B (2:09)

I know only sleeping three or four hours on the 14 hour flight home and then having it be first thing Wednesday morning was rough.

C (2:20)

Yeah, it's a hard way to go through life.

B (2:22)

I did sleep from 8 to 5:30 last night. Wednesday night so I'm hoping that I don't end up like you on the next day, that tomorrow's going to be the tough one. But it was a great, great trip. Thank you to everyone in Australia and New Zealand who came out. The shows were so fun.

C (2:40)

Thank you to our team who put the trip together and the people back here who held it all together while you were gone and put the podcast out.

B (2:47)

Seriously. And Sophie, our fearless tour manager, Adrian Reed Austin, who traveled with us and then everyone back here who, who held down the fort just did an incredible job. So we're really lucky on today's show. Now that we're back, we're gonna talk about Trump's board of Peace and his plans for war with Iran, his affordability event in Georgia where he again complained about having to talk about affordability. We'll also get into the messy Texas Senate primary and the dust up over Stephen Colbert's canceled interview with James Talarico. And what even the threat of pressure from the FCC might mean for talk shows heading into 2028. And finally, we bid farewell to one of my all time favorite Trump administration officials, DHS spokesperson Trish McLaughlin. Quick note before we start, just want to ask everyone to think about becoming a subscriber, becoming a friend of the pod subscriber. We have. I think we have a new Polar Coaster out this week. It's a subscriber only show that Dan Pfeiffer hosts. What's on Polar Coaster?

C (3:45)

People say it's the best show at Crooked puts out.

B (3:47)

It is.

C (3:48)

Most people are in my family, but it is true.

B (3:51)

It's an excellent show. I never miss it, except so far I haven't listened to it because it's only been out for 24 hours and I've been asleep for most of them. But it's excellent.

C (3:59)

I hear it's a great episode.

B (4:02)

Do you want to know about it? Do you want to talk about it?

C (4:03)

Yeah, I do.

B (4:04)

Go ahead.

C (4:06)

We were turning these organic plugs very organic because we're just doing off the cuff. We talked about a lot of things, John. But we dug into a shocking new poll that shows that the 2024 election was redone. Right. Kamala Harris, who beat Donald Trump by eight points. How's that sound to you?

B (4:24)

I guess it sounds pretty good.

C (4:26)

Well, we do not have time machines, so we cannot fix this problem. But it does tell us a lot about the political environment. And we're going into the midterms and some things Democrats should be thinking about as we try to retake the House and the Senate.

B (4:39)

So here's the thing. You're gonna wanna listen to Polar Coaster. You're gonna wanna listen to our new episode of Pod Save America that's now subscriber only, called OnlyFriends. Aptly. And we also have this growing number of substack newsletters that you can access as well. You're gonna get ad free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World offline, all your favorite crooked shows. All you have to do is subscribe to friendsofthepod.com friends and you'll get the confidence to know that you are supporting independent, pro democracy media. So what are you waiting for? Go subscribe. Friends of the Pod. All right, let's get to the news. FIFA Peace Prize winner Donald Trump has assembled what the Wall Street Journal says is the, quote, greatest amount of air power in the Middle east since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as the President inches closer to war with Iran, which would be the seventh military attack against another country in the last year. And what better place to make the case for war than at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, which on Thursday hosted the first real meeting of Donald Trump's Board of Peace, which is a kind of fake unit made up of corrupt oligarchs, tin pot dictators, human rights abusers and other global also rans who are deeply committed to Jared Kushner's vision of turning Gaza into the West Palm beach of the Middle East. Here's some of what the board's chair for life, Donald Trump, had to say at the event.

D (6:05)

Does everybody like the music?

C (6:07)

Yeah.

D (6:09)

These are the greatest world leaders. Almost everybody's accepted. And the ones that haven't will be. Some are playing a little cute. It doesn't work. You can't play cute with me. This building was built for peace and nobody knew what to name it. And then Marco named it after me. I had nothing to do with it. I swear I didn't. I swear I had no idea. They said there's a surprise coming. I didn't know that surprise. I thought they were going to give me a lot of money or something. Maybe cash. Can always use some extra cash. I want to thank Johnny and FIFA for all of the wonderful things they did and are doing. They gave me their first peace prize. They gave me a peace prize. I think they saw that I got screwed by Norway and they said, let's give them a peace prize. I mean, very good. Thank you, Johnny. I appreciate it.

B (6:55)

In case you didn't catch that they were swaying to Guns n Roses, November Rain Then the president threatened any invitee to the Board of Peace that has not accepted yet. I guess that includes the Pope, who has not accepted, you know, and then he just talked about the Peace Prize, the fake peace prize he got from FIFA, and the fake Institute of Peace that was fake naming for him that he was hoping for cash, but he took that instead.

C (7:24)

As he always is.

B (7:25)

As he always is. As he always is. Also good news, Dan Trump generously committed at this event to giving the board $10 billion of our tax dollars, which is both about $10 billion more than I'd like to pay and wildly unconstitutional. But maybe I'm missing something.

C (7:45)

Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous and embarrassing for everyone involved, particularly United States, that we felt the need to pull together an entirely fake thing so that Donald Trump could live out his model UN dreams for everyone to see. And you mention the Chairman for life, but I just want to dig in on that in case people miss this. The Board of Peace is not part of the US Government. This is a separate organization. Donald Trump is the Chairman for life. It's in the charter that he stays

B (8:13)

whatever years he may have left up

C (8:16)

until he resigns or passes on to the next life, to the great model you had in the sky. And so this $10 billion, which if the United States were to give it, I presume Congress would have to send it to, they'd have to authorize this. Presuming we still believe in the power of the purse.

B (8:33)

I'm not entirely sure that is what the Constitution says. If we still abide by that, I

C (8:39)

would assume that to be the case. But either way, Donald Trump will control that money. So the next Democratic, the next president is a Democrat, let's say, God willing, that person is not in charge of the Board of Peace. That person has no say over the $10 billion we just gave Trump to control. The most the next president can do is appoint the U.S. representative to the Board of Peace who has equal footing with the representative. Whatever dictator is also on the port at that point, it is a. Could not be more ridiculous, embarrassing, and corrupt.

B (9:08)

Just remember that they completely dismantled usaid and now thousands, if not millions of people around the world, many of them children, will die, starvation and disease. Easily preventable because we apparently didn't have enough money for the small amount we pay in foreign aid. But $10 billion is going to the Board of Peace that is ostensibly going to rebuild Gaza, but no actual plans for that, and there's no kind of oversight that can help us check whether that actually happens or not.

C (9:40)

And the entire Gaza plan that Jared Kushner did a PowerPoint on a few weeks ago or months ago, whenever that was, was basically just like, had only dealt with the building of buildings and not all of the very complicated political and governance questions that involve Gaza. And so there is no plan. This is just money that is going into a slush fund for Donald Trump, for whatever reason shocked that the Pope

B (10:04)

hasn't said yes yet, unfortunately.

C (10:07)

Time, John.

B (10:07)

Right. Unfortunately for for peace lovers everywhere, Trump only briefly touched on the war he may soon launch against Iran, noting only that we'll know the outcome of the ongoing talks with Tehran in the next 10 days or so. And if there's no deal, quote, bad things happen. He did get a question about this on the plane later in the day. Take a listen on Iran. Bad things will happen if Iran doesn't make it.

D (10:31)

Really bad things.

C (10:32)

What will?

A (10:33)

That.

D (10:33)

I'm not going to talk to you about that.

B (10:35)

Can you just let me know what

C (10:37)

is the goal if there is a US Military strike?

D (10:39)

Well, we're either make a deal or we're going to get a deal one way or the other.

B (10:42)

But with a military strike, is it

C (10:44)

to wipe out their nuclear power?

D (10:45)

I'm not going to talk to you about that. But we're either going to get a deal or it's going to be unfortunate

B (10:51)

for them

C (10:55)

to make a deal.

D (10:56)

I would think that would be enough time, 10, 15 days, pretty much maximum.

B (11:01)

Naturally, the President has been making a vigorous case for war to the American public and our representatives in Congress, right? Oh, no, that hasn't been happening at all, has it?

C (11:12)

No, there's been no discussion, no national debate, no congressional debate, no presentation of the specific threat threat that Iran poses the United States, no discussion of how this is in the US Interest to do this. What were to come next? Because in the discussion about this, in the run up involving the protests and when Trump's red line that he let Iran jump over repeatedly was that this would be unlike the strikes last year to try to take out the nuclear program. The this was to try to take

B (11:46)

out, we were told it was obliterated.

C (11:48)

Well, there's, there's dust remaining, if you remember. Dust.

B (11:51)

Right.

C (11:53)

And so trying to take it out because there's very little evidence that that actually happened because if it did, we'd probably be a different place right now. But that this would be a war or an attack for regime change in Iran, which has incredible consequences for the region for what happens if Iran becomes a failed state. Who takes over if they take out the current regime, are they going to try to make it a democracy? What role do US Ground troops play in this? Where is the international coalition? Maybe it's just the people who are on the board of peace will get involved in this. It's truly stunning that we could be, by the time you listen to this, at war with Iran. And there's been zero discussion with the American people about what that means or why we're doing it.

B (12:34)

I mean, the optimistic take here is that Trump frequently uses the threat of military action to sort of force concessions to force a deal. And that even when he does make good on those threats, like he did with the first strike on Iran's nuclear program or most recently in Venezuela with the capture of Maduro, the military action is relatively quick and limited. Unfortunately, I'm, I'm not high or jet lagged enough to be that optimistic. What do you think? I saw it right before we recorded in the Wall Street Journal that it's reported that they are thinking of an initial strike that might be more limited to sort of pave the way for a bigger deal. Kind of like a, just like a first course appetizer strike.

C (13:19)

That seems to me a scam by the people who've been trying to go to war with Iran for decades to get Trump to start this process, because I think he probably is skeptical of an Iraq like invasion of Iran. But if they could just start the hostilities, maybe they could get what they want. It seems incredibly poorly thought out. And this is not Venezuela, right? Maybe you could attack Iran, you can do some bombing and they will not respond as happened last year. But there are incredible consequences if the regime falls and Iran becomes a failed state. What could happen there? What happens to millions of Iranians who flee Iran as refugees? Where do they go? How does that change the world? It's just like this is one of those things that could have huge global implications for the world, for the region, for the United States, for the global economy. And there's no evidence that this has been thought about in any sophisticated way as possible and certainly no discussion with the public about it. So it is like, it's just, it's incredibly, it's insane that we could be on the precipice of war with Iran and it's not even being discussed. And honestly, Democrats are not being loud enough about this, I think, because we are getting very twisted around the axle of, around questions of national security and war and particularly national security of war when it involves Iran. And they're afraid of being on the wrong. They tend to look at this and say, what is the best case scenario for Trump action and how do we ensure we're not on the wrong side of that? We saw this with all of the caveats and the hemming and hawing around, the strikes last year, and I'm worried that that is happening again. It's just like some people are talking about it, but more people should be talking about it.

B (15:04)

And you know, I'm no expert on this, but.

C (15:07)

But we are friends with Tommy and Ben.

B (15:09)

We are friends, but I don't think that you're gonna change the regime with just like limited airstrikes alone without sending troops. And I don't think you'd be able to like, just send in a quick SEAL team like they did with Maduro here. So I don't know what their regime change plans are, but I don't think it's gonna be as neat as anyone might think or even as Trump might think. Also, Iran's like, it's a, it's a country of 93 million people. It is a huge, huge fucking country. And the idea that we are just like sending over there more forces and military buildup than we have at any time since Iraq, it is insane. It is insane that this is happening right now. And it's just like one of the many. And we're like, well, we'll see what he does. Ten to 15 days, he's going to make up his mind. That's what Trump said.

C (15:56)

And as you remember from the last time we struck Iran, he said he put a, remember, he put a delay of a few weeks on it. And then he said, I'm gonna decide in the next two weeks. Then he struck like two days later.

B (16:06)

I was gonna say that's how you always know it's about to happen. Positive America is brought to you by dose. While cholesterol is a major focus of modern health screenings, many are moving away from traditional treatments in favor of more natural solutions. Dose for cholesterol meets this demand by offering a gentle, plant and mineral based approach to heart health. Dose for cholesterol is a clinically backed way to keep your cholesterol in check, helping you manage everything from triglycerides, ldl, HDL and total cholesterol. Forget the messy powders and hard to swallow capsules. This is just a simple two ounce daily shot with a refreshing mango flavor. It's packed with plant forward ingredients like turmeric, CoQ10 and amla so you can support your body without any of the junk. Take control of your cholesterol with a formula designed to be easier on your system than standard clinical options. Dose for cholesterol gets delivered right to your door, making getting the support you need for your health easy to stick to. Plus, they have tons of other great products on their website, so check them out. Today, new Customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to DownDaily Co Crooked or entering crooked at checkout. That's D O S E D A I L Y co crooked for 35% off your first month subscription. Pod Save America is brought to you by Acorns. You know, when I first got out of college I was like, why would you put money away? Because you want the money, you don't want to put it away. What's going to happen then? You have to just wait. And then someone told me that that was pretty stupid because if you put some money away, just a little bit away every once in a while, you can make money on your money.

A (17:42)

Yeah, and as I was careening through life with undiagnosed adhd, I always thought tomorrow would have been the right day to do it. And there were so many tomorrows where you never did it. And it was hard to think about the future as a real time that would exist.

B (17:54)

So many of us only focus on where our money is today. Acorns is the financial wellness app that cares about where your money's going tomorrow. Acorns is a smart way to give your money a chance to grow. It's easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money. Even if all you've got a spare change, Acorns grows with you. Whether you're just starting out or thinking about settling down, Acorns supports your big and small goals across every life stage. The Acorns potential screen shows you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time. Plus, you can quickly adjust how much you're investing every day, week or month to make sure you're building towards your goals. Acorns is all in one. No more finance apps cluttering up your phone. With Acorns, you can invest, save and give your money a chance to grow in one trusted place. Sign up now and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all time customers who've already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com cricket or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to Positively promote Acorns Tier 2 comp compensation provided potential subject to various factors such as customers, accounts, age and investment settings does not include acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any ACORNS portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. View important disclosures@acorns.com cricket all right, so Trump spent the rest of Thursday in Georgia for a message event on his least favorite issue, but one that the White House and Republicans in Congress keep begging him to focus on affordability. Apparently Susie Wiles and her deputy James Blair convened a big White House strategy session on the midterms earlier in the week that included a bunch of Cabinet secretaries. I'm sure they were all helpful. According to journalist Mark Halpern, who got a readout from someone in the room, Blair quote, acknowledge that Donald Trump will do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, not be data driven. Everyone else has to stay on message and be driven by the data. In effect, two separate but related campaigns. End quote. Here's how the Trump part of the separate but related strategy sounded today during his visit to Marjorie Taylor Greene's former district in Georgia.

D (19:58)

And then I have to listen to the fake news talking about affordability. Affordability. You notice what word have you not heard over the last two weeks? Affordability. Because I've won. I've won affordability. I had to go out and talk about it.

B (20:17)

He won. He won affordability. He later said, we got things that are happening that are as good as what you've heard. I don't know if they can get better, to be honest. He does. He doesn't know if things it's not are you better off? It used to be are you better off than you were four years ago? Are you better off than you were last year? Now it's personally, I don't think things could possibly get any better. The way you are living right now is the best possible way you could live in this country.

C (20:46)

It is Hottest country in the world.

B (20:48)

Hottest country in the world. What do you think? Good midterm message. You think this is what they landed on in that midterm strategy session?

C (20:55)

So a lot of thoughts on this one. When Trump says you haven't heard the word affordability in weeks a he's not talking to voters because he would hear it if he talked to them. But it's also because everyone's been talking about the massive cover up of his relationship with a child sex trafficker. So what I posit to you, John, is What if the Epstein files were a distraction from inflation?

B (21:19)

Possibly. Possibly.

C (21:20)

I haven't thought about that. Had you?

B (21:21)

It's all a distraction, Dan. It's all a distraction.

C (21:24)

But the strategy is idiotic in doomed to fail for two reasons. The first reason is you cannot have the President of the United States, the person with the largest megaphone, and especially a president like Donald Trump, who gets more attention than any president in history, saying something that is not on the talking points, and then think the campaign's gonna work because Scott Bessett is using the talking points at a press event in Iowa. One, it cannot work.

B (21:50)

You gotta have your best soybean farmers out there.

C (21:52)

Well, I mean, he has a personal connection to soybean farmers, but that in and of itself will not be enough to deal with the fact that Trump is out there saying, inflation is solved, prices are down. What you were seeing in your bank account, in your grocery receipts is wrong. Everything is perfect. Oh, and by the way, The Dow's at 50,000 and something you and I know from our time, working for a president during a tough economy is literally nothing makes voters angrier than using the stock market to tell them that the economy is going great. It'll cause them to flip over the table in a focus group. It makes them so mad, like it is a message designed to lose. And the second problem is their talking points are a strategy that you may remember from the Biden White House's strategy for selling the economy really succeeding, which is focus on your accomplishments, focus on what you've done. In the reporting on that from Sophia Kai from Politico, she talks about how the big thing they're all supposed to emphasize is their efforts to lower prescription drug costs, which is literally the exact same thing the Biden White House tried to do. And it's a good accomplishment, especially for the Biden folks, because that was a bigger deal. But at the end of the day, that is not. You can't tell people who are mad about high prices that you lowered their prices. That does not work. You have to make an argument about how you are going to do a better job of lowering their prices going forward, and the other side is going to raise them. And they can't have that argument because Donald Trump will not let them have that argument because it implies that they have failed to lower prices. So they have to exist within the reality that he has created, and that is a reality that voters do not see and sounds delusional to them.

B (23:29)

Yeah, you didn't hear much in the speech today about how he's planning on lowering prices or doing anything to cut costs in the coming months at all. Nothing. Nothing about that. Just.

C (23:41)

No, he spent his. Like, just think about the context for this is this is happening on a day where he pledged $10 billion to a personal slush fund that's substantially going to Gaza for Jared Kushner to develop condos there. He is.

B (23:56)

He's talking about a war starting a

C (23:58)

war in the Middle East. It is the exact opposite. And one of the things that this wasn't really in this meeting, but that the Trump folks have sort of acknowledged on background reporters, is in the first year, they spent too much time doing foreign policy stuff. And so that's why they have cut the press out of all their foreign leader meetings, because those always were dominant. But on the day of the big affordability event, he's doing his foreign policy slush fund event and threatening a war. Fucking, we have the dumbest people running this country right now.

B (24:33)

He also is his whole thing on tariffs. He talked about tariffs a lot during the speech. He's really tied himself to the tariffs in a way that has surprised even me. So he spent a ton of time in the speech just, like, bitching about how the Supreme Court has not handed down a ruling on his tariffs yet.

C (24:53)

And they might do it tomorrow.

B (24:54)

And they may do it tomorrow. Yeah. But by the. You might be listening to this.

C (24:57)

The terrorists might be gone by the

B (24:58)

time we're recording this Thursday afternoon, as most of you know, until you're probably listening to it Friday. So he's yelling about the Supreme Court not. And he's saying tariffs are the most important thing in the world. At one point, he says everyone in the country would be bankrupt without these tariffs. Now, he has walked back a good chunk of the tariffs at this point already, in part, I presume, because all of his political advisors and economic advisors are like, hey, these tariffs are fucking killing us. They're probably hurting your polls. They're one of his least popular issues, along with immigration and the cost of living. And they are just a tax on a bunch of goods that just people are just paying. I think there was just a report that it's about $1,000 a family that people are paying because of the tariffs. And yet even if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional and lets him off the hook, he's just gonna double down and try to just put them back on through some other method and then say that they're still important. Like, it's just wild. You gotta hand it to the guy. He genuinely believes in the tariffs. Genuinely believes in the tariffs.

C (26:01)

Because he's an idiot. But you're exactly right. Our friends at Navigator Research often do these word clouds where they ask people about either negative information they've heard about Trump or, or reasons why you disapprove or whatever else. And tariffs is always a giant thing in the middle. And he talks about tariffs more than. Tariffs are actually in place now.

B (26:20)

Yeah.

C (26:21)

And so he. What he's done is just really impressive, which he is. He has made his tariffs the reason for all high prices in people's minds.

B (26:28)

Yeah, yeah. Which is really impressive.

C (26:31)

Even American made goods, people have their higher prices. People think it's because the tariffs. Because he keeps saying tariff. Tariff. Tariff is my favorite word. He says it all the time. It's just really, I have to say, it's honestly impressively stupid.

B (26:47)

So just to. We're having too much fun here, too optimistic. So just to rain on our parade a little bit. One thing I noticed while we were gone last week is that the most recent economic data has been better than expected. Job growth in January was twice as high as expected. The inflation reading was better. Inflation slowed down a bit. We're not seeing any evidence yet that voters are feeling any differently about the cost of living than they have been. But what do you think about the recent economic news and what do you think Democrats should be planning for?

C (27:19)

There's not much you can plan here for. And the economic news has been a little bit all over the map. You sort of get a good jobs number and then you get a bad jobs number and then some revision, downward revisions of the previous number. So it's hard to say what is the actually happening. And inflation is down a little bit, but we still have inflation. And that is the problem for Trump. And the ultimate problem is he cannot look. If the economy gets better on the margins, it probably helps them. But the fundamental problem is Donald Trump didn't promise to slow inflation, which is what what this report indicated. What Donald Trump promised to do was to lower your prices, which he has not done, cannot do, and actually made worse with his tariffs. And so there is not a world unless we hit a deflationary cycle, which would be quite bad for the economy unless the economy goes into recession and we have a collapse. But voters are not going to see lower prices for food, housing, goods. They may just see a slower rate of increase. And that's not something I expect Republicans to be rewarded for come November.

B (28:25)

Yeah, I think Trump making things worse is the key there because, you know, there's a debate like, oh, when the economy's bad, does the president get too much blame more than the president deserves? When the economy is good, does the president get more credit than the president deserves? Like, how much is just the president presiding over the economy? How much does that really matter? You know, and this is a different situation where the guy literally gave a trillion dollar tax cut to billionaires paid for by health care cuts that made your premiums increase and then put tariffs on all the shit that you buy which has made it more expensive. And that doesn't change. Right. Like, even if the economy slightly improves, like the fact that he made life more expensive so that rich people could get a break is just the facts of his first several years in office.

C (29:20)

And the thing that is different than with previous presidents is a majority of voters only a year into his term blame Trump for the current state of the economy.

B (29:30)

Normally voters, they should, because

C (29:35)

normally presidents get years when they inherited. Like Obama. People were still blaming Bush more than Obama for the state of the economy in 2012. They were running for reelection. They understood what happened. People believe, correctly, that Trump has made problems much, much worse through action in the tariffs, in inaction, because he's focused on so many things other than actual the economy and affordability. And that is the problem for him, which is why marginal improvements in the economy would not help him as much as they would help another president who was not being specifically blamed for things being bad.

B (30:06)

Well, I mean, like think of Obama's first couple years. We know that with the Affordable Care act, taxes were only increased on the wealthiest Americans and that through the Recovery act, everyone else got tax cuts, right?

C (30:21)

Yep.

B (30:22)

And still Obama shouldered the blame for the job loss that came from the Great Recession and just people's economic well being, which was not very good. Now imagine Obama had actually raised taxes on everyone and raise their health care costs all in the first two years as the economy was already bad. That's basically what you have with Donald Trump.

C (30:45)

Yeah.

B (30:46)

Relatedly, Axios had a story on Thursday about how Republican strategists are starting to get nervous about Democrats bigger than expected wins in special elections over the past few months. One anonymous Republican strategist said, quote, the pattern is clear that there is at least a current 10 point Democratic overperformance from Trump 2024. And it's built on a fired up Democratic base and a sleepy Republican base. A 10 point Democratic overperformance. Are you as bullish as that Republican is nervous?

C (31:15)

Yeah, I'm a pretty superstitious guy. John, you got a long way to the election. I know I'm not cocky about this in any way, shape or form, but. And I do believe that that gap is going to narrow. Some Republicans will. Democrats are going to stay fired up. I'm very confident about that. Republicans will get more fired up as we get close to the election. This happens every cycle and if we're being sort of brutally honest about it, Democrats had a 13 point over performance in 2025. It's been 10% here. Some of that has to do with the races that have happened in the short period of time this year. But it's obviously going to narrow. And just to put that in perspective, the final Democratic popular vote margin in the 2018 House races was 8.6% and we picked up 41 seats in that one. Now, the map is different. There's not really. You're not. Democrats are not picking up 41 seats at an 8.6% popular vote margin. But you know, at 10 points, certainly the House is very much in good hands and the Senate is in play. The things that are keeping the Republican base deflated aren't really going to change a ton. Like, I think their core voters are going to turn out more just because it's an actual midterm, not a special. And our voters are more trained to turn out specials. But the base is divided. There is in polling 15% of Trump voters who regret or have concerns about their vote in 2024. You have in the races we've had before 7 to 10% of Trump voters coming over to vote for Democrats. There are a fifth to a quarter of Trump voters who are unhappy with what ICE is doing. You have large swatson Trump voters who are unhappy with the Trump's on the economy. And so those sort of structural problems are not going to change in a dramatic way in the next nine months, I wouldn't imagine.

B (33:03)

Yeah. What I keep looking at is Trump's approval rating in Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, which are, you know, we'd need two of those four states to take back the Senate. Because I think that like If Trump's under 50 in those states, Republican candidate in this polarized era, probably not going to get much higher than Trump's approval rating in those states. And so, you know, if Trump's sitting at 48 or 49 even in Iowa, in Texas and Ohio, like, I think those candidates, especially like Sherrod Brown in Ohio, I think they have a pretty good, good chance. But I don't know, what do you think that they do?

C (33:46)

They just have to, it has to be a candidate who can win over Trump voters because there will be people who are unhappy with Trump but think the Democrat is too far to the left or whatever else and so right, like the environment is. I would put it this way, the environment is suggestive of a path to Democratic victory. If Trump's under 50, it's going to depend on how the campaign is waged and also who the Republican candidate is as well.

D (34:14)

Foreign.

A (34:19)

Is brought to you by Willie's Remedy John I love Willie's Remedy.

B (34:23)

You know when I we go back and forth in these ads and I made sure that you were going to do Willie's Remedy because you're so honestly excited about it.

A (34:30)

I genuinely like look edibles or you know, weed. You can be, you can have too much. And like honestly for a while, especially in the pandemic, I was like, it was like I was not enjoying it at all and I kind of put it all aside and now I kind of do it once in a while but it kind of lost its luster to me. But like Willy's THC infused social Tonic, I tried it. I genuinely love gives you a social uplifting buzz without breaking your goals. It's perfect for socializing, boosting creativity or just taking the edge off after a long day. I have found that it's a premium THC infused social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson. And I wouldn't say what I was actually thinking when I tried it is like Willie Nelson genius. How'd he do it? How did Willie Nelson, who's been famously associated with thc, was he also was he learning about the chemistry as he was doing it?

B (35:20)

Boy are we lucky.

A (35:21)

It's a low calorie, low sugar alcohol alternative that actually works, delivering a fast acting euphoric social buzz without the regrets that come with alcohol. Willy social tonics come in 5mg and 10mg doses with a best in class flavor experience. So smooth and balanced you barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. That's true. You can enjoy the tonic as a shot sipped over ice cream or mix into your favorite mocktail. I'll also just say it's in an alcohol like bottle and it tastes good but it also doesn't taste like you want to drink too much of it. It's like it's like made in a really smart way. Like you taste, you're like oh that's the right like it tastes like something you shouldn't have.

B (35:51)

Just guzzle the whole.

A (35:52)

You wouldn't ever but like I just have a little bit and I just genuinely really really like it. Willy's is not that feared edible you ate too much of in college. Exactly. Each bottle of Willy's is third party lab tested for accurate dosage so you can trust and customize your experience. Willy's unique blend of thc, cbd, CBG and L Theanine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, euphoria and one shot of Willy's helps you relax, unwind and de stress. Perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends, Willys offers the kind of feeling that makes good company even better. Willys sold out three times in the first six months. I just bought some. Just bought some.

B (36:22)

Wow.

A (36:23)

Because I want to have more when it runs out. With over 50,000 plus happy customers and they just restocked, Willy's ships directly to your doorstep in 40/states. Order now at drink willys.com and use code cricket for 20% off your first order plus free shipping on orders over $95. And enjoy life in the high country.

B (36:43)

Speaking of the midterms, one midterm race that's been getting a ton of national attention lately is the Texas Senate race, particularly the Democratic primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico, whose appearance on Stephen Colbert show this week caused quite a stir. In case you haven't followed the story, here's what happened on Monday. Colbert told his audience that, quote, we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers who called us directly that we could not have Talarico on the broadcast. Apparently, CBS's lawyers were concerned that having Talarico on might prompt legal action from the FCC based on new guidance that Chairman Brendan Carr issued in January about the commission's longstanding equal time rule, which requires broadcast television and radio shows to give candidates equal time if they have their opponent on as a guest. Now, there has always been an exemption, at least as far back, I believe, since 2006 for talk shows like Colbert's, daytime talk shows, late night talk shows. But in this guidance in January, Carr said that he was considering getting rid of that exemption, and sure enough, the FCC recently launched an enforcement action against ABC and the View for exactly that. The View had Talarico on without also having Jasmine Crockett on, or their primary opponent on, or Ken Paxton or John Cornyn. Colbert interviewed Talarico anyway, put the segment on YouTube and told his CBS audience what happened. CBS then put out a statement on Tuesday denying Colbert's version of events, saying the Late show was not, quote, prohibited from airing the interview, only quote, provided legal guidance. Here's how Colbert responded on his show on Tuesday night and the tough questions Carr got from Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Wednesday.

C (38:42)

Between the monologue I did last night

B (38:45)

and before I did the second act

C (38:47)

talking about this issue, I had to go backstage.

B (38:50)

I got called backstage to get more

C (38:52)

notes from these lawyers, something that had never ever happened before. And they told us the language they wanted me to use to describe that equal time exception.

B (39:03)

And I used that language.

C (39:05)

So I don't know what this is about. I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. I don't even know what to do with this crap. Hold on. Would you go have gone after them

A (39:27)

for violating the equal time rule, as Colbert said?

C (39:31)

What we've said, as we've been very clear, is that broadcasters have a unique right and privilege, a license. And one thing they have to do is comply with the equal time rules. But complying with equal time would have meant when has that been enforced?

A (39:43)

When's the last time that's been enforced?

B (39:47)

In case you're just listening, the audience cheered when Colbert decided to crumple up the statement from his company's own lawyers and put it in a dog poop bag. Dan, what do you make of all this?

C (40:01)

What's interesting is how the FCC got onto this because it's been a very, it's been a well established principle for a very long time that while news shows are exempt from equal time laws, like if you want to have to interview a candidate or put a president on that you're not then forced to give exact equal time to their opponent. And they then for a long time had exemptions for interview shows like the talk shows, the View, Colbert. The reason why Brendan Carr has taken this on is, and I had forgotten this I think because my brain was protecting me from trauma. But in 2024, Trump got very mad that Kamala Harris went on the View and he did not. So his campaign filed a complaint with the fcc. Biden had the Biden. The FCC chair was a Biden nominee. She obviously did not act on this. So Brendan Carr, in his never ending quest to appease Trump and be a hero of the maga, right, has decided to take on the View and now Colbert. And this really does have, I mean, it's ridiculous, it's absurd, it's pretty stupid. It has real implications just for how the 2028 campaign is going to be covered. Like no Democratic if this is the rule, no Democratic candidate will go, will be able to go on any broadcast talk show in that campaign because no talk show is going to agree to air to do equal interviews with all 27 Democratic candidates or whatever. Right.

B (41:22)

And by the way, Republican candidates. Yes, because I saw a lot of people be like, well, this is really about like a Republican Democratic thing. Because it was about. He needed to give equal time to Jasmine Crockett as well. Well, yes, on Crockett, but also Paxton and Cornyn and Wesley Hunt in the other side of the primary. Because if you look at the actual law, it just says all of the candidates running for that given office. So it's not just a like primary, it's a lot of candidates that you would have to have on.

C (41:52)

And the rule is so arbitrary and stupid its application that Jon Ossoff, who is running for reelection in Georgia, was on Colbert the next night, but he has not officially filed a statement of candidacy. So he's not officially a candidate yet. So therefore there is not. The CBS's attorneys, the Paramount attorneys, did not think it triggered the law. This is an idiotic. This is also so stupid because in this day and age, most of what happens in media is outside of the FCC's purview because the FCC is only in charge of what happens on the actual broadcast networks. Like we think of the View as a cable show, but it errs on ABC in a lot of markets. So therefore the FCC has regulation. But anything that happens on podcasts, YouTube shows, cable TV is outside of the purview of the FCC for these purposes.

B (42:44)

And by the way, Carr has been asked before whether he feels the same way about right wing talk radio and said that right wing talk radio is not a target of the equal time new guidance that he has issued.

C (42:56)

Yes, it was the changing, like all of right radio, all of right wing radio rose up because of a very specific change made by Ronald Reagan's FCC to allow there to be right wing radio and not enforce the equal time on radio stations.

B (43:12)

It is also just like my first instinct was, well, the people who screwed Colbert the most were his own lawyers because like, they should have just fought it. Because who knows if like Brendan Carr would have done anything anyway. Clearly he would have if he told Laura Ingram clearly he did or is doing is investigating the View for the exact same thing. So the lawyers did have good reason to believe that Carr would act. Now if they were lawyers at a company that wasn't hoping the administration wouldn't get involved in say, a purchase they wanted to make of, say, Warner Brothers Discovery, which they're still trying to buy at Paramount. Plus, then perhaps the lawyers would have said, fuck Brendan Carr, we'll fight this.

C (44:01)

Yeah, I mean, the. Like. We have no evidence, explicit evidence that the Paramount lawyers did this as part as an effort to curry favor with Trump. What we do know is the larger pattern in practice with Paramount and David Ellison, who runs Paramount, Skydance in particular, is to do things to win favor with Trump, to kiss up to him. And they're. There are numerous examples. There is the $16 million that Paramount paid to settle a ridiculous lawsuit around 60 minutes. There is the putting of Barry Weiss over at cbs. There is David Ellison telling Trump, reportedly, according to several reports, that if he were to get his hands on cnn, which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, which Paramount is trying to buy, he would make major changes there, with the implication being Trump would like those changes. And so when something is the entire relationship between Paramount, Ellison and the Trump administration is one that reeks of corruption. And therefore the burden of proof on whether this was done out of legal caution or out of a way to avoid pissing off Trump while you were trying. Well, one of the selling points, one of the selling points that Paramount is making to the Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders is that they, because of David Ellison and Larry Ellison, who's a big Trump donor and one of the richest men in the world, one of their close relationships with Trump and the Trump administration means they are more likely to get regulatory approval for the purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery than Netflix, which is run by people who have donated to Democrats in the past.

B (45:37)

And as for the dispute between Colbert and cbs, Paramount and the lawyers over what they actually said to Colbert, because they released a statement basically saying, no, we just gave guidance. We didn't tell him not to air it. Colbert did make the point that the lawyers, as they always do, read every single word of the script and approved it before he said it. And what he said that night was that they told him in no uncertain terms that he could not air the Talarico interview. So in case you're wondering if anyone's not telling the truth here or who's not telling the truth, so Colbert's interview with Telerico drew millions of views on YouTube. The whole thing backfired, as it did with Kimmel, as it always does, millions of views on YouTube. It also helped James Talarico quite a bit. Netted his campaign over $2 million of fundraising in 24 hours. Understandably, Jasmine Crockett isn't thrilled about any of this. Though Colbert did note on Tuesday that she has been a guest on the Late show twice. I think the last time was like May of 2025. I looked so not since the race has heated up, but she has been on twice. This has been and is getting to be more of a very messy and negative primary between Telorico and Crockett. The press conference where Crockett responded to the Colbert thing sounded mostly like this.

C (46:52)

You know, we've all seen the attack ads that have come on behalf of my primary opponent. Supposedly wants to get rid of super PACs, yet doesn't have anything to say about the negative ads, the ads that are darkening my skin and this continual kind of if she wins, we lose. It's not even undertones right now. It is straight up racist.

B (47:11)

Early voting is now underway. The primary is March 3rd. Where do you think the race stands right now?

C (47:18)

The polls have been a little bit all over the map.

B (47:20)

There have been polls, not many of them.

C (47:21)

I feel like there have not been a ton of them. The most recent ones have had Crockett up a little bit on Telerco, but there have also been some polls showing Talarico up. A lot of the polls we've seen are either from groups affiliated with One of the two candidates, either their super PACs or their campaigns, or from less well known polling outlets. Like it's we're not getting like a new. We have not yet got like a New York Times Sienna poll or a Wall Street Journal poll or something or CNN poll, kind of. The polls that we can judge, they're likely from local Texas polls. So it's hard to say. Early voting is through the roof. Over the first couple days of early voting, it's. There have been twice as many votes cast as there were over the same period in 2022, and a quarter of all the early votes cast in 2022 have been cast in the first few days of early voting. It seems to be up everywhere. It does also seem to be up particularly high in parts of Jasmine Crockett's district, which may be a positive sign for her, but hard to say in this early stage. So it's anyone's guess who's going to win this primary. There's not enough to tell us how it exactly stands.

B (48:26)

What do you think about how contentious it's gotten as a race?

C (48:29)

It makes my stomach hurt. It really makes my stomach hurt. When I think about the 2028 Democratic presidential primary. I know in this context that it doesn't have to be this Negative. It's been this negative. The Talarico super PAC started the negativity by running a very explicit ad saying that if Crockett wins the primary, we lose the general election. Electability is hanging over this, which is what's going to hang over the 2028 primary. And we can talk maybe a little bit about that in a second here. But that conversation is always heated and freighted with a lot of racial and gender tropes and a lot of myths about politics and everything. And so it's quite messy. It's counterproductive, and it doesn't. We'll see what happens in some of these other primaries, like Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota and Maine, whether they get heated like this as they get closer, because all those primaries have a. A fairly long distance before people actually start voting. Here's. This is the first one. We're down to the wire, and it's gotten nasty quickly.

B (49:31)

We've obviously had. We've had both candidates on the show, even though the FCC can't make us, and so it's tough. Right. Their policy positions are very similar, almost identical. And I think there hasn't been a ton of polling in the race. And even if there were, I think we both know that figuring out which candidate gives Democrats a better chance of flipping Texas is like, electability is always gonna be at least somewhat of a subjective exercise. Right. But, like, what do you think about it in this context of this race?

C (50:07)

Well, so electability is purely theoretical. The only way to prove electability is to win.

B (50:13)

Yeah.

C (50:15)

It's also a very fair question to ask here. We kind of need to win this Senate race. And when you have two candidates who are both very well liked by Democrats, who have. Who are ideologically very similar profiles, I don't blame voters for saying, I like them both. Which one is more likely to win? That's what I care about. And since electability is so theoretical, perhaps the only data point you can bring to bear in such a conversation, and it's a very imperfect one, is does this candidate have a history of winning tough races, winning Republican voters, winning over swing voters like Andy Beshear can come to voters and say, look at all these Republicans. And whatever Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer can say, or Ruben Gallego and John Ossoff can say, look at these swing states, that I have a history of winning, does that translate to a presidential. Maybe, maybe not. But it's an argument to make in this situation. Neither candidate has a particularly long documented history of winning over Republican or swing voters or dramatically Outperforming how a typical Democrat, typical Republican would do. Talarico's first race was in a pretty purple district. He won narrowly.

B (51:20)

Since then it was like a Trump. It was a Trump district, right, that he flipped.

C (51:23)

But it's barely Trump district. But then it's become, since then it's been a Democratic district and how it's been redrawn. He's won easily. Crockett has represented a very, very Democratic district. She's performed as you would expect a Democrat to do there. And so you can't make that point. So the only thing you can evaluate here is what is their stated strategies for winning the race. And I will stipulate that both of these strategies are overly simplistic because you kind of have to do both. But it's where have they put their emphasis? Tallarico has said he is focused on trying to win over Republican voters, that he can appeal to folks who voted for Trump. Disenchanted, disenchanted with Trump Republican voters. Crockett has taken a different approach. She has said that her path to victory comes from her ability to excite the Democratic base to turn out people in Texas who are not typical participants in the political process that she can mobilize voters. Like I said, neither of them have a record of doing either of those things per se. I mean, they have anecdotal examples, but it's not like manifest in their histories. If you ask me which strategy on its face is more likely to succeed, I would tell you Talarico strategy. Now, whether he can implement that strategy better than Kroc can implement hers, I don't know the answer to that and I don't think anyone does. But this is a state that Donald Trump won by double digits. There is no path to victory without winning over a significant slice of people who voted for Trump and traditionally vote for Republicans. That is just the math of winning in Texas. And he is emphasizing that and Crockett's emphasizing the opposite. And I think there is not a lot of history that mobilization in and of itself would be sufficient to win in a state like Texas. And that is just the fact of the matter. Now, I think both of them are being over simplistic in their approach. I can't imagine that if either of them becomes the nominee, they will not then try to do both because you have, you can win if you win over 6% of Republicans, but you don't turn out the full the Democratic base at a high level. You're not going to win if you turn out the Democratic base like it's never been turned out before. But you can't win over 6%, 6 to 7 or 8% of Republicans, then you're also going to lose. But I had a long conversation with Caroline about this on Polar Coaster, which you can listen to if you subscribe to Kirkus.com friends and I'm going to write about this in message box. I think the next couple of days or more deeper analysis of it. But that's sort of my initial takeaway is if you're like, if you want to come at this from the perspective of electability, look, if you like Talarico or you like Jasmine Crockett, just go vote for that person, right? If that's who you like more. But if you are bringing an electability lens to it, then that's sort of how I would frame the analysis of it.

B (54:06)

I also think you and I have talked about this in the context of, I don't know, every election since we've been doing this, which is this idea that a person who doesn't vote or who has voted in the past but decides not to vote in some election is, is so much different in their politics and political beliefs than someone who sometimes votes for Democrats and sometimes votes for Republicans is. It doesn't really play out like that. Like there is this view, there's this traditional view that I think we had prior to the Trump era that the voter who stays on the couch, the voter who stays home, is like liberal or progressive and just hasn't been activated by a Democratic candidate who's exciting enough or progressive enough or liberal enough. And that someone who has voted Democrat in the past or has or hasn't even voted in the past, but then votes for Donald Trump and votes for a Republican is just as a conservative voter and that's it. And we've lost them. And the truth is when you after an election, when you go interview these voters or even during an election, you go talk to them in focus groups, you realize that a lot of these voters who either switch parties or sometimes stay home altogether are just have very complicated views. You could call them maybe moderate, but on some issues they're quite liberal. On some issues they could be quite conservative. And they just have this real mix of political beliefs. And so it really hasn't panned out that the, that the non voter is just like a liberal sitting home waiting to be activated by an exciting candidate. And I do think what keeps people from voting and keeps people from, unless obviously voter suppression keeps people from voting. But if you are Making up your mind about whether to vote or not, and making up your mind about whether to vote for a Democrat or Republican. What's keeping people from doing so from casting that ballot is just cynicism in this system and a belief that politics isn't gonna really make a difference in their lives. And a belief that both parties are too similar and that once everyone gets to Washington, all they do is just yell at each other and nothing gets done and the whole thing is hopeless and everyone's corrupt. Like that is the if. If there is a typical belief of someone who switches parties or just switches between voting and non voting, it's that political profile. And so I do think that's one thing for people to keep in mind as you think about who you like, not just in this primary, but in other primaries. I will just say, for me personally, I have been impressed with James Talarico, like, long before he was ever a Senate candidate. And I like that he is running a populist campaign. I like that he doesn't take corporate PAC money. I like that he says the real divide in the country isn't between left and right, but between top and bottom. I think that you and I have talked about this as well, that like a Democrat who can both sort of run against a corrupt system and corrupt special interests and the billionaire class, and someone who could also reach out to voters who were disillusioned with the political system is probably like the best kind of Democrat and one that we think would have a good chance. And I think that that's Talarico. I also like that he. He is not making this campaign about himself or about Jasmine Crockett or about Ken Paxton or John Cornyn or even Donald Trump. He's like, trying to make it, in some ways bigger than politics itself. He talks about how the most important is to love your neighbor. And yes, that very much comes from his faith. But this idea that you should reach out and love your neighbor, no matter what they look like, where they come from, what they believe, how they pray, I think that's a pretty good political philosophy for someone who wants to be in government, regardless of where you come from and what race you're running in. And so I do think that Talarico sort of not only will appeal to more people with that philosophy, but it's just a really good philosophy in a public servant.

C (57:59)

So I have really. You and I talked about this a little bit in the many, many hours we spent together last week.

B (58:04)

Yes.

C (58:05)

And I've really wrestled with this because I do find the conversations about electability to be exhausting and complicated and freighted with all kinds of racial and gender tropes. And, you know, we dealt with like, this was such a overhang in 2020, and there was a tax on candidates of color and women candidates in that race that really affected the entire debate. And also James Talarico, I'm not saying he's a message box subscriber, but he's a message box candidate. He is on it is what I advocate for and how he's running his campaign. So I obviously like that a lot. I also honestly have really liked Jasmine Crockett because she's the other end of the message box candidate is the candidate who's out there, knows how to get attention, is out there doing things. I really enjoyed interviewing her in D.C. and if the net result of this is she's not in Congress, I think that's a loss for the Democratic caucus because we just have so few people who can communicate in a modern fashion. So that's why I sort of default to the strategy question, like, which strategy is the one? Which approach for winning that I think is more likely to succeed on its face. Whether the candidate is the right can actually execute on that in what is a very hard state to begin with, I don't know. But it's how, like, Talarico's strategy in terms of, like, voter outreach makes more sense to me as a strategy that can win Texas. But I'll say I've been wrong many times before, so this wouldn't be the first.

B (59:33)

Yeah. No. I feel bad for being so positive about James Talarivo because that probably means he's not going to win. But I will say, like, I think it is unfortunate, but maybe I should.

C (59:43)

Maybe we should just Alan Dors Crockett right now. So at least we'll pick one.

B (59:46)

We'll get one then. One of us. Yeah.

C (59:48)

Who's that third candidate who also wants to get on Colbert?

B (59:50)

Yeah, good question. I think it is unfortunate that maybe inevitable, but unfortunate that race and identity has become such a big issue, at least in the online conversation and now I guess in the campaign itself, judging by the ads and the candidate statements or at least listening to Crockett right there. And one of the reasons I think it's unfortunate is because when I think of what is appealing to me about Talarico's message and strategy and the way he's approaching the campaign, it reminds me of Barack Obama. It reminds me of aoc. It reminds me of Stacey Abrams in Georgia when she came close to unseating Kemp. It reminds me of Ruben Gallego in Arizona. So I don't think that this is, to me, at least, what is appealing about Talarico has anything to do with identity. And so I just, I think that to have this sort of populist style where you're also trying to reach out to bring in voters who haven't always been with the Democratic Party, I don't think that is endemic to any specific identity or area or geography. Right. Like, I think that anyone can do it. And I think that people and people of different races in different parts of the country have done it in the past to great success.

C (61:02)

I think two things about this is. One, like, what could. Like, it would be great if people could lower the temperature over the last two weeks. And obviously, if the. I looked to see if I could find any reporting or comment from the Telugu super PAC about the accusation about darkening skin. Obviously, if that's true, that is horrendous and that should be disavowed immediately, of course. But the. I think the two things that would help lower the temperature would be the idea that Jasmine Crockett cannot win, I think is an unfair accusation. You can argue that Tellerico may be more likely to win, but we all should bring a little more humility to.

B (61:41)

No. Yeah. We shouldn't be throwing out can't wins for anyone.

C (61:44)

Yeah. So that's one and two, and this isn't coming. I haven't heard Crockett, her campaign say this because it's from a lot of online supporters, this idea that because Talarico wants to reach out to Republicans, that he is some sort of Fetterman. You heard this about Platner, too, that he, like, he's going to be like, Fetterman is going to get to the Senate and he's going to become a Republican in, you know, a Democrat name only and side with the problem. Like, there is no evidence to suggest that he has been a very.

B (62:08)

Also, if you don't down the line, if you don't get Republican votes, we're never winning the presidency again. We're never winning the Senate again. It's just fucking math, people. Come on.

C (62:16)

Yeah. Yeah. And so, like, if we could just like, stop with those two accusations and just try to have like, a good final two weeks here. Because if Talarico wins the primary, he's going to need Crockett's support to win the general. And if Crockett wins the primary, she's going to need telorico support to. In the General. And so we got to run a primary where we can put this back together again in two weeks.

B (62:34)

Totally agree. One last thing before we go. On Tuesday, it was widely reported that Trisha McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's top spokesperson, is leaving the Trump administration. Administration. McLaughlin was one of the Trump administration's most consistent and ineffective liars, which is quite a feat in that administration. Her accomplishments include justifying the torture of the innocent people our government sent to a torture prison in El Salvador, slandering the two Americans our government killed as, quote, domestic terrorists, and initially blaming an infant's parents for ICE nearly killing their baby with tear gas. This was in Chicago. Her husband, a Republican strategist, was also the beneficiary of a $200 million no bid contract from the agency she works at for an anti immigration ad campaign. Dan, is it too much to hope that her potential future employers may not want to hire someone who's not just a liar, but an ineffective one at that? Immigration has gone from Trump's best issue to now one of his worst issues. Most Americans don't believe a word the Department of Homeland Security says or the government. I think ICE has a 20, 30% approval rating at this point. Or is she gonna end up a Fox pundit or the next White House press secretary?

C (63:58)

Well, two things. One, there's a lot of failing up in Republican politics, so it's very possible she will end up on Fox or what is basically big on Fox, which is White House press secretary. But I kind of want to clear out here because you have been yelling about podcasting, about tweeting about Trisha McLaughlin for a year now. I can't remember. Were you on the plane? Was it during your day off in Sydney from the beach? Were you tweeting about this or was it on the plane? I cannot remember, but I saw the news and I was shocked to get, like, a extensive Twitter thread from you celebrating her departure and documenting some of her lies from Australia.

B (64:33)

I have to be honest, I wasn't even celebrating because, first of all, she might have started planning. It's not like she got fired. She may have started planning to leave in December, apparently. So she's just leaving.

C (64:44)

A likely story from a liar, John.

B (64:46)

Yeah, that is true. That is true. She did tell the Cincinnati Inquirer where she's from. I think she's, like, moving back to Cincinnati with her family. And she did say that she can't rule out. I know. I know.

C (64:56)

Your wife's hometown.

B (64:57)

I know. And she said that she can't rule out running for office in the future, which, if you're running against her, sign me up. But mostly it just like, it just, it got me angrier. And look, it is her because she is the face of the administration. But it's like, you know, my anger and rage towards Kristi Noem, Corey Lewandowski, fucking Greg Bevino, Stephen Miller, as you know, J.D.

C (65:24)

vance, right?

B (65:26)

Obviously Trump. But like all of them over what they have done and what they are continuing to do on immigration is just, it is so intense. Like, did you find. I skipped reading this for a while because I knew it would get me both angry and sad. But did you end up reading the ProPublica story about all the kids in the Dilly detention center?

C (65:47)

I did. Who? And I just want you to know, John, I did not put it in our many group chats together for this specific purpose that I felt like you should find it organically and I shouldn't. Whatever you were doing at the moment, I shouldn't ruin your day with it.

B (66:03)

Well, I had found it, but I was like, okay, to what end am I going to read this and just be like so angry? And everyone's tweeting about it. Like, I don't need to tweet about it too. There's been enough tweets. But then I was, I like caught it like today. Is it just preparing for the pod? Because there was a story pulled out of it that was in a Miami paper about this nine year old girl, Maria Antonia Guerra. And so wild story, right? She lives in Colombia with her grandmother and her mother lives in New York, I believe. And her mother had overstayed her visa, but then married a US citizen and is applying for a green card. So like in the application process, everything legal. And they had, they had met, right, the daughter and the mother in Florida to go to Disney World. And so they went to Disney World once in the summer, I think, and they had so much fun at Disney World. They're like, let's go back in October for Halloween and we'll meet there. And so the nine year old flies from Columbia, where she lives with the grandmother, to Miami to meet the mother who's there with her. And when she meets up with the mother, instead of like leaving the airport and going to Disney World, going back to Disney World, they're detained by immigration. Don't tell them why they're detained. Don't tell them why that either of them shouldn't legally be in the country. They are detained in the airport for 42 hours straight and then they are Sent to Dilley in Texas, where they were held for four fucking months. This girl was like, everyone's, oh, well, then deport him. Deport. Like, she lives in Colombia. She is a citizen of Colombia. And they still. We just held her in jail for four months. And the reporter who wrote the ProPublica story, which everyone should go read, she, like, got all these letters. She asked for letters from a lot of the kids who were held in these detention centers. And. And she writes of this letter, she said in one letter, decorated with small hand drawn hearts, rainbows and sad faces, alongside a sketch of Maria and her mother in government issued sweatsuits, the girl wrote that she felt like, quote, being here was my fault. I only wanted to be on vacation like a normal family. I'm in jail and I am sad. And I fainted two times here inside. When I arrived, every night I cried. And now I don't sleep well, I don't eat well, there's no good education, and I miss my best friend Julieta and my grandmother and my school. I just really want my house. And it's like, you read that and then you read the statement from the Department of Homeland Security about Dilley and the conditions at Dilley, and it just is this fucking anodyne statement that says all detainees are being provided with proper medical care and all are provided with three meals a day, clean water, clothing, bedding, showers, soap and toiletries, and that they have certified dietitians, evaluate the meal, and everything is great. So it's like, you know what? That's your legacy. Trisha McLaughlin. Whatever other job you want, that's your legacy. Kristi Noem's, Stephen Miller's, J.D. vance's, all the rest of them, they are keeping these children locked up in a detention center in horrible conditions, who are getting sick and who are going to have fucking trauma for the rest of their lives. For what? For absolutely fucking nothing.

C (69:24)

It just requires you to be such an empty, soulless human to encounter a child in distress and not do everything you possibly can to help that child be in a better situation.

B (69:37)

Yep.

C (69:38)

To err on the side of detention, not on the side of what is best for the child. Whether this is Liam from Minnesota, whether it is this girl, it's all the kids in that story. It's just like, I don't even understand how, like, as a human being, you could approach this situation that way.

B (69:54)

And they will say, and I know JD Vance said this about Liam. He's like, what are we supposed to do? So if people who are eligible for Deportation. Have children. Are you never supposed to deport the child with the parent? I thought we didn't want family separation. I am not saying, I don't think any of us are saying that there are not going to ever be situations where like a horrible thing happens and because family was here illegally and has to be deported, that the children of that family are also have to be deported and they have to spend some time. We're not saying that like, like exceptions like that bad things happen and it is not the fault of, of children, but sometimes they pay the price. Like this, this happens in the world. We're not fucking naive to that. But there is a law in place, right? Or at least the court's interpretation of the law, the Flores act, which says that children are not supposed to spend more than 20 days in detention. The Trump administration has decided that, that, no, that no longer applies. But they don't care about the fucking Flores decoration if they can just have kids in there for months at a time under these horrific conditions. So no, this is not just, oh, we can't deport anyone who has children. This is like you are locking up children and ruining the lives of children for nothing because you couldn't get your fucking act together because you wanted to perform cruelty, whatever the reason is.

C (71:15)

I mean the Liam example is a perfect one, which is there was a different option which was send him home to his mother. Yeah, but they would rather not admit. They'd rather keep a small child in a de facto prison camp that admit they are wrong or do something that suggests weakness. But it's not like being kind to children is not weakness. That's just Babe being a basic fucking human.

B (71:38)

Proven by the fact that in this case too with Maria, after four months, suddenly one day they opened up dilly and they let out 200 people, including her, Just let her out. And like how long are these children going to be traumatized? How, like how many of them have had to go through just fucking hell for nothing? But it took them 200 days to hold them in a jail. That's more than a, like almost a year of a child's life in like critical developmental phases. It's. Fuck these people, man. Fuck these people anyway. That's what I'm not.

C (72:09)

Goodbye, Trish McLaughlin.

B (72:10)

Not, not celebrating. I want it, I want it to be a, a fun, light hearted thing when I said it. But then I read that story, I'm like, no, I'm just angry.

C (72:17)

I would say in the, in the outline this is referred to as dessert.

B (72:20)

It's Not. No, there's no.

C (72:21)

This is not dessert.

B (72:22)

No, look, we could have done rfk and who did he do the exercises?

C (72:27)

Kid Rock.

B (72:27)

Kid Rock? Yeah. We put it on shirtless. RFK and Kid Rock didn't do that.

C (72:31)

Well, we couldn't. There are no words in it. It doesn't work in a podcast. That was the problem. We've looked very seriously at it, but it's just. It's just music.

B (72:37)

And there's poop in the water in D.C. that's another one. But I don't know.

C (72:41)

Is poop in the water ever funny, John? No, I don't think so. You have small children who take baths. It's never funny.

B (72:48)

Oh, God. Don't. Don't jinx it. Anyway, Dan, hopefully next time we meet, you and I will be less jet lagged.

C (72:57)

We will be together on Tuesday.

B (72:59)

Oh, my God. Oh.

A (73:00)

Oh.

B (73:01)

Talk about yes. All right, everyone. Yeah, Tuesday is going to be the State of the Union. But even before that, Lovett's going to be back in the feed with a new show on Sunday. Lucky him. And lucky you.

C (73:12)

Lucky you. Bye, everyone.

B (73:15)

Have a good weekend. If you want to listen to Pod Save America at ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to crooked.com friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked. Pod Save America is a crooked Media production. Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt de Groat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Kiril Pelaviev, David Toles, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America, EAS.

A (74:11)

Foreign.

E (74:18)

If you guys like Pod Save America, please consider subscribing to our Friends of the Pod program. So Friends of the POD get lots of stuff, you get more Pod Save America. That includes our new show, which is called Pod Save America.

C (74:28)

Only friends.

B (74:29)

It's where Dan gets naked, where Dan

E (74:30)

gets full frontal nudity. But mostly it's a bi weekly subscription exclusive podcast that is basically Pod Save America but behind a paywall, so it's

B (74:38)

a little bit looser.

E (74:39)

And more fun. And it's love it. And Favreau and me and Pfeiffer and

B (74:43)

then other crooked hosts.

E (74:44)

We go deeper on the news and cover more stories. You also get Open Tabs, which is a weekly behind the scenes newsletter from the show. Plus you get ad free episodes of your favorite crooked podcasts and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every quarter.

B (74:56)

Yeah, clothed.

E (74:57)

Dan is very busy.

B (74:58)

Clothed only.

E (74:58)

But along with just getting great content. Becoming a Friend of the Pod Joining our subscription community is the number one thing you can do to help us grow to help independent progressive media. So if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever wanted more pod save America, consider going to cricket.com friends and becoming a Friend of the Podcast.