August 9, 2023 • 34 mins
Mary Trump from The Mary Trump Show stops by to discuss Donald Trump’s increasingly panicked rhetoric. Democracy Docket's Marc Elias explains how the GOP is further moving the goalposts to favor their electoral outcomes.
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 Mitch McConnell says impeachment ought to
be rare and that it's not good for the country.
I wonder what else is not good for the country.
We have such a great show for you today, Democracy Dockets.
(00:20):
Mark Elias joins us to talk about the latest voting
rights issues, including Ohio's Issue one. But first we have
the one and only Mary Trump Shows.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Mary Trump.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Mary Trump, Thanks.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Billy, How are you? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
I mean, I'm actually in Europe right now and I'm
coming home tomorrow and I've been We've.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Been on quote unquote vacation.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But so because it was on vacation, I was at
a television studio doing a television hit because that's what
one does on vacation.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And producer was like, the.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Host goes like, well, I mean, this is history, this
is historic, and I was like, it's happened three other times.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
This always happening.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, I We're all a little bit iner to this
at this point, I think, And that's.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
A problem, right, And I'm talking about the new federal
indictment for Donald Trump, the one where we finally get
to see he's in trouble for doing all the stuff
we saw around the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yes, almost three years later. It's troubling for a couple
of reasons. And I'm with you in the sense that
every time something like this steppens, I feel less. I
felt nothing about this indictment except okay, this could have
happened a year and a half ago.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, you know.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
I didn't feel that it was anything to be happy about,
or solemn about or anything. So the problem there is
that it's just another way in which Donald manages expectations
in his favor. You see this with his all caps,
insane tweets. He says the most vile, vicious, violent things,
(02:20):
and people shrug and say, yeah, well, I mean, I
guess that's just what we would expect. If it were
anybody else, we would do something about it. But it's him,
so he keeps getting away with it, him pushing the envelope.
And by the same token, because this is the third indictment,
I now see people saying, well, this is so much
more serious than the other two.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Which is just false.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I mean, yes, it's incredibly serious, but you cannot tell
me that we know enough yet to say that the
stealing of national security doc classified national security documents is
a big deal. We don't know what he did anything
with them, if he did anything with them, if he
(03:05):
implicated anybody because he stole them and potentially showed them.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
To our enemies or what have you.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
And I'm also really tired of people referring to the
New York case as.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
You know, hush money.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
It was an attempt at election fraud and potentially successful
attempt at election fraud. So you know, it's once again,
none of it's cumulative. It's like, oh, well, this terrible
thing happened and has been replaced by the next terrible
thing that happened and has been forgotten.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And yeah, and that's that's also one of his strategies.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
It's, you know, just flooding the zone, which is I
guess what Steve benn And has counseled him to.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Do time and time again.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It's funny though, because it's like, so here, you are
trained psychologist and also niece of the defendant, do you
find like the thing I'm struck by with him is
that he is like, it's almost and it's funny because
it's like, I.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Come from a crazy kind of.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Family, not quite not quite as ethically so as you.
But do you feel like what you're seeing here is
a person who has been able to really run roughshow
through American democracy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Yeah, just as he's run roughshot over everybody.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Yeah, he's been allowed to his whole life. And that's
the problem here.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I don't give a shit about Donald anymore in the
sense that I haven't for a long time felt that
he was the problem. The problem is anybody who enables him.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Do I feel that he has deteriorated? Yeah, I do.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I think that his impulse control is very compromised. But
we also have to remember that sometimes it is just strategy.
One of his negotiating strategy used to be to come
into a boardroom when a deal was about to be
signed and actually throw a temper tantrum until the other side,
(05:10):
which was pressed by time constraints, agreed to a deal
that was less in their favor than the original deal
he'd agree to. You know, so a lot of what
he's doing is just throwing temper tantrums. Okay, that's what
he does. Is it strategic or is it simply because
he's decompensating. I don't care. What I care about is
(05:33):
a legal system that allows him to endanger the lives
of potential jurors, prosecutors, judges, and their families. What the
fuck is happening?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Like?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Why is he allowed to engage in the kind of
rhetoric that gets people killed?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
It seems like to me he is both diminished and inevitable.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
No, I love that. I mean, I hate it.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
But it's brilliant, right, I mean, that's the thing I'm
struck by. It's like he doesn't have the same power
he used to. You know, it used to be he
would tweet about you and you would get one hundred
death threats, right, you'd have people going into hiding. I mean,
I don't And again I'm not saying that that that,
you know, what he does do now is somehow better.
(06:17):
It's just that he doesn't have the same kind of army,
largely because a lot of those people went to jail
and they have actually been punished. But it's just interesting
to me because so you know, you saw that. I mean,
I'm sure you saw the video of him with this
second federal indictment. And it's just him and one other person. No,
(06:38):
you know, none of the kids, none of the pomp
you know, just this sort of seventy seven year old
man going in for his third indictment, and yet he
is crushing everyone else in the polls. And Republicans are
you know, you see Mitch McConnell, who is you know,
the man who made all his dreams come true, stole
three Supreme Court seats for him being booed and screamed that.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
He should retire.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Yeah, listen, this is this is the bed the Republican
Party has made for itself. And what I find fascinating,
and they deserve every all of it, for sure, Yes,
of course, exactly what I find fascinating is their lack
of ability to see beyond their own egos, their own narcissism,
(07:25):
and their own short term victories. And I think part
of that is because their goal is to destroy American
democracy now, because this may be their last attempt for
them to claim to cling to power, no matter how illegitimately.
But somebody like Dessantis, if he could get out of
his out of his own way, I would have understood
(07:46):
that the thing to do is wait or preferably the
candidates not Donald, would have understood that this is their
opportunity to change course and attack him as the pathetic
loser he is, and not just as loser personally, but
(08:07):
a loser for the Republican Party, because otherwise they risk
losing everything. You know, if they were willing to attack
him in the way he deserves to be attacked by
his opponents in the primary, they won't win the presidency
in twenty twenty four, but it sets them up better
(08:27):
going forward, especially as there's no at the moment, no
lear successor to Biden, even though of course there should be,
but you know, racism and misogyny reign supreme in America.
That part's also just very weird to me that the reluctance,
because the base is the base, is what are they
going to do if Donald loses the primary or is
(08:51):
it running?
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Are they just going to stay home? I don't think so. Right.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
The thing that is such an interesting problem that Republicans
have now is they have this candidate who has lost
them every election since twenty sixteen, every single one including
twenty sixteen except for a technicality, right exactly, and they
are pretty sure they're going to be okay, which, look,
(09:18):
maybe they will be. The electoral colleges is a funny thing.
And it's funny because I think that the thing that
it's been just so disappointing about these Republicans, and look,
I mean, there are so many things to be disappointed
with this Republican party, but the thing that I've been
strupt by is just how stupid they are. Like, you know,
(09:40):
everybody gets behind If they had found a normal candidate
and gotten everyone behind him like Democrats did in twenty twenty, right,
I mean they there was a moment where it became
clear that everyone was going to have to figure out
who the most electable candidate was and get behind them.
And all of a sudden, even though a lot of
(10:00):
people loved Elizabeth Warren and a lot of people loved
Mayor Pete and this and that, they just were like,
we just have to get behind the guy who can win.
And the calculus was that Joe Biden was the guy
who could win. And so Democrats fell in line because
they did not want to lose. And I don't think
of Democrats as such mercenaries, but these Republicans are mass.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Yeah, And as for twenty twenty, in Biden. I think
he was like my seventh choice in the primary. But
when it became clear right that he could win right well,
or that he was going to win the nomination for sure,
we fell in line, which you know, what's the expression,
Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. For the
(10:45):
first time perhaps that ever, we fell in line because
we understood what was at stake.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
And then I think it was.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
The combination of the two, because Joe Biden is a
decent human being who cares about American democracy. You know,
he may go about trying to save it in a
way that I don't necessarily think is the most effective way,
but he's been the best president of my lifetime.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Well, I'm in London right now. They keep raising the
interest rates in this country. They are completely screwed. I mean,
we are. You know, we have banks saying that they're
going to lower you know, they're going to raise the projections.
Now they're not seeing a recession, they're seeing a soft landing,
(11:25):
and that was unthinkable two years ago. I mean, they're
building chips, they're building trains. I mean, they're not Our
inflation is controlled. I mean, I'm sorry, but if a
Republican had done this, I would be fucking impressed too.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
I mean, it's unbelievable. It is unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I do think that the Guide does not get a
ton of credit for any of that, and the polling
is still pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, I'm not going to pay attention to pulls quite yet,
although we always have to understand that the mainstream media
is not our friend and shockingly is not the friend
of democracy. Which it's weird because journalism needs a democracy
in order to strive. But I guess if the bottom
line is really the only thing you care about, you
don't really care about journalism either. But I think with
(12:11):
the Republicans, they continue to make the same calculus. Dat
don't need Trumpism so called, to scale because they're not
going after a majority. This is a policy free party
of grievance, racism, misogyny, and anti immigrant hatred and increasingly
LGBTQ plus hatred. They have no ideas beyond cutting taxes
(12:36):
for obscenely wealthy people and dictating people. So I think
they must on some level understand that it's too late
for them to become a party of policy, so they
have to much like Donald does, they have to double
down on the things that turns most people off but
(12:58):
keeps enough people in the game fighting for them that
if they can just cheat around the edges, it might
be enough. You know, those electoral College numbers in twenty
sixteen and twenty twenty are the things that should be
keeping all of us up at night, because Joe Biden
(13:18):
didn't win by eight million votes. He won by like
seventy seven thousand or forty four thousand or some horrifyingly
tiny number. So I think that's why we see we
see them making the kinds of moves they're making in Ohio,
for example, and making it more and more difficult for
ballot initiatives that would get people to the polls for
(13:42):
Democratic initiatives harder and harder. They're making Alabama just to
all the Supreme Court to take a flying leap because
they are not going to change their congressional map, denying
Democrats at least one or two seats. That's what they're
going to keep doing because they know that's their only chance.
(14:04):
So I don't know that it's stupidity as much as
it's cravenness. And I mean it's stupid, like I think
that you know, you look at people like Jared Kushner
or Rodsentis or Mike Penz. Narcissism in its extreme form
makes you stupid. Yeah, you know the fact that Mike
Pence thinks that he can win the presidency, the fact
that Radescanthus thought this was the time for him to run,
(14:27):
these are just bizarrely idiotic moves, right. But I think
the larger issue with the word dangerous one is they
have no principal core principles. They have no they don't
care about American democracy. They only care about their own power.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Yeah, exactly, And it is kind of It's a pretty
stark realization.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
So let me ask you.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I always feel like I hate to ask you this,
but I feel like you have an insight here.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Where does Cisco? What does he do? I think I
have an idea, but you tell me you think. I'm
very curious to see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
In the hearing, I thought it was a good sign
that the prosecution in DC flagged it for the judge
and that they made the decision to get a protective order.
I thought it was a good thing that the judge
denied Donald's team where they needed more time to respond
(15:25):
to I don't know. It's absurd denied his team's appeal
to have it delayed. So I'm very curious to see
what happens there, and then it's hopefully it's something serious
enough that it will put Donald in a situation position
of having to change his behavior.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
I don't think he can anymore.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Yeah, I think I think he'll continue to double down,
triple down, quadruple down on his egregious behaviors because at
some level he knows that's all he's got left. You know,
he's nothing else to offer. It's just grift and grievance
and this pretense that somehow he's saving everybody else from
(16:11):
being pursued by the DOJ. I personally don't worry about
that because I haven't betrayed my country and I haven't
stolen classified. Maybe maybe his base has done things that
we're not aware, but you know, he's really the only
person who's whose future and freedom are on the line here.
But he knows what's worked because he's always gotten away
(16:34):
with it, and it will be very interesting to see
it for the first time in over seven decades. This
person is told this much and no more, and if
you cross that line, we'll see you in jail, right,
or you know, we'll ask you to put up a
balie of hundreds of a mill I don't know what
her I don't know what the recourse is here, but
(16:54):
I think he's already setting up this this dichotomy here.
Either I get to say whatever I want because First Amendment,
or I'm going to get persecuted for exercising in my
first Amendment rate to free speech and then martyred. I
think that's what he's banking on, and I don't think
he would be wrong quite honestly, Mary.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Trump, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
You are the best.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
Thanks Will I.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I'm really happy to be here with you.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Mark Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket. Welcome to
Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Mark, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Delighted to have you so at First, I want to
talk to you about something that when this podcast airs,
will be decided, though it seems like it's happening right now,
which is this Ohio vote.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
Look, the Republicans as a whole in this country are
no longer a majority party, and they know that they
no longer actually in most areas, seek to compete in
arena as. We're getting fifty percent of the vote is
enough to win. So if you think about their strategy
around the Electoral College or the Senate, it's all around
(18:10):
how do they win majority power with a minority of voters.
So it's it's no surprise that in Ohio, where Democrats
and Progressives put a pro choice ballot initiative on the ballot,
that the Republican reaction was to then try to change
(18:31):
the threshold for a ballot initiative passing from fifty percent
to sixty percent because they know they will lose in
a head to head on the choice issue where the
threshold is fifty percent.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
So let's talk for a minute about what's happening in Alabama,
because we have a Republican state party which is going
against the Supreme Court, the very conspervative Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Yeah, and by the way, under appreciate created in this
whole Alabama drama is the fact that the three judge
panel right the trial court, which is in this case
a three judge panel, is two judges appointed by Donald
Trump and one who was originally appointed by Ronald Reagan. Right,
So so it's really something. But Alabama is showing that
(19:22):
despite Chief Justice Roberts saying times have changed, you know.
That was his phrase in the Shelby County case. Apparently
times didn't change that much in Alabama.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Yeah, I mean, but I mean, is there any mechanism
to force them to make that district or now?
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (19:40):
So look what happened is for those folks who have
not been sort of following this blow by blow, Alabama
created its congressional district. It created one majority black district.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
It was sued.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
My law firm was among those who brought the litigation
under the Voting Rights Act, saying that there needs to
be two majority black district A three judge panel, as
I pointed out, two of whom two judges of whom
were appointed by former President Trump, agreed there needs to
be a second majority black district. Alabama went to the
US Brief Court thinking they'd get relief from it there.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
They didn't.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
The Supreme Court upheld that there needed to be two
majority black districts. So Alabama, when the case came back
down and it was now time for Alabama to draw
two majority black districts, what did it do. It drew
one majority black district. The second closest to a majority
was thirty nine percent. So that's where things stand right
now in court. The next step will be that the
(20:38):
trial court will hold a hearing on August fourteenth to
see whether a district that is thirty nine percent is
greater than fifty percent, which the court will find it isn't,
at which point I think it's pretty clear the trial
court will have its own special master draw district. It's
already made preparations for its own expert called the special Master,
(21:02):
but it's essentially a professor who knows how to use
mapping software. And so I think the way this drama
ends in Alabama is the legislature gets to say it
defied the court's order and the court winds up having
its own expert drawing you.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, and they've really had to twist Alabama's arm.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
Yeah, it's more than twist its arm. I mean.
Speaker 5 (21:23):
The thing about the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County,
when the Supreme Courts had times changed, is that one
of the things that Chief Justice said had changed is
that you no longer had these predominantly Southern states disobey
or violating court decrees. Well, that's what we've seen here, right.
(21:45):
It's Alabama was under a court order to draw a
to draw two majority black districts. And you know, as
I as I said, when they didn't, you know, that
wasn't an invitation, wasn't you know? They were in invited
to do it and they could either come to a
dinner party or not. They were ordered to do it,
And when you fail to comply with an order, that's
(22:06):
a serious thing.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
But that's where we are.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
States like Alabama don't want to comply with the Voting
Rights Act and are being forced to do so, which
looks a lot like times not having changed.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
You, right, and also just super upsetting as a person
who lives in democracy. So right now we are in
this run up to twenty four, we're seeing Republicans quietly
trying to sort of make it so their guy can win.
What are the things you're seeing that are really worrying?
Speaker 5 (22:38):
Yeah, So look, I think the way I describe it
is that Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote,
an easier to cheat. The harder to vote is the
voter supression liss.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Right.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
We've seen them in state after state enact laws that
target black voters, other minority voters, and young voters by
throwing barriers up that are disproportionately aimed at them, either
because they taught target urban areas that tend to have
more Democrats, or because they target college campuses which tend
to have young voters who tend to be Democrats. So
(23:10):
we continue to see that, and that has been a
steady drum beat now since everyone will remember in two
thousand and one when Georgia passed it's omnipus voter supression
law in the Major League Baseball moved it's All.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Star game in Texas. It's right all that.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
But the second part, though, I think molly, is the
part that I think people don't pay enough attention to,
which is that Republicans are trying to make it easier
to cheat. And what do I mean by that all
of these elections of version methods that they are engaged in.
What Donald Trump did in twenty twenty was he tried
to cheat, right at the end of it all, he
tried to cheat. And when you have fake electors, that's
(23:49):
just trying to cheat. And when you see election officials
at the local level, their office is being infiltrated by
these election deniers who are stealing data or otherwise in
gauge in those kinds of behaviors. They're just cheating. So
I think we need to be prepared not just for
voter suppression, but for this kind of election subversion that
(24:10):
unfortunately has become quite normalized in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yeah, it does seem to me like that A lot
of the Trump defense now with these fake electors is
you know, there's sort of almost like is democracy really
so great anyway?
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Yeah, I mean I think you see, you know, particularly
among the apologists for Trump in the legal profession, I mean,
you know, it's it is no surprise that when you
look at the the Trump indictment in BC, that at
least five and potentially six or six of the co conspirators,
the unindicted co conspirators were lawyers, and those lawyers and
(24:54):
others on the outside are pretty much saying, you know,
maybe this whole free and fair election thing isn't all
it's cracked up to me.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Right, that's in itself pretty shocking.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
It is shocking.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
It is unfortunate in so many respects, but it is
extremely dangerous for the future of our country, right, I mean, fundamentally,
if one of the two parties in a two party
system and one of the problems. People point to other
countries and say that there have been right wing parties
(25:28):
La penn in France or or you know whoever. But
those are multi party systems, so you know, those systems
can correct hopefully over time. But in a two party system,
when one of the two parties is essentially no longer
committed to democracy and you know, majoritarian rule, it's extremely
(25:50):
dangerous because how do you have how do you have
elections where inevitably Republicans are going to win sometimes where
the consequence of that may be these extremely anti democratic results.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, that is so incredibly I mean, it just seems
like there's no way. I mean, right now we've sort
of relied on Democrats winning elections. But if God forbid
that doesn't happen. I mean, I think a lot about
those midterms because you know, I thought, if Carrie Lake
(26:28):
ends up being governor of Arizona, we will never have
another free and fair election in Arizona. You know, those
points will not go to whoever wins, They'll go to
the Republican.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
I mean, one of the things that people may or
may not know is, you know, in this country, in
order to take office, whether it's president, or Senate or House,
or governor or whatever, you need to be certified the winner,
and in most states the governor is integral to that.
For presidential the governor is integral to it in every state. Right,
(27:02):
these certificates that get sent to the National Archive and
get sent ultimately to the powders to be counted have
to be signed by the governor of the state. To
take a Senate seat has to be signed by the
governor and counter signed by the Secretary State. So I
think it is a real I think it was a
real risk with a carry lake, and a real risk
in the future that if you get an election deni
(27:24):
er in office, they simply will refuse to sign the
certification necessary for a Democrat to take an office.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Right, and you could see a place where Republicans then decide,
this is how we're going to do it. Now, you
were talking about Republicans cheating, what are the ways in
which they're cheating.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
So, look, I think that they are cheating in a
couple of ways. First is, I would argue that the
shenanigans we've seen in Ohio of raising the threshold from
fifty percent to sixty percent or trying to do that
is in itself a form of cheating, right, It is
moving at election threshold in a way that is fundamentally
(28:06):
anti demotic. I think the more conventional sense of cheating
that people have are what the Republicans are doing around
the takeover of local election offices. This periodically jumps up
on the national radar screen, but because it's so diffuse,
because it's all localized at the county or subcounty level,
it oftentimes gets overlooked. But you know, we have whole
(28:29):
counties in America now that are administered by election and
we saw in the midterms as smoothly as they went otherwise.
You know, we my firm had to sue Coache's County
Arizona because Coache's carrier and Arizona was not going to
accurately count and certify election results. We had to sue
a county in Pennsylvania because it was refusing to certify
(28:51):
accurate election results. Those kinds of activities at the local
level are a form of cheat. And of course, you know,
I just have to add real quickly, there as an
article in pro Publica about the mass voter challenges that
we see Republicans engaged in states like Georgia, and that also,
I would argue as a former chief.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Yeah, I will say, what are you looking at now
as we are in this run up?
Speaker 5 (29:16):
We are looking at the states that in twenty twenty
three seem to be being targeted by Republicans for new
voter suppression laws.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
So in Idaho we saw a.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Law that targets only college students, I mean literally only
targets college students. In Ohio we saw a law of
the targets college students, but other groups as well that
tend to vote more democratic. We've seen Montana pass some
anti voting laws. North Carolina looks prepared to potentially pass.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
New voter suppresson law.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
So number one, we're kind of always looking out for that,
But number two, we're trying to We're looking at the
role of Trump supporting AGA extremists in the administration of
elections because our system of elections relies on large numbers
of local election officials and volunteers, and they have been
(30:10):
under attack for years now, and that system of local
election administration has been weakened, and so we are looking
at what we can do in a variety of ways,
including in court, to try to bolster local election administration
to make sure we have free and fair elections next year.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Yeah, it really is the only game in ten right,
free and fair elections. Mark, I want to ask you,
do you think that in twenty four that these litigations
are going to be sort of a regular thing.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
I look, there was more there were more cases filed
in twenty twenty two than there were in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Think about that, and I think that that will be
true in twenty twenty four. Both because Republicans every time
the demography of the country turns further and further against them,
they have to go to more and more extreme measures
to figure out how to win elections without a majority
(31:13):
of the vote. So that requires them to engage in
more and more extreme tactics. The other thing, though, Molly,
is we have to acknowledge is that Donald Trump faces prison.
I watch some of the things he says on TV
and his lawyers say on TV, and they think it's
some political thing. Donald Trump has been indicted in two
(31:35):
federal cases that if he's convicted in either of them
would normally and I think this instance would would carry
a term of incarceration. And Donald Trump is a self
preservationist above all else. So if he was willing to
go to extreme measures in twenty twenty, just imagine what
(31:55):
he'll be willing to do in twenty twenty four when
he thinks that the only way he of avoids that
is by winning the White House in pardoning.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Well, and also we've seen the very few we've seen
Republican senators who aren't even running for president going all
in on I mean, Jade Vance tweeting about how you
know these cases against Trump are cases against the First Amendment?
Speaker 6 (32:19):
There is almost no one saying left in that part.
I play this game with folks sometimes. Think of the
most moderate republic the most pro democracy Republican you can
in the Congress. That person voted against the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. That person voted against the
Freedom to Vote Right. For all of the talk about
(32:41):
Republican moderates, where are they, I mean, on democracy, they
don't exist. There are a handful of Republicans in the
House who have f ratings with the NRA. There are
none of them, zero who voted for any of the
pro voter bills, including the Voting Rights Restoration Law or
the Freedom to vote.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah, unbelievable. Thank you, Mark.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
I hope he'll come back anytime. I loved him. No
moment o.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Jesse Cannon, I drunk fast.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Donald Trump had a little afternoon rally this afternoon, and
who the crazy was more crazy than usual?
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I feel like, I mean.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
I just think that with Donald Trump, we constantly see
him doing this same stick and he's doing it now.
He did it on Hillary Quintin. He continually does it
for whoever he's in competition with, and now he is
turned his sights to Fanny Wellis. During this speech, he
(33:42):
said a lot of lies about Fanny Wellis and they
were gross and they were racist, and they were disgusting.
And that is who Donald Trump is, and that is
who he has always been. And for that little vignette
is our moment of Fuckery's for this episode of Fast Politics.
(34:02):
Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the
best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
for listening.
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 Mitch McConnell says impeachment ought to
be rare and that it's not good for the country.
I wonder what else is not good for the country.
We have such a great show for you today, Democracy Dockets.
(00:20):
Mark Elias joins us to talk about the latest voting
rights issues, including Ohio's Issue one. But first we have
the one and only Mary Trump Shows.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Mary Trump.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Mary Trump, Thanks.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Billy, How are you? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
I mean, I'm actually in Europe right now and I'm
coming home tomorrow and I've been We've.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Been on quote unquote vacation.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But so because it was on vacation, I was at
a television studio doing a television hit because that's what
one does on vacation.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And producer was like, the.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Host goes like, well, I mean, this is history, this
is historic, and I was like, it's happened three other times.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
This always happening.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, I We're all a little bit iner to this
at this point, I think, And that's.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
A problem, right, And I'm talking about the new federal
indictment for Donald Trump, the one where we finally get
to see he's in trouble for doing all the stuff
we saw around the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yes, almost three years later. It's troubling for a couple
of reasons. And I'm with you in the sense that
every time something like this steppens, I feel less. I
felt nothing about this indictment except okay, this could have
happened a year and a half ago.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, you know.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
I didn't feel that it was anything to be happy about,
or solemn about or anything. So the problem there is
that it's just another way in which Donald manages expectations
in his favor. You see this with his all caps,
insane tweets. He says the most vile, vicious, violent things,
(02:20):
and people shrug and say, yeah, well, I mean, I
guess that's just what we would expect. If it were
anybody else, we would do something about it. But it's him,
so he keeps getting away with it, him pushing the envelope.
And by the same token, because this is the third indictment,
I now see people saying, well, this is so much
more serious than the other two.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Which is just false.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I mean, yes, it's incredibly serious, but you cannot tell
me that we know enough yet to say that the
stealing of national security doc classified national security documents is
a big deal. We don't know what he did anything
with them, if he did anything with them, if he
(03:05):
implicated anybody because he stole them and potentially showed them.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
To our enemies or what have you.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
And I'm also really tired of people referring to the
New York case as.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
You know, hush money.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
It was an attempt at election fraud and potentially successful
attempt at election fraud. So you know, it's once again,
none of it's cumulative. It's like, oh, well, this terrible
thing happened and has been replaced by the next terrible
thing that happened and has been forgotten.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And yeah, and that's that's also one of his strategies.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
It's, you know, just flooding the zone, which is I
guess what Steve benn And has counseled him to.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Do time and time again.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It's funny though, because it's like, so here, you are
trained psychologist and also niece of the defendant, do you
find like the thing I'm struck by with him is
that he is like, it's almost and it's funny because
it's like, I.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Come from a crazy kind of.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Family, not quite not quite as ethically so as you.
But do you feel like what you're seeing here is
a person who has been able to really run roughshow
through American democracy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Yeah, just as he's run roughshot over everybody.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Yeah, he's been allowed to his whole life. And that's
the problem here.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I don't give a shit about Donald anymore in the
sense that I haven't for a long time felt that
he was the problem. The problem is anybody who enables him.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Do I feel that he has deteriorated? Yeah, I do.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I think that his impulse control is very compromised. But
we also have to remember that sometimes it is just strategy.
One of his negotiating strategy used to be to come
into a boardroom when a deal was about to be
signed and actually throw a temper tantrum until the other side,
(05:10):
which was pressed by time constraints, agreed to a deal
that was less in their favor than the original deal
he'd agree to. You know, so a lot of what
he's doing is just throwing temper tantrums. Okay, that's what
he does. Is it strategic or is it simply because
he's decompensating. I don't care. What I care about is
(05:33):
a legal system that allows him to endanger the lives
of potential jurors, prosecutors, judges, and their families. What the
fuck is happening?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Like?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Why is he allowed to engage in the kind of
rhetoric that gets people killed?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
It seems like to me he is both diminished and inevitable.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
No, I love that. I mean, I hate it.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
But it's brilliant, right, I mean, that's the thing I'm
struck by. It's like he doesn't have the same power
he used to. You know, it used to be he
would tweet about you and you would get one hundred
death threats, right, you'd have people going into hiding. I mean,
I don't And again I'm not saying that that that,
you know, what he does do now is somehow better.
(06:17):
It's just that he doesn't have the same kind of army,
largely because a lot of those people went to jail
and they have actually been punished. But it's just interesting
to me because so you know, you saw that. I mean,
I'm sure you saw the video of him with this
second federal indictment. And it's just him and one other person. No,
(06:38):
you know, none of the kids, none of the pomp
you know, just this sort of seventy seven year old
man going in for his third indictment, and yet he
is crushing everyone else in the polls. And Republicans are
you know, you see Mitch McConnell, who is you know,
the man who made all his dreams come true, stole
three Supreme Court seats for him being booed and screamed that.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
He should retire.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Yeah, listen, this is this is the bed the Republican
Party has made for itself. And what I find fascinating,
and they deserve every all of it, for sure, Yes,
of course, exactly what I find fascinating is their lack
of ability to see beyond their own egos, their own narcissism,
(07:25):
and their own short term victories. And I think part
of that is because their goal is to destroy American
democracy now, because this may be their last attempt for
them to claim to cling to power, no matter how illegitimately.
But somebody like Dessantis, if he could get out of
his out of his own way, I would have understood
(07:46):
that the thing to do is wait or preferably the
candidates not Donald, would have understood that this is their
opportunity to change course and attack him as the pathetic
loser he is, and not just as loser personally, but
(08:07):
a loser for the Republican Party, because otherwise they risk
losing everything. You know, if they were willing to attack
him in the way he deserves to be attacked by
his opponents in the primary, they won't win the presidency
in twenty twenty four, but it sets them up better
(08:27):
going forward, especially as there's no at the moment, no
lear successor to Biden, even though of course there should be,
but you know, racism and misogyny reign supreme in America.
That part's also just very weird to me that the reluctance,
because the base is the base, is what are they
going to do if Donald loses the primary or is
(08:51):
it running?
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Are they just going to stay home? I don't think so. Right.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
The thing that is such an interesting problem that Republicans
have now is they have this candidate who has lost
them every election since twenty sixteen, every single one including
twenty sixteen except for a technicality, right exactly, and they
are pretty sure they're going to be okay, which, look,
(09:18):
maybe they will be. The electoral colleges is a funny thing.
And it's funny because I think that the thing that
it's been just so disappointing about these Republicans, and look,
I mean, there are so many things to be disappointed
with this Republican party, but the thing that I've been
strupt by is just how stupid they are. Like, you know,
(09:40):
everybody gets behind If they had found a normal candidate
and gotten everyone behind him like Democrats did in twenty twenty, right,
I mean they there was a moment where it became
clear that everyone was going to have to figure out
who the most electable candidate was and get behind them.
And all of a sudden, even though a lot of
(10:00):
people loved Elizabeth Warren and a lot of people loved
Mayor Pete and this and that, they just were like,
we just have to get behind the guy who can win.
And the calculus was that Joe Biden was the guy
who could win. And so Democrats fell in line because
they did not want to lose. And I don't think
of Democrats as such mercenaries, but these Republicans are mass.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Yeah, And as for twenty twenty, in Biden. I think
he was like my seventh choice in the primary. But
when it became clear right that he could win right well,
or that he was going to win the nomination for sure,
we fell in line, which you know, what's the expression,
Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. For the
(10:45):
first time perhaps that ever, we fell in line because
we understood what was at stake.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
And then I think it was.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
The combination of the two, because Joe Biden is a
decent human being who cares about American democracy. You know,
he may go about trying to save it in a
way that I don't necessarily think is the most effective way,
but he's been the best president of my lifetime.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Well, I'm in London right now. They keep raising the
interest rates in this country. They are completely screwed. I mean,
we are. You know, we have banks saying that they're
going to lower you know, they're going to raise the projections.
Now they're not seeing a recession, they're seeing a soft landing,
(11:25):
and that was unthinkable two years ago. I mean, they're
building chips, they're building trains. I mean, they're not Our
inflation is controlled. I mean, I'm sorry, but if a
Republican had done this, I would be fucking impressed too.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
I mean, it's unbelievable. It is unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
I do think that the Guide does not get a
ton of credit for any of that, and the polling
is still pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, I'm not going to pay attention to pulls quite yet,
although we always have to understand that the mainstream media
is not our friend and shockingly is not the friend
of democracy. Which it's weird because journalism needs a democracy
in order to strive. But I guess if the bottom
line is really the only thing you care about, you
don't really care about journalism either. But I think with
(12:11):
the Republicans, they continue to make the same calculus. Dat
don't need Trumpism so called, to scale because they're not
going after a majority. This is a policy free party
of grievance, racism, misogyny, and anti immigrant hatred and increasingly
LGBTQ plus hatred. They have no ideas beyond cutting taxes
(12:36):
for obscenely wealthy people and dictating people. So I think
they must on some level understand that it's too late
for them to become a party of policy, so they
have to much like Donald does, they have to double
down on the things that turns most people off but
(12:58):
keeps enough people in the game fighting for them that
if they can just cheat around the edges, it might
be enough. You know, those electoral College numbers in twenty
sixteen and twenty twenty are the things that should be
keeping all of us up at night, because Joe Biden
(13:18):
didn't win by eight million votes. He won by like
seventy seven thousand or forty four thousand or some horrifyingly
tiny number. So I think that's why we see we
see them making the kinds of moves they're making in Ohio,
for example, and making it more and more difficult for
ballot initiatives that would get people to the polls for
(13:42):
Democratic initiatives harder and harder. They're making Alabama just to
all the Supreme Court to take a flying leap because
they are not going to change their congressional map, denying
Democrats at least one or two seats. That's what they're
going to keep doing because they know that's their only chance.
(14:04):
So I don't know that it's stupidity as much as
it's cravenness. And I mean it's stupid, like I think
that you know, you look at people like Jared Kushner
or Rodsentis or Mike Penz. Narcissism in its extreme form
makes you stupid. Yeah, you know the fact that Mike
Pence thinks that he can win the presidency, the fact
that Radescanthus thought this was the time for him to run,
(14:27):
these are just bizarrely idiotic moves, right. But I think
the larger issue with the word dangerous one is they
have no principal core principles. They have no they don't
care about American democracy. They only care about their own power.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Yeah, exactly, And it is kind of It's a pretty
stark realization.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
So let me ask you.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I always feel like I hate to ask you this,
but I feel like you have an insight here.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Where does Cisco? What does he do? I think I
have an idea, but you tell me you think. I'm
very curious to see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
In the hearing, I thought it was a good sign
that the prosecution in DC flagged it for the judge
and that they made the decision to get a protective order.
I thought it was a good thing that the judge
denied Donald's team where they needed more time to respond
(15:25):
to I don't know. It's absurd denied his team's appeal
to have it delayed. So I'm very curious to see
what happens there, and then it's hopefully it's something serious
enough that it will put Donald in a situation position
of having to change his behavior.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
I don't think he can anymore.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Yeah, I think I think he'll continue to double down,
triple down, quadruple down on his egregious behaviors because at
some level he knows that's all he's got left. You know,
he's nothing else to offer. It's just grift and grievance
and this pretense that somehow he's saving everybody else from
(16:11):
being pursued by the DOJ. I personally don't worry about
that because I haven't betrayed my country and I haven't
stolen classified. Maybe maybe his base has done things that
we're not aware, but you know, he's really the only
person who's whose future and freedom are on the line here.
But he knows what's worked because he's always gotten away
(16:34):
with it, and it will be very interesting to see
it for the first time in over seven decades. This
person is told this much and no more, and if
you cross that line, we'll see you in jail, right,
or you know, we'll ask you to put up a
balie of hundreds of a mill I don't know what
her I don't know what the recourse is here, but
(16:54):
I think he's already setting up this this dichotomy here.
Either I get to say whatever I want because First Amendment,
or I'm going to get persecuted for exercising in my
first Amendment rate to free speech and then martyred. I
think that's what he's banking on, and I don't think
he would be wrong quite honestly, Mary.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Trump, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
You are the best.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
Thanks Will I.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I'm really happy to be here with you.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Mark Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket. Welcome to
Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Mark, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Delighted to have you so at First, I want to
talk to you about something that when this podcast airs,
will be decided, though it seems like it's happening right now,
which is this Ohio vote.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
Look, the Republicans as a whole in this country are
no longer a majority party, and they know that they
no longer actually in most areas, seek to compete in
arena as. We're getting fifty percent of the vote is
enough to win. So if you think about their strategy
around the Electoral College or the Senate, it's all around
(18:10):
how do they win majority power with a minority of voters.
So it's it's no surprise that in Ohio, where Democrats
and Progressives put a pro choice ballot initiative on the ballot,
that the Republican reaction was to then try to change
(18:31):
the threshold for a ballot initiative passing from fifty percent
to sixty percent because they know they will lose in
a head to head on the choice issue where the
threshold is fifty percent.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
So let's talk for a minute about what's happening in Alabama,
because we have a Republican state party which is going
against the Supreme Court, the very conspervative Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Yeah, and by the way, under appreciate created in this
whole Alabama drama is the fact that the three judge
panel right the trial court, which is in this case
a three judge panel, is two judges appointed by Donald
Trump and one who was originally appointed by Ronald Reagan. Right,
So so it's really something. But Alabama is showing that
(19:22):
despite Chief Justice Roberts saying times have changed, you know.
That was his phrase in the Shelby County case. Apparently
times didn't change that much in Alabama.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Yeah, I mean, but I mean, is there any mechanism
to force them to make that district or now?
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (19:40):
So look what happened is for those folks who have
not been sort of following this blow by blow, Alabama
created its congressional district. It created one majority black district.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
It was sued.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
My law firm was among those who brought the litigation
under the Voting Rights Act, saying that there needs to
be two majority black district A three judge panel, as
I pointed out, two of whom two judges of whom
were appointed by former President Trump, agreed there needs to
be a second majority black district. Alabama went to the
US Brief Court thinking they'd get relief from it there.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
They didn't.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
The Supreme Court upheld that there needed to be two
majority black districts. So Alabama, when the case came back
down and it was now time for Alabama to draw
two majority black districts, what did it do. It drew
one majority black district. The second closest to a majority
was thirty nine percent. So that's where things stand right
now in court. The next step will be that the
(20:38):
trial court will hold a hearing on August fourteenth to
see whether a district that is thirty nine percent is
greater than fifty percent, which the court will find it isn't,
at which point I think it's pretty clear the trial
court will have its own special master draw district. It's
already made preparations for its own expert called the special Master,
(21:02):
but it's essentially a professor who knows how to use
mapping software. And so I think the way this drama
ends in Alabama is the legislature gets to say it
defied the court's order and the court winds up having
its own expert drawing you.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, and they've really had to twist Alabama's arm.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
Yeah, it's more than twist its arm. I mean.
Speaker 5 (21:23):
The thing about the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County,
when the Supreme Courts had times changed, is that one
of the things that Chief Justice said had changed is
that you no longer had these predominantly Southern states disobey
or violating court decrees. Well, that's what we've seen here, right.
(21:45):
It's Alabama was under a court order to draw a
to draw two majority black districts. And you know, as
I as I said, when they didn't, you know, that
wasn't an invitation, wasn't you know? They were in invited
to do it and they could either come to a
dinner party or not. They were ordered to do it,
And when you fail to comply with an order, that's
(22:06):
a serious thing.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
But that's where we are.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
States like Alabama don't want to comply with the Voting
Rights Act and are being forced to do so, which
looks a lot like times not having changed.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
You, right, and also just super upsetting as a person
who lives in democracy. So right now we are in
this run up to twenty four, we're seeing Republicans quietly
trying to sort of make it so their guy can win.
What are the things you're seeing that are really worrying?
Speaker 5 (22:38):
Yeah, So look, I think the way I describe it
is that Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote,
an easier to cheat. The harder to vote is the
voter supression liss.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Right.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
We've seen them in state after state enact laws that
target black voters, other minority voters, and young voters by
throwing barriers up that are disproportionately aimed at them, either
because they taught target urban areas that tend to have
more Democrats, or because they target college campuses which tend
to have young voters who tend to be Democrats. So
(23:10):
we continue to see that, and that has been a
steady drum beat now since everyone will remember in two
thousand and one when Georgia passed it's omnipus voter supression
law in the Major League Baseball moved it's All.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Star game in Texas. It's right all that.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
But the second part, though, I think molly, is the
part that I think people don't pay enough attention to,
which is that Republicans are trying to make it easier
to cheat. And what do I mean by that all
of these elections of version methods that they are engaged in.
What Donald Trump did in twenty twenty was he tried
to cheat, right at the end of it all, he
tried to cheat. And when you have fake electors, that's
(23:49):
just trying to cheat. And when you see election officials
at the local level, their office is being infiltrated by
these election deniers who are stealing data or otherwise in
gauge in those kinds of behaviors. They're just cheating. So
I think we need to be prepared not just for
voter suppression, but for this kind of election subversion that
(24:10):
unfortunately has become quite normalized in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yeah, it does seem to me like that A lot
of the Trump defense now with these fake electors is
you know, there's sort of almost like is democracy really
so great anyway?
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Yeah, I mean I think you see, you know, particularly
among the apologists for Trump in the legal profession, I mean,
you know, it's it is no surprise that when you
look at the the Trump indictment in BC, that at
least five and potentially six or six of the co conspirators,
the unindicted co conspirators were lawyers, and those lawyers and
(24:54):
others on the outside are pretty much saying, you know,
maybe this whole free and fair election thing isn't all
it's cracked up to me.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Right, that's in itself pretty shocking.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
It is shocking.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
It is unfortunate in so many respects, but it is
extremely dangerous for the future of our country, right, I mean, fundamentally,
if one of the two parties in a two party
system and one of the problems. People point to other
countries and say that there have been right wing parties
(25:28):
La penn in France or or you know whoever. But
those are multi party systems, so you know, those systems
can correct hopefully over time. But in a two party system,
when one of the two parties is essentially no longer
committed to democracy and you know, majoritarian rule, it's extremely
(25:50):
dangerous because how do you have how do you have
elections where inevitably Republicans are going to win sometimes where
the consequence of that may be these extremely anti democratic results.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, that is so incredibly I mean, it just seems
like there's no way. I mean, right now we've sort
of relied on Democrats winning elections. But if God forbid
that doesn't happen. I mean, I think a lot about
those midterms because you know, I thought, if Carrie Lake
(26:28):
ends up being governor of Arizona, we will never have
another free and fair election in Arizona. You know, those
points will not go to whoever wins, They'll go to
the Republican.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
I mean, one of the things that people may or
may not know is, you know, in this country, in
order to take office, whether it's president, or Senate or House,
or governor or whatever, you need to be certified the winner,
and in most states the governor is integral to that.
For presidential the governor is integral to it in every state. Right,
(27:02):
these certificates that get sent to the National Archive and
get sent ultimately to the powders to be counted have
to be signed by the governor of the state. To
take a Senate seat has to be signed by the
governor and counter signed by the Secretary State. So I
think it is a real I think it was a
real risk with a carry lake, and a real risk
in the future that if you get an election deni
(27:24):
er in office, they simply will refuse to sign the
certification necessary for a Democrat to take an office.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Right, and you could see a place where Republicans then decide,
this is how we're going to do it. Now, you
were talking about Republicans cheating, what are the ways in
which they're cheating.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
So, look, I think that they are cheating in a
couple of ways. First is, I would argue that the
shenanigans we've seen in Ohio of raising the threshold from
fifty percent to sixty percent or trying to do that
is in itself a form of cheating, right, It is
moving at election threshold in a way that is fundamentally
(28:06):
anti demotic. I think the more conventional sense of cheating
that people have are what the Republicans are doing around
the takeover of local election offices. This periodically jumps up
on the national radar screen, but because it's so diffuse,
because it's all localized at the county or subcounty level,
it oftentimes gets overlooked. But you know, we have whole
(28:29):
counties in America now that are administered by election and
we saw in the midterms as smoothly as they went otherwise.
You know, we my firm had to sue Coache's County
Arizona because Coache's carrier and Arizona was not going to
accurately count and certify election results. We had to sue
a county in Pennsylvania because it was refusing to certify
(28:51):
accurate election results. Those kinds of activities at the local
level are a form of cheat. And of course, you know,
I just have to add real quickly, there as an
article in pro Publica about the mass voter challenges that
we see Republicans engaged in states like Georgia, and that also,
I would argue as a former chief.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Yeah, I will say, what are you looking at now
as we are in this run up?
Speaker 5 (29:16):
We are looking at the states that in twenty twenty
three seem to be being targeted by Republicans for new
voter suppression laws.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
So in Idaho we saw a.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Law that targets only college students, I mean literally only
targets college students. In Ohio we saw a law of
the targets college students, but other groups as well that
tend to vote more democratic. We've seen Montana pass some
anti voting laws. North Carolina looks prepared to potentially pass.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
New voter suppresson law.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
So number one, we're kind of always looking out for that,
But number two, we're trying to We're looking at the
role of Trump supporting AGA extremists in the administration of
elections because our system of elections relies on large numbers
of local election officials and volunteers, and they have been
(30:10):
under attack for years now, and that system of local
election administration has been weakened, and so we are looking
at what we can do in a variety of ways,
including in court, to try to bolster local election administration
to make sure we have free and fair elections next year.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Yeah, it really is the only game in ten right,
free and fair elections. Mark, I want to ask you,
do you think that in twenty four that these litigations
are going to be sort of a regular thing.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
I look, there was more there were more cases filed
in twenty twenty two than there were in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Think about that, and I think that that will be
true in twenty twenty four. Both because Republicans every time
the demography of the country turns further and further against them,
they have to go to more and more extreme measures
to figure out how to win elections without a majority
(31:13):
of the vote. So that requires them to engage in
more and more extreme tactics. The other thing, though, Molly,
is we have to acknowledge is that Donald Trump faces prison.
I watch some of the things he says on TV
and his lawyers say on TV, and they think it's
some political thing. Donald Trump has been indicted in two
(31:35):
federal cases that if he's convicted in either of them
would normally and I think this instance would would carry
a term of incarceration. And Donald Trump is a self
preservationist above all else. So if he was willing to
go to extreme measures in twenty twenty, just imagine what
(31:55):
he'll be willing to do in twenty twenty four when
he thinks that the only way he of avoids that
is by winning the White House in pardoning.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Well, and also we've seen the very few we've seen
Republican senators who aren't even running for president going all
in on I mean, Jade Vance tweeting about how you
know these cases against Trump are cases against the First Amendment?
Speaker 6 (32:19):
There is almost no one saying left in that part.
I play this game with folks sometimes. Think of the
most moderate republic the most pro democracy Republican you can
in the Congress. That person voted against the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. That person voted against the
Freedom to Vote Right. For all of the talk about
(32:41):
Republican moderates, where are they, I mean, on democracy, they
don't exist. There are a handful of Republicans in the
House who have f ratings with the NRA. There are
none of them, zero who voted for any of the
pro voter bills, including the Voting Rights Restoration Law or
the Freedom to vote.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah, unbelievable. Thank you, Mark.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
I hope he'll come back anytime. I loved him. No
moment o.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Jesse Cannon, I drunk fast.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Donald Trump had a little afternoon rally this afternoon, and
who the crazy was more crazy than usual?
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I feel like, I mean.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
I just think that with Donald Trump, we constantly see
him doing this same stick and he's doing it now.
He did it on Hillary Quintin. He continually does it
for whoever he's in competition with, and now he is
turned his sights to Fanny Wellis. During this speech, he
(33:42):
said a lot of lies about Fanny Wellis and they
were gross and they were racist, and they were disgusting.
And that is who Donald Trump is, and that is
who he has always been. And for that little vignette
is our moment of Fuckery's for this episode of Fast Politics.
(34:02):
Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the
best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.