Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And Congressman Jamie Raskin has announced his cancers.
Speaker 2: In remission, we have a jam pack show for you today.
Speaker 1: Joyce Fance, who co hosts the Sisters in Law podcast,
Speaker 1: will bring us up to date on the many many
Speaker 1: lawsuits surrounding are politicians, mostly just Trump though, and the
Speaker 1: Egene Carol case.
Speaker 2: Then we'll talk to The New York Times.
Speaker 1: Hannah Dreyer about her blockbuster reporting on child labor across
Speaker 1: the United States. But first we have Rolling Stone editor
Speaker 1: in chief Noah Shackman. Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 3: Now, Hi, Hi, before.
Speaker 1: We start having a fancy interview, you are the reason
Speaker 1: that I have a podcast.
Speaker 3: No, you're the reason you have a podcast. You said, YO,
Speaker 3: give me a fucking podcast or else, and I was like,
Speaker 3: that's a terrible idea, and you were like, if you don't,
Speaker 3: I'm going to burn down Brooklyn. And so we did
Speaker 3: a bunch of them. We did a bunch of demos,
Speaker 3: and we did a bunch of stuff and I was like, uh,
Speaker 3: Molly's so awesome, fine order of bone and then.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about I want to start with got
Speaker 1: to Grow to Stay alive, because I think about, like,
Speaker 1: you've now been at Rolling Stone, what a year and
Speaker 1: a half?
Speaker 3: Yeah, not quite, but around there.
Speaker 1: You kind of brought that same Daily Beast ethos to
Speaker 1: Rolling Stone in a totally different way.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think part of it is that, you know,
Speaker 3: when I was at the Daily Beast, we kind of
Speaker 3: stole from old Rolling Stone DNA, and so I'm kind
Speaker 3: of just returning the DNA back to its host. And
Speaker 3: that's like there's a combination of politics and pop culture,
Speaker 3: which you know, you and I both love. There's a
Speaker 3: you don't give a spirit, which I know we both
Speaker 3: love too, and there's also a respect for great journalism,
Speaker 3: and so you kind of do all those things and
Speaker 3: you wind up with a pretty good mix.
Speaker 1: I'm curious, like, where does traffic come from?
Speaker 3: Where does traffic come from?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So, I mean part of it is, right, one
Speaker 2: of the things you've done since you've been at Rolling Stone.
Speaker 1: Is that you've gotten people back to Rolling Stone, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, look, traffic is up, but traffic is
Speaker 3: basically just a function of are we doing stuff that's
Speaker 3: hot or not are we doing reporting that's good? And
Speaker 3: you know there's there are bad ways to get traffic,
Speaker 3: right if we wanted to just like as you can imagine, right,
Speaker 3: Rolling Stone ranks very high on Google for like Paul
Speaker 3: McCartney and Mick Jagger, and so if we wanted to
Speaker 3: just write about the Rolling Stones and the Beatles all day,
Speaker 3: we would probably get even better traffic, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean, because Google would keep feeding it to us.
Speaker 3: But you know, like Rolling Stone has ultimately got to
Speaker 3: be about you know, what's happening in pop culture and
Speaker 3: politics now, not be the museum of rock and roll.
Speaker 3: And so I've actually made a bunch of decisions that
Speaker 3: are probably like on their face, bad for traffic, but
Speaker 3: you know, ultimately are better for the operation. And so
Speaker 3: you know, if you look at our covers or you
Speaker 3: look at for profiling, it's not your articles Rolling Stone,
Speaker 3: it's your kids anyway. And on the traffic question, you know,
Speaker 3: we get traffic from old variety of sources and it's like,
Speaker 3: you know, you get original information and cool shit. You
Speaker 3: know the traffic will come from it.
Speaker 1: So much we talk about traffic as like a pejorative thing,
Speaker 1: or it tends to have a perjorative connotation. But as
Speaker 1: a writer, I mean, if somebody doesn't read it, then
Speaker 1: what are we even doing?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, there's definitely some of that, But you know,
Speaker 3: you don't want to tie it too closely, right, because
Speaker 3: there are sometimes when you know, the thing you fart
Speaker 3: out happens to catch, like the particular algorithm. Therefore you
Speaker 3: get a lot of traffic, whereas something you work hard
Speaker 3: on doesn't always, And so there's a lot of different
Speaker 3: ways to get recognition. For example, we did this super long,
Speaker 3: deep dive investigative piece about a Serbian war criminal back
Speaker 3: in the nineties who had turned out had a very
Speaker 3: lucrative djaying career in the techno scene.
Speaker 2: It hits all the metrics.
Speaker 3: Right Yeah, no, but I'm just saying so, like that story,
Speaker 3: like in terms of traffic, was a total bomb, right,
Speaker 3: But we just won a national magazine award for it.
Speaker 3: We just were the finalist for an Overseas Press Club
Speaker 3: Award with it. Done a lot of stuff and in
Speaker 3: that community it's been hugely successful. And so would I
Speaker 3: do a story again called the dj as a war criminal? Fuck? Yes,
Speaker 3: you know, even though it didn't get like, it didn't
Speaker 3: blow up on Twitter or whatever.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the most recent piece
Speaker 1: that I've read that was kind of mind blowing about
Speaker 1: the total cross and appo file.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's mind blowing, but it also makes total sense.
Speaker 2: Oh, it totally makes sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So, I mean Fox has a long history that
Speaker 3: everybody can look up about keeping basically oppo research files
Speaker 3: on their biggest stories to keep those stars in check
Speaker 3: and to make sure that they didn't talk against the company.
Speaker 3: And those are kept by a woman named Arena Briganti,
Speaker 3: who is the well known multi decade fear closed, terrified
Speaker 3: of head of PR for Fox News. She is one
Speaker 3: of the most powerful people at the networks, you know,
Speaker 3: right right up there at the top. And so we
Speaker 3: broke a story a couple of days ago about how
Speaker 3: how Arena in our shop had kept an opposition research
Speaker 3: file one Tucker Carlson and had for a long time
Speaker 3: and had that information, you know, sort of at the
Speaker 3: ready in case he decided to start shitting on the
Speaker 3: bosses or shitting on the networks. Whether that oppo file
Speaker 3: is the same thing as these anonymous leaks that are
Speaker 3: coming out saying that Tucker said all kinds of racist
Speaker 3: and sexist and horrible things in text messages. Right.
Speaker 2: We don't know, right, we don't know.
Speaker 3: Whether those are the same things or whether those are
Speaker 3: different things. I think you can imagine if there's an
Speaker 3: Apple file on Chucker, Like, it feels like the opportunities
Speaker 3: for there to be bad stuff and there feel numerous
Speaker 3: considering everything he does that's so vile, Like in public.
Speaker 1: Right after you published a story, did Arena Burganti call
Speaker 1: you and scream at you? She didn't, So does that
Speaker 1: mean that like there's going to be a horse's head
Speaker 1: in your bed?
Speaker 2: Or I mean, is that a worse sign?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good question. Ordinarily Fox reaches out about
Speaker 3: the smallest slight, right, right, I mean they issued a
Speaker 3: denial to be clear, you know, they issued it on
Speaker 3: the record denial. I think there's two interpretations. One is
Speaker 3: they're so busy with other stuff and they're so fighting
Speaker 3: in coming that they don't have time to bother with
Speaker 3: little rolling style, or they are so or there's there's
Speaker 3: nothing I can.
Speaker 2: Say because it's true, Because it's true. Yeah, it does
Speaker 2: seem like eight sources seems like a lot of sources.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we had eight sources for the story that does
Speaker 3: seem like a lot, And I would say since then,
Speaker 3: we've heard from others that confirm the same stuff. So
Speaker 3: it is kind of an open secret at Fox.
Speaker 1: And there's probably APO files on a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I mean, what we know from Roger Ayle's time was
Speaker 1: that that was sort of how they did it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it stated operating procedure, and this was true on
Speaker 3: Bill O'Reilly and Stewart Party and those kinds of people,
Speaker 3: And so I'd be shocked if they didn't have one
Speaker 3: on everyone.
Speaker 1: I want to like kind of get you to speculate
Speaker 1: for a minute on the future of Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2: Yow.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to do this to you because it's me,
Speaker 1: but it's also we're interested. Like part of me thinks, like,
Speaker 1: this guy is so singularly powerful and dangerous because he's smart,
Speaker 1: because he really does speak to a group that is
Speaker 1: willing to do anything for him. Yeah, part of me thinks, like,
Speaker 1: could he could go off and do some really destructive things.
Speaker 1: But then part of me thinks, like, what happened to
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly, what happened to Glenn Back?
Speaker 3: Well, Glenn Back, you know, continue to operate a media
Speaker 3: company still continues to for a long time.
Speaker 2: Right, but he's not the figure he once was.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Bill O'Reilly continues to drink beer and cry in
Speaker 3: his corn beef with Tucker look at I don't know.
Speaker 3: I would say that though. Unlike those other two people,
Speaker 3: he has both like huge mainstream media connections, and he's
Speaker 3: got a coterie of followers not only on the right
Speaker 3: and befar right, but on a group of people that
Speaker 3: formerly identified themselves as being part of the left right.
Speaker 3: You know, there's sort of a tulsy gabbered section of
Speaker 3: people that at least cosplayed as being on the left
Speaker 3: that I think would follow Tucker into the gates of hell.
Speaker 3: So I do think that makes him a rather different figure. Honestly,
Speaker 3: if I were him, I would try to mess around
Speaker 3: with another network or do you anything like that, Like
Speaker 3: any other network is going to make him look small,
Speaker 3: And I would go to Rumble basically and do a
Speaker 3: video show from there. And I'm sure raake in the
Speaker 3: bucks That's what I would do if I were him.
Speaker 3: I know there's talk about him running for office.
Speaker 2: Why would anyone do that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just I don't even understand the upside of
Speaker 3: it for him, The guy like just kind of stays
Speaker 3: in his house and can be very rich and very
Speaker 3: powerful that way. Running for office seems like way too.
Speaker 2: Much work, right, That is my sense too.
Speaker 1: But when you saw that video of him last night,
Speaker 1: do you watch that video?
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 2: He has this stick.
Speaker 1: Which is has worked very well for him and is
Speaker 1: very appealing to the Fox audience. But I mean, we
Speaker 1: don't know again what his noncompete is, and we also
Speaker 1: don't know what his Like I wondered how much NDA
Speaker 1: there was there, right because he didn't mention Fox.
Speaker 3: I would be shocked if there was some kind of
Speaker 3: contractual mechanism that was keeping him speaking out against Fox
Speaker 3: in public. It would be shocked if that was my case,
Speaker 3: at least for a time, at least for six months
Speaker 3: or a year or whatever, until Rupert comes back from
Speaker 3: the dead. But I got to say, you know, if
Speaker 3: you had never heard of Tucker Carlson before, like if
Speaker 3: you didn't know what pure evil this guy was peddling,
Speaker 3: I don't know you'd listened that two minutes and to
Speaker 3: be like, yeah, that's fucking right. There is a place
Speaker 3: for truth in this world, and there is a place
Speaker 3: for open debate, and yeah, totally and I got to say,
Speaker 3: I was like watching my video last night on my
Speaker 3: phone while waiting for my kid's courus recital. It was
Speaker 3: kind of weird. I was in a middle school in Manhattan.
Speaker 3: It's a strange juxtaposition. And I was thinking to myself, Man,
Speaker 3: this guy is good. He's really good. He is he
Speaker 3: is really good at the demagoguery. He is excellent at
Speaker 3: it because he builds a persuasive case for absolutely terrible stuff.
Speaker 1: I thought the vagueness hurt him, like he's so vague
Speaker 1: part of what he does successfully and again this is
Speaker 1: not and in no way as a compliment, is that
Speaker 1: he sort of picks a target and focuses on that
Speaker 1: and he can't really do that right now.
Speaker 3: I don't know. To me, I sort of read it
Speaker 3: the other way, which was like the vagueness of it
Speaker 3: allowed him to sort of mold together Fox and you know,
Speaker 3: the non crazy part of the media into a giant
Speaker 3: other that he could then attack and really set himself apart,
Speaker 3: and kind of due to Fox, with Fox into the
Speaker 3: mainstream media, which is to say, like you can't trust them,
Speaker 3: but you can only trust me, and now give me money.
Speaker 1: Right, that will be the question what scoops are coming
Speaker 1: at in Rolling Stone that we need to read right now.
Speaker 3: Sure, I'd be happy to tell you about everything that
Speaker 3: we've got coming up.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, just everything before it's gone through illegal just
Speaker 1: tell us now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I appreciate that. Well, I would say this is
Speaker 3: not necessarily the fast politics overlap you were expecting. I'd say, like,
Speaker 3: our exclusive with Kesha this week was awesome. I love Kesha,
Speaker 3: And we had a very funny exclusive with this pop
Speaker 3: star and great songwriter named Bedie Reksha, who our writer
Speaker 3: gave the classic Rolling Stone assignment and they went to
Speaker 3: a dispensary and in Los Angeles and got high as
Speaker 3: fucked together and talked about music and life. I really
Speaker 3: liked all that. Yeah, we've got to really true. She's
Speaker 3: stuff coming up that I'm not going to tell you about.
Speaker 3: Don't work.
Speaker 2: I mean, come on, come on, just give us something.
Speaker 3: No nothing, huh, it's some stuff about you know things.
Speaker 2: Is there more coming about this APPO file?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean obviously we're trying to dig up more
Speaker 3: on that if we had it nailed down and be
Speaker 3: published already, because it's a super competitive story. If you
Speaker 3: just think about it, there's definitely other shoes to drop
Speaker 3: in Fox on the dominion fallout, if you just think
Speaker 3: it through, I think there's going to be more there,
Speaker 3: and we're trying to shake that loose. We are working
Speaker 3: on some interesting stories about your president, Donald J. D. Trump.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, the best, Yeah, he is the best. Tell
Speaker 3: me more turns out even best er than you thought.
Speaker 2: I don't believe you.
Speaker 3: That's our story. Yeah, So we've got a lot of
Speaker 3: stuff on that. This isn't something I've got to sign,
Speaker 3: but I think there's a lot of work to be
Speaker 3: done on this. Inability of the baby boomers to kind
Speaker 3: of just let it go and the real gracelessness with
Speaker 3: which some of these powerful boomers are aging is really
Speaker 3: tough to handle it. You know, it wouldn't be so
Speaker 3: bad except that these people are still holding on to
Speaker 3: incredible reins of power. Whether we're talking about Murdock, you know,
Speaker 3: whether we're talking about Trump, talking about Diane Feinstein, or
Speaker 3: you know, frankly about Biden. I just think it's it's
Speaker 3: insane that he's running again personally, and I think he's
Speaker 3: done a great job as president personally as a citizen.
Speaker 3: But the idea that this guy could be one heart
Speaker 3: attackle one stroke from handing the presidency back to Trump
Speaker 3: is just nuts. It's really your response. So I definitely
Speaker 3: want to dig in on that issue.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: Oh my God, my pleasure. Ananta.
Speaker 1: Joyce Vance is an MSNBC contributor and the host of
Speaker 1: the podcast Sisters in Law and Cafe Insider Welcome Too
Speaker 1: Fast Politics.
Speaker 4: Joyce Vance, Good morning, Mollie.
Speaker 1: I'm so delighted to have you, and I think of
Speaker 1: you as like a friend, a genius, a legal expert,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of legal shit going on right now.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you the first thing, the thing
Speaker 1: that's top of mind to me right now, And perhaps
Speaker 1: because I was named checked this morning and it is
Speaker 1: the Egene Carol case, it strikes me that there are
Speaker 1: some very hopeful things about this case, but also some
Speaker 1: really tough parts of this case.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think that's exactly the right way to look at it.
Speaker 4: I mean, this this is a case about defamation involving
Speaker 4: a former president who in twenty twenty two made ugly
Speaker 4: comments about Egen Carroll over her allegation that he had
Speaker 4: raped her in the mid nineteen nineties, and so she
Speaker 4: sues for defamation, but also for battery, which is sort
Speaker 4: of the civil equivalent of assault, under a newly passed
Speaker 4: statute in New York that lets adult survivors of sexual
Speaker 4: abuse bring civil cases that would otherwise be barred by
Speaker 4: the statute of limitations the time you have to sue.
Speaker 4: So here Egen Carroll is in court, and on the
Speaker 4: one hand, it's this tremendous moment where the former president
Speaker 4: may finally be held accountable for the horrendous conduct that
Speaker 4: he has displayed against a number of women over the years,
Speaker 4: never been held to account. But at the same time,
Speaker 4: it's this tremendously painful moment where you know, we are
Speaker 4: seeing what women in America go through every day. This decision.
Speaker 4: Do I report this kind of incident? Maybe I don't,
Speaker 4: because powerful men can do damaging things to women who
Speaker 4: make these sorts of allegations and bring them to light.
Speaker 4: But Egene Carroll is particularly strong. And although we can't
Speaker 4: watch the trial, there are no cameras in federal courts,
Speaker 4: which is sort of a favorite bugaboo of mine, but
Speaker 4: there are people inside the courtroom who are live tweeting.
Speaker 4: Carol is just a woman who is remarkably brave.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That was the thing that I was struck by was
Speaker 1: when she was talking about the abuse. You know, we
Speaker 1: don't talk about the abuse that much, the sort of
Speaker 1: online abuse.
Speaker 2: What happens when we are targeted.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've had that experience, but I
Speaker 1: certainly have had the experience of being targeted by those trolls.
Speaker 1: And even though like on some level you saying, well,
Speaker 1: I'm me and this is irrelevant and these people don't
Speaker 1: even know me, it does actually take a toll.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it really does. And look, it's not
Speaker 4: just the online stuff. I mean, there are peopleeople who
Speaker 4: will decide to physically stalk you or send threatening letters.
Speaker 4: And I think that that's something that we've all experienced
Speaker 4: at this point in time, and my background, obviously, you know,
Speaker 4: coming out of federal law enforcement, I think you're better
Speaker 4: equipped to deal with that. When you are a private
Speaker 4: citizen like Egene Carroll and you're being subjected to the
Speaker 4: worst that people who are motivated by Trump's bad behavior
Speaker 4: can throw at you, it's extremely unpleasant. It should be.
Speaker 4: You know, this is like a sign in glaring letters
Speaker 4: that says do not reelect. And I hope people will
Speaker 4: pay attention.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean that is the big question is like
Speaker 1: will this man get another term in office, which he
Speaker 1: certainly might. This is not a criminal trial. Will you
Speaker 1: just talk about this a little more so? That's a
Speaker 1: really important point here. This is not a criminal rape prosecution.
Speaker 1: No one goes to prison at the end of this case.
Speaker 1: That's because you know, the case is old. It would
Speaker 1: be barred by the statute of limitations. Here's a really
Speaker 1: interesting thing about civil versus criminal cases, Molly, and you'll
Speaker 1: forgive me. You know, I'm a former appellate lawyer. I'm
Speaker 1: a little bit dirty when it comes.
Speaker 4: To this stuff. In a criminal case, guilt would have
Speaker 4: to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction
Speaker 4: of the jury. In a civil case, the judge will
Speaker 4: instruct the jury that they must find Carol's allegations are
Speaker 4: true by a preponderance of the evidence. That means more
Speaker 4: likely than not or fifty one percent if you want
Speaker 4: to put it in numerical terms. That's obviously an easier
Speaker 4: burden for a plaintiff to meet in a civil case.
Speaker 4: And you know, a lot has been made about the
Speaker 4: fact that Carol's memory is imperfect. She doesn't remember the
Speaker 4: exact date or even the exact year that this took place.
Speaker 4: She didn't go to law enforcement immediately. But in my mind,
Speaker 4: those are both strengths in this civil case. If Carol
Speaker 4: wanted to make up allegations about Trump, she would have
Speaker 4: known what the date was, right, And so I think
Speaker 4: ultimately this is a very strong case.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: That is a really good point.
Speaker 1: I also thought what she said where she talked about
Speaker 1: there's no real upside to these cases. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe she gets a little money, Ultimately it's going to
Speaker 1: cost more in lawyers fees.
Speaker 2: Will you just talk about that for a minute. This
Speaker 2: is not an easy win for anyone.
Speaker 4: Now, I mean, this is what I think of as
Speaker 4: a woman of valor prosecution. This is someone who's bringing
Speaker 4: a lawsuit that she really didn't want to bring because
Speaker 4: it's the right thing to do. I think Carol is
Speaker 4: someone who appreciates the moment, she understands the trajectory of history.
Speaker 4: It's very unlikely that the jury will give her a
Speaker 4: monetary award that's sufficient to even cover the damages she
Speaker 4: suffers after she is fired by L Magazine. Of course,
Speaker 4: L Magazine said that they didn't terminate her contract because
Speaker 4: of her allegations about Trump, but the timing is very interesting.
Speaker 4: You know, she lost readers, she lost income. The jury
Speaker 4: might decide to compensate her for the but that's certainly
Speaker 4: not a sure thing. And so this is a case
Speaker 4: I think that's more about principle than it is about money.
Speaker 1: Right, These are the kind of things they're traumatic to
Speaker 1: be involved in. So now there are some things under
Speaker 1: the radar that are going on with Trump that I
Speaker 1: was hoping you could talk about, Like, for example, he
Speaker 1: came to New York, made.
Speaker 2: A big show of seeing.
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg, you know, the Da Da Da Da, and
Speaker 1: then he came later and saw Tiss James and made
Speaker 1: that it was completely sort of snuck in. Will you
Speaker 1: talk about those two different cases, because they were like
Speaker 1: a week apart.
Speaker 4: Lawsuits everywhere. Trump is under criminal indictment in Manhattan, and
Speaker 4: I love the way you phrased it. You know that
Speaker 4: he made a big deal about showing up to see
Speaker 4: Manhattan Da Alvin Bragg, as one does when one is
Speaker 4: under arrest and submitting for processing because one has been
Speaker 4: indicted in a criminal case. And then the second situation
Speaker 4: that you're referencing. He comes back the following week because
Speaker 4: he's been ordered to sit for a deposition. And this
Speaker 4: is the New York Attorney General's prosecution again civil not criminal,
Speaker 4: of bad business practices by his corporate entities. And this
Speaker 4: case may really be the sleeper in the whole mix
Speaker 4: of Trump's legal problems because it could involve imposing a
Speaker 4: corporate death penalty on his ability to function in the
Speaker 4: state of New York.
Speaker 1: Can you say more about a corporate death penalty? That
Speaker 1: is some interesting wording.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So, you know, this case looks into manipulation of values
Speaker 4: and other loose practices, and something that James can ask
Speaker 4: the court to order is that Trump be forced to
Speaker 4: stop doing business in the state of New York. You know,
Speaker 4: it's interesting about the time that this case got serious,
Speaker 4: Trump filed for a duplicate corporate entity in Delaware. He
Speaker 4: began the paperwork to do that. It may be that
Speaker 4: he sees the writing on the wall, but it would
Speaker 4: be a real gut shot for Trump to be an
Speaker 4: able to do business in the state of New York.
Speaker 1: Right, And I want to talk about his CEO is
Speaker 1: already in jail, Alan Weiserberg.
Speaker 4: He is He's sitting in Rikers Island, which is not
Speaker 4: a pleasant place for anyone to sit, you know, let
Speaker 4: alone a man of his age. One of the big
Speaker 4: wild cards in both the Manhattan DA's criminal prosecution and
Speaker 4: Tiss James civil case is will Weislberg finally decide he's
Speaker 4: had enough and that he wants to cooperate so he
Speaker 4: doesn't spend his last years in prison. He has seemed
Speaker 4: to be very motivated to stay in Trump's good graces.
Speaker 4: There has been speculation that that's because his family benefits
Speaker 4: financially and could be devastated financially if he were to
Speaker 4: join forces with the government. That's one of those ones
Speaker 4: where we'll just have to wait and see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's quite interesting.
Speaker 1: And then there was also an announcement about in Georgia,
Speaker 1: will you talk a little bit about what's happening with
Speaker 1: Fanny Willis?
Speaker 4: Right, So, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis sent a
Speaker 4: letter and say, Mollie, this is pretty unusual to see
Speaker 4: this happen. But she sends a letter to the sheriff
Speaker 4: in Fulton County and says, listen, I'm going to be
Speaker 4: making an announcement she doesn't say, you know, is she
Speaker 4: announcing she's indicted. Is she going to announce She's not
Speaker 4: going to indict who's involved. But she says, I'm going
Speaker 4: to make an announcement about, you know, this election investigation,
Speaker 4: and you should be unnotice that you need to be
Speaker 4: prepared for public safety purposes, to protect our citizens. So
Speaker 4: she says, you know, it could happen as early as
Speaker 4: July eleventh, it could happen as late as September. She's
Speaker 4: sort of set a time frame for announcing her prosecutive
Speaker 4: decision here.
Speaker 2: Very unusual, Yes, very unusual, right, She's sort.
Speaker 4: Of though, to be fair, it's one of those damned
Speaker 4: if you do and damned if you don't. She really needed,
Speaker 4: I think, to work through with state, federal, and local
Speaker 4: law enforcement public security consequences of any decision she might make.
Speaker 4: You know, Fulton County, with all due respect to Atlanta,
Speaker 4: is not Manhattan, not as equipped for what would accompany
Speaker 4: the indictment of a former president. Could she have done
Speaker 4: this privately and gone to them and had conversations. Absolutely, Instead,
Speaker 4: we have this letter that leaked out.
Speaker 1: So I want to ask you a little bit about
Speaker 1: this documents case. So there's one other case. It's a
Speaker 1: federal case. It's the Jack Smith case. Can you talk
Speaker 1: about that, because there's been some new information there too.
Speaker 4: Jack Smith now has both the Document's case and the
Speaker 4: January sixth criminal investigations, and in the best tradition of
Speaker 4: federal prosecutors, those cases are largely opaque. Right we don't
Speaker 4: know what his timeline is. He could be ready to
Speaker 4: drop indictments tomorrow, or he could have decided not to indict.
Speaker 4: But what seems clear from what we've seen is that
Speaker 4: he is working towards an indictment in the Document's case.
Speaker 4: This recent case that we're seeing with this young member
Speaker 4: of the military is a really good example of why
Speaker 4: Trump is on a trajectory to get popped by the Feds.
Speaker 4: It's not holding on to classified documents alone that gets
Speaker 4: you prosecuted. It's obstruction. So in that particular case, there's
Speaker 4: now evidence that indicates that the defendant tried to destroy
Speaker 4: evidence to discourage other people from cooperating with the Feds
Speaker 4: as they closed in on him. And there's a parallel
Speaker 4: in Trump's case where he lies to Dojay and says
Speaker 4: I've given you everything back when he clearly hasn't, and
Speaker 4: that's the sort of conduct I think that will lead
Speaker 4: to Jacksmith forward. You know, this week we've learned that
Speaker 4: some of the early documents that were returned involved Trump's
Speaker 4: briefings to meet with foreign leaders, which is incredibly dangerous
Speaker 4: for our national security, given what we know about how
Speaker 4: cavalierly Trump treated access to these sorts of documents, and
Speaker 4: just given all of the evidence of obstruction that surfaced
Speaker 4: in the course of this investigation, that's what we know publicly.
Speaker 4: My assumption is that Smith has a lot more evidence
Speaker 4: than what we know about that we're just seeing the
Speaker 4: tip of the iceberg. I think this case is on
Speaker 4: track for an indictment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is, I think really really quite interesting. There's
Speaker 1: still no legal world in which Trump doesn't run again,
Speaker 1: there's nothing. It's sort of too late to stop that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think that, to be clear, is the
Speaker 4: job of the political process, not of the legal process. Right,
Speaker 4: legal process only determines whether or not someone committed crimes.
Speaker 4: What people do once they have that information is up
Speaker 4: to them, and here it's up to the Republican Party
Speaker 4: that frankly could bar Trump, but lacks the spine to
Speaker 4: do so.
Speaker 1: Right, that is certainly true. I want your take on this,
Speaker 1: Disney versus DeSantis.
Speaker 4: Sorry, yeah, Disney versus DeSantis. This is a really interesting lawsuit.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: It's not just a contracts case saying Florida, you can't
Speaker 4: violate our contractual agreements. It's also alleging First Amendment violations.
Speaker 4: And this I think is a case of be careful
Speaker 4: of what you ask for, right. I mean, DeSantis thought
Speaker 4: he could look like the big man by taking on Disney,
Speaker 4: and now Disney has taken the bait. Yeah, I like
Speaker 4: Disney's chances here.
Speaker 1: Can you explain this lawsuit a little bit for me
Speaker 1: because I don't quite understand it, right.
Speaker 4: So, what the controversy centers around is the fact that Disney,
Speaker 4: like more than one hundred other entities in the state
Speaker 4: of Florida, has this special status that's designed to encourage
Speaker 4: them to do business in the state of Florida, and
Speaker 4: it gives them incentives and special rights. And in Disney's case,
Speaker 4: they have a lot of control over the land that
Speaker 4: Disney World is situated on. They provide services, they really
Speaker 4: act in many ways like a local government, and there's
Speaker 4: a board that heads that work and historically they've appointed
Speaker 4: by Disney. Ron DeSantis decided that he would put his
Speaker 4: own people in place to do that, that he wanted
Speaker 4: to strip Disney's authority in retaliation for the way that
Speaker 4: you know, Disney has done horrible things like supporting gay
Speaker 4: people and so on its way out the door, the
Speaker 4: existing board sort of Meetcaps DeSantis in his new board
Speaker 4: member's ability to do anything by entering into some contracts
Speaker 4: that lock things in place for thirty years. Newboard can't
Speaker 4: change that. So that's the essence of the contract suit
Speaker 4: that Disney is bringing. Look, you know, Disney does everything
Speaker 4: that they do immaculately. I can remember being there with
Speaker 4: our kids twenty years ago and seeing this guy in
Speaker 4: a business suit holding binders, who was obviously a Disney employee,
Speaker 4: walking down Main Street and there were a whole bunch
Speaker 4: of napkins that somebody had dropped that were on the ground,
Speaker 4: and the suit stops, picks up all of the napkins
Speaker 4: and puts them in the trash. And I just said
Speaker 4: something like, wow, that's amazing, and he said, no, that's
Speaker 4: our training. And to me, that has always epitomized Disney.
Speaker 4: They are very good at picking up the.
Speaker 1: Trash, so we will see how they pick up the trash.
Speaker 2: To be continued.
Speaker 1: Choyce Fans, I am so delighted to have you on
Speaker 1: this podcast.
Speaker 2: I hope you will come back.
Speaker 4: This is a treat for me anytime. Mollie.
Speaker 2: Hi, it's Mollie and I am.
Speaker 1: Wildly excited that for the first time, Fast Politics, the
Speaker 1: show you're listening to right.
Speaker 2: Now, is going to have merch for sale.
Speaker 1: Over at shop dot fastpoliticspod dot com. You can now
Speaker 1: buy shirts, hats, hoodies, and toe bags with our incredible designs.
Speaker 1: We've heard your cries to spread the word about our
Speaker 1: podcast and get a tow bag with my adorable Leo
Speaker 1: the Rescue Puppy on it. And now you can grab
Speaker 1: this merchandise only at shop dot fastpoliticspod dot com.
Speaker 2: Thanks for your support.
Speaker 1: Hannah Dryer is an investigative reporter at the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Hannah, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: We're delighted to have you. And you did this blockbuster.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say blockbuster. There should be another word.
Speaker 1: It's blockbuster. It's the kind of thing that's huge, but
Speaker 1: it's also just devastating, which is you cracked this child
Speaker 1: labor story. Can you talk a little bit about this?
Speaker 6: Yeah, So this has sort of been an open secret
Speaker 6: in immigration worlds for many years. A lot of the
Speaker 6: children who cross the border by themselves are coming here
Speaker 6: and ending up working. And so I knew about this
Speaker 6: from reporting on you know, Trump immigration crackdowns years ago,
Speaker 6: and last year I decided to try to really dig
Speaker 6: into what's happening with children who are coming over the
Speaker 6: border and working. And I sort of thought it would
Speaker 6: be kids at restaurants, maybe it would be an agriculture story. Well, instead,
Speaker 6: what I found is these kids are working in factories,
Speaker 6: They're working the overnight shift, in slaughterhouses, They're working in
Speaker 6: the most industrial settings. I found them in every single state,
Speaker 6: and so we're talking about thousands, tens of thousands, some
Speaker 6: people think, probably hundreds of thousands of kids, some as
Speaker 6: young as twelve thirteen years old, who are working full
Speaker 6: time in jobs where children should never be.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I remember listening to an episode of The
Speaker 1: Daily You did Wow where you talked about the sort
Speaker 1: of how you cracked these networks.
Speaker 2: Is that fair? Yeah?
Speaker 6: The reporting was very intense. It was basically going out
Speaker 6: getting on the ground in some of the places where
Speaker 6: I knew there were a lot of children who had
Speaker 6: been released not to their parents, but to maybe an
Speaker 6: uncle they never met, or a family friend, somebody from
Speaker 6: the village. And so I went to these towns all
Speaker 6: over the country and tried to figure out where are
Speaker 6: these kids working? And it was a lot of standing
Speaker 6: around at you know, the Cheerios factory at the twelve
Speaker 6: o'clock shift change, and looking for young faces as people
Speaker 6: walked out of work, and then talking to some of
Speaker 6: these kids and asking them how old they were, asking
Speaker 6: if they were going to school the next morning. It's
Speaker 6: a pretty hidden population. I initially tried to do this
Speaker 6: reporting by talking to immigration lawyers or advocates, and they
Speaker 6: just weren't in touch.
Speaker 2: With these kids.
Speaker 6: These kids are totally on their own.
Speaker 2: That's the thing.
Speaker 1: When I read this warning and when I heard you
Speaker 1: interviewed about those these kids are.
Speaker 2: Really on their own, and they're little kids.
Speaker 6: I was expecting that I would be talking to sixteen
Speaker 6: and seventeen year olds, but yeah, really, say, these are
Speaker 6: you know, twelve year olds. I remember one twelve year
Speaker 6: old I talked to. He had come over. He was
Speaker 6: staying in a house with five other kids just like
Speaker 6: him who had come over as unaccompanied minors and been
Speaker 6: released by the government to the same sponsor, and he
Speaker 6: was working in roofing every day. He told me he'd
Speaker 6: never learned to read, and he really wanted to go
Speaker 6: to school just to learn to read, and he thought
Speaker 6: that he would be able to But when he got
Speaker 6: to this country, he was on the hook for rent.
Speaker 6: He was on the hook for paying back the cost
Speaker 6: of his journey to the border. And it's just these
Speaker 6: really dark situations, these kids who sort of have no
Speaker 6: hope of ever escaping the situation that they're in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the thing that was so striking to me was
Speaker 1: just how crushingly Deckenzian this is. I mean, but the
Speaker 1: other thing that really struck me was these are not
Speaker 1: like I mean, some of them are like random roofing
Speaker 1: companies whatever, but a lot of them are like blue
Speaker 1: chip companies with publicly traded stocks.
Speaker 2: Can you talk about that?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, these are the biggest companies in this country.
Speaker 6: We're talking about about Pepsi Co, General Mills, Ord, General Motors,
Speaker 6: Fruit of the Loom, Socks. I also thought that I
Speaker 6: was going to find a lot of sort of under
Speaker 6: the table work. But actually what's happened is that these
Speaker 6: big companies, say, you know Pepsi Coo, which makes Cheetos,
Speaker 6: there's sort of a new supply system where Pepsi Coo
Speaker 6: will hire a manufacturer. In the case that I found,
Speaker 6: it was this company Heartside in Grand Rapids, and this
Speaker 6: company will start manufacturing Cheetos, but the workers that are
Speaker 6: there are hired through a staffing agency. So what's happened
Speaker 6: is there's all these layers and it allows a company
Speaker 6: like PepsiCo to say, oh, we had no idea there
Speaker 6: were children making, you know, flaming hot Cheetos. And meanwhile,
Speaker 6: I'm talking to kids who are making this product and
Speaker 6: tell me that their lungs burn from the spicy dust,
Speaker 6: that they don't get enough sleep, that they're worried their
Speaker 6: hands are going to get caught in the conveyor belts.
Speaker 6: Seco sort of has plausible deniability. But at the same time,
Speaker 6: just going to the factories and looking around, it's easy
Speaker 6: to talk to these kids.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what is so striking to me, because
Speaker 1: the reason why I wanted to talk to you was
Speaker 1: not just because of this blockbuster reporting, but because I've
Speaker 1: been seeing in these GOP state houses around the country,
Speaker 1: a renewed push for child labor laws. You saw in Alabama,
Speaker 1: in Arkansas, in all of these red states were quietly
Speaker 1: seeing these child labor laws amended or changed.
Speaker 2: And I wondered if there was a connection between these
Speaker 2: two things.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, that's exactly right. So it's totally outrageous
Speaker 6: what's happening in these Republican states. They're basically rolling back
Speaker 6: laws that have been on the books for one hundred years.
Speaker 6: It's not like, oh, now a seventeen year old can
Speaker 6: work without a work permit. These laws are allowing fourteen
Speaker 6: and fifteen neurals to work the overnight shift legally, for
Speaker 6: them to work in factories with assembly lines, stuff that
Speaker 6: has never been permitted. And it really comes down to
Speaker 6: the same issue, which is a shortage of workers. What
Speaker 6: look on in the states say is, well, somebody's you know,
Speaker 6: got to run the overnight assembly line, and nobody wants
Speaker 6: to do it, except there are these kids out here.
Speaker 6: And that's exactly what I heard with the migrant child
Speaker 6: leab or crisis, that these companies wouldn't have turned to
Speaker 6: staffing agencies except nobody wanted to. You know, work at
Speaker 6: three am stamping car parts.
Speaker 1: It's heartbreaking, it's so crushing, it's so upsetting to me,
Speaker 1: But it also is just insane, right, Like, this is
Speaker 1: a country that desperately needs workers, right, but here's a
Speaker 1: situation where like it could clearly be solved by fixing immigration,
Speaker 1: and instead we have stayed houses making it so that
Speaker 1: children can work without these companies getting penal lost.
Speaker 6: One thing that struck me about the kids I was
Speaker 6: reporting on is that their parents really wish that they
Speaker 6: could come and work.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: So our process was, you know, it's very unclear that
Speaker 6: a twelve year old can give consent to talk to
Speaker 6: a New York Times reporter and a newspaper. So we
Speaker 6: talked to all of these kids' parents back in Central America,
Speaker 6: and a lot of them were, you know, crying on
Speaker 6: the phone with me, talking about how they had come
Speaker 6: to the border and tried to come into this country
Speaker 6: because they wanted to be the one sending money back
Speaker 6: and providing for the family. But, like you say, the
Speaker 6: way immigration law is set up right now, a child
Speaker 6: can come in and work, but once you're eighteen, it's
Speaker 6: almost impossible to come into this country. Even if all
Speaker 6: you want to do is you know, work the overnight
Speaker 6: shift and send money home, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the thing that strikes me.
Speaker 1: And with children again, you know, these companies are robbing
Speaker 1: these children of their childhood. I'm just curious, like in
Speaker 1: this situation, Will I mean, was your sense that once,
Speaker 1: Because now you've published the story, it's been a little while,
Speaker 1: do you think that they or is it change from
Speaker 1: this or do you think that what's really happening is
Speaker 1: these state houses are passing these legislatures to protect these companies.
Speaker 7: Legislation to protect these companies. I think everybody who watches
Speaker 7: child labor is really disturbed by what's going right in
Speaker 7: these states. And it's an open question whether that legislation
Speaker 7: is really going to allow kids to work these jobs,
Speaker 7: because there's still federal law that protects these kids, and
Speaker 7: that's something that is going to have to get worked out.
Speaker 7: People are hoping the federal law is going to trump
Speaker 7: the state laws and these kids will still be banned
Speaker 7: from these really adult jobs. But more globally, I mean,
Speaker 7: the Biden administration says that they didn't know anything about
Speaker 7: child labor or micro child labor crisis until our story
Speaker 7: came out in February. There were plenty of warnings set up,
Speaker 7: there was plenty of evidence that this was happening. But
Speaker 7: the administration, in response to our reporting has done a
Speaker 7: couple things. And one thing that they're doing is going
Speaker 7: after these companies in a new way, and they're pledging
Speaker 7: to go all the way of the Chaine. So if
Speaker 7: a child was making Cheetos, it's not just the staffing
Speaker 7: agency that gets held accountable. I think we really are
Speaker 7: seeing a lot of change in the labor enforcement side
Speaker 7: of this. On the other side, on the sort of
Speaker 7: health and human services side, looking at what kind of
Speaker 7: support there is for these children. I don't know if
Speaker 7: we're going to see much change. That's sort of something
Speaker 7: that I'm watching closely right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, and there is a fundamental problem, like if
Speaker 1: these kids don't get to work, these families don't get
Speaker 1: to eat.
Speaker 2: It's a sickle call problem.
Speaker 6: I Mean, one sad thing though, is these kids could
Speaker 6: work less brutal job they have.
Speaker 2: I don't want to laugh because it's so horrible.
Speaker 6: Go on, yes, no, no, no, no, it's horrible, and
Speaker 6: it's like absurd. Yeah, exactly, you know, like most people
Speaker 6: work as a teenager. I definitely had a job as
Speaker 6: a teenager, but I was able to get a legal
Speaker 6: and these kids could also qualify for work permits, which
Speaker 6: is the thing that would allow them to just work
Speaker 6: at like a grocery store or McDonald's. But they need
Speaker 6: a lawyer. And so there's a lot of pressure on
Speaker 6: Biden administration right now to provide basic legal services for
Speaker 6: all of these kids because otherwise we know the kind
Speaker 6: of jobs they end up doing.
Speaker 1: We hear a lot of kind of noise about immigration
Speaker 1: and about the border. Some of that from the Fox
Speaker 1: industrial complex is really cruel and evil towards these immigrants, right,
Speaker 1: they said, they're you know, I mean this Trump line.
Speaker 2: You know, they're not good people.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, these are children who have come here to
Speaker 1: save their families, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, can you talk about the pressure these kids feel?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I think that these children imagine that
Speaker 6: they're going to come to this country and, like you say,
Speaker 6: and save the family and send money back so that
Speaker 6: their little siblings and can eat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and poverty.
Speaker 6: Has just gotten so desperate in countries like Guatemala. But
Speaker 6: they're children, so they can't really imagine what they're taking
Speaker 6: on when they come here. And what they told me,
Speaker 6: like child after child, was that they couldn't imagine what
Speaker 6: their life was going to be like here. So it's
Speaker 6: really a question of can a child consent to come
Speaker 6: here and work full time and support themselves when they're
Speaker 6: like thirteen, And you.
Speaker 5: Know, I don't think most people could think that they
Speaker 5: can really make that choice. So we have a situation
Speaker 5: where there are all these kids here, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 5: of kids more coming each year. There's surely going to
Speaker 5: be you know, another record number this summer, and we
Speaker 5: sort of haven't set up a system where anybody is
Speaker 5: checking in on these kids once they're released, but there's
Speaker 5: any kind of support for them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's strange because we think of this problem as
Speaker 1: the kind of thing from another century.
Speaker 2: Totally totally, and it's right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, will you just explain a little bit, like
Speaker 1: what happens when one of these kids gets sick? I mean,
Speaker 1: is there anyone to take care of them? I mean,
Speaker 1: like they're really on their own?
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I mean child labor laws exist basically to
Speaker 6: keep kids physically safe. Like there's this idea that it's
Speaker 6: good for kids to be in school, and it's not
Speaker 6: good for them to have too much responsibility, and all
Speaker 6: of that goes into it. But when you're thinking of
Speaker 6: the turn of the century, when these laws were put
Speaker 6: in place, it was all about kids' physical safety. And
Speaker 6: that's what I saw again and again. These kids are
Speaker 6: working really dangerous jobs and they get hurt. I found
Speaker 6: twelve instances of children just in the last couple of
Speaker 6: years who died on the job, like baring fifty feet
Speaker 6: to their bath, getting you know, caught in machines, having
Speaker 6: legs amputated, and when they get hurt, there's no one
Speaker 6: to take care of them. One child I talked to
Speaker 6: had his arm mangled at a chicken processing plant when
Speaker 6: he was fourteen, and he was in the hospital for days,
Speaker 6: and he told me nobody came to visit him because
Speaker 6: he wasn't really living with anybody who had his back.
Speaker 6: He was basically on his own, trying to support himself
Speaker 6: on this overnight shift, and when he got hurt, he
Speaker 6: was abandoned.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, the cruelty is just unbelievable. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: are there other ideas that you've had that you think
Speaker 1: could or anything you've seen where you were out there
Speaker 1: interviewing people, where you thought, oh, this might help.
Speaker 2: I've talked to a.
Speaker 6: Couple children who were in really bad situations where their sponsor,
Speaker 6: the person who had agreed to take them in, was
Speaker 6: forcing them to work, threatening them, threatening them with the
Speaker 6: violence if they didn't turn over their paychecks. And these
Speaker 6: children ended up escaping that situation because they had a
Speaker 6: social worker who was sort of watching over them. The
Speaker 6: government releases most of these kids with no support, but
Speaker 6: some do get a couple months of case management, and
Speaker 6: from what I've seen, that made a difference. These kids
Speaker 6: at least had an adult they could call and ask
Speaker 6: for help, and then in the situations thinking of the
Speaker 6: social worker got law enforcement involved and the kid was
Speaker 6: basically rescued. So I think it all comes back to
Speaker 6: what kind of support is there for these kids? Are
Speaker 6: they getting legal services? Is there a social worker, Is
Speaker 6: there sort of anybody who could be a trusted adult
Speaker 6: once they're released in case they end up, like a
Speaker 6: lot of them do, in these really bad situations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it seems like an easy fix, and
Speaker 1: they're I mean an easy fix. None of this is
Speaker 1: an easy fix, and all of this is you know
Speaker 1: it's just heartbreak, but that certainly sounds like a way
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration could at least put another layer
Speaker 1: of safety for these children. It's unbelievable. So can you
Speaker 1: just for a minute or two talk about the reverberations
Speaker 1: of this piece and what you're seeing and anything that
Speaker 1: makes you hopeful, because now I'm so upset.
Speaker 6: Look with the kids that we're writing about. Some of
Speaker 6: the kids we've named have now gotten lawyers, they've gotten
Speaker 6: more support, they've gotten the fund me set up for them.
Speaker 6: It's a tiny fraction of the children who are out there,
Speaker 6: but it's beenheartening that readers really do want to help,
Speaker 6: and people do want to help what these kids are
Speaker 6: in a visible place, and I think the whole issue
Speaker 6: is more visible right now. So there were two Congressional
Speaker 6: Oversight hearings into this issue last week, there's another one
Speaker 6: coming up this week. And Health in Human Services, it's
Speaker 6: pledging to do a lot more as far as those
Speaker 6: sort of support services on the back end, and they
Speaker 6: say Congress needs to allocate money for that.
Speaker 2: So we'll see. But all of this is.
Speaker 6: Sort of in motion, and the advocates who work with
Speaker 6: these kids most closely tell me that they feel really
Speaker 6: hopeful for the first time in a couple of years
Speaker 6: about this, that something might actually change.
Speaker 2: Hanna, thank you so much for doing this work.
Speaker 1: I mean, I am so upset from talking to you
Speaker 1: for eighteen minutes, so I can only imagine how much
Speaker 1: this has broken your heart, having to do this, And
Speaker 1: I just appreciate it so much. And I'm so glad
Speaker 1: that the New York Times is covering this and that
Speaker 1: you're doing this work, and it's so important, and I'm
Speaker 1: just so grateful that you made the time to talk
Speaker 1: to us.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 4: It means a lot.
Speaker 2: No moment.
Speaker 8: Jesse Cannon Malei Jong fasts. There's well the Egen and
Speaker 8: Carol case. I think a lot of people underestimated that'd
Speaker 8: be one of the more interesting ones for mister Trump,
Speaker 8: but it really started out to be interesting. What are
Speaker 8: you seeing there?
Speaker 1: I'm seeing my name, Yeah, and I don't like it.
Speaker 2: It struck me too, I'm seeing my name. I don't
Speaker 2: like it.
Speaker 1: Here's what I would like. I would like when people
Speaker 1: are in court not to mention me when they are
Speaker 1: on the stand. All I want in life is to
Speaker 1: not be in a case, but here it is. Allow
Speaker 1: me to quote from the transcript, where did you meet him?
Speaker 1: The Council's asking about one George Conway Carol at a
Speaker 1: party thrown by Erica John's daughter, Molly John fast Comma,
Speaker 1: a respected podcaster. Hell yeah, hell yeah, our moment of fuckery.
Speaker 8: That's our moment of glory. What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I'm just trying, man. That's our moment of full disclosure.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds
Speaker 1: in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.