Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
Mike Pesca
The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. It's Monday, May 5, 2025. From peach fish Productions, it's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca. Donald Trump was interviewed by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press Sunday. At all the things that you would expect from an interview with Donald Trump, it had the clear inaccuracies.
- [00:42]
Donald Trump
I have it down to A$98 in many states right now. When you go that much lower on energy, which is ahead of my prediction because I really thought I could get it down into the two 50s when we have it down at A$98 in numerous places.
- [01:00]
Mike Pesca
Cheapest gas in the country. I could find 219 in a Texaco station in Mississippi. Cheapest in Texas, 226 at a Circle K outside of San Antonio. I hope I don't cause a run on those particular gas stations, but if you go tell them the gist sent you. Trump and Welker also got into a ridiculous back and forth about dollies.
- [01:20]
Kristen Welker
Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. Yeah, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up?
- [01:32]
Donald Trump
No, I think the tariffs are going to be great for us because it's going to make us rich.
- [01:36]
Kristen Welker
But you said some dolls are going to cost more. Isn't that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up?
- [01:41]
Donald Trump
I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's 11 years old, needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls.
- [01:51]
Kristen Welker
When you say they could have three dolls instead of 30 dolls, are you saying you're saying they don't need Americans could see empty store shelves.
- [01:58]
Donald Trump
No, I'm, no, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they don't need to have $30. They can have three. They don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.
- [02:06]
Mike Pesca
And of course, the headlines that were generated from Trump being reflectively disputatious. I don't know if the Constitution applies to me. And the answer that you always get whenever you ask him if he would possibly hem in his options on anything.
- [02:22]
Donald Trump
We don't need their cars. We don't need their lumber. We don't need their energy. We don't need anything. We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us.
- [02:32]
Kristen Welker
You and I.
- [02:33]
Donald Trump
They need us. We don't need them.
- [02:34]
Kristen Welker
You and I talked and I asked you if you would rule out military force to take Greenland, and you said no, you don't rule out anything. Would you rule out military force to take Canada?
- [02:44]
Donald Trump
Well, I think we're not going to ever get to that point. It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland. I'll be honest. We need that for national and international security, but not. I think it's highly unlikely. I don't see it with Canada. I just don't see it. I have to be honest with you.
- [03:00]
Mike Pesca
This was exactly the kind of interview I hate. Look, it wasn't incompetently done. It wasn't substanceless. It was a bunch of choices that Welker made that I do not like from an interview with Trump, because I've heard it before. Maybe not in the specifics, maybe the outrageous things he said were truly and newly outrageous, but it was in general predictable. And he didn't get into any of his thinking, which you can, if you ask him the right questions sometimes, which you can elicit, he will generate headlines for you, right? And then afterwards, if you're an interviewer, you can tell yourself, hey, I did a great job. And I'm not criticizing Welker per se. I'm just saying what I want is something like this. When he makes a claim like he does four times by my count, in this interview and hundreds of times elsewhere, a claim that underpins his economic philosophy that trade with another country is to lose money with another country. I have questions. And the question isn't, how dare you? Or you're wrong. The question is, to what degree does this odd conception of trade influence your thinking? So here is a version of this remark. In this interview, we were losing more.
- [04:14]
Donald Trump
Than $5 billion a day. $5 billion a day. You don't talk about that.
- [04:21]
Mike Pesca
But you do, and you do. So quite curiously, Mr. President, when you or a staffer goes to a Starbucks and buys a coffee for 350, do you lose 350 to that Starbucks? Or when you go to a resort that a resort you don't own and you play golf and you pay $400 in greens fees, have you lost $400 to that resort? Have they ripped you off for $400? When you think of trade, why do you think of the exchange of money for goods or a service? Why do you think of that? As a loss. And again, it's not a gotcha. It's not. You're wrong. Top economists don't define it that way. It's because this does inform how you imposed all your tariffs. It was only based on the trading deficits with other countries. And I might have asked something like, wait, Mr. President, we get affordable shoes from abroad. The shoemakers get our money. Are they ripping us off because we don't have to make shoes at home now? We could wear the shoes, spend our money on the shoes and make our money and our talent and our brain power making something else more valuable than shoes like computer chips. Say, I'd really like to get to the underpinnings of his beliefs. I'd like to try to find out how much of that is trying to make a point. He thinks it's good rhetoric and how much he really thinks paying for anything thing with from another country is losing. And yes, I know he dodge. He'd shuck and jive. He deny the premise. He'd make a joke about me not affording greens fees or something, right? Say, maybe he'd say something about pencils. But there is an opportunity to get somewhere if you try. Or you could, as it were, rule it out. On the show today in the spiel I answer the question, when a State decides that 65% of their cars only are going to be gas spewing and 35% EV, how do they actually enforce it? When do they enforce it? At a certain point, do they say no more EVs for you? That question answered. Also, I'm here to plug a substack live. I'm doing tomorrow. Mike pesca.substack it's where you get the gist list. But Also tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern I'll talk to Alison Schrager. She's an expert on pensions and tensions. And we'll talk about international trade. You're all invited. Just go and subscribe to me on Mike pesca.substack.com Now, our interview today, you might think I recorded it after I heard Welker interview Donald Trump on Meet the Press. Because it seems like Chuck Todd, my interview guest and I are talking about that interview. No total coincidence, but I did talk to Chuck Todd, former host of Meet the Press and we talk about how to cover politics in our polarized era. What kind of questions maybe to ask Donald Trump. He also gives me three Republicans who served as guardrails that you might not have even thought of. Chuck Todd up next, hey, can we talk about True Work. I'm wearing True Work right now. I guess you can't see me, but if you could, you would see this pullover hoodie. It's good for the sun, but it's just good to wear. And these work pants, which are in. I don't know if it's mustard, it's yellow, it says cool, but it says also it's going to wick away moisture. I feel like I'm fooling someone or getting away with someone when I wear True Work. It's engineered for maximum comfort. Check, check, check. Minimum bulk. You know, denim and cotton hasn't changed over 200 years, but true Work has elasticity, sweat wicking, soft shell technology. You don't feel like you're wearing technology, but you're inside technology. With these pants, with this shirt, upgrade to True Work for a major change in the way you work. True Work helps you be your best when your best matters most. Check out the full lineup to get 15% off your first order@truewerk.com the Gist this is one of those where the spelling will matter, so pay attention. 15% off at t r u e W-E-R k.com the gist if ED it's erectile dysfunction is keeping you down. HIMS is there to get you your confidence, everything about you, your essence to get it up. Feeling a little stalled in the bedroom? You could get some gas in the tank, you know, be you diesel or unleaded. I'm not here to judge. I'm just here to help by telling you a little bit about hims. It's changing men's health care by providing you access to affordable sexual health treatments from the comfort of your couch. Again, not here to judge whatever is between you and your couch, but what it does is HIMS will give you the ED treatments like Viagra or Cialis, and they'll save you up to 95% of the cost of those brands. Fill out an intake form. A medical provider will determine the right treatment option. You don't have to worry about insurance. They'll send it right to you lickety split. Start your free online Visit today@hisss.com the Gist that's h I m s.com the Gist for your personalized ED treatment options. Hiss.com the Gist the featured products include compounded products, products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness or quality by the fda. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. Prices vary based on product and subscription plan. Chuck Todd is here. He's out with the Chuck Todd cast. The name was right there for him. I've been listening to this show and I really like it because a lot of times, Chuck Todd, longtime NBC journalist, longtime host of Meet the Press. A lot of times when these people leave their legacy media, they say, oh, I'm liberated. But liberated just turns out to be I'm more hyper partisan than you even imagined me to be. That is not the case with Chuck Todd. He's gotten, in fact more provocative, but still is very, very fair. And what I've been doing is I've been listening to his show, taking notes, knowing he'd come on my show. And I'm just going to ask him about a lot of the interviews he's done and the things he's said and the opinions he has and also where he sees the media today. Chuck, welcome back to the gist.
- [10:44]
Chuck Todd
Mike, I appreciate it. You, I need to hire you as my marketer. That's terrific. I'll take that intro any day of the week.
- [10:50]
Mike Pesca
It is a very good show. And let's just start there. You definitely had the need to be fair or to appear fair. And given our where we are in political polarization, I'm sure you got a lot of brick bats for that. But now the show is pitched to, I think a listener who probably is, isn't even your listener. For instance, you'll say, hey, love Trump or hate him. I'm going to guess most Trump lovers have other media they could opt into. But why do you pitch the show there?
- [11:18]
Chuck Todd
Because I think that, you know, we're not going to solve this problem if we continue to, you know, this problem that we currently have, if we continue to sort of have this antagonistic relationship. Right. Ultimately, you know, and especially the older you get, right. You sort of realize that in order to make a democracy function, you got to sort of do it with baby steps. You got to do sort of the middle out. And I always say I'm, you know, that doesn't mean I'm a centrist, it just means I'm a realist. Right. It, I have some radical views on variety of issues. Some of them I don't share because immediately people will take that one view and then, and it, and it over it will overstate everything else. Because that's what our society does, right. That's what the, that's what the Internet was built on. But I always say ultimately I believe it in, in the center out because it's the only way you make long term progress. And then I come from a You know, look, I actually think democracies work, so figure out why, if you don't like why the voters have picked Donald Trump instead of complaining about it and yelling at the voters. There's always wisdom in crowds. You may not see it right away. Go figure it out. Go find out. And, and there's something to be learned. And so, you know, I just think it's a. If you start there, then you can get, I don't know, you know, whether it's common ground, incrementalism, whatever you want to call it. I just think, you know, you certainly, you certainly can at least get more people in a room to have a conversation. And then I'll just make it even more simple. Look, I'm a, I'm a narcissistic journalist, and I want more people to watch or see me, not fewer people.
- [13:02]
Mike Pesca
And so you don't want to repel the potential viewer with caustic, over the top.
- [13:08]
Chuck Todd
I want everybody. I want a skeptic. Yes. You know, I used to say my goal was I hope everybody who watched Meet the Press that I. That something on the show made them uncomfortable or question themselves or me for at least five minutes. Right. That was a good show. If I could get a variety of people from different points of view to feel like something they believed was questioned and that, that to me was. I viewed that as my job. But you're right, you know, my first name was me for 10 years. And so I, And I did take that seriously, meaning I knew that my, my opinions were never going to be my opinions. They were always going to be used to be the opinions of NBC News or be the opinions of the news division. Right. Like, you know, that chair. I was a musician in high school and college and French horn, I believe. Yes, sir. Look, you did your, you did your homework, and, you know, Jon Stewart played for Shorthorn. First chair meant something. When you're a per. And I always say the Meet the Press chair is first chair in the, in the Washington press corps. May not be. You know, it's a great chair. It's a stressful chair, and a lot of people will take what one person says who sits in that chair and ascribe it to the entire press corps. I think that's unfair, but I had to be mindful of that when I was sitting in that chair.
- [14:23]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. I also think, and I appreciate that I want to ask you about one of your radical beliefs, quote, unquote. But I also think there is probably a value, and I wonder if you do too, of acting as if. As acting. As if the idea of objectivity, we can't always be objective, but it's good to have a North Star and to orient yourself towards that point. And so if you're oriented towards an audience, an imagined audience, probably, it doesn't even match up with the demographics, let's say. But if the audience is, hey, love Trump or hate him, and you're imagining I am playing to the people who are both of those, the product will be better as you define it.
- [15:02]
Chuck Todd
I think so. And it. And it. Ultimately, if this whole thing is mostly about trying to figure out how we sort of move forward as a democracy and move forward as a. As a. As a civilized nation, then, yeah, you got to look, we're 350 million people. You know, I actually think Congress, it should be hard to pass a bill that impacts 350 million people. It shouldn't be easy. It shouldn't be executive orders. Right. It should be, you got to figure out how to bring everybody along. And in fact, this is my one great fear of what's going on with the tech world is, I think, Silicon Valley. I think when you look at some of these guys, whether it's Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Altman, any of them, I think they view us human beings as somewhat in the way of their advancement, that in some ways we're sort of, we could be moving faster or we could, we could have these systems running better if it just wasn't for these pesky old people with landlines, or if it wasn't for these pesky old people that insist on actually going in person to the Social Security office and. And you know it. Or if it wasn't for these pesky humans that are just making it harder for us to transition to this automated world, which I promise you could just be, just trust us, we'll make it work. You know, that. Isn't that in how. How this is going to work? And so it's like. But, but I think everybody has to understand. We have to. If you want a democracy to work, you kind of have to go slowly and bring everybody along on your ideas.
- [16:33]
Mike Pesca
So lest my listeners who haven't heard the show think that you do, quote, take it easy on Trump, the last couple of episodes have been laying out how you think Trump has been lazy. And you look at his travel schedule and you compare him to the first term, and that's the takeaway. He's not traveling to other places. He's not traveling to swing states. Although isn't that a tell why Would a second term president necessarily want to travel to swing states except to help the party or his successor, which Donald Trump has never seemed to have much of a stake?
- [17:03]
Chuck Todd
Oh, he's never cared about anybody else but himself. I mean, I think that's pretty clear. And he is a, you know, but it is interesting to me, you know, there's a lot of folks who are invested in. Look, there's plenty of what Trump does. I mean, he does not have the temperament to be President of the United States. Right. I think it's pretty clear that he really doesn't. He can't. You know, he's too. This has not been a healthy thing for the American economy, for the world economy and all of that. But at the same time, you, you sort of. Sometimes I think we, we want to get everybody worked up about the worst case scenario with him and so take the whole 2028 mess. I always say with Trump, you can get him to say anything. Right. And in some ways, journalists have to be careful. Right. Because he'll accept any premise. I joke that I promise you I could have an interview with him and say, you know, how come Japan isn't an American territory?
- [18:01]
Mike Pesca
Right.
- [18:02]
Chuck Todd
We bombed him twice. Come on. And you know what Trump would say? Hey, you're right. You know, right.
- [18:07]
Mike Pesca
If you start a question with, are you ruling out? The answer is always no.
- [18:11]
Chuck Todd
And if you're the journalist asking, are you ruling out do know what you're doing? Right. You're manufacturing a headline. Okay. And there may be a reason you want to manufacture a headline, but I hope you're doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons.
- [18:24]
Mike Pesca
I did, I will say at a press conference, it is probably contradicted this, but at a press conference where he didn't rule out military force with Greenland, he did say, when asked, are you ruling out military force with Canada? He did say, well, I don't know. I don't know about that.
- [18:39]
Chuck Todd
But even that it was like, I don't know about that. Right. Like. Because it's almost like he was absolutely not right. Right, right. But no, I just, it is. I think Trump's been extraordinarily lazy. I think the mistake we've all made in assessing what Trump could be doing. I think the markets missed this. I think a lot of the business community missed this. They assumed. Mike Pence and writes previous the, the administration those two built on behalf of Trump 1.0 was. And frankly, Jared Kushner. Right. That those guys, in hindsight turned out to be pretty interesting guardrails we had no idea. Now we see, oh, my God. And notice how Nobody had Trump 1.0. Right. How few people made it to Trump 2.0, which tells you a lot. And I think, again, which is. Which might be why the business community wasn't prepared for the shock that they've now gotten. And I assume at this point now they're. They're no longer assuming the best case scenario with him anymore.
- [19:38]
Mike Pesca
I specifically wrote down on a previous show, you mentioned those three individuals. And I think that we know that Gary Cohen was a guardrail, maybe Minutian, certainly a lot of Millie and the other generals, but those three guys, that, that was interesting to me. I interviewed Alex Eisenstadt on the show, and he did lay out the case for Jared Kushner being a guardrail and Trump resenting him because Trump thought he pushed some justice agenda, criminal justice reform, which Trump thought it didn't help him. But lay out the case for. Let's go. In order, Mike pence before the January 6th incident.
- [20:13]
Chuck Todd
It's the administration. He ran the transition. He and Reince Priebus ran the transition. And think about the health secretary we had in 1.0 versus the health secretary we have at 2.0. Think of the.
- [20:24]
Mike Pesca
Okay, so personnel is what I'm saying. Those two guys had a stake in person.
- [20:27]
Chuck Todd
And Reince Priebus, personnel. It was Reince Priebus that found John Kelly and said, let's do that guy at dhs, which, by the way, I thought was a really smart idea. Go get the guy who's the head of Southern Command, who may know a thing or two about what's happening to migration patterns. Like, it was a very logical, frankly, normal thing to do and what you hope somebody, even if they're a political appointee, is thinking about. Right. So both previous and that. And I think the other thing you had is he was. Reince created a West Wing that was designed to keep Trump on the rails. Now, Reince was still, I think whether he was knowingly doing this or not, I think he viewed his job as head of the Republican Party still, even as he was the chief of staff, which meant he had a communication staff that was there to protect Trump from himself, rather than what Trump has today, which is a communication staff that is designed to amplify the let Trump be Trump mindset. Right. And you have an inexperienced Washington hand now at chief of staff. I think this shows you have an inexperienced, you know, so you start to look at the difference. And look, there's a lot of people will Say this expression personnel is policy sometimes, right? Who you put into these jobs will tell you where you're going to go, which is why the, the Kennedy pick, the Hegseth pick are so consequential because they're, they're, they're, they're, these personnel decisions are, are going to change policy in both of those agencies.
- [21:51]
Mike Pesca
About Priebus specifically, you hinted at this. Was it that he said we need guardrails per se, or was it that what you just said, he viewed himself as head of the Republican Party and his conception of Republican Party hadn't been updated to be this entirely MAGA inflected party. He's the guy who wrote the autopsy, which was the exact opposite of where the Republicans were to be more accommodating towards immigration as opposed to what Donald Trump said. And I say this because I don't think I've ever even interviewed Priebus, but I see him on ABC this week and he's playing a role on tv, but I haven't ever seen him say much that screams guardrails to me.
- [22:31]
Chuck Todd
No, and he won't. But he has this great line that he shared with me once about Trump went to him, how come you won't write a book? How come you're not writing a book? And he says, because I won't lie and I can't tell the truth. And I think that that's, look, I think that I admire that. I'm not a big, you know, I love to consume the good tell all book. Right. I'm of two minds, but I lose respect for that person who then does write said tell all book. So it's sort of, I hear what you're saying on quote, guardrails. But I think the point is, is that sometimes you don't know what looks like a guardrail until you see something worse. And I think a lot of Trump 2.0 now you look back and you go, oh, look, I think a lot of voters thought they were getting just a second term of 1.0 and it turns out this a brand new administration. Now he's behaving like a tired second term president, right? He won't travel, he doesn't want to do the, I mean, he doesn't do any, he rarely leaves the Rose Garden, the Mar A Lago Gardens or the, or the Bedminster Gardens, right? He, he's a creature comfort guy. But there is an inherent, like, I think he's just sort of done with, he feels like I've done that part of politics. I don't need to do it anymore.
- [23:47]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. You are right about guardrails. You can look around at your car and say, well, this doesn't have crumple zones, this doesn't have airbags, but as long as you're driving within the lanes, maybe those are guardrails. And maybe the new administration is more like, why don't we have a few beers before we get behind the wheel? And that is all that represents, the lack of guardrails. You just said the current chief of staff is politically inexperienced, Susie Wiles.
- [24:10]
Chuck Todd
What is in D.C. and I say that because she's wildly experienced in Florida. I have a lot of respect for her political skills.
- [24:17]
Mike Pesca
Yeah.
- [24:18]
Chuck Todd
Sadly.
- [24:19]
Mike Pesca
But can you cite something that you think she's done wrong?
- [24:22]
Chuck Todd
Oh, I think that she's not. She's. I mean, just. Yes. How do you, Laura Loomer, got into the White House? Right. Like that? The job of the chief of staff is gatekeeper. Right. That, to me, is your number one job. And you're gatekeeping people and you're gatekeeping paper. Okay. And that is, you know, what gets to the president. You know, in many cases, your job is to prevent stuff getting to him sometimes or prevent certain people from getting to him, especially this president. Now she'll say, hey, I got. I've been able to corral him because I've let him be. Okay. Did it. Is it working? Like, I don't think this is working where you've got a chill. I mean, literally, Loomer goes in there and just finds anybody that had bit us. This, to me, is. Will shock some of your listeners. Anybody that it was connected to, Pompeo or Tom Cotton, was targeted for essentially, you know, public execution, if you will, not actual execution, but certainly firing for their job. You know, part of this is an ideological purge, I guess, on Loomer's part. But that's a failure, right? That's. That's a massive failure. The chief of staff. Now maybe she'll say, I can't. I couldn't keep her away forever. I tried. You know, things like that. But that's a big one. Right. And that's a. To me, that's the primary job of the chief.
- [25:42]
Mike Pesca
Yeah.
- [25:43]
Chuck Todd
In the. In a West Wing, though, during the.
- [25:45]
Mike Pesca
Campaign, there is this staffer, Natalie Harp, who people view as within the campaign and within Trump world as a ridiculous figure who follows him around with a printer and seems to be more in love with him than one should, given the age gap and other considerations. So maybe while, I don't know, I.
- [26:03]
Chuck Todd
Mean, you know, apparently That's. That's all the rage these days. That's Bill Belichick, Right?
- [26:06]
Mike Pesca
Yeah, yeah, exactly. But I was thinking maybe while's not to. I'm not here on this Susie Wiles excuse tour, but maybe she said, well, he needs his time with. Well, and by the way, sycophants and nothing.
- [26:20]
Chuck Todd
You're not.
- [26:20]
Mike Pesca
So let me.
- [26:21]
Chuck Todd
You're not wrong. That is her thinking and that is what she believes.
- [26:23]
Mike Pesca
But I think probably met Loomer. The problem was that he acted upon her recommendations. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so who knows? But then Wilds has to say to herself, that could happen, right. If I let. If I give him FaceTime with these people, there. There could be a consequence. Right.
- [26:41]
Chuck Todd
Well, the other argument that I've heard is, and if you sort of. If you. If you sort of corral him too much, then he'll. You. God only knows what he'll do. You know, he'll explode in a rage on truth social one night, and all of a sudden the Fed chair has been fired. You know, so there is sort of like, you know, tiptoeing a little bit around that. And look, she has survived that world fairly long. But, you know, when you study Trump, I've gone back. I mean, basically I was working on a book that was gonna be called the Political Education of Donald Trump, but frankly, by the time you're like, it's over. But essentially, you know, Trump is. There's three people that sort of. That I view as the creators of Trump.
- [27:24]
Mike Pesca
Could I guess a couple of them go for it?
- [27:26]
Chuck Todd
It's all. You probably could guess all three. But the. The three people, how he. Who he learned politics from his behaviors today, I believe three people sort of were his three teachers. And then he took lessons from all three of them.
- [27:39]
Mike Pesca
Roy Cohen, Correct.
- [27:40]
Chuck Todd
Yeah.
- [27:41]
Mike Pesca
All right. Are we counting Fred Trump in there?
- [27:43]
Chuck Todd
Yep. Yeah. No, Fred's. Fred's a creator.
- [27:46]
Mike Pesca
And three. Oh, I don't know. Meet Esposito. You tell me.
- [27:51]
Chuck Todd
Yeah. Roger Stone.
- [27:52]
Mike Pesca
Okay.
- [27:52]
Chuck Todd
Roger Stone. Yeah. And Rogers has told me some incredible stories of.
- [27:57]
Mike Pesca
The only reason I didn't say Roger Stone is, you know, he's going to hype his own place in that.
- [28:02]
Chuck Todd
There's no doubt. Yeah, there's no doubt. But. But in many ways, Trump and, you know, Stone learned a lot about sort of the modern political world from Stone. The sort of the. The tactically, you know, obviously from cone and then relationship and, you know, basically how New York City politics worked in the 60s is how Donald Trump thinks all politics works. Everything. And by the way New York City politics was heavily pay to play. Let's not pretend it wasn't. Sure, it was heavily pay to play. Roger Stone tells me this great story about. So. So Stone is working for the. For the Reagan New York. He's putting the Reagan New York political operation together in 79. He goes to Roy Cohn, who's a big Reagan supporter, and he tells him, hey, I need a finance guy. I need the. I need to be. I need my top. And he goes, oh, you need Donald Trump. And he says, but you have to go meet Fred Trump first, and then you meet Donald Trump. And so Roger says, he goes into Fred Trump's office, and he looks around and he sees these pictures of Fred with all of these political luminaries, all Democrats. And Roger goes, hmm, I wonder if I've been set up. He wasn't quite sure. So he asked him. He looks around, he goes, so why. Why. Why am I here? It seems like you're a big Democrat. And Fred Trump opens his left drawer, pulls out a voided check of a. I think it was six figures, might have been more to the John Birch Society. And he shows it to Roger, and he goes, is this. Does this. Is this bona fides enough, essentially? You know, does this pass the test? Do you now see that I'm one of you. Type of. Type of mindset? But that tells you how Fred Trump viewed political relationships. Whatever it took to get my developments done, that's what it is. And that's how. That's the transactional nature of politics, where I think Trump is almost. You know, I always say I want my mayors to be transactional. I think mayors have to be in order to make a city functional. And there's certainly periods of time where that matters. I don't know if you want your presidents to be that because you're representing more than that.
- [30:05]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. Also, the judgments on the transactions have to be good ones. So you could be transactional to try to end the war in Ukraine. But if you're transacting more and more in the thrall of the strong man who's not there to negotiate with you, versus the person whose purse strings you hold, you've, I think, made a bad calculation. But that's my question. Not. Not morally, but tactically. What lessons from Fred, Roy, or Roger do you think was. Were imparted to Donald that did not serve him well in terms of not being a good person, but being an effective person as an effective politician, as he defines it?
- [30:47]
Chuck Todd
Oh, I think the biggest one is the never apologized streak. Right. Which is actually an effective way for political leaders to sustain their ability to lead is learning how to admit mistakes. And if you do it right, you can actually turn it into an advantage. And I think that his inability to ever accept the premise that he was wrong, you know, never admit defeat or never admit, never apologize, whatever that mindset is, that's not a long term way to keep voters on your side. And it is a, I think why he has always been polarizing. Right. Behaving that way makes the people that support you dig even deeper into the foxhole. That's the good news. Ask General Patton. That worked for a while, but then there's a time where it doesn't. Right. Where you get, where you exhaust everybody. Take for instance, can you imagine being Michael Waltz? We're taping right after it appears that the national security adviser is no longer in his job. The dude's been in the job 102 days. The guy who replaced him in Congress, let me check, I think he just got sworn in about, you know, three weeks ago.
- [31:54]
Mike Pesca
Okay.
- [31:55]
Chuck Todd
And it's a think about the list of people that have decided to go work for Donald Trump. And in fact, I, this is where I was coming to when we were talking about the sort of, the create, you know, who are the creators of Donald Trump as we know him today. If you go through, and I learned this in his history, there's sort of a, there's anywhere from a four to six year sort of time, you know, where, where eventually if you work for Trump, he, you either are alienated from him or he's alienated from you in some way and it never recovers. Right. It's like there's always been a Michael Cohen and they last about four to six years. There's always been a Roy Cohn. They last about, I mean he even dumped Roy Cohn at one point after Roy Cohn was, appeared to be diagnosed with AIDS at the time. You know, so he wears out of people and people wear out of him. Ask yourself who, whose reputation has been enhanced by working for Donald Trump. Right. Does Michael Flynn feel that that's happened? Does Michael waltz, Mick Mulvaney, HR McMaster, Jim Mattis, Rex Tillerson? You see where I'm going here, right? Like, yeah, there is a pattern. I think he's going to have a heart. It's why I think there's most of this cabinet is so sycophantish because I think people that might be tempted to go work in government are worried that, you know, maybe they, it'll be a reputational disaster that they can never recover.
- [33:21]
Mike Pesca
If they care about the reputation outside of Trump world. Right. I think Devin Nunes is making more money and is happier than he's ever was.
- [33:28]
Chuck Todd
He went all in. Yeah, right. Like he just decided, okay, yeah, I.
- [33:32]
Mike Pesca
Think Cash Patel, without Trump, if he said, I'm going to be a respected lawyer for the rest of my life, he's much happier.
- [33:39]
Chuck Todd
But let me make a, let me make a prediction on Devin Nunes. At some point, Trump's going to walk away from that company and he's going to leave Devin Nunes holding the back. You and I both know it.
- [33:49]
Mike Pesca
And we'll be back with more of Chuck Todd tomorrow. That is Chuck Todd, host of the Chuck Todd cast. Who else can host it? David Brinkley's dead. They went with Chuck Todd tomorrow on the gist. You know what I say about a shirt that I just love? I say I could live in it. And that's what I've been doing with Quince. I've got a few pieces from Quince. They're in my closet, but also on my torso. Quince is all the things you actually want to wear. They have organic cotton silk polos. They have European linen beach shorts. And I am here to tell you, also applicable in North America, everything with quints is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'd find with similar brands. Because I'm talking to you. And as cliche as it sounds, by cutting out said middleman, who's maybe not even wearing pants as comfortable as Quint's pants, we're saving you money and giving you luxury pieces without crazy markups. I have gotten two Quint sweaters that are comfortable, fashionable and make me look good.
- [35:02]
Chuck Todd
Really?
- [35:03]
Mike Pesca
That's what it's all about. One's a heather green and the other is a is a basic black. But there's nothing basic about how it feels and how it looks. Elevate your closet with quince. Go to quince.com the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com the gist to get free shipping and 36065 day returns. Quince.com/the gist and now the spiel. I was very interested. I was reading this debate. It eventually became a bill that passed the House of Representatives and it concerns California's laws on emissions. Now, it turns out that in 1970, when the Clean Air act was passed, there was a Carve out for California, sort of a we're sorry for allowing you to become the most polluted, smoggy state. And so California could go beyond the national emissions standards. And they have on occasion, and as goes California, so goes some other states, but also so goes industry. I mean California, they'll tell you they're the world's fourth biggest economy, but there are a lot of consumers in California. They change a rule, they change a requirement. Potato chip companies change, nationwide, have to follow suit because you can't have your own California potato chips and your Tennessee potato chips. When it comes to cars, it's a little bit different. I do want to point out that in this way California is like the anti Texas. Texas changes a textbook to bring a little more ignorance to our schoolchildren. California passes a law to make the air a little cleaner, the ground a little safer from fracking, which I do believe is a transitional fuel. So California now has this law that says first of all that by 2035 every car in the state will be zero emission. Okay, it's 2035. It's easy to say if you're Gavin Newsom in 2020, this is going to happen in 2035. But you know, there's another part of that law and this is what the House of Representatives was all up in arms about. 2026, 35% of all the cars sold, new cars sold have to be zero emissions, plug in hybrid they say, or hydrogen powered vehicles. Good luck with that. 600 were sold last year, but that's fine, 35%. Now I had a question, it's a very practical question. How do you enforce this? Follow me here. To know what percent of cars were sold, you have to have the denominator. But you won't know that until the end of the year. So how do you know that you're under 35% or that you're about to break the law? There is an answer to this. Luckily I've done some research and what they do is they figure out the denominator, not actually from 2026. They go to a couple of years prior, they calculate all the cars sold between 22 and 24 and that's your denominator. And then you can from there figure out what percentage, right, you need a denominator for the percent. What percentage is going to be ev? But what happens if you're over, do you just stop selling cars at that point? Does everyone who bought a car that was gas spewing before that point get to keep it? But no one else does the answer once again is no, not really. Because in simple phrases like we're going to have a law that says no more than 35% of cars can be gas spewing. What they really mean is there's going to be a consequence for over 35% of the cars being gas spewing. And it will be the auto companies that bear that consequence. Now, in the law, it's a $20,000 fine per car. But if you talk to or listen from, and I read a good article on calmatters, if you listen from to the auto industry, they'll be like, yeah, there's no way that we're paying 20,000. They're just not, you know, recalcitrant or refuse nics. That's not how it has to work. Because here's another aspect of the law not widely reported except here on the gist. There will be credits and some auto companies will do great with this standard for EV vehicles, it'll be much less than 35% non EV. You know what companies, the EV companies. Elon Musk. Elon Musk will not be selling any gas spewing cars just like Rivian. And then Elon Musk will get credits. Not him, probably some guy a couple of layers down in the company wearing a black on black hat, however, and he'll be able to sell the credits to the car companies. So it'll be less than 20,000. And luckily the House of Representatives might not realize that they're acting against the business interests of their doge God, Elon Musk. So taking all these caveats, that is the way that is how they quote, unquote, enforce it. But there's an even bigger question. Can they really enforce it? Because in 2020, the sale of EV cars, there's only 7.8% of cars in the state when this was announced were ebay. And then the next year it went up to 12.7% and then it went up to 19.5%. And so things were going great. It's at 25% in 2023. So at this rate, we're definitely going to get to 35% EV by 2026. Except from 23 to 24 there was a big point 3% rise. And this was not pandemic determined. The experts say, you know, all the people who wanted an EV got an ev, all the early adopters. And now you left with a bunch of people who might have no interest in EVs but maybe live in apartments. There are no easy access to chargers, you know, charging Stations are a huge problem. And if you mandate people get something that they can't actually charge or doesn't actually work for them, it's not much of a mandate. It's just a recipe for backlash. And not the kind in the House of Representatives. Also, they are EVs are more expensive, they're coming down and they're coming down in price relative to gas spewing cars, but probably not quick enough. So it looks like this mandate even, even if it stands, and it does seem that the law is against the Republicans in the House who banned it because a little complicated, but it's baked into the regulation. The courts have always held that California does get this carve out, even if Mike Johnson says they shouldn't. But the trajectory of the Natural adoption of EVs has stalled like a rivian 20 miles outside its travel range change. And without that natural inclination to get where the law mandates, you're going to have a lot of problems. A lot of people I don't know, maybe going to Arizona, flying, maybe you take the wife with you, you drive to Arizona, then you both drive back with your gas spewing car. That's great for the environment, right? That adds a Couple cumulative hundred 200 miles in carbon emissions just to buy a car outside of the state. The people are going to be mad. It's going to essentially be a tax on poor people. And without the very convincing and charismatic Gavin Newsom to cheerleader it along, I don't know how much this EV aspiration will survive. And that's it for today's show. The gist is produced by Cory Wara, CBSO of Peach Fish Productions. Michelle Pesca, the doyen of the Just list is Kathleen Sykes. And Leo Baum has been hitting the archives hard and helping us out. So thank you to our intern, Leo Baum, Astrid Greens, our social media director, and thanks for listening.