Dollar, shave, Club's, razor and shave butter. Give you an amazing shape, but dollar shave club also makes products for your hair face skin shower everything They use only the finest premium ingredients and they deliver it to you just like they do. Their razors use dollar shave club for just about everything dollar shave club can help cover the names on your holiday shopping list I'll try your first month of their Razer, along with travel, size versions of Shea butter, body cleanser and yes, even but wipes for just five dollars, get started for just five dollars exclusively at dollar shave club, dot, com, slash, politics. My name is Jody. Ever again, Friday night, the Senate passed Friday night or Saturday IBM, but it starts on Friday, Friday, night or Saturday morning. I mean for me

night ends when I go to bed, ok and mornings when I wake up and what happens if you've gotten a bed, but then you're woken up by the alert on your phone, its that That means you need to get a life well, nevertheless, for the Senate they did not go to bed until three hundred am or later on Friday night, because they were up passing their version of the tax bill. The Senate and the House, of course, will now head to conference to workout the differences between their two tax proposals, with the hopes of sending it to President Trump's desk before the new year here to discuss that our our usual crew editor in chief, needs over hello, Nate, hello, Jody politics I'm alone, hello, Claire, hey, Jody and wiz. Kid Harry, Enten, hello, Harry Sholom, everybody. So we're going to discuss that and then also later in the show worlds are going to continue to discuss the fallout from Michael Flynn's guilty plea last Friday for lying about contact with Russia, but first

the tax bill, so it was a relatively short period of debate and then a total rush of negotiations, an changes some written in cursive, they still teach cursive. I was impressed by that some written in cursive on the regions of the bill and then all of a sudden, as of three hundred am Friday night Saturday morning, we have this massive tax overhaul so let's discuss some a lot of elements of this. How it may play the political fallout. What the kind of effect of the bill itself will be. What comes next, but you you to start actually with what seems to be the focus for a lot of folks, which is the process of how this bill came. Gather an then. I guess also whether the nature of that process will have an effect on how this bill is received. Yeah, I don't care that much about the process really know the three hundred am stuff the handwritten. Doesn't doesn't matter- or you say it won't matter, I'm saying that, out of all the things that have happened since Trump became President Kens passing a bill that cuts taxes for the wealthy is

one of the more normal quote- unquote, things also one of the more important things that built is a big bill that assuming it eventually approved by both the House and the Senate, will an effect on the american economy. But, like the process, complaints I mean jeez save. Well, it's for the many many many things that are going on in the country. That really are unprecedented and unusual. I mean the other thing too about the process is publicans. You know, I think I wrote if the health care bill, that Republicans, whenever close to passing healthcare right. They were always four or five votes away. You know whenever they got closer, other people would kind of peel off at random. This was the opposite. I mean again, it hasn't passed both chambers that you need a conference version of bill, but no one seemed to have more than token objections to it. You know but Collins, Collins and and people like that in the house I mean some members from California, California, whose constituents are really kind of screwed over by the bill. You know

one a pony for it anyway, even though it's a very, very high tax state and has very high property taxes to things are really determined to pass tax cuts and tax cuts that benefit the donor class. I think, and if they had slowed down it wouldn't really have changed the outcome very much. I don't think Do you think that the process stuff is being overblown or what do you make of it? As a sort of talking point around this bill, I think the bill is really complicated and Democrats don't have an easy answer yet, although they probably should about what it's going to do too voters, so I'm gonna say eight Ben Sasse woman, a K Castleman that article this from New York Times where they the times, did an analysis of what this bill would actually do, and so they said in twenty eighteen. The plan would cut taxes for about sixty percent of families in the middle class

broadly defined as those earning between about fifty thousand and one hundred and sixty thousand per year, for a family of three ok and for those families that act cut would be about one thousand three hundred dollars in two thousand and eighteen. But then what happens is by twenty twenty five? Twenty twenty six, forty five percent of middle class families would pay more than what they would under the existing tax system. I actually think that that's a more effective, talking point for Democrats, but I think right now that you know if you're talking about it's a little, it's a little hard to say listen. This is eventually going. Over, even though a good number Going to see tax cuts in in twenty eighteen, but I think right now the sort of easy when you're up at three hundred am in your Democrat, an you've just come off a floor debate. You can say this was a shameful process, blah blah blah, but I think the more compelling long term argument for Democrats probably should be making compact and understandable what this bill does do to that part of the middle class. That does

see benefits on the plan, and so I just a flesh it out a little bit more that in ten years, a lot of those tax benefits expire. The tax benefits for corporations are quote unquote, permanent, not expired. Yet and that sort of thing and just to explain a little bit of what Nate was saying about some of those states that are blue states? A lot of them are states with, let's say, higher real estate taxes or just higher state income taxes. So like New Jersey and New York, that's what people mean when they're saying a lot of blue state voters or people who live in blue states are getting screwed over more yeah. I think it's easier to go after the process is Claire was hinting at. You know, that's a non ideological fight, it's very clear! It's right in front of you! So therefore it's an easier argument to make, but you know I think that in this day and age in which there are unprecedented things, occuring, not everything can be life or death of the worst thing. That's ever happened in the

I mean just the reaction from some of the people that I saw was just that it was all my God, the world's exploding and obviously, if you're a liberal Democrat, this isn't a piece of legislation that you necessarily want to pass. But it's, in my opinion, very traditional in a number of ways. I mean Republicans like to cut taxes yeah. Perhaps this tax scheme is a little bit more geared towards cutting upper class and corporation taxes than past ones, but this isn't anything in my mind. That is completely unprecedented and I do wonder I do wonder about its eventual. You know impact in terms of the electorate and, that's thing that I think we might be able to make. It is unprecedented in the sense that it's unusual to pass a bill, a tax cut. I should say that doesn't have clear benefit for the middle class. Some middle class people will make up marginally better, most will in fact, at first and then it looks like ten years out of that tax cut, sunsets, mostly margin,

or softer. Usually you don't have a bill that raises taxes on anyone. If the Republican led tax cut and it's kind of a slam, dunk right, I have less money of my paycheck. I get like a stimulus check or whatever else, and I go out and spend that and into win. For me, you know a lot of people, probably don't know what effect it's going to have on their taxes if you're wealthy other than your taxi, more complicated and you're more likely to benefit from it, but also very complicated ways, and so you know what's unprecedented, is not in the process. Because there always is some kind of brinksmanship and gamesmanship and deal making sure and it kind of gets sent last minute and by the way, this bill is not the final bill. Yet you have to have a conference version if that were sloppily drafted, that might have more consequences right, but the fact that, like the tax cuts are geared toward corporations and even the trickle down effect from corporations, would benefit people

stock, which are wealthy people, you know that's unusual and speaks to how the GOP has kind of number one how they're not a populist party, it's the opposite. Two, how the GOP kind of the middle Upper middle class suburbs used to be the GOP base. And it's not anymore. Those areas are actually purple or or increasingly blue in some ways, and so the fact that, like Republicans, aren't concerned the upper middle class, even which is kind of where a lot of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts had a large marginal impact. You know that reflects a different republican Party than the regular, even in the Bush era Party, when you look at the polling why this bill is so unpopular and it is one of the most unpopular tax package is put together of the last thirty five years. I had a piece on that. It was more popular than previous tax hikes, which is something that's very interesting and very different, and part of the reason for that is when you ask people who do you think this?

will benefit, they say upper income and corporations, not the middle class, and they want a middle class tax cut. If there had been a tax cut geared towards the middle class, my guess looking at the polling is that a tax cut would have been broadly popular. I'll, also, point out that you know it used to be that the donor class that benefited the GOP most was. This uh middle class group that lived in the suburbs and donate a lot of money to Republican. But in this day and age, the age of the super pack, where you know you can drop millions in a bucket and that's out- and you put those ads in the air and you could you not get one per who's, basically running the show. You don't necessarily need those people, as much anymore to be able to drive your agenda on the airwaves during a campaign. So you're saying that the

that you can see that a bill like this was targeting is not a particular kind of voter, but it's really about that the donors. Well, I I will certainly that I mean, if you read the reaction of who republican lawmakers said. You know that they want to pass this. Fourth, they said donors, donors, donors, donors, donors, they weren't even really that obscure about it. They were basically saying this out loud you look. That's two benefited both from this tax package. If we compare this to the fight over the health care bill, which you know fell apart a few months ago, several times over the last several months, Claire if, as Harry pointed out this bill, that the public is not in favor of the bill, they are sort of like seeing it as a bill that benefits the wealthy in the corporations complicated issue in the same way that healthcare is complicated. Why did this get over the finish line? An healthcare did not, Sorry say that about what is it like? Twenty five percent of people actually approve of the bill. The majority of Americans are half of Americans; basically don't approve of it, but I

Take a number of people who are, let's say people actually vote, we're probably a little excited to see a middle class tax cut. Now they might not actually see that in the long term, but let's set that aside, no one dies from uh you know different filling out their tax. There were debates about that. I think Larry Summers was just. I was just about to say immediately right. There's not you can't really easily attach a sob story or get people riled up about changes in the long term tax system, America. So it's hard to get people, even though it's probably you know it is going to perhaps do bad things for some vulnerable people. It's also just a more abstract problem, an I think. It's harder to get people riled up and politically motivated. Also, I think again, to go back to the thing of fatigue. Democrats just didn't rally there

it's in the same way over tax reform? I mean, I think, in some ways you know democratic, congressional representatives and senators. You know still fought the bill to a certain extent, but their hands are kind of I'd it wasn't the same letter writing campaign to you know Collins who eventually got you know the Republicans made a little car out for her and they got her on board. I think at the end, the only republican senator who didn't sign on was Parker yeah, what's up corporate, so it's just for whatever reason I think the abstraction of of tax, math, etcetera, etcetera, the twenty will to weaponize this fight. I don't know who said it first, but when it came to healthcare, it seem like a number of republican senators were looking for an excuse to vote against the spell for that bill. Versus with this build a tax bill. It looked like republican senators were looking for an excuse to vote for it and then at some point, if you have the majority, then you're going awesome stuff right there right right, of course, there's only so much no, I mean if you're right, it's kind of like it's. Your goal

I mean the goal of elections is to enact policies right in front of reason. I just think that kind of darwinian survival instinct within the GOP Is bread that party to kind of early have its highest goal literal. He is cutting taxes, keeping taxes low for rich people. Like little right, if you assume that at any given moment of the past, I don't know ten years or so taken action on the margin that makes it more likely that they can cut taxes for rich people? It's always always take that action so the GOP cares more about cutting taxes for rich people. Then they care about harming poor people You know I mean, if harming poor people is a way to cut taxes for rich people, then they're quite willing to do it. Should we should we give their trickle down. Economic reasoning. Well by that I'm from University of Chicago right actually believe preach. It. No look, I mean

This bill isn't even about the trickle down 'cause. There are various ways. First of all, this bill is quite easy to game right. The fact that you can is pass through entities in the fact that, like so, it's kind of like a defacto for many types of people, but not all but like defacto, it means that you can find ways if you're wealthy. To create a packs through. So even though the top rate only goes down March But the point is you know this one? Is it being a really complex tax bill that can be gay? fairly easily and here's one thing where the quick grafting I think there might be more loopholes and they intended. Even so, you notice actually does a survey of top economists they said: do you think this will but have a substantial stimulative impact and everyone said. No, we think it's going to have Little impact overall or maybe negative impact, you know it'll harm, the values, for example, and so like this is the bill that you would pass if you are University of Chicago trained economist, even

believe in trickle down and whatever else you know when you say that it's easy to game. Do you know of any examples like that I'd declare that I'm a pass through entity because I have- no and now maybe, instead of getting a paycheck, from ESPN. I consult yes piano yeah, and I mean that you know so. It's like you're, a freelancer or, like you haven't incorporated yourself. It makes sense now to do that. I mean look, it's limited in part by how rigorously the IRS and forces the tax code lots of statutory interpretation that come after the tax bill past, but the point is, if you're, a person who is both wealthy and has kind of complex revenue streams, and you have some a bill. Already to like, make your situation more tax advantageous. Then especially the GOP not tending to fund the IRS, very much. You know I mean there are. There are both I'm sure into loopholes and deliberate mechanisms that you going to drive a truck through

but yeah. As a result, you know, and also the bill will increase Is it to the long run and deficit spending alone? Either party really seems to care about it. That much can be a deterrent to long term investment because it will raise interest rate the whole point. Is that like this is not a bill that is going to have most economists, don't think terribly beneficial? effects on the economy overall, regardless of any distributional issues. Necessarily there, probably like kind of bed cleaner versions of the bill that could have done that and that really is. The original idea was that ok, we're going to cut the corporate tax rate but we're going to make the tax code less complex. So everyone's you know, we'd rather have. Pay twenty percent the average beat twenty point two percent, but it's gameable right Instead, this really will lower the amount that corporations pay. It keeps the tax code being fairly complex and that's why it opens up a trillion and a half dollar deficit hole

Amar trillion, even with dynamic scoring meaning in view account for, like the trickle down effect for the stimulative effect, you still kind of blow a big hole in the deficit, and so that's what I'm saying it's like. Not quite like you know, you can make a very you Chicago case for saying, hey, actually otherwise, politically unpopular there's a case for cutting corporate, raise them stimulating, when an increase wages, but even if you were going to do that, this is not the way that economists have recommended that you do it. There was a Catherine Rampell column that I thought was really then see on this part which she said this bill doesn't just it's better to frame this as as a bill that doesn't just benefit the rich but of benefits in a way the idle rich

the people who are not well heating jobs and redistributing there off of more people who are trying to afford their their own wealth. I think one thing I heard from a republican economist was that the theory behind cutting the corporate tax rate was. It makes the US more competitive with other nations corporate tax rate, and so the idea would be to make sure that I think you know like let's take carrier or something the carrier doesn't decide. We need to move our headquarters to Ireland, for example. You know I mean are effective. Corporate tax rate is as low as most other parts of the world, so I mean I know that Trump likes to talk about our corporate tax rate being way higher, but I'm giving up giving I'm giving pointed out I'm giving what these I'm giving. What is out there in the republican line, including you'll, hear Paul Ryan in an NPR weekend interview this weekend and Mitch. Mcconnell basically say no. This is a middle class tax cut, most people in middle class get a tax cut, and so that's going to be the line that you'll hear throughout this. I want to talk about the politics of this coming up next, but do we,

thing to clear point just there about the framing of this harry that there is a window now to re frame this bill. Do we expect those numbers you cited earlier to possibly shift in american start to be convinced that this is in fact, as a whole, a middle class tax cut and not a a cot card out for the rich, it's possible, but I don't see any reason necessarily for people to believe that I mean. Maybe the idea of passing a piece of legislation might cortical become more popular after passes away. There is no reason to believe that, looking at past bills concerning passing of tax cuts, there's no reason to believe that you know look at the biggest piece of legislation passed over the last ten years, Obamacare that did not become more popular after it passed it took years afterwards for it to finally see a net positive approval rating. So I I'm not necessarily convinced that now for publicans

it out there and sell, sell, sell this bill and Democrats are ideally sitting back and waiting. I'm doing nothing that maybe it will become more popular, but I I I see no reason for that, but we'll see I mean, but that this is where the kind of passing it in the middle of the night thing by. That might be a little bit relevant to the ability, to improve the popularity the bill, because you are signaling that we don't want people to see how the sausage is made by there's a great article from the New York Times. I came across that way. Maybe the sausage maker. It was insulted who was insulted, that, like they're costly, comparing a policy, it's like now, my sausage. Actually, we know the ingredients ahead of time right. It's like I type up my notes. I never do it yeah. I have a great story to tell you guys off there, but what can I ask a sausage making question not about actual sausage about the sausage and Nate? Were you were you

painting earlier that maybe you feel like it might get held up a little bit and reconciliation here. Does anyone want to make a case for it not sailing through? I think it could get I mean there are some meaningful diff. This is, although the final version of Senate passed, actually kind of came closer to the house is version. But I don't see anything. Getting in the way without external contingency the current I mean I don't know again, you know, look none of these GOP. Objections seemed all that heartfelt right seem like negotiating postures, as opposed to who generally wanted to not pass bill, and they have some margin Air only Corker vote against it in the Senate and Corker frankly seem like he have been gettable. If something weird went on right and they had make a note, ten or twelve volts to spare in the house and kind of american politics. Past. The basically doesn't realize there's this final need for reconciliation or conference bill. I should say- and so you kind of already taken that potentially damaging vote, but

and the GOP really really really likes to cut taxes, and particularly to cut rich peoples, taxes, and so like total considerations like. Oh, maybe it'll, hurt me at the mid term, and it will hurt some people, certainly Republicans in California, which go a fairly long way toward making the Democrats path to winning the house more plausable. But, like the whole point of winning elections to pass tax cuts, and so they have a chance to access code. It's a little bit like again with Democrats and the higher for many democrats for many years to pass some type of insurance reform right, some type of national health care insurance. They did eventually with Obama CARE, where they're just going to try, because it's kind of like as close to the core of a shared democratic goal, as you get Harry heard talk of some strange rube Goldberg, in scenario in which the Alabama Senate race somehow affects whether this thing passes. If more,

Are you even going there with me on this? If Jones wins, there's only a one- passed by one vote, if it somehow is still up for vote in the Senate, is that at all I mean should happen, and it's it's obviously, I think in terms of the numbers, if you have you know more in there, I think that there's a better shot at this thing. Well, you know eventually go through the president's staffs versus Jones to critique this bell on the campaign trail, but I don't think that there any senators who are waiting for the outcome of this election in order to determine their vote. I think that if more were to lose pretty easy to assign a reason for him to lose. That has nothing to do with taxes, so I'm not sure I necessarily follow that line of reasoning, except for the obvious one extra vote for Democrats after answer to win I like that an inherently eats away at the. I I I I would you know again. I think that if Roy Moore loses the scent election in a week in Alabama, there are plenty of better reasons to assign to his loss than this tax

Let's talk a little bit about Trump clear. How do you think he is processing How does he feel this morning and also kind of what his role in this, and what does that tell us, maybe about his role in general? Donald Trump feels good. I don't think that Donald Trump had a huge role in this at all, and I think that that will continue. I mean Donald Trump is now

kind of guy who's gonna. I think you might have done one travel to a place outside Washington and give a speech about the tax bill, and that was like a week ago, ten days ago, something like that, but he you know, I think he will be Freddie Washington Centric until it gets closer to mid term time, and I think, as in all things, Trump doesn't seem to be totally engaged on the legislative side of things. Pants is much more engaged with pleasing between the White House and Congress, and I think it's for Trump just sort of a notch in the belt. It's good to have a win, but frankly ill. You know a lot of last week he seemed to be baiting, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on government shut down stuff.

I'm not sure how entirely engaged he was Nate. I know we would. We talked before this about possibly doing a little role playing okay, so yeah. If you wanna, do it, we will list right up. This is just so. You know we were gonna structures. Entire thing is a little bit of a role play between the major players in washing we're going to little set piece here with Nate May, your Mitch Mcconnell, or what the voice skews me recess your chin about vis, a vis they're just said, with Donald Trump. What has this past week? Taught you about your relationship with the president of It states all look. We have a lot of Republicans who are trying to stimulate the economy is not that bad actually begin. Our president has been helpful, appreciate his advice, but you know many members of his caucus does on the bill and have hella. How did it and I'm just proud were able to move the country forward. Ok, now in your regular voice, can you do Mitchell? internal monologue? About realistically do I have to play

with this guy? If I just gotta pee a signature piece of legislation pass for all intensive purposes, the so internally, I'm like I'm glad that this guy stayed out of it and I'm glad that, like frankly, he kind of the Overton window. So now it was about a corporate tax cut. That's what my very I income funny using individuals that donate to me and Super Pacs want, even though it's kind of more politically antenna, I'm kind of glad that window moved, I'm obviously nervous about the. Or we're going to have. But you know frankly, I only have a couple of my members up in relative it's anyway. So therefore it's more Paul's problem. You know I'm Ok, I think you said like hey these things, all always pull badly and the fact of the matter is that people are going to be pretty upset with us, no matter what and we get elected to office, to pass republican policies and there's no more republican policy than a big corporate tax cut. And

way. Thank you to Donald Trump and Roy Moore getting so many distractions. That means that this is sometimes the only the third story of the week. Because of in Alabama. But you know what push come to shove we're going to find a way to pass this anyway. Death, sex and taxes was really the story line or the best

past couple of millennia weeks in particularly in the past couple weeks, Harry whether whether its role playing or simply just cogent political analysis talk to us about the Republicans, the vulnerable Republicans in the house in particular, and how they are assessing this tax bill an and what the sort of landscape for the next year looks for them. Yeah I mean, obviously it depends who these vulnerable republicans are, but there are obviously a slew of owner Republicans in California, in New York and based on my understanding of how this tax bill will end up helping or harming constituents. It's probably more towards the harmful side relative to other members in California and New York, and so that's why I thought thank you. So a lot in New York represent

voting against this bill, Republicans when it came up for a vote in the house and the fact of the matter is that in a mid term election you don't really need that much more for voters to vote against you when you're already in a purple list district, then a piece of unpopular legislation such as this, and so I don't think that they'll be particularly please but this thing is passing and whether or not it's the type of thing that helps put their opponents over the top in two thousand and eighteen who can say, but you know we do obviously know back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety three when there was that vote for Clinton's budget Margulies Medeski, I can't quite get her name out, was the tie breaking vote in the house to get that bill passed a tax raise and Republicans were basically taunting her when she cast that vote, and then she did end up losing a year later was an entirely because of that bill. Of course not. But I don't think this is the type of thing that helps Republicans in those swing districts. In

California, New York. We will probably talk about this many many times over the next year or so, but when we think about a Republican in a swing district, do the voters in that district actually look at the nuts and bolts of like yes, this person supported or didn't support this piece of legislation, or are they more just like this? Was a republican, this big piece of republican legislation passed, I don't like it, so I'm going to vote against them. Well, I would say two things number one. Obviously there is just you know, a rising tide lifts all boats and so on, going on there, but we do know, for instance, when it came to the Obama CARE vote back in two thousand and nine two thousand and ten. We know that people legislators were democratic legislators who voted for that bill. In fact saw an electoral penalty versus those who did not, so it did

in that people were paying attention now. This isn't as high profile a piece of legislation, so we can't say for sure, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there are people who are actually looking voters who are actually looking at whether or not their representative voted for against this bill. I'm sorry this is so easily caricatured and political ads. It's not even funny. You know like the carve outs for private jet stuff and like yeah. You can also look back to beyond people who voted for Obama Kerr. You can see that at George H, W Bush was punished for saying, read my lips: no new tax, yeah I mean once you have someone on the record when you have a politician on the record, doing something: that's easily spun and sort of speaks to people's gut instincts about what is right and wrong. I think it's really easy to make political ads and to tell people in a particular district. Hey your guy acts like you want. He wants to drain the swamp, but guess who he's voting for once? He actually sits down in Washington and again. The fact that the public doesn't like trust the GOP on the implications for the middle class is interesting and in fact, that Trump is not either

another very popular, nor, very persuasive salesman, this. So again, you know there's some question: I will the GOP try and sell the bill and therefore make it popular or they just don't want to talk about very much. By the way there are twenty seven public and representatives from Cali. In New York or New Jersey, which, at least of the large population states, are probably the most negatively affected by the bill. Twenty seven is three more than democrats need to take over the house next year, some of those New Jersey ones, A lot of did Essary said vote against it. You know a handful of the California districts aren't competitive, but most of them are like trissa yeah. Look if you notice that you were able to take this big deduction every year. For your giant property tax bill in Pacifica ca and your giant like state.

Tax bill going to notice that and you're going to say this guy. He said states tax, not estate, state Can you state a state that yeah like I do is die you get that tax break? Sorry! Not not. You listen, just one, listen but not all the time, but but I thought I thought the repeal of the salt tax would make it hard the bill to pass the house? Because of California, New York, New Jersey issue, right, I thought most of the twenty four I mentioned twenty seven mention out of kind of political survival would vote against it and then you'd have enough quirky objections from other people that it might have some trouble passing the house so when it, the house with some room to spare, including getting most of California Republicans. That's when I began to think ok, this isn't going to be that hard for the GOP, their pre determined to do this one last question Claire. You know I got like four

or, I think, push notifications on early Saturday morning, late Friday night. How we want to talk about this. What do we make of the fact that it is being framed in some This is a win for the president and in some cases, just as a piece of legislation does it count as a win for the president. Question about whether or not it's a win for the president was the question about whether or not that's how people should cover it. I guess those are maybe related. Let's take the first one. Is it a win for the I mean I you know a win is about how it's great it's a win is a win in his head sure, but I think it remains you seen how people are going to react. I mean you can't tell if it's a win just yet, because if things continue, this quote I mean it's kind of up in the air, whether you know can the GOP convinces people that it's good for them in the long run, to have this tax cut or can Democrats convince them? I mean you see you kind of don't know so right now it looks like it's a good thing to be able to you know in in the metaphorical sense. Have that rose garden, signing

ripped out there from the Trump White House, but I'm not sure it's a win. I mean this is something that we've talked about on this podcast, a lot which was: was it better to have another screw up with with this bill and knock it the legislation. Asked or and move on to something, perhaps more collegial in the spirit of you know bring Americans together and for it under in for Josh yeah, I think it's. Alright? I think it would've been the smartest thing to do for them to put up first, but you know I'm not, I'm not a political consultant, so Jody my answer is equivocating an non determinate. If good for you should be a politician now, I shouldn't answer to whether or not he'll try and claim it as a win? Remember this is a guy who literally appeared in the rose garden when a piece of legislation to repeal Obamacare passed only one house of the United States Congress not to as is necessary. So I expect a full on

aid down. You know Pennsylvania Ave. I think that they'll have rocket ships when he signs this thing the rose garden or wherever he's going to sign. I guess it's a little cold to sign in the rose garden, but he'll certainly claim it as such, but I am unsure whether or not it's a win to pass a piece of legislation. That's the most unpopular tax piece of legislation, the last thirty years, but maybe it is, I don't know well so it's a it's a personal and for him, like cats, are in Burnaby absolutely and it's a win for republican policy goals short right and so that it's like and can I have a policy research Alex win versus LOS, probably the most dubious part of that square? Is it a political win? I'm not sure I don't know. I tend to air on the side of they could have passed bill, it would have been a lot more popular next there determined to do it right. And here are the side of simplicity, Occam's razor saying this thing is unpopular, the auspices of it. How it's passed are also going to be unpopular

You know they're making a lot of false claims about it frankly, and so so article in that just means that I mean I said last week that people who are going to say it's a political winner going to be stupid and it was in fact, and by the way although we're a little wary to look at short term, swings President Trump's approval rating was off I was down a little bit further in Gallup Polling this week was down two points in the Rasmussen poll. You know we don't use, Rasmussen except those are the first ones that come out on Monday morning, and so you know the idea that he's going to get some popularity boosts. The evidence suggests probably not. We need to get evidence, but so far it's gone the other way. So far it's gone down and take his approval, ok will and see, and I'm glad it's been awhile. Since we've used Occam's razor, it was getting well rusty. I was worried that you didn't have it tucked in your pocket, but I'm glad he pulled it well but, like I think people argue that, oh you have to motivate the base right and something at least the base. I think the disconnect there- and I should probably write this up as for an art

my name is David for an article. No I'm not going to say different article when it preview it here tease it you know, but that is work better when the base meant people who vote mostly upper middle class because they have more money to donate and they have more time to be active. But base used to mean voters and not the donor base, and the what you get for motivating turn out from base. Voters might not be the same right as you get from I'm getting Super Pacs which can give you a lot of money. But don't you know specs can't vote just wait. Just wait! Just you wait until the Supreme Court for when it's like, I think, the arguments that oh so excited. I mean the GOP base in terms of voters. Don't seem really excited about the spelling. Only twenty five percent of the country, like Sybil fifty percent, oppose twenty five percent and

I'm still a little too pessimistic yeah. Those are a little too pessimistic. The average is close about, like thirty two percent in favor, forty six apart, but it's you know it's one sided doesn't mean it's unpopular built folks, okay, well but that and we are going to move on next up. We will discuss the continued fallout from Michael Flynn's guilty plea and what democratic and republican strategies look like now. Moving forward headed to the Muller Investigation, but first a quick word from this week sponsored this weeks. Podcast is brought to you by give. Well many people want to give to good charities, but don't know how to maximize the good that they can accomplish for each dollar that they give well give well does in depth detailed research to identify evidence, backed cost effective programs that help the poorest people in the world and its website give well org. You can find a very short list of charities that have met give wells, exacting standards give what is unique

focuses on how much good a charity accomplishes, for example, how many lives does it save or how much does someone's income increase with each dollar donated in easier. To answer, but less important questions like how much charity c e o makes or how much overhead it has its current top charities. Do things like fund programs to prevent child deaths from malaria or provide direct cash transfers to very poor households in E Africa. All of the details are available for free on Give wells website. Givewell deeply vets scientifiques, it's for programs. It charity reviews are accompanied by hundreds of footnotes. We know how much our listeners love footnotes and it publishes its quantitative cost effectiveness models. So you can dive in and get all the details if you are interested. But if you just want to spend a few minutes, you can go to give well stop charities and advantage of the thousands of hours at staff has put into finding exceptional charities make sure where dollars do good go to

dot org check out their charities again, the more time give well. Of course we discussed this in an emergency podcasts last Friday, when maybe we should have stayed there merge the park a for for a Saturday morning? There were a lot of opportunities for emergency podcast. Last, But anyway we discussed in an emergency podcast last Friday, the news that Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying, the FBI about his contact with the russian ambassador, an now, We've had a little bit of time to let that sink in. Let's talk a little bit about the fallout, and what comes next first, I want to, one element of the reporting clear. As we were discussing this on Friday during an emergency podcasts ABC had reported that Flynn was preparing to testify that as a candidate Trump had directed him to make contact with the Russians. We did make reference to that, though I will give Nate Craig. For saying if true, when referring to that reporting and then, of course,

We learned that that turned out not to be true, ABC, walk their story back and pointed out that it was during transition, not the campaign, so campaign handed before Trump would become president. That Flynn is preparing to testify that Trump ordered him to talk with the rush Nate any sense you could talk about. I guess about the journalistic error if you want, but I'm more interested in the substance of the actual story. Does the fact that this contact with the Russians that Trump reportedly ordered happened during the transition? the campaign to make a material difference for you. So it is substantively important. And also affected the way the story was reported. If you go back and listen to podcasts on Friday. The reason why we, I think it's a little bit more than we usually would because ABC News is pretty far out there. On a le- and it wasn't really confirmed by other people, usually when that happens and the post the times. So, you're CNN, will chime in and say: hey are reporting says this too, and so they walked out

pretty far out there, and I don't know you know, I think people have to be tolerant of journalists, making mistakes if journalists never make mistakes and You know this happens in real time and you can screw things up right. You know news. Our colleagues, not a great look to have this story hanging out there all day affecting the narative effect. Some people even say the stock market. Quite a bit. Trumpet said that yeah so the minute that's happening, then you ought to clarify and say: oh look by the way it was not a written thing down. It was like on tv appearance, you can say: look we gotta get more clarity want this, It means that they could have been much more quicker and proactive. They've suspended Brian Ross at this point for that, but on the surface he went to Mars right before we get to the substance. This is made errors before but like too often, people want to blame. This goes for since I'm twitter, also and stuff like that systems want to blame the reporter or the anchor

an not the editing in the vetting process that kind of faceless anonymous process that leads to what stories being successful or unsuccessful, false or true it has to do with the values and the process in the as a whole. The editors to Claire, and so so adder should get more credit and more blame, in terms of substance in Harry Jumping, you know, they're, basically, two and they used by which Trump could get in deep trouble. One which is if there was actual collusion during the camp and clearly Trump Junior was stayed in having our achieving some Clinton emails. Beyond that. You know. We don't know that part of the case, I don't think, has hasn't moved all that our that's avenue. One avenue two who is the Ave where he obstructed justice by firing Comey or instructed comitta give Flynn a break and those you know that obstruction side so far, details of the investigation have have got taken. Take us further down that path, The president's own admission,

Knowledge of Flynn's lies right when he instructed Comitta go easy on Flynn in the White House is kind of like, like that tweet that well the way I mean talk about gullible, if you believe that the president's lawyer wrote that to me the way the lawyer should be I actually think by the way. I think that raises. I think it raises some interesting questions that will certainly come into view about who writes tweets and whether or not you can attribute, which is just to add some clarity here Trump sent a tweet in which he said that he fired Flynn because he had lied to pence, which is something that has been established before, but then also said he lied to the FBI, and so that brings up this question of if he knew when he fired Comey. That Flynn had lied to the FBI and then, as you were saying, Claire the way his response was actually was the president's lawyer who dictated this tweet, and so so I pick up. I thought it bring

interesting questions about what what John brings up interesting questions as to when you get all the stuff into you know, whatever courts an impeachment proceeding. What have you Trump's team? Well, I'm sure tried to foist off certain tweet says of someone else wrote this that with this doesn't indicate the president's state of mind or what he knew when so I think it's like it's starting to do an Fication of timeline. My question is, I think, it's fairly likely that mullah will allege and say the evidence proves that the president attempted to obstruct justice by firing the FBI director I don't know how likely it is at this point that they'll be evidence of profound collusion. Well, this was found, have a collision layers or you can hang on, but this wasn't. This is why I think we should also be clear about what MIKE Flynn. In this whole scenario of MIKE Flynn lied. Fbi investigators, obviously that's what he's pled guilty to, but the thing that he would be in Troy

for doing is violating the Logan ACT, which only two people. Ever been convicted of, in which a lot of legal scholars think is kind of like. Maybe this is like a little bit like but if you leave our site- yes, I know, but I'm not, I'm I'm like slick I'm explaining what the charges and the and that people they, They want to see whether or not you know this indicates that there was more contact during the actual campaign itself. So the fact that flu, talking to the Russians, isn't on the face of it necessarily a thing that, in normal circumstances, people would be upset about. I think you'll see some people who skew liberal liberal, making valid arguments that, like hey. This was influencing an important sanctions about blah blah

but it the Logan. A violation of the Logan ACT, isn't actually a huge deal in. If you look, if you brought not a look at history and the people of kind of think skirted around to a certain extent, but yes needs to your to your greater point, the that's just that this is just to clarify for people that what Flynn pled guilty to the reason why he lied was because of this thing. That's actually not that serious. In some ways, but yes, the the Comi FBI firing Jane, is all very actionable. Now I was just going to say just to bring this conference. A little bit more forward? Is that the? U criticizing, the not sure, is now I I'm I'm I'm trying to get this in our listeners. Need the details just to make this position fundamentally interesting to our listeners. Let me add one thing now to make it make it so that I can actually add a point of substance that I can have some authority on. I I think that,

but it is probably how did you know I I. I do think that this is important, because it is you know just one step in the process, that's being built right. He didn't allow MIKE Flynn to plead to this, because you know we thought that this is the big triumph that he's going to get and throughout. All of this is this building a case, so they can get a higher up fish, whether that be Jared Kushner or the present United states himself. Eventually, and I will say that you know when you look at the polling, you see that most of the people have faith and Bob Miller to be able to pull this off. Most people approve of him being appointed special prosecutor, and that's no small thing right, because the President of the United States is shown throughout this process a willingness to try and undercut Muller trying to undercut the FBI and trying to assure that he stays where he is and that's become significantly more difficult, that people are more likely to believe Bob Muller than they are to believe. Donald Trump, and that's when the polling has continuously showed is that people have faith the Miller people up,

groove of appointment about Muller special prosecutor, an more people went as trust, James Comi, then Trust Donald Trump and I think that's a big problem for trump potentially going forward like if he wants to fire Muller, which he definitely may try to do an. I think that the United States said it is going to very much I'm, not sure that they will, but they made it shipped right, lose it lose its tv. Draw a line in the sand and I think that's you know part of the reason why it's important point out that even republicans are more a you know in the. You got Paul that I saw that was conducted last month, a plurality of Republicans approved of the appointment of Bob Miller Special Proscar, whether or not that will hold it down. Trip decides to go after who can say, but this isn't as clear of a cut case as it is in other instances where republicans will rally around the president. I did stay,

I mean look. I'm I've been saying for a long time that people should tend to take Trump's words and actions and tweets even at face value as being an authentic reflection of how he thinks, and he I think he Shelly thinks that, like Michael Flynn got a raw deal and that they should have locked Hillary up. Instead, I think he really feels like it's kind of a witch hunt. I don't think that's. Posturing, 'cause, it's not very smart posturing. Frankly, they'd be saying anything about this case on Twitter. But yeah I don't see why there's any reason why he wouldn't. I iron poker. I guess cuz, so far, so once you get on fire, so I get this work or why or why he wouldn't maybe pardon Kushner, who seems like maybe the next domino to, Well, I mean there's already: it could all be kind of self inflicted right, What if there was no underlying no serious or were they use before right. Substantial deep

there was a desire to treason, but there's no smoking gun beyond. What's already been reported, this Trump Tower meeting right, but I have a combination of peak and paranoia and being worried about things around the margin and there being some personal liability for these things that might not get the president impeached that he wound up firing. The guy director and then winds up, maybe the guy who is investigating the FBI, directores firing an all become self inflicted. You know, I don't know what would happen. If you only had. No, solution and Logan ACT stuff and then he fired. For that reason you know that's pretty bad, I'm not sure if that's the would actually get removed from office bad, but that's where the ABC distinction comes in but I think it is a lesson what you're saying that, like you, don't serve ticky tack. Your way out of this. You don't tweet your way out of this, like every tweet creates not like a path for you for its for Trump. In this case, to get out of this, it creates more problems. So, for instance, now I think

on mother's list is now to find out who actually wrote that tweet over the weekend weather it was Trump or Trump's lawyer. You know what I like that solves their written by your lawyer, I've never had anyone else write a tweet on my account yeah Has anyone here ever had a ghost writer for one of the truth? So ok very, very quickly short answer. Then we're going to run in the last week has the chances In your estimation of Trump firing, Muller gone up down or stayed the same Nate up up, we're all going to give the same answer that we're all going to say up he's going to stay up too, or else he's going to give one is bullshit like well. On the one hand, even though I know I was supposed to give a one word answer, you depends on any number of things you don't

any part of charmed realizing you don't think it's any part of trump realizing. I love us answer this line yeah. I love those interested. Otherwise our product has to be like five minutes long yeah, I'm the talking. Thank God. I cynical catty corner to make the house of okay, so I guess we're going to and if they're on a sort of lame question eleven o'clock can I can I can I put out one other. Please do theory, which I thought was interesting: I'm not thing. I think this is true, but I think mostly what you've seen in the past couple days are people saying, there's more stuff to come Flynn's going to implicate someone up top

This is from the Washington Examiner Nick quotes of former George W Bush attorney General Michael Mukasey, and he said in cases like he's, he's basically offering an alternative theory in cases likes when prosecutors can make them plead guilty to participating in the same criminal conduct that you're trying to prove against other people you're after, because that's the most convincing convincing evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and other words you're trying to maybe it's not someone for their trump, maybe you're just trying to create a bar of what is considered bad action and then hold other people to the same standard. So I think he was kind of it's kind of an alternative argument for

I think there's someone higher up. It's Kushner, it's trouble, but I think his thing is that I think people should. We should consider it because, like you know, this might not maybe Trump and Kushner aren't on the next on the chopping block as far as the Muller Investigation, but I thought that was interesting. So there's this whole, then you get into the whole campaign universe and you can say well how many people would fall under that standard that we've helpful in too. I don't know if that was interesting, yeah cool, alright, we're going to end it on that people can go. Read that maybe we'll discuss that next week. Editor in chief needs over. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much I love to say on these issues. Yeah glam alone. Thank you things and I really enjoyed your Mitch Mcconnell. I know sorry. I also totally believe that Mitch Mcconnell's internal model on sale, in fact, a university of Chicago Chicago, Educated, Michigan, born person wearing applied a purple and pink plaid shirt. As always thank you and let me just dab

Gronkowski is human trash and I'll be suspended by the National football before one game of the rest of the season. I think, based upon the past president, one game do well, but didn't he Leana Wen It was already over decided to essentially pull a wrestling move and elbowed a guy in the back of and who was facing away from him and had no chance of possibly react and caused a concussion, and what team did that person to look for Mister White plays Buffalo Bill, but that has nothing to do with your assessment of this particular. I am able to put aside allegiances to my buffalo bills and come to the correct conclusion based upon the evidence presented. Ok, meanwhile, Galen had to loop, the ultra music about six times in America. Tell that entire story, but here we go we're at the end of the show and before we go a quick reminder that we launched our gerrymandering series last week hosted by Galen Group. If you haven't listened yet, you can find the first episode in this feed

Scroll down it says the gerrymandering project intro, it is excellent and it is A6 part series that is running in this feed on Thursdays through the begin. January, so the next episode will be out later this week be sure to check it out. My name is Jody Avirgan Gillinger is our producer of politics. Editor is Maiko and Toni Chau is in the control room and our intern is paid, Pothier Ova, get in touch by emailing US podcasts at five hundred and thirty dot com. You can also, of course, tweet it us with any questions or comments about the show, if you're a fan of the show, leave us or rating or a review in the apple podcast, or I happened to glance at our reviews over the weekend. Some lovely comments coming in so keep em. Coming is the only thing we have in this thanks again for listening will see you soon.