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 found a way to
Speaker 1: make the Monterey Park shooting all about him. We have
Speaker 1: a thrilling show. Today. We talked to Andrew Weissman, former
Speaker 1: d o J prosecutor and author of Where the Law Ends,
Speaker 1: about the latest in Trump's many legal jeopardies. Then we'll
Speaker 1: talk to Puck's resident Silicon Valley billionaire expert Teddy Schleifer
Speaker 1: about SPF and the rest of the tech world gone mad.
Speaker 1: But first we have Vanity Fair political reporter Best Levin.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics. Best Levin, Oh, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me such an honor. We're very excited
Speaker 1: to have you, fellow Vanity Fair writer. First, let's talk
Speaker 1: about it Trump having left behind thirty four million dollars
Speaker 1: of assets when she died into why discuss that's really surprising.
Speaker 1: I don't want to stereotype, I don't I don't want
Speaker 1: to speak ill of the dead, but I'm surprised that
Speaker 1: she had that amount of money when she died. I
Speaker 1: would have thought that she sort of would have been,
Speaker 1: you know, she had the huge townhouse. But I would
Speaker 1: have thought it would have been kind of like a
Speaker 1: an E. D. Beal situation where it was just like
Speaker 1: ruins and there was no money left. Right, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: kind of amazing. Well, they will say the town houses
Speaker 1: twenty six point five million, so that's part of the
Speaker 1: thirty four. Yes, that's like a large part of it. Right,
Speaker 1: So that's still she still had over ten million. Or
Speaker 1: if I'm doing my math right, in the bank, that's
Speaker 1: maybe she had great um financial advisors. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: she certainly didn't invest with her acts, right exactly. She didn't.
Speaker 1: She didn't put some money in truth social Trump and
Speaker 1: Trump Steaks, Trump Steaks, Trump Water. Um, here we are,
Speaker 1: we are in the weird hundred and eighteen Congress best,
Speaker 1: very weird. What do you think? I mean, it seems
Speaker 1: like Trump is gone, or at least he's in his elbow.
Speaker 1: What do you think about I mean it does it
Speaker 1: certainly feels like the dysfunction is not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Oh no, it almost seems like the dysfunction is worse
Speaker 1: than ever you have the Kevin's and the never Kevin's
Speaker 1: you have. I mean, how amazing was that fourteen losses
Speaker 1: in a row until he finally each one out. Is
Speaker 1: he one of these people who is just so detached
Speaker 1: from reality that he's like, you know, this is like
Speaker 1: can he look himself in the mirror? Like can he
Speaker 1: look at his children when he goes home? Or is
Speaker 1: he like ashamed or is it totally fine? I don't know.
Speaker 1: But so you've got that, you've got Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 1: running things. And also she thinks she's president, as I'm
Speaker 1: sure you saw she said she's not. She's not signing
Speaker 1: any of these bills. I love her so much. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's terrible for American democracy, but she's very good, right right, right, right,
Speaker 1: she's fighting in the bathroom with Lauren Boebert, and then
Speaker 1: Lauren Boubert's new land when she, by the way, has
Speaker 1: now tweeted, by the way, Lauren Boebert's tweets, both Lauren
Speaker 1: Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green have decided that they are
Speaker 1: going to have gravitas. Now. I don't know if you've
Speaker 1: noticed this. Oh right, it's amazing, it's amazing. So so
Speaker 1: Lauren Boebert was like, we are here because she's very psyched.
Speaker 1: She's on oversight lulls, and so she was like over
Speaker 1: So she has all these oversight tweets now, which I
Speaker 1: think are incredible. It's amazing. Yeah, and also Margie is
Speaker 1: also on homeland security, which is amazing because she said
Speaker 1: the other day. I don't know if she I don't
Speaker 1: know if she said it flatly or if it was
Speaker 1: just the suggestion that Hillary Clinton had JFK Jor killed
Speaker 1: because he was her competition for becoming senator. Yes, that's right, Yes,
Speaker 1: I remember it well. But like as people know, it's
Speaker 1: incredible because if these two weren't, you know, in Congress,
Speaker 1: or maybe even if they were, like you can easily
Speaker 1: see them being the two people at the bar where
Speaker 1: one of them cuts in line the other person for
Speaker 1: the bathroom and the other one smashes a beer bottle
Speaker 1: over the other one's head. And now, yeah, and then
Speaker 1: and then we've got Mr Santos. Yes, all right, so
Speaker 1: Sandos dog killing eleven Holocaust. I mean, the drag thing
Speaker 1: is the best part about him. He's Jewish Ish Jewish.
Speaker 1: He never said he was, he never knew Jewish. He
Speaker 1: put the emphasis on Ish. And and you people are
Speaker 1: disgusting for suggesting otherwise. I don't know how you live
Speaker 1: with yourself. I mean, yes, and then the tweets. Now
Speaker 1: he's got this real righteous indignation. Oh god, they're so good,
Speaker 1: They're so good. I will not be distracted by this. Right,
Speaker 1: the people of NASA elected me as the child of
Speaker 1: Holocaust survivors to serve in Congress, and now that I'm
Speaker 1: not the child of Holocaust survivors, it's amazing. And like
Speaker 1: we haven't even talked about these people make Jim Jordan's
Speaker 1: somehow look look serious. I don't know it's but he's not. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Today's punch Bowl was all about Jim Jordan's and the
Speaker 1: ways in which he is pushing the levers. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's. Yeah, former wrestling coach, Jim Jordan, these are
Speaker 1: the people you want making our laws and doing our
Speaker 1: doing our thing. It's crazy. No, so yes, I agree
Speaker 1: with you that the insanity and the dysfunction is seemingly
Speaker 1: worse than ever. Jim Jordan is going to end up
Speaker 1: being the head of disiary. What that will look like,
Speaker 1: I mean, I assume it's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden, right, And do we think it's gonna
Speaker 1: be much of anything else. I mean, are they the
Speaker 1: people who will drag I mean, he's gonna yell at
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler a lot, because Jerry Nadler is the minority
Speaker 1: member who besides Hunter Biden. Do you think they're going
Speaker 1: to haul before them for questioning? There's definitely will be
Speaker 1: impeachments right right, Oh, they're already talking about the Homeland
Speaker 1: guy Biden. I don't know. I mean, their majority is
Speaker 1: so slim. They're gonna talk on impeachment every single day
Speaker 1: from the next two years. They're gonna probably drop articles.
Speaker 1: But what do you think of them actually being able
Speaker 1: to impeach Biden? Like, given how Kevin McCarthy is bid
Speaker 1: for they'll actually be successful. I can't imagine a world
Speaker 1: where they are able to actually do anything in this Congress.
Speaker 1: But I do think there'll be a lot of stram
Speaker 1: and drama. I mean, look, good thing that is imminent
Speaker 1: is the debt ceiling. Yes, I mean June is when
Speaker 1: we run up to this, all right, we already Yesterday
Speaker 1: was when we ran up to the dead ceiling, but
Speaker 1: Jenny Yellen said she could do some weird accounting and
Speaker 1: had to worry until June. It's important to note that
Speaker 1: no other country has this dead ceiling. It's a completely
Speaker 1: made up fiasco. It has been taken, it has been
Speaker 1: weaponized by the by Jim Jordan's and his people in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus. So these are fake problems that Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan World has decided are going out them right. Oh,
Speaker 1: and they'll definitely use them for you know, hostage situations
Speaker 1: and tactics for sure, because they don't actually care about
Speaker 1: the economy, right, I mean, and they certainly don't care
Speaker 1: about like spending less. I mean, oh god, no, I
Speaker 1: mean that. I feel like that is like an amazing
Speaker 1: little bit of sorcery right there. Oh yeah, No, they
Speaker 1: don't care at all. If a Republican president is in office,
Speaker 1: They're like, spend it all, spend it all. I do
Speaker 1: all the tax cuts, it doesn't matter. And now they're like,
Speaker 1: screw you, Joe Biden, you that beat piece of ship.
Speaker 1: I do think it is an incredible bit of sorcery.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to Santos for a minute,
Speaker 1: because we moved too quickly through this. He is one
Speaker 1: of the four votes that McCarthy desperately needs in order
Speaker 1: to stay speaker. But every day is another embarrassing revelation.
Speaker 1: So it's incredible, the scarf right, the dog killing, the Holocaust.
Speaker 1: One of my favorites, the little One, is that he
Speaker 1: was a volleyball star at Burke College and like help
Speaker 1: to new replacements and help them beat Harvard and Yale,
Speaker 1: which oh, it turns out they never played Yale when
Speaker 1: he claims to have gone there, Like, it's just it's
Speaker 1: so amazing, but yeah, the k staff is truly truly terrible.
Speaker 1: If it were me and I were lying about something
Speaker 1: as ridiculous as what sport I played in college, I
Speaker 1: don't think I would have picked volleyball. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess he's tall, so maybe he thought it would
Speaker 1: be believable. I agree with you that I don't know.
Speaker 1: Volleyball is kind of I don't want to offend your
Speaker 1: volleyball listeners, but maybe volleyball team is kind of lame.
Speaker 1: But maybe he thought, maybe he thought it would be believable.
Speaker 1: He was like, I can't get away with saying football.
Speaker 1: Does Brew College have a football team? May even have
Speaker 1: a volleyball team. I'm not sure they do. I think
Speaker 1: I think shockingly they do. And I only say shockingly
Speaker 1: because like literally he doesn't tell the truth about anything.
Speaker 1: It is a city college. Apparently, what his pattern is
Speaker 1: is he steals stories from other people he knew, and
Speaker 1: he stole that from someone he knew. Oh okay, And
Speaker 1: just like the scar off, the barbary scarf that he
Speaker 1: wore the January fifth and he said he he loved
Speaker 1: for employees and the Pulse shooting, Like, what's true at all?
Speaker 1: It's not true at all, Like what I once had
Speaker 1: this date with a guy like years ago before I
Speaker 1: was married. I've been married ten million years. He said
Speaker 1: he grew up next to Chernobyl and my husband was like,
Speaker 1: I was like, you know, that's a lie. Right. It
Speaker 1: was like, no, it's possible, and he was like, no,
Speaker 1: it's a lie. And like I was thinking back on
Speaker 1: this idea that like you can't have too many of
Speaker 1: those things, right, he has all of them. The Holocaust, Bolt, nightclubs, shooting.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. It's ah, it's amazing. He almost makes Trump
Speaker 1: look like a person who doesn't have trouble telling the truth,
Speaker 1: like almost speaking of Valdemort. Yeah. Yeah, this reporting today
Speaker 1: is like I want to say, like, is the worst
Speaker 1: person you know? Me? Right? Donald Trump says and I
Speaker 1: mean again, we never talk about like Donald Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't want to pay him a compliment because obviously I
Speaker 1: don't want to pay him a compliment, but I do
Speaker 1: think it's an interesting He does have some smart political instincts.
Speaker 1: And you will remember when Roe was overturned, he said
Speaker 1: this is going to be real fucking bad for the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, and he turned out to be right. And
Speaker 1: so today the Oracle of Palm Beach, which he is not,
Speaker 1: said that under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut
Speaker 1: a single petty from Medicare or Social Security because the
Speaker 1: dumbest person you know is actually maybe smarter than Kevin McCarthy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's interesting he does. You know. That's the really annoying
Speaker 1: thing about him. It's like sometimes he's kind of funny
Speaker 1: things like that, right, I know, Well that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's how won the nomination. It's the whole thing with
Speaker 1: like the santast terrible and I think he would be
Speaker 1: just as bad as Trump. But then people are like,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have trumps like I think the I think yeah,
Speaker 1: I think New York Magazine called it trump sinister charisma exactly.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have that he's just like terrible. And that's
Speaker 1: the problem with Trump. It's like it would be great
Speaker 1: if you just weren't present, you were just this uh,
Speaker 1: you know, circus sideshow that we could like sometimes laugh
Speaker 1: at without being like it's really bad for society and humanity.
Speaker 1: But yeah, he's smarter than Kevin McCarthy. He's so bad
Speaker 1: at politicking. It feels like he's so obvious and everything
Speaker 1: he does. And I agree, like he he's somehow like
Speaker 1: not the crazy sentence, but like not as smart as Trump.
Speaker 1: What this is in no way an endorsement of anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump is a core idiot and he's a terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible human being, a terrible politician. But I'm not sure
Speaker 1: he would have lost four teen speakership races in a row.
Speaker 1: I don't think so either. Now would that be because
Speaker 1: he would like send out his goons to send a
Speaker 1: method that there would be broken kneecaps or or black
Speaker 1: mailed people or be like I'm going to write a
Speaker 1: book and I know that stuff like maybe that could
Speaker 1: be part of it. So we can't just say it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be through underheaded tactics. But I agree with you,
Speaker 1: I can't see him losing fourteen votes. And we just
Speaker 1: had a guest on here yesterday who talked about or whenever.
Speaker 1: The last episode of this was where she said that
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy has thought of as a dead man walking
Speaker 1: at this point. Yeah, oh totally. I mean he's beholden
Speaker 1: to George Santos. Yes, he needs to keep George Santos happy.
Speaker 1: How does this play out in your mind? I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Do you think they're going to fire
Speaker 1: him at some point or do you think they like
Speaker 1: having him to like push around? He will not resign, right, clear,
Speaker 1: will now resign? Oh sorry, I thought you meant with McCarthy.
Speaker 1: Oh McCarthy, Well, you only need one person, right, so
Speaker 1: like right, yeah, you have to bring it to a vote.
Speaker 1: He gave them that that was their thing, right so,
Speaker 1: chip Roy, I mean, I think there's a likely scenario
Speaker 1: where the debt ceiling brinkmanship ultimately pushes a new car.
Speaker 1: I mean, look the dream my West wing brain, right,
Speaker 1: you know that this sort of terrible. The TV brain
Speaker 1: says like moderates will come together and save the American credit.
Speaker 1: But you know if they do that, they all lose
Speaker 1: their parmers. The Republicans anyway, so that even if they're
Speaker 1: in a swing district. So, I mean that is the
Speaker 1: sort of amazing thing about this situation is that McCarthy
Speaker 1: has gone along and gone along and gone along, and
Speaker 1: now he finds himself in a situation where he is
Speaker 1: in bed with people that you can't that will you know,
Speaker 1: knife him. And you know, you have all of these
Speaker 1: candidates who are in these Biden districts, these Republicans who
Speaker 1: cannot you know, if they shut down the government, they
Speaker 1: will lose their reelection, but if they make a deal,
Speaker 1: they will lose their primaries. Right. I don't think anything
Speaker 1: good can come of this situation. And also especially for McCarthy,
Speaker 1: I think this is a terrible, terrible idea to become
Speaker 1: speakers and prayers. What are you gonna do? In terms
Speaker 1: of Santo's playing out, Oh, he'll never resign never. I
Speaker 1: think the only way he's out within this term is if,
Speaker 1: like he is arrested. Doesn't right exactly, But otherwise I
Speaker 1: don't think he's going I mean, I'm sort of like, Okay,
Speaker 1: if he runs for reelection, how does how does he
Speaker 1: do it? Again? Now that the people of Nasau County.
Speaker 1: So I think he's gonna I think he's gonna ride
Speaker 1: out these two years and then who knows what his
Speaker 1: next act is. The thing that is amazing Man Santos
Speaker 1: is the money stuff doesn't make any sense, right, Like
Speaker 1: he donates more money than he's ever made in his
Speaker 1: life to his own campaign, right, that seems suspicious. He
Speaker 1: has this relationship with a Russian oligarch. All good, that's
Speaker 1: there's a real likely scenario where we see him. You know,
Speaker 1: there's either a legal situation or you know, I mean
Speaker 1: those guys, I'm not sure you want to do a
Speaker 1: lot of like money borrowing with Russian oligarchs. No, I
Speaker 1: don't think so seems bad. It seems like it would
Speaker 1: be a bad idea. Also, like can we just talk
Speaker 1: about this is just reminding me of the money and
Speaker 1: the Kevin the fact that he had a staffer on
Speaker 1: his campaign who was raising money, calling up donors and
Speaker 1: impersonating Kevin McCarthy's chief of staff. And they admit that happening,
Speaker 1: Like I read them the other day where Kevin McCarthy's
Speaker 1: office was like, yeah, when it came to our attention,
Speaker 1: like we resolved it, Like what we resolved at the
Speaker 1: first So supposingly McCarthy was like, Santos fired the staffer
Speaker 1: who was involved in that. You're like, yeah, it was
Speaker 1: the staffer, and that's exactly it was. Obviously Santos idea,
Speaker 1: or maybe Santos is the guy doing the impersonating right
Speaker 1: or whatever his name. They may not even be Santos.
Speaker 1: And if it's just like one of his lives, imagine
Speaker 1: if we heard that just you know, pick any random
Speaker 1: elected official Democrat or Republican, Like what if we heard
Speaker 1: that Katie Porter's communications person was impersonating Nancy Pelosi, Like
Speaker 1: that would be a huge, frea good deal. And it's
Speaker 1: just like tenth on his list of bullshit. But it's incredible, right, well, Democrats,
Speaker 1: it's never a crime when when Republicans do it right obviously, obviously,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, best. I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 1: Oh of course, please help me. Andrew Weiseman is a
Speaker 1: former Department of Justice prosecutor and author of Where the
Speaker 1: Law Ends. Welcome Too Fast Politics, Andrew Wiseman, So nice
Speaker 1: to be here. Finally, I'm delighted. Um. I have so
Speaker 1: many questions for you, um all our listeners. No, I
Speaker 1: mean you have worked in every part of the legal world.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are some parts you haven't, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you. I mean, the first question I
Speaker 1: have is, I think we have talked about the Fanny
Speaker 1: Willis grand jury. Can you explain to our listeners because
Speaker 1: I think there still needs to be another grand jury. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a bit of an anomaly in
Speaker 1: Georgia state law, and there's sort of an investigative grand jury,
Speaker 1: and that's what everyone's would have been following when you've
Speaker 1: been looking at you know, well, Juliani testify, will Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham testify, etcetera. And they get to issue a report,
Speaker 1: and next week there's a whole contretemp that's scheduled about
Speaker 1: whether that report will be made public and if so, when,
Speaker 1: and then there's another grand jury that gets to decide
Speaker 1: whether to indict or not. Now, the good news for
Speaker 1: people who want to see things move along quickly is
Speaker 1: funny Willis doesn't have to wait to and panel that
Speaker 1: grand jury and to present evidence, nor does she actually
Speaker 1: have to represent all of the evidence, meaning she doesn't
Speaker 1: have to call all those live witnesses back. She can
Speaker 1: have an agent summarize what was said, she can present
Speaker 1: the transcripts of what was said to the new grand jury,
Speaker 1: so all of that could be quite quick if she
Speaker 1: decides to go forward. Is it true that the reason
Speaker 1: that this is happening that this Fanny Willis has this
Speaker 1: jurisdiction because she's elected, and she is, you know, a man,
Speaker 1: she's great, but she's a partisan. Ultimately, the reason she
Speaker 1: has this jurisdiction is is because of Jenna Us and Rudy.
Speaker 1: I think it's because in each of the states where
Speaker 1: there was an effort to get a slate of fake
Speaker 1: electors and also pressure put on people to change the election,
Speaker 1: as we heard on the tape between Trump and Ravensburger,
Speaker 1: all of those states would have jurisdiction to go forward.
Speaker 1: It just so happens that this d A has taken
Speaker 1: a bit and and run with it to mix a
Speaker 1: lot of metaphors. So she's trying to vindicate the Georgia
Speaker 1: state process. And of course, you know the fact that
Speaker 1: there was that tape makes it that much more compelling
Speaker 1: because it puts Trump right in the middle of it.
Speaker 1: The other is everyone focuses on that and the federal case,
Speaker 1: but long term, like if I were Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: his defense counsel. It's the Georgia case that I'd worry
Speaker 1: the most about because he can't be federally pardoned. If,
Speaker 1: for instance, Trump were to win the presidency or de
Speaker 1: Santis or any other Republican, they can't do anything about
Speaker 1: state charges. The pardon doesn't apply. So, you know, I
Speaker 1: really think keeping our eye on what happens in Georgia
Speaker 1: and potentially in the Manhattan d A's office also, since
Speaker 1: they're now making some noises about resurrecting their investigation, can
Speaker 1: we talk about the Manhattan d A because he's been
Speaker 1: back and forth on that. That's um Alvin Bragg, he
Speaker 1: had said, And remember there were the two people who quit,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure you know these guys, and then they
Speaker 1: were quite furious, and then there's back and forth, and
Speaker 1: now he's saying he might do it. What is happening?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure myself. You know, I know so many
Speaker 1: of the players there. I bet I can see, like
Speaker 1: Carrie Dunn, who was the general counsel there and litigated
Speaker 1: twice in the Supreme Court, is by all accounts a
Speaker 1: street shooter and a superb lawyer. You know. For him
Speaker 1: to leave, you know, suggests what the hell is going on.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, um, the team that just tried
Speaker 1: Weisselberg and others there who I also know are also wonderful, aggressive,
Speaker 1: appropriately aggressive prosecutors. So you know, where I hope this
Speaker 1: comes out is that there was just a disagreement about
Speaker 1: the necessary quantum of proof and some people thought that
Speaker 1: there was more that was needed and others thought there wasn't.
Speaker 1: You know, that's sort of my best guess because I
Speaker 1: sort of assumed good faith on both sides. And also
Speaker 1: it's not like Alvin Bragg had some political motive to
Speaker 1: delay things. I mean, he was sort of very politically
Speaker 1: it would be you know, it would be good for
Speaker 1: him to bring the case, and so you kind of
Speaker 1: want your prosecutors to not be operating that way and
Speaker 1: to be trying to do a fair assessment of the case.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you also don't want to be
Speaker 1: afraid of bringing a righteous case and and a rate
Speaker 1: of losing, or afraid of the controversy. So I think
Speaker 1: there's more to more on that, And you know that
Speaker 1: the latest on that is Mark Pomerantz, one of the
Speaker 1: lawyers who quit, is apparently has written a book and
Speaker 1: there's a whole back and forth because he apparently did
Speaker 1: not submit it for what's called pre publication review, which
Speaker 1: I wrote a book that you're supposed to do that.
Speaker 1: You know, I did it. It's not a fun experience,
Speaker 1: but you agree to do that up front. So he
Speaker 1: apparently didn't do that. So it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 1: what happens with that, because I know when Pete Struck
Speaker 1: had to do it, I mean, it was a real
Speaker 1: pain for him. But they can sue you if you
Speaker 1: don't do that. Yeah, they can sue for all sorts
Speaker 1: of things. That the least is that they can take
Speaker 1: all of your proceeds and profits, and the worst is
Speaker 1: if you aren't careful and you have revealed grand jury
Speaker 1: information that actually is a crime. Now, in Mark's case,
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine somebody with his pedigree and experience
Speaker 1: that he would do that, right, I mean, he's he's
Speaker 1: so experienced that you would assume he sanitized it of
Speaker 1: that information. Right. But it's a ballsy move, right, It's
Speaker 1: definitely a ballsy move. I Mean my reaction to it was,
Speaker 1: you know, even John Bolton went through pre publication review
Speaker 1: and you know, and he's not exactly your model but
Speaker 1: you know, even he did, it's so interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just such a sort of like we really do
Speaker 1: find ourselves in this strange situation. So Trump has all
Speaker 1: of these legal cases against him. The documents case was
Speaker 1: until there were these Biden Center documents found, the Documents
Speaker 1: case was the sort of most open and shut, sort
Speaker 1: of slam dunk case against Trump. Now did the Biden documents,
Speaker 1: which are obviously not the same thing, even a little,
Speaker 1: But do they hurt the Trump case? And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you a legal answer that you'll hate,
Speaker 1: which is yes and no. Right. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: why people hate lawyers to say the no is. You know,
Speaker 1: at the Department, what you do is you're trained to
Speaker 1: look at the facts in the law and to differentiate cases.
Speaker 1: And as you said, Molly, it's like the cases, at
Speaker 1: least what we know about them, couldn't be more different.
Speaker 1: One has criminal intent and obstruction of justice, and by
Speaker 1: all accounts, the Biden one does not. There's no question
Speaker 1: that he turned the documents over as soon as he
Speaker 1: is aware of them, so far as we know at
Speaker 1: this point, and there's no evidence of obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: so legally there should be a recommendation from Jack Smith
Speaker 1: to go forward on his case, and you would expect
Speaker 1: for Rob her the special counsel, and the Biden case
Speaker 1: to recommend against it. But that being said, it is
Speaker 1: so important that if a former president is going to
Speaker 1: be charged for the first time in our history, that
Speaker 1: there'll be public acceptance and understanding as to why that
Speaker 1: is appropriate and why he's being treated just like anyone else.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the Department of Justice precedent
Speaker 1: and there's the other cases they brought, there's no question.
Speaker 1: And I unfortunately I'm a nerd and I've done a
Speaker 1: huge deep dive in that there's no question that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump UM should be charged if he's going to be
Speaker 1: treated the same as other people, because people who did
Speaker 1: far less than than he have been charged. But I
Speaker 1: think it is going to hurt a sort of public
Speaker 1: acceptance aspect, and that is such a huge part of
Speaker 1: bringing the case um. But I do think that's where
Speaker 1: people like us are going to be really important to
Speaker 1: to for the Department and for commentators to really talk
Speaker 1: about why there is a difference and why they are
Speaker 1: appropriately treated differently. If we end up in that position, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I don't know, you know what Trump has
Speaker 1: been teflon for so long. The thing that I was
Speaker 1: talking to Hugo Lowell about before, just to name Drob,
Speaker 1: before we did this interview, was this idea that Trump
Speaker 1: had actually mixed documents, and so he had documents that
Speaker 1: were um sort of high level classified documents mixed with
Speaker 1: more recent documents, and that that might show intent. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely so. The fact that he would have documents mixed
Speaker 1: with personal documents but also ones that are recent would
Speaker 1: suggest that he actually knew of the documents and was
Speaker 1: aware of them at the time. I mean, because you know,
Speaker 1: a normal defense for sort of senior people, whether you're
Speaker 1: talking about a corporation you know, I prosecuted the end
Speaker 1: on executives, or you're talking about a gang or political leaders.
Speaker 1: In all of those situations, the normal defenses, I didn't
Speaker 1: really know what the low level people were doing. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, they were just sort of on their own.
Speaker 1: I mean, Biden is clearly saying that, and it could
Speaker 1: very well be true. So, but Trump, the evidence on
Speaker 1: that is he's been you know, he hasn't helped himself
Speaker 1: by um saying you know, these were mine, and he
Speaker 1: would the one who ordered and kept very close hold
Speaker 1: on sort of how they would be taken from the
Speaker 1: White House and what where they were going and where
Speaker 1: they were kept at Mara a Lago. So I think
Speaker 1: that kind of defense is going to be really hard
Speaker 1: for him. Um. I was recently asked, can you think
Speaker 1: of a defense in that case? And the interest No,
Speaker 1: you know, and we really tried. I mean I was
Speaker 1: part of this group where we we did a sample
Speaker 1: prosecution memo and it was this group at n y U,
Speaker 1: and we really tried to flesh out any and all
Speaker 1: plausible defenses, and you know, we did, but none of
Speaker 1: them worked because there was so much counter evidence, some
Speaker 1: of which coming directly from Donald Trump's mouth, you know,
Speaker 1: which is yeah, exactly. And so you know, as a
Speaker 1: defense lawyer, that's always the worst possible thing. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: you you're basically you know, you want client control to
Speaker 1: basically shut up. It's super interesting, especially when we have
Speaker 1: these documents. The thing I was struck by was that
Speaker 1: the Trump people were all like immediately like in my mind,
Speaker 1: I thought, wow, they put a special prosecutor on the
Speaker 1: Biden documents much more quickly than they put the special
Speaker 1: prosecutor on the Trump documents. That is pretty shocking. But
Speaker 1: the Trump people immediately started making the case that the
Speaker 1: special prosecutor that Biden had gotten was actually a deep
Speaker 1: state planned because he had worked to the FBI for
Speaker 1: the FBI, the head of the FBI who was appointed
Speaker 1: by Trump. I mean, I worked at the FBI. I
Speaker 1: was the general counsel there. That's not exactly a deep
Speaker 1: state institution. I mean the idea that this is somehow
Speaker 1: democratic stronghold is sort of is, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the world we live in where it's all sort of
Speaker 1: our well and double speak. Rob her is a hardcore Republican,
Speaker 1: and he is a Republican. He was appointed by Trump
Speaker 1: to be a U S attorney. He worked for Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the controversial things he did when
Speaker 1: he worked for Rod Rosenstein is he gave it press
Speaker 1: conference announcing a criminal case. And where did he do
Speaker 1: the press conference from the White House, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: talk about like blurring the line between the what's supposed
Speaker 1: to be the independent Department of Justice in the White House.
Speaker 1: So the idea that they're going to try and paint
Speaker 1: him as a deep state democrat is this is just
Speaker 1: black as white territory. My sense is they're doing this
Speaker 1: because they know that this document case against Biden is
Speaker 1: not the same as the document case against Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 1: unless something breaks, you know, based on all the facts
Speaker 1: that we have so far, this is one where I
Speaker 1: would expect a thorough fast investigation that leads to a
Speaker 1: recommendation of a declination. I have a question about this
Speaker 1: Trump's Chinese bank account. I feel like we had that
Speaker 1: news and it just like disappeared. Obviously, a president is
Speaker 1: not supposed to have a bank account in China. I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure that any of us are supposed to
Speaker 1: have one in China for the American citizens. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's not a legal technically, but I mean
Speaker 1: there's no legal consequences for any of this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: It's just sketchy. It is sketchy and a concern because
Speaker 1: you want to know why it's there, and what its
Speaker 1: purpose was, and who is putting money into it for
Speaker 1: what ends. I mean, So there are all sorts of
Speaker 1: concerns about from a national security perspective as well as
Speaker 1: just a sort of foreign influenced perspective. But there is
Speaker 1: a way in which a sort of very obvious way
Speaker 1: in which it could be illegal, and I stressed could um.
Speaker 1: And that's because, for instance, in the Paul Manifort case,
Speaker 1: one of the things he did is he had all
Speaker 1: of these foreign bank accounts on his United States tax returns.
Speaker 1: A standard question that's in all of our federal tax
Speaker 1: resourns is a question about whether you have any foreign accounts.
Speaker 1: He checked off repeatedly for years. No. He told his
Speaker 1: tax advisors the answer was no. And instead he got
Speaker 1: all of this income that she didn't report from Ukraine
Speaker 1: and other places, and he used it to pay for
Speaker 1: things like his very fancy gardener in the Hampton's and
Speaker 1: his maide service and his Ostrich jacket and all sorts
Speaker 1: of other things. And he just paid from his accounts
Speaker 1: in Cyprus. It's tax fraud, yeah, exactly. So he was.
Speaker 1: One of the charges he faced was simply lying to
Speaker 1: the I R S about his foreign account. I know,
Speaker 1: obviously we had to show that he you know, that
Speaker 1: he personally knew he had that account, and that he
Speaker 1: knew that he had told the I R S that
Speaker 1: he didn't have those accounts. But that wasn't very hard
Speaker 1: to show. So again, one of the I think sort
Speaker 1: of disappointing things in terms of the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: is there has been apparently a tax audit for now
Speaker 1: years and years and years by the I R S
Speaker 1: about Trump's taxes, and then it doesn't seem like that's
Speaker 1: going anywhere. While the state has looked at that and
Speaker 1: prosecuted successfully his companies, it doesn't appear that there's really
Speaker 1: an active federal investigation into that. And then recently we've
Speaker 1: heard the tax authorities say, well, you know, it was
Speaker 1: just too hard, which he was too complex, and that
Speaker 1: I have to say, as as a farmer, you know,
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor, it's like, are you joking. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: your job. I mean the idea. It's like, listen, you
Speaker 1: know your crime was sophisticated. So that's kind of above
Speaker 1: our pay grade. Is not a great answer in terms
Speaker 1: of your obligations to the American public. Trump got a
Speaker 1: lot of like legal risk taps recently. Right, Like that
Speaker 1: judge who just said that his lawyer who was a
Speaker 1: conservative television host, can you talk about that, because that's
Speaker 1: pretty interesting. That's Harbor, right, her name is exactly um.
Speaker 1: So there was a fun of almost a million dollars
Speaker 1: sanctioning the lawyers were bringing a frivolous case. And I
Speaker 1: actually think it's a good indication that the lower courts
Speaker 1: have really buy and large made be leaving Judge Cannon
Speaker 1: aside have done a really good job of applying the
Speaker 1: rule of law, whether it's a judge appointed by Donald
Speaker 1: Trump or by a Democrat and really saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: we are a separate institution and we're not gonna green
Speaker 1: light your fraud claims. We're going to hold you to
Speaker 1: account and refer you to bar associations if you make
Speaker 1: sprivolous fine filings. And this is a really I think
Speaker 1: an important fine to say, you know, you can this
Speaker 1: whatever you're doing in the public sphere and like tweeting
Speaker 1: and disseminating all sorts of garbage to the public, when
Speaker 1: you do it in a court of law, there are
Speaker 1: sanctions for that. And so I really applaud the judges
Speaker 1: who are are taking that seriously. So I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about this for a minute, because then the
Speaker 1: next day Trump withdrew his lawsuit against the New York
Speaker 1: State A g Leticia James. Is that do you think
Speaker 1: that's related? Also? For Donald Trump to bring any civil lawsuit.
Speaker 1: It's so ridiculous because he would then be subjecting himself
Speaker 1: to being deposed. That's not a good look. I mean,
Speaker 1: we just saw the deposition transcript and the Gene Carroll case,
Speaker 1: and you know, he looks ridiculous. I remember when he
Speaker 1: threatened to sue the New York Times and the New
Speaker 1: York Times General Council wrote a really funny letter that
Speaker 1: he made public that basically said, bring it on. You
Speaker 1: want to see us great, looking forward to it. Andrew,
Speaker 1: this was so interesting. I hope you will come back
Speaker 1: because you are way above our pay grade here, so
Speaker 1: we really appreciate it. Don't be silly. I'd love to.
Speaker 1: I'd love to. I know you, our dear listeners are
Speaker 1: very busy and you don't have time to sort through
Speaker 1: the hundreds of pieces of pundentry each week. This is
Speaker 1: why every week I put together a newsletter of my
Speaker 1: five favorite articles on politics. If you enjoy the podcast,
Speaker 1: you will love having this in your inbox every Friday.
Speaker 1: So sign up at Fast Politics pod dot com um
Speaker 1: and click the tab to join our mailing list. That's
Speaker 1: Fast politics pod dot com. Teddy Schleifer is a tech
Speaker 1: reporter at Puck News, Welcome too fast politics, Teddy, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. Very excited to have you all right,
Speaker 1: So first we have to talk about Sam Bankman freed
Speaker 1: and his jailhouse. Except he wasn't in his jail house.
Speaker 1: He was in his parents house, his parents house interview.
Speaker 1: He just decided to have you over discuss a little
Speaker 1: a little team trumpets on a Friday night in Paul Alto.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's not going anywhere right right. The reason
Speaker 1: why I think he wants to talk and want to
Speaker 1: talk in reason why we see him, you know, with
Speaker 1: a sub stack. You know, he's he's tweeting through it.
Speaker 1: I think he feels like lots of people on your
Speaker 1: enormous scrutiny doo, he feels misunderstood, he feels wrong, he
Speaker 1: feels mischaracterized by you know, the media, and whether or
Speaker 1: not he is correct or not as sort of irrelevant
Speaker 1: to me. It's an opportunity. As a reporter, you know,
Speaker 1: you live for that right, You live for the opportunity
Speaker 1: to get the access to people when they're like walking
Speaker 1: the tight room. And so Sam had me over when
Speaker 1: we talked for a couple of hours about everything from
Speaker 1: his case to his life under house arrests to you
Speaker 1: know what his family and friends think about him right now?
Speaker 1: It's surreal right to think that one of the greatest
Speaker 1: alleged frousters of our generation is just come on over
Speaker 1: for tea pretty wild stuff. Did you feel when you
Speaker 1: were doing this interview like you were getting con Sometimes
Speaker 1: I feel like when you're doing an interview with someone,
Speaker 1: you all of a sudden are like, you know, yes, sister,
Speaker 1: Like all of a sudden you start sort of rooting
Speaker 1: for them. But sometimes you really do get the sense
Speaker 1: you're getting you're that there. They think they're pulling it
Speaker 1: over on you. Did you have one or the other
Speaker 1: on that right, someone's always getting the kernalist conning the
Speaker 1: subject or the subject counting in the journalists. Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: a little bit of both. I don't know if any
Speaker 1: interaction with the recorder on the table is an authentical one,
Speaker 1: Like I think there are some that are more than
Speaker 1: than others. Look, I mean, for him, um, he probably
Speaker 1: thinks that you know, he's calming me, right, is he
Speaker 1: gets the opportunity to talk about things he wants to
Speaker 1: on his terms. You know this is not under ah,
Speaker 1: there's no real consequences for it. You know, he gets
Speaker 1: to pain himself as a sympathetic boy. No one wants
Speaker 1: to be his friend anymore. He's donalant to leave the house,
Speaker 1: and he has this dog, and like, you know, he
Speaker 1: gets to pain and more sympathetic torture than the SDN.
Speaker 1: Wise pointing, so, is there a KLN element on me? Like? Sure,
Speaker 1: I think I think there's always a kind of element
Speaker 1: when there's an on the record interview. But as a reporter,
Speaker 1: you know, I might think I'm kind of him, like
Speaker 1: I'm getting access to a person who isn't really doing
Speaker 1: other interviews, and is you know, obviously there's enormous public
Speaker 1: interest in kind of what his life is like. So
Speaker 1: Colonel Rand the best kind of corn. One of the
Speaker 1: things I've found really interesting about this whole case is
Speaker 1: that Elon Musk feels that he is getting better treatment
Speaker 1: then Ellen. You know, Ellen was like, no one's ever
Speaker 1: going to investigate him because he's a Democrat, and then
Speaker 1: like the next day he got extradited. He's sort of
Speaker 1: a rorshack yeah or shock yes. But also I might
Speaker 1: argue that he is like kind of universally hated, but
Speaker 1: for different reasons, right for conservatives, you know, he's this
Speaker 1: big limb who got a free path in the media
Speaker 1: for too long because he was buddy buddies with everybody
Speaker 1: and getting everybody money and doing any too liberals and
Speaker 1: saying all the right things about making the world a
Speaker 1: better place. Blah blah blah. It's funny because on the
Speaker 1: left there are lots of leftists who I saw him
Speaker 1: as this like crypto student who was bringing the party
Speaker 1: into unsavory and non savory industry and as neoliberal agenda,
Speaker 1: you know, hanging out with Tony Blair and Anthony stron
Speaker 1: Mucci and spreading gospel capitalism. So like to say nothing
Speaker 1: of the fact obviously he's now a you know, albatross
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is you know, groups have listens themselves from
Speaker 1: Sam Like look, I mean, it's not like Bernie Madoff
Speaker 1: had friends by the end of this politically, or you know,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Homes or urban never and everyone hates stand back
Speaker 1: and free. You know, Elon used to be like a
Speaker 1: hero all the left until like six seventeen when he's
Speaker 1: kind of started going on his own. He was tweeting then,
Speaker 1: but like, you know, the public opinion on the line
Speaker 1: has transformed over the last five years I don't know
Speaker 1: what he is a chooser own adventure. People are mad
Speaker 1: at him for any number of things. I mean, he
Speaker 1: did also give money to Republicans to write. Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: done some reporting on this, and it's just that it
Speaker 1: was Sam did donate some money to Republicans. Could I
Speaker 1: believe based on my reporting at Sam donated like, you know,
Speaker 1: ten twenty million bucks to Republican interest groups or to
Speaker 1: see for words like sure, But the proponderance of Sam's
Speaker 1: money was still going to democratically, to make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it, right, Yeah, I think he was like lots
Speaker 1: of donors who were in heavily regulated industry, spread the
Speaker 1: leve around to everybody on the House Final Services Committee,
Speaker 1: and their politics are just whatever is good for their
Speaker 1: bottom line, not unlike you know, Elon Musk. Is he
Speaker 1: a Republican. No, But Sam has some Republican connections. And frankly,
Speaker 1: one of Sam's main deputies was this gunn in Ryan Salem,
Speaker 1: who was a Republican donor who was hanging out with
Speaker 1: Trump Jr. And his girlfriend was running for Congress as
Speaker 1: a Republican. So one of the problems for the right
Speaker 1: as they try to go after Sam is that there's
Speaker 1: plenty of f t X money on their side of
Speaker 1: the Aisland as well. Some places are paying back the money, right,
Speaker 1: I saw that Samaphore is paying back the money. Yes,
Speaker 1: so every entity would be quite dumb at this point
Speaker 1: and not prepare for the possibility that they need to
Speaker 1: send them money back to somewhere. The challenges of them
Speaker 1: all is like, if you put yourself in a position
Speaker 1: of some recipient, so what do you do? Right? I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't want to give the money back to you
Speaker 1: know this, you know this alleged criminal to you know,
Speaker 1: standing on illegal defense LUSS and do feel pressured to
Speaker 1: do something as like some Democratic congressional candidates in November,
Speaker 1: or like do need money to charity. There's a chance
Speaker 1: that like FTX, creditors might hit those correctional campaigns for
Speaker 1: money again, in which case you could have to pay twice.
Speaker 1: So I think the most prudent course of action that
Speaker 1: lots of committees are taking right now, whether they're if
Speaker 1: you receive money from SAM through a nonprofit or renceive
Speaker 1: the investment from SAM, everyone is basically trying to put
Speaker 1: it in some Escoro account or some wait and see segulgable.
Speaker 1: You know, money pot to figure it out later, and
Speaker 1: you can announce that right, and you feel good about
Speaker 1: yourself and you resist pressure from the media for just
Speaker 1: pressure from employees to you know, not be laundering Sam's money.
Speaker 1: But you wait a couple of months until it's clear
Speaker 1: where you're gonna send it. So that is where lots
Speaker 1: of SPF tainted committees and nonprofits are ultimately going to
Speaker 1: put the money. Isn't like, hey, I got a million
Speaker 1: bucks from Sam, I'm gonna put it in you know,
Speaker 1: this account over here, and you know, whatever the government
Speaker 1: tells us to do with it, we'll do. But obviously
Speaker 1: this is a huge problem for anybody who's gotten in cash,
Speaker 1: like I'm thinking about like lead of politics. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are there are super PACs that raise money right
Speaker 1: and spend every dollar, every dime, every penny before the
Speaker 1: mid terms or before the election day. Like there aren't
Speaker 1: just groups that are like sitting on now five million bucks.
Speaker 1: So suddenly when you know, House Majority Packed for instance,
Speaker 1: needs to return five million dollars from sand bankmant free
Speaker 1: like after the election is over, like the group could
Speaker 1: have no cash, so you have to go out and
Speaker 1: raise money basically to recoup the money you're spending from
Speaker 1: San Magnat Free that you're putting in this account. It's
Speaker 1: a cluster. Can you get me up to speed on
Speaker 1: what's happening with the Elan and Twitter? He seems mad
Speaker 1: at his advertisers, who he desperately needs, but also vassilates
Speaker 1: between mad and look, they're all coming back what is happening,
Speaker 1: So they're going to towards the Twitter revenues down stuff
Speaker 1: in the middle from this in the tradition from advertising
Speaker 1: to subscription, right where he is obviously bringing the platform
Speaker 1: into making it less safe for you know, the products
Speaker 1: and gamble of the world to you know, flog their toothpastes,
Speaker 1: but people aren't necessarily paying the eight dollars a month
Speaker 1: for subscription. Here in the situation now where advertisers don't
Speaker 1: want to be on the platform at least as much
Speaker 1: as they did, you know, six months ago, but there's
Speaker 1: not the subscriber subscriber base of people who are love
Speaker 1: with this thing. So ultimately, like elut be very thankful
Speaker 1: to secribe the company of that effort for earnings Corps
Speaker 1: really because the equity value of this thing is done
Speaker 1: I think it's possible that Twitter and a subscription product
Speaker 1: can work, though there's gonna be a lot of pain
Speaker 1: on the way, and obviously it will be like any
Speaker 1: subscription product will have smaller audience but could entertain the
Speaker 1: same amount of cultural and fluence by having a third
Speaker 1: as many people were all spending much more money on
Speaker 1: a product millar before. Maybe I don't think the idea
Speaker 1: of converting Twitter into a subcription business is a bad one.
Speaker 1: What do you think my senses? I'm I've been wrong
Speaker 1: about so much here that I don't even want to
Speaker 1: touch it. But my feeling is that he just gets
Speaker 1: bored and decides. I mean, I just wonder how long
Speaker 1: until he gets bored doing this. When he first took over,
Speaker 1: everyone was, you know, like all the people on the
Speaker 1: right were delighted, right, and they were like, He's gonna
Speaker 1: get us what we've always deserved. But ultimately, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't. This entitlement is unquenchable. So you know, after
Speaker 1: a while, they were like, why hasn't Ellen, you know,
Speaker 1: delivered me millions of followers and you know, Ben Shapiro money.
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced, Like, why does he want to do this?
Speaker 1: Now everyone is mad at him. His like you know,
Speaker 1: Cat Turned, who was his bestie, is like torturing him.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, why doesn't he want to just go
Speaker 1: back to doing rockets? Sure, if you look at Elon's
Speaker 1: own Twitter feed and like who he replies to, do
Speaker 1: you ever look at stuff like that? It's a fascinating
Speaker 1: window and into just like why he might be doing
Speaker 1: this right he is? Like I think you and I
Speaker 1: are sitting there saying like, wow, this doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be going well. But if you put yourself and elant
Speaker 1: musk shoes, like, you know, he is the hero of
Speaker 1: kind of the online right right now. You know, obviously
Speaker 1: he thinks the mainstream media is to get him, as
Speaker 1: we just talked about, But there's obviously sort of a
Speaker 1: warped sense of reality that he has about how things
Speaker 1: are going. Um, and I'm not totally sure that what
Speaker 1: we think matters. It does seem to me like this
Speaker 1: just doesn't. I guess you think as long as he's
Speaker 1: having fun, he'll keep doing it. Yes, as long as
Speaker 1: he's having fun, as long as there's not pressure from
Speaker 1: his own investors and his own creditors to cut the
Speaker 1: bullshit out right Ultimately, there are smart people who gave
Speaker 1: him money to invest the money in this company. And
Speaker 1: if Elon Musk is having a great time, but this
Speaker 1: company is is tanking financially, there's got to be some
Speaker 1: come to Jesus moment eventually that I think is what matters,
Speaker 1: not what we think is. You know, the only dose
Speaker 1: of reality that's coming for eluding must is when people
Speaker 1: a sequit capital or at the banks that loans of
Speaker 1: money to say to Eline, so how does that turnaround
Speaker 1: going over there right right? Right? I mean, or you know,
Speaker 1: he loses control at Tesla, right, that's the other kind
Speaker 1: of financial pressure. Teddy, this was so great, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for coming on, Molly Jung Fast, Jessie Cannon.
Speaker 1: So obviously the GOP now owns that they gave Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green a seat on the oversight committee and represented
Speaker 1: McCall of Texas. He had to defend it on the
Speaker 1: Sunday shows and he said, I will tell you she
Speaker 1: has matured. I think she realizes she doesn't know everything,
Speaker 1: and she store and it became I think more of
Speaker 1: a team player. And you know what she said. Yet,
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green spent the day spinning conspiracy theories on
Speaker 1: the internet. And again, this is something that anti vactors
Speaker 1: have started doing a lot, and it's just mind numbingly
Speaker 1: amazingly stupid. Diamond and Silk, who are pro Trump pundits.
Speaker 1: One of them, Diamond died, and again we don't know
Speaker 1: how she died. There was I think in autopsy, but
Speaker 1: it has not been revealed. But Diamond and Silk were
Speaker 1: serious anti vactors who believed that lockdowns and masks and
Speaker 1: vaccines all, you know, we're much worse than actually being safe.
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green furious. I demand immediate investigation into COVID
Speaker 1: vaccines and the dramatic increase of people dying suddenly this
Speaker 1: can no longer are be ignored and not and is
Speaker 1: not political. Well, first of all, it's absolutely political, right,
Speaker 1: she's an antivaccer. But second of all, Diamond was a
Speaker 1: big anti vaxxor So does that mean Diamond was secretly vaccinated?
Speaker 1: I know, and you know it's so weird. The one
Speaker 1: time they got mad at Trump, the only time they
Speaker 1: were across him, was when he pushed the vaccine. You
Speaker 1: can be an anti vaxer, but you can't then say
Speaker 1: you were killed by the vaccine. Yeah, well, or can you?
Speaker 1: Or can you? You haven't matured the rules, don't better
Speaker 1: to you. That's a simple physics. There. That's it for
Speaker 1: this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and Friday to your the best minds and politics makes
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.