Trump’s Lawsuits Are Ruining Media (feat. David Sirota)

Summary

The Find Out Podcast: "Trump’s Lawsuits Are Ruining Media" (feat. David Sirota) – Detailed Summary

Release Date: July 22, 2025

---

Introduction and Guest Spotlight

In this episode of The Find Out Podcast, hosts Rich and Chris engage in a compelling discussion featuring their first-ever Academy Award-nominated guest, David Sirota. David brings a wealth of experience, having contributed to the storyline of the Netflix film Don't Look Up and serving as a senior advisor to Bernie Sanders. He is also the executive editor and founder of The Lever. Rich introduces David with enthusiasm, setting the stage for an in-depth conversation about the intersection of media, politics, and law.

---

Trump’s Strategic Use of Lawsuits Against Media Outlets

The discussion kicks off with Rich referencing David’s recent work on the cancellation of The Stephen Colbert Show by CBS. Rich points out the timing discrepancy: Colbert had criticized CBS’s parent company for settling a $16 million lawsuit with Donald Trump, only to be fired three days later despite being a top-rated show.

David Sirota elaborates on this by explaining, “Donald Trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent” ([01:09]).

He details how Trump's lawsuits are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy to intimidate media outlets into compliance. By leveraging his regulatory power and the threat of costly legal battles, Trump aims to create an environment where critical reporting becomes financially untenable.

---

Weaponization of Libel Laws and Its Implications

David Sirota dives deeper into the mechanics of these lawsuits, emphasizing their role in undermining free speech:

“These are attempts to make it cost prohibitive to speak out. You can be sued into bankruptcy... These media companies are sending a message that these intimidation tactics work” ([06:27]).

He argues that even under existing libel laws, the financial burden of defending against such lawsuits can effectively silence journalists and media organizations, thereby reducing accountability and fostering a climate of fear.

---

Impact on Free Speech and Media Integrity

Chris and Rich discuss the fragility of free speech in the face of relentless legal threats. They highlight how Trump's actions are not merely personal vendettas but systemic attacks on journalistic integrity and democratic discourse.

Chris notes, “The case against CBS news didn't really make any sense... It doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about Donald Trump being defamed; they’re about silencing criticism” ([06:53]).

Rich adds, “Libel laws exist to protect free speech, but when powerful figures like Trump misuse them, it creates a chilling effect” ([09:20]).

---

The CBS and Stephen Colbert Cancellation: A Case Study

The episode delves into the specifics of the CBS-Colbert situation, illustrating how corporate decisions influenced by political pressure can lead to the suppression of dissenting voices. The hosts discuss how Colbert's public criticism of the lawsuit settlement led to his unexpected firing, viewing it as a direct consequence of challenging Trump's influence.

David Sirota emphasizes the broader pattern:

“It's an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out... It's not just Trump; it's billionaires and corporations using these tactics” ([06:27]).

---

The Broader Influence of Billionaires and Corporations

The conversation expands to examine how various billionaires and major corporations, like Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg, play roles in shaping media narratives and political outcomes. The hosts express concern over the immense influence these entities hold, often aligning themselves with political figures like Trump to maintain their business interests.

Luke comments on the manipulation by tech billionaires:

“Tech billionaires... are rigging the game for Donald Trump to encourage his politics even if that does mean actual violence and harm” ([13:19]).

---

Potential Responses and Protective Measures: Anti-SLAPP Laws

Hosts and David Sirota explore possible legal and legislative remedies to combat the misuse of libel laws, such as Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes designed to protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing them.

Chris explains the challenge:

“Even with Anti-SLAPP penalties, billionaires can still fund litigation that overwhelms critics financially” ([18:01]).

They discuss the limitations of current laws and the need for more robust protections to ensure that the truth remains a viable defense without the undue burden of excessive legal costs.

---

Implications for the Democratic Party and Future Elections

The discussion shifts to the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party, with an emphasis on how the party's leadership struggles with fostering competitive districts and addressing corruption. The hosts argue that effective redistricting and strong internal competition are essential for countering both external pressures from figures like Trump and internal complacency.

Chris highlights the problem with democratic incumbents:

“Incumbents prefer safe districts to avoid the hard work needed in competitive ones, which weakens the party's overall competitiveness” ([30:38]).

Rich underscores the necessity of maintaining a safe space for free speech:

“The Democratic Party needs laws and a court system that make it safe to speak out vocally against power” ([26:19]).

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Media and Democracy

In wrapping up, the hosts express a mix of concern and cautious optimism. They acknowledge the significant challenges posed by the current climate of legal intimidation and corporate influence but remain hopeful that grassroots movements and policy reforms can restore integrity to media and democratic institutions.

Chris shares a vision for future Democratic leadership:

“A candidate who can speak to big visions and corruption credibly could resonate deeply with voters” ([54:30]).

Rich and the team encourage listeners to stay informed and engaged, promoting subscriptions to The Lever and supporting independent media as vital steps toward safeguarding democratic discourse.

---

Notable Quotes

• David Sirota ([01:09]): “Donald Trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent.”

• David Sirota ([06:27]): “This is an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out... You can be sued into bankruptcy.”

• Chris ([06:53]): “It doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about Donald Trump being defamed; they’re about silencing criticism.”

• David Sirota ([09:20]): “You have to protect free speech, even though Trump is trying to use libel laws against you.”

• Luke ([13:19]): “Tech billionaires... are rigging the game for Donald Trump to encourage his politics even if that does mean actual violence and harm.”

• Chris ([30:38]): “Incumbents prefer safe districts to avoid the hard work needed in competitive ones, which weakens the party's overall competitiveness.”

• Chris ([54:30]): “A candidate who can speak to big visions and corruption credibly could resonate deeply with voters.”

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Find Out Podcast offers a critical examination of how Donald Trump's legal strategies are impacting the media landscape and, by extension, democratic discourse in America. Through insightful analysis and expert commentary, particularly from David Sirota, the hosts shed light on the broader implications of these tactics for free speech, media integrity, and political competition. Listeners are encouraged to reflect on the state of American media and participate actively in advocating for a more transparent and accountable democratic system.

Transcript

[Chris]

Foreign.

[Rich]

Hey everybody and welcome back to the find out podcast i'm sorry that my audio sounds so crappy today rich referred to it as i was in one of the circles of hell which is true because i'm in a windowless co working space office because all of the soundproof rooms were taken so i apologize for that but hopefully i'm not going to be doing as much talking today because we have a guest actually our first ever academy award nominated guest which is really exciting so today we have david sirota with us he helped come up with the storyline for i believe it's don't look up the netflix movie with leonardo dicaprio and about fifty other big names he has also been a senior advisor to bernie sanders and a speechwriter and he is also the executive editor and founder of the lever which you should all go to subscribe to so david thank you for joining.

[Chris]

Us today thank you thanks for having.

[Rich]

Me so david there's a big piece of news that broke last week that the timing lined up perfectly because you just wrote about this the firing or the cancellation i should say of the stephen colbert show by cbs the timing of that was pretty interesting in that colbert had just recently criticized the parent company of cbs i believe for settling a sixteen million dollars lawsuit with donald trump and then a week later all of a sudden they were like oh this is a cost cutting decision even though stephen colbert is number one in the ratings and is the only one that has seen his audience go up in the last year so david walk us through a little bit about your piece and you know your thoughts on on what cbs and their parent company is at paramount is doing doing stephen colbert and to independent media in general.

[Chris]

Sure so we interviewed a new york times reporter by the name of david enrich on our podcast of levertime i encourage everyone to go subscribe to it and the thrust of the interview was about how all of these cases really can't be seen in isolation that donald trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent and specifically criticism of him and he's not just using libel law he's also using the regulatory power of the government so it's important to understand the context of what happened for instance at paramount that trump was suing paramount for allegedly cbs selectively and dishonestly editing an interview with kamala harris to allegedly preference her in the twenty twenty four election so as he was doing that his administration is also overseeing and getting to decide or on whether paramount gets to merge with a buyer so it's his antitrust regulators get to do that so when you take that context i think what you see is that cbs or paramount essentially cut a deal saying listen our need for our merger to get approved that donald trump has power over is worth the amount of money to settle this case with donald trump they settle the case stephen colbert criticizes the settlement on national television and lays out the context i've just laid out about the merger and the like calls it a big bride he says that explicitly and three days later paramount fires colbert now we have to take this again in the context of trump has used libel law to sue abc got a settlement from abc trump is now launched a lawsuit a libel lawsuit against rupert murdoch and the wall street journal for the wall street journal's recent reporting on his alleged relationship with with jeffrey epstein i think what's going on here is that media outlets are are trying to cut deals with trump so he's not a problem to to their business and perhaps the theory is is that by cutting a deal with him he will he will lay off that that by bending the knee this will stop but i think what's going on is is that is that it sends a message to him and not just him by the way to him billionaires and corporations that these tactics these intimidation tactics really work in other words you're not appeasing the aggressor you're encouraging the aggressor and here's where it really is a problem i think not just for the for journalists for news outlets for media companies it's a problem for all of us so all of that is to say that this is an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out and by cost prohibitive i just want to put a fine point on it what it means is you can be sued into the ground you can be sued into bankruptcy whether it's by donald trump or it's by your local power broker a local billionaire a corporation can use existing libel laws without changing them and donald trump says he wants to change them and make them even more even worse for free speech but you can right now under existing libel laws be bankrupted that them filing suit against you incurs costs that you may not be able to pay for for the alleged crime of being critical of billionaires corporations and donald trump to them it's almost no money to drag you into court and to essentially bankrupt you for you it's your whole it's sort of your whole life right so so what i think is going on is that when these media companies these giant media companies are cutting deals with trump they're supposed to be the well resourced defense to this and instead what they are effectively doing is encouraging an attack on free speech.

[Rich]

Yeah i mean and i think the big thing on this right is like these lawsuits are not they're frivolous right like there's not actually like i don't even understand what the damages are that he's claiming that that like i assume you would concur that most of these they he doesn't even actually plan on getting to the point of getting a conviction or a or a you know find liable he's just doing it to bully them right look i think a.

[Chris]

Lot of these cases are legally weak absolutely i mean the case against cbs news didn't really make any sense to me in the sense of even if you take his allegations at their word that that cbs selectively edited the interview with kamala harris to preference her in the election that is not fundamentally as far as i can tell i don't understand how that's defamatory to donald trump i think the abc case talking about the sexual assault allegations i think the the epstein case the epstein reporting by the wall street journal i guess he could argue that's specifically about me him donald trump and he could make the argument i guess if the facts don't hold up granted a big if that that that's defamatory to him personally but but i but the larger point is i think is right that it doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about donald trump being defamed they're about donald trump not liking critical reporting about donald trump and and and the thing is is that the libel laws exist in this country and for those who don't know i think it's a really it's kind of a technical point but it's important it creates a higher standard for so called public officials to prove libel that public officials public public figures if you will you have to prove that that somebody didn't just get something wrong but deliberately got something wrong or had a reckless disregard for the truth and the reason that standard exists is because we want a vigorous free press and a vigorous discourse in this country where if you accidentally get something wrong you can't be sued into oblivion the idea being that if you have to fear that if you have to fear you know sort of getting sued for any teeny little thing then you're not really going to it creates a chilling effect you're not really going to speak out on much of anything and i think that that's what trump big corporations conservative billionaires that's actually what they want they want you to fear speaking out against them they want you to fear that doing that can end up putting you and your family into bankruptcy well.

[David]

I think it's important though that in trump's defense he takes great care before speaking we can at least return the favor we can at least be as good as him as you know protect.

[Rich]

He'S never said anything false ever never.

[David]

Any and it's because he invests his time and energy in making sure that he is right before he opens his mouth i mean that's so we should we should at least return the favor.

[Chris]

That'S all i'm saying yeah i mean it's it is really rich coming from from him you know like like this this idea that you can't just you know sort of sort of criticize people i mean he is a walking criticism machine and he often doesn't tell the truth at all to to say the least so that's why i think you know it would be one thing if it was if it was a guy who really did take honest pains to get things correct right who was very precise in his language it's another thing for this to be coming from donald trump which really does say okay this is a political tactic right i mean this is this is clearly a political tactic to try to shut down criticism.

[Evan]

Of donald trump yeah i think there's also like just two camps the more i watch trump do this there's two strategies he uses one is he's just throwing weight around for pr which i think is like the wall street journal thing obviously that story was horrendous for him and he just like all right i'm suing you immediately because it doesn't matter if it's you know a good lawsuit bad lawsuit he's just trying to let you know the public perception on my side i want is that you're wrong i'm right okay so that's another but then the other side going to like the colbert thing i think is when he sees he does have leverage and uses it to his he takes advantage of the weak so in that situation he's popping and going hey you want to merge fuck you you're going to give me money if you want to merge he's doing the same thing right now with the washington commanders and he's like hey if you don't change your name back to the redskins you're not going to get your stadium dude so he has these two spots where like sometimes it's pure protection for himself and sometimes it's actually him like leaking into getting a little bit more leverage than he had before so he can just get in there and start to turn the dials a little bit more than he did before it's kind of insidious the second part i mean the first part is just like painful to watch it's so transparent but the second part is where i get worried where it's like the little tiny spots where he goes ooh look what i can affect here he affects it and turns that dial just a little bit and nobody seems to notice until they see ten steps later the dial has been.

[Luke]

Really really turned i think one of the most notable things after january twentieth i don't even remember if it if we made it to january twentieth mark zuckerberg coming out and saying like oh we're going to welcome racism and anti trans bigotry back to facebook and all meta projects right we had all of these billionaires these tech billionaires who shaped the vast majority of americans perception of reality that is the game that they're in basically rigging the game for donald trump to encourage his politics even if that does mean like actual violence and actual harm against people and it's it the way that zuckerberg did it you know looking like he wants to be gen z or something with his carrot top head you know like the necklace was nice yeah like like it it is just so patently offensive that that these dorks you know have so much influence over all of us and there's nothing we can do about it as consumers right we are we are are locked into the system if if you know each one of us have a substack right we have tech billionaire mark andreessen or maybe hundreds of millions i don't know if he's a billionaire like that dude is bought in right yeah x twitter completely destroyed by elon musk you know we have we've watched zuckerberg try and become like a bro over the last ten years or so learning.

[David]

Energy right that's what he said yeah.

[Luke]

Like getting getting into all the masculine energy stuff and and you know then there's google youtube all of us use youtube and we have no choice but to basically live in this world that these tech billionaires who are just going to kowtow to trump have created for.

[Chris]

Us and i think we have to you know take us a step back and say look libel laws are being weaponized by billionaires and corporations dragging people into court threatening them et cetera et cetera for speaking out i mean again the new york times did this amazing piece about united health threatening critics of united health right there was a situation in texas where a billionaire tried to sue beto o' rourke for beto o' rourke essentially talking about money and politics i think what's different with trump what's even scarier with trump is that he is using those kinds of cases while also being in the top regulatory position in the united states so in other words it's one thing to be threatened by unitedhealth or a billionaire who if you're at a news organization or you're a journalist if you're just a critic and you may want to try to fight that out in court it's going to be expensive it's another thing where when donald trump is as president is suing your news entity and your news entity is regulated in all sorts of different ways in in its business by the trump administration and trump sort of his his regulators being relatively unabashed about them being willing to to reinforce what donald trump wants from those news organizations right the the fcc was investigating paramount and cbs over the same thing that donald trump was suing paramount and cbs over so this is i think what what i'm getting at here is this is fusing the political agenda of the particular politician to the operation of the state right and that is a classic a really classic trait equality of what happens in authoritarian countries where the the individual in office and their political ideology is not just expressed as policy that they promised on the campaign trail but their individual political sort of desires a specific personal political desires gets fused with the agenda of of the state regulatory.

[David]

Apparatus now david something that i took i was in journalism school twenty years ago and libel is always it's a core part of the education right and the number one defense against libel was always the truth if you're telling the truth and because if if you say like he was convicted of thirty four felonies that is a fact that is true and if saying that out loud and amplifying that to twenty million people costs him money those aren't damages that are recoverable because you were telling the truth those are just consequences of of a thing that happened and you're telling the truth where does i mean i know when it comes to case law if you lose a bunch of these cases in a row typically that will you know stifle frivolous lawsuits but how do you feel about like he has a bottomless access to resources right like he can fund every frivolous lawsuit that he wants and if there's nothing else i mean is there anything else or can we still stand on the truth in a libel accusation or can they still just sue you into oblivion even if you're telling the truth look i.

[Chris]

Think if you ultimately take some of these cases to their conclusion in a court system you can win on the truth they have not changed the underlying libel statutes for sure and so i think you can win the problem is is the cost to win right like if if going all the way to trial and winning your case as a defendant costs one hundred thousand dollars two hundred thousand dollars you may not have that money to defend yourself right and even in states some states have these anti slap laws they're called strategic i.

[David]

Heard about those when you could get.

[Chris]

Into that yeah yeah they're they're laws that slap means strategic lawsuit against public participation essentially what a slap suit is is you report the truth somebody sues you to try to shut you down to try to shut you up whether or not what you're reporting is true the the design of the lawsuit is to shut you up so some states have passed anti slap laws that that are trying to deter those kinds of suits by saying hey if you bring a suit and you lose and you lose under this anti slap statute you have to pay the defendant's legal fees you pay a so the idea is it's supposed to deter you the the problem is at a certain level of wealth even the anti slap penalty won't deter you right oh it's a you know if you're a billionaire oh you mean i'm going to get hit with if i lose i'm going to get hit the worst case scenario is i got to pay two hundred thousand dollars of legal fees to the defendant like that's not a big deal i've i've already gotten a lot of what i've intimidated people i've sent a message by the way i've sent a message to everybody saying if you come at me with criticism this is what you may face right so i think you're right to point out that the bottomlessness of the resources inside of this system is.

[David]

Part of the problem and i saw he filed the lawsuit against wall street journal if i'm not mistaken in florida and i believe they i read that they have an anti slapp law in florida which feels like something he would know and news corp also i think has probably close to bottomless resources i mean how is this going to go.

[Chris]

Well the other thing that's supposed to be a deterrent that we haven't discussed is something called discovery and this this is where it's going to get interesting with trump i think so discovery is if if if somebody sues another person in civil court like let's use the trump example trump is suing the rupert murdoch in the wall street journal saying their reporting on the epstein situation is factually false and defamatory so the first thing that rupert murdoch and the wall street journal have to try to do is prove that what they reported is factual right here is what we reported it is factually true trump can say it's not factually true under the law in the court proceeding then rupert murdoch and the wall street journal get a level of subpoena power that they can force trump to turn over documents and information whether it's phone records or whatever it is that they have subpoena power to get at information that that they would allege trump is keeping secret and that is a really powerful tool that's supposed to be another deterrent here that hey you're a billionaire you're donald trump you got bottomless resources to to to prosecute a case like this in civil court but maybe you don't want all of your documents opened up so i think this is a bit of a game of chicken because i think you know ultimately if donald trump pushes this forward i mean i guess we don't know like what's going to happen but i'm i'm slightly confused about donald trump wanting rupert murdoch in the wall street journal to have court authorized subpoena power to go into donald trump's life it.

[Rich]

Seems baffling to me and also let's not forget that news corp is no stranger to these cases because they had to pay seven hundred eighty seven million dollars that's right for essentially lying about the voting systems that we used in georgia i think in particular and it's an interesting one because they have been so in lockstep with each other that you would also think that they probably know more about trump than some of the other media outlets so it seems to me that this is just he this was his lash out that he had because he is flailing on the jeffrey epstein stuff right this is kind of the first time we have not seen him be able to control his supporters in the bag of movement though i have seen since he sued a bunch of people saying see this was a lie and like it's so but like you could see the tactic behind.

[David]

It fake news again fake news always.

[Chris]

The fake news yeah i mean i'm waiting to see honestly i'm waiting to see i mean i'm not presuming trump is this shrewd but i wonder if he knows that something is coming down the pike governmentally regulatory that news corp wants and or needs and is therefore expecting a similar settlement and news corp backing off because rupert murdoch and news corp want some kind of regulatory relief some kind of merger that's necessary to their business some some kind of licensing deal i don't know exactly what it is but i do wonder if if whereas private citizen donald trump may not have done this president trump knows that he can try to do this knowing that simultaneously news corp is going to be asking his administration for something i.

[Luke]

Think what we're about to see is more attacks against the judicial branch politico just reported today that the judge who was assigned this case from the southern district yeah wasn't like an alien cannon it was an obama appointee who made history as the first gay black man to be appointed to the federal bench this judge also has seen this before because this is the judge who was assigned the case when donald trump sued michael cohen for other like similar harassing slap suits so i i fully expect for donald trump to turn his ire at at the judge i expect like we saw i forget if it was last summer or two summers ago we're probably going to see a rise in threats against this particular judge and that jurisdiction you know and instead of it being the focus like new york was when he was facing trouble for his indictments in in my state it's going to be in his own backyard so i i think there's going to be a lot of blowback here i think donald trump is starting a fire that he's going to have trouble putting out.

[Chris]

Yeah i i look i i certainly agree and i i just i think it's really important i mean you know when i interviewed david enrich at the new york times he made a really interesting point that i didn't i didn't know much about which was that in florida and i'm paraphrasing here but in florida they considered reducing or limiting the anti slapped law there in their in their state recently and what's interesting is that it didn't pass the effort to to make it easier for billionaires powerful people to sue critics into the ground the reason it didn't pass was in part conservative talk radio hosts said hey this would actually be really bad for us right and i think there's a really important point here that i guess gets lost in the sort of negative partisan polarization which is that the first amendment the ability to speak out and criticize vociferously people in power is not a partisan issue right like you may hate donald trump you may love donald trump you may want to criticize donald trump all twenty four seven you may want to criticize his critics twenty four seven the point is is that what you need for that kind of small d democratic discourse as sometimes ugly as it gets as sometimes distasteful as it gets what you need are laws and a court system that make it safe to do that and that this is when you attack that safe space the the the legal foundation of that safe space you are you are there's all sorts of unintended consequences that probably aren't going to end up being great for your side at some point either right.

[Evan]

I mean i think that's sort of like i'm just looking at how can democrats use what they're doing against them and that's sort of the territory we've gotten into here and it's like my mind goes to all right look at what fox news is doing with obama right now bombshell report obama did it's like he didn't do any of that shit but this is if trump were in the same position trump would want to sue fox news democrats need to get more comfortable when they have the ammunition to go right after the source which they're not doing trump administration has no problem doing that and you know what dnc has pretty good resources true they can do that especially if it's if it's somebody who's sitting down obama's got a ton of resources i mean look they gotta start doing it and look they're doing it in other areas too it's not like this isn't happening you look at the redistricting that's happening in hopefully in new york and california to combat the redistricting in texas these are the strategies we need to use because it seems like when trump is challenged by the same tactic he's using he goes oh shit sorry about that and he backs off and goes the.

[David]

Other way i agree and i think i mean they're texting me still like twelve times a day you know the democrats like hey give me money you know give us money for this we have to do that if you if you sent me a text and he said we're going to file a lawsuit to defend like we're going to pick a fucking fight right now yes and we need money because fights are expensive when you're fighting fascists i'd be like all right here's fifty bucks but when it's like we you know we need to defend our minority i'm like no we don't we don't need to do that you can't have my money yeah.

[Chris]

Sorry yeah i mean the redistricting stuff i mean you know i look i am always torn between you got to fight fire with fire and also like at what cost if you're fighting fire you're just going to create one giant fire right i mean like as an example like i think gerrymandering is is like bad right i mean i think most people would be like like why like extreme gerrymandering is just like not good for the democracy right it's like bad right okay what do you do if one party is is doing extreme gerrymandering right it's like oh well you know they're going to do it in their state they've got a huge state the democrats do it in their states like like like how do how do you don't want to unilaterally disarm i totally get that and like new york's redistricting hasn't been great california's redistricting hasn't been great i mean i do also think there's like a middle ground here where you can you can have a better districting situation that better reflects your state's political complexion or without going to like extreme ridiculous measures where you're fully into the actual gerrymandering of districts i think democrats have erred too far on the side of like we're not going to we're not even going to like engage in really making our districts you know more representative and and let's talk about why that is for a second because i think it really does actually get to the core of what's wrong with the democratic party so so why haven't democrats better districted states like california and new york to compete with the republicans who were excessively absurdly gerrymandering districts in various red states the answer actually in a lot of cases is that the incumbent democrats the people who are already there want their districts i'm talking about democratic house members and the like they want their districts to be like sixty sixty five seventy percent democratic districts because that means they don't have to do very much work to to get to stay in office so so so so so instead of saying hey i'm a democratic incumbent house member my district could go from seventy percent to like let's say fifty five percent democratic performance like i'm going to have to work a little bit to like but you know i could still i could still win instead of of doing that when those proposals come up hey we're going to make your district seventy to fifty five so this other district over here is a competitive democratic district right like this red district over here is now competitive for democrats the incumbents who are the ones who have power will say no no no no no i like it that my district is like super easy and this is the problem it is an individualistic attitude among incumbents rather than sort of for the greater good of the party and frankly for the.

[Evan]

Country i mean that's one place where like where trump is doing the thing that works which is at that point he would come in and go shut the fuck up we're doing it my way democrats don't do that that's simple as plain as day we need a democrat out there who goes shut the fuck up do it i don't care what you think i one hundred percent.

[Rich]

Agree and not agree more yeah sorry look do you want to say more no go ahead okay so you know this is also where we've ended up with members of congress who are and it's only on the democratic side right now but like are dying they've had three four members pass away since november and the republicans only have five a five seat majority i believe and when you take out three dems in those seats like all of a sudden they can let people you know there's a few members they let vote no you know that makes it harder for us to fall asleep during the joke or the whole thing with the you know the oversight which we've talked about a bunch where you know gerry connolly who had throat cancer stage four throat cancer he died three months later but he was like no i want oversight chair because it's my turn and basically passed over what who i would say is the most effective communicator in the democratic party which is aoc it's just absolute.

[Chris]

Madness right and the connection between safe seats and gerontocracy is very real and it makes sense right listen if you don't have to work to get reelected okay and you're the kind of person who doesn't want to retire okay even though you're nine hundred years old fucking old right like like then it be then it becomes semi retirement right oh i don't have to work for reelection i still get paid once in a while i can like participate right it's like tenure because the district isn't competitive right and so there are two solutions to that either you can do a better job of districting the districts in places like california so that seventy percent democratic districts become fifty five percent democratic districts so more red districts become more competitive that's one way to do it the other way to do it is to start having much more competitive primaries because that's the other thing i think that i mean i am encouraged by this that there is one danger to it for an incumbent in representing a seventy eighty ninety percent democratic district it's that then the fight becomes inside of the party itself inside of the primary primary and and it is possible to to defeat democratic incumbents in primaries where the winner of the primary is effectively all but guaranteed to be the winner of the general and we saw a little bit of an upsurge with that with with aoc i mean she surprised you know the whole political world when she beat joe crowley in one of those districts we've seen you know sort of a pushback against those i mean the democrat i've always said this the democratic leadership of the of the current democratic party they're terrible at basically everything they're terrible at fighting trump they're terrible at passing legislation they're terrible at improving the lives of their voters their constituents of americans but they are the goats they are the greatest of all time at one thing which is keeping control of the party keeping their status inside of the party essentially keeping themselves locked in the in the steering room of the titanic even as the titanic is heading for the iceberg that is they are really really good at that and that i think is a thing that needs to be focused on to break that hammer lock of control and one of the ways to do that is is for there to be much more vigorous primaries of the geronto i think.

[David]

We can win that too i mean it's right on top of us i was just looking at i read this article just the other day new york times or washington post big article big deep dive into the people who voted for both trump and mamdani and they're asking how americans are so famously well versed in policy it just blew their mind sorry i can't even get that out it just blew their mind that somebody could vote for trump and mamdani it's like what the fuck are you talking about have you been paying attention to anything for the past ten years fearlessness wins and mamdani is utterly fearless in saying what he believes and yes it is a safer environment for democratic socialists to say democratic socialist things in new york city but when you look at like giuliani and cuomo and eric adams like these aren't hard leftist you know politicians so like he is still being assertive and being fearless in saying what he believes and if there's one thing like trump is simultaneously afraid of everything like existentially but he is not afraid utterly fearless in saying whatever pops into his head at that moment he'll just say it he'll say it to the whole world and that is what a lot of people left or right or disaffected or like you know that especially the detached sort of swing voters they love that fearlessness and it's what you see from aoc it's what you said what we saw from like deja fox when she came on joe walsh utterly fearless and that that that behavior is rewarded and especially in a time like right now where we kind of all of our fucks are off the table anymore we really really crave fearlessness and so like it blows my mind that somebody could be surprised at this when we're watching how ineffective terrified politicians are in their leadership positions on the.

[Chris]

Democratic side yeah i mean we call it authenticity i mean i think authenticity is a real is a real and important factor but i also think that like i would go even a little bit deeper that mamdani and trump are very very different obviously for all sorts of reasons policy et cetera et cetera but they are both rhetorically at least when they're running for election in the case of trump talking about things that resonate with people the affordability crisis i mean i mean it's a joke that donald trump talked about the affordability crisis on the campaign right talking all about groceries right and you look at the the data on what's happened since he's gotten into office i mean the idea that that guy cares about bringing down prices of necessities is ridiculous but but he talked a lot about it mamdani the whole campaign is about the affordability crisis so i think the first threshold for all of these candidates for successful candidates is to at least be talking about authentically the problems that regular people are facing facing and frankly it's strange but that's not really something that's necessarily pervasive in the democratic party yet right i mean it's not it's not right i mean you look at kamala harris's campaign and we're on the right the one year right now we're talking on the one year anniversary of when she started running for president when biden left you know said he wasn't gonna run you know the inside reporting from her campaign was all about how she was basically her advisors were telling her don't go too populist on economics right right and and it drove a lot of us crazy and i think the thing that really drove me crazy about that was this idea that they felt they had to i don't know why they got jedi mind tricked into this but they felt they had to like tell people that everything was good because they're the incumbent and it fundamentally misunderstands how to run for election when you are perceived to be the incumbent or somehow the lessons of the nineteen thirty six election have been forgotten and the thing is if you think about that it's kind of interesting right fdr most successful democratic president of the last whatever hundred years he wins in nineteen thirty two that's easy to understand how he wins right he's running against herbert hoover it's the great depression okay like that's like a like you you would have had to really fuck it up to like lose that race okay but then the question is wait a minute the great depression wasn't over in nineteen thirty six how do you're the president you're seen as like the man right like you're now in power how do you win reelection in the middle of the great depression and the answer is is that he ran a campaign saying i am understand that what is going on in this country remains unacceptable i have not been able to do what is completely necessary to fix this problem because of this obstruction and because of all the organized money aligned against me i welcome the hatred of the organized money that is against me and that is why we have to win this race kamala harris didn't take any of those messages right everything's better people don't realize that the economy is actually better than they think and the thing is that i do think like on the merits there was an argument to be made that actually a lot of biden's policies were were doing better than what trump had done in his first term but when you're going out to campaign saying hey listen if you're mad about the economy you're just wrong is like ridiculous the message should have been listen we started the ball rolling in the right direction we have not been able to get done what is necessary to get done we've had to actually stop doing things that we've been trying to do that were successful and we have to win this election to break through the obstruction right like that was not the message.

[Evan]

No definitely not it's crazy to me.

[Chris]

It wasn't that it was crazy sorry.

[Evan]

I gotta go with them no i.

[Rich]

Was just gonna say i mean there's an argument to be made that you know joe biden's first term was was probably the most populist on the side since fdr but yes we also didn't have he wasn't communicating that effectively obviously and then it was weird for you know lots of reasons but i mean to be honest but you know kamala also like this just like oh don't worry about inflation it's going down which even when inflation is going down that still means prices are going up so it's not it's not a compelling message.

[David]

But accelerating you guys don't worry right.

[Chris]

Yeah right it's going up at a slower rate.

[Rich]

It'S wild to me that you couldn't like they just were not talking about reality i think it's a.

[Evan]

Fear thing like because they're here and it was way before this point that we saw this i argue it's twenty twenty three when you see this most clearly when biden in a silo decided to run reelection and the party went sure sounds great it's like are you fucking insane this guy is going to run in his early eighties to be president when he's eighty six and he's like this in twenty twenty three no but nobody stood up and did it and it's the same shit that happened when kamala took over because the entire infrastructure of the party was biden is a protected source he's a protected guy we don't talk about biden we don't go against biden if you go against biden and say hey we fucked up inflation we fucked up immigration whatever it's going to be a death knell for you and it's like no that's not true if kamala harris had come out and said look we made mistakes in the economy the inflation's getting better but here's the things we want to do to make it actually like you feel it and yeah we could have done better on the border blah blah people would have respected it they would have been great but because the democratic infrastructure is like nope protect biden don't say any bad things fucked up the whole.

[Chris]

Thing you know there's a term for this that's a really very quickly there's a term for this that i want to just make everyone aware of because it's one of my favorite terms the term omerta omerta is like a mob term it means the cone of science that's what it means in like organized crime right and there really is an omerta inside of the democratic party that you touch on which is that and it didn't always it wasn't always the culture but the culture of you may not speak ill of fellow democrats of what the democratic party is doing and there's a political logic to it up to a point but it has become suffocating and i think that like people forget it just it drives me crazy people forget that like democratic primaries are supposed to be rough and tumble affairs where the fighting we used to understand that the fighting and the arguing actually strengthens the prospective general election nominees it it tests them it tests their mettle and the person who proved that most recently was barack obama in two thousand eight i mean that was one of the most you know brutal down in the dirt nasty primaries obama clinton and it did not weaken barack obama it strengthened him for the general election we like since then it has become a culture of omerta where where any of these debates are frowned upon regardless of the merits on the fact that the debate is even happening so where there's.

[Luke]

There'S been some coverage about the coming dnc autopsy of what happened last year and the headlines you know have said like oh the dnc the democrats are not going to look at what the consultants did and they're not going to look at the original sin of joe biden deciding that he was going to run for reelection even though he absolutely should not have you know that that looks like on its face i think a hopeless situation where it's like clearly the democrats are doomed but you know i think if history is instructive at all and i don't know if this works on both sides of the aisle but i think back to the twenty twelve rnc autopsy where they came out and they said we have to be more inclusive we have to reach out to hispanic men hispanic people more broadly and four years later they got the complete fucking opposite of that they got a racist they got trump taking the nomination so you know as hopeless as i may feel looking at the headlines saying that the dnc is not is going to do an autopsy and look at everything but the problems i think that gives room to build the populist anger that will push the dnc to either break or to get out of the way of real progress yeah oh.

[Chris]

Listen i'm optimistic i mean in a weird way i mean i'm optimistic with caveats in two thousand seven i wrote a book called the uprising which i felt like we were it felt like a similar moment where it was a second term president second term republican president and there was this moment where there was all this populist anger on the right and left and the premise of the book was this is going to go in one direction or the other someone's going to harness this and what ended up happening and i was actually you know i tried to be optimistic and i was hopeful that this would go in sort of a center left direction and what ended up happening in retrospect is that i think obama channeled a lot of the center left populism into the establishment of the democratic party i think he then took hope and change turned it in frankly to more of the same and that created the conditions for for essentially for trump i think obama got really lucky that the republicans ran a private equity guy in twenty twelve like he they ran like mister like aristocrat like the monopoly guy somehow right he got really really along with him right yeah exactly exactly so like he got really like had trump come along a little earlier like trump could maybe could have won in twenty twelve who knows right but the point is is that a lot of the center left anger went into the democratic establishment and there was a great disillusionment a lot of the center right went into the tea party helped create the conditions for trump i feel like we're in a very similar moment now but here's the difference and i think this is why i'm actually somewhat even more optimistic and maybe i'll be proven to be wrong and i'm not making predictions i'm out of the prediction business which is that if you look at polls self described democratic voters are more angry at their own party's leadership than they have been i think in our in my entire adult life that typically even when democrats are like fucking everything up and out of power democratic voters themselves are not that mad at their democratic party leaders that is different we are in a somewhat a historical moment here or at least not you got to trace it all the way back to the nineteen sixties right with the anger over the vietnam war and i think that creates the potential for some real serious change inside regardless of the dnc doing an autopsy and pretending the dead body isn't there that's what they're doing right it's an autopsy and they're pretending the dead body isn't there like forget about the dnc i'm talking about at the rank and file voter level i feel like like the arguments that there needs to be a whole new generation of leadership are going to land in a much a much more salient way than perhaps they they have in the past so i have great hope that whether it's in the midterms or tons of candidates competing for that twenty twenty eight democratic nomination that that is going to create and harness this into many different direction that competition itself is going to create or creates the potential for something much better to come out well.

[David]

And i think with with no kingmaker left in the room right there or queen make like the dnc they can say whatever they want but there is no reason to listen to their recommendations if you're an average candidate like we are in an environment that very much rewards fearlessness and luke has a chimed up chimed up too much right now in this session but like he's got the most followers of all of us and he is the most fearless and just screaming fuck into a camera because.

[Chris]

I don't know that that indicates quality.

[David]

Though absolutely does is it's emotional quality and right now we are in an emotional place as a party and and that is what is being rewarded and that is what is going to come out i mean look gavin newsom was doa in my comment sections at least until he started just getting really fucking angry about what was happening in california and los angeles and now he's like a one like it's buttigieg and who who randomly mysteriously just starts to say fuck all of a sudden buttigieg and gavin newsom voicing that rage that anger as best they can and you know in the environments they can so like i think we're in a place now where where this can actually happen because i don't know we ran out of fox incidentally we have more than ever.

[Rich]

And i'm gonna i'm gonna speak up and luke we're gonna pat you on the back again but like the reason that you have three quarters of a million followers is because you are tapping into people's anger people are pissed we just lost to a convicted felon who destroyed the economy on his way out the door and he got to come back after we did a bunch of good stuff i mean it's madness it's absolute madness so david we're gonna have to wrap here in a second but i just you know obviously rich was talking about buttigieg and gavin newsom but i'm curious what characteristics do you think are going to be necessary for that next democratic nominee in order to not only win a primary but to win a general election that is going to be you know you know is going to be a knockout drag out fight.

[Chris]

As well yeah i mean i think that look i've i worked in the twenty twenty primary it was an extremely disillusioning experience in the sense of although you know i wasn't surprised by it because i've reported on politics and worked in campaigns for a long time but but sort of what determines these primaries at the at the voter level is what was troubling to me that that that i think we have to understand that that there are conservative elements of the democratic party electorate like like not just conservative voices but conservative elements that are still looking for kind of not just conservative democrats but i don't mean like ideologically conservative i mean kind of conservative in their vision of what to do that there's a there's a fear of like quote unquote radicalism and maybe now you know since then it'll at that point be eight years that it's like we're living in radical times we need rat we need more more quote unquote radical solutions here i mean i don't think the new deal is very radical right i mean it was at the time but like i think right i mean but it and it is comparatively radical to what the democratic party pushes today so so i think there's an opening for a candidate to speak to big visions about a whole new way this country can and should work i think that the so called radical ideas of medicare for all as an example that some kind of free college for all some kind of much more robust retirement system that's more expanding social security and the like i mean these are basic human needs and they are universal right i do think we're moving beyond in a lot of ways the era of identity politics where identity politics is weaponized against class politics that universalism and simplicity are the way for a policy agenda i mean people like medicare people like social security because it's universal and because it's easy right they get it it's automatic it's not like you got to jump through twenty five thousand right there's no loopholes it's like that's it like it's funny to me that like the democrats are flailing around always looking for solutions and the two most popular programs in the history of the country and in the history of the party are sitting right there waiting to be waiting to be expanded everyone likes these policies like like i mean it's a little more complicated than that but like it's right there right so a candidate who can speak to those those issues and that agenda and a candidate who can i think also speak credibly about corruption you know i saw jon ossoff recently and this is an issue near and dear to my heart we did the the audio series master plan which is all about the secret history of legalizing corruption in america i think john ossoff he he made a speech saying that you know something to the effect of we're living in the most corrupt political system in the western world citizens united was the worst decision in in the modern history of the country and he articulated what we tried to articulate in the in the series which is connecting corruption to how it affects your daily life right you're paying more for your prescription drugs because the pharmaceutical industry buys off the politicians right like like the corruption connected to the real issues and the thing about why i think this is such an important theme in the twenty will be in the twenty twenty eight election or could be is that we remember that that's how john mccain became so popular john mccain emerged from a corruption scandal the keating five scandal to become the a crusader against big money in politics and it spoke to people across the ideological spectrum obviously donald trump is the human personification of corruption in so many different ways the human personification of big money in politics so it's an easy argument but the reason democrats have in a lot of ways shied away from it is because i think they're afraid that they're going to end up indicting their own party but here's the thing both parties do need to be indicted and one way you exude authenticity is to is to show that you're willing to go after both parties when it is necessary the average person on the street thinks both parties are corrupt or are at least not serving their interests we have a problem where very few politicians are willing to say that for fear of offending their own party but it's a message that is waiting to be delivered.

[Rich]

Yep i totally agree and actually we are at time david thank you very much for joining us everybody you should go subscribe to the lever should also go subscribe to our our substack as well you know all of these big guys are getting wiped out by trump lawsuits where all of us are trying to do best to fill fill the fill the void so if you can subscribe that would be great to both of us and also before we go chris what is what is that shirt that you're wearing oh you're on mute.

[Luke]

You'Re muted you know ten years into working remote i still can't control the mute button it's i i don't know what's wrong with me but i was saying to no one because no one could hear me that the find out shirt only gets more comfortable over time so if you go to the findout podcast dot com you can get your own made in the usa union printed you know i've i've been working with the folks who print these shirts for all of my non profits for years and years they are the best in the business so go to the findout podcast dot com go pick up a shirt and i think rich might have.

[Rich]

Had a mug yeah rich what's on.

[David]

That i mean the thing i love about this diner style mug besides the fact that it's made in the united states and and is awesome is that it's heavy enough that if i needed to like i don't i don't own a gun because i could beat someone to death with this coffee mug and it would not break i mean it is like like nineteen fifties diner style.

[Rich]

So yeah so just to clarify it's findoutpodcast dot com and if you want to go shipping six bucks a month on a subscription you can go to find out podcast dot substack dot com and obviously you can go subscribe to to david's outlet the lever the lever dot com lever news lever news excuse me lever news dot com lever news dot com all right david thank you very much thank you everybody and thanks.

[Chris]

To all of you it's nice to.

[Rich]

Meet you guys we'll talk soon thanks guys take care.