Angelo Carusone, Sarah Longwell & Dave Weigel

Media Matters CEO Angelo Carusone walks us through the latest revelations from Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox News and what the future holds for the network. The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell talks about the little-discussed polling questions that speak volumes on the Trump v. DeSantis rivalry. Plus, Semafor’s Dave Weigel sends us a dispatch from CPAC’s increasingly divided circus show. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds and Eli Lily will lower insulin prices
to thirty five dollars after the Biden administration's pressure. We
have the show of Shows Today, Media Matters. Angelo Karasone

(00:21):
talks to us about the latest revelations from Fox's dominion
lawsuit and what the future holds for the network. Semaphore's
Dave Weigel sends us a dispatch from sepacks increasingly divided
circus show. But first we have the host of the
focus group podcast The Bulwarks to Sarah Longwell, welcome back

(00:41):
to Fast Politics, Sarah Longwell, Hey, great to be here,
very excited to have you. I want to start with
this Atlantic headline. I'm sure you read this piece in
the Atlantic today from one of my favorite Ron Brownstein.
Republicans are trying to stop Trump again? Are they? I

(01:02):
read it and I was like, oh, how is this?
How is this happening again? It's definitely happening again. It's
weird because we've definitely seen this movie before, So what
you expect is that people will behave differently this time.
But they're not behaving differently, yet they're acting exactly the

(01:23):
same as they did in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen,
which is that there's this big group of people that
act like they're going to run for president and they
all somehow think they can do it without taking on
Donald Trump directly, and even worse in a lot of
ways by not taking him on right. So the way
that they're getting asked questions is like, well, are there
any policies you disagree with Donald Trump on? Oh? No, no, no,

(01:44):
I agree with him on just about everything. And as
a result, it's like all just a reinforcing idea that
you know, if you're Tim Scott, if you're Nikki Hayley,
otherwise purported these sort of normy Republicans, you still think
Donald Trump is just aces and had all the best ideas,
And why would anybody vote for some down market simulacrum

(02:06):
when they can have the og real thing because he's
in the race. It is incredible to me that this
we are just like living Groundhog's Day again and again. Yeah,
I mean there's some differences, okay, so and those differences
are real, and so I don't want to ignore them
just to say, you know, Trump's still the center of
the universe. He's the only thing going on because he's not.
Because we did a poll at the Bullwark, we used Wiers.

(02:29):
He's a very notable Republican polster. He was Rubio's guy
in sixteen. He worked around to Stantis. I wanted to
ask a pretty specific question that I hadn't seen. There's
a lot of head to head polling between Trump and
a Stantists and bunch of Poles have Trump ahead, bunch
of Poles have to Santis ahead. It's kind of hard
to get really clear on what's going on. But in
our poll, I wanted to The main reason I wanted

(02:50):
to do it as I wanted to figure out if
Donald Trump didn't win the Republican nomination, what would his
voters do. And we found that twenty eight percent would
vote for him if he ran as an independent against
Rhonda Santis and Joe Biden. And to me, like the
reason I asked the questions, I was trying to figure
out what's the universe of always Trumpers, the people who
are just there for him and basically nobody else. And

(03:12):
I also do a lot of focus groups. I talk
to these always Trumpers and I realize there's a few characteristics.
One is they value more than anything the outsider status
that Donald Trump is not a politician, and that's one
of the things that holds them up on a rounda
Santists like, even if they think he's a fighter, even
they like some of what he's done, he's still a
traditional politician and they don't like that. The other thing

(03:34):
is that these voters are the ones that are deeply
hard committed to the idea that to twenty twenty election
was stolen, so unlike a lot of the people who
are kind of like maybe Trumpers, ready to move on,
like Rhonda Santists, there's just this group of people it's like,
this guy was robbed, We need our revenge store he
should get another chance. That's notable because that means that's
Donald's Trump's floor, right, it means like he's already got

(03:57):
twenty eight to thirty percent of people who after seeing everything,
already knowing everything baked in deep, they're still there for him.
And Ronda Santis's vulnerability right now is that he is
all hype, right, He's he lives in their imaginations as
a guy who sort of, you know, yells at teenagers
wearing masks and yells at Disney and they see him,
you know, down there in the state of Florida. He

(04:18):
won in a in a swing state in their minds,
and so they like him, but they don't have like
a deep relationship with him. They haven't gone through the
insurrection and still decided that he's like the best guy ever. Yeah,
and so while I see a meaningful movement both you
can see it in the poll and you can see
it in the focus groups. You know, I listened to
these voters say, look, Donald Trump, he's been losing too much.

(04:40):
He's not electable. We want Ronda Santis. We think he's
Trump without the baggage. He's Trump not on steroids, which,
by the way, Trump is still at the center of
their orientation around politics, right right, right. But so that's
real that there's this cohort of people who want to
move on. But this is my big question. I don't
know the answer to it, but it's how I would
sort of think about this. All right, Let's say Rhonda

(05:00):
Santis he gets in the race when he's done with
his legislative session on May fifteenth, and he comes in
and they start to see him and they see a
guy who's kind of prickly, not super fast on his feet,
maybe doesn't live up to the image that they have
of him. In his imagination, Donald Trump's wailing on him
and he's just got a glass jaw and can't take it.

(05:21):
And they start to they start to decide, you know what,
maybe I don't love this guy so much. Here's my question,
maybe take a stab at it. Who do you think
that those voters go to. Do they go to the field,
do they say, you know, now, Rona Santis isn't my guy.
I'm gonna really give Nicki Haley a shot, or like
maybe Chris Christie, our old governor Senunu, or do those people,

(05:41):
at least a majority of them go back to Trump.
What do you think happens? I mean, I just think
that DeSantis lost a debate to Charlie Kress, which strikes
me as a sign that he may not be an
incredible debater, or that debate looms so large for me
in the way that I think about de Santis, because
what Chris did at one point, he just says, well,

(06:03):
Ronda Santist is going to run for president. He's not
even going to be here to work for Florida, and
ron Da Santist like doesn't say anything. He just puts
this awkward smile on his face and says, after grimacing
for a little bit, like let's move on. And it's
so weird. It's like such a weird way, especially because
not only should he be prepared for that question, but
also every person who's ever run for president has an

(06:24):
answer for that question, which is like, no, no, no,
I'm devoted to the people of Florida, and I will
think about that when the time comes. And Bubba, you know,
like it's it's an easy one, yeah, hard one. Somehow
he just like stood there like a weirdo yeah, and
like stance right ahead. The other thing I wonder about is,
and again this is not this is very superficial, but
in the television age, we have never had a president

(06:46):
who was under six feet tall. I know. This is
always what keeps me from believing I can do it.
Me too, This should be me, but I'm just so short. Yeah,
I don't know. I mean I think that the height
is kind of baked into a larger question about what
do you do with sort of an I hate to
call him an alpha because he's so gross. But like
this sort of alpha bully that Trump projects, right, I

(07:07):
think a lot of this to do analysis on this.
I think a lot of people can be I don't know,
have strong feelings one way or the other about who
might emerge. I actually have a debate later where I
have to take a position, and I'm going to take
Trump in that position. But like Ronda, Santis is an
unknown because we really haven't seen him on the national stage.
We haven't seen him against a Republican right, because the
thing about the Santis is that they like Santis and

(07:28):
they like Trump. Right, they are They're the same people,
like both of them, that's the question. And like Donald Trump,
we haven't seen in a long time, and he's gotten
older and a little deflated. Yeah, yeah, we got these
weird pictures coming out of Marrow lago, but you know,
we haven't seen him have to like work at the
level of campaigning and the constant talking and the rallies

(07:49):
in a bit. And so the question is like, does
he still have his fastball like Ken, is he the
alpha or will it look sort of like a phoned
in hatchet job. And one of the things that I
also think is part of the dynamic that I'm not
sure how it plays. Is one of the things that
the people who liked to Santis dislike about Trump is
that he's attacking to Santis. And I wonder how many

(08:10):
people does Trump alienate by attacking another prominent Republican or like,
does he alienate them or does he chip away at
how much people like Ronda Santis? Because Ronda Santis hasn't
really faced anybody criticizing him yet. Yeah, I mean, this
is like the big question that we don't really know.
But I think this polling that you have really shows
that that trumpy base is not going to say, oh, well,

(08:33):
the National Review likes to Santis. Banner right, Yes, the
National Review is no longer the tastemaker or the populist right.
And it's funny how the folks from the old days
get really annoyed if you don't aren't aggressively pro to Santis?
Oh really? Really? You don't say? I have to tell you,

(08:55):
no matter how many times we at the Bulwark say, listen,
if if Ronda Santis is the one that looks like
he is in a position to beat Trump, will all,
you know, register everywhere we can as Republicans to vote
the Republican primary for Rhonda Santis so that he beats
Donald Trump. As Donald Trump is a unique an existential
threat to democracy. That does not mean, though, that Rhonda
Santis isn't terrible and liberal and have all kinds of problems. Okay,

(09:19):
So this is my question to you, because this is
like something that I feel like I have started a conversation.
I mean, I think that it was started before me,
but it's something that I've certainly gotten involved in, which
is I have a thesis. And again, you know, I
could be wrong. I have been wrong before many times,
but I do have a thesis that both Rhonda Santis

(09:41):
and Donald Trump are coming at this from the authoritarian right,
and that do Santis, well, not as charismatic as Trump is,
really does authoritarian things in a much more successful way. Yeah.
So this is I've heard, you know, people make this argument,

(10:02):
and it's sort of the the de santiss is actually
more dangerous than Trump, more competent. Yeah, and I'm familiar
with it. I happen to not agree with it. I
was just I was just arguing about this with Michael
Steele last night. Michael Steele tell him, I say, Hi, Yeah,
he's the best is the best. I guess my reason
is this, and it involves a sort of a thought exercise,

(10:23):
which is I ask you to think hard about what
it would mean if Donald Trump was reelected in the
United States. It would mean several things. One, it would
say a whole bunch about the United States that somebody
who attempted to overturn the results of an election didn't
engage in the peaceful transfer power, that we reinstated them
in power. And I think that would be the kind

(10:45):
of catastrophic blow that I'm not sure you can recover
your democratic I don't want to say cred because that's
too demolishing of this, but yeah, I mean it's a
it's a huge blow to who we are. The other
thing is is like, think about a Trump administration. What
does it do so he only gets one term? Hopefully hopefully.
Every time I say whatever I make this, people are like,
are you sure, and I'm like, actually no. But think

(11:05):
about who is in his cabinet? What role does Don
Junior have? Is he Secretary of State? Like is you know?
I think what is Donald Trump doing to punish his
enemies over the past few years? Like Donald Trump, now
he wasn't particularly competent in his first term, but like
he learned the levers over time, he would be much
better at it a second term. So I just think
that if you think about it practically, what it means

(11:26):
for Donald Trump second term versus a De Santis first term,
I don't think they're comparable, right, There is an unhinged
quality to Donald Trump that Ronda Santis. He's not unhinged
quite the same way. Right. I do think though, that
one of the things that annoys me about the sort
of natural review side of things, or the prota Santa side,
that it is always accusing us of being like, well,

(11:46):
you just want Donald Trump to stay on the scene
because you guys love him. He's like your meal ticket.
I would like nothing more than Donald Trump to go
away forever. But that doesn't mean just because Ronda Santis
is the number one like opponent Trump, doesn't mean we
have to say that Rhonda Santis is great in service
to defeating Donald Trump. They seem to think that we

(12:06):
have to withhold any criticism of De Santis otherwise we're
just doing Trump's bidding. But the fact is that Rhonda
Santis is a product of the forces that Donald Trump
unleashed on the party. Right, if you think about that
he used to launch his campaign. It is him with
his toddler daughter with blocks, saying let's build the wall together.
He's reading the Art of the Deal to his baby

(12:28):
in a Trump onesie, and then mister Trump said, You're fired.
It's the most creepy, disgusting thing you've ever seen. And
it's the first damage I ever had of Ronda Santis
and I'll never forget it. And I've sort of loathed
him from the jump. He can still be bad and
deeply bad and deeply scary without having to be worse
than Donald Trump, because I don't think there's anybody who

(12:48):
would be as bad as a second term of Donald Trump,
just because of what it would mean. Right, all right, Well,
that's really interesting and I think an important data point.
So we're in this weird period of sort of early
seapack is what I like to call. At the beginning
of the sea pack, we saw Mike Pence isn't going
to Santis, isn't going explain to me how DeSantis can

(13:11):
get the MAGA base if he doesn't appear before them.
You know, it's a good question. I mean, I think
it probably goes overall to De Santis's strategy and a
little bit to what Trump's strategy is. So Trump's strategy
right now is to try to get head to head
with DeSantis. So Trump is looking for any opportunity to
kind of draw De Santis in, And he's not going

(13:34):
after Nicky Haley because he doesn't see Nicky Haley as
his competition. He sees Ron Santis is his competition. And
for De Santis right what he's doing right now is
he's acting like a governor. He is very selectively engaging,
and when he does, usually the way he responds to
Trump's attacks is to be like, well, you know, I
don't smear other Republicans, but he doesn't. He doesn't get
into it with him. And I think that Seapack, which

(13:56):
is much diminished, both because of Schlap's controversies and the
fact that with Trump's somewhat diminished, he's not the rock
star he was. He has a really committed base, but
he's not the rock star that he was. Seapack is
really his you know, Schlap turned it over to him. Basically,
Johnald Trump is the featured person. It's a lot of
his people, and so de Santis just doesn't want that
head to head right now, Trump's probably gonna win the

(14:18):
straw pole, and so there's no reason for De Santis
to participate in that. He will either gain traction once
he gets in you know, in May, in April, and
Seapack will be his next year or not. You know,
I think that remains to be seen, but I do
it makes sense to me that he's not going this time.
Mike Pence, what do you think the players there? This
is why Mike Pence for a president is so funny,

(14:39):
because Mike Pence doesn't go to places like Seapack because
they thinks they will hurt him there. Yes, he's right,
he might be correct. To me, Ron de santiss stuff
makes sense because he has an actual strategy to deploy
against Trump. Mike Pences makes no sense to me. How
do you think you're going to run? Where do you
think your lane is? Where do you think you're picking
up your percentage of people? If you can't go to

(15:03):
Republican events outside of sort of the think tank donor
world and like not be fearful for your life, you
just that's there's no lane there, there's no opportunity. And
when I do the focus groups, the funniest responses are
about Mike Pence. Usually, and you know, I just did
one the other day with people who don't like Trump.
They're done with him, they're ready for de Santis. But

(15:24):
when we asked him about Mike Pence, they were all
a kid. Now, he'd be a fine neighbor. He's a
nice person, but he will never be president of the
United States. I wouldn't vote for him. No one I
know would vote for him. I don't know why anybody
would vote for him. There was actually a great line
in that group to where we were just asking about
all the people and we were like, well, what about
Mike Pompeo, And somebody was like, what is the point
of Mike Mompo? Probably not the first time that's been asked. Yeah, yeah,

(15:49):
great question, great question. So they don't want to hang
him now, not this group. And this is where, you know,
one of the things I've really been exploring in the
focus groups is what is the state of the party
and what is the kind of desantist Trump split. And
it's important to know that there really are only two camps,
which is there are people who want to move on
from Trump in a lot of ways because of electability.

(16:12):
Don't think he can win, think he's alienated. He lost
three elections, right, that's right, And they seem unlike unlike
back in twenty twenty when everyone wanted to kind of
maintain that it was because of fishy things. Now they're
a little more like, you know, he's lost too many times,
he's alienated too many people. We need somebody new, and
those people are de Santis people. Sometimes they'll be like, ay,
I like, man, Nicky's nice, She's fine. They're pretty much

(16:33):
DeSantis people. But then the other half is Trump. And
I think what's instructive about that is how there's Desantist,
there's Trump, and there's the field and that like middle
tier of Nicky and Pompeo and Pence and Christy. There's
not a big group of voters who were excited about them. Now,
could they somehow find a way to manage to get

(16:54):
them excited about them? I don't know, maybe, but like no,
I think we can't agree. Now. That's where the party is.
It is it is you either get the Aristotelian sort
of the original og Trump himself, or you get the
de Santists, which is like I'm sort of a trumpy
orbon Those are your two choices in the party, right,
incredible staff, Sarah Longwell, do you have anything you're watching

(17:18):
right now in Republican world that you want to tell
us about? Oh my gosh, I'm watching so many things
in Republican Well, you know, I think one of the
things that I'm interested in, going back to the Trump
to Santists divide, is how is Trump going to attack
to Santists? Like what is his method? And I think
one of the things I'm starting to hear bubble up
in some of the groups is Trump is going to

(17:40):
define de Santist is like a rhino globalist standard politician,
which I think can land because these voters have been
told for a long time they like outsiders, they don't
like politicians, and so like I am curious. I can
see that there's this group of move on from Trump,
and I can see that there's this group of always Trump.
I'm trying to get a grip on how big they are,

(18:01):
and I'm just not quite sure, and I'm not quite
sure how many of the move on from Trump are
just like really happy to swing back to Trump if
De Santist doesn't fulfill all their hopes and dreams, or
Trump's looking like he's bulling him. But so how Trump
is going to approach it like he did that he
went to East Palestine, you know, and that was sort
of the first time you'd seen him look like he

(18:21):
was going to do anything resembling campaigning, right, And maybe
he's just waiting for round to Santist to get in
before he actually starts taking shots. But I mean, I'm
sort of watching how these strategies shape up. We're probably
still two months out, but it's not that far away.
In the shadow primary. Oh sorry, I'm going to tell
you one last thing I'm really watching, which is which
is the calendar, the Republican primary calendar. I think people think, well,

(18:43):
we're really far out, but this year twenty twenty three,
there's going to be a shadow primary. Can you explain
to listeners what a shadow primary is? Yeah, So, basically,
because we have all seen this movie before, these candidates
should understand that there needs to be a consolidation around
somebody who's an alternative to Trump prior to the early
primary states, which means that by January of twenty twenty

(19:07):
four or February of twenty twenty four, so a year
from now, basically someone has to be picked. Now, normally
you'd be like, well, we're going to run this primary,
but because of the way the calendar is, you do Iowa,
you do New Hampshire, you do South Carolina, Nevada and
the same day, and then you kind of bounce into
this Super Tuesday that has a ton of Winter take
all and Winter take most states, which means that whoever

(19:27):
gets the momentum in those early states and then locks
up the sort of the Super Tuesday delegate hall is
very it's really hard to undo that later on, which
means that so much of the primary is going to
play out in twenty twenty three, as early as May
or June, when de Santist gets in and you have
a real race, Like that's when we're going to see
what's going to happen. And like some people have alternative

(19:48):
theories where Ron Desantist and Donald Trump, you know, they
kill each other, they blood each other, and that creates
room for Chris Christie Counter or Dim Scott and I
think that's a silly theory, but that is there's going
to be candidates to have that theory. Some real wish
casting over there. Huh yeah, thank you so much, Sarah
due Bet, thanks for having me. Angelo Carosone is the

(20:14):
president and CEO of Media Matters. Welcome too Fast Politics. Angelo,
Thanks for having me. So I wanted to talk to
you about our favorite topic, what's happening at Fox News.
What's happening at Fox News? I think that we are
watching it's sort of at the beginning of a cascade effect.
And you know, this is something we talked about in

(20:35):
the pod like a last summer when this ruling came through,
that that dominion was going to be able to have
access to the Murdoch's in discovery and depositions. And there's
significance of that because at the time I compared it
to what happened with the phone hacking scandal, which is
that you know, a little bit of a crack urged
and then the second people were able to pierce the

(20:56):
veil and get a slight look inside, it just unraveled.
And I think this is a similar moment where what's
going to happen is they're going to go to trial
and it's you know, more information is going to come out.
There's still a lot of redactions in the documents, that
we've already seen, and then I think you're going to
see additional follow up. You're going to see shareholders to them,
You're going to see pushback from cable companies. There's going
to be some tensions within their audience. Like this is

(21:18):
going to be a real tumultuous time for Fox and
the Murdos. That's such bad news. Just kidding. I'm delighted
so far in the filing. What have been the things
where you're like, holy shit, yeah, because I mean, obviously,
the fact that Fox News functions like a political operation
is not a surprise, or that Fox News lies like that,
none of that's surprising, right, I mean, there are some

(21:39):
people that are like, I can't believe this. For the
most part, that's not surprising. But there really were a
few of these I can't believe that. One of them
was In October of twenty twenty, the Joe Biden campaign
made a national ad buy on Fox, and Rupert Murdoch
himself took the ad before it went public and shared

(22:01):
the ad and other sort of accompanying information that he
got access to was a part of that ad by
with Jared Kushner, who was with the Trump campaign. So
essentially gave them confidential information about a competitor that was
like in order to help them politically. I was surprised
about that, even for Fox. That's that's a pretty big
breach of confidentiality. It's a journalistic integrity ha ha ha,

(22:23):
it's sure right, no, And also the law possibly it
actually really could amount to an incind campaign contribution, which
is going to create additional legal problems for them, So
that I was kind of I was shocked, and I
was also shot that it was Rupert Murdock himself. I mean,
just think about how help both sort of pathetic and
also how monumental that is. Is that like it wasn't

(22:46):
like it was a staffer or you know, Hannity's producer
or somebody. Right, it was Rupert Murdoch took the ad
and gave it to Kushner. It just that that was
surprising to me, where it's like I can't believe that, Yeah,
I can't believe rich Republicans are corrupt? What this is
right face everyone? And so that was the big one

(23:08):
that I couldn't believe. And then the other thing that
I couldn't believe was the scale. So like we've always
sort of known and that this kind these kinds of
like political abash nations were happening. But there is a
lot of direct instructions from Rupert Murdock to Susan Scott,
who was the president of Fox News, directing her to
re orient Fox News's coverage for very explicit political reasons.

(23:30):
So there was this moment where Lindsay Graham was getting
a little pushback during his election run and he says,
you know, he says to Susan, will try to get
you know, Hannity to say some nice things about him.
And Hannity of course went above and beyond and hosted
him like six times in rapid succession over the next
week and a half, sort of just just flattering him
in each segment, or telling him to telling her to

(23:51):
redirect resources to help Republicans in tight Senate races in
October and in the days leading up to the twenty
twenty two election, or really getting into the substance of
some of the programming because it was to ensure that
they were trying to win Georgia. Like I mean, there's
just so many individual and explicit instructions and it all

(24:12):
seems so normal that it should give you a sense
of this is happening basically on a daily basis over there.
And that part I was a little surprised by. I
sort of knew it, but I thought mostly it was
a somewhat autopilot and muscle memory. I didn't really expect
there to be that much day to day explicit instructions
at least written down that they were doing their politics.

(24:32):
That that was a surprise. I'm surprised they were stupid
enough to write all of the stuff down. I know,
they wrote it down like a lot. They wrote it
down a lot that they this is murdockx over reliance
on email and written communication. They're going to do bad things,
don't write them down, you know, And they did. And
I think also that is a reflection of their hubris.
There is this sense that they were just untouchable. They

(24:54):
managed to avoid any scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. And I
think at this point they just felt like it, you know,
nothing can happen to us. We're untouchable. And I do
think that that created a climate where they were so
brazen about what they wrote down, and not only they
had so much disregard for their responsibilities, but that they
just didn't think that there was any chance that anything
could ever come back around the bikele. It's funny because

(25:16):
it is true. This is not Rupert's first scandal, and
in some ways there really is a sort of if
there's a phone hacking on the wall in the first act, right,
this has shades of that last scand all. Yeah, it
does because it unravels, you know, when you obviously we've
always known how politically corrupt it was, how how much

(25:37):
they were sort of treating Fox and the Fox Corporation
like their own personal piggy bank, when in fact it's not.
It's a publicly traded company. They have shareholders, and they
don't own a majority of the company. That's the part
about this that's so shocking is that, you know, because
they don't own a majority of the company, they have
obligations to shareholders to return investments and to have their
fiduciary duties. But they also have to, you know, a

(25:59):
delicate balance because they need to basically ensure that there's
at least another ten percent twelve percent of the voting
stock that will always vote with them in locksteps so
that they maintain control of the company. They're the largest shareholder,
but they're not the majority shareholders, and so to me,
that's the part where it's a little bit precarious, is
that you know, they have overly relied on in the

(26:23):
past a few proxies. One of the ways they navigated
the phone hacking scandals that you know, Prince Alaouid was
the number two shareholder and he basically gobbled up a
big part of the company to give them that functional proxy.
That's how they were able to basically get through that
period of time is that Prince Alouid voted with the
Murdocks in lockstep so that they always had the majority vote.
It was sort of an arrangement that they sorted out.

(26:45):
That arrangement no longer exists. They don't have a replacement
for where Prince Aloid was. Obviously he had to divest
his shares a while backas of stuff that was happening
Insaudi Arabia. Right now, it's basically owned by institutional investors
that just want their money. They don't really care about
the murdocksmosh Nations, and so they're in a much more
vulnerable position now even just from a control perspective than

(27:06):
they were back during the phone hacking scandal and there's
this the thing that isn't surprising at all, but it
just goes to show you what a weasel Paul Ryan is.
And I really don't think that we should discount how
much of a weasel Paul Ryan really was in some
of his communications. Is that when he's a board member
and Fox has a very small board, there was like
five people on it, and when he was reaching out
about this, he was telling her that they needed to

(27:29):
stop doing some of these things in terms of their coverage,
and he explicitly said, I am contacting you as a fiduciary.
This is a breach of fiduciary duties, Like he was
literally writing a document for the record. It seems so
that if and when inevitably it came back around and
the Murdos and Fox was in trouble and possibly the
board for not doing their due diligence and their fiduciary duties,

(27:52):
that he would get off the hook. He literally wrote
himself a get out of jail free card. And I
thought that for sure, given that one, I think that's
a little bit surprising. Maybe it's not that he's such
a weasel, but that he was so explicit about it
and to me that Murdoch both acknowledged that it was
his email and his notes, but didn't do anything about it,
even when Fox's legal counsel followed up and basically echoed

(28:13):
the same thing. So this is why I think that
they're in a little bit of trouble with their shareholders,
is that it is going to affect their bottom line
and they don't have a proxy anymore. And what this
basically shows is that the Murdocks are in a weird way,
not only interested in money, which they are, that's their primary,
but they are really interested in power too, and those
two things they are willing to sacrifice money sometimes in
the short term for power in the long term. A

(28:35):
heartwarming story sacrificing money for power. It is very very heartwarming.
Some of the things I was surprised by, and I
didn't read the entire filing, so you can correct me
if I'm wrong, but some of the things I was
surprised by were the text messages. Will you talk a
little bit, because you know about this much more than

(28:58):
I do. The hosts tech messaging to each other and
to leadership at Fox. Yeah, the thing is, and you're right,
that is a little bit surprising. I mean, I guess
they always pretend that they're like that, they're just like
their audience, even though they're they're obviously not. They're very
very rich and elite themselves, but the host kind of
hate their audience, which kind of came out in these

(29:19):
text messages because basically they were pushing what they called,
you know, they were calling people who were promoting these
conspiracies effing lunatics, you know, batshit, all kinds of stuff like,
I mean, they were just insulting the conspiracies itself about
the election. They didn't believe them, but they were sort
of lamenting that they had to push them because this
is what their audience wanted. So that was the first thing.

(29:41):
It's like they didn't believe much of the stuff that
they didn't believe really anything that City Powell and really
to Giuliani were pushing. They didn't believe the claims of
the Trump campaign. So you're saying that Tucker Carlson didn't
believe that there were ballots made in China through a
satellite to Italy. He didn't believe that. No, he said,
believe it or not, He did not. He did not.

(30:01):
Now he was happy to say it and promote it.
And I think this is one thing where Rupert Murdoch,
and this is the part that was shocking, and it
ties into the host is that Rupert Murdoch during his
deposition explicitly acknowledged that the hosts were not just giving
a platform for these conspiracies and for these false claims,
that they were endorsing them. And he kind of threw

(30:22):
them under the bus there because that is a significant
admission on their part, and it obviously isn't It didn't
get explosive in terms of the out out the immediate
coverage of these filings, but from a legal perspective, it's
a really big deal because part of their defense was
that they were just giving a platform for these ideas

(30:43):
and that they were not themselves active disseminators of it.
And during his deposition, Rupert Murdoch's actually said, no, they
were endorsing it, and I should have done more to
stop them from doing it, and to get back to
what the hosts were saying as they were pushing more
and more of these of these conspiracies, these false attacks
about dominion. The same day or days after, they were
texting each other about how incredulous and ridiculous and unfounded

(31:06):
and not true. They were, and yet and at the
end simultaneously attacking the network for for some of the
decisions it had made in the immediate aftermath of the
election simply by calling the election for Joe Biden, and
Chucker was texting people about how they didn't appreciate how
much damage they were doing to their relationship with Fox News,

(31:27):
this audience, and so those exchanges were they were revealing,
I would say, because they were pretty explicit and how
much contempt they have for their audience or frustration for
what their audience wants sometimes, but a recognition that they
know that they're there to service their audience. And that's it.
The central tension, which you kind of could see as

(31:48):
an outside observer, which I think is pretty interesting, was
this idea that if Fox did not give the MAGA
crowd what it wanted, someone else might is that your
sense and yes and yes and these are the two
so two things that are significant on that track. One,
and we talked about on the pot a couple of times,
is that you know, is that Fox News accepted the

(32:10):
election results for a short period of time and then
all of a sudden because one American News was out
there in Newsmax, and One American News was on the ascent.
You know, they're gone now because of these cable fights
that happened against them, but at that time they seemed
like a real threat. Fox's audience was leaving Fox for
these other two networks because they were essentially pushing these
election conspiracies. And so Fox went from accepting the results

(32:32):
to all of a sudden, on a dime, in the
last two weeks of November, doing more than seven hundred
segments explicitly attacking the election results. I mean, they literally
flipped and went all in on these election denials and
did it much more intensely than One American News and Newsmax,
in part because they really were afraid of losing their
audience and it was happening in real time. So that's

(32:52):
one tension, and then the other tension is, and I
thought this was revealing two, is that in the filings,
one exchange comes out that Rupert Murdoch was talking and
some other Fox executives about how Fox was unique amongst
anyone in the media landscape because they were basically, as
far as they were concerned, the only entity out there
that could tell people that the election was not stolen

(33:15):
and that Joe Biden was actually the president or the
president elect at the time, and Murdoch himself acknowledged this
in these discussions about how they had a very unique
role and that they should do something. They should go
out there and finally say, Okay, the election is over
and Joe Biden actually won, even though they fully acknowledged
that they were the only entity that could actually do
that to take the wind out of the sales of
this election denial sort of movement because their audience, a

(33:37):
very large tunk of their audience would believe them when
they said that, and they fully accepted this, they ultimately
decided not to do it, and that discussion that took
place on January fifth, So they could have on January
fifth if they had followed through with what they all
said they were going to do, made a big push
to say the election was not stolen, and January sixth
might have looked a lot different because a lot of
people would have been like, Okay, we're mad, We're mad

(33:59):
at Fox remitted the world, We remitted everything, but at
least we know it wasn't stolen now. But they decided
they ultimately didn't do it, and I do feel like
that was a significant exchange, and it ties back to
your question because part of the reason they didn't do
it was that they were afraid that their audience would
backlash against them, and so you couldn't find a host,
and that's ultimately where they concluded that their host would

(34:20):
get mad if they tried to force them to do this,
and so you could see that tension playing out at
various moments, and when they felt like it'd served them,
they did things like when they flipped on a diamond
November and when they were trying to sort of grapple
with their unique role. They ultimately didn't exercise the power
that they had, even though they knew full well they
were pushing lies. And this decision and seeing this happen

(34:44):
in real time with tax, is that proof that there
was actual malice and that dominion can actually win this case.
I think so there's a lot of evidence here because
actual malice standards that you either knew that it was
not true the things you were saying, that you push
them anyway, or you acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
And one of the important things that came out during

(35:06):
these filings, was that along the way, as Fox hosts
and Fox News was pushing specific claims about Dominion that
we're not true, Dominion itself was sending memos and messages
to Fox News basically debunking these claims in real time
and begging them to let them book somebody on air,
offering up guests to basically offer a counter perspective on

(35:30):
these claims about dominions. So Fox very intentionally along the
way said we're not going to We're going to ignore
the things that Dominion is literally saying to us, and two,
we're not going to let anybody on air that is
going to challenge these claims. And in fact, Fox personalities
a very hand, a small few had started to soft
fact check some of the Dominion claims in reporting, and

(35:51):
they got punished by network executives for doing it out
during these filings, Right, I saw that tweet, yep. And
so that is a part of the actual malis standard.
It's that it's very clear that they were knowingly pushing
things that were not true and that they acted pretty
recklessly when they were making very specific claims about Dominion.

(36:12):
And so that is a standard here that definitely seems
to have been met and it is extraordinary. And I
really want to emphasize this because I know this is
like really in the Louise, but dominion filed for emotion
for summary judgment that just doesn't really happen at all
in a defamation case. It's it's nearly impossible to ever
even seriously put together a summary judgment. Emotion, can you

(36:34):
explain to our listeners what a summary judgment as? So
basically it basically says, hey, we're suing this this entity,
and I know we're supposed to go to trial, but
the evidence is so overwhelming already that judge, I think
we could skip the trial and you could just ruin
off favor. Why that matters is that they thought, and
I think that has born itself out so far, and
the file in the pleadings is that their case was

(36:55):
so strong that they could credibly go to the court
and say we don't need a trial because it is
it is plain now. I don't think they're going to
win their motion for summary judgment, not necessarily because they
don't have the goods. It's because it is such a
monumental thing when it involves free speech in a purported
News channel, which obviously they're not. But that's the argument
that they're going to make, and I think a judge

(37:16):
is going to not try to sort of really go
too far ahead. But the trial is set for April.
But what it does give us is a chance now
to look at a very large part of the record
and say, Wow, look how bad this is. Yeah, I
think that's totally right. So what is the timetable here?
Then it goes to trial in today shapel So they

(37:36):
will probably get a decision about this summary judgment motion
in the next couple of weeks, and then it's full
steam ahead for the trial, assuming that dominion is not
successful in their summary judgment motion. And it's worth noting
that more things come out in trial, and you're gonna
have people testify. People are going to testify. There's a
lot of stuff that was in the filings that was
redacted that we still don't know or didn't see, so

(37:57):
and I would say that some of that stuff going
to be even more damaging. This will cost Fox millions
of dollars. The trial alone will cost him a fortune.
And one of the things that happened after Rupert Murdock's
deposition is Fox said, up, We're not gonna We're no
longer going to remerge our companies. So even if nothing
happens as a result of this, and I don't, I
think that's highly unlikely, something really big has already taken place,

(38:21):
because up until the beginning of January of this year,
News Corps and Fox were on a glide path to remerging,
to becoming one company again. And so something else we
talked about this was part of a strategy for Rupert
Murdock to reconsolidate his two companies and then buy CNN. Wait,
he was going to buy CNN. Who was going to
make another run at CNN? Because it is his white whale.

(38:42):
Rupert Murdoch has never attempted to buy something that he
has not been able to successfully buy, even if he's
lost a bunch of times. That's how we got the
Wall Street Journal. It took him a couple runs before
he got it. He's tried repeatedly to buy CNN. He's
failed every time. In fact, you know, he tried to
get Donald Trump to lean on AT and Tay seventeen
and force AT and t through the regulatory process to

(39:04):
sell CNN. And I think it was pretty clear. All
the indicators were there that he was gearing up to
make another buy for CNN. In fact, he was so
sort of excited about the prospect that he started teasing
the first couple of days of January that he had
one big deal left in them, and everybody in the
inside sort of knows what that means. But right after
his deposition ended, they decided that they could no longer

(39:26):
remerge the companies because the independent commission that they're legally
obligated to hire to sort of assess the deal would
not have been able to endorse it because it would
have created too much liability for News Corps shareholders, which
is now technically a separate company even though they're both
run by the Murdoch. So, if nothing else has happened
when it thwarted that effort, and it weakened the ability

(39:46):
for Lachlan, who was much worse than his dad, believe
it or not, at a jointly confirmed you know, a
joint a combined company, and that's a big deal in
it of itself. So there's already been repercussions from this
litigation well beyond you know what will with all this,
and the last thing I'll say on that is that
where this is taking place is also significant because Dominion
is suing for one point six billion dollars, but that's

(40:08):
only in damages that they can say, look, this is
how much damage we've experienced as a result of these laws.
But they're suing in Delaware, which does not have a
cap on punitive damages. Yea. So unlike Alex Jones, where
the states where he was getting punished had caps on
punitive damages, Delaware doesn't have that. So depending on the

(40:30):
scale of how egregious this behavior is, and it certainly
seems pretty egregious, a jewelry can award a pretty hefty
set of punitive damages on top of the compensittory damages. Angelo.
I hope you will come back as this trial goes on.
Really really great, you bet. Dave Weigel is a political

(40:51):
reporter for Semaphore. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Dave, Thank
you every good to be here. Really excited to have
you tell us where you are. I am at Seapack
right now. I'm next to where between the Right Stuff
dating app and the new federal state of China, which

(41:13):
is Steve Bannon's combating the Changese Commnist party, and who
are you sitting between? I am sitting between my elderly dog.
That's also interesting not there. Yeah, so I'm curious to know,
first of all, is it like the new and improved Seapack?
I mean, what is happening over there? Improved would not

(41:35):
be the way to put it. So everyone wrote this story.
I'm being a little bit apologetic because everybody wrote a
verd of this story and I feel like we're in
her and but it's just actually true that seapack lost
sponsors over the last year. Some of that was due
to match lap scandal, though. Sponsorships for seapack, you know,
they're kind of locked in pretty early, so or they
can be. So you had a Fox Nation which put

(41:59):
in the quarter million dollars. The last couple of years
they didn't sponsor it. Um had the Liberty Health Share,
which is kind of a falling apart. Yeah, that used
to be quarter million dollars sponsor. They pulled out. So
you have more obscure sponsors. People kind of shooting your
shot because there because there's a there's a vacuum. One

(42:21):
thing I've heard walking over here was that one of
the Perry Johnson, who's kind of a fringe Republican candidate
for president. Um, he bought a booth, wasn't spending even
more money to get a space on stage? That hasn't
happened yet, and see if it does. And so you
see it is um smaller than it's been in the past.
I mean, I think the last times in this hotel
was twenty twenty, right when COVID was coming to America.

(42:43):
I mean, I think the thing that is remembered Ben
saying right now there are only twenty seven cases of
COVID and the you invite it, you know, remember, yeah,
and he's not here. He has not been back to
Sea pack since then, although some stuff happened between twenty
and now. Yeah. So yeah, it is a smaller by

(43:03):
no mean, it's like dinky, but if you can tell
if puts some costs back. I remember also that Mike
Penn's talk about how few cases there were. Of course
there were cases of people who were at the events
who had it, which is what we later found out
he did. And I actually wasn't that that one that
year because I was covering the Democratic primary for prosidence,

(43:24):
so I was I think Arkansas or something which has
a very low vaccinatory but nobody had any vaccinations back then,
so it didn't really matter. One of the things that
I wanted to ask you about actually was a story
you have been You wrote about in July twenty six,
twenty twenty two, but it has come up again now,

(43:44):
which is this story of Ron de Santis creating his
own media outlets. This is something and especially I'm gonna
make this a longer question in a very annoying way,
but you are at Seapack, so you know that there
are these Maga news outlets. So can you talk to
me about first sort of the origin of the Magan
news outlet and then where do Santis has gone with that?

(44:07):
Sea is actually a great place to ruminate on this
because a dream for years, like the spot nick for
the conservative move for a very long time, was how
do we great an alternative media. There have been setbacks,
there have been advances, but right now there's a conservative
media that through a bus enough where a lot of Republicans,
you know, including Don Trump, I think they can just

(44:28):
ignore requests from the main from the mainstream media or
what the Santis called legacy media, and they can talk
to their base through conservative media. That was the goal.
I think there you can always take it further. They're
pretty much there. I mean a lot of what I
do as a reporter has changed because ten years ago, um,
you know, you might be able to have a sit
down with a sertive congressan doesn't like media, and now
he'll grow that requested in the tracks and talk to

(44:51):
Newsmax or talk to real American news. They talk. I could.
I want to lift them all because there's don and
with de Santis did I thank you for the date.
Lots write about this, but I was one of the
not that many reporters who went to the san The
Santis has an event ironically called the Sunshine Senate in Floridas.
It's been all the sunshines up for years, um, Like

(45:12):
it was very very very normal for the media to
show up. And actually when he won the governorship, who
was eighteen, that same event, like Fox News was the
guests and c SPAN was filmed in the debate, the
c spand the film into defeating Uh. They I went
there knowing that they were going to keep most media
out and actually Politico Mats and Politico obtained the list

(45:33):
of media that was invited in, and that was that
was not invited me. There's actually a very good story
in created by Maggie Severns about some of the Florida
sites that he was standing up instead the Florida Standard
who I talked to there yours who was a conservative,
Brandon Leslie had Florida's voice. They were the halblets I
had either been familiar with or just totally never heard of.

(45:54):
But you know, we're not covering the event like news reporters.
They were covering kind of their highlights and they were
so I was there because I thought this is an
interesting and because they were having these debates between house
candidates and they didn't let the media come and cover them.
So there's basically no record of what was happening in
these debates. The debates conterminative, not really. I mean, I
just had to kind of chase people afterwards. One day

(46:16):
I noticed that day was the Santis thinking made a
joke about his staff was on Twitter making fun of
reporters for being outside the room. These are people who,
like whatever I am, kind of crop around the country,
but people who have covered Florida for years or decades
and were there to cover the event and quote people, etcetera, etcetera.
There's making fun of them and taking you know, taking

(46:36):
photos of them being stuck outside. It was in the casino,
So I worked a whole day in as cafe and
I look that event. To me, was this proof of
concept for what they were trying to do. Now, did
did any normal non politics junkie Maybe they read the newspaper?
Will they ever find out what happened in these congressional debates?
Well they won't, but that small group of conservatives in

(46:58):
the room did, and Larda's Voice and the other the
Santist news sites had their version of what happened, and
that was enough. So the Santist I think, has been
ahead of the curve among Republicans in creating this media
and going around the main stream press. And like he's
got his reasons. I want to like ramble on endlessly
about it, but he does not. Like the press never

(47:18):
has back from me. You know how it covered the
congressional baseball shooting to how it pumped up Andrew Gilling
when he's running Gainstom for governor. He takes like real
joy in this and has won elections by blowing the
press off like his book which just came out this week,
is a huge section about sixty minutes. They know not
very well received the poor, and every one of these
is feeds in the arguments like why why would I

(47:40):
need to talk to like the prestigious quote unquote media
when I've got consertive outlets that asked me friendly questions. Right,
I have my own media. One of the things that
I thought was pretty interesting when I wanted to see Pack,
that was the first time I realized that there was
like an entire media ecosystem of these Maga news is one, two, three,

(48:01):
these outlets that you never heard of, they'd have really
a lot of readership in Mega world. They do, and
you can kind of pokeground for private metrics. One of
the things I've noticed a Tea Pack since at least
twenty twenty one, but I know since the Trump rails
point twenty was, you know, the Epic Times media network,
the anti anti Bade communists we've following gone we didn't work,

(48:22):
made this big bet on American conservatives and it's been
very successful. It gets interviews with with with people again
that would be repreated myself that like might talk the
rest of the press, the press, and they have a
gigantic presence here Newsmax. There's Newsmax is on stage seapack.
Because of their fight over access to direct TV, OAM
had its own flight over direct TV. In addition to

(48:44):
these people, these the outlets being places Republicans to talk
to a friendly audience, friendly questions, they're also being undermined
by cable organizations, by big tech quote unquote. It's just
an interesting dynamic. It's it's as if the Nation Muger Jones,
like liberal outlets, if they were getting banned and Democrats
were promoting them on stage and not talking some Fox

(49:06):
and not talking to you know, the Wall Street Journal.
It is. It is a considerably dynamic. And it's like
I'm not saying it's hypocritical, because this is how this
movement increasingly it habits a its own media landscape, and
increasingly what happens in the baystream media it was not
mattered to them. You know the story. One thing we
do it's such more than it's kind of fun, is

(49:26):
like checking out stories by by online metrics are what's
the story that no concern I've heard about this week?
What's the story that know liberal heard about this week?
There's always something. There's always something because people who are
reading the New York Times cover to cover are completely
unaware of things happening on you know, Florida news sites
for the De Santensis boarding. People who are are watching Fox,

(49:46):
they had no interest in reading what the New York
Times is saying, unless it's like, oh, the Times are
finally covering something we care about. That's as much price
as they'll give it. I mean, certainly there are things
that the left doesn't cover, but I'm not or that
it's quite the same, if that makes sense. I mean,
I don't know. I mean I just think like the
right is in this world where they don't They still

(50:08):
don't believe the twenty twenty election was for real. That
has been changing a little bit only because they're Republicans
who want to be the presidential nominee. Is there interesting
like the actually down Trumpleblue Ning lost. But apart from that, yes,
that is something that we've not advanced very much on
these media networks. When you saw this and discuss this,
the Fox needs intertal communications. Like it's pretty clear if

(50:29):
you are not just kind of reading the public facing
part of what Box is telling you, it is pretty
clear that to capture this audience and to keep this audience,
you need to have certain opinions that may or may
not be accurate. And look, I think there are some
conserva critiques of the establishment media that like, like I said,
mainstream pickure Pitt, you're active, and there's some of that's right.

(50:50):
There's there's obviously stuff that the press doesn't cover as much.
I mean, look at this kind of the protest of
by Glad of New y Times. There's a lot of
anger that they're covering transitioner. So like some of that pattens,
but not through this scale where it's it's basically right
the twenty twenty election, Yeah, we're going to either not
correct things that are false or not cover things that

(51:11):
are unsettling to us because our audience is going to
turn the channel. I mean, that really did happen to
Fox in twenty at the end of twenty twenty, where
people were switching over to Newsmax because Newsmax was saying
Trump could still win this and Fox wasn't. And I
mean I just meant to the epic time on it.
The first time I really kind of realized what their
angle was was if you click on the Epic Times
website up until January sixth, there is a big map

(51:35):
every day. The first image was a big map that
had the contested quote unquote states and it was pretending
January fifth, twenty twenty one that, for example, like New
Mexico was up for grabs. That was not true, right,
New Mexico. Yes, if you want to believe it was true,
you click that. Yeah, right, all right, no, no, for sure.

(51:56):
I mean that is what is so important, incredibly just
unbelievable about all of this. So I want to ask
you as a Nembo baby myself, and I'm not a
baby anymore, so I'm like a Nippo oldie. I'm always
sort of very impressed by how much the Trump kids
have squandered their status? Are they there? Have they sort

(52:21):
of just seated that? So Don Jinger is here Don
Jingior in the seapack and has a couple books that
are set up by the Make America Great ag impact.
The Trump superPAC one is modeled took the White House.
One is also modeled with kind of like the White House, sorry,
the Oval Office. One's more like the like I didn't
run the White House. That is not an issue for
people here like the Trump family remains incredibly popular mom

(52:43):
by fans. I have not seen much pushback to that idea.
The idea the possibility of a Trump restoration and very
exciting the people, and basically don't mind hearing from Eric
or I haven't seen Eric here yet, but I've seen Don.
Besides being smaller and slightly less lavish, how else is
this different than other sepacks? Like I heard match SLAPPs say,

(53:05):
would they sort of dismiss the idea that less electeds
were there? Yeah? He leaned into that in the very beginning.
The conference kicks off this morning. The main sessions kick
off on the morning of Birthday, and he says, the
media is really focused on who's not here, but we
have him Jordan with us. He is not. I trying
to find him to talk him because he kind of

(53:25):
he didn't connect on Tuesday and he's told me today
he doesn't want to fuck. That's a question I have
for him, is, Look, is there a reason round the santificate?
Is there a reason that Fox Nation pulled out? Is
the reason that jo Fawley, who has come here before,
he gotten good reception, didn't come I think part of
that is due to I don't think that had a
huge role, Ticket says. I mean, there are not many people.

(53:47):
I can't speak for the and Argy Maras, there are
not many people Conservatives who would be interested in seeing
it Don Frump speech. But let's give it if it
just Jock Holly will not be there two days earlier,
like like Trump being at this event is the draw.
But there are Republicans senators who have been given a
good reception here. The crowd's very supportive. Members of Congress
who are not back, and there are leaders. One thing

(54:08):
I'm kind of quivaling with a lot of articles. There's
reporting on how Mitch McConnell did not Tom Mittercondd was
not comb to this, whichcon hasn't been in ely nine years. Right,
it was odd that he was. It was kind of
he was trying to promote sendicandis and Kevin McCarthy has
skipped for places and miss Crew hates Mitch McConnell. Right.
So that's that's what I'm getting too, is that there

(54:28):
are Republicans who are in the leadership. If they show
up in this conference, they will be bood the story
from the conference. They could deliver the greatest orations since
ancient Greece, and the story will be Kevin McCarthy booth.
They know that, and so they're not showing up for
that reason. There's nothing Seefa I can really do about that.
Mc McCarthy. I think we get some booze and then
get the crowd back on his side by talking about investigations. Well,

(54:51):
why bother, why bother, creween, you can do something else.
You also right, he already has it already. Yeah, and
you have some competition for for candis for him. Who
are going to plub for instead? But it makes sense
that they are. I mean there's a get someone I
was talking to here who often sets up happy hours
around tea packer used to you after the intervents are over,
running out a room, having a cigar party, that sort

(55:12):
of thing. We say, just like, it's harder to do
that now because people who would fun that sort of thing,
DC lobbyists, et cetera. They just don't think anyone here
is going to be gettable or useful to that. They
think it's it is older people who loved on Trump,
which is true. I mean you see people wearing They're
like I'm in the front row of Trump rally teacher,
the front row Joe. You see people who have who

(55:34):
are fear for Trump, and then you see younger people
who are kind of finding their way in a movement.
But a lot of the kind of DC conservative ink people,
it's just not worth the trom to coome anymore. So
it's not worth it for what meetings is sketting The
park you're going to have here at the city doesn't
need to be there for I think there are bunch
ofies the wind into that, but the overall right in

(55:54):
that seapack, even apart from this slap scandal which broken
January is, once got elected, this became a Trump conference
built around his popularity, built around the Schlaps connection to him,
built around the media network they're trying to create, and
it became more about I'd say that like kind of
the second circle, or not just a Trump family, but

(56:16):
the second circle of close supporters and less about the
whole conservative So you can come here seven years ago
less than that, and the Libertarian Party would be here,
are the Constitution Party will be here or people who
they know who know they're not going to get a
good recepting the apeist liberty who I think it might
be back, but I haven't seen them yet. Like that's
just not a priority for them anymore because they think

(56:37):
this is a conference or Trump people. One thing I
can say, there's been half empty today. That's not unusual.
It's emptier, that's not unusual. Yeah, it's it's emptier than
it used to be. But but you know it fills
up for Trump. One of the keyback stories I was
happiest with is like I shadowed Nagural Farage when he
came in twenty fifteen. He was not a big household

(56:59):
day yet it sentity is now there's true Brexit, etcetera.
And he spoke to a mostly empty room. I think
it was like ten percentful if that so, everyone who
was who was writing about him from the UK to
said Karage speaks to have imperious kind, mostly empero. It was.
That's the reason too, But it just it used to

(57:19):
be more of a the pornucopia of the conservative movement.
Here is every everyone who wants to have a role
in cons heard a movement here, everyone who might run
from breadleton And it's not that anymore. I think it
could be that again. I think the biggest threat to
that if there is one um and this is important
gathering to have is actually turning point. USA Charlie Kirsch
organization which broke out here in a big way. It

(57:40):
spent a lot of money, had big boots when it
was getting started. I remember meeting those folks in two
under Cafeine when they held this Antiper and Sanders as well.
They really were relevant here until this year and they
pulled out. But they've been doing their own conferences that
have not just suddenly the same guests, but a larger
audience of mostly young people. They'll get people like lap

(58:02):
or not really close to close to Trump per se.
They are not afraid of offending some people that might
be offended if the match left the on stage. And
they are trying to compete. It's kind of like a
Microsoft versus Zero Sting. And I think they've got the
Sea pack model. They're gonna they're gonna they're going to
improve on it. So lots of competition. I wouldn't say
few people showing up a tea pack means the movement

(58:22):
is weaker in any way. This the way this has
been designed and built inside the Republican Party, which at
the moment is very bound to Trump and for that
reason and not winning as much as at once. Um,
that is the way of life here, now, that is
the way of seatpack. It's still very interesting to see
who does show up and who and who ends up

(58:43):
who ends up finding an art here? Yeah, I just
want to ask you though, really the only member of
Congress right is at least a fauna the leadership Yes,
sorry sorry, if you want to leap, yes, I can say, like, yeah,
at least to find is the only member of the
leadership team who's here. They are kind of some rising
stars in the party and committee mean Jordan as a
committee chair. He was introduced as the most powerful man

(59:04):
in the Congress, which he probably is in some ways. Yes, yes,
but for Republican leaders I think for that reason, I
was saying, if Steve Stilly shows up here, he'd probably
get a great reception, but he might get confronted by
somebody who's angry if they haven't introduced articles to impeachment
against biding At or something. Marjorie Tellergreen will be here,

(59:25):
He'll get a great reception. There's still some Republicans where
they have the chance to not be on the same
state before they'll take him thank you so much, Dave
John Fast, Jesse Cannon. This Leonard Leo Fellow, a fellow
so not nice they named him twice. He's really been

(59:47):
up to some bad stuff. His personal wealth appears to
have accelerated, has seems to have ballooned as his fundraising
prowess accelerated since his efforts to cement the Supreme Court's
conservative majority. Already Basically, this is not a good guy.
He's got the largest hall of dark money probably of

(01:00:07):
all time that we know about at least. Yeah, this
is peak trumps m right by the Supreme Court. Yeah,
do dark money, you know, the whole thing. We should
be surprised that we are surprised. It really is. I
feel like in recent weeks we see a new floodgate
of like, oh wow, like the later effects of Trumpism

(01:00:31):
and just the egregiousness. I've really really really ramped up
when you see stuff like this. Yeah, And I mean
I think also like every time you see this Supreme
Court make an incredibly horrible decision like overturning Row and
making sure that's you know, messing with student loans and
the EPA and the many many ways in which this

(01:00:54):
conservative Supreme Court is shaping our country. You know, we
have these people who are not elected, who are the
most powerful people in America, all thanks to Citizens United,
all thanks to Citizens United. So from that they are
our moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode of
Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to

(01:01:16):
your the best minds in politics makes sense of all
this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send
it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again,
thanks for listening.