Speaker 1: Hi, everyone, I'm Katie Kuric, and this is next question.
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrahams is known for a lot of things, her
Speaker 1: voting rights advocacy, for flipping Georgia in, for not winning
Speaker 1: the state's gubernatorial election in two thousand eighteen. But in
Speaker 1: addition to Stacy's political and advocacy work, she's a pretty
Speaker 1: prolific author. She's written eight unapologetically steamy romance novels under
Speaker 1: the pen names Selena Montgomery, and this month she's releasing
Speaker 1: her ninth work of fiction, her first under her own name.
Speaker 1: It's a political action thriller called While Justice Sleeps. Recently,
Speaker 1: I had the great pleasure of joining Stacy on her
Speaker 1: book tour at a virtual stop at Powell's Books in Seattle.
Speaker 1: We had a wide ranging conversation about her new book,
Speaker 1: her writing process, and of course about all the non
Speaker 1: fiction political drama going on these days. So in joy, Wow,
Speaker 1: what an extraordinary year you've had, Stacy. Uh. Your work
Speaker 1: Turney Georgia Blue played a pivotal role in President Biden's election,
Speaker 1: you were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and now
Speaker 1: you're publishing your ninth novel, which, by the way, is
Speaker 1: being developed into a TV series? Am I missing anything?
Speaker 1: Did you win an Academy Award in a Pulitzer Prize
Speaker 1: while I wasn't looking? I did not? But what I mean,
Speaker 1: you must wake up at times? How do you kind
Speaker 1: of keep it all in perspective? Because it's pretty extraordinary
Speaker 1: and even some of the questions and comments I'm getting
Speaker 1: people are so just very honored to be in your presence,
Speaker 1: virtual or otherwise. How would you describe the last several
Speaker 1: months for you personally? As someone who really loves words
Speaker 1: and language and tries to be very precise, the only
Speaker 1: word I can use is weird. It's very weird. It's
Speaker 1: extraordinary and amazing, and I am both incredibly grateful and
Speaker 1: deeply incredulous. So it's weird. It's weird, but good weird,
Speaker 1: we should say. And of course we're here just to
Speaker 1: tonight to talk about your novel. Of course, you know
Speaker 1: I'm a political junkie, so we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: the state of the country and politics in a moment.
Speaker 1: But I want to talk to you about while Justice Sleeves.
Speaker 1: I think the first reaction people might have Stacy when
Speaker 1: they hear that you've written a novel is wait, what when,
Speaker 1: I mean, how on earth have you had time to
Speaker 1: write enough? Not just one novel, but nine novels, Stacy,
Speaker 1: I've written nine, So tell us about when you did that,
Speaker 1: and and and sort of how you became interested in
Speaker 1: writing in the first place. So. I am the daughter
Speaker 1: of a librarian and a shipyard worker my parents when
Speaker 1: I was growing up. I'm the second of six kids,
Speaker 1: and they were very intentional at out encouraging us to
Speaker 1: read and to love storytelling and to explore all of
Speaker 1: the facets of our personality. For me, writing and reading
Speaker 1: were just of a piece. Once I learned to read,
Speaker 1: I started writing. And I've written poetry, I've done plays,
Speaker 1: you know. I had a little brief stent where I
Speaker 1: thought I was going to be a country music writer.
Speaker 1: Turns out don't play the guitar well, so that went
Speaker 1: out the window. But I've always loved writing. I love words.
Speaker 1: When I was in law school, I realized that it
Speaker 1: was probably the last time I would have or I
Speaker 1: thought it would be the last time I'd have enough
Speaker 1: free time to possibly write a novel. So I wanted
Speaker 1: to write a spy novel based on my ex boyfriend's
Speaker 1: dissertation and I was told by people in publishing, and
Speaker 1: this is ninety nine, that publishers weren't going to publish
Speaker 1: a spine novel by or about a woman. So I thought, well,
Speaker 1: I know I've read about women spies, I know I've
Speaker 1: read espionage. I realized it was you know, general hospital
Speaker 1: and romance novels, and so I made my spies fall
Speaker 1: and love killed all the people I planned to kill.
Speaker 1: But at the time I learned how to structure a thriller,
Speaker 1: to write a suspense novel that was romantically driven but
Speaker 1: still has all of the elements of suspense. So fast
Speaker 1: forward to two thousand eight, I had written eight. At
Speaker 1: that point, i'd written six of my novels. I was
Speaker 1: having lunch with the lawyer who Win the lawyers who
Speaker 1: helped me become a really good lawyer, but who also
Speaker 1: was one of my strongest supporters. Name is Teresa win Roseboro,
Speaker 1: and she would apply me when we'd have lunch, she'd
Speaker 1: ply me with these things she'd been thinking about. And
Speaker 1: this time she asked me if I had ever thought
Speaker 1: about the cork in the constitution that allows the only
Speaker 1: the only people in our constitution who were given lifetime appointments.
Speaker 1: Are they also the only ones who don't have an outclause.
Speaker 1: If you think about it, if you are in Congress
Speaker 1: and you can't do your job, you're physically incapable of
Speaker 1: doing your job, you just get unelected. If you're the president,
Speaker 1: the amendment says you can be removed, But judges have
Speaker 1: lifetime appointments, and they can only be removed for high crimes, misdemeanors,
Speaker 1: or death. But being unable to do your job is
Speaker 1: actually not a disqualifier. And when she said that, it
Speaker 1: just grabbed me, and so I spent the next couple
Speaker 1: of years writing the book. I was still under contract
Speaker 1: for two more romance novels, and there was this little
Speaker 1: election in two thousand eighth that got me distracted. But
Speaker 1: I've finished everything by tried to sell it, no one
Speaker 1: bought it. Tried to sell it again in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: was told that it was a bit absurd that we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have a president who was involved in international intrigue,
Speaker 1: and that no one cared about the Supreme Court. It
Speaker 1: wasn't that relevant by the dynamic, and the climate had changed.
Speaker 1: And suddenly while justice leaps got to come alive, and
Speaker 1: I know that that night that that that Teresa, when
Speaker 1: Roseboro UH mentioned that to you, you went home and
Speaker 1: you started writing that very night because you were so
Speaker 1: intrigued by this idea. And and for all your other books,
Speaker 1: your romance novels, I know you used a pseudonym, uh,
Speaker 1: Selena Montgomery, but you decided to use your real name
Speaker 1: for the first time, uh, for Wild Justice Sleeps. Is
Speaker 1: that because you've become really a household name and you
Speaker 1: thought why not? Well, it was more that when I
Speaker 1: started writing romantic suspense, I was also writing treat tax
Speaker 1: treatises and social policy analysis, and it was just easier
Speaker 1: to keep them separate. No one wanted to read romance
Speaker 1: by Alan Greenspan, and you know, you can't really publish
Speaker 1: tax policy under pseudonym, and so I didn't think of
Speaker 1: it that intentionally, but it was basically brand identity romance.
Speaker 1: Selena Montgomery was also much more romantic romance novelist sounding
Speaker 1: name than Stacy Abrams. And now with this book, keeping
Speaker 1: the identity separate is no longer possibility. People kind of
Speaker 1: know who I am and what I do, and so
Speaker 1: I'm happy to put my name on it. And as
Speaker 1: you say, it's so relevant, given given what has happened
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court, with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings,
Speaker 1: of course, with with Mark Garland and uh Mitch McConnell's
Speaker 1: refusal to even meet with him after President I mean, so,
Speaker 1: I think all eyes have clearly been on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and I'm curious. Last month, as you know, President Biden
Speaker 1: established a commission to study the possibility of expanding the
Speaker 1: court or setting term limits for justices. How do you
Speaker 1: feel about those possibilities. Is that something that you would support.
Speaker 1: I'm less compelled by the idea of term limits, mainly
Speaker 1: because what I find in elected office is the term
Speaker 1: limits sometimes cordin off both good behavior, but they incentivize
Speaker 1: bad behavior. If you know there's no consequence, why bother?
Speaker 1: And so I'm concerned about I'm interested and intrigued by
Speaker 1: the idea, but it is not the most compelling. I
Speaker 1: think the expansion of the court is actually a natural act.
Speaker 1: We are a much larger nation than we were the
Speaker 1: last time we expanded the court. I think the complexity
Speaker 1: of our politics and the complexity of the questions coming
Speaker 1: before the court warrant a larger court. But what I
Speaker 1: don't want to see happen is that, you know, because
Speaker 1: of tit for tat, we end up with, you know,
Speaker 1: forty eight people on the Supreme Court. It starts you
Speaker 1: start to get diminishing returns then. And so I think
Speaker 1: that the commission idea is a smart one because rather
Speaker 1: than refusing to have the conversation or always couching it
Speaker 1: in purely partisan terms, this is an opportunity to really
Speaker 1: think through why haven't we expanded it since the last time,
Speaker 1: and what can it look like for the next generation
Speaker 1: if we do expand the court or alter its capacity
Speaker 1: in some fashion. I don't want to give to too
Speaker 1: much away, but the plot centers around what happens when
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice falls into a coma. You know,
Speaker 1: it reminded me a little of that movie Dave, do
Speaker 1: you remember with Kevin Klein, but but at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court instead of the White House. But the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice falls into a coma and he names his young
Speaker 1: law clerk, Avery Keen, as his legal guardian. So tell
Speaker 1: us a little bit about the character Avery Keen and
Speaker 1: how you came up with and developed that character. Well,
Speaker 1: as you you explained when I first wrote that scene
Speaker 1: That night I got home, I had to go to
Speaker 1: work after I had lunch with Teresa. I got home,
Speaker 1: I said in my computer, and the scene I write
Speaker 1: with Howard Wynn was the very first scene and it
Speaker 1: has stayed in the book. It's been the first scene
Speaker 1: moved to. I moved it out of the prologue, moved
Speaker 1: it back over the last ten years, but it's always
Speaker 1: been there. And as I was writing it, when he
Speaker 1: started talking about he he's a bit of a curmudgeon,
Speaker 1: and when he's muttering about his clerks, Avery just was
Speaker 1: really clear to me that she would be this young
Speaker 1: law clerk who has, you know, on the outside, seems
Speaker 1: to be good at what she does as this complicated life,
Speaker 1: doesn't know what her future looks like, and it suddenly
Speaker 1: thrust into this new controversy where she has done everything
Speaker 1: in her power to kind of stay under the radar
Speaker 1: because she doesn't want to get caught She's gonna get
Speaker 1: caught up in challenge. She wants to just finally have
Speaker 1: some normalcy. But I also wanted to explore the conversation
Speaker 1: of having responsibility without having power, that you're given this thing,
Speaker 1: you have to do, this challenge, you have to meet.
Speaker 1: But all you have are your wits and your your
Speaker 1: moral compass, But you aren't really given the authority to
Speaker 1: navigate all of the spaces you have to be in
Speaker 1: and what that would take. And so Avery, for me
Speaker 1: is she I wanted her to be smart and courageous.
Speaker 1: I wanted her to intentionally do good. I get frustrated
Speaker 1: with books where our hero is good because it's be
Speaker 1: good or die. That's not really a choice. I want
Speaker 1: you to choose you can do good or you can
Speaker 1: walk away. And I think that's often the tension, not
Speaker 1: not quite as heightened as I do in the book,
Speaker 1: but it's often attention we face where we have to
Speaker 1: make an affirmative choice to do something that could undermine
Speaker 1: what we want in the long term, but it's the
Speaker 1: right thing to do. How much of Stacy Abrahams is
Speaker 1: in a very king I'd like to think that most
Speaker 1: of my characters, especially Avery, have some part of me,
Speaker 1: But she's wholly her own person, and I wanted her
Speaker 1: to be and intriguing character who could stand alone that
Speaker 1: people wanted to get to know. I write characters that
Speaker 1: I want to be friends with, and they're always very different.
Speaker 1: In some way from me. But I think part of
Speaker 1: it for me is also I get to live out
Speaker 1: my adventures through these characters I write, and so, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's natural that a little bit of me
Speaker 1: creeps into her DNA. You're know that Avery's mother suffers
Speaker 1: from addiction, and that's something that you really wanted to
Speaker 1: to explore in the book and something that you've dealt
Speaker 1: with in your own family. I know that your brother
Speaker 1: is currently in recovery, and and why was it important
Speaker 1: for you to portraying more complex and human aspects of
Speaker 1: addiction and the impact that has not only on the individual,
Speaker 1: but on the whole family unit. And popular culture, addiction
Speaker 1: is used either as a tactic to convey an issue,
Speaker 1: it's used to villainize, or it's used to victimize. What
Speaker 1: has always frustrated me is that it ignores the real
Speaker 1: complexity that people don't stop being who they are because
Speaker 1: of addiction. There are certainly exaggerations and their behaviors that
Speaker 1: are saddening and disheartening and sometimes, you know, depending on
Speaker 1: the love of addiction and the type of addiction, terrifying,
Speaker 1: but the core of who that person is doesn't cease
Speaker 1: to be and the humanity doesn't disappear because of addiction.
Speaker 1: I wanted her to have a foil in her mother
Speaker 1: that was a legitimate impediment to some of the things
Speaker 1: she wanted that created who she is. When you've got
Speaker 1: to think about being the caretaker of someone who should
Speaker 1: be taking care of you, and you've got to navigate
Speaker 1: this m challenge that sometimes diminishes their ability to be
Speaker 1: who they should be. Does that mean that person ceases
Speaker 1: to have value? And the answers no, because throughout the book,
Speaker 1: I want that tension to play out where she loves
Speaker 1: her mother, her mother frustrates and disappoints her, and her
Speaker 1: mother wants to be a better person every day. And
Speaker 1: I think being able to tell that story through Rita
Speaker 1: and avery, to tell the story of mothers and daughters,
Speaker 1: to talk about the biological family and what that means
Speaker 1: to us even in the darkest moments, all of those
Speaker 1: pieces to me were important to give texture and color
Speaker 1: and character to the story. The book also features a
Speaker 1: corrupt and ruthless Republican president. Publishers originally told you, Stacy
Speaker 1: in two thousand and ten, when you finished the book
Speaker 1: and we're trying to get it it published this character
Speaker 1: seemed quote absurd and far fetched, and um it now
Speaker 1: looking back and understanding what the country has been through
Speaker 1: in the decades since you wrote it, Um, do you feel,
Speaker 1: in a weird way you were able to predict the future?
Speaker 1: I hope not. It was. I think, unfortunately the last
Speaker 1: four years we lived with a caricature of a president.
Speaker 1: We lived with someone who took his opportunity for leadership
Speaker 1: and power and bastardized it. Brandon Stokes, the president in
Speaker 1: the book, is hopefully less of a caricature and at
Speaker 1: least had I mean, he's a bad guy, but my
Speaker 1: my attempt is to at least make him seem plausible.
Speaker 1: But I think the other reality is that our constitution,
Speaker 1: our structure of government, does not preclude this from happening.
Speaker 1: And there was this naivete it seemed that rejected this
Speaker 1: notion that we could that this could happen, and it
Speaker 1: was never absurd. I think, I think far fetched, given
Speaker 1: the complexity of the story or the different plot points, perhaps,
Speaker 1: but I think sadly we've realized that while we have
Speaker 1: a resilient nation, we are always vulnerable to demagoguery, two power,
Speaker 1: you know, hunger, and we are susceptible to those who
Speaker 1: prey on our best instincts to live out their worst. Instance.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with more of Stacy Abrahams and the
Speaker 1: debate over voting rights that's intensifying across the country. That's
Speaker 1: right after this. You say that if you end a
Speaker 1: book and there has been no consequence to everything that's happened,
Speaker 1: you've failed as a writer. So ultimately, what do you
Speaker 1: think is the message of this book? And then we'll
Speaker 1: get into politics, because I know everybody's chomping at the
Speaker 1: bit to talk about politics. I wanted, let's say, first
Speaker 1: and foremost, I wanted to entertain. I wanted to tell
Speaker 1: a story that took an arcane quirk of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and I wanted people to have fun learning about it.
Speaker 1: And every book I've written, whether it was you know,
Speaker 1: my book about ethnobotany or you know the romance, my
Speaker 1: Serial Killer romance about linguistics, I want to learn things,
Speaker 1: and that's one of the reasons I write. I write
Speaker 1: because I have just a deep curiosity to know more,
Speaker 1: and I want readers to leave a book knowing more
Speaker 1: about topics they hadn't thought of. I want to I
Speaker 1: wanted readers to also engage politics in a way that, yes,
Speaker 1: I I draw broad brushstrokes about the power that you have,
Speaker 1: but also I wanted to talk about the complexity of
Speaker 1: what people are having to deal with and how they
Speaker 1: think about it. Yes, politicians are going to make grotesque mistakes,
Speaker 1: but sometimes we forget what's on what's on the menu,
Speaker 1: and how these things come into being. But ultimately my
Speaker 1: mission was to create a story where the good guys,
Speaker 1: if not are you know, if they're not wearing white hats,
Speaker 1: then we at least see the illusion of them, and
Speaker 1: that the bad guys, even when we were you know,
Speaker 1: we reject who they are, we understand a little bit
Speaker 1: more about how they came to be. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I think it's so interesting that you've been very inspired
Speaker 1: by the writing of Robert Caro, and that reminds me
Speaker 1: of you know, how you're describing multidimensional care acts that
Speaker 1: are deeply flawed and yet have these you know, extraordinary qualities.
Speaker 1: And you really use lb J as an example of that,
Speaker 1: And and how did you become really interested in him?
Speaker 1: And why were you so captivated by the writing of
Speaker 1: Robert Caro When I was in college, I created my major.
Speaker 1: I went through physics and philosophy and theater, and it
Speaker 1: was so bad they told me I could had to
Speaker 1: stop declaring majors because I clearly didn't know what I wanted.
Speaker 1: And finally I wrote a paper about what I wanted
Speaker 1: to know when I finished college, and what really captivated
Speaker 1: me was the notion of what what has driven me
Speaker 1: is the question of poverty and just how vile it is,
Speaker 1: how it robs us of this human capital, and how
Speaker 1: it is interconnected with so many other broken parts of
Speaker 1: our society. The president who who tackled that head on,
Speaker 1: who spoke aloud about its evils, it was lb J.
Speaker 1: But he was also a person who was an avowed racist,
Speaker 1: who you know, impeded progress on so many levels, and
Speaker 1: he fascinated me. This, this person who also became the
Speaker 1: architect of the Voting Rights Act and who did so
Speaker 1: much to a tone, but at the same time got
Speaker 1: us into the you know, you know, extended our stay
Speaker 1: in Vietnam and lead to challenges based on misinformation and
Speaker 1: his refusal to be wholly honest. And then I got
Speaker 1: to read more. That's what I was able to glean
Speaker 1: from my own you know, understanding and from what I
Speaker 1: was reading, but when I found Robert Carroll's books, like
Speaker 1: the detail and the intentionality of his writing, but also
Speaker 1: the complexity of the person who became lb J is
Speaker 1: always a reminder that no one is one dimensional, that
Speaker 1: we have multi strand identities, and that the smallest parts
Speaker 1: of our lives can infuse almost every decision we make.
Speaker 1: It has taken four books to tell the story of LBJ,
Speaker 1: and it's still not done. And I think that is
Speaker 1: a testament to just how extraordinary he was as a president,
Speaker 1: but also how flawed he was as a politician and
Speaker 1: as a person. And that is our politics. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is America, this juxtaposition, this internalized dichotomy. And we
Speaker 1: are in trouble if we forget either piece of that,
Speaker 1: or if we decide that our leadership cannot be complex
Speaker 1: and cannot be flawed. But we've got to your point
Speaker 1: about guardrails. We've got to adjust for it, and we've
Speaker 1: got to adapt to it, and we've got to be
Speaker 1: prepared for it. To worry about the sort of purity
Speaker 1: tests that that are increasingly being used across the political spectrum.
Speaker 1: Um that and and and uh, I don't I hate
Speaker 1: to use the term cancel culture because like everything has
Speaker 1: become weaponized by certain you know, segment of the population.
Speaker 1: But this sort of um, this this search and demand
Speaker 1: for perfection in all things. In every past statement you've made,
Speaker 1: do you worry that will will discourage many competent, qualified,
Speaker 1: you know, purpose driven and committed people to run for
Speaker 1: office and be part of the political system because it
Speaker 1: has become so uh so demanding and so uh people
Speaker 1: have been becoming judged so harshly for almost everything. My
Speaker 1: parents were. My mom was librarian, my dad was a
Speaker 1: shipyard worker from my first fifteen years of my life.
Speaker 1: Then they became ministers, and one of the most important
Speaker 1: lessons I learned from both they're more secular wives and
Speaker 1: when they became pastors is the notion of her giveness
Speaker 1: and redemption. People make mistakes and they should be held accountable.
Speaker 1: That is an absolute, but they should also have a
Speaker 1: chance at redemption and a chance to make amends. Where
Speaker 1: I take exception, I do not deny the legitimacy of
Speaker 1: calling out mistakes and holding people accountable and setting high
Speaker 1: standards and saying there's certain mistakes that rise to such
Speaker 1: a level that your atonement may preclude you ever doing
Speaker 1: anything else, but that should be a high bar that
Speaker 1: we set. But if someone is willing to show their
Speaker 1: true contrition, if they are willing to take do the
Speaker 1: undertake those acts of paying for what they've done, trying
Speaker 1: to solve for how they've been, If their apology is
Speaker 1: driven not by you know, convenience, but by legitimate, you know,
Speaker 1: a legitimate contrition and a legitimate attempt at atonement, then
Speaker 1: we should create space for them to re end. Turn.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone should ever be permanently excluded from redemption.
Speaker 1: I think there are some things that the bar is
Speaker 1: gonna be so high it's gonna take you a while
Speaker 1: to get there, and you might as well get comfortable
Speaker 1: not being there. But this notion that everything that is
Speaker 1: offensive is also a reason to exclude you is untenable
Speaker 1: to me, because we are all flawed. We are all
Speaker 1: broken people in our ways, and we will make mistakes
Speaker 1: that will take time to fix. And you know my approaches,
Speaker 1: I need to make certain I give people that level
Speaker 1: of grace. I extend that because I have no idea
Speaker 1: what mistake it is I'm going to make, but I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's one out there, and it's going to likely
Speaker 1: be unintentional, and it's probably going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: very hard and harmful and hurtful. But I hope people
Speaker 1: there's a phrase I've heard so many times, charge it
Speaker 1: to my head and not my heart. You still have
Speaker 1: to be You still to pay for it, but you
Speaker 1: should also be allowed to recover from it. But that
Speaker 1: recovery has a cost, and that cost cannot be permanent exile.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about voting rights, because you can't have a
Speaker 1: conversation with Stacy Abrahams without talking about that, of course,
Speaker 1: and sort of election integrity. Um, you know, you've been
Speaker 1: called the future of the Democratic Party, Stacy, but the
Speaker 1: GOP has already started raising money for a Stop Stacy
Speaker 1: fund to defeat a Georgia gubernatorial run, even though you
Speaker 1: haven't declared your candidacy. And I'm curious, you know, with
Speaker 1: with everything that you've done, it has put you in
Speaker 1: the crosshairs of your opponents, and and how are you
Speaker 1: managing that? Just on a personal and professional level. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're laughing, but it must get really tiresome, frustrating and
Speaker 1: maddening at at certain points. It is all of the above,
Speaker 1: but the goal of my work is is twofold. I
Speaker 1: believe in voting rights because I believe in the power
Speaker 1: of citizenship. I don't It's not about the act of
Speaker 1: casting a ballot. There's nothing magical about that. What is
Speaker 1: magical is that in a democracy, the casting of that
Speaker 1: ballot creates the opportunity to hire people who will do
Speaker 1: good and help improve your life. That's what I appreciate,
Speaker 1: and I want that to be available to every person
Speaker 1: who is a part of our democracy. That said, I
Speaker 1: tend to think that people who share my value system
Speaker 1: are the better people, and so I am partisan in
Speaker 1: that way. What is frustrating to me is that the
Speaker 1: partisanship has overwhelmed citizenship in our nation at a level
Speaker 1: that we haven't seen in decades. It's never fully disappeared,
Speaker 1: but it is being weaponized and enabled in ways that
Speaker 1: should terrify and chill all of us. And yes, it
Speaker 1: it then becomes a question of my safety and my
Speaker 1: my humanity. Yeah. I used to like Twitter. I mean
Speaker 1: Twitter has always been you know, tread carefully. You enter
Speaker 1: the memes that have been developed about me are are
Speaker 1: you know, both creative? And you know, luckily I like
Speaker 1: myself I'm good, but it is easy to believe the
Speaker 1: negatives and to believe the attacks. I have to remind
Speaker 1: myself that I am who I was before I started this,
Speaker 1: that I am Robert and Caroline's daughter, that I am,
Speaker 1: you know, the sister to my five siblings that I
Speaker 1: was before I've met me. I don't take myself too seriously,
Speaker 1: but I also refused to allow someone else to define
Speaker 1: who I am because they disagree with who I have
Speaker 1: become in the public eye the work that I do.
Speaker 1: And I'm stumbling over my words because I'm trying to
Speaker 1: be really careful. We are so often bifurcated. We are
Speaker 1: this person at home and this person in public. I
Speaker 1: don't have that luxury. I've got to be holy who
Speaker 1: I am, and because that is how I try to operate.
Speaker 1: It has created more tensions and more challenges than I anticipated.
Speaker 1: But I'm also privileged to have a platform to push
Speaker 1: the things I believe in, to advocate for those who
Speaker 1: I think are too often left out of the conversation,
Speaker 1: and to live both of my faith and my my
Speaker 1: values and for me, they are the same. And those
Speaker 1: are the things that I think help help me navigate
Speaker 1: and survive all the really negative, ugly things, like, you know,
Speaker 1: an entire organization that is wholly designed to stop me
Speaker 1: from doing something I haven't declared I'm going to do.
Speaker 1: When you say the challenges from not sort of integrating
Speaker 1: your personal and professional life your whole self, what do
Speaker 1: you mean what kind of challenges have come from from
Speaker 1: being that person? Do you feel like you're in therapy?
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, I appreciate the chair doesn't recline. Um. No, So,
Speaker 1: without going into too much, last week, Tucker Carlson decided
Speaker 1: to make light of my romantic suspense novels Assume in
Speaker 1: an attempt embarrass me. I'm like, I'm not embarrassed. My
Speaker 1: face was in all of the books, and the underlying
Speaker 1: intention there was to humiliate me and to push me
Speaker 1: out of this public narrative, the human part, you know, humanity.
Speaker 1: We don't like being embarrassed, we don't like being ridiculed.
Speaker 1: It is, It is hard, but it also requires a
Speaker 1: bit of a recognition that I being who I am
Speaker 1: and my name being on books either now that they're
Speaker 1: real at leasing my romance novels with my my actual
Speaker 1: name on it, but I've never hidden it that that's
Speaker 1: going to open me up to these attacks, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna open me up to ridicule. That they're going to
Speaker 1: be those who take everything I say out of context
Speaker 1: and they will find three words and string them together,
Speaker 1: or to say that I've blasphemed. Those are challenges because
Speaker 1: part of it is not just that I know it's
Speaker 1: not true. I have to do the work of making
Speaker 1: sure others know it's not true, and that's the challenge.
Speaker 1: I'm good with who I am, I'm good with where
Speaker 1: I stand in you know, the eyes of my friends,
Speaker 1: but I need other people to trust and believe the
Speaker 1: work that I do, and that means I've got to
Speaker 1: spend a lot more time trying to diffuse these attempts
Speaker 1: at humiliation, these attempts at undermining me. And that's sometimes
Speaker 1: a distraction, but it's also part of the work. We're
Speaker 1: going to take a short break, but when we come back,
Speaker 1: breaking news or not, you'll just have to listen to
Speaker 1: find out. Let's talk a little more about voter suppression,
Speaker 1: because it's a it's a very we worry. Sometime beyond Georgia,
Speaker 1: Republicans are attempting to pass legislation in dozens of states
Speaker 1: that many believe will restrict voting access Florida, Texas. I
Speaker 1: read actually Stacey and preparing for this interview, there are
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty one bills with restrictive provisions in
Speaker 1: forty seven states. First of all, can anything be done
Speaker 1: and what impact are these going to have? When you
Speaker 1: look ahead, specifically to the mid terms. We have to
Speaker 1: we have to begin by looking at January six. The insurrection,
Speaker 1: as violent and as vile as it was, had a
Speaker 1: very clear intend The goal was to undo participation by
Speaker 1: communities that they thought were illegitimate. And if you could,
Speaker 1: if you didn't, couldn't guess it from their words and
Speaker 1: their invective. Look at the Confederate flags they brought it.
Speaker 1: The Confederate flag has a very specific meaning, and I
Speaker 1: don't really care about the revisionist history that tries to
Speaker 1: claim that heritage means anything other than trying to venerate
Speaker 1: those who thought slavery was a good idea. So with
Speaker 1: that is your backdrop, you then look at the states
Speaker 1: that are considering this legislation, and almost to a state,
Speaker 1: it is based on an increased participation, largely by communities
Speaker 1: of color, but also by young people, by the disabled,
Speaker 1: by marginalized communities who have typically not been in the electorate.
Speaker 1: Their increased participation changed the outcome of the election, and
Speaker 1: the insurrection was about undoing this this election, and as
Speaker 1: a through line of this legislation is also about making
Speaker 1: certain that if they can't undo what happened in they
Speaker 1: will preclude it from happening in twenty two. In the South,
Speaker 1: in particular, the vehemence with which they are denying their
Speaker 1: intention is wholly at odds with the evidence. In Arizona,
Speaker 1: they just passed the law that will disproportionately affect Latino
Speaker 1: and Native American voters. And it's not like they didn't
Speaker 1: know it because we were part of making sure they hurt.
Speaker 1: In Texas, in Georgia and Florida, they are not passing
Speaker 1: laws based on the Sue Sponte notion that we just
Speaker 1: need to do this. They are specifically responding to every
Speaker 1: way these communities leverage the right to vote to actually participate,
Speaker 1: and so we have to talk about it. Silence is
Speaker 1: their most effective weapon. When we are quiet about this,
Speaker 1: when we accept that this happens, it becomes even more
Speaker 1: effective because it convinces those who are under attack that
Speaker 1: they are alone. And so our first responsibility is to
Speaker 1: talk about voter suppression, to keep talking about it even
Speaker 1: after these bills passed, because we have the ability to
Speaker 1: affect the narrative. And in Texas we just saw several
Speaker 1: bills fail because we kept up the pressure and we
Speaker 1: got corporations to speak up, and we have seen change
Speaker 1: happen in Georgia and in Florida. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, we have to help the organizations doing this work.
Speaker 1: Voter suppression can be mitigated. It We need to defeat it,
Speaker 1: but we can mitigate it by trying to solve for
Speaker 1: the problems these laws are creating. And so look for
Speaker 1: the voter protection organizations in your state. Number Three, we
Speaker 1: have to pass federal legislation that creates a standard for
Speaker 1: voting so that our democracy doesn't differ based on our geography.
Speaker 1: That's the voting rights provisions of the For the People
Speaker 1: Act and the John LuSE Voting Rights Devancement Act. And
Speaker 1: I'll say all of this can be found at Stop
Speaker 1: Jim crow To dot com. Just go to stop Jim
Speaker 1: crow To dot com. We'll walk you through all of this,
Speaker 1: tell you where these bills are where they're moving, what
Speaker 1: effect they have, and how you can help make certain
Speaker 1: that we keep our voices raised, we help the organizations
Speaker 1: doing the work, and that we get passage of the
Speaker 1: federal legislation to make our democracy real for all. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you a little bit more about For
Speaker 1: the People Act and why a federal law is so
Speaker 1: critically important. And I imagine Stacy, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a boatload of resistance from states, you know, who say
Speaker 1: this is really in our purview. This was set up
Speaker 1: that we oversee election state by state by state. Can
Speaker 1: you talk a little bit more about the Four the
Speaker 1: People Act and why it is so critical. So the
Speaker 1: Four the People Act has multiple components to it. I
Speaker 1: am focusing right now in this conversation on the voting
Speaker 1: rights provisions. Article one, section for the elections clause gives
Speaker 1: to the states the power to administer elections, but it
Speaker 1: gives to Congress the authority set the time, place and
Speaker 1: manner of elections. It's why in America we vote on
Speaker 1: a Tuesday in November. So we have accepted that the
Speaker 1: federal government has this prerogative. We have accepted that. After
Speaker 1: the two thousand election, we moved away from hanging chads.
Speaker 1: We accepted the motor voter built. We have had the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act from nineteen sixty five through night to
Speaker 1: through two thousand thirteen, so it has always been that
Speaker 1: the federal government has the right to that a standard
Speaker 1: of access. That's kind of what the Constitution did when
Speaker 1: it said you can't preclude voters based on their race,
Speaker 1: which was the fifteenth Amendment, based on their gender, the
Speaker 1: twenty Amendment, based on I mean the nineteenth Amendment, and
Speaker 1: based on their age in the Amendment. The reason for
Speaker 1: the People Acted so necessary is that we have determined
Speaker 1: that without being able to preclude on those three reasons,
Speaker 1: the newest approaches to limit who can register, how they
Speaker 1: stay on the rolls, if they can cast the ballot,
Speaker 1: and that ballot can be counted. That's what we saw
Speaker 1: play out during the two thousand fight over vote by mail.
Speaker 1: But across the board, this is going to say that
Speaker 1: no matter where you live, you should be able to
Speaker 1: register to vote. That you should be if you are
Speaker 1: a citizen of the United States, you should be allowed
Speaker 1: to register to vote. That you should be allowed to
Speaker 1: vote early, because not everyone can go and vote on
Speaker 1: a Tuesday in November between eight am and a p m.
Speaker 1: And that you should be able to vote by mail
Speaker 1: in case, oh, I don't know, there's a pandemic and
Speaker 1: it's literally dangerous to stand next to someone in line.
Speaker 1: That's what Those are the major provisions. Now there are
Speaker 1: other provisions in it, and anyone who says, oh, she
Speaker 1: ignored everything else, I'm not ignoring it. I have a
Speaker 1: limited amount of time, and those are the big pieces
Speaker 1: that I'm pushing for. You know, I'm curious how the
Speaker 1: senses plays in into this, because there was some really
Speaker 1: interesting population shift and and and in terms of the
Speaker 1: Sun Belt and what's going on in in in southern States,
Speaker 1: with the GOP making real gains, how is that going
Speaker 1: to impact Because I know you've also said you can
Speaker 1: replicate what was done in Georgia two uh can be
Speaker 1: exported to the rest of the Sun Belt and the Midwest.
Speaker 1: So when I did not become governor in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eighteen, and I'm not confused, I've never thought I
Speaker 1: was governor, I created three organizations Fair Fight, to fight
Speaker 1: for our democracy, to protect the right to vote, to
Speaker 1: mitigate voter suppression in Georgia and across the twenty states.
Speaker 1: I also created fair Count because the census is the
Speaker 1: single most important input of data that we have in
Speaker 1: our nation. It tells us who is, who we are,
Speaker 1: where we live, and what we need and what we
Speaker 1: have seen in the census. The data that's come out
Speaker 1: so far should actually be I think I'm emboldened by
Speaker 1: it and that it is showing a population shift to
Speaker 1: the Sun Belt. And while Republicans by and large will
Speaker 1: control the drawing of the maps, they do not control
Speaker 1: the movement of people. And we are seeing greater diversity
Speaker 1: come to the Sun Belt. We're seeing greater diversity coming
Speaker 1: to states like Georgia, which is why its transformation was possible.
Speaker 1: It is not inevitable. It takes if you are a
Speaker 1: partisan in this conversation, like so, I want everyone to
Speaker 1: be able to vote, but I want my side to win,
Speaker 1: and so from my side to win, we know that
Speaker 1: communities that have largely been disenfranchised are more than likely
Speaker 1: going to share my political values. What's happening with our
Speaker 1: demographic shift is that communities that have so for so
Speaker 1: long been denied real input are now amassing in greater
Speaker 1: numbers in the Sun Belt. And we'll have I think
Speaker 1: a larger an outsized effect on elections, and that's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons we see these communities serving as the
Speaker 1: target for voter suppression. Well, in demographics are are not
Speaker 1: are working in your favor by there would be a
Speaker 1: majority minority population in the United States of America. So
Speaker 1: and that you know, it is something that is irrefutable
Speaker 1: and obviously, uh, those those segments of the population will
Speaker 1: need their rights protected. Michelle d says, how does the
Speaker 1: Scotus decision invalidating parts of the Voter Rights Act affect
Speaker 1: your recommendations when you mentioned a federal law to protect
Speaker 1: voting So what happened in is that the Shelby decision,
Speaker 1: which came from the Roberts Court, essentially invalidated the formula
Speaker 1: that is what animates Section five of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 1: So we still have a Voting Rights Act, but it
Speaker 1: is essentially gutted because without the formula to say which
Speaker 1: states are covered by it, no one is covered by it. You.
Speaker 1: So we have two challenges. We have the Scotus decision,
Speaker 1: that's the Shelby decision, but there's also a case that
Speaker 1: is currently before the Supreme Court that would get section
Speaker 1: two of the Voting Rights Act. It has been the
Speaker 1: intention of conservatives of sect of conservatives to eliminate the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act since its inception, and they are getting
Speaker 1: closer to success. But the legal theory has been the
Speaker 1: one that was put forward by John Roberts as the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice, was that it was the formula was broken.
Speaker 1: According to that, if we fix the formula, then the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act will once again apply, and that's what
Speaker 1: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act accomplishes. But the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act serves to preclude new bad laws that
Speaker 1: you have to go something called preclearance. You can't do
Speaker 1: new bets stuff. We've got to deal with the bad
Speaker 1: stuff they're doing right now, which is why we also
Speaker 1: need the For the People Act, because if we pass
Speaker 1: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and renew the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Law immediately, it will not undo any of
Speaker 1: the existing laws that have passed since January, these insurrection
Speaker 1: enabled bills, they will still be the law of the land.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have to have a both in
Speaker 1: solution on either or solution. But I want to say
Speaker 1: one other thing before it, and then we go the
Speaker 1: next question. There is nothing inevitable that says that Democrats,
Speaker 1: because of demographic changes, will win. Any party willing to
Speaker 1: listen to the needs of the people and promulgate laws
Speaker 1: and policies to serve them have the opportunity to win.
Speaker 1: But what we face right now is a party that
Speaker 1: has built its brand on rejecting this demographic change and
Speaker 1: refusing to acknowledge it. And so instead of amending their
Speaker 1: policies to attract more people to their party, they are
Speaker 1: instead trying to gain the system and deny access to
Speaker 1: the right to vote. That is not right. I don't
Speaker 1: care which party does it, and I'm a member of
Speaker 1: a party that did it from eighteen seventy through nineteen.
Speaker 1: I'm a Democrat with a full understanding that it was
Speaker 1: Democrats that created Jim Crow. So voter suppression is not
Speaker 1: the province of any one party, but any party willing
Speaker 1: to participate in it should be pushed back on and
Speaker 1: should be denied that kind of power grab. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the Republican Party today. Um, you know, seventy four
Speaker 1: million Americans voted for Donald Trump, and you know, I
Speaker 1: think he perhaps has surprised some people that he still
Speaker 1: has such a firm grasp a chokehold, some might say
Speaker 1: on the GOP, as evidenced by the ejection of Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney from her leadership position UH in the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: how do you metabolize that Donald Trump is a symptom.
Speaker 1: He is not the disease. And he's symptomatic in that
Speaker 1: he was willing to reject norms, to engage in corruption
Speaker 1: in order to achieve his political ends, in order to
Speaker 1: hold power, and he was able to use the sort
Speaker 1: of Carney level demagoguery to bring people to his tent
Speaker 1: that happens in every nation. We He was nothing new
Speaker 1: and he will be nothing new. He simply, and he
Speaker 1: simply read this moment in a way that convinced seventy
Speaker 1: four million people that he answered their concerns better than
Speaker 1: the other guy. The problem there in is that rather
Speaker 1: than recognizing what he represents, people are simply talking about
Speaker 1: him as a person as opposed to a symptom of
Speaker 1: a deeper and darker through line in our democracy, this
Speaker 1: notion of authoritarian populism. If he were to lose in
Speaker 1: twenty four it doesn't dissipate. And what Liz Cheney found
Speaker 1: much to her chagrin is that despite voting with him
Speaker 1: more than nine of the time, you cannot support the
Speaker 1: policies and revile the person that people when you have
Speaker 1: given them truck, when you've given them salients, the average
Speaker 1: voter is not going to see a difference, and so
Speaker 1: I I'm actually I'm very disappointed that they removed her
Speaker 1: from her leadership position. I am pleased that she continues
Speaker 1: to push back on his demagoguery. The problem is when
Speaker 1: you enable the demagoguery, you can't then be surprised that
Speaker 1: Frankenstein's monster decides that he doesn't want to leave the village. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not as if she didn't support him wholeheartedly in
Speaker 1: the past, and then it was when it was a
Speaker 1: bridge too far she spoke up. But I think so
Speaker 1: many people in the country were waiting for other Republicans
Speaker 1: at what point would they breach their breaking point? But
Speaker 1: it's not about a breaking point, and I think that's
Speaker 1: part of the challenge we're having in articulating a response.
Speaker 1: It's not just a breaking point. It is that he
Speaker 1: embodies a set of beliefs and a set of behaviors
Speaker 1: that emboldened those who had to sublimate them as part
Speaker 1: of the social contract when as a society we agree
Speaker 1: to behave in certain ways in public and in other
Speaker 1: ways in private, but we leave each other alone. He
Speaker 1: brought all of those dark impulses to the four and
Speaker 1: because people like some of the things they got, because
Speaker 1: he did it, they celebrated him. And there has not
Speaker 1: been the willingness to you can't accept the present but
Speaker 1: get really mad at the giver. It becomes part and
Speaker 1: parcel of the same thing. And that's the challenge the
Speaker 1: Republican Party and thus America is having to grapple with
Speaker 1: right now. Well, well, I mean, what do you think
Speaker 1: is the future of the Republican Party? Is that can
Speaker 1: continue on this road? Is it? Is it a is
Speaker 1: it a craven desire to claim to power that keeps
Speaker 1: you know, the fear of being out primaried by someone
Speaker 1: you know that that Trump supports and that he can
Speaker 1: destroy you, not in a single tweet, but in other ways.
Speaker 1: I guess, uh, still pretty effectively. Right Well, going back
Speaker 1: to all justice leaves, I will say that well, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: but I mean and sincerely, um, part of the story
Speaker 1: is that there are people of noble beliefs who still
Speaker 1: do horrible things. There are people who think they're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, or believe that the ends justified the means.
Speaker 1: They're all of these justifications for accepting bad behavior, for
Speaker 1: doing bad things, and you can understand it without supporting
Speaker 1: and defending it. And the problem that the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is having right now is they have not figured out
Speaker 1: they may have to sacrifice what they want to get
Speaker 1: what we need as a nation. And until the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is willing to sacrifice victory to return to values,
Speaker 1: then they are going to find themselves held hostage by
Speaker 1: this man. But he's only an embodiment of what they've
Speaker 1: done to themselves. He was just better at it than
Speaker 1: the other guys who tried. But he is not unique,
Speaker 1: he is not special. He is simply the best version
Speaker 1: of this terrible notion that the Republicans have been pushing for.
Speaker 1: Democrats have founder We've found ourselves in similar straits. We
Speaker 1: got out of it. But as I point out, I've
Speaker 1: been the Southerner my entire life. They have been bad,
Speaker 1: bad people who hold my banner, who hold the banner
Speaker 1: of politics that I hold, And our only response has
Speaker 1: to be to reject it, and that gets us back
Speaker 1: to LBJ. LBJ was a person who made terrible choices
Speaker 1: until he decided to do right. So I believe in redemption.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's coming out of Marrow Lago or Bedminster.
Speaker 1: But I think Republicans, if they are willing to reject
Speaker 1: victory to regain their values, I think they can re
Speaker 1: emerge as a valid and viable party. You have so
Speaker 1: many people still believing the big lie that the election
Speaker 1: was rigged, and of course you have a whole system
Speaker 1: of misinformation and disinformation that is affirming those beliefs. Um
Speaker 1: what can be done about that? Is there anything that
Speaker 1: can restore faith in in the system among the people
Speaker 1: who insist that it lacks integrity? Although there's you know,
Speaker 1: as Liz Cheney said in our speech, there's so much
Speaker 1: evidence as we all know, to the contrary. I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you do with that? How do you how
Speaker 1: do you approach it? How do you unravel this myth?
Speaker 1: I think it's actually one of the most important justifications
Speaker 1: for standardized elections in the sense of across this country,
Speaker 1: no matter where you live, you get to register with
Speaker 1: the same perquisite that you have that everyone has a
Speaker 1: minimum number of early voting hours, everyone has a minimum
Speaker 1: access to absentee balloting. Standardization breeds more familiarity, but it
Speaker 1: also pushes back against this notion that somehow it was
Speaker 1: done wrong. You can't unring the bell that was wrung
Speaker 1: with such vicious force in this election, and people are
Speaker 1: going to believe those things that make them feel better
Speaker 1: about the choices they made. My I don't believe in conversion.
Speaker 1: I think it is a hard thing to do. I
Speaker 1: believe in convincing, and the best way to convince people
Speaker 1: is to election after election after election, make it easier
Speaker 1: and easier for people who are eligible to vote, to
Speaker 1: participate in our process, to hire more and more people
Speaker 1: who are willing to tell the truth about who we are,
Speaker 1: and to have the patients to understand that we have
Speaker 1: always had challenges with our elections. This nation was built
Speaker 1: on voter suppression, but we were also built on the
Speaker 1: promise that we could get better. And the persistence that
Speaker 1: we have to have is that we cannot undo or
Speaker 1: we cannot convince people of the truth they don't want
Speaker 1: to know, but we can demonstrate through our actions the
Speaker 1: reality of what is so and that's the mission, and
Speaker 1: that has to be what we continue to do. Uh, Stacy,
Speaker 1: I know you want to break some news here in
Speaker 1: Portland tonight, and you know doing this interview with me
Speaker 1: of course, Uh, because I know you've waited for this moment.
Speaker 1: But we've getting a lot of questions about and and
Speaker 1: I know you said you weren't really into being asked
Speaker 1: this question. But since you have a major announcement to make, um,
Speaker 1: are you planning to run for governor? Stacy Abrams? I
Speaker 1: intend to vote in the election. I have not decided
Speaker 1: if my name is going to be on the ballot
Speaker 1: or not. Scene that's it. That's it. That's all she wrote. Okay,
Speaker 1: hold on, somebody just said yes. I need to be
Speaker 1: really clear. I was not saying I'm running. So I'm
Speaker 1: not sure what that yes is responding to. But let
Speaker 1: me be very clear. And I think Katie is an
Speaker 1: amazing job of trying to trick me into an answer.
Speaker 1: I'm not answering that question. I am focused on trying
Speaker 1: to make sure we still have democracy. Let's get that
Speaker 1: done and then we can talk about other things. Well,
Speaker 1: I could talk to you all night, but you've been
Speaker 1: incredibly generous with your time. I want to thank uh
Speaker 1: Pal's books and the great audience questions. I wish we
Speaker 1: were there in person so we could actually see people.
Speaker 1: I could sit next to you, but thank you so
Speaker 1: much for your extraordinary work. And when do you they
Speaker 1: When do they announce the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Speaker 1: I'm curious. I it is sometime in the fall, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate there are there are many many people who
Speaker 1: should be getting that. I am not on that list,
Speaker 1: despite the kindness that has been shown me. But I
Speaker 1: will tell people that in October, which is around the
Speaker 1: time Nobel decisions start coming out, they should be focused
Speaker 1: on getting going there. By Katie Curry, that's so nice.
Speaker 1: Thank you Stacy. Honestly, um, this was such a wonderful conversation.
Speaker 1: As I said, I can't think of a better way
Speaker 1: to spend a Friday night. I'm going to have a
Speaker 1: cocktail now, Stacy, I hope you will too. And Brie,
Speaker 1: thank you so much and Jeremy for for having us
Speaker 1: here tonight. I on behalf of Stacy, she could speak
Speaker 1: for herself, but on behalf of myself. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: the invitation and it's always a real honor to talk
Speaker 1: to Stacy Abrahams. Thank you Katie, and thank you Powell's
Speaker 1: Books for having me, and thank you everyone. Enjoy while
Speaker 1: Justice leaves. Next Question with Katie Kurik is a production
Speaker 1: of My Heart Media and Katie Curric Media. The executive
Speaker 1: producers Army, Katie Curic, and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer
Speaker 1: is Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Adrianna Fasio, and
Speaker 1: Emily Pinto. The show is edited and mixed by Derrick Clements.
Speaker 1: For more information about today's episode, or to sign up
Speaker 1: for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call, go to Katie
Speaker 1: currect dot com. You can also find me at Katie
Speaker 1: Curic on Instagram and all my social media channels. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the i Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows,