Josh Dawsey (8:55)

Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Mike Pesca (8:57)

So have are you a student of and did you read the old Game Change books that were cranked out for past elections?

Josh Dawsey (9:05)

I did. I read the original Game Change, yes.

Mike Pesca (9:08)

So did you want to do that? Because I, I know that all reporters, when they're deep in the reporting, there's nothing, there's a few considerations. One is you literally can't report everything. Things are on the record, but you have so much detail. And there's the idea of the notebook dump, which doesn't sound that appealing to the reader. But, you know, as a journalist, there's great stuff in there. So what was the motivation between this why is this a story you had to tell?

Josh Dawsey (9:33)

Well, when the story started, it was a totally different story than it ended. And I think we wanted to chart out the comprehensive and hopefully vivid story of what we believed was going to be historic rematch of Biden versus Trump. Former President Trump had been charged at that point with, I think, 91 felonies, had been convicted in New York. And it was either going to be a redemption for him where all of his problems went away, or he was facing and he said this to us in the book, you know, kind of a lifetime of hurt and misery if he did not win. And then you had the great Biden story as well. And we sort of saw it playing out as a historic election in that front and thought that we wanted to cover it as well as we could for our employer at the time, the Washington Post. But then, you know, to go further and deeper and try to figure out even more after the election and then, as you know, after the disastrous debate performance, Biden dropped out of the race under considerable strain and duress from his party. And Kamala Harris became the nominee. And it became another really interesting story. And so I think what we saw, the year 2024, was a seismic moment in American history where people were going to sort of reject Trump or decide, you know, this is what we want and sort of shape history in a different way. And I think all of us thought that it was. I'd never written a book before. I thought about writing books before, but I, for whatever reason, it sort of decided not to do it. And then here it seemed like if you were ever going to try and write telling and comprehensive and interesting political book, it was going to be in this year.

Mike Pesca (11:28)

Yeah. Tell me about the breakdown in assignments. It's you, it's Tyler Pager, and it's Isaac Arnsdorff. All reporting and being coordinated from what, the political desk of the Washington Post at the time?

Josh Dawsey (11:41)

Yeah, from the politics desk on the Washington Post. Tyler was a White House correspondent for the Post. He's now at the New York Times. Isaac was a campaign reporter for the Post covering the Trump campaign. And I was on the enterprise team. I had covered Trump for the White House team before and then was working on the campaigns, you know, basically as an enterprise reporter doing, you know, various kind of big picture stories.

Mike Pesca (12:06)

Right, right. So Tyler's on the inside in one campaign and Isaac's on the other. And there you are flitting back and forth and following specific stories, maybe specific policy debates, specific developments. So what about that game changer of the Biden that came to the fore in the Biden debate? One of the books that I mentioned was mostly reporting out what people knew and when they knew it about Biden's decline. How much original reporting did you do on that? And tell me some of the things that you found out about the state of Biden as known to people who should have known better.

Josh Dawsey (12:44)

Well, I think. And sort of the delineation of our work, not that it matters that much to your listeners, but Tyler did most of the Biden and Harris reporting on the Democratic side. And. And Isaac and I did a lot of the Trump reporting and Republican reporting, though I did some of the Democratic reporting with Tyler. What the truth that we found was that Biden had certainly begun slipping. He was forgetting people's names and meetings. His staff had sort of limited some of his physical movements to try and stop any embarrassing things from happening. There were hours of a day that they thought he was more productive than others. And when he wasn't getting enough sleep and he was sort of out of his routine, he was prone to some pretty significant gaffes. And I think what we learned in the course of our reporting of the book was how much also the Hunter Biden trial and sort of strain within his own family had sort of had challenged him and had really upset him. I think, in a way, maybe that the public didn't quite know at the time. Like, obviously, he loves his son and obviously, you know, he said that publicly. But how much he followed the trial, how obsessed he was with the trial, how often he talked to his son, I mean, it was a really personal sort of thing there that I think really, really hurt him in a way that has not been captured. And we tried to capture that in our book. And I think going up to the debate, his team knew that it could be rocky. I mean, they did several days, if not a week of debate prep out at Camp David. Some of the sessions were halted in the middle of a session because they just realized they wasn't productive at the time. We quote Ron Klain, the former chief of staff for Biden, saying to a bunch of other Biden advisors at Camp David, this is going to be really touch and go. I don't know how this is going to go. At one point, they are trying to bring in outside celebrities to work with him, as we say in the book, on his voice and performance. I think they realize this is going to be not an easy task. But we have to sort of also remember is that much of the public thought Biden was incredibly old already and were ready to move on. He was sort of trailing in some of the polls at the time, and they believe that they sort of had to do the debate. I mean, I think in retrospect, you wonder, okay, why did he do that debate in the condition that he was in? But a lot of the reporting in the book indicates that they viewed the debate as sort of, you know, a must do because they needed to shake up the race. They needed to get it focused on Trump. They needed to sort of reframe how things were going. And they hoped, obviously, that he would be way better than he was. I mean, I think none of his advisors that we talked to expected, you know, a heroic sort of statesmanlike performance of a debate that just, you know, blew people's socks off. But no one, and I think we talked up, you know, maybe 50 or more people who work for Biden for this book ever expected it to be that bad. And for him to be that out of it and to seem that incomprehensible, that's the performance.

Mike Pesca (16:03)

But did any of those 50s say to you, did you ask them? Did you come to realize consistently, and not just on that night, that things were much worse than even we as the insiders or quasi insiders were led to believe?

Josh Dawsey (16:18)

No. And I think one of the things in the book that we capture is how much of a small circle of aides around him really still don't believe that he was too out of it to be president. In the book, Mike Donilon, who was his top political advisor, did an interview with us where he said it was the Democratic Party's biggest mistake to get rid of the guy and they should have kept him. I think the people around him, his pollsters, some of his campaign aides, we report out in the book, who were really concerned, basically had access to the president blocked. They weren't able to talk to him. They weren't able to say anything to him directly. I think people who encountered him in 2024 realized that he was not as sharp maybe as he once was. But at the same time, Biden had always been meandering, had always gotten facts wrong at times, and had always been sort of a. Not a great public speaker. So I think. I think some of the folks were around him. And I think you'll see this in the book, like we're in a little bit of denial about what was really happening in front of our very eyes.

Mike Pesca (17:25)

Yeah, I think from the book, I got a lot of denial. Well, comparing it to what I saw and what we've learned. So a couple of questions. Mike Donilon, who said that, how much did he get paid by Biden for being his campaign adviser?

Josh Dawsey (17:37)

Millions of millions of dollars.

Mike Pesca (17:38)

Yes, yes. And much more than even the going rate. So you could see why maybe he would be inclined to say Biden should stay in the race. There's a quote in the book, here's what we have to do to manage the situation where things like, physically, we give him a teleprompter, even for small gatherings, and we help him with stairs. This was after he fell or tripped over a sandbag while making a speech in Colorado. And I think Jeffrey Katzenberg, you have quoted saying, this is good. It happened months before the election. We'll be able to handle it. But at one point, they said, okay, what we have to do is not have any events after eight and, quote, or at least characterize insiders saying the President of the United States not Having events after eight. So there was that sentiment there that this wasn't just a difference of degree, but a difference of kind.

Josh Dawsey (18:26)

That's right. I think what I was trying to answer on your. In your first question is how many of them thought that he could not capably run again? Right. I think most of them thought with the right precautions, with the right accommodations, the right people around him, we can sort of try to make this work. Right.

Mike Pesca (18:42)

I think they weren't consciously thinking that they were pulling one over on the American public. Right. But I was more interested in retrospect. There's whole dynamics going on where people come to you and they want to get on the right side of history or they want to, even if it's off the record, try to explain, well, I was a cabinet secretary, but he only had three cabinet meetings in the last year or whatever I was. And I think that's the number. I was wondering how much the sources were coming to you trying to correctly or incorrectly, through self motivation or otherwise kind of recalibrate what the understanding of Biden's abilities were even before that debate.

Josh Dawsey (19:20)

I think we maybe saw a little bit less of that in our reporting than was captured in some of the other books. I think what we found in an interesting way was that the folks around him, I think, had been around him so much and so often were kind of used to it and maybe didn't notice the small things that when governors came in or outside members of Congress or business leaders or folks who were not around him regularly. One of the things we have in the book is that when the special counsel Robert Hur interviewed Biden as part of the infamous now classified documents investigation, Biden was so bad in the interview that her thought, is he trying to play a game with us? Is he trying to make us think I'm actually that out of it, so you can't charge me. Some of the governors who met with him came away being like, wow, wow, like we've known Biden for years and that just was insane. He was so, he was so not, you know, as sharp as he used to be. Multiple senators, you know, told us that he couldn't remember their names or would sort of fade off in meetings. I think the people around him, though, I got less of, I think our reporting. Not that that didn't happen at all. I mean, there were some people that came back and tried to reframe sort of what happened, but I think we got more of the shock from people who were not around him every day. Does that make sense?

Mike Pesca (20:47)

Yes, totally. We got to get to Harris and we have to get to Trump. Let's get to Trump. You had, and the book has a lot of visibility into him. And one takeaway was that even though publicly he, I think correctly had the instinct to capitalize on his indictments and to use that as not only motivating debase, but a fundraiser, but momentum privately, maybe even not so privately, this more than irritated him, this haunted him, this tortured him. Is that about right?

Josh Dawsey (21:21)

Yeah, I think you captured that pretty accurately. I don't know how else to say it. I mean, he was. The public mode was a pugilism and using it for political benefit and fundraising and rallying the base and making his opponents defend him and sort of being the kind of, you know, almost critic, so to speak, of his campaign. Privately, he was very upset about every one of the indictments, you know, screaming at his lawyers, how, how, you know, how can this effing happen? Repeatedly, you know, telling his lawyers they weren't any good, that they were better lawyers, they could keep him from being indicted. I mean, there was.

Mike Pesca (22:02)

And this was lawyers. Todd Blanch, who quits his job at Cadwallader, which is a top firm, to take Donald Trump as a client and maybe not get paid. And he's RIP and, you know, this is a top guy in the field. All his friends and his professional associates were saying, what are you doing? A huge act of loyalty if, you know. And you reported on Blanche, motivated by his own background, but still, Blanche is getting his head bit off every other day.

Josh Dawsey (22:25)

Right. Particularly during the New York trial. I mean, some of the longtime observers of the president, his aides, and folks who him were accustomed to occasional, let's say, volcanic outbursts. But during that trial, I mean, he was screaming at his lawyers in a way people had not heard him scream in years, particularly during Stormy Daniels testimony, part of a trial, during voices where he wanted them to object. His sort of belief was that his lawyers were just not doing enough and he was trying to coax them on how to be lawyers. I mean, a couple of times we say in the book, it became so hostile with him towards his lawyers that Trump's aides cleared the room of everyone because it just was so uncomfortable.

Mike Pesca (23:11)

Was he right?

Josh Dawsey (23:14)

Well, I don't know if he was right or wrong. I mean, he got convicted in the New York case. That case was. Obviously a lot of legal experts thought that case was flawed, but he was convicted in the New York case. The classified documents case eventually got tossed. He got saved by Judge Cannon. There The Supreme Court saved him on the J6 case with the official immunity ruling and the Georgia case, the prosecutor and sort of her indiscretions, Fanny Willis. That case sort of went away, at least as it related to the election. So in some ways, I think his lawyers, I don't know if it was by their legal talent or by luck or by a bit of both, but, you know, a lot of these things posed, I think, existential threats to him and he kind of made a Houdini like, escape from them.

Mike Pesca (24:10)

Yeah, that. I mean, just based on the. What was at stake, you could say an existential threat. On the other hand, when I said, was he right, I think that unlike.

Josh Dawsey (24:20)

If I misunderstood your question. I'm sorry.

Mike Pesca (24:22)

No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is that I think that. But Biden's lawyers and legal team related to his legal jeopardy. The, her investigation looked at it like, how do we. What their job was as lawyers? How do we not get Biden indicted? And indeed they didn't, though it came closer, your reporting shows. Whereas it could be the case that Trump was yelling at all these lawyers, but not with the idea of how do I win this case, but how do I use this case or how do I use this entire process to position myself politically. Trump always tell me if this fair. Trump and his team always. Or Trump was demanding that his team always be cognizant of the bigger political picture, especially because politics eventually saved him from the schedule. Whereas I'm not sure that Biden was as. Or his team was as cognizant of the political consequences.

Josh Dawsey (25:16)

Yeah, I think that's right. I think the, the Trump always viewed this as a public relations war. Right. I mean, he always was editing his filings. His lawyers would come with, like, filings for the cases, and Trump would edit them in his pen and what he wanted them to say, how he wanted them to be covered. I mean, he was always thinking through that lens, through how the base would be activists, through how fundraising would go with this. I mean, certainly it was a case that his lawyers were arguing sort of the legal ramifications and looking through procedural laws. I mean, some of the things that Trump's lawyers would file, frankly, felt to lots of legal observers like they were more for the court of public opinion than for an actual judge. Right. They weren't really making arguments on the merits of some of these things. It was more written to the base. One of the things that Todd Blanch, Trump's lawyer, I think successfully was we got these cases in 2022, as you noted, he left Cadwalader. He took over the president's legal team, and he realized, and I guess you don't have to be a genius to realize this, but he realized that, you know, two years until he was up for office, right?

Mike Pesca (26:35)

Yeah.

Josh Dawsey (26:36)

And basically, the court system can be delayed in many ways through procedural motions, through all sorts of asking for time to review things, asking for myriad ways. Right. I mean, it's not a system that's designed to move quickly. It's designed to get just outcomes for people. So Blanche and his lawyer sat down and said, how can we delay each of these cases the longest possible? Let's go for a maximum delay strategy, Right? Let's just push them and push them and push them and push them. And meanwhile, Trump's gaining steam in the presidential race, Right? Becoming the Republican nominee and all of these cases that could have gone to trial potentially earlier, he's getting pushed back, pushed back, pushed back. So the answer essentially becomes, not to oversimplify it, you know, the public gets to decide if he's guilty or not, instead of juries and judges, because they took the legal question and sort of effectively made it a political question.

Mike Pesca (27:38)

And we'll be back with more tomorrow, concentrating on the transition to Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee when we Talk more about 2024, how Trump retook the White House and the Democrats lost America.

Unknown (28:04)

So when I ask, what is Odoo, what comes to mind? Well, Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a suite of business management software that some people say is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. But, you know, some people also say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk because it grows with your company and is also magically affordable. But then again, you could look at Odoo in terms of how its individual software programs are a lot like building blocks. I mean, whatever your business needs. Manufacturing, manufacturing, accounting, HR programs, you can build a custom software suite that's perfect for your company. So what is Odoo? Well, I guess Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a fertilizer, magic beanstalk, building blocks for business. Yeah, that's it. Which means that Odoo is exactly what every business needs. Learn more and sign up now@odoo.com that's O-O-O.com. this summer, Instacart is bringing back your favorites from 1999 with prices from 1999. That means 90s prices on juice pouches. That ought to be respected. 90s prices on boxed Mac and cheese and 90s prices on ham, cheese and cracker lunches. Enjoy all those throwbacks and more at throwback prices only through Instacart. $4.72 maximum discount per $10 of eligible items. Limit three offers per order expiration September 5th while supplies last discount based on CPI comparison.

Mike Pesca (29:44)

And now the spiel. For five years the government has been debating it. For a few government patrolled locations, it was quietly relaxed, leading to uneven and confusing enforcement. But still it was on the books and on our minds every time we took a flight. The requirement to take our shoes off at the airport. But now the TSA has announced the phase out will begin. NBC's Today show has more. Don't show up at the checkpoint today and think, oh, I don't have to take off my shoes. It's really a limited rollout with the goal of increasing that over the coming months and even years, guys. So, Tom, you mentioned that the new.

Josh Dawsey (30:23)

Technology that exists now, that did not.

Mike Pesca (30:24)

Exist back then, is that part of the reason for the timing? And to your point about the security posture, are there any potential security implications? No, there are no security implications. About a story of the tsa, the Transportation Safety Administration, relaxing a rule that was there to protect us for 25 years. What would, how would that possibly implicate security? I don't know. Maybe there are no implications in the sense that it's all explicit security considerations. The issue right now in front of the TSA is is it safe to allow shod in line as to the first question asked in that segment, new technology exists that did not exist back then. Is that part of the reason for the timing? Yeah, yeah, I would say that it is part of the reason. A lot of the reason. I want to offer insight that goes beyond. Yeah, you think. But in this case, let me just say. Yeah, you think. I understand the policy is kind of rendering us all stupid and it has over the last more than two decades because you go in line and they scan your face and they scan your body and they scan through your clothes. But the feet, the bottoms of the body, those could not be penetrated. They're the blockchain of human beings, so mysterious, so opaque. So we all stood inside those stupid outlines of shoes, saying to ourselves, and maybe the TSA agent, if you're an extrovert, you know, these are shoes, but we're not allowed to wear shoes. Some of us stood there not just in socks, but disgustingly in bare feet because we hadn't thought it all out. And we wondered is this really necessary? Because it's not necessary in Europe, where the shoe bomber, I guess could never have thought to strike. Even though the shoe bomber was stopped on a flight to Miami from Paris, which is in Europe, one of the main parts of Europe, by the way, we should call this guy the failed shoe bomber. And he did try. Three months after 9 11. And we all freaked out because it's true. If, if but for the fuse failing to light, or maybe the bomber himself being kind of an idiot, this could have led to another mid air disaster. You know, it just goes to show how responsive to terrorism we were and how much we're not anymore. And you could say, well, you know, we've conquered the threat or the threat has subsided. No, no, no. The shoe bomber. Do you know his name? Do you remember his name? It was Richard Reed. Maybe you remember his name. Maybe, maybe you remember could conjure his face. Kind of a big bird looking fellow. He didn't even succeed. But he's called the shoe bomber now. Do you remember the name Sam Sud din Jabbar? You probably don't. I shall, I shall suggest you don't. He was an actual terrorist who actually killed people. A lot of people. Was it a long time ago, like 2021? No, it was a few months ago. Was January 2025, right before the Sugar Bowl. So it wasn't at a time that we weren't paying attention. He killed 14 people on Bourbon Street. New Orleans mowed him down. How about the name Sifulo Saipov? He carried out an actual terrorist attack with eight actual dead people and dozens more on Halloween 2017 in not a media backwater, New York City. And he was just like Jabbar was inspired by isis? We don't remember. We remember the shoe bomber. We react to the shoe bomber. I don't know what we've done for bike lanes or car attacks because they do keep happening and I don't know if anything can stop them from happening. So I get that it was cautious and I get that it was wise to be cautious. But over the years, indeed over the decades, we did certainly segue into security theater. Wonder if this has happened with other forms of actual security. Starts off as security, becomes theater. I wonder if you go to Frontierland in Disney. Do you think those guys in the Wild west show think that they're actually. No one told them, but they think that they're actually performing real security. Are they the great great grandsons of the actual sheriffs and the outlaws and they just think they're Living their responsibility, which was passed down from generations. And no one told them that this is all theater. No one even told, why do we have to move to Orlando to shoot the bad guys? Everyone complains about security theater. Yeah, it's annoying. Just like everyone complained for years. You know, the more insidious form of racism was the subtle racism. That's even worse than the explicit racism. And then we got the explicit racism, a heaping dollop of Nazism and unfettered racism on the new acts, and we're like, oh, yeah, the implicit racism was a lot worse than the explicit kind. Just like the security theater is annoying, but is not worse than the security. Let's call it actuality. Whatever the hell's going on with ICE agents in our schools and in our places of work and in our fields, that does seem a little worse than take off your shoes. So annoying. What? This hair gel is 4.3 ounces. Those guys cosplaying Stormtroopers in a Star wars convention. Annoying. Actual stormtroopers. Actual boot on actual neck. We don't use the word annoying. We don't have time. We're just trying not to get choked, you know, it's fun. I checked out the TSA site for rules on what is allowed on board. Let's play a game. Drones are unmanned aircraft system drones allowed on board an airplane. All of these will be two part questions, carried on in bags or check with airlines. So do you think drones are allowed the airline within the airline, if you will? In both cases, the answer is check with airline. Wow. All right, let's start off. One easy one, one hard one. Right? Hammers and hand grenades. You know the old expression, it's like hammers and hand grenades. No, you don't know that expression. That's not the expression. Because they're not alike. While neither can be carried on, of course hammers can be checked. You'll be happy to know that hand grenades cannot be checked. Also allowed to carry on, but not checked, live coral. Similarly, live fish carry them on, don't check them. Want the opposite? Live lobsters can be checked. They just get a check mark under check. Don't worry about it. Check your lobster. But with carry on, it's check with airline heating pads. No, you can't take them on. You can't take gel heating pads onto the plane. You can check them. Heating pads, electric. Those are both allowed on the plane. Heating jackets and sweaters, which I had never heard of. Yes, but there are special instructions about batteries. What is the difference between a heating pad and A heating jacket. Just the cut, just the sleeves. I don't know. There's a category of weapons that were from like the 19th century. They seem okay with brass knuckles. Can't take them on the plane. Can check them. Them. A blackjack, which the TSA defines as a self defense item. Can't take them on the plane. Can check them. There are some weapons that can't be even checked. This was great. Rocket launchers. I'm glad they have this. Let's go back. Let's go back half a step from rocket launchers. I'll give you some easy ones to orient yourselves. They actually have categories for comic books and chapstick. Both can be taken on the plane, both can be checked. And then they go to rocket launchers. And it turns out rocket launchers cannot be taken on the plane. Cannot be checked. But almost every type of firearm, every type of gun. Can't take it on the plane. But you could check all of them. They're really into allowing you to check all manner of firearm. However, here's an interesting one. We'll play the game. Do realistic replicas of firearms. Are they allowed to be taken on the plane? They are not. Are they allowed to be checked? Yes, they are. What about realistic replicas of explosives? No, for both. Quite fascinating. There's also a whole food category. Not meeting food from whole foods. They don't have a separate Trader Joe's category. They just have categories about foods and they list a lot of broad categories like juices. There is a separate juices and juices for babies. They're very similar rules. Right. You can't get it on the plane if you're like, ah, but this is for a baby. Maybe they have very broad categories. Jams and jellies. Yeah. You could check them, follow the rules. But weirdly, they have tamales as their own category. They're allowed. You could bring them on. You could check them, but they have their own categories. But no separate categories for steak, tidbits or lasagna. I, I found that odd. Putty balls. Check them. Take them on. That's fine. Propane don't do either. And prosthetics, that would be mean. Wouldn't that be mean if you weren't allowed to take on your prosthetic? They have water for babies. Yeah, you're allowed. They have water for chocolate. No, senior. They have projectors which they say, please place the console in a separate bag for X ray screening. I don't know, maybe I'm just projecting. I don't even think the TSA agents know all these rules. I think selective enforcement, which is the cousin of security theater takes place. But I will leave you with this because for all the officiousness, bureaucracy and backwards ness, I was backwards ness Backwardianism. I was somewhat heartened by their rules on the Magic 8 Ball. Now to level set. They have a special category for Harry Potter wands. You're allowed to carry them on. You're allowed to check them. I guess they assume these are non working Harry Potter wands. Replica Harry Potter wands. If you are Harry Potter, don't you have an owl to get places? Never really read beyond book one. But the Magic 8 Ball has its own category. Can you check it? You can check it. Can you carry it on in a bag? The answer is no. But the explanation is for carry on bags. We asked the Magic 8 ball and it told us outlook not so good for check bags. We asked the Magic 8 ball and it told us it is certain. I had only hoped they had asked the tamale. Si, senor. And that's it for today's show. Corey War is the producer of the gist and Astra Green runs our social media. And Kathleen Sykes, she does the gist list. And Ashley Khan, she's the production coordinator. And Michelle Pesca, she does it all. Plus always shaking that Magic eight Ball to try to get what she wants. Leo Baums, the intern who Peru g Peru do Peru. Thanks for listening.

Unknown (41:02)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to libsynads. Com, that's L I B S Y N Ads. Com. Today.