August 27, 2025 • 55 mins
The Jim Acosta Show’s Jim Acosta examines Trump’s escalating authoritarian actions. Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias details how they are pushing back legally against Trump.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 a Pew Research poll has that
in the last six months, Donald Trump has lost twenty
three percent approval among eighteen to twenty nine year olds.
We have such a great show for you today, the
(00:21):
Jim Acosta Shows. Jim Acosta stops by to talk about
Trump's escalating authoritarian actions. Then we'll talk to Democracy Dockets
Mark Elias about how they are pushing back legally against Trump.
But first we have the stories the media is missing.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Bie. I have to tell you JB.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Pritzker really really, really impressive speech yesterday. I was shocked
to hear earlier that it blew you away as much
as me.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Let's take a listen to it.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
I want to speak plainly about the moment that we
are in and the actual crisis, not the manufactured one
that we are facing in this city and as a
state and as a country. If it sounds to you
like I am alarmists, that is because I am ringing
an alarm one that I hope every person listening will heed,
(01:15):
both here in Illinois and across the country. Over the weekend,
we learned from the media that Donald Trump has been
planning for quite a while now to deploy armed military
personnel to the streets of Chicago. This is exactly the
type of overreach that our country's founders warned against, and
(01:37):
it's the reason that they established a federal system with
a separation of powers built on checks and balances. What
President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal,
It is unconstitutional, It is un American. No one from
(02:00):
from the White House or the Executive Branch has reached
out to me or to the mayor. No one has
reached out to our staffs. No effort has been made
to coordinate or to ask for our assistance in identifying
any actions that might be helpful to us. Local law
enforcement has not been contacted. We have made no requests
(02:23):
for federal intervention. None. We found out what Donald Trump
was planning the same way that all of you did.
We read a story in the Washington Post. If this
was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe,
what possible justification could the White House have for planning
(02:45):
such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with
the governor the mayor or the police.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Let me answer that question. This is not about fighting crime.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to
deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue
state to try and intimidate his political rivals.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
That's my man, right there?
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Are you crying?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Not this time? That was earlier.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Jesse's a crier, which I respect. I am just a
rage crier, so I only cry when I'm mad. But
this is a really great speech. I want to talk
about the first paragraph. I want to speak plainly about
the moment we are in and the actual crisis, not
the manufactured one we are facing as a city, as
a state, and as a country. It sounds like if
(03:38):
it sounds like, if it sounds to you like I
am an alarmist, that is because I am ringing an
alarm one that I hope every person listening will heed,
both here in Illinois and around the country. So I
just think, like later in this podcast you will listen
(03:59):
to more Archalias, and I talk about the idea that
the mainstream media, what little is left of it, is
unable to explain how unprecedented this is and how deeply
alarmed we should all be by what is taking place
in DC, maybe in Illinois, maybe not. Like what Pritzker
(04:25):
is able to explain is that we are in this
squishy middle right between democracy and whatever this is. And
it's not Russia, but it's not great. And you know
is you and I were the same age. We have
lived through a lot of shit, right nine to eleven,
a pandemic, but this is something that is difficult and
(04:47):
disturbing in a completely different way. And I think that
Pritzker does, in fact, he is able to sort of
thread that needle in I think an important way. And
you know, you are not going to see stories about
this in the mainstream media because there's a lot of cynicism,
and I think there's a lot of feeling that we
shouldn't be alarmist, even though what's happening is alarming.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
I think to a lot of what alienates people in
my group chats from the chattering class that we're a
part of, is that they don't hear people like Hakeem
Jeffries talking with the seriousness that this moment brings up
in all of us.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And that is it. It feels as serious as it is.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah, Hakim has a real problem being able to communicate
just exactly what this moment really is. You're going to
listen to this the next day. But basically the news
on Tuesday. This podcast comes out on Wednesday. But on Tuesday,
the big news was that on Monday night, Donald Trump
fired a woman called Lisa Cook. He has no constitutional
(05:50):
authority to do this. He wanted to take her off
the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Now, basically what's happened
is why America has such a good among other things,
is because the FED is independent. Donald Trump doesn't want
the FED to be independent anymore because he's put these tariffs.
The tariffs are inflationary. He knows the inflation numbers are
(06:11):
going to fuck up the market. He wants the Fed
to cut rates because if the Fed cuts rates, he
thinks it'll juice the economy. And since Donald Trump has
got a sort of goldfish brain, he can't see that
this is ultimately going to end up in disaster. So
Donald Trump basically fired someone he has no right to fire.
He can't fire them constitutionally. It's not okay, it's just not.
(06:32):
He doesn't have any legal basis to do it. It's
like me saying I'm president and putting my hand on
a Bible and saying I'm president. Now, I have no
legal basis to claim that, but it's just hooey. But Keim,
who is the de facto leader of that Democrats in
the House of Representatives, put out a statement. I'm going
to read it to you because I just think that
(06:53):
this important conversation we're having here Jesse about this. So
Hakim says, he puts out a statement and says, doctor
Lisa Cook is the first black woman ever to serve
on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. True, but not
the headline. Donald Trump is trying to remove her without
a shred of credible evidence that she has done anything wrong.
(07:14):
Also true, but not the headline. To the extent anyone
is unfit to serve in a position of responsibility because
of the deceitful and potentially criminal contact it is the
current occupant of the White House. True, but also not
the headline. The American people are not buying your phony
projection and slander of a distinguished public servant. Also possibly true,
(07:35):
maybe not true, but also not the headline. The headline
should have been. Donald Trump can't fire Lisa Cook because
he doesn't have the authority to period paragraph. If he
wants to go to court and try, we will fight him.
And then I would have said something to the effect
of this is not about Lisa Cook, right, this is
(07:58):
about Donald Trump trying to wrestle control of the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, which is supposed to be independent
from the President. I think that what has happened here,
whychem is so has so much trouble really messaging, is
because there is like an unprecedented nature to all of
(08:19):
this that makes it very hard to see.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
It's not orange man bad, it's this is not normal,
not okay, and also more importantly illegal. And I think
that unless you know what Pritzker does really well, there
is he says not precedented, not okay, not legal.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
And matches the tone of seriousness that a lot of
us feel it does, whereas when you say nothing during it,
it doesn't feel like you're taking this situation seriously.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Would you say, I wrote a strongly worded letter.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Well, and what he Keem is doing here is almost
every sentence in that very statement is irrelevant. Doesn't matter
that she's black, doesn't matter that she's a woman, doesn't
matter that people don't like the slander doesn't matter. None
of that matters if you are able to see the
real first line, the first line that we know it
(09:16):
should be, which is he has no right to do.
This is illegal, it's unconstitutional. And again, that is the
fundamental problem with where the Democrats are right now, is
that it is not Orange Man bad. It is this
is not okay, it's not legal, and it's not constitutional.
And I think that is where we get into where
we've gotten into some trouble. But it's good to see,
we really do see. We have two people, two Democrats.
(09:38):
You don't have to like them, you don't have to
vote for them, you don't have to think they're going
to be president. I'm not saying any of that. I'm
just saying that we're seeing two effective governors pushing back.
One is Gavin Newsom, and he's doing two things right.
He's trolling Trump back and then he's just doing this massive,
massive pushback against the laws. And then the other one
(10:00):
is Pritzker, who is also just punching a bully in
the face metaphorically, not physically. And so it's good to
see that there is some ability there to make the
case for why we should not abandon our democratic republic.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
All right, Molly, let's shift gears to big balls.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
There's a whistleblower who's warning of a massive social security
data risk, and it's from the Dose boys playing around
and being reckless.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yep, so let's talk about this. This is all stuff
we absolutely when it was happening. I thought, right when
it was happening, we were like, I.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Could have written this headline for six months from now.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Right when it was happening, I was like, you know,
there's no way this doesn't end up being a massive
social security data risk. And in fact, I think we've
interviewed people on this podcast who said as much like
I think we did interview someone.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
We did an interview with someone from Wired about.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It right where they said the worst case scenario. But
I also had a terrifying dinner conversation where someone said
to me, you know, the worst case scenario is that
all all of our social security numbers just to end
up on the dark web, like just all of them,
like all of our data ends up unencrypted out there.
I'm going to digress for a minute, because we're just
digressing today, and also because I feel like, since you're crying,
(11:15):
I can take advantage of you. The Lisa Cook story
right where Trump accuses her of mortgage fraud, and he
did this also with Letitia James, and he also was
accused of mortgage fraud. So remember it's always projection. We
haven't seen reporting on this yet, full reporting on this,
but I think it's coming. I want to know why
(11:35):
Donald Trump is finding their mortgages, like how he's finding
information about their mortgages. And my guess is, and again
this is just a guess, is that Trump has this
person he put in charge of HUD who is a
scion of a real estate family and a friend of Trump's.
His name is Bill Pulti, and he is the person
(11:56):
who keeps discovering quote unquote these mortgage regularities. I think
there's like a very high chance that he is getting
this information from someone who is getting this data illegally.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Sounds about right with that crew.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
So in more and more fuck receince, you know, that
segment just spills to this one.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Every day.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
We also have HHS threatening states sex education funding over
quote unquote gender ideology.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
I mean, this is the whole thing, right, This is
why you can't cave to him, because once you cave
to this administration, we just go down a rabbit hole
of like it's gender and ideology, it's this, it's that.
And look when you listen to that North Korean style
cabinet meeting today that would have Kim Jong would have
been like, no, no, guys, this is too much like
(12:43):
we got to dial it back. A guy called Howard Lutnik,
not to be confused with any other nickname, who is
a New York guy who a lot of people in
my circle know who sucks, Like who really sucks. That
guy was like, we give billions of dollars to universities.
We don't fucking give it. Those are our tax dollars.
Like the idea that Lutnik is talking about this like
(13:07):
it's you know, a gift team made to the Gougenhein
or something, was just infuriating to me. But you're going
to see more of this, right that Donald Trump and
Howard Lutnik and this crew have decided that they are
gentlemen making genteel donations to states. No, no, these are
our fucking tax dollars. And again this goes back to
(13:28):
this idea that you cannot cover these people in the
way they want you to cover them. You cannot narrate
what they're doing in a way that is, you know,
it's all democracy dies in narration. Jim Acosta is the
(13:49):
author of a sub stack, The Jim Acosta Show, and
author of the New York Times bestseller The Enemy of
the People, A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.
Welcome to Past Pond's Hi Molly, Hi, We did Trump
one point zero? Yes, in a different way. I mean,
when you started at CNN, how many people watch CNN
(14:13):
at night? Like no, but I'm serious, Like we don't
think about this, but like lots of people, like millions,
like five million, six million, right, I don't know if
it was that many.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
I mean I know that well, for example, January six,
I think was the highest viewership.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
In the history of the network.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
And then we was trapped in their homes during COVID,
and that was a high viewership time for us. There
were millions like two million, three million here and there
kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
So now it gets like a four or fifth of that, right. Yeah,
I'm not saying this shit on CNN because it's true
of all the cable news networks, and it's true of
all the of the network networks. Not even table. Like
people are not getting their news that way.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
No, they're not.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
And corporate media is in a bad place right now.
I mean this, and it's their own doing, right And
I don't like to go after my friends in the press,
but you know, ABC and CBS, you guys kind of
started this crap. There were some other networks whose names
I won't mention that may have played a role in
this too, but folks have just buy and large said,
(15:23):
you know what, I'm going to go to independent media.
I'm going to watch PBS no matter what Donald Trump
does to it. I'm going to read my newspapers, yes,
and I'm just going to get my news on social media.
And they're they're just they're they're just moving on.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
See, this is what I wanted to talk I actually
just want to talk about this because it's like in
this podcast. In this episode, I also talked to Mark
Olias about the redistricting and about all sorts of other things.
But yeah, one of the things that he talks about
is just the inability. And this really I think is
particularly apropos today because Donald Trump fired this woman that
(15:59):
he really does not have the constitutional authority to fire.
Speaker 6 (16:02):
No, is not no, that's true.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And again it's like yet another time where Donald Trump
has done something they like. You know, it's like me
saying I am the Queen of England. Right, it's not.
You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Oh.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
I mean he was just saying.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
He was just saying that half the restaurants were closed
until he sent him the National Guard into Washington, d C.
Which is complete bullshit. I mean I have been saying
this thing, Molly, and maybe you and I haven't had
this conversation.
Speaker 6 (16:31):
As much as I love the fact checkers, as.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
Much as I love people like Daniel Dale, I think
they're doing amazing work, I'm not so sure it's all
of that helpful to spin our wheels fact checking somebody
who clearly is never going to adhere to the facts
and it is just going to just bullshit his way
through everything in life. So I think we should be
focusing more on tactics in the way he's blowing up
(16:54):
the constitution. I think we have a constitution check team.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I think that's what we might. But I actually think
that's right. I mean twenty sixteen was this sort of
like the thought that Trump was an apparition right that
he was a singular activity that wouldn't you know Trump's
second election we got to see that the patient does
not well right that American democracy. You don't do this
(17:20):
American democracy. I'm not going to speculate about his health,
which is another another.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Thing that people in his hands. I don't know people
love to.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Do around the fifteenth of every month. But who's I'm
certainly not taking keeping.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
I'm not doing that.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I'm not going to talk about talking about that. But
but and the concealer that they put on on top
to make it.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
They did not go to rite aid for the concealer
to put on the hands. Can they get some it's
the blending, it isn't it?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Then I think Michael Jackson gloves or the answer for him,
it'll be more subtle.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Yeah, he'll be even more of like the man from Monopoly,
the board game than a little.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Rhyme stoned by the way, can you imagine? I mean,
I want to talk about, like you know, Trump radicalized
his base. We got into a world where the mainstream
media had to sort of say, none of this is normal.
The problem is then they tried to cover Biden like
things were normal again.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
Yes, and I think and we moved past that that conversation, right,
we've we've just lasted our way past that conversation. There
shouldn't be any more like he's busting the norms of democracy,
all the truth. No shit, He's got National Guard in Washington,
DC armed for no goddamn reason. He's doing it to
(18:38):
arm He can just he can just crush these democratic
cities and make a misschief and it could be a
warm up for what he plans to do to try
to putin our last our midterms. And I just you know,
I think people need to be focused on the constitution,
the law breaking, the corruption. That's what we should be
focusing on our not the norms of the president. And
(19:00):
see and you know.
Speaker 6 (19:02):
That's out the window.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Yeah, No, I think that's right. And I and you're
in DC right now, and I would love you to
talk about this because it is like it's a it's
so much of trump Ism was either like Trump's first
term and I see this now too, was like Trump
creating a crisis, yes, right, and like any number of
(19:24):
different things. And right now I feel like Trump is
trying to distract from Ebstein. And he's also trying to
distract from the tariffs, right, like we already pan.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
Youah, policies have it's so destabilized things.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Yeah right, I mean Japan is not mailing stuff to
anymore to us. There are a bunch of different countries
that no longer mail to the United States, like.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
And stuff is starting to get expensive. Oh, if you
go to the grocery store, there's a handful of items
that already like really getting really expensive.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Fruits and vegetables forty percent increase. That's like insane, I mean.
Speaker 6 (19:59):
It's insane cold. This is beginning.
Speaker 5 (20:03):
He is like that one relative in your family who well,
he cannot admit when he's wrong, except he's the president
of the United States, and he's just going to try
to drive everybody nuts. And the stuff that he's doing,
sending the National Guard into DC, threatening to do it
in Chicago. If he does it in Chicago over the
wishes of the governor, we're right back where we were
(20:25):
where we were with Los Angeles and California, and he's
gonna if he tries to do in Maryland. Can you
imagine what this country is going to look like to
the rest of the world if we have National Guard
troops and multiple democratic cities like this is bond fape
dictator shit stuff.
Speaker 6 (20:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
My favorite thing though, is that Donald Trump is like
obsessed with trying to get a know about Peace prize.
So he's like bringing in all these countries and being like,
I'm going to make peace for you, and it's like, dude,
there are troops in the district of Columbia carrying guns.
Worry about what's happening at home, Like that is going
to undermine your Nobel Peace Prize at well.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
And it was just reported today by one of the
local stations that some of those National Guard troops apparently
it was a busload of National Guard troops were in
Lafayette Park across from the White House picking up trash.
They were picking up the garbage and lofy at park.
This is what he This is what they think of
the National beautify. They're beautiful, but on the on the
Nobel Peace Prize. I'm so glad that you brought that up,
(21:25):
because it is something that is so laughable to me
that he would ever be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.
First of all, look what's happening in Gozl, Look what's
happening in Ukraine. What is he keeps saying I've solved
seven wars. Again, he's one flew over the Cuhu's nest time, folks.
He has not solved seven wars. And I will say this,
(21:47):
If the Nobel Peace Prize folks give him the peace prize,
that should just be the last one. They should just say,
you know what, the Nobel I've been Norway a couple
of times. Love the folks there. The Nobel Peace Prize
folks should just call it a night. We're out and
just just that's a peace out.
Speaker 6 (22:03):
We're done.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
There should be no more peace prizes issued by these
folks in Norway, these nice folks, in no way if
they give one to Donald Trump. That's my position off.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
But it's it's a group of Norwegians like who are
scholars right? Those people are never giving Donald Trump a
peace prize, no matter how loud he screamed.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
Well, And the thing for him is it's not really
about having a peace prize. I mean, I guess it
is sort of gold looking, and it would it would
match the Day Core and the Trashy Day Corps in
the Oval Office. It is that he wants that scalp
of having strong armed the Nobel Peace Prize people in
the Norwegians into giving him one. That's what gives him satisfaction,
like a pornographic satisfaction, to be able to put those
(22:44):
folks over a barrel and force them to give him
a Nobel Peace prize when he absolutely does not deserve one.
And to me, they need to, like in any way,
shape or form, just resist placating this guy.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
It worries me a great deal is all these.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Foreign leaders, all these Tim Apple types, you know, Tim
Cook types, Tim Apple, Yeah, growing up with gold gifts
and what is this?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
This like Biblical times? Would the Tim Apple stuff just
for a minute. Clearly Trump has just careening through norms,
careening through any of this sort of social fabric that
used to exist that kept our government from being a
complete kyptocracy. These do people think? Do these billionaires think?
(23:32):
And do these Republicans? I mean clearly they do and
academics and president do they think that event if they
just placate him for long enough, he'll forget? I mean,
what's the end game here?
Speaker 6 (23:44):
I think?
Speaker 5 (23:45):
But you know, going back to Trump one point, Oh,
remember Molly, the Republicans. This is what the Republicans did, right,
they were the first to go, you know, they were
the ones during the first term we said, you know,
if we just playcat them and ride this out, we'll
all come out on the other end.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Is it decade a dow?
Speaker 6 (24:03):
It is a decade with our hides still in place
and so on.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
How is in my thirties going Yes, And he's just
replicating the same process, the same meek grind or routine
with every other person that comes into his in who
his view, And that to me is why and this
is why I'm on inventive media now. I suppose I
tear my hair out on a daily basis, just wondering,
(24:28):
my god, why do you think this is going to
change his behavior? Or why do you think you're going
to come out of the other end of this with
your dignity intact? You're not now, you're not. This is
your standard be countered moment. Don't let us down, stop
screwing us.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
If you're a billionaire, if you're if you have whatever,
fifty twenty even one billion dollars, even if you're just
a single billionaire, a sad billionaire with just a single
billion dollars, sad, Yeah, you still have more money than
you can ever spend. You have enough money so you
don't need to fucking more about Donald Trump. And yet,
(25:02):
and yet, I want to talk to you about what's
happening in the White House because I think it is
such a Metapaul.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
Gold everywhere the car dealership flags, which part.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I was thinking about, paving over the rose garden and
putting in restaurant styled tables, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
Put in an all garden. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
Why, Okay, there's there's a part of it, part of
it that makes me wonder if this is And somebody
made this point to me the other day, and I
feel terrible because I'm now stealing this without giving credit.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Yeah, but because you can't remember what I told you, right,
story in.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
My life, well, I know this is my short term
memory issues. No, whether you know they're just giving Grandpa
things to do to keep them occupied. I've heard this
interpretation of things that we just give Grandpa some things
to keep him occupied.
Speaker 6 (25:54):
He won't blow up the world. Okay, that's fine, that's
all well and good.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
That's a ballroom in the ballroom and walking around on
the roof, and the car dealership flags and all the
ship all over the walls in the Oval office, the
rose garden is especially egregious. The Jackie Kennedy installed rose
guard that should I mean, there are parts of the
White House grounds that should be pristine. And the last
time that I checked, and I think watching most New
(26:20):
York Times do a story on this. They're supposed to
be a process, right, you can go into the National
Park and put in a water burger, you know what
I mean. There's supposed to be a process for changing
the damn grounds to the White House. Again, like this
is this is what agenda im z in the you know,
inferno that is engulfing our democracy. So we can't really
(26:41):
focus on him, you know, turning the White House.
Speaker 6 (26:44):
Grounds into a water burger.
Speaker 5 (26:46):
And I think, you know, they're they're supposed to be
a process for it, but who in the who is
going to stand in this way? I mean, I would
love to do it because that property should be treated
with respect.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
And he's It's like it's like the archives. Remember when
Trump took the classified documents and the archivist they call them,
they wrote them letters, they negotiated with the lawyers, and
in the end they had, you know, a raid. But
like they had tried and tried and tried and you know,
there's someone like that who who is matching the historical
(27:20):
renovations of the White House to how they're supposed to
be because it is like one of the great historic
buildings of all time.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
Yeah, and there's a White House Historical Society. They are
wonderful people who are there. It is like a folks
who remember the geography of you know, the grounds of
the White House and what's around it and so on.
Where lafi Atte Park is Lafayette Square. There are these
other buildings that are sort of around that square. Slowly
but surely, those buildings have been pulled into the White
House complex.
Speaker 6 (27:48):
Are kind of like it's sort of like Blair House.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
These buildings are supposed to be part of I think
it's called Jackson Place, supposed to be part of the
White House Complex. The White House Historical Association, where you
can get your little White House Christmas ornaments that during
the holidays and whatnot that is in that little area
right on Lafayette Square. Those people, my understanding is, are
supposed to be consulted when it comes to tearing the
shit out of the grounds of the White House.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
I don't think they were consulted, and they're just not yes. Again.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Here's the other thing we talked about. The one theory, Molly,
which is that we just have to get Grandpa things
to the other theory is, and it's much more plausible,
is that he ain't going anywhere, or at least he doesn't.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Intend or he doesn't want to go, and again does
not want to go. He does not want to go anywhere.
I thank god he is seventy nine years old. But
he right, he's done the want again, not that I'm
saying it right, but he doesn't want to go anywhere.
And I think it's fair to assume he doesn't want
to go anywhere. I mean, I think working on that
(28:49):
assumption because he didn't want to go anywhere the last
time he lost, remember, so I mean we have to
behave just like he did. That he has want that
this term is his life, last term because the constitution
says you're only allowed to do two terms. And yet
that's how it goes, you know, that's how it goes.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
And it's but at some point.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
He'll take the plane with him and likely a lot
of the silverware I mean, right, and the Emstein files,
which you know when we'll ever get those Epstein files.
How much do you think the Epstein files are still
because I have definitely heard from people that they that
the Epstein files is something that is still well. MAGA
(29:32):
influencers have gotten the message. They're not supposed to talk
about it. The megabase still is bothered by it.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
They're bothered by it.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
And I you know, I I see anecdotal evidence, and
here's an anecdotal evidence on almost a daily basis that
that MAGA still cares about this. I mean, remember, and folks,
I mean, this is worth reminding ourselves. July seventh is
when they put out the bullshit memo that said, oh,
there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
We're going to sweep this under the rug.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
It was in May, nearly two months before that, where
they told him you're in the Epstein frials multiple times.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
We still don't know why.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
We know one of those instances maybe the birthday book
to Jeffrey Epstein for the birthday that the Wall Street
Journal reported on, but we don't know the other instances.
So we just never going to find out. Yeah, it's
sort of like we're never going to find out why
Trump cowchous to pootin all the time.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
There's gonna be a damn good story about it.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Here's a question for you about the birthday book. What's
the birthday book page end up with a Wall Street Journal? Now,
what was the timing of that?
Speaker 6 (30:36):
That's a very good question, very good question.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Like everything. For example, today which will be tomorrow when
people are listening to this, there was a whistleblower came
out to say that all this social security information that
DOGE had, they had exposed us to a massive, massive date.
You're shocked to hear that Big Balls was not the
kind of we had thought he would be a star
(31:01):
warth of our data.
Speaker 6 (31:02):
But you know, are we sure he wasn't beaten up
by a little old lady? But anyway, I.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Mean exactly, but so real, fast and loose here today.
But but but these are a lot you have to
wonder why are you getting this information and what like?
For example, there was recently a story in the Times
where the journal I think about how Tiffany's husband was
(31:27):
like had sort of taken some money. The implication was
that he had stolen money from Jared, right. Like, these
kind of stories don't just pop up, they don't just appear.
Somebody is giving this information to journalists and so when
you're reading stories, you can wonder who Jared is giving
(31:50):
this story to journalists about Jared being out three and
a half million dollars, or for example, who is leaking
you know? So, why did you.
Speaker 5 (32:00):
On my mom's sofa watching episodes of Dynasty and knots
Landing watching this second administration?
Speaker 1 (32:06):
It's true, But so the real question is, like, why
did that Epstein birthday book page get leaked to the
Wall Street Journal?
Speaker 6 (32:16):
That I think it's a it's a really good question.
It's a really good conversation piece.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
I mean, I will answer your question by saying I
don't know, but I will also answer it by pointing
to the fact the other day that they tried to
fire or they are in the process of firing forty
percent of the staff at the department or the Director
of National Intelligence until Gabbard's office. Oh you know, in
the normal universe, that story would have been huge news.
Speaker 6 (32:42):
That is the office that was set up to.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Prevent another nine to eleven and forty percent feeling But
what it said To take it back to your point
your question, Molly, they are and I can trace this
back to my own reporting and what I experienced witnessing
this during the first term. They are so neurotically freaked
out and paranoid about leak at all times that I
think this is part of the reason why this massive
(33:04):
purge of the federal government is still going on largely uncovered,
because they are paranoid that there are people leaking stuff
to the press on the crap that they're doing on
a daily basis. And I assume that the birthday book
was some sort of calculated leak to say about Donald
Trump and the Epstein files. And guess what is pre
(33:26):
damn damning When he says something about wonderful the thing
that I wish people would focus on more, he says
something about wonderful secrets or something like that.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
At the end of that wonderful secret are wonderful secret secrets?
Speaker 5 (33:39):
Never age something along those lines, And it's like, again, hmm,
isn't that interesting? What's that all about? Wish we knew
more about that? Ye, guess what he's in charge of
those documents, you know, And the fact that he hasn't
put him out, I mean, what does that tell us?
You know, I'm sorry, guys, got something to hide? And
(34:02):
you know, until he does these political problems that he's having,
not just with the basement, with the whole country.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
World.
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Yeah, in the world are not going to go away.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
The polls show that people aren't buying this stuff and
they want to know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Jim Acosta, will you come back?
Speaker 6 (34:19):
Of course? Will I be invited back?
Speaker 1 (34:22):
You will always be invited back. Mark Elias is the
founder of Democracy Doctor. Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
Mark, thank you for having me back. I've been waiting me.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
You were like, you know, we're you know what. Listeners
hate it when I say this, so I won't say it,
but I we're friends, Okay, I will actually text we
actually and it's true, and I like, don't. I mean,
people make fun of me for saying this, but I
don't really feel like I have so many friends, especially
in this extremely there's something like very isolating about this
(34:58):
moment in American life.
Speaker 7 (35:00):
Absolutely, I mean, how could you not feel isolated. There
are federal officials who believe that I don't know if
he's talking to the cabinet, the cabinet.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
I saw some Yeah, you know.
Speaker 7 (35:12):
There are federal officials who believe that Donald Trump is
deserves a Nobel prize. Donald Trump is like talking about
how he you know, how a lot of people want
him to be a dictator, people say people many people
are saying. And meanwhile, you know, he is rolling troops
down the cities of of of the United States. Uh,
(35:35):
there are federal agents masked who are grabbing people and
disappearing them. So it is kind of a very worrisome
and lonely and isolating time.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
I mean, I think you we can both agree that
he's successfully captured the zeitgeist in a way that has
helped him. That he has written to the presidency twice,
and part of that is just putting everything on television.
So those meetings that are pretty much would make Kim
Jong un say, back off, guys, it's not believable, are
(36:08):
part of this secret sauce. Right, absolutely.
Speaker 7 (36:11):
I mean, he has turned governing into a spectacle reality show,
and he's turned a spectacle reality show into governing. I mean, right,
it's kind of it reinforces itself in both directions.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
First, let's talk about the arms race, the redistricting arms
race that started last week. Because you have filed, you're
intimately involved in both the legal and also writing about
it and explaining it. So I want you to. You know,
last week, Abbot says, Trump says wants five seats. Abbot ambitious,
(36:48):
thinks he's going to be president next Paxton running for Senate.
The crew gets together to give him five seats. What
does this open the door to talk us through how
unprecedented this is.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Yeah, so let's just talk about it. Texas was second,
and I'll tell you what this opens the door to.
So in Texas As exactly as you said, Donald Trump
said I want five seats. Greg Abbott said, great, five
seats it is. Texas Republicans said, great, five seats it is.
They finally, after some democratic efforts to prevent it, were
able to pass that map. That map got passed by
(37:20):
the state Senate at about two am on Saturday morning.
By eight am Saturday morning, my law firm had sued
to block this from going forward. We filed an amended
complaint and then on a Sunday we filed for a
pliminary injunction. And you know, we'll see where this goes.
You know, I think that what they did here is
(37:42):
deeply vulnerable to legal charge obviously, and I think people
should not be surprised. They should not be settling into
the idea that Republicans have pulled this off. So that's right,
number one.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
I just want to pause for a second because that
gets to the really important sort of propaganda aspect of this,
which is like Trump can say he's fired that's right,
Lisa Cook. He can say he's fired her, but he
doesn't actually have the authority to do it. Just like Texas,
there's so much of this sort of like I say
I can do it, so I've done it, whereas it's
(38:14):
actually not necessarily legal. So that's a really important distinction.
Speaker 7 (38:18):
That's exactly right, And I think that you've put your
finger on one of Donald Trump's greatest skills is that
institutions in this country, whether it is judges in the courts,
whether it is the legacy media, that there is a
(38:38):
presumption that when the federal government says it's done something,
that is like the baseline from which we start. So
like if a president says I have fired someone, the
baseline operating assumption is that he has fired the person.
And the problem is that that isn't true in Trump's world,
(39:00):
Like the truth is, Donald Trump says a lot of
things that are just fought out lies, and so we
need to pause. I mean, this is also true about
the John Bolton raid. You know, we pause and when
Donald Trump says you know that, or jade Van says,
we used, we alt talk about what the FBI did. Like,
everyone needs to take a step back and not assume
(39:22):
that the thing that they are saying is on the
up and up, because it's probably on the up and up.
And that is true in Texas thing I mean, essentially,
the state of Texas announced that it was going to
comply with the Department of Justice's letter to say that
they needed to dismantle districts because they thought that they
were that they didn't like the racial composition of them.
(39:46):
The state.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
That was a letter from Lena Habba.
Speaker 7 (39:49):
No, this was actually a letter not from Haba. This
was a letter from Pambondy and Harmie Dillon.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Right, oh, Harmeiat Dylan, sorry.
Speaker 7 (39:57):
Erect it's I know it is hard to keep the
election and I are straight, but alas we have to
keep the Trump lawyer, the former Trump lawyers, the Department
of Justice, the visual election attires straight. So but so
you know, Harmeid Dillon sends this letter to the State
Texas saying you have racially Joey managered your districts by
(40:20):
giving minority voters too many rights essentially. But the thing is,
the state of Texas had already told federal judges that
it didn't use race at all in drawing those districts,
like it literally is under oath. Ken Paxton put a
witness on the stand and reiterated that the districts that
were drawn were not drawn based on race. And so
now Greg Abbott has dismantled districts that his own department,
(40:45):
his own Attorney General said were drawn race neutral. And
so they have essentially screwed over black and Latino voters
in response to this letter. But their only rational for
doing so is to screw over black and Latino voters. Well,
that violated constitution. So I don't think they're going to
get away with this, is the bottom line. I don't
think you're going to go away with in Texas. But
this is now going to spread. We're going to see
Republicans try to do this in Florida. We're going to
(41:06):
see Republics try to do this in Missouri. We're going
to see Republicans perhaps try to do this in Indiana.
And I'm not sure it ends there, you know, Kelly
ay Out, the governor of New Hampshire, says we're not
doing it. Maybe maybe a lot of Republicans tell Donald
Trump no as an opening gambit, but then wind up caving.
And on the Democratic side, you know, we have California,
Gavin Newsom has managed to get a ballot measure on
(41:28):
the special yeah special action in November to essentially redraw
them up there and do five seats. Back my posture, Molly,
just so you're clear when this all started before Gavin
Newson announced what he was doing is the Democrats ought
to jerry mander thirty seats in response to Texas and
might actually dissuade Republicans from going forward. I worry, as
(41:50):
much as I appreciate what Governor Newsom was doing, and
I think it's great, I'm worried that if all we're
doing is tung Republicans we will match them. It actually
is a disincentive.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Do you think there's a chance that again, like this
Supreme Court is so in the tank for Trump in
a really kind of craven and choking way. But I
do wonder, like clearly Abbott is opening the door for
an arms race that will ultimately negate all of you know,
why even draw congressional districts if you're just going to
(42:20):
have states use that you know, I mean, do you
think there's a world in which the Supreme Court steps
in and says like this is just too stupid. You
guys have to stop doing this.
Speaker 7 (42:30):
So it's a really important question, and it's one that
if you look at our lawsuit, we raise the question
or not raise the question. We make a claim that
essentially the mid cycle redistricting process that everyone thinks it's
legal is in fact not legal. And that is in
part to see whether the Supreme Court does want to
put a hold on this craziness.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Because ultimately it is supposed to be tied to a
census and not tied to vibes.
Speaker 7 (43:01):
How charming of you, how charming of you. Yes, it
is unsupposedly. Tycho says this, it like constitutionally as psyched
right right, And you put your finger on the claim
that we are making in this Texas case, which is
that these districts are now way malapportioned because they're not
being drawn there like the current the data. The whole
(43:23):
theory is you have a census, then you immediately draw maps.
When you draw maps later they're not going to be
equal population because people have moved and so like, that
is part of the problem here.
Speaker 1 (43:37):
But part of the problem here is just we've gotten
so far afield from how all of this was meant
to be right that were you know, like during Trump's
first term, which was unprecedented but still seems quaint compared
to now, there was a lot of talk about how,
you know, the founders never imagined anyone with a chainsaw
(44:00):
ripping through what they had built. I mean, I think
that's even more true now, right.
Speaker 7 (44:05):
Yeah, So, look, this is where I am extremely critical
of the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, because I
actually think that there are two misconceptions that are empowering Trump.
The first is that we have three co equal branches
of government. As Jamie Raskins said, co equal is not
even a word the Constitution. The Constitution envisioned that Congress
(44:30):
would be the most powerful branch. So like, part of
what is broken down here is that actually the framers
thought the presidency would be a relatively weak institution because
Congress would have the power to enact laws, to impeach,
to remove, to confirm judges, or not to confirm or
not confirmed cabinet officials. It assumed that Congress was going
(44:55):
to be this huge check And in fact, John Thune
and Mike Johnson wake up each day and text each
other to say, who is going to lick Donald Trump's
boots this morning?
Speaker 1 (45:09):
Right?
Speaker 7 (45:09):
And John Thune says, please let it be me, and
Mike Johnson says no, no, no, I've already licked them clean.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Right.
Speaker 7 (45:15):
So, like part of it is a design problem there.
But the second misconception is that the founders never envisioned this.
Oh yes they did. They kept they left the king right.
Like the entire creation of the American system of government,
The entire theory behind the American system of government was
(45:36):
that we would not have a king, we would not
have a strong executive, we would not have a president
who had much power. I mean, if you read the Constitution,
what the president. The power of the presidency is the
following number one, to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed, and number two, to be the commander in
chief of the armed forces.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
That's it.
Speaker 7 (45:58):
That's the power of the presidency. So everything he is
doing is under that first piece or ninety percent of it.
To take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and
the courts have kind of read that to mean the
current Supreme Court has kind of read that to mean
that he gets to take care however wants. Faithful is
whatever he thinks X is when he likes it.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Yeah, no, I mean I think that's right. So and
that is you know, that is the question. I mean,
I think the biggest the immunity decision was the moment
where they were like, fuck it, yep, let's go.
Speaker 7 (46:36):
That's where I think we jump off the rails. I
think that that whether it was intentional or it was unintentional,
we can have a huge debate about you or not debate.
We have a huge discussion, and maybe someday we'll learn
in the memoirs of the papers whether it was what
did Donald Rumsell call it a no, no not known?
Like was this like did they know that this was
(46:58):
well it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
Or they Jesse knows because I often invoke Don Rumsfeld
in the great irony of whatever this is that it's
a no not known? I think, right like his taxes?
Speaker 7 (47:11):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, is this it did the Supreme
Court if you ask them today, would they say, yeah,
this is exactly what we thought, or would they say, man,
this is not at all what we thought. Yeah, either way,
I think that that decision is that is that pivot
point in which we created a president that is literally
(47:37):
above the law. And therefore, what does it mean for
a president to have to take care that the laws
are faithfully executed if in fact, there are no consequences
if they don't.
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Right, And that's where we are right now. Right Trump
rolls into the district of Columbia. It's not a city,
it's not a state. He can do whatever he wants.
He then arms these guys talk us through. Like the
one sort of bright spot in this story in my
mind is that Trump says, I'm going to Chicago next,
(48:08):
and Pritzker says, the fuck you are, and then dellal
Trump says, maybe I'm not going to Chicago next.
Speaker 7 (48:13):
Yeah, I mean J. D. Pritzkirt deserves a huge amount
of credit. I mean, boy, that was a hell of
a speech. Yeah, a hell of a speech.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
I actually had his h I actually got a copy
of it because I wanted to read it because it's
so good, and it's really good. I'll send it to you.
It's really good. Like I was like, Wow. I was
like reading it to one of my kids. I was like,
this is how you write a speech. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (48:36):
No, I wrote about it an essay on democracy. Don't
get that posted today. And the two parts that I
highlight are number one, he basically validates my thesis that
you know, this is to interfere with the elections, which
I think is yeah. And then the second thing is
you know as you know and oftentimes Molly and I
(48:58):
are going back and forth on this in our text exchanges,
like Keith sort of says in more polite terms than
I do, but like the media needs to get its
head out of its ask yees covering this has not
a both side story, but as a one side story.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah, any And I mean he said like, I'm not
an alarmist because you should be alarmed.
Speaker 6 (49:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (49:20):
I think he kind of has like the right demeanor
for delivering it too.
Speaker 1 (49:23):
Yeah, he has a gravitas. Clearly. We're in a moment
where there are just very few where I think I
think of this like we're in that squishy moment that
where we're not a democracy anymore, but all is not lost.
And I would love you to talk because this is
what I spend like all my time obsessing about is
like when you read all these books about autocracy, one
(49:46):
of the things they sort of say is that you know,
everything counts, everything matters. Any any win is actually a win.
Any you know it. This doesn't happen just like turning
off a light. It happens in increments. So what are
the things that are making you sort of less despairing?
Speaker 7 (50:04):
Yeah, I mean I think Look, I think they fall
into three categories. The first is we are seeing, despite
all of the you know, the the complaining and all
of the you know, one step back to one step forward,
two steps back, we are seeing an emerging culture of
fight among Democrats. Right what you what you are seeing
(50:25):
in California is fight. What you are seeing from JB.
Pritzkert is fight. And like we are seeing an emerging consensus.
If in the beginning, you know, I think you and
I talked about this, like in you know, in January,
there were like these competing visions within Democrats of do
we stand up and fight or do we say we
(50:47):
will agree with him where we will agree and work
with him where.
Speaker 6 (50:50):
We can, and disagree where we must.
Speaker 7 (50:52):
And I think like that debate is now pretty favor
in war, there's much more fight. So I think that's
that's a reason for goodness.
Speaker 1 (51:00):
And the people who thought we should agree with him
where we were where we can, which is me, we're wrong.
And the people who are like, we have to resist everything,
which worked pretty well in twenty sixteen and in some
ways were right.
Speaker 7 (51:15):
Yeah, And look, I wrote a piece for Democracy Docket
before he took office saying that what we need is
not a resistance, we need a new opposition movement and
that you know, I spelled it out, like this is
not going to be the kind of like Breezy, we protest,
we we disagree, and then he retreats that we have something,
as you say, and you put your finger on it,
(51:37):
democracy is broken, Like it's not. It's not like on
pause like the resistance was, like we resisted, and then
he goes away and then it comes back like we
need an opposition movement because this is going to go
on for a while, Like this is not even if
Donald Trump believes the scene, what he has wrought is
now in the politics, and we need a permanent opposition
(51:58):
against yea. So I think that that's that. Try the
other things that they give me hope is that we
are seeing the courts still hold against the worst of
his worst. I mean, earlier, a federal judge in who
was appointed by Donald Trump excoriated the Department of Justice
for their effort to to sue essentially all of the
(52:21):
judges in Maryland over their immigration.
Speaker 1 (52:26):
You got a real crack team there. That's like, we're
going to sue all the judges in the.
Speaker 7 (52:30):
Ran which is not a thing. Right, you don't get
to suit. It's actually a good example of what we
were talking about earlier, like when when he when they
sued the judges, Like a lot of the mainstream media
were like today Donald Trump sued the judges or the judges,
and I was like, you don't fucking get to suit judgment,
Like that isn't a thing, Like what do you How
are you all reporting that this is like a thing,
(52:51):
Like it's not a thing? Were in it that way?
But anyway, so you know we saw that earlier today
also my and I'm proud of my law firm on
behalf of our clients. We want a big case in
the Third Circuit on undated and misdated ballots in Pennsylvania.
Remember that whole Michigan the court said those ballots have
to count going forward. No more rejecting ballots in Pennsylvana.
Speaker 6 (53:14):
They're not dated or misdated.
Speaker 7 (53:16):
So look, we're having these incremental victories, and as you said,
like they all matter, right, Like we're not going to
get saved by one big thing. We're gonna get saved
by a lot of little things exactly. And I think
that is the point. Mark, Will you come back? Will
you can we I'm going to call you. We have
to talk more because I want to talk to more.
(53:37):
All right, I'll be I'll be back anytime and you
can recall in text.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Thank you. No moment, Jesse Cannon Smalley.
Speaker 3 (53:49):
Trump's silly authoritarian takeover of DC.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
It has no bounds of how stupid it gets.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
I will tell you my group chat of DC friends
today was complaining about how it parking they're taking up
now it takes to park when they get We got
some real fucking complaints in this dystopia, okay.
Speaker 1 (54:07):
Yeah. And also they were guarding a Krispy Kreme yesterday.
Speaker 2 (54:12):
That's that's a little that's a little lot that does
on the nose. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
Anyway, they're now going to be seeking the death penalty
for anyone who kills somebody in the capitol.
Speaker 1 (54:20):
So I'm gonna say again, Donald Trump says he's going
to seek the death penalty for anyone who kills someone
in the capitol. Why do you think Donald Trump wants
to do that? Right? Like this is all authoritarian you know,
he wants you to think he's an authoritarian. Remember yesterday
he said this thing where he said, you know, a
lot of people want me to be a dictator. A
(54:42):
lot of people don't think it's that bad that I
could be a dictator. You know, this is this thing
where it's like they say it's humor. They say they're kidding,
they say it's a joke, but what they mean is no,
we're gonna fucking do it, right, And so Trump is like,
isn't it funny? People think they want me to be
a dictator? Hilarious? And then you say Donald Trump wants
(55:03):
to be a dictator and they say, no, libtard, he's
just kidding. No, No, we're going to take him seriously now,
and this podcast we're going to take him seriously.
Speaker 3 (55:13):
We need to pay attention to what he does, not
just what he says. And sure is quacking like that duck.
Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune
in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the
best minds and politics make sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a
friend and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
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 a Pew Research poll has that
in the last six months, Donald Trump has lost twenty
three percent approval among eighteen to twenty nine year olds.
We have such a great show for you today, the
(00:21):
Jim Acosta Shows. Jim Acosta stops by to talk about
Trump's escalating authoritarian actions. Then we'll talk to Democracy Dockets
Mark Elias about how they are pushing back legally against Trump.
But first we have the stories the media is missing.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Bie. I have to tell you JB.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Pritzker really really, really impressive speech yesterday. I was shocked
to hear earlier that it blew you away as much
as me.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Let's take a listen to it.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
I want to speak plainly about the moment that we
are in and the actual crisis, not the manufactured one
that we are facing in this city and as a
state and as a country. If it sounds to you
like I am alarmists, that is because I am ringing
an alarm one that I hope every person listening will heed,
(01:15):
both here in Illinois and across the country. Over the weekend,
we learned from the media that Donald Trump has been
planning for quite a while now to deploy armed military
personnel to the streets of Chicago. This is exactly the
type of overreach that our country's founders warned against, and
(01:37):
it's the reason that they established a federal system with
a separation of powers built on checks and balances. What
President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal,
It is unconstitutional, It is un American. No one from
(02:00):
from the White House or the Executive Branch has reached
out to me or to the mayor. No one has
reached out to our staffs. No effort has been made
to coordinate or to ask for our assistance in identifying
any actions that might be helpful to us. Local law
enforcement has not been contacted. We have made no requests
(02:23):
for federal intervention. None. We found out what Donald Trump
was planning the same way that all of you did.
We read a story in the Washington Post. If this
was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe,
what possible justification could the White House have for planning
(02:45):
such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with
the governor the mayor or the police.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Let me answer that question. This is not about fighting crime.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to
deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue
state to try and intimidate his political rivals.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
That's my man, right there?
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Are you crying?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Not this time? That was earlier.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Jesse's a crier, which I respect. I am just a
rage crier, so I only cry when I'm mad. But
this is a really great speech. I want to talk
about the first paragraph. I want to speak plainly about
the moment we are in and the actual crisis, not
the manufactured one we are facing as a city, as
a state, and as a country. It sounds like if
(03:38):
it sounds like, if it sounds to you like I
am an alarmist, that is because I am ringing an
alarm one that I hope every person listening will heed,
both here in Illinois and around the country. So I
just think, like later in this podcast you will listen
(03:59):
to more Archalias, and I talk about the idea that
the mainstream media, what little is left of it, is
unable to explain how unprecedented this is and how deeply
alarmed we should all be by what is taking place
in DC, maybe in Illinois, maybe not. Like what Pritzker
(04:25):
is able to explain is that we are in this
squishy middle right between democracy and whatever this is. And
it's not Russia, but it's not great. And you know
is you and I were the same age. We have
lived through a lot of shit, right nine to eleven,
a pandemic, but this is something that is difficult and
(04:47):
disturbing in a completely different way. And I think that
Pritzker does, in fact, he is able to sort of
thread that needle in I think an important way. And
you know, you are not going to see stories about
this in the mainstream media because there's a lot of cynicism,
and I think there's a lot of feeling that we
shouldn't be alarmist, even though what's happening is alarming.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
I think to a lot of what alienates people in
my group chats from the chattering class that we're a
part of, is that they don't hear people like Hakeem
Jeffries talking with the seriousness that this moment brings up
in all of us.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
And that is it. It feels as serious as it is.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah, Hakim has a real problem being able to communicate
just exactly what this moment really is. You're going to
listen to this the next day. But basically the news
on Tuesday. This podcast comes out on Wednesday. But on Tuesday,
the big news was that on Monday night, Donald Trump
fired a woman called Lisa Cook. He has no constitutional
(05:50):
authority to do this. He wanted to take her off
the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Now, basically what's happened
is why America has such a good among other things,
is because the FED is independent. Donald Trump doesn't want
the FED to be independent anymore because he's put these tariffs.
The tariffs are inflationary. He knows the inflation numbers are
(06:11):
going to fuck up the market. He wants the Fed
to cut rates because if the Fed cuts rates, he
thinks it'll juice the economy. And since Donald Trump has
got a sort of goldfish brain, he can't see that
this is ultimately going to end up in disaster. So
Donald Trump basically fired someone he has no right to fire.
He can't fire them constitutionally. It's not okay, it's just not.
(06:32):
He doesn't have any legal basis to do it. It's
like me saying I'm president and putting my hand on
a Bible and saying I'm president. Now, I have no
legal basis to claim that, but it's just hooey. But Keim,
who is the de facto leader of that Democrats in
the House of Representatives, put out a statement. I'm going
to read it to you because I just think that
(06:53):
this important conversation we're having here Jesse about this. So
Hakim says, he puts out a statement and says, doctor
Lisa Cook is the first black woman ever to serve
on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. True, but not
the headline. Donald Trump is trying to remove her without
a shred of credible evidence that she has done anything wrong.
(07:14):
Also true, but not the headline. To the extent anyone
is unfit to serve in a position of responsibility because
of the deceitful and potentially criminal contact it is the
current occupant of the White House. True, but also not
the headline. The American people are not buying your phony
projection and slander of a distinguished public servant. Also possibly true,
(07:35):
maybe not true, but also not the headline. The headline
should have been. Donald Trump can't fire Lisa Cook because
he doesn't have the authority to period paragraph. If he
wants to go to court and try, we will fight him.
And then I would have said something to the effect
of this is not about Lisa Cook, right, this is
(07:58):
about Donald Trump trying to wrestle control of the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, which is supposed to be independent
from the President. I think that what has happened here,
whychem is so has so much trouble really messaging, is
because there is like an unprecedented nature to all of
(08:19):
this that makes it very hard to see.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
It's not orange man bad, it's this is not normal,
not okay, and also more importantly illegal. And I think
that unless you know what Pritzker does really well, there
is he says not precedented, not okay, not legal.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
And matches the tone of seriousness that a lot of
us feel it does, whereas when you say nothing during it,
it doesn't feel like you're taking this situation seriously.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Would you say, I wrote a strongly worded letter.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Well, and what he Keem is doing here is almost
every sentence in that very statement is irrelevant. Doesn't matter
that she's black, doesn't matter that she's a woman, doesn't
matter that people don't like the slander doesn't matter. None
of that matters if you are able to see the
real first line, the first line that we know it
(09:16):
should be, which is he has no right to do.
This is illegal, it's unconstitutional. And again, that is the
fundamental problem with where the Democrats are right now, is
that it is not Orange Man bad. It is this
is not okay, it's not legal, and it's not constitutional.
And I think that is where we get into where
we've gotten into some trouble. But it's good to see,
we really do see. We have two people, two Democrats.
(09:38):
You don't have to like them, you don't have to
vote for them, you don't have to think they're going
to be president. I'm not saying any of that. I'm
just saying that we're seeing two effective governors pushing back.
One is Gavin Newsom, and he's doing two things right.
He's trolling Trump back and then he's just doing this massive,
massive pushback against the laws. And then the other one
(10:00):
is Pritzker, who is also just punching a bully in
the face metaphorically, not physically. And so it's good to
see that there is some ability there to make the
case for why we should not abandon our democratic republic.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
All right, Molly, let's shift gears to big balls.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
There's a whistleblower who's warning of a massive social security
data risk, and it's from the Dose boys playing around
and being reckless.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yep, so let's talk about this. This is all stuff
we absolutely when it was happening. I thought, right when
it was happening, we were like, I.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Could have written this headline for six months from now.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Right when it was happening, I was like, you know,
there's no way this doesn't end up being a massive
social security data risk. And in fact, I think we've
interviewed people on this podcast who said as much like
I think we did interview someone.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
We did an interview with someone from Wired about.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It right where they said the worst case scenario. But
I also had a terrifying dinner conversation where someone said
to me, you know, the worst case scenario is that
all all of our social security numbers just to end
up on the dark web, like just all of them,
like all of our data ends up unencrypted out there.
I'm going to digress for a minute, because we're just
digressing today, and also because I feel like, since you're crying,
(11:15):
I can take advantage of you. The Lisa Cook story
right where Trump accuses her of mortgage fraud, and he
did this also with Letitia James, and he also was
accused of mortgage fraud. So remember it's always projection. We
haven't seen reporting on this yet, full reporting on this,
but I think it's coming. I want to know why
(11:35):
Donald Trump is finding their mortgages, like how he's finding
information about their mortgages. And my guess is, and again
this is just a guess, is that Trump has this
person he put in charge of HUD who is a
scion of a real estate family and a friend of Trump's.
His name is Bill Pulti, and he is the person
(11:56):
who keeps discovering quote unquote these mortgage regularities. I think
there's like a very high chance that he is getting
this information from someone who is getting this data illegally.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Sounds about right with that crew.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
So in more and more fuck receince, you know, that
segment just spills to this one.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Every day.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
We also have HHS threatening states sex education funding over
quote unquote gender ideology.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
I mean, this is the whole thing, right, This is
why you can't cave to him, because once you cave
to this administration, we just go down a rabbit hole
of like it's gender and ideology, it's this, it's that.
And look when you listen to that North Korean style
cabinet meeting today that would have Kim Jong would have
been like, no, no, guys, this is too much like
(12:43):
we got to dial it back. A guy called Howard Lutnik,
not to be confused with any other nickname, who is
a New York guy who a lot of people in
my circle know who sucks, Like who really sucks. That
guy was like, we give billions of dollars to universities.
We don't fucking give it. Those are our tax dollars.
Like the idea that Lutnik is talking about this like
(13:07):
it's you know, a gift team made to the Gougenhein
or something, was just infuriating to me. But you're going
to see more of this, right that Donald Trump and
Howard Lutnik and this crew have decided that they are
gentlemen making genteel donations to states. No, no, these are
our fucking tax dollars. And again this goes back to
(13:28):
this idea that you cannot cover these people in the
way they want you to cover them. You cannot narrate
what they're doing in a way that is, you know,
it's all democracy dies in narration. Jim Acosta is the
(13:49):
author of a sub stack, The Jim Acosta Show, and
author of the New York Times bestseller The Enemy of
the People, A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.
Welcome to Past Pond's Hi Molly, Hi, We did Trump
one point zero? Yes, in a different way. I mean,
when you started at CNN, how many people watch CNN
(14:13):
at night? Like no, but I'm serious, Like we don't
think about this, but like lots of people, like millions,
like five million, six million, right, I don't know if
it was that many.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
I mean I know that well, for example, January six,
I think was the highest viewership.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
In the history of the network.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
And then we was trapped in their homes during COVID,
and that was a high viewership time for us. There
were millions like two million, three million here and there
kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
So now it gets like a four or fifth of that, right. Yeah,
I'm not saying this shit on CNN because it's true
of all the cable news networks, and it's true of
all the of the network networks. Not even table. Like
people are not getting their news that way.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
No, they're not.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
And corporate media is in a bad place right now.
I mean this, and it's their own doing, right And
I don't like to go after my friends in the press,
but you know, ABC and CBS, you guys kind of
started this crap. There were some other networks whose names
I won't mention that may have played a role in
this too, but folks have just buy and large said,
(15:23):
you know what, I'm going to go to independent media.
I'm going to watch PBS no matter what Donald Trump
does to it. I'm going to read my newspapers, yes,
and I'm just going to get my news on social media.
And they're they're just they're they're just moving on.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
See, this is what I wanted to talk I actually
just want to talk about this because it's like in
this podcast. In this episode, I also talked to Mark
Olias about the redistricting and about all sorts of other things.
But yeah, one of the things that he talks about
is just the inability. And this really I think is
particularly apropos today because Donald Trump fired this woman that
(15:59):
he really does not have the constitutional authority to fire.
Speaker 6 (16:02):
No, is not no, that's true.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And again it's like yet another time where Donald Trump
has done something they like. You know, it's like me
saying I am the Queen of England. Right, it's not.
You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Oh.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
I mean he was just saying.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
He was just saying that half the restaurants were closed
until he sent him the National Guard into Washington, d C.
Which is complete bullshit. I mean I have been saying
this thing, Molly, and maybe you and I haven't had
this conversation.
Speaker 6 (16:31):
As much as I love the fact checkers, as.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
Much as I love people like Daniel Dale, I think
they're doing amazing work, I'm not so sure it's all
of that helpful to spin our wheels fact checking somebody
who clearly is never going to adhere to the facts
and it is just going to just bullshit his way
through everything in life. So I think we should be
focusing more on tactics in the way he's blowing up
(16:54):
the constitution. I think we have a constitution check team.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I think that's what we might. But I actually think
that's right. I mean twenty sixteen was this sort of
like the thought that Trump was an apparition right that
he was a singular activity that wouldn't you know Trump's
second election we got to see that the patient does
not well right that American democracy. You don't do this
(17:20):
American democracy. I'm not going to speculate about his health,
which is another another.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Thing that people in his hands. I don't know people
love to.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Do around the fifteenth of every month. But who's I'm
certainly not taking keeping.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
I'm not doing that.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I'm not going to talk about talking about that. But
but and the concealer that they put on on top
to make it.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
They did not go to rite aid for the concealer
to put on the hands. Can they get some it's
the blending, it isn't it?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Then I think Michael Jackson gloves or the answer for him,
it'll be more subtle.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Yeah, he'll be even more of like the man from Monopoly,
the board game than a little.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Rhyme stoned by the way, can you imagine? I mean,
I want to talk about, like you know, Trump radicalized
his base. We got into a world where the mainstream
media had to sort of say, none of this is normal.
The problem is then they tried to cover Biden like
things were normal again.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
Yes, and I think and we moved past that that conversation, right,
we've we've just lasted our way past that conversation. There
shouldn't be any more like he's busting the norms of democracy,
all the truth. No shit, He's got National Guard in Washington,
DC armed for no goddamn reason. He's doing it to
(18:38):
arm He can just he can just crush these democratic
cities and make a misschief and it could be a
warm up for what he plans to do to try
to putin our last our midterms. And I just you know,
I think people need to be focused on the constitution,
the law breaking, the corruption. That's what we should be
focusing on our not the norms of the president. And
(19:00):
see and you know.
Speaker 6 (19:02):
That's out the window.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Yeah, No, I think that's right. And I and you're
in DC right now, and I would love you to
talk about this because it is like it's a it's
so much of trump Ism was either like Trump's first
term and I see this now too, was like Trump
creating a crisis, yes, right, and like any number of
(19:24):
different things. And right now I feel like Trump is
trying to distract from Ebstein. And he's also trying to
distract from the tariffs, right, like we already pan.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
Youah, policies have it's so destabilized things.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Yeah right, I mean Japan is not mailing stuff to
anymore to us. There are a bunch of different countries
that no longer mail to the United States, like.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
And stuff is starting to get expensive. Oh, if you
go to the grocery store, there's a handful of items
that already like really getting really expensive.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Fruits and vegetables forty percent increase. That's like insane, I mean.
Speaker 6 (19:59):
It's insane cold. This is beginning.
Speaker 5 (20:03):
He is like that one relative in your family who well,
he cannot admit when he's wrong, except he's the president
of the United States, and he's just going to try
to drive everybody nuts. And the stuff that he's doing,
sending the National Guard into DC, threatening to do it
in Chicago. If he does it in Chicago over the
wishes of the governor, we're right back where we were
(20:25):
where we were with Los Angeles and California, and he's
gonna if he tries to do in Maryland. Can you
imagine what this country is going to look like to
the rest of the world if we have National Guard
troops and multiple democratic cities like this is bond fape
dictator shit stuff.
Speaker 6 (20:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
My favorite thing though, is that Donald Trump is like
obsessed with trying to get a know about Peace prize.
So he's like bringing in all these countries and being like,
I'm going to make peace for you, and it's like, dude,
there are troops in the district of Columbia carrying guns.
Worry about what's happening at home, Like that is going
to undermine your Nobel Peace Prize at well.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
And it was just reported today by one of the
local stations that some of those National Guard troops apparently
it was a busload of National Guard troops were in
Lafayette Park across from the White House picking up trash.
They were picking up the garbage and lofy at park.
This is what he This is what they think of
the National beautify. They're beautiful, but on the on the
Nobel Peace Prize. I'm so glad that you brought that up,
(21:25):
because it is something that is so laughable to me
that he would ever be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.
First of all, look what's happening in Gozl, Look what's
happening in Ukraine. What is he keeps saying I've solved
seven wars. Again, he's one flew over the Cuhu's nest time, folks.
He has not solved seven wars. And I will say this,
(21:47):
If the Nobel Peace Prize folks give him the peace prize,
that should just be the last one. They should just say,
you know what, the Nobel I've been Norway a couple
of times. Love the folks there. The Nobel Peace Prize
folks should just call it a night. We're out and
just just that's a peace out.
Speaker 6 (22:03):
We're done.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
There should be no more peace prizes issued by these
folks in Norway, these nice folks, in no way if
they give one to Donald Trump. That's my position off.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
But it's it's a group of Norwegians like who are
scholars right? Those people are never giving Donald Trump a
peace prize, no matter how loud he screamed.
Speaker 5 (22:21):
Well, And the thing for him is it's not really
about having a peace prize. I mean, I guess it
is sort of gold looking, and it would it would
match the Day Core and the Trashy Day Corps in
the Oval Office. It is that he wants that scalp
of having strong armed the Nobel Peace Prize people in
the Norwegians into giving him one. That's what gives him satisfaction,
like a pornographic satisfaction, to be able to put those
(22:44):
folks over a barrel and force them to give him
a Nobel Peace prize when he absolutely does not deserve one.
And to me, they need to, like in any way,
shape or form, just resist placating this guy.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
It worries me a great deal is all these.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Foreign leaders, all these Tim Apple types, you know, Tim
Cook types, Tim Apple, Yeah, growing up with gold gifts
and what is this?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
This like Biblical times? Would the Tim Apple stuff just
for a minute. Clearly Trump has just careening through norms,
careening through any of this sort of social fabric that
used to exist that kept our government from being a
complete kyptocracy. These do people think? Do these billionaires think?
(23:32):
And do these Republicans? I mean clearly they do and
academics and president do they think that event if they
just placate him for long enough, he'll forget? I mean,
what's the end game here?
Speaker 6 (23:44):
I think?
Speaker 5 (23:45):
But you know, going back to Trump one point, Oh,
remember Molly, the Republicans. This is what the Republicans did, right,
they were the first to go, you know, they were
the ones during the first term we said, you know,
if we just playcat them and ride this out, we'll
all come out on the other end.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Is it decade a dow?
Speaker 6 (24:03):
It is a decade with our hides still in place
and so on.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
How is in my thirties going Yes, And he's just
replicating the same process, the same meek grind or routine
with every other person that comes into his in who
his view, And that to me is why and this
is why I'm on inventive media now. I suppose I
tear my hair out on a daily basis, just wondering,
(24:28):
my god, why do you think this is going to
change his behavior? Or why do you think you're going
to come out of the other end of this with
your dignity intact? You're not now, you're not. This is
your standard be countered moment. Don't let us down, stop
screwing us.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
If you're a billionaire, if you're if you have whatever,
fifty twenty even one billion dollars, even if you're just
a single billionaire, a sad billionaire with just a single
billion dollars, sad, Yeah, you still have more money than
you can ever spend. You have enough money so you
don't need to fucking more about Donald Trump. And yet,
(25:02):
and yet, I want to talk to you about what's
happening in the White House because I think it is
such a Metapaul.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
Gold everywhere the car dealership flags, which part.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I was thinking about, paving over the rose garden and
putting in restaurant styled tables, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
Put in an all garden. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
Why, Okay, there's there's a part of it, part of
it that makes me wonder if this is And somebody
made this point to me the other day, and I
feel terrible because I'm now stealing this without giving credit.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Yeah, but because you can't remember what I told you, right,
story in.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
My life, well, I know this is my short term
memory issues. No, whether you know they're just giving Grandpa
things to do to keep them occupied. I've heard this
interpretation of things that we just give Grandpa some things
to keep him occupied.
Speaker 6 (25:54):
He won't blow up the world. Okay, that's fine, that's
all well and good.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
That's a ballroom in the ballroom and walking around on
the roof, and the car dealership flags and all the
ship all over the walls in the Oval office, the
rose garden is especially egregious. The Jackie Kennedy installed rose
guard that should I mean, there are parts of the
White House grounds that should be pristine. And the last
time that I checked, and I think watching most New
(26:20):
York Times do a story on this. They're supposed to
be a process, right, you can go into the National
Park and put in a water burger, you know what
I mean. There's supposed to be a process for changing
the damn grounds to the White House. Again, like this
is this is what agenda im z in the you know,
inferno that is engulfing our democracy. So we can't really
(26:41):
focus on him, you know, turning the White House.
Speaker 6 (26:44):
Grounds into a water burger.
Speaker 5 (26:46):
And I think, you know, they're they're supposed to be
a process for it, but who in the who is
going to stand in this way? I mean, I would
love to do it because that property should be treated
with respect.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
And he's It's like it's like the archives. Remember when
Trump took the classified documents and the archivist they call them,
they wrote them letters, they negotiated with the lawyers, and
in the end they had, you know, a raid. But
like they had tried and tried and tried and you know,
there's someone like that who who is matching the historical
(27:20):
renovations of the White House to how they're supposed to
be because it is like one of the great historic
buildings of all time.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
Yeah, and there's a White House Historical Society. They are
wonderful people who are there. It is like a folks
who remember the geography of you know, the grounds of
the White House and what's around it and so on.
Where lafi Atte Park is Lafayette Square. There are these
other buildings that are sort of around that square. Slowly
but surely, those buildings have been pulled into the White
House complex.
Speaker 6 (27:48):
Are kind of like it's sort of like Blair House.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
These buildings are supposed to be part of I think
it's called Jackson Place, supposed to be part of the
White House Complex. The White House Historical Association, where you
can get your little White House Christmas ornaments that during
the holidays and whatnot that is in that little area
right on Lafayette Square. Those people, my understanding is, are
supposed to be consulted when it comes to tearing the
shit out of the grounds of the White House.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
I don't think they were consulted, and they're just not yes. Again.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Here's the other thing we talked about. The one theory, Molly,
which is that we just have to get Grandpa things
to the other theory is, and it's much more plausible,
is that he ain't going anywhere, or at least he doesn't.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Intend or he doesn't want to go, and again does
not want to go. He does not want to go anywhere.
I thank god he is seventy nine years old. But
he right, he's done the want again, not that I'm
saying it right, but he doesn't want to go anywhere.
And I think it's fair to assume he doesn't want
to go anywhere. I mean, I think working on that
(28:49):
assumption because he didn't want to go anywhere the last
time he lost, remember, so I mean we have to
behave just like he did. That he has want that
this term is his life, last term because the constitution
says you're only allowed to do two terms. And yet
that's how it goes, you know, that's how it goes.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
And it's but at some point.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
He'll take the plane with him and likely a lot
of the silverware I mean, right, and the Emstein files,
which you know when we'll ever get those Epstein files.
How much do you think the Epstein files are still
because I have definitely heard from people that they that
the Epstein files is something that is still well. MAGA
(29:32):
influencers have gotten the message. They're not supposed to talk
about it. The megabase still is bothered by it.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
They're bothered by it.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
And I you know, I I see anecdotal evidence, and
here's an anecdotal evidence on almost a daily basis that
that MAGA still cares about this. I mean, remember, and folks,
I mean, this is worth reminding ourselves. July seventh is
when they put out the bullshit memo that said, oh,
there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
We're going to sweep this under the rug.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
It was in May, nearly two months before that, where
they told him you're in the Epstein frials multiple times.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
We still don't know why.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
We know one of those instances maybe the birthday book
to Jeffrey Epstein for the birthday that the Wall Street
Journal reported on, but we don't know the other instances.
So we just never going to find out. Yeah, it's
sort of like we're never going to find out why
Trump cowchous to pootin all the time.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
There's gonna be a damn good story about it.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Here's a question for you about the birthday book. What's
the birthday book page end up with a Wall Street Journal? Now,
what was the timing of that?
Speaker 6 (30:36):
That's a very good question, very good question.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Like everything. For example, today which will be tomorrow when
people are listening to this, there was a whistleblower came
out to say that all this social security information that
DOGE had, they had exposed us to a massive, massive date.
You're shocked to hear that Big Balls was not the
kind of we had thought he would be a star
(31:01):
warth of our data.
Speaker 6 (31:02):
But you know, are we sure he wasn't beaten up
by a little old lady? But anyway, I.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Mean exactly, but so real, fast and loose here today.
But but but these are a lot you have to
wonder why are you getting this information and what like?
For example, there was recently a story in the Times
where the journal I think about how Tiffany's husband was
(31:27):
like had sort of taken some money. The implication was
that he had stolen money from Jared, right. Like, these
kind of stories don't just pop up, they don't just appear.
Somebody is giving this information to journalists and so when
you're reading stories, you can wonder who Jared is giving
(31:50):
this story to journalists about Jared being out three and
a half million dollars, or for example, who is leaking
you know? So, why did you.
Speaker 5 (32:00):
On my mom's sofa watching episodes of Dynasty and knots
Landing watching this second administration?
Speaker 1 (32:06):
It's true, But so the real question is, like, why
did that Epstein birthday book page get leaked to the
Wall Street Journal?
Speaker 6 (32:16):
That I think it's a it's a really good question.
It's a really good conversation piece.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
I mean, I will answer your question by saying I
don't know, but I will also answer it by pointing
to the fact the other day that they tried to
fire or they are in the process of firing forty
percent of the staff at the department or the Director
of National Intelligence until Gabbard's office. Oh you know, in
the normal universe, that story would have been huge news.
Speaker 6 (32:42):
That is the office that was set up to.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Prevent another nine to eleven and forty percent feeling But
what it said To take it back to your point
your question, Molly, they are and I can trace this
back to my own reporting and what I experienced witnessing
this during the first term. They are so neurotically freaked
out and paranoid about leak at all times that I
think this is part of the reason why this massive
(33:04):
purge of the federal government is still going on largely uncovered,
because they are paranoid that there are people leaking stuff
to the press on the crap that they're doing on
a daily basis. And I assume that the birthday book
was some sort of calculated leak to say about Donald
Trump and the Epstein files. And guess what is pre
(33:26):
damn damning When he says something about wonderful the thing
that I wish people would focus on more, he says
something about wonderful secrets or something like that.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
At the end of that wonderful secret are wonderful secret secrets?
Speaker 5 (33:39):
Never age something along those lines, And it's like, again, hmm,
isn't that interesting? What's that all about? Wish we knew
more about that? Ye, guess what he's in charge of
those documents, you know, And the fact that he hasn't
put him out, I mean, what does that tell us?
You know, I'm sorry, guys, got something to hide? And
(34:02):
you know, until he does these political problems that he's having,
not just with the basement, with the whole country.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
World.
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Yeah, in the world are not going to go away.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
The polls show that people aren't buying this stuff and
they want to know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Jim Acosta, will you come back?
Speaker 6 (34:19):
Of course? Will I be invited back?
Speaker 1 (34:22):
You will always be invited back. Mark Elias is the
founder of Democracy Doctor. Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
Mark, thank you for having me back. I've been waiting me.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
You were like, you know, we're you know what. Listeners
hate it when I say this, so I won't say it,
but I we're friends, Okay, I will actually text we
actually and it's true, and I like, don't. I mean,
people make fun of me for saying this, but I
don't really feel like I have so many friends, especially
in this extremely there's something like very isolating about this
(34:58):
moment in American life.
Speaker 7 (35:00):
Absolutely, I mean, how could you not feel isolated. There
are federal officials who believe that I don't know if
he's talking to the cabinet, the cabinet.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
I saw some Yeah, you know.
Speaker 7 (35:12):
There are federal officials who believe that Donald Trump is
deserves a Nobel prize. Donald Trump is like talking about
how he you know, how a lot of people want
him to be a dictator, people say people many people
are saying. And meanwhile, you know, he is rolling troops
down the cities of of of the United States. Uh,
(35:35):
there are federal agents masked who are grabbing people and
disappearing them. So it is kind of a very worrisome
and lonely and isolating time.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
I mean, I think you we can both agree that
he's successfully captured the zeitgeist in a way that has
helped him. That he has written to the presidency twice,
and part of that is just putting everything on television.
So those meetings that are pretty much would make Kim
Jong un say, back off, guys, it's not believable, are
(36:08):
part of this secret sauce. Right, absolutely.
Speaker 7 (36:11):
I mean, he has turned governing into a spectacle reality show,
and he's turned a spectacle reality show into governing. I mean, right,
it's kind of it reinforces itself in both directions.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
First, let's talk about the arms race, the redistricting arms
race that started last week. Because you have filed, you're
intimately involved in both the legal and also writing about
it and explaining it. So I want you to. You know,
last week, Abbot says, Trump says wants five seats. Abbot ambitious,
(36:48):
thinks he's going to be president next Paxton running for Senate.
The crew gets together to give him five seats. What
does this open the door to talk us through how
unprecedented this is.
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Yeah, so let's just talk about it. Texas was second,
and I'll tell you what this opens the door to.
So in Texas As exactly as you said, Donald Trump
said I want five seats. Greg Abbott said, great, five
seats it is. Texas Republicans said, great, five seats it is.
They finally, after some democratic efforts to prevent it, were
able to pass that map. That map got passed by
(37:20):
the state Senate at about two am on Saturday morning.
By eight am Saturday morning, my law firm had sued
to block this from going forward. We filed an amended
complaint and then on a Sunday we filed for a
pliminary injunction. And you know, we'll see where this goes.
You know, I think that what they did here is
(37:42):
deeply vulnerable to legal charge obviously, and I think people
should not be surprised. They should not be settling into
the idea that Republicans have pulled this off. So that's right,
number one.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
I just want to pause for a second because that
gets to the really important sort of propaganda aspect of this,
which is like Trump can say he's fired that's right,
Lisa Cook. He can say he's fired her, but he
doesn't actually have the authority to do it. Just like Texas,
there's so much of this sort of like I say
I can do it, so I've done it, whereas it's
(38:14):
actually not necessarily legal. So that's a really important distinction.
Speaker 7 (38:18):
That's exactly right, And I think that you've put your
finger on one of Donald Trump's greatest skills is that
institutions in this country, whether it is judges in the courts,
whether it is the legacy media, that there is a
(38:38):
presumption that when the federal government says it's done something,
that is like the baseline from which we start. So
like if a president says I have fired someone, the
baseline operating assumption is that he has fired the person.
And the problem is that that isn't true in Trump's world,
(39:00):
Like the truth is, Donald Trump says a lot of
things that are just fought out lies, and so we
need to pause. I mean, this is also true about
the John Bolton raid. You know, we pause and when
Donald Trump says you know that, or jade Van says,
we used, we alt talk about what the FBI did. Like,
everyone needs to take a step back and not assume
(39:22):
that the thing that they are saying is on the
up and up, because it's probably on the up and up.
And that is true in Texas thing I mean, essentially,
the state of Texas announced that it was going to
comply with the Department of Justice's letter to say that
they needed to dismantle districts because they thought that they
were that they didn't like the racial composition of them.
(39:46):
The state.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
That was a letter from Lena Habba.
Speaker 7 (39:49):
No, this was actually a letter not from Haba. This
was a letter from Pambondy and Harmie Dillon.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Right, oh, Harmeiat Dylan, sorry.
Speaker 7 (39:57):
Erect it's I know it is hard to keep the
election and I are straight, but alas we have to
keep the Trump lawyer, the former Trump lawyers, the Department
of Justice, the visual election attires straight. So but so
you know, Harmeid Dillon sends this letter to the State
Texas saying you have racially Joey managered your districts by
(40:20):
giving minority voters too many rights essentially. But the thing is,
the state of Texas had already told federal judges that
it didn't use race at all in drawing those districts,
like it literally is under oath. Ken Paxton put a
witness on the stand and reiterated that the districts that
were drawn were not drawn based on race. And so
now Greg Abbott has dismantled districts that his own department,
(40:45):
his own Attorney General said were drawn race neutral. And
so they have essentially screwed over black and Latino voters
in response to this letter. But their only rational for
doing so is to screw over black and Latino voters. Well,
that violated constitution. So I don't think they're going to
get away with this, is the bottom line. I don't
think you're going to go away with in Texas. But
this is now going to spread. We're going to see
Republicans try to do this in Florida. We're going to
(41:06):
see Republics try to do this in Missouri. We're going
to see Republicans perhaps try to do this in Indiana.
And I'm not sure it ends there, you know, Kelly
ay Out, the governor of New Hampshire, says we're not
doing it. Maybe maybe a lot of Republicans tell Donald
Trump no as an opening gambit, but then wind up caving.
And on the Democratic side, you know, we have California,
Gavin Newsom has managed to get a ballot measure on
(41:28):
the special yeah special action in November to essentially redraw
them up there and do five seats. Back my posture, Molly,
just so you're clear when this all started before Gavin
Newson announced what he was doing is the Democrats ought
to jerry mander thirty seats in response to Texas and
might actually dissuade Republicans from going forward. I worry, as
(41:50):
much as I appreciate what Governor Newsom was doing, and
I think it's great, I'm worried that if all we're
doing is tung Republicans we will match them. It actually
is a disincentive.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Do you think there's a chance that again, like this
Supreme Court is so in the tank for Trump in
a really kind of craven and choking way. But I
do wonder, like clearly Abbott is opening the door for
an arms race that will ultimately negate all of you know,
why even draw congressional districts if you're just going to
(42:20):
have states use that you know, I mean, do you
think there's a world in which the Supreme Court steps
in and says like this is just too stupid. You
guys have to stop doing this.
Speaker 7 (42:30):
So it's a really important question, and it's one that
if you look at our lawsuit, we raise the question
or not raise the question. We make a claim that
essentially the mid cycle redistricting process that everyone thinks it's
legal is in fact not legal. And that is in
part to see whether the Supreme Court does want to
put a hold on this craziness.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Because ultimately it is supposed to be tied to a
census and not tied to vibes.
Speaker 7 (43:01):
How charming of you, how charming of you. Yes, it
is unsupposedly. Tycho says this, it like constitutionally as psyched
right right, And you put your finger on the claim
that we are making in this Texas case, which is
that these districts are now way malapportioned because they're not
being drawn there like the current the data. The whole
(43:23):
theory is you have a census, then you immediately draw maps.
When you draw maps later they're not going to be
equal population because people have moved and so like, that
is part of the problem here.
Speaker 1 (43:37):
But part of the problem here is just we've gotten
so far afield from how all of this was meant
to be right that were you know, like during Trump's
first term, which was unprecedented but still seems quaint compared
to now, there was a lot of talk about how,
you know, the founders never imagined anyone with a chainsaw
(44:00):
ripping through what they had built. I mean, I think
that's even more true now, right.
Speaker 7 (44:05):
Yeah, So, look, this is where I am extremely critical
of the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, because I
actually think that there are two misconceptions that are empowering Trump.
The first is that we have three co equal branches
of government. As Jamie Raskins said, co equal is not
even a word the Constitution. The Constitution envisioned that Congress
(44:30):
would be the most powerful branch. So like, part of
what is broken down here is that actually the framers
thought the presidency would be a relatively weak institution because
Congress would have the power to enact laws, to impeach,
to remove, to confirm judges, or not to confirm or
not confirmed cabinet officials. It assumed that Congress was going
(44:55):
to be this huge check And in fact, John Thune
and Mike Johnson wake up each day and text each
other to say, who is going to lick Donald Trump's
boots this morning?
Speaker 1 (45:09):
Right?
Speaker 7 (45:09):
And John Thune says, please let it be me, and
Mike Johnson says no, no, no, I've already licked them clean.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Right.
Speaker 7 (45:15):
So, like part of it is a design problem there.
But the second misconception is that the founders never envisioned this.
Oh yes they did. They kept they left the king right.
Like the entire creation of the American system of government,
The entire theory behind the American system of government was
(45:36):
that we would not have a king, we would not
have a strong executive, we would not have a president
who had much power. I mean, if you read the Constitution,
what the president. The power of the presidency is the
following number one, to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed, and number two, to be the commander in
chief of the armed forces.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
That's it.
Speaker 7 (45:58):
That's the power of the presidency. So everything he is
doing is under that first piece or ninety percent of it.
To take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and
the courts have kind of read that to mean the
current Supreme Court has kind of read that to mean
that he gets to take care however wants. Faithful is
whatever he thinks X is when he likes it.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Yeah, no, I mean I think that's right. So and
that is you know, that is the question. I mean,
I think the biggest the immunity decision was the moment
where they were like, fuck it, yep, let's go.
Speaker 7 (46:36):
That's where I think we jump off the rails. I
think that that whether it was intentional or it was unintentional,
we can have a huge debate about you or not debate.
We have a huge discussion, and maybe someday we'll learn
in the memoirs of the papers whether it was what
did Donald Rumsell call it a no, no not known?
Like was this like did they know that this was
(46:58):
well it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
Or they Jesse knows because I often invoke Don Rumsfeld
in the great irony of whatever this is that it's
a no not known? I think, right like his taxes?
Speaker 7 (47:11):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, is this it did the Supreme
Court if you ask them today, would they say, yeah,
this is exactly what we thought, or would they say, man,
this is not at all what we thought. Yeah, either way,
I think that that decision is that is that pivot
point in which we created a president that is literally
(47:37):
above the law. And therefore, what does it mean for
a president to have to take care that the laws
are faithfully executed if in fact, there are no consequences
if they don't.
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Right, And that's where we are right now. Right Trump
rolls into the district of Columbia. It's not a city,
it's not a state. He can do whatever he wants.
He then arms these guys talk us through. Like the
one sort of bright spot in this story in my
mind is that Trump says, I'm going to Chicago next,
(48:08):
and Pritzker says, the fuck you are, and then dellal
Trump says, maybe I'm not going to Chicago next.
Speaker 7 (48:13):
Yeah, I mean J. D. Pritzkirt deserves a huge amount
of credit. I mean, boy, that was a hell of
a speech. Yeah, a hell of a speech.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
I actually had his h I actually got a copy
of it because I wanted to read it because it's
so good, and it's really good. I'll send it to you.
It's really good. Like I was like, Wow. I was
like reading it to one of my kids. I was like,
this is how you write a speech. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (48:36):
No, I wrote about it an essay on democracy. Don't
get that posted today. And the two parts that I
highlight are number one, he basically validates my thesis that
you know, this is to interfere with the elections, which
I think is yeah. And then the second thing is
you know as you know and oftentimes Molly and I
(48:58):
are going back and forth on this in our text exchanges,
like Keith sort of says in more polite terms than
I do, but like the media needs to get its
head out of its ask yees covering this has not
a both side story, but as a one side story.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah, any And I mean he said like, I'm not
an alarmist because you should be alarmed.
Speaker 6 (49:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (49:20):
I think he kind of has like the right demeanor
for delivering it too.
Speaker 1 (49:23):
Yeah, he has a gravitas. Clearly. We're in a moment
where there are just very few where I think I
think of this like we're in that squishy moment that
where we're not a democracy anymore, but all is not lost.
And I would love you to talk because this is
what I spend like all my time obsessing about is
like when you read all these books about autocracy, one
(49:46):
of the things they sort of say is that you know,
everything counts, everything matters. Any any win is actually a win.
Any you know it. This doesn't happen just like turning
off a light. It happens in increments. So what are
the things that are making you sort of less despairing?
Speaker 7 (50:04):
Yeah, I mean I think Look, I think they fall
into three categories. The first is we are seeing, despite
all of the you know, the the complaining and all
of the you know, one step back to one step forward,
two steps back, we are seeing an emerging culture of
fight among Democrats. Right what you what you are seeing
(50:25):
in California is fight. What you are seeing from JB.
Pritzkert is fight. And like we are seeing an emerging consensus.
If in the beginning, you know, I think you and
I talked about this, like in you know, in January,
there were like these competing visions within Democrats of do
we stand up and fight or do we say we
(50:47):
will agree with him where we will agree and work
with him where.
Speaker 6 (50:50):
We can, and disagree where we must.
Speaker 7 (50:52):
And I think like that debate is now pretty favor
in war, there's much more fight. So I think that's
that's a reason for goodness.
Speaker 1 (51:00):
And the people who thought we should agree with him
where we were where we can, which is me, we're wrong.
And the people who are like, we have to resist everything,
which worked pretty well in twenty sixteen and in some
ways were right.
Speaker 7 (51:15):
Yeah, And look, I wrote a piece for Democracy Docket
before he took office saying that what we need is
not a resistance, we need a new opposition movement and
that you know, I spelled it out, like this is
not going to be the kind of like Breezy, we protest,
we we disagree, and then he retreats that we have something,
as you say, and you put your finger on it,
(51:37):
democracy is broken, Like it's not. It's not like on
pause like the resistance was, like we resisted, and then
he goes away and then it comes back like we
need an opposition movement because this is going to go
on for a while, Like this is not even if
Donald Trump believes the scene, what he has wrought is
now in the politics, and we need a permanent opposition
(51:58):
against yea. So I think that that's that. Try the
other things that they give me hope is that we
are seeing the courts still hold against the worst of
his worst. I mean, earlier, a federal judge in who
was appointed by Donald Trump excoriated the Department of Justice
for their effort to to sue essentially all of the
(52:21):
judges in Maryland over their immigration.
Speaker 1 (52:26):
You got a real crack team there. That's like, we're
going to sue all the judges in the.
Speaker 7 (52:30):
Ran which is not a thing. Right, you don't get
to suit. It's actually a good example of what we
were talking about earlier, like when when he when they
sued the judges, Like a lot of the mainstream media
were like today Donald Trump sued the judges or the judges,
and I was like, you don't fucking get to suit judgment,
Like that isn't a thing, Like what do you How
are you all reporting that this is like a thing,
(52:51):
Like it's not a thing? Were in it that way?
But anyway, so you know we saw that earlier today
also my and I'm proud of my law firm on
behalf of our clients. We want a big case in
the Third Circuit on undated and misdated ballots in Pennsylvania.
Remember that whole Michigan the court said those ballots have
to count going forward. No more rejecting ballots in Pennsylvana.
Speaker 6 (53:14):
They're not dated or misdated.
Speaker 7 (53:16):
So look, we're having these incremental victories, and as you said,
like they all matter, right, Like we're not going to
get saved by one big thing. We're gonna get saved
by a lot of little things exactly. And I think
that is the point. Mark, Will you come back? Will
you can we I'm going to call you. We have
to talk more because I want to talk to more.
(53:37):
All right, I'll be I'll be back anytime and you
can recall in text.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Thank you. No moment, Jesse Cannon Smalley.
Speaker 3 (53:49):
Trump's silly authoritarian takeover of DC.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
It has no bounds of how stupid it gets.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
I will tell you my group chat of DC friends
today was complaining about how it parking they're taking up
now it takes to park when they get We got
some real fucking complaints in this dystopia, okay.
Speaker 1 (54:07):
Yeah. And also they were guarding a Krispy Kreme yesterday.
Speaker 2 (54:12):
That's that's a little that's a little lot that does
on the nose. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
Anyway, they're now going to be seeking the death penalty
for anyone who kills somebody in the capitol.
Speaker 1 (54:20):
So I'm gonna say again, Donald Trump says he's going
to seek the death penalty for anyone who kills someone
in the capitol. Why do you think Donald Trump wants
to do that? Right? Like this is all authoritarian you know,
he wants you to think he's an authoritarian. Remember yesterday
he said this thing where he said, you know, a
lot of people want me to be a dictator. A
(54:42):
lot of people don't think it's that bad that I
could be a dictator. You know, this is this thing
where it's like they say it's humor. They say they're kidding,
they say it's a joke, but what they mean is no,
we're gonna fucking do it, right, And so Trump is like,
isn't it funny? People think they want me to be
a dictator? Hilarious? And then you say Donald Trump wants
(55:03):
to be a dictator and they say, no, libtard, he's
just kidding. No, No, we're going to take him seriously now,
and this podcast we're going to take him seriously.
Speaker 3 (55:13):
We need to pay attention to what he does, not
just what he says. And sure is quacking like that duck.
Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune
in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the
best minds and politics make sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a
friend and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.