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 Trumpy think tank America First Policy
Speaker 1: Put Policy in quotes institute is seeking to allow election
Speaker 1: officials to refuse to certify results.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine why we have such a great show
Speaker 2: for you today.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Mikey Cheryl stops by to talk about her move
Speaker 1: to hold Supreme Court justices to.
Speaker 2: Account for ethics.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Media Matters CEO Angelo Arisone about
Speaker 1: the rights new playbook to take down media outlets. But
Speaker 1: first we have Atlantic columnist George Conway. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. George Conway, Hello, so pretty exciting stuff. Did
Speaker 1: you think that Donald Trump being a convicted felon, that
Speaker 1: Republicans would just continue on the Trump train? Now, not
Speaker 1: all Republicans, because we're seeing polling that shows that there's
Speaker 1: definitely a section of Republicans who are affected by this.
Speaker 1: But are you surprised with which the zeal the rest
Speaker 1: of the party has continued on with him?
Speaker 3: Not at all.
Speaker 4: I didn't think that most of the face is going
Speaker 4: to care. They've already decided that they're not going to
Speaker 4: care about anything.
Speaker 3: That he could go out and.
Speaker 4: As Trump said a few years ago, shoot people on
Speaker 4: Fifth Avenue, and they'd say, those people deserve being shot.
Speaker 4: They're just refusing to admit they're wrong. They're refusing to
Speaker 4: admit error. They are bound to him. It's something of
Speaker 4: a cult.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: There's nothing you can do about those people. But that's
Speaker 4: that for normal people. It's usually a bad thing when
Speaker 4: a candidate for public office gets indicted and then convicted.
Speaker 4: So I think obviously it's going to hurt him with
Speaker 4: some people, and he needs every single vote. No, the
Speaker 4: conviction politically is going to be overall harmful.
Speaker 1: Sort of the Republican narrative that has formed that they
Speaker 1: are pumping out to the mainstream media, and a pretty
Speaker 1: rapid clip is that this has just made Trump stronger,
Speaker 1: that he's raised two zillion dollars.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I will see if they're actually
Speaker 4: telling the truth. I mean, these people have been known
Speaker 4: sometimes doctor tell the truth.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you know that, Lolly, but that's
Speaker 3: one thing.
Speaker 4: And secondly, it's like what are they going to spend
Speaker 4: it on? They're going to convince people that he didn't
Speaker 4: get convicted of a crime if they got money out
Speaker 4: of it to temporary spike and I don't I don't
Speaker 4: know that's going.
Speaker 3: To help them.
Speaker 1: Do you think Republicans are sort of panicked or do
Speaker 1: you think they genuinely believe what they're saying?
Speaker 4: No, I think it's come I mean, I think some
Speaker 4: of them believe what they're saying. I think some of
Speaker 4: them don't. I think a lot of them are just
Speaker 4: going to say whatever they're told to say, and a
Speaker 4: lot a lot of them just going to say. You know,
Speaker 4: they they're very good at just denial that this is
Speaker 4: what they have become.
Speaker 3: They've become.
Speaker 4: They deny reality, They lie, They live for these lies,
Speaker 4: and they just tell more of them. And when their
Speaker 4: lies are shown to be lies, they come up with
Speaker 4: and the life that they're going to tell is this
Speaker 4: is good. Well, if it's so good, why are you
Speaker 4: so unhappy?
Speaker 3: They don't have an answer to that.
Speaker 2: No, they don't.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: One of the people who has gotten very into Libs
Speaker 1: have made him president again now is Scott Jennings on CNN.
Speaker 2: You were on with him last week and he.
Speaker 1: Did a lot of that obfuscating sort of like the
Speaker 1: genteel Trumper.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, he does that. But he was just outright
Speaker 4: lying about the case and saying that it wasn't clear
Speaker 4: what Trump was charged withal and we're just complete nonsense.
Speaker 4: They just spout these talking points out without regard to
Speaker 4: whether they're true.
Speaker 3: That's just what they do. And you notice that with
Speaker 3: a lot.
Speaker 4: Of these people who like to say, well, I'm not
Speaker 4: really that supportive of Donald Trump. I don't I'm not
Speaker 4: a Trumper, I'm not a hardcore Trumper, blah blah blah,
Speaker 4: and then they just spout out the same talking points
Speaker 4: because that's what they do. And I told you something
Speaker 4: about how they feel about Trump or how embarrassed they
Speaker 4: are the Trump is their standard bearers. They just said
Speaker 4: they can't talk about him, they cannot defend him. So
Speaker 4: they just say, well, I'm not really a big Trump supporter.
Speaker 4: But and then they say something on the attack like oh,
Speaker 4: but Biden is this, Kamala Harris is this? Oh oh,
Speaker 4: this case is that, And it's like, okay, but dude,
Speaker 4: the guy's a condicted criminal. He's got fifty odd other
Speaker 4: counts he's got to deal with, including things where he's
Speaker 4: dead to rights for stealing classified documents. They talk about
Speaker 4: everything except him. They don't actually defend him because they
Speaker 4: know they can't, so they lie about why he's in
Speaker 4: the circumstances that he's in, and they go on the
Speaker 4: attack and say, you know, this is really about something else,
Speaker 4: a weaponization of politics, the weaponization of the criminal law, caravans,
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is what they do.
Speaker 1: When you think about this spit of defensiveness. One of
Speaker 1: the things you once said to me, and I think
Speaker 1: about it a lot, is like you just are going
Speaker 1: to have to win and win and win, and then
Speaker 1: eventually you'll have sort of destroyed this Trump Republican Party
Speaker 1: and it'll become something else.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: No, I always adhere to that view. I mean, I
Speaker 4: want these cases to proceed. I do think he should
Speaker 4: and will and could spend the rest of his life
Speaker 4: in prison at some point.
Speaker 3: And I think he's going to lose the selection.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't think it's you know, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: I think there's a small chance he could win it,
Speaker 4: which would I think be a small chance it's.
Speaker 3: Something very very bad.
Speaker 4: But all that said, I mean, ultimately he's got to
Speaker 4: be beat at the ballot box. I've always felt that way.
Speaker 4: I've always said that that, and I've always said that
Speaker 4: he will be beaten at the ballot box. I just
Speaker 4: think it's important that the advantage that he currently has
Speaker 4: is going to be eradicated soon. The advantage that he
Speaker 4: currently has is he's been off the radar screen pretty
Speaker 4: much for the last several years. And this trial actually
Speaker 4: add to an extent I didn't quite fully appreciate until
Speaker 4: it was going on. This trial actually kept off the
Speaker 4: radar screen in some ways. It kept people not from
Speaker 4: focusing on the crazy things.
Speaker 3: That he said, as it does, and.
Speaker 4: It became about the trial moment of the day and
Speaker 4: whether or not the prosecution was fair and this and
Speaker 4: all that. He was up in Wildwood, New Jersey talking about,
Speaker 4: you know, how good a person Hannibal lecture was right, right,
Speaker 4: So he's not going to get that mass anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean that press conference after the guilty conviction was
Speaker 1: just an unfocused mass.
Speaker 4: No, he is an unfocused mess. He's going to get worse,
Speaker 4: and the people they need to see this, Okay, this
Speaker 4: isn't you know. There's been a lot of criticism of
Speaker 4: the media, just the put putting him on in twenty
Speaker 4: sixteen unfiltered and so on and so forth. Well, we
Speaker 4: actually need some of that because if you actually watch
Speaker 4: him and listen to him, he's not Obviously, you can't
Speaker 4: put him on without saying, Okay, he lied about this thing,
Speaker 4: he lied about that thing, lied about the next thing.
Speaker 4: But you can show him saying absolutely crazy things that
Speaker 4: are demonstrably untrue, like I never said locker up, shutting me.
Speaker 4: Even his own people know that he said lock him up.
Speaker 3: They liked it. You know, he's a pathological liar. The's
Speaker 3: a lot of different.
Speaker 4: Things that are not good. The more people see of him,
Speaker 4: I think the better. It reminds me of four years
Speaker 4: ago when he was holding those atrocious coronavirus press gatherings
Speaker 4: at like four o'clock or five o'clock every day and
Speaker 4: the White House actually had to pull them. The more
Speaker 4: the American people see of him, the more the Trump
Speaker 4: people are going to have to figure out how to
Speaker 4: run a campaign without him. And that's what happened in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty. And he's going to be absolutely appalling at
Speaker 4: the debate. He's crazier than ever before.
Speaker 3: And I think the way that the Biden campaign.
Speaker 4: Can take advantage of that is to continue to needle
Speaker 4: him leading up to that debate, and for Biden to
Speaker 4: needle him really that debate. You know, I think the
Speaker 4: American people just need to see the crazy again, and
Speaker 4: I don't think it's going to take that much.
Speaker 3: I think they're going to.
Speaker 4: See more of it now that the trial is over.
Speaker 4: The trial actually that protected him by giving people something
Speaker 4: else to talk about other than how crazy he was.
Speaker 4: So there's a question of, oh, we did this witness
Speaker 4: say that, Oh is this witness going to testify to that,
Speaker 4: Oh are the charges there?
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: You know, he's got to actually talk to the American
Speaker 4: people now, and he is more incoherent than ever and
Speaker 4: he's crazy whatever, And I think that.
Speaker 3: That's going to make the big difference.
Speaker 4: And as far as you know the future of Republicanism,
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, as I've said to you many times,
Speaker 4: it's just it has to be.
Speaker 3: Beaten and it will be beaten.
Speaker 4: And what's going to happen this time around is there's
Speaker 4: really not going to be much of a Republican party
Speaker 4: left Trump music selections and you have you know that
Speaker 4: the party is on multiple levels, that there's the state
Speaker 4: level it's falling apart at the various state organization levels
Speaker 4: in Michigan, for example, but basically at each other's throats,
Speaker 4: the relative normans and the psychos, and the same as
Speaker 4: in Arizona.
Speaker 3: It's happening all around the country.
Speaker 4: These state organizations are foundering because they are being taken
Speaker 4: over by.
Speaker 3: The lowest extreme and and I don't mean extreme in.
Speaker 4: Some ideological sense that sort of gives them a little
Speaker 4: too much credit to they actually believe in something which
Speaker 4: is nihilistic at the national level, is basically systematically destroying
Speaker 4: a national party. And the way he's doing that is
Speaker 4: he's basically taking it, moved it to Palm Beach, and
Speaker 4: he's merged it with his campaign. And we all know
Speaker 4: what happens when campaigns and bring campaigns and particularly losing ones.
Speaker 3: Or if you have a winning campaign, then.
Speaker 4: Maybe you could create a political organization like you know,
Speaker 4: Organizing for America.
Speaker 2: But even Obama had problems doing that.
Speaker 4: Actually, even at Obama, even Organizable for America had problems
Speaker 4: like that. Well, what happens to political campaign basically is
Speaker 4: everybody goes their separate ways.
Speaker 3: It disappears.
Speaker 4: So if you merge a national political party structure personally,
Speaker 4: you move it from Washington to Florida, then you merge
Speaker 4: it with a temporary structure that a campaign is a
Speaker 4: pop up store based very expensive one, but it's a
Speaker 4: pop up store. And then what happens on November sixth
Speaker 4: after they lose because the way there's can be no
Speaker 4: functional Republican Party by the end of next year, Donald
Speaker 4: Trump loses its selection. You know, it's going to be
Speaker 4: very important what happens next. Among sensible people and the
Speaker 4: right and the center who don't want to be Democrats,
Speaker 4: this is their chance.
Speaker 3: To actually create something in value.
Speaker 4: Whether it's a can function without sort of the crazies,
Speaker 4: because the crazies.
Speaker 3: They're just too many of them out there now. Whether
Speaker 3: we can have.
Speaker 4: A functional conservative, center right party, I don't think that's
Speaker 4: an open question, but it's not going to be the
Speaker 4: Republican Party. They're just not going to be a functional
Speaker 4: Republican party come next year.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Trump will be able to sort
Speaker 1: of woo back these big donors. We've certainly seen some
Speaker 1: of them come back. And also what do you think
Speaker 1: is going on there, like when people who are theoretically
Speaker 1: known as you know, I'm thinking of all those sort
Speaker 1: of Steve Schwartzman types like make it make sense the
Speaker 1: a couple.
Speaker 4: Of things that are going to on their's one those
Speaker 4: people are they don't understand politics that well. Secondly, all
Speaker 4: they care about is, you know, taxes and regulation, and
Speaker 4: they just convinced themselves that no.
Speaker 3: Matter what, Donald Trump is better.
Speaker 4: Than the alternative, which isn't really true for reasons I
Speaker 4: could separately get into.
Speaker 3: And third is they're afraid he's going to win and
Speaker 3: they don't want to be on his bad side. That's
Speaker 3: a very important one.
Speaker 4: And then to go back to the second point, you know,
Speaker 4: they think that somehow they're going to be better off
Speaker 4: under a Trump administration than under a Biden administration. They're
Speaker 4: just failing to consider the effect of the political system
Speaker 4: and the effect of Trump on the political system, and
Speaker 4: how that will in turn impact economic because I think
Speaker 4: that if you have I mean the reason why I
Speaker 4: do think they're not wrong in many ways we're overregulated, not.
Speaker 3: We're underregulated in some ways. That we're overregulated in many ways.
Speaker 4: And I generally think lower taxes are better than higher taxes,
Speaker 4: except when you're running among these nephysites.
Speaker 3: But let's set that aside.
Speaker 4: If Donald's is elected, we're going to have a political
Speaker 4: system petering on the edge of complete and utter chaos
Speaker 4: because this country is going to become, i think, pretty
Speaker 4: much ungovernable. And that's a fundamental reason why the American
Speaker 4: economy is the shortness of the world. Is that because
Speaker 4: you know, for all its faults, we have a stable
Speaker 4: political system.
Speaker 3: We're not going to have a.
Speaker 4: Stable political system if he's elected, and we're going to
Speaker 4: see human and financial capital flight the likes of which
Speaker 4: we have not seen in this country and ever. So
Speaker 4: that's why I think these people are being very, very
Speaker 4: very shortsighted. But I also do think, you know, they
Speaker 4: don't understand that, they don't understand any of this. They
Speaker 4: just look at things very very narrowly, and they don't
Speaker 4: look at history, and they don't look at the second
Speaker 4: order results, even though that that's what they would look
Speaker 4: at if they were running making a business decision, an
Speaker 4: actual business decisions. And I also think that they're just
Speaker 4: you know, there is a degree to which these people
Speaker 4: are terrified of Trump. They don't want to be singled out.
Speaker 4: Is the people who are asked to him money and
Speaker 4: then did not and men be preceded enemies of Trump
Speaker 4: because Trump will seek for men. There are a bunch
Speaker 4: of different things going on there.
Speaker 2: George Conway, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Spring us here.
Speaker 1: And I bet you are trying to look fashionable, So
Speaker 1: why not pick up some fashionable all new Fast Politics merchandise.
Speaker 1: We just opened a news store with all new designs
Speaker 1: just for you. Get t shirts, hoodies, hats, and top
Speaker 1: bags to grab some head to fastpolitics dot com. Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Mikey Cheryl represents New Jersey's eleventh congressional district. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics, congress Woman.
Speaker 5: Cheryl, Well, thank you so much. It's great to be back.
Speaker 1: It's going to get me too upset to even ask
Speaker 1: the question, but needless to say, Justice Thomas we Knew
Speaker 1: had some conflicts in his home life, mainly his wife's
Speaker 1: involvement in Stop the Steal.
Speaker 2: And then now we learn.
Speaker 1: That Justice Alito, it's basically the real housewives of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Talk to me about your theory the case.
Speaker 5: Well, the case is that here we have Supreme Court
Speaker 5: justices acting incredibly unethically, and it's so offensive to me
Speaker 5: as an almost lifetime public Sermont and It's so many
Speaker 5: of the jobs I've held, whether it was in the
Speaker 5: military or for the Department of Justice, at the US
Speaker 5: Attorney's Office, we were always held to a standard of
Speaker 5: not just ensuring we weren't committee acts of impropriety. But
Speaker 5: it wasn't just impropriety, it was the appearance of impropriety.
Speaker 5: Because that's the high standard you need to hold yourself
Speaker 5: to as an elected official or as a public servant,
Speaker 5: because you are representing to the public the institution you serve,
Speaker 5: and they need to know that you are doing so
Speaker 5: faithfully and that you are doing so in a way
Speaker 5: that is best serving the public, not your own personal
Speaker 5: and self interest. And you look at the justices, you
Speaker 5: look at Alito, you look at Thomas, and they are
Speaker 5: doing anything but I mean this RV and the money
Speaker 5: and the flights for Alito and just you know, the payouts.
Speaker 5: Really and then you see, as you mentioned Justice Thomas's wife,
Speaker 5: and then you saw these flags at both of Alito's house,
Speaker 5: one the stop feel the Christian white Nationalist flag. I mean,
Speaker 5: these are people that are supposed to decide cases without bias,
Speaker 5: and it didn't occur to Justice Alito, for example, that
Speaker 5: that would be seen as incredibly biased. It's really mind boggling.
Speaker 5: And so what this legislation does is to first of all,
Speaker 5: give people some ethical training, which they seem to be
Speaker 5: in dire need of, and to explain to some of
Speaker 5: our justices what it means to serve in that office
Speaker 5: and what the public expects from them.
Speaker 2: There is right.
Speaker 1: Now no formal binding ethics code for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: They sort of crafted one ad hoc.
Speaker 1: It's not like if you work for a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice when there's a real ethics code.
Speaker 5: They're sort of self policing at this point, which is
Speaker 5: going about as well as one might suspect. And so
Speaker 5: that's why this legislation also has an independent investigative unit
Speaker 5: that files a report a standard that again most of
Speaker 5: us are happy to be held to. That is what
Speaker 5: we are trying to accomplish here, to really help restore
Speaker 5: faith in our Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Right, and that makes sense. So how would you do
Speaker 1: that and how would this work? And also I'm glad
Speaker 1: you're trying anything.
Speaker 3: You can.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much because you know, I think it's
Speaker 5: so important that we engage on this. You know, we've
Speaker 5: seen some really upsetting outcomes. In the Court that seems
Speaker 5: to have become very partisan, very political, very results oriented,
Speaker 5: and so over time you've seen decisions that fel wildly
Speaker 5: out of step with a transparent democracy and with the
Speaker 5: views of the American people. And by then I'm talking
Speaker 5: about the Citizens United decision, the DC versus Heller decision,
Speaker 5: and the way that the Court has almost worked in
Speaker 5: every way to make it impossible to do even some
Speaker 5: of the minimal work of gun safety as we see
Speaker 5: our children slaughtered across the nation. And I think the
Speaker 5: one that we have seen the most evidence of being
Speaker 5: completely out of step with the American people is certainly
Speaker 5: the overturning of Row. When we sub Donald Trump building
Speaker 5: a court with the express intent of overturning Row. And
Speaker 5: now we've seen in the reddest states in the nation
Speaker 5: this pushback against these terraconian laws. That shows why it's
Speaker 5: so needed. I think that we have a court that's
Speaker 5: held to higher ethical standards, and that the public understands
Speaker 5: better how the court understands and the justices understand their
Speaker 5: own responsibilities to the public right.
Speaker 1: And also the Supreme Court is radically remaking the kind
Speaker 1: in all different ways. And they have two abortion cases
Speaker 1: on the docket that are coming out this month. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not like they aren't just swinging for
Speaker 1: the fences, right. A lot of the cases they're taking,
Speaker 1: you know, are trying to really dismantle the administrative state.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I would call them really radical. To see, for example,
Speaker 5: the two abortion cases we're seeing before the court, it
Speaker 5: just gives credence to what I've seen in this constant
Speaker 5: attack on women's freedoms and women's health, the constant attack
Speaker 5: on reproductive freedom and the wearable race to the bottom
Speaker 5: in some of the states that have implemented draconian abortion bands.
Speaker 5: And now you see these attempts at doing so nationwide.
Speaker 5: So this myth of press Stone case and the discussion
Speaker 5: in the remarks there and how Alito's brought up for
Speaker 5: example Comstock, this is all the Heritage Foundation playbook for
Speaker 5: implementing a nationwide abortion ban. And we've got to act now.
Speaker 5: Example with Amtala, the Amtala case, the Emergency Medical Treatment
Speaker 5: and Labor Act, this is a case where in putting
Speaker 5: out regulations based on INTALA, the administration has said, you
Speaker 5: can provide an abortion for the health of the mother
Speaker 5: if you have a woman coming to your emergency room
Speaker 5: who's suffering from a miscarriage and hemorrhaging. You can provide
Speaker 5: care for that woman, which often involves an abortion of
Speaker 5: the dead fetus so that she does not get a
Speaker 5: horrible infection and can have children again. And if you
Speaker 5: think I'm being a little dramatic about this, we are
Speaker 5: seeing case after case after case of is like Texas,
Speaker 5: of women who have suffered just this, and we have
Speaker 5: Idaho on the other side of this, state of Idaho
Speaker 5: saying no, it's only in the death of the mother.
Speaker 5: It's only if a woman is dying that you can
Speaker 5: provide an abortion. So let's imagine a doctor put in
Speaker 5: the situation knowing that that person will go to jail. Well,
Speaker 5: they're not making the decision, which is why we've seen
Speaker 5: women being medevacked out of Idaho at an alarming rate.
Speaker 5: Imagine you're hemorrhaging and you're being metevacked because a doctor
Speaker 5: refuses to make a decision on your care in your
Speaker 5: own emergency room. So this is what we're fighting against
Speaker 5: in these court cases. And this is how far out
Speaker 5: of step this court is with the American public.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're going to push back on any kind of
Speaker 1: ethics standard. But theoretically, say they were saying, Republicans, how would.
Speaker 2: You pass this? How could you do this?
Speaker 1: I mean again, you have to fight, because the more
Speaker 1: you fight, the more you move the Oberton window towards
Speaker 1: actual self policing and real accountability for the judiciary, which
Speaker 1: has to exist. But I'm just curious, like, in an
Speaker 1: ideal world where Republicans were normal and they didn't think
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court as a completely partisan exercise, how
Speaker 1: would you create this bill and get a past.
Speaker 5: In an ideal world where Republicans were normal, I would
Speaker 5: have found a Republican co sponsor of this piece of legislation.
Speaker 5: We would have gotten other members on both sides of
Speaker 5: the Aisle to co sponsor it, and then we would
Speaker 5: have gotten it asked on suspension because in an ideal world,
Speaker 5: most people would understand that this is completely egregious conduct
Speaker 5: by our Supreme Corport that is unacceptable. And I say
Speaker 5: suspension because you don't even need a rule, but you
Speaker 5: do need tons of votes for it. So we would
Speaker 5: just get tons of votes on both sides of the
Speaker 5: pass it over to the Senate. They would see that mandate,
Speaker 5: they would pass and send it to the President. I mean,
Speaker 5: that would be ideally what we've seen. But now when
Speaker 5: we're in a world where as long as you are
Speaker 5: going to be a vote to take away rights from women,
Speaker 5: as long as you are going to do everything you
Speaker 5: can to implement a nationwide abortion ban in our Supreme Court,
Speaker 5: then no Republican is going to hold you accountable for
Speaker 5: much of anything else, as far as I can tell exactly.
Speaker 1: I was happy to see the Senate is talking about hearings,
Speaker 1: and I know Sheldon white House is anxious to get
Speaker 1: some hearings going, and hopefully you'll have a partner in
Speaker 1: Dick Durbin. Can you talk to us about the contraception Amendment,
Speaker 1: which is another idea that's both happening in the Senate
Speaker 1: and in the Congress at the same time, and you're working.
Speaker 5: On There's a lot of stuff that we're working on
Speaker 5: right now related to the courts, related to the ethics
Speaker 5: of the court, but also related to a lot of
Speaker 5: these abortion laws. That it's not just coming from the
Speaker 5: Court where they're trying to implement these nationwide abortion mans
Speaker 5: but certainly coming from a lot of legislators. The area
Speaker 5: that I've been focused on most recently is the National
Speaker 5: Defense Authorization Act. Because when we see these attacks on
Speaker 5: women across the country. I'm hearing from women in New Jersey,
Speaker 5: for example, Look, I'm not I'm pregnant. I'm not going
Speaker 5: to go to my headquarters in Texas while I'm pregnant,
Speaker 5: or I'm hearing from people in blue states. I'm in
Speaker 5: law school and I'm not going to take jobs in
Speaker 5: certain cities because I might start my family in the
Speaker 5: next several years and I don't want to have horrible healthcare,
Speaker 5: reproductive healthcare. So I think that's horrible that here, as
Speaker 5: a woman in the United States of America, you can
Speaker 5: only live in certain places and expect to get decent
Speaker 5: reproductive healthcare and dangering your life if you go to
Speaker 5: certain cities. That's horrible. But even worse to me is
Speaker 5: the plight of many of our military women who actually
Speaker 5: don't even have that option. Because when the military says,
Speaker 5: you know, we need you to go to flight school
Speaker 5: in Pensacola, Florida, as I did, or we need you
Speaker 5: to go to flight school in Corpus Christi, Texas as
Speaker 5: I did, you don't get a choice. And we have
Speaker 5: over one hundred and forty thousand troops station in Texas.
Speaker 5: They have their families with them who are getting medical
Speaker 5: care in that area, many of whom may have children
Speaker 5: on the base or in the area, and Texas ranks
Speaker 5: forty ninth in the nation right now with over one
Speaker 5: hundred and forty thousand troops station, they're forty ninth in
Speaker 5: the nation. As far as reproductive healthcare, a lot of
Speaker 5: the legislation I'll be introducing next week for the Defense
Speaker 5: Act is trying to, for example, strip some of the
Speaker 5: language in Title ten, which governs our bases about not
Speaker 5: being able to provide abortion care on our basis, to
Speaker 5: provide education to both the doctors who change bases about
Speaker 5: what the landscape is for reproductive healthcare in that state
Speaker 5: and what is different from the state law and what
Speaker 5: you can provide on base and give that same education
Speaker 5: to women. Also putting Amtala type language into Title ten.
Speaker 5: If I can't strip out some of the other bad
Speaker 5: what I would call like Hidak type language, which is
Speaker 5: entitled I can't strip that out, getting Atala language in
Speaker 5: so that it's not just life of the mother, because
Speaker 5: right now you can only provide an abortion on a base.
Speaker 5: If it's the life of the mother, or rape or incest,
Speaker 5: so we need at least the health of the mother
Speaker 5: in there so we can better protect service women and
Speaker 5: give them basic care. So we have this whole kind
Speaker 5: of platform of abortion legislation that we need to introduce
Speaker 5: to protect service women across the country. But you know,
Speaker 5: with the Republican majority in the House, much of this
Speaker 5: is I think going to be on the backs of
Speaker 5: my Senate colleagues to carry it. So while I'm pushing
Speaker 5: this legislation now so that whatever the Supreme Court comes
Speaker 5: out with with respect to this and tall upcase or
Speaker 5: the Mythipreston FDA case, we're writing legislation now to meet that.
Speaker 5: And we'll be working closely with our colleagues in the
Speaker 5: Senate so that we can provide some real leadership here
Speaker 5: on the way forward, because we are seeing a tax
Speaker 5: on reproductive healthcare and we have got to do more
Speaker 5: to fight back. I mean, this is really unacceptable, Molly.
Speaker 5: I don't know how you felt that when Roe was overturned.
Speaker 5: I felt awful. But then when people started saying next,
Speaker 5: they're coming after IVF, Next, they're coming after contraception, I thought,
Speaker 5: no way, no way. I mean, my whole life is
Speaker 5: built on the ability to choose one and how to
Speaker 5: have my family. My grandmother had eight kids. I would
Speaker 5: not be in Congress I had eight kids, right, I mean,
Speaker 5: so threatening, the whole thing, And yet that's where we
Speaker 5: are just two years later. We are not doing enough
Speaker 5: in this space.
Speaker 1: What I've been really shocked by is the level of
Speaker 1: denial that even normal people have greeted this with. So
Speaker 1: I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, congresswoman.
Speaker 5: It is always great talking to you guys. And shout
Speaker 5: out to Jesse from Montclair. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Angelo Karasone is the CEO of Media Matters. Welcome back, Angelo,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me give us a little fill in
Speaker 1: since we last talked to you. Did the bad guys win?
Speaker 1: I feel like the bad guys won.
Speaker 6: With context? And that's a big question.
Speaker 1: They came after you talk us through what happened at
Speaker 1: Media Matters. And you are the head of Media Matters.
Speaker 1: Just for those who are a little out of you know,
Speaker 1: read in. Media Matters is a wildly successful media monitoring organization.
Speaker 2: You guys watch Fox News so we don't have to.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and we do a lot of you know, obviously
Speaker 7: a ton of research and tracking, and we do a
Speaker 7: lot of investigative reporting, and that's you know, a big
Speaker 7: part of what we are designed to do is to
Speaker 7: sort of unwind the damage that the right wing echo
Speaker 7: chamber has done since like the nineties, right, And so
Speaker 7: you know, we're about twenty years old now, and we're
Speaker 7: in a particularly unique moment because everything is sort of
Speaker 7: up in the air in the right wing medium. And yeah,
Speaker 7: and obviously we know we made a lot of big
Speaker 7: enemies over the years, gone back and Tuber Carlson and
Speaker 7: Bill O'Reilly and the Murdocks and now so yeah, I
Speaker 7: mean basically, the short of it is that obviously everybody
Speaker 7: knows that X has increased. It's the extremism. You know,
Speaker 7: they've loosened the rules. The anti Semitism obviously was on
Speaker 7: the rise on the platform. Advertisers for various reasons, had
Speaker 7: left the platform when Elon must took over and continued
Speaker 7: to leave the platform last summer, they you know, X
Speaker 7: came out and said, hey, we are releasing some new
Speaker 7: tools for advertisers. Your ads are never going to appear
Speaker 7: alongside this kind of extremist content.
Speaker 6: You don't have to worry. You're never going to be embarrassed.
Speaker 7: And one of our you know, because we do research
Speaker 7: and investigative reporting, one of the things that happened is
Speaker 7: that we started publishing content showing that in fact, whatever
Speaker 7: system X was promising was working wasn't operating as it
Speaker 7: says it was, and in fact, adds for pro Hitler
Speaker 7: accounts and Nazi content was appearing alongside major advertisers and
Speaker 7: you know, and the subtreameous content. So that's basically what happened,
Speaker 7: is that we started to sort of chip away at
Speaker 7: this notion that they were improving the platform, and that
Speaker 7: also happletical inside of the same week that Musk had
Speaker 7: endorsed that what sort of supremacist great replacement theory, right,
Speaker 7: and a bunch of advertisers left in that time period,
Speaker 7: and he threatened to sue us and then followed through
Speaker 7: on it. And part of the reason he followed through
Speaker 7: on it, looks like is because as soon as he
Speaker 7: threatened to sue us, everyone came out of the woodwork.
Speaker 6: Glenn Beck and Tucker Crosson and Megan Kelly.
Speaker 7: Laura Logan, I mean, anyone that we've held accountable of
Speaker 7: the years, the guy that runs Rumble, which is an
Speaker 7: increasing sort of place of right wing misinformation. They all
Speaker 7: came out and said, the best thing you can do
Speaker 7: is destroy Media Matters. And so what he did was
Speaker 7: file lawsuit against us.
Speaker 1: And he's always a person who wants to make other
Speaker 1: right wing people happy.
Speaker 2: That's kind of his thing, of course.
Speaker 7: I mean that's part of this read his his own
Speaker 7: red Pillow journey, right, is that he's actually a pretty
Speaker 7: vivid example of how some of the feedback loops online
Speaker 7: can radicalize not just.
Speaker 6: People, but in particular young people.
Speaker 7: It says a lot about the way his mind works
Speaker 7: that you know, he's compared more to say, a person
Speaker 7: in puberty than like, you know, fully formed adult. But
Speaker 7: basically what he did is he suit us in the
Speaker 7: North District of Texas. So you know, Media Matters is
Speaker 7: a DC based organization Twitter where now x is a
Speaker 7: Nevada based corporation that operates in California.
Speaker 6: But he's students in the North District of.
Speaker 1: Texas because jurisdiction shopping and is this the Matthew Cosmaric District.
Speaker 6: No, but it's similar.
Speaker 7: It has similar sets of sort of judges and in particular,
Speaker 7: it's one of the few places where there aren't slap protections,
Speaker 7: which are those like strategic lawsuits that if you file,
Speaker 7: you get you know, you can get damages if you
Speaker 7: sort of engage in one of these types of you know,
Speaker 7: litigation design to just bury people. It's one of the
Speaker 7: few places that doesn't sort of protect against that. And so,
Speaker 7: but he didn't just stop there. What he did is
Speaker 7: then he sued us in Ireland and then threatened to
Speaker 7: us in some other places. And in the core of
Speaker 7: doing this, Steven Miller, former Trumpe advisor, sort of popped
Speaker 7: up and said, hey, you shouldn't just stop there, you
Speaker 7: should make it and encourage Republican state attorney generals to
Speaker 7: launch investigations into medium matters. And that's what he did.
Speaker 7: He then sort of pressured, he started publicly pressuring state
Speaker 7: ag is to do it. Ken Paxton and the Texas
Speaker 7: Attorney General and Andrew Valley, the Missouri Attorney General, each
Speaker 7: launched their own investigations. And what we did, which I
Speaker 7: think is really significant and I'm pretty proud of it,
Speaker 7: is that one of the ways these things play out
Speaker 7: is that as state ag launches an investigation, you sort
Speaker 7: of negotiate how much information you're going to give. Eventually,
Speaker 7: if they're not happy, they go to their own state
Speaker 7: court and they get the court to enforce a ruling
Speaker 7: against you to sort of hand over even more information.
Speaker 7: And what they were looking for was all types of
Speaker 7: things about our sources, how we do our work, our
Speaker 7: funding and donor information, which Musk has promised to sort
Speaker 7: of retaliate against all. Obviously it's all designed to sort
Speaker 7: of destroy us. Instead of waiting for that, we sued
Speaker 7: Ken Paxton first, and we got a ruling against him
Speaker 7: in DC Court, which is a significant ruling because it's
Speaker 7: sort of a new this is sort of new tactics
Speaker 7: that the right wing is deploying, and we sort of
Speaker 7: launched sort of a counter offensive, which was to say, wait,
Speaker 7: you can't deploy these new tactics. Here's here's why federal
Speaker 7: courts should intervene in these types of investigations, because they're
Speaker 7: very clearly intended to stightful reporting. So we won that,
Speaker 7: so we got an injunction against Ken Paxton. We're currently
Speaker 7: dealing with Andrew Bailey in Missouri and I think I
Speaker 7: think we will prevail there as well. But where we
Speaker 7: are fighting that out in federal court. He sued us
Speaker 7: in his own state court and said, hey, I don't
Speaker 7: have to file the rules here because.
Speaker 6: Media Matters is going to break the laws. So I'm
Speaker 6: going to skip.
Speaker 7: The couple steps in the process so that they can't
Speaker 7: run to federal court and get a federal judge to
Speaker 7: prevent me from doing this. That argument hasn't fully played
Speaker 7: out the way that he had hoped so, but it's
Speaker 7: just it hasn't taken a little bit of time to
Speaker 7: sort of sort that out. So in terms of the
Speaker 7: bad guys winning there, I don't think they won there.
Speaker 7: They obviously cost us a bunch of money. I know
Speaker 7: we have to fight this out, but in the ex litigation,
Speaker 7: you know, part of the way these complex litigations play
Speaker 7: out is they cost to fortune, you know, especially if
Speaker 7: you are designed if you're not hoping to win money
Speaker 7: from it, which obviously these not. If you're just hoping
Speaker 7: to cause maximum damage to the target, what you basically
Speaker 7: do is you, you know, you slow roll the process.
Speaker 7: You fight about every little thing, typically things that lawyers
Speaker 7: would sort out out of court, you sort of fight
Speaker 7: about them. You force briefings, you force judges to have
Speaker 7: to weigh in on them. All that stuff costs money.
Speaker 7: That is the strategy is to bleed us try and
Speaker 7: I think, you know, the one thing that I will
Speaker 7: say about Medium matters is what we do is relatively unique,
Speaker 7: and we make the worst enemies and over time, I
Speaker 7: think what we have to think about is, because this
Speaker 7: is going to be a sustained fight, how do we
Speaker 7: make sure that our twentieth year is not where we end?
Speaker 7: And that means that we sort of gear up for
Speaker 7: what's going to be a very long halve fight. He
Speaker 7: is going to incinerate cash to destroy us, and we
Speaker 7: have to be sort of mindful of that and Gerd
Speaker 7: and so one of the effects is that, you know,
Speaker 7: we started to reorganize our step.
Speaker 6: We laid off of about a dozen people about.
Speaker 7: Two weeks ago, which is really sad, and a lot
Speaker 7: of that is thinking about, okay, how do we make
Speaker 7: ourselves sustainable for the long call? And what I'll just
Speaker 7: wrap on saying here it's not entirely self interested. It's
Speaker 7: the truth is that it isn't just that he's suing us.
Speaker 7: It isn't just that the ages are doing it. The
Speaker 7: part that's the So what aside from the try to
Speaker 7: take out a very effective opponent, is that they are
Speaker 7: actually writing a new playbook for how you sort of
Speaker 7: destroy and stifle reporting, takeout critics or any sort of
Speaker 7: organization that does work that they don't like. And it
Speaker 7: isn't just that they're using traditional tools. They are writing
Speaker 7: a new playbook sort of. There's one two punches between
Speaker 7: you know, filing these lawsuits, including in international jurisdictions, which
Speaker 7: just burns money, and then also getting state attorney generals
Speaker 7: to speed run discovery and sort of write it flows
Speaker 7: through your documentation does make it a lot harder for
Speaker 7: any organization to survive those attacks. And that is sort
Speaker 7: of a big alarm bell. And thankfully it's just my opinion.
Speaker 7: I mean, US Press Freedom Tracker, which is one of
Speaker 7: the big journalism washdogs, counts this as one of their
Speaker 7: big cases to track because of the way that it's
Speaker 7: playing out. It will sort of be a little bit
Speaker 7: of a canary of the coal mine for how Monoga
Speaker 7: World and the far right deal with news outlets and
Speaker 7: truthfully other organizations. So we're sort of a little bit
Speaker 7: of the tip of the spear here in how they're
Speaker 7: deploying new tactics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the idea that.
Speaker 1: The ages of these two states are basically Elon's personal
Speaker 1: lawyers is kind of scare.
Speaker 7: There are things that are really disturbing about it, which
Speaker 7: is that it's not like they just did this because
Speaker 7: they saw the news.
Speaker 6: He was posting about it on x on his platform.
Speaker 5: And then Andrew Bailey.
Speaker 7: Who himself is he's the Missori attorney general who's in
Speaker 7: a heated primary right now, he had sort of talked
Speaker 7: about the investigation, sent some letters, but he never took
Speaker 7: the next step. And then after we won the injunction
Speaker 7: against Ken Paxton, he still hadn't taken that next step yet.
Speaker 6: He was just talking.
Speaker 7: And then Elon Musk does a Twitter space with him
Speaker 7: and a few days later he launches into a lawsuit
Speaker 7: against us. He sort of takes that next step, right,
Speaker 7: So there's some commonalities in who their lawyers are, you know,
Speaker 7: and some overlap there and who they're using to defend
Speaker 7: themselves and the cases against us. And it is very
Speaker 7: unsettling because he basically was able to send and leverage
Speaker 7: state power to attempt to dig through what he had
Speaker 7: said he wanted was our donor information because obviously because
Speaker 7: we're a nonprofit. We raise money from you know, individuals foundations,
Speaker 7: because one of the ways that you could undermine us,
Speaker 7: right is you forced us to spend so much money
Speaker 7: that we don't have. The other end of it is
Speaker 7: that you try to cut off the supply. And he's
Speaker 7: been pretty brazen about this. This isn't a conjecture. And
Speaker 7: so you need that information though to figure out how
Speaker 7: to cut off the supply. And one way to do
Speaker 7: that is, he hopes, is to litigation. That's very tough.
Speaker 7: Actually that information is protected, and conservatives have fought very
Speaker 7: hard to make sure that information is protected.
Speaker 2: Right. Incredible irony here is that there are.
Speaker 6: But then you leverage state attorney gense to do that.
Speaker 6: It's a shortcut.
Speaker 7: And I think even though this stuff gets complicated with
Speaker 7: the legal side, but that's where it becomes really disturbing
Speaker 7: for any organization, right. You know, one of the things
Speaker 7: that you see play out with these state ag fights
Speaker 7: with reproductive health right and trans issues is that they're
Speaker 7: going after some of the people that benefit from those
Speaker 7: services right now, but what they've escalated in our case,
Speaker 7: and it seems to be largely or entirely at the
Speaker 7: behest of elon Musk is to also go one step
Speaker 7: further and say, all right, well let's start rifling through
Speaker 7: and figuring out who's.
Speaker 6: Funding this so that we can then go after that.
Speaker 7: And that is you know, obviously we're fighting as vigorously
Speaker 7: and that was partly why we sort of took those
Speaker 7: proactive steps to fight the ages. But that is a
Speaker 7: new strategy on their part, and it isn't just that
Speaker 7: he is. You know that he's able to post a
Speaker 7: couple posts on Twitter and people jump for it, and
Speaker 7: that that does not bode well.
Speaker 6: For where we go from here.
Speaker 7: If somebody like Musk or Musk even just Musk can
Speaker 7: continue to direct state ags to go after basically any
Speaker 7: of us credit, this is will be the new nor honestly,
Speaker 7: and I think when we look at the landscape, part
Speaker 7: of it was how do we engage with this? And
Speaker 7: I think we saw this fight as not just one
Speaker 7: that like we have to win for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 7: including to be miss effective, but also we have to
Speaker 7: make sure that they're not writing a new playbook in
Speaker 7: front of us that we didn't just sort of like
Speaker 7: let sort of get sort of refined and then deployed
Speaker 7: against other organizations and other newsrooms, and that is definitely,
Speaker 7: to me, the bigger thing that's taking place here.
Speaker 2: So let's just have.
Speaker 1: A minute here to talk about you cover conservative media,
Speaker 1: which has now, like all other media, kind of fragmented.
Speaker 1: It's funny because in twenty sixteen, Fox was sort of
Speaker 1: the place you'd get mentioned dun Tucker Carlton Show, and
Speaker 1: you'd get death threats and it would be you know,
Speaker 1: he had so much power. It feels like he doesn't
Speaker 1: have the same kind of power, even though he has
Speaker 1: his own little empire.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 1: And I mean it feels like all those media outlets
Speaker 1: are much more diffuse, and that's true on the left too,
Speaker 1: But I'm just curious if you could weigh in on that.
Speaker 7: I think you're totally right, and I think that, to me,
Speaker 7: the most significant part about the moment that we're in
Speaker 7: right now is that we haven't had a moment like
Speaker 7: this in more than thirty years. And by that, I
Speaker 7: mean this is the first presidential election in thirty years
Speaker 7: where Rush Limbaugh is not the single largest get out
Speaker 7: the vote operation.
Speaker 6: First presidential election thirty years.
Speaker 7: It's hard to emphasize or understood just how significant that
Speaker 7: is for our politics, our culture, our democracy, and it's
Speaker 7: more than just limbo. It's that what happened in the
Speaker 7: nineties is that you had the combination of talk radio
Speaker 7: and the birth of Fox News, and those things together
Speaker 7: created sort of a center of gravity. So that to
Speaker 7: your point, this diffuse right ring media, and there was
Speaker 7: plenty of it, it didn't just function as a diffuse
Speaker 7: right ringmedia. It actually was able to be converted into
Speaker 7: an echo chamber. When you had a center of gravity,
Speaker 7: you could sort of, you know, drive a narrative through
Speaker 7: that media apparatus and it could echo, reverberate, and that
Speaker 7: of course has transformative power. Your arms are is on
Speaker 7: poin in that right now, there's no center of gravity.
Speaker 7: It's a chorus without a conductor. And that's partly why
Speaker 7: there's so much political chaos, you know, saying with the
Speaker 7: speaker fights, it's partly why there isn't a single place
Speaker 7: you could go to that has agenda setting power on
Speaker 7: the right. And when you look, you know, when you
Speaker 7: look at the fights like Tucker's weaker Candice almost got
Speaker 7: fired from Daily Wire, you know there all their numbers
Speaker 7: are down. It is a particularly unique moment because they're
Speaker 7: all trying to resort and reshuffle, and so they're simultaneously
Speaker 7: disoriented and disruptive, but they're also more blood thirsty and scarier.
Speaker 7: And I think that tension is sometimes hard to reconcile
Speaker 7: because they're both simultaneously less of a threat in terms
Speaker 7: of their ability to operationalize misinformation disinformation, but they're also
Speaker 7: more of a threat because they're increasingly building organizing power
Speaker 7: on what used to be considered with fringes.
Speaker 2: Right, and they're also desperate for the viewers.
Speaker 1: So when we look at the Is trial verdicts, their
Speaker 1: general feeling was Trump is stronger.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Look so what you've done, Libs, you've done it now? Right?
Speaker 7: Yes, the net effect of all of this is to
Speaker 7: radicalize even more people. So I don't know if you
Speaker 7: remember diamond and silk. Yes, diamond dyed silk is still around.
Speaker 7: Silk today joined started a militia, a militia with a
Speaker 7: former bounty under And this is all in response to
Speaker 7: the child So the reason I start there is that
Speaker 7: the snabshot is that they're increasingly getting people into this
Speaker 7: like more justifiable vigilanteism and sort of preparing for more
Speaker 7: extreme tactics, and the way that they did that was
Speaker 7: by both undermining the legitimacy of the entire process, but
Speaker 7: then also sort of whipping people up into a frenzy
Speaker 7: and getting them to believe that it's it's increasingly time
Speaker 7: to not just take matters into their own hands. But
Speaker 7: in the short term, the most significant thing they can
Speaker 7: do is intensified their support for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is a question I've been asking everyone because nobody's
Speaker 1: really been able to answer it. Your a normal suburban
Speaker 1: mom in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: Where are you getting your news?
Speaker 7: You're getting in is sort of indirectly from I say, TikTok.
Speaker 7: But it's not just that you're getting it from TikTok.
Speaker 7: You're getting it downstream from TikTok if you're not on it,
Speaker 7: So you'll see it on your Facebook wheels a couple
Speaker 7: of days or a couple weeks later, or you'll get
Speaker 7: it secondhand through your own sort of social networks or friends,
Speaker 7: your word of mouth communication, and that's where you're getting
Speaker 7: it from largely. And I think that's sometimes not reflected
Speaker 7: in the polls, and that they all think Donald Trump
Speaker 7: is bad. They think the rule of law is important,
Speaker 7: but the prevailing sentiment in those circles and those narratives
Speaker 7: putting us out out of the polls. Say, but just
Speaker 7: if you look at where people consume, how they get
Speaker 7: their information, that that audience, they basically think that everybody's corrupt, right, right,
Speaker 7: So like Nuance, and so it's like, well all politicians
Speaker 7: are corrupt, so all right, you know, and then they
Speaker 7: immediately pivot back to how this affects their own personal life,
Speaker 7: and that is the core economic issues, and that is
Speaker 7: mostly center around groceries.
Speaker 1: Right, if you're running the Biden campaign, where are you
Speaker 1: going to try to get your message through?
Speaker 7: I would be almost entirely in non political programming, So
Speaker 7: I would be having urga speaking to people that are
Speaker 7: talking about crime, true crime, much.
Speaker 6: More local content.
Speaker 7: I would be almost doing no national news, no national programming,
Speaker 7: and I would not be hiring like major influencers. I'd
Speaker 7: be really working with micro influencers, so people that are
Speaker 7: promit in their community, sort of engaging more about not
Speaker 7: only things that have been done, but sort of talking
Speaker 7: a little bit more about say you know that it's
Speaker 7: the grocery stores that are actually sort of inflating to
Speaker 7: Bill's somewhat artificially, sort of shifting that back.
Speaker 6: I would not be doing much national.
Speaker 2: Oh interesting, Thank you so much, Angelo, Thank.
Speaker 3: You no more perfectly.
Speaker 2: Jesse Cannon, my junk fest.
Speaker 7: What are you seeing here with the Washington Post in
Speaker 7: my workplace the Daily Beast.
Speaker 1: Both the Washington Post and the Daily Beast are going
Speaker 1: to have editors who come from British conservative media. Too
Speaker 1: soon to know what that means, but certainly a little
Speaker 1: bit scary, and as both of us came up through
Speaker 1: the Daily Beast, it's pretty heartbreaking to us.
Speaker 2: And that, my friends, is my moment of fuckery.
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.