of like how the
Speaker 1: stuff was transmitted, but it was from the satellites and
Speaker 1: went through I think some servers in Germany. And then
Speaker 1: I guess back to the US, so they're theoretically, if
Speaker 1: this were real, not only are there folks in Italy
Speaker 1: who are culpable, but there are are folks in Germany
Speaker 1: as well, which is what always kind of blows my
Speaker 1: mind with a lot of these conspiracy theories because they
Speaker 1: they hype the idea behind it involves so many people
Speaker 1: that even afterwards, you'd expect. One thing we're really bad
Speaker 1: at is keeping secrets, especially if it's multinational effort to
Speaker 1: overturn results in very specific states, and then it just
Speaker 1: disappears into the void, which is sort of uh. I
Speaker 1: think people should consider a major I don't know red
Speaker 1: flag is the right word. But if if you believe
Speaker 1: so strongly in something you believe has happened, and then
Speaker 1: thirty seconds later when it doesn't, you know, when it's gone,
Speaker 1: you're just onto the next thing. It kind of questions
Speaker 1: like credibility, you know, I think we lost that a
Speaker 1: long time ago. Well, Eric Leavey, thank you for unfolding
Speaker 1: this conspiracy theory. Like carefully needing a perfect pizza pie.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for having me. We're gonna take a
Speaker 1: short break when we come back. We would talk to
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania attorney General and Governor elect Josh Shapiro. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. In the days after the election, Pennsylvania became
Speaker 1: the focus of Republican efforts to overturn the results. They
Speaker 1: ramped up their attacks on the legitimacy of mail in
Speaker 1: ballots and claim that ballots would arrive after election day
Speaker 1: and be mixed with ballots that arrived before election day.
Speaker 1: Anticipating a possible Supreme Court showdown, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh
Speaker 1: Shapiro began separating those post election day ballots and became
Speaker 1: a high profile example of a deaf Aocrat fighting back
Speaker 1: against the voter fraud conspiracy theater, and as the Trump
Speaker 1: team became litigious before and after election day, Shapiro beat
Speaker 1: Trump more than forty times in court. In last month's
Speaker 1: mid term Shaparro won the race for governor of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: defeating one of the country's most prominent voter fraud conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 1: Doug Mastriano and Josh Shaparro is with us today to
Speaker 1: talk about the exciting world of voter fraud. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. Good to be with you, Jordan, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me, of course, and we were debating a current
Speaker 1: governor elect soon to be governor, Josh Shapiro. That's that's
Speaker 1: most of it, right, Yeah, And then look, I only
Speaker 1: require our four children to use all of the titles
Speaker 1: when they address me. You can call me whatever you want,
Speaker 1: and well, not whatever you want, but you can call
Speaker 1: me one of those titles. I was gonna say, do
Speaker 1: you also throw in the beat Trump forty times in court,
Speaker 1: Monika or there's probably a lot of people who also
Speaker 1: have that in their their name as well. The guy
Speaker 1: has been to court many, many times. I don't know
Speaker 1: about that, but listen, we went to court forty three
Speaker 1: times against the former president and his enablers, and we
Speaker 1: beat him every time. We protected the right to vote.
Speaker 1: We had a free and fair, safe and secure election
Speaker 1: here in Pennsylvania back in again and most recently in
Speaker 1: two the will the people was respected each time. When
Speaker 1: you've been at the center of these claims over voter
Speaker 1: fraud for over two years now, even though you did
Speaker 1: win the race for governor, uh, it appears as if
Speaker 1: the state is moving forward. Does it still alarm you
Speaker 1: how many voters, obviously many of them Republicans, appeared to
Speaker 1: have bought into these conspiracy theories it does. But you
Speaker 1: know Jordan's I don't blame the voters, and hear me
Speaker 1: on this. I blame the leaders who've been lying to
Speaker 1: them for the better part of the last two and
Speaker 1: a half years about voting by mail, about this phony
Speaker 1: election fraud. Um. When you have leaders who you trust,
Speaker 1: who you put into positions of authority, and then lie
Speaker 1: to you over and over and over again, it's hard
Speaker 1: to blame the public. I blame the leaders. And the
Speaker 1: good news is we're defeating those leaders who pushed the
Speaker 1: big life from the former president to his chief enabler
Speaker 1: here in Pennsylvania, who I just beat in the governor's race,
Speaker 1: And hopefully now what we can do is continue to
Speaker 1: speak truth to the good people of Pennsylvania, to the
Speaker 1: American people, and help them understand reality from the fiction
Speaker 1: that the former president pushed and get us back to
Speaker 1: having a healthier democracy. Well, I went to one of
Speaker 1: the rallies your opponent held right there at the state
Speaker 1: Capitol and talk to some of the tens of people
Speaker 1: who showed up. I think about twelve people showed up
Speaker 1: that day, and after a minimal amount of fanfare, Mastriano
Speaker 1: appeared and he was freaking hilarious going after the pillow guy,
Speaker 1: are you serious? Give me a break? Beat Scotty, beat
Speaker 1: me up? No side of intelligent life anywhere? Boom. But
Speaker 1: even with the governant Trump endorsement, the crowd was tiny.
Speaker 1: Was it small because of Masstriano's far right policies and
Speaker 1: election denialism? Nope, this is Facebook speech. The reason that
Speaker 1: aren't people here because Facebook is SI. It was a
Speaker 1: low turnout. I felt like it. It seemed as if
Speaker 1: you had a good shot of winning that race. Uh.
Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit about Mastriano though,
Speaker 1: because he may have spread more election related conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: than any other uh candidate. Let's go through a couple
Speaker 1: of these. He uh. He was claiming the voting machines
Speaker 1: glitched in Michigan and switched six thousand Biden votes, so
Speaker 1: we're also responsible for a hundred thousand vote dumps that
Speaker 1: were all for Biden in the middle of the night,
Speaker 1: sharing a Gateway pundit post of suspected fraud issues that
Speaker 1: included away for people to search for dead people who
Speaker 1: voted using something called the Social Security death master file.
Speaker 1: Pretty catchy. He was claiming dominion voting machines were built
Speaker 1: intentionally to rig the election for Democrats, and claiming that
Speaker 1: Acts seventy seven, Pennsylvania law that allows no excuse voting
Speaker 1: by mail, was illegally passed and was responsible for Biden's win.
Speaker 1: Can you walk us through some of these and tell
Speaker 1: us how how you push back against them? Well by
Speaker 1: calling them what they were, complete and utter bullshit, that's
Speaker 1: what they were. He was lying to the good people
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, um and his conduct to try to overthrow
Speaker 1: the last election. Remember, he was part of the violent
Speaker 1: mob that stormed up to the capitol on January six,
Speaker 1: and he went there that day. And it's real important, Jordan.
Speaker 1: He went there that day not just to hear a
Speaker 1: speech from the former president or be part of some
Speaker 1: peaceful protest. He went there that day with a singular purpose.
Speaker 1: That's why they were all there, and that was to
Speaker 1: deny people's votes from county. Because remember, when you vote
Speaker 1: here in Pennsylvania. It's true in other stage, but let
Speaker 1: me focus on Pennsylvania. You vote for the presidential race
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, your vote gets tallied by your local county
Speaker 1: Board of Elections, gets certified by the governor. In the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State in Pennsylvania. But then in order for
Speaker 1: your vote to finally count, it has to be read
Speaker 1: across the desk in the U. S. House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: That's what they were there to do on January six,
Speaker 1: and he was there as part of the violent mob
Speaker 1: to stop them from doing. Then he comes back home
Speaker 1: to Pennsylvania, launches a campaign for governor, and Jordan's He
Speaker 1: says in his campaign that he was going to use
Speaker 1: his power as governor to be able to review all
Speaker 1: the voting machines, make corrections as he calls them, and
Speaker 1: then he would pick the winner. That's not how our
Speaker 1: democracy works. That is not how our republic has survived
Speaker 1: over the last two and forty six years. And so
Speaker 1: it was important for us to beat him, to just
Speaker 1: obviously win the election, but also to protect our democracy,
Speaker 1: to protect the will of the people, and to make
Speaker 1: it clear to folks that spewing conspiracy theories, being part
Speaker 1: of a violent mob playing to overturn the next election
Speaker 1: is not the way things work in the Commonal from
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania were in this country, well. I was surprised many
Speaker 1: of the people I talked to that day were also
Speaker 1: there at January six. It was almost a mini reunion. Uh,
Speaker 1: you have been aggressive at pushing back and it made
Speaker 1: headlines for that. Do you think that your victory is
Speaker 1: a sign that voters are energized by candidates who pushed
Speaker 1: back aggressively against election desiers. You gotta fight back against it.
Speaker 1: And and look, we've done it in big ways and small.
Speaker 1: I mean I've I've been to the hunt clubs in
Speaker 1: rural communities in Pennsylvania and confronted folks directly, and they'll
Speaker 1: say to me, um, where they were saying to me, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the election stolen. So so what what evidence
Speaker 1: do you have that let's just have a conversation. Well,
Speaker 1: there was massive voter fraud. And I say, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm the attorney general. It's my job to prosecute
Speaker 1: election fraud, along with some district attorneys as well. And
Speaker 1: we had about a handful of cases of election fraud
Speaker 1: in by the way, where each of those individuals who
Speaker 1: were prosecuted, we're trying to cast one extra single vote
Speaker 1: for their candidate for president, by the way, for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: not for Joe Biden. But even if they were trying
Speaker 1: to do that for Joe Biden, it wasn't going to
Speaker 1: affect the outcome of the election. It was not this
Speaker 1: widespread voter fraud, and they were prosecuted for it. And
Speaker 1: so I confront folks with truth and try to force
Speaker 1: them to think about the reality of what they are saying.
Speaker 1: In addition to that, it was critically important for us
Speaker 1: here in Pennsylvania, in Arizona, in Michigan and other places
Speaker 1: to defeat those people who continue to spread the lies. Now,
Speaker 1: I said on election night when I won Jordan's that
Speaker 1: this is the beginning of our work. Just because we
Speaker 1: beat these election deniers doesn't mean that it's ridd from
Speaker 1: our system. We have to now do the hard work
Speaker 1: that folks have been doing for the six years in
Speaker 1: this nation, right our ancestors and their ancestors, to perfect
Speaker 1: our union, to speak truth, to make sure that the
Speaker 1: will of the people is respected. So I think we've
Speaker 1: done step one defeating those extremists. But now we've got
Speaker 1: to do the hard work of perfecting our union. And
Speaker 1: that test now falls to me, is the next governor
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania, how complete do you think step one truly is?
Speaker 1: Because I do look looking at those the major election deniers,
Speaker 1: the races in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Here's swing states where
Speaker 1: the people in control of verifying uh, those ballots, uh
Speaker 1: could have very well gone to election deniers. Those big places.
Speaker 1: They were defeated. But but there's still a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are election deniers who are in position of
Speaker 1: power in America. UM, A lot of very close races
Speaker 1: where perhaps election deniers were defeated, but it didn't. When
Speaker 1: I looked at this, I didn't exactly see the idea
Speaker 1: of election denialism expunging from the American narrative. But have
Speaker 1: stepping back for a little bit, is there is there
Speaker 1: a fear that Democrats are a little too confident in
Speaker 1: the pushback of election denialism after this election? Well, well,
Speaker 1: let me say, I'm not confident that it's over at all.
Speaker 1: So don't you know, certainly don't put me in that category.
Speaker 1: I'm in the category where we had a good day
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, November eighth in defeating those extremists, those election deniers.
Speaker 1: But we have so much more work to do now.
Speaker 1: I believe that these election deniers are Mastriano in particularly
Speaker 1: just profoundly and pathetically weak people. And let me explain
Speaker 1: what I mean by that. They know it's bullshit, but
Speaker 1: yet they say it over and over again because they're
Speaker 1: willing to sell out our democracy and our country for
Speaker 1: some short term political gain, for some short term attention,
Speaker 1: maybe some love from the former president. That's why they
Speaker 1: do it. That's the definition of weak if you're willing
Speaker 1: to sell out your nation and our values on behalf
Speaker 1: of your own short term goals. Well, now we've denied
Speaker 1: many of them that short term goal, and hopefully in
Speaker 1: defeating them the way we have it forces that next
Speaker 1: batch of candidates to go along and say Jesus, that
Speaker 1: really the path I want to take to be successful.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make them any stronger. It just speaks to
Speaker 1: how again, how kind of spineless so many of these
Speaker 1: folks are letting them know they're not going to be
Speaker 1: rewarded for the lie. And so I think hopefully this
Speaker 1: will have an effect on the politics as we go forward.
Speaker 1: But we all so need to work on ridding our
Speaker 1: system of these weak folks and getting some people with
Speaker 1: backbones back in it. And and by the way, Jordan's
Speaker 1: even folks who might disagree with me on some policy,
Speaker 1: that's okay, but we got to get back to the
Speaker 1: point where we have strong, capable people in positions of
Speaker 1: public trust who argue about tax policy and health care
Speaker 1: policy and educational policy and all the things that we
Speaker 1: should be arguing about, the healthy fights we're supposed to have.
Speaker 1: But we've got to continue, you the battle against these
Speaker 1: weak people in defeating them in their elections and defeating
Speaker 1: them in their in their political age. Did you have
Speaker 1: any Democrats from other states reach out to you to
Speaker 1: ask advice on confronting this selection denialism. I did a
Speaker 1: lot of them, folks running uh for governor and other offices,
Speaker 1: and you know, I suppose, obviously I'll keep those conversations private,
Speaker 1: but I did speak to them about the need to
Speaker 1: take the fight on directly, to not give an inch
Speaker 1: on this. You know, when they say that something was stolen,
Speaker 1: challenge them on it. Put the facts out there. Make
Speaker 1: sure that you're going directly to the good people in
Speaker 1: my case of Pennsylvania, with the facts. Do not let
Speaker 1: any of that nonsense stand. Okay, Looking forward, well, where
Speaker 1: we are right now, Trump is running again, Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is green lighting misinformation all over Twitter. We know that
Speaker 1: voter fraud conspiracies, they're gonna get worse. What are tangible
Speaker 1: steps the Democratic Party can take to fight and to
Speaker 1: push back? Knowing the world are in right now, you know,
Speaker 1: try to meet people where they are. That's why I'm
Speaker 1: talking to you today. I mean, you've been out front
Speaker 1: on the importance of combating election denialism. You have exposed
Speaker 1: a lot of these folks and the lies they tell
Speaker 1: by you know, mocking them and and and showing not
Speaker 1: the humor in it, because obviously this is incredibly serious,
Speaker 1: but but showing people this in a way that they
Speaker 1: can comprehend it if they don't read, you know, from
Speaker 1: page of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Not to say that your listeners don't read the New
Speaker 1: York Times, but the point at least read the headlines,
Speaker 1: the headlins. But like, you know, you've got to meet
Speaker 1: people where they are. You got to communicate to them.
Speaker 1: You got to show them the difference between fiction and reality.
Speaker 1: And then I have responsibility now as a governor U
Speaker 1: to hold myself up to that high standard and to
Speaker 1: continue to speak truth and continue, uh, you know, to
Speaker 1: communicate meet people where they are, whether we're talking to
Speaker 1: them on TikTok, on your podcast, anywhere We've got to
Speaker 1: meet people where they are and continue to share the truth.
Speaker 1: You say you you you went to hunt clubs, You
Speaker 1: went to places where people had questions about the election.
Speaker 1: I get the question all the time. Do you ever
Speaker 1: change people's minds? Boy? That is that's a unicorn. I
Speaker 1: can't say I'm watching people change their minds about information
Speaker 1: when you were at those places, being confronted with outside
Speaker 1: facts doesn't always is often met with resistance and the
Speaker 1: doubling down of the things they think, they believe. They
Speaker 1: feel challenged away that I have not found conducive to
Speaker 1: reaching a new understanding. Did you actually see that in
Speaker 1: those moments, in those those those those hunt clubs with
Speaker 1: people who were confronting you and you're pushing back? Sometimes
Speaker 1: I did directly. But what I was really going after
Speaker 1: was was not to embarrass anyone in front of their peers.
Speaker 1: Were forced someone to have to look at me in
Speaker 1: front of their peers and say, you're right, I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: What I've thought for the last year, you know, is incorrect.
Speaker 1: What I really wanted was when they left there to
Speaker 1: be thinking about it and the process it, and to
Speaker 1: maybe make a change in their thinking or their politics
Speaker 1: or the way they might vote, and Jordan, I got
Speaker 1: some pretty good evidence that we we made a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people think because I won this governor's race
Speaker 1: by a big margin, and we wanted by about fifteen points.
Speaker 1: But I got more votes than anyone in the history
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania running for governor. And the reason I'm telling
Speaker 1: you that is not to pat myself on the back,
Speaker 1: but because it would be impossible to win with the
Speaker 1: number of votes we did in the margin we did
Speaker 1: with only Democrats. We got a whole lot of Republicans
Speaker 1: and independence cross party lines to support us, a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people who clearly rethought their politics after and
Speaker 1: even and said, you know what, we're gonna go with
Speaker 1: this guy. We're gonna we're gonna go against the election denier.
Speaker 1: We're gonna believe this truth and and hopefully we're gonna
Speaker 1: all be able to continue to come together to repair
Speaker 1: our politics. Well after such a clear hubble brag such
Speaker 1: as that, I thought it was chill about that. Now
Speaker 1: did you did a pretty good job. That's that's where
Speaker 1: I can You're a savvy politician. Even even the bragging
Speaker 1: does come across somehow as as humble and informative. That's
Speaker 1: that's well played. Uh. Well, your high profile and your
Speaker 1: success here has up to some of the speculation where
Speaker 1: people have have seen you in the light of somebody
Speaker 1: who could be a Democratic nominee for president. Do you
Speaker 1: want to use the Jordan Clapper Fingers the Conspiracy podcast
Speaker 1: as a platform that you confirm loving hearing that speculation. Yeah. Now, man, Look,
Speaker 1: I'm just so excited to be governor. I haven't even
Speaker 1: been scorning yet. I got a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: That's all I want to do. That's all my wife
Speaker 1: and kids want me to do, and that's all I
Speaker 1: am gonna do. Awesome, Well, well, thank you for talking
Speaker 1: to me. Governor Elect. Josh Shapiro. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: We're back and we're talking election fraud. It's obviously something
Speaker 1: I hear over and over or on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: But unlike some of the other conspiracy theories we've covered
Speaker 1: on this podcast, this one has some serious implications on
Speaker 1: the future of our democracy. This about the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is hearing arguments in a case called More versus Harper,
Speaker 1: and it could fundamentally change how elections are conducted. To
Speaker 1: write this down with me, I have Supreme Court expert,
Speaker 1: author of Lady Justice, Women, The Law and the Battle
Speaker 1: to Save America and host of the Slate podcast, Amicus
Speaker 1: Dalia Lithwick. Welcome to the podcast. Hi, Jordan's Dahlia. I
Speaker 1: have to call it the fact, and you're well aware
Speaker 1: that you are wearing not one, but two headphones today.
Speaker 1: Is there a conspiracy in this? Do you want me
Speaker 1: to do a secondary podcast on your hyper attention or
Speaker 1: you're just a super big Jordan clapper fingers a conspiracy fan.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can repurpose the joke I made the
Speaker 1: first time you tease me where I said that if
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani can wear two watches, I can wear two headphones.
Speaker 1: But I know I'm a Belton suspenders guy. I went
Speaker 1: to law school and we learned to be very, very
Speaker 1: very compulsive. So that's my story. I'm sticking to it.
Speaker 1: You're a belt and suspenders guy. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: That means it's it's it's is that an overabundance of
Speaker 1: caution or fear that your pants could at any moment fall? Like?
Speaker 1: What is? This? Is what we do on this podcast.
Speaker 1: We really get into the nitty gritty. But this this,
Speaker 1: This is a move out of fear respect. True story.
Speaker 1: I heard the expression at one point very early in
Speaker 1: my career covering oral arguments at the court, and I
Speaker 1: was like, what the hell does this mean? And all
Speaker 1: these lawyers were like, it just means being careful, idiot.
Speaker 1: So I think not to suggest that you're not knowing
Speaker 1: this term implies anything, but it was. I I learned
Speaker 1: the hard way that apparently everyone but me knew that
Speaker 1: Belton suspenders is just kind of shorthand for lawyer Lee
Speaker 1: over cautiousness, maybe so fear that your pencilful do. I
Speaker 1: was going to say, it's interesting, isn't like you. It's
Speaker 1: it's all about spin. It's either caution or it's fear.
Speaker 1: But but I see how the attorneys do it. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a deductive sound, and I appreciate you taking
Speaker 1: that certain suspenders action. To listen to this. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about, you know, the potential collapse of democracy.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a hobby of mine and I want
Speaker 1: to discuss this more v heartbreak. Can we talk about
Speaker 1: that case itself and what that might mean for elections? Sure,
Speaker 1: it is it's hard to say this crisply Jordan's. But
Speaker 1: it's both the most serious and least serious case of
Speaker 1: my career. It's serious because the implications are vast, which
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about. It's also rooted in so
Speaker 1: much nothing that it's almost painful. Like when they call
Speaker 1: it the independent state legislature doctrine or the endo pendent
Speaker 1: state legislature theory. Almost everybody puts doctrine in theory in
Speaker 1: air quotes because there's no there there. It's not something
Speaker 1: that is rooted in constitutional history. It's not something that's
Speaker 1: rooted in tradition. It's something that was almost entirely plucked
Speaker 1: from a chunk of a Ranquist opinion, uh in Bush
Speaker 1: Vigore that only got three votes. It's not a majority
Speaker 1: opinion where he was kind of spitballing. You may recall
Speaker 1: Bush vigor also not a serious decision. So this is
Speaker 1: like a Rank Weest Fever dream that we're in the
Speaker 1: midstup right now. It's a Rank was Fever dream where
Speaker 1: he's sort of spitballing. Hey, maybe state legislatures have you know,
Speaker 1: kind of plenary unreviewable power and state courts can't come
Speaker 1: in and bigfoot on them. It gets two votes. That
Speaker 1: should be the end of the story, but instead it's
Speaker 1: being lifted up as this important piece of doctrine. And
Speaker 1: not to get too in the weeds, but the really
Speaker 1: the reason, and it's serious, is because if the claim
Speaker 1: in this case, and this case comes from a North
Speaker 1: Carolina gerrymander, the North Carolina Supreme Court says, oh, hell no,
Speaker 1: do do your maps again. And the North Carolina Republican
Speaker 1: Legislature takes this to the Supreme Court and says, we're
Speaker 1: here profering this completely assinine, rootless theory that when a
Speaker 1: legislature does election stuff, no court can review it. End
Speaker 1: of story? Is that in a nutshell? If you're to
Speaker 1: explain it to our audience or even our host, pretend
Speaker 1: there's somebody who read the headline of a box article
Speaker 1: but maybe didn't get all the way through because they're busy.
Speaker 1: Is that basically it? It's it's something that's looking at
Speaker 1: the power of state legislatures over federal elections and question
Speaker 1: whether or not they have ultimate power. Is that is
Speaker 1: that ish? But there's there's one clarification. There's one section
Speaker 1: of this that has to do with the electors clause
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. That's the federal elections, there's one that
Speaker 1: is the elections clause that has to do with state elections.
Speaker 1: So this particular case actually doesn't implicate some of the
Speaker 1: stuff we talked about Brad Rafinsburger and you know, state
Speaker 1: electors and sending over fake state electors. This is not
Speaker 1: scooping up that this is about state processes. But it
Speaker 1: does mean that if red state and let's remember thirty
Speaker 1: of the fifty states have read state legislatures, if they
Speaker 1: decide they want to make up new rules about ballot initiatives,
Speaker 1: they want to do new vote suppression, they want to
Speaker 1: um uh close polling plate, whatever they want to do.
Speaker 1: They are saying, nobody can take this to a state
Speaker 1: supreme court, not even a federal court, a state supreme
Speaker 1: court and complain because basically nobody is the boss of me.
Speaker 1: So this, this particular one, is about the state, how
Speaker 1: state election procedures are handled. But one tiny ring well there, Jordan,
Speaker 1: this worth saying. One consequence of that is that if
Speaker 1: they win on that claim, you're going to have on
Speaker 1: the same ballot they used to have state and federal
Speaker 1: elections complete chaos because one set of them can't be
Speaker 1: reviewed and one presumably can. So one of the things
Speaker 1: that this is going to inject into the system is
Speaker 1: totally different lanes for state and federal office. Okay, so
Speaker 1: you're looking perplexed. I'm worried that I've I mean, it
Speaker 1: sounds it sounds like there maybe should be a checker
Speaker 1: of balance in there that these state legislatures shouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to be the final Say where do the justices
Speaker 1: stand on this? Like, what is the actual likelihood that
Speaker 1: state legislatures will gain control of federal election procedures? I mean,
Speaker 1: here's the tricky part. We already have four justices on
Speaker 1: the current Supreme Court who have evinced real enthusiasm for
Speaker 1: this theory. So we have Justices Alito Gorsten Thomas that
Speaker 1: are kind of like pedal to the metal, this is cool. Uh,
Speaker 1: And in some of the pre election cases we saw
Speaker 1: them sort of effusing about how cool this was. And
Speaker 1: then we have a fourth Justice, Kavanaugh, who's done some
Speaker 1: like chin stroking e like, oh, this is kind of
Speaker 1: I think this is pretty compelling, but isn't necessarily all in.
Speaker 1: Let's remember it takes four votes to grant a case,
Speaker 1: so that might be it. We don't know where Amy
Speaker 1: coney Berry's Barrett sits on this. We do know that
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't think this is necessarily a
Speaker 1: fantastic idea. We also know he's irrelevant, so there might
Speaker 1: be five votes already going in. It's probably coming down
Speaker 1: to Amy Coney Barrett is going to uh decide this case.
Speaker 1: That's that's your best guess right now. My guess is
Speaker 1: that John Roberts thinks this is too extreme, and he's
Speaker 1: written lots of prior cases of famously uh an Arizona
Speaker 1: case where he has said time and time again, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we're not taking state just judges powers away over eight legislatures.
Speaker 1: So I think he's pretty much going to adhere to
Speaker 1: some version of that This is whacky do right We
Speaker 1: have We made that point enough. This is insane, and
Speaker 1: John Roberts has many things insane. He is not. So yes,
Speaker 1: I think it comes down to what Justice Barrett thinks,
Speaker 1: and we have no idea on this doctrine what she thinks. Well,
Speaker 1: this issue has popped up over the last hundred years.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has batted it down over and over again.
Speaker 1: Why is it cropping back up? Now? It's cropping back
Speaker 1: up as part of this kind of larger, larger and
Speaker 1: I think this goes to your sort of vote suppression frame.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you can't win majorities anymore
Speaker 1: in America? Right? What you do is you capture state
Speaker 1: houses and then you jerrymander the heck out of your
Speaker 1: state voting systems to make sure that tiny minorities stay
Speaker 1: in charge. And so I think this is of a
Speaker 1: piece with a whole subset of things, whether it's voter supper,
Speaker 1: Russian bills like you know, the stuff that Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: has been fighting, or whether it is ridiculous you know,
Speaker 1: malapportionment that means that you know the Alabama case that
Speaker 1: that the Court heard earlier this year, Meryl, where you
Speaker 1: have a third of Alabama of Alabama is African American,
Speaker 1: almost a third. They're all smashed into one of seven districts,
Speaker 1: so they can't um elect the candidate of their choice.
Speaker 1: So I think there's all sorts of ways that you
Speaker 1: suppress majorities. And I put this in the bucket of
Speaker 1: why do its small if you can do it huge, right,
Speaker 1: if you can just do whatever you want is a
Speaker 1: state legislature and it's unreviewable by any court. And by
Speaker 1: the way, just one other parenthetical, there's a maximalist, crazy
Speaker 1: version of this not at issue in mor v. Harper
Speaker 1: that would also say that governors like you talked about
Speaker 1: checks and balances, also have no power to do anything
Speaker 1: they can't veto this. So I think one way to
Speaker 1: sort of lock in minority rule for time and memorial
Speaker 1: is to just make it impossible for majority will to
Speaker 1: be represented at the ballot box. Go big or go home,
Speaker 1: and while you're at home, just stay there because there's
Speaker 1: no reason to go out to vote, or that you
Speaker 1: can have an entire orderly election. And this is where
Speaker 1: folks should think about what happened in Georgia in where
Speaker 1: you have a completely orderly, non chaotic election and then
Speaker 1: you have the legislature be like, hm, no, we don't
Speaker 1: like those electors. Let's go for this slate of it,
Speaker 1: which is what John Eastman and Donald Trump were asking
Speaker 1: Brad Raffinsburger to do. So I want to be super
Speaker 1: clear that issue is not I think in the four
Speaker 1: corners of what this appeal is. But I think it's
Speaker 1: of like you have to draw a straight line between
Speaker 1: this and the kind of election denialism we're seeing in
Speaker 1: twenty where you had states and state legislatures being lobbied
Speaker 1: by Donald Trump, by Jenny to Miss, by John Eastman,
Speaker 1: to be like, never mind what the voters say, let's
Speaker 1: do it this way. Well, let's let's let's draw that line.
Speaker 1: So we do have conspiracy theorists and election deniers and
Speaker 1: pretty prominent positions. Granted, quite a few of them did
Speaker 1: lose in the mid terms, including Kerry Lake in Arizona,
Speaker 1: who is now contesting her loss for governor even though
Speaker 1: the results have already been certified. Is it crazy to
Speaker 1: think that whole states that have election deniers and their
Speaker 1: legislatures could just choose to throw out the results in
Speaker 1: federal elections. I don't think it's crazy, and I think,
Speaker 1: in fact, one of the things this doctrine is setting
Speaker 1: up is the stepping stone toward that right. I mean,
Speaker 1: the reason it didn't happen in when Donald Trump called
Speaker 1: Georgia and said, you know, give me a fresh ballot
Speaker 1: of fake electors is that there was no architecture in
Speaker 1: place to support that right. This case would be part
Speaker 1: of building the architecture that says state legislatures can do
Speaker 1: whatever they want. It is unreviewed, wable, nothing can go
Speaker 1: to a state Supreme court. And one other point again
Speaker 1: on this is in there's an easy way to solve
Speaker 1: this particular North Carolina case, which is the actual legislature
Speaker 1: in North Carolina has already said that the state judiciary
Speaker 1: can review these questions. So this is an easy case.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't even be a question because the legislature has
Speaker 1: taken this power away from itself. But I do think
Speaker 1: you're exactly right to say this is really a building
Speaker 1: block toward a future where state legislature's power are so
Speaker 1: utterly unreviewable or even creepily reviewable only by the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, that you should just stay home. Well, you
Speaker 1: say this shouldn't even be a question, and I guess
Speaker 1: I'm curious what that says about our country's political ideology
Speaker 1: and also the ideology of the justices. There are a
Speaker 1: number of conservative legal figures who are coming out against
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court even hearing this case. The fact that
Speaker 1: they are, what does that say about the ideology of
Speaker 1: the justices. So this is, without a doubt for me,
Speaker 1: the most interesting part. Right, You've got Mike Ludig, the
Speaker 1: guy who almost got Chief Justice John Roberts seat at
Speaker 1: the Court, right, he was on the shortlist. This is
Speaker 1: a stalwart conservative legal movement giant. He's also the guy,
Speaker 1: by the way, who you may recall Mike Pants was like, dude,
Speaker 1: can I do this thing that Donald Trump is asking
Speaker 1: me to do and not certify the election? It was
Speaker 1: Mike Ludig, you know, conservative legal giant, who was like, no, Mike,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. So he's wildly come out opposed
Speaker 1: to this, and in fact, I think he's one of
Speaker 1: the people, at least he said on my podcast like
Speaker 1: this would signal the demise of orderly elections and checks
Speaker 1: and bounces. So he's come out against it. Ben Ginsburg,
Speaker 1: famous Republican election lawyers against it. Every chief justice of
Speaker 1: every state Supreme Court is on a brief in this
Speaker 1: case saying like this is insane. Stephen Calibrasi, co founder
Speaker 1: of the Federalist Society, has come out again like there's
Speaker 1: very few sane conservative figures who are for this. So
Speaker 1: then your operative question is why the hell is the
Speaker 1: court flirting with this? Like why are they playing foot
Speaker 1: see with a theory advanced principally by John Eastman, the
Speaker 1: guy who was the architect of the January six legal coup.
Speaker 1: And I think the reason is because there's no breaks
Speaker 1: at the U. S. Supreme Court, because they have a
Speaker 1: six justice supermajority. Everything in the world they wanted last term,
Speaker 1: abortion guns, you know, kneecapping, the e p A, kneecapping,
Speaker 1: the CDC. Everything they wanted, they got. Everything they didn't
Speaker 1: get last year, they're getting this year. So this is
Speaker 1: just a my friendly. A litment at Michigan calls it
Speaker 1: the hashtag Yolo Court. You know, they used to have
Speaker 1: some solicitude and sensitivity for what the public could tolerate,
Speaker 1: and I think now they're like directly in opposition to
Speaker 1: what the public can tolerate. There, like, oh, Americans hate this,
Speaker 1: let's do it great? This is what what? What an
Speaker 1: uplifting conversation. It's so good to hear about the people
Speaker 1: who are pulling the levers here. Okay, So let's if
Speaker 1: states choose to do this. If this is a situation
Speaker 1: that does come into fruition, what happens next is that
Speaker 1: it for democracy? Is there anything people in these states
Speaker 1: could do to prevent that? Well, I think that you're
Speaker 1: going to see very much what you're sort of seeing
Speaker 1: post dobs, which is Blue states will rush to bolster
Speaker 1: Blue states supermajorities and will create, you know, supermajority districts
Speaker 1: and will do all the things that New York tried
Speaker 1: to do and failed to do in the midterms. But
Speaker 1: you'll see Red states rushing to bolster uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the power of Republican uh supermajorities in all the ways
Speaker 1: that they do that. And so I think, in a
Speaker 1: weird way, maybe it's a sort of second iteration of
Speaker 1: the red state blue state patchwork we're seeing around guns,
Speaker 1: around environmental protection, and around abortions. We're just going to
Speaker 1: see both sides further, you know, push whatever it is
Speaker 1: that they can do to make sure they have unlosable power.
Speaker 1: And that's pretty scary. The important question I think we're
Speaker 1: all thinking about what does this mean for me in
Speaker 1: the short term? Am I going to go out into
Speaker 1: the world and just here stop the steel forever or
Speaker 1: at least until rogue red states decide to reinstall President
Speaker 1: Trump again. That is what we call Stephen Bryer four
Speaker 1: part hypothetical question. Can we start with There's so many
Speaker 1: pieces of that. I mean, I think, uh, what it
Speaker 1: really means is that first of all, this is an
Speaker 1: incredibly abstract case. Nobody understands this case. This should be
Speaker 1: bigger than Bush Figre. The implications, as I said, are vast,
Speaker 1: and yet I think folks are just like flummocks right
Speaker 1: on the Stop the steel Folks, I have to say,
Speaker 1: just looping back to where you started Jordan's I'm pretty
Speaker 1: happy about the fact that the Stop the Steelers got
Speaker 1: absolutely shellacked in the mid terms, because it tells me
Speaker 1: it was not as salient as they thought it was,
Speaker 1: and more urgently, and I think the polling really showed
Speaker 1: this people kind of like democracy. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: one of the issues that people showed up, you know,
Speaker 1: in addition to reproductive rights. People were really anxious that
Speaker 1: the machinery of crushing democracy had kind of gotten a
Speaker 1: toe hold. And so I actually think it's not to
Speaker 1: say this isn't a worry. It's a huge worry because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, as we have both stipulated, does not
Speaker 1: care what you and I think. But I do think
Speaker 1: that the appetite for crazy lawless vote suppression democracy uh
Speaker 1: shattering initiatives is not what I think Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: carry Lake thought it was. And so I'm like I
Speaker 1: was like eight Bourbons in this time before the you know,
Speaker 1: before the mid terms. I think maybe this isn't terrible
Speaker 1: because I think, as much as it sucks that the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is an unchecked yourristocracy that is going around
Speaker 1: doing whatever the hell it wants with life tenured people,
Speaker 1: one of whom has a wife who was involved in
Speaker 1: January six. That's bad, let's agree. I think that folks
Speaker 1: recognize that after Dobbs in a way they didn't. And
Speaker 1: I think that the ability to just sit there and
Speaker 1: like take it on the chin because the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: says so is much. I think the taste for that
Speaker 1: is in decline right now. I think people are sort
Speaker 1: of angry and so I'm not as hopeless as you sound. Well,
Speaker 1: I will drink to that. That looks like a a
Speaker 1: good place to end. Daria Lithwick, thank you for coming
Speaker 1: out of the podcast. Who is a Pleasure? Thank you. Well,
Speaker 1: that's it. The end of our sixth episode limited edition
Speaker 1: mini series something like that. It's a limited series, it's
Speaker 1: a podcast, whatever it is. We did six episodes. It's
Speaker 1: what we said we're gonna do, and now we've wrapped
Speaker 1: it up and there's a chance we'll come back because
Speaker 1: there's always a world in which Americans believe dumb shit
Speaker 1: and we want to talk about all of that. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening. This has been a blast. Listen to Jordan
Speaker 1: clapper Fingers The Conspiracy from The Daily Show on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.