Trump lashes out at our closest allies while kissing up to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. Then, former Solicitor General Don Verrilli joins Jon and Dan to talk about the Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing conditions protections in court.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Presenting sponsor of pod. Save America is zipper cruder, one of our listeners, Dorothy from New York, Usurper Critter earlier the shoe to hire and account manager from a PR company, Crenshaw Communication Attica, while Crunch AGA could shut out here negative for the usual Dorothy said about the zipper could experience. The dashboard is easy to use
for greater seems to target, can it's that are better qualified, more numerous and possibly more serious. The screen or question is also timesaving Dorothy, like Super Curtis Gruner screener questions which gives you the option to ask applicants custom question.
That way. You can quickly identify the most relevant qualified applicants. Saving everyone tat we all like that. We do. You prefer also asked Dorothy
favorite pod, save America who was- and she said neither of the two people
listening to right now, but Dan, you know jeopardy.
More human beings, with feelings with emotions or individuals,
like Phil Value, did not ranked leant. Do
because he's the most earnest and possibly the smartest. I mean not possibly defiling tens, pretty smart,
And she said her least favoured is love. It didn't
then in the coffee. But love is not here today. So that's overgrown with sea pays attention and listens to the spot, so hiring list
you gonna, be smartly Dorothy and Zeb recruiter, Artlessness contrived for free begun as a precursor dot com, such crooked,
and be part of the pods alumni like Dorothy just go to separate. I come such crooked that zip recruited outcome, slash crooked. It is like in the smartest, with higher
Welcome the blood save America on John Pharaoh Dan Pfeiffer answered issue will be talking to the former solicitor general of the United States, dont, really about the trump administrations. Refusal to defend the affordable, correct in court will also talk about
from its decision to pick a fight with all of our closest allies will closing up to dictators like Vladimir Putin came young own what a great day Dan
should also say, as you ve noticed, we a view making. We switch pod host this week.
John love it is on vacation and on Thursday our friend Ben Roads is in LOS Angeles, so he will summon as a co host and studio with me and Tommy on Thursdays, pod and then Dan was flexible enough to make. Today
So thank you. Damn welcomed the Monday upon a bit habited Eric. How many
so the book really stand, or we were about a week, our right, we are by the time you had. This will be one week out
and so I got a couple things to say about this are first, you know the saying practice makes perfect. That is apparently not true because I have been.
Just hockin this work. That's it right on this package and I ve got no better at it, because, as many many many of you pointed out on Twitter,
the last two times I have tried to pitch the book. I have failed to say the title, which is basically a book pitching one hundred and one. So the title of the book is yes, we still can politics in the age of Obama, Trump and Twitter, so there you go
it said, makes it easier to find on Amazon, Barnes, ennoble Indy.
Found that all the other place you can find the box second. Last week we challenge people to get at ten thousand books, priests old before,
We state- and I don't have final numbers yet but based
the coroner quote early vote of pre sales. We are getting closer, we are not there yet, but if we keep it up, I think weaken hit this
by Tuesday blow through it, and that is good because I get to
New York until my publisher, I told you so and more importantly, for everyone other than me. We get to
right. It slightly bigger check to our friends at swing laughed who have been wonderful partners in helping us waiting elections and in working with me on tried it
read the book pre sales to help the greater get here, the globally
the book was the Bulgaria before Tuesday, whether grinning at ten thousand, enabling it to eleven twelve thousand. If we keep going at it, what's the book called, then I yes, we still can vary their politics in the age of Obama, Trump and Twitter. Let's talk about
the temper tantrum, the Donald Trump and senior staff for the G7 meeting in Canada, which
an annual global economic summit that includes all of our closest allies couple things happened. First Trump told her paw
is on his way to the summit that Russia should be part of the g7. Again, specifically, he said
Russia should be in this meeting. Why are we having a meeting without Russia being in the meeting and then he followed up?
by saying quote something
happened a while ago, where Russia is no longer in, of course, he's right.
Used to be the G8 but the something that was
two was Russia invading the sovereign nations of Georgia and then Ukraine and twenty fourteen, where Putin and next Crimea, which of course was a violation of international law
Dan? What possible reason is therefore trumped say something like this
other than the one we all fear, which is that Vladimir Putin has some kind of leverage over our president White kind of leverage. Would that be I'm trying to think what would brain
Bueller say right now your brain go right to the pity. Is that leverages worth its weight in gold? If you will, I mean I have no idea, I really
we have no idea other than he just feels more comfortable with Putin, then, with Merkel Mccrone, Trudeau, Teresa may, or up any just pretty comfortable with his gonna go
Grecians o the Prime Minister, Japan, but it is a truly
Brazil are seamen and it's worth noting? It's not just the annex ii of criteria, which was a complete disregard for the world order, but also that then russian separatist shot down an airplane, killing hundreds of people, a crime to which the Russians have continued to cover up
for years now, and the idea that we're just we're gonna go into this and just reward Putin who did it
laugh, and I heard him say that he, why would you?
the meeting without the Russians which exist
we were down Junior would say. Also
They interfere in our fucking election,
and there was that by
Finally, one August interfered in the end. They probably interfere in the bricks campaign as well. I mean there it's just like,
the only other thing I can think of, is if prudent doesn't have some kind of leverage over trump because again
like I don't want to go to the conspiracies I wanted. I want to try to really think this out, like maybe trump is just trying to troll all of us, because he knows everyone thinks he's too cosy with Putin. So he wants to say fuck you'd everyone who believe that I don't know, but it's like a b. It would be one thing
if he was the kind of president who wanted better relations with every country- and you know, but then it's like, why didn't he say
wise and China, in the meeting wise in Brazil, in the meeting wise in India and the meeting like he didn't pick out other countries around the world who are part of the g7 who were who have gigantic economies?
who could probably play a role in these kind of conversations. He only singled out Russia. Why? The fuck would he do that. I guess the most generous explanation, which I do not
I do not. I do not, but I guess would be. Russia's one would be Russia's here. They're playing an important role in the for good, so argue for good, somewhat argued motion would argue for ill,
and it seems dumb to have all the other countries governed, not Russia. That's a bad reason because there have to be consequences for actions in Russia has done nothing to try to get themselves back in the good graces of the g7. They have instead been more aggressive. More per causing more problems
and so it is a mean- maybe he was a main, maybe inside it just trolling the lives he were in America. He wanted to troll the the other leaders of the g7. It's it's sort of my Boggley
the Russia thing becomes even stranger when you consider how the rest of the summit went on Saturday, canadian Prime Minister, just in Trudeau held a press conference and in the press conference he basically announced that all of the G7 countries they had a lotta.
Different disagreements over the course of the weekend, but they all agreed on a joint economic statement that they would put out together.
Had everyone was going to sign off, and the White House told reporters on air force, one that trunk was going to sign off and they beginning the statement. Then, when a reporter asked Trudeau how Canada would respond to trump
tariffs on canadian Steel and Aluminium Trudeau Ray
your rated that Canada would be imposing tariffs on american goods as a response and then Trump responds onto
by calling Trudeau, dishonest weak and then said that the? U S would refuse to sign the g, seven joint statement and then one of trumps too,
economic advisers, Peter Navarro said that there is a quote special place in hell for just in Trudeau DEN. How big a deal is this and what kind of consequences can we expect from the sort of thing I, if you just it, so mine bog adjust its mind boggling,
it is so it like you just have to wonder like you should have go down like the tree of possibilities, for how we got to this place like one is Trump is ups was concerned about the amount of coverage his invitation to Russia to rejoin the g to turn the g7 back in the G8 use consumer. How much coverage that got so you want to do something abstract, so we decided to pick a fight with Canada.
Which did which too I mean it seems weird candidates, not necessarily we should be fighting with, but it did not everything else off the front pages or the headlines are treading on twitter. Whatever metric, we use it aside, what is newsworthy these days ads or we talked about the the fight between Trudeau and tromp instead of Trump closing up to Russia,
again. So that's one possibility and that's all I want is strategic in a sense right. Maybe it's got instincts right, always its intellectual, its instincts. You will not intellectual or he's just a
never ending mall of insecurity and the slightest thing sets em off where and it's one thing where he's just in the campaign and he's sending angry tweets about,
about me. Don't takers is father, whatever else which all terrible things, but they don't have actual policy consequences. Now we are, but this was actual consequences on our relations with Canada. Are our economic relations with Canada, the economy itself, the cost of goods and services in America because of goods in America? And I just it's it's mystifying. I do here's the thing where I think it matters, which is why you- and I know this from the White House, which is you can now
ever get to the bottom of your inbox and the White House. There are all leaders is out of time and energy to do the things that need to get done Europe.
Elsie challenges, policy opportunities
legislation, regulations, etc. Just there's its zero for the presidency, a zero sum and were now spending time and energy as it is a White House, a government and a country fighting with Canada, who are our friends, our closest friend, some
say both geographically and they have a team in the NBA week. What are we doing? It's not there also
like Canada and Mexico are two of our biggest trading partners in the world, and we have now passed. Both countries are like that is gonna have economic consequences for Americans who buy products that have that whether the whole product or part of the product is made in Canada and Mexico, which is a lot of shit that people by in this country,
I see. I read this political story, it says you know four trumped. The decision may be a political winner, the president's bases, deeply sceptical of international cooperation. Ok, I understand why that's like the the very
top level more shallow analysis possible but like I think it is basically be skeptical of internet,
corporation only in the sense that they think that trade deals that we ve made without the country over other countries over the years do not do anything for american workers and american consumers,
and you know what you're going to some of these deals, there may be some truth that, but now that this is a different thing now the trumpets engaged in a trade war that he started by the way him imposing tariffs on, as we said before, Trump imposing tariffs on other countries really means that Donald Trump is charging american consumers more money when they buy foreign goods and guess what every time we go to the store where
buying foreign goods or buying stuff that has parts that are made in foreign countries and so everything now from beer cans
soda cans to automobiles, even you
Wes made. Automobiles have parts that are made
with steel and aluminum that are made in other countries. So this is going to cost people, and I don't think his base is going to like that. It is, and there are there consequences on the world stage, hear the
you know it was early. This was taken to seriously but the ito someone say ecumenical upon us, my some, which were later set of his like. Maybe we could be the G sex
right and the idea that which is not that I don't mean Tommy
Ben roads are some of other foreign policy expert. France correctly, I can imagine a world in which the? U S is not part of the g whatever, but
It is, it just says so much about how we are now we had set of being who the world turns to when when they need leadership, ah, whether its diplomatic, moral military, it doesn't move, always lived up to. But that is the role we have played, and so, instead of doing that, we are now a problem for other countries to manage and that just has consequences across the board for how were seen it is that whenever we have an Ex President Weatherby in twenty twenty one or God forbid, twenty five, the next United States, President Secretary of State and diplomatic corps, organ have to dig ourselves out of what is the absolute low point for? U S, relations in the world in the modern age,
a job is done, that in record time simply by just being an asshole. So the people who are friends for no good reason. I mean this is also you know talking about the political consequences in the latest. Fox news pull him.
Last week and by the way showed that Democrats, I think Europe nine points in the generic ballot, so that led his opened again, but
the main reasons that people approve of tromp who approve Trump are sent. You know that, as one of the main reasons is the economy,
Well, while the main reasons that people disapprove of Trump is that they don't think he's capable of doing the job and they don't think he has a good temperament and his reaction eyes. Temper tantrum that he threw about just introduce remarks serve demonstrates both
those worst qualities. Does this sort of validate the critique there was made of Trump way back when in twenty sixteen by Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama may, as you
us up- that soft law for me to swing away at. Actually, I think-
in hindsight- we dramatically under stated the dangers of trumps temperament yeah, because I think even I mean, maybe even you as well believes that there would be he was, should not be president. Under any circumstances and
a bad person on every level, but that there would be some machinery of government and that with him in some of the insanity right leg, I really didn't think that in the same way, who would be fighting with dressed in Trudeau and picking up Kim Jong IL its hotel incidentals Edison like that it is made. It is it's it's bonkers. What were what we're doing here, and I think that the point you make in that Fox NEWS, poles, critically important Democrats
one of the best arguments that we had against Republicans in the fight to repeal the Asia during the formal characterise programmes presidency, one
that was a distraction from other things like. Why would we there are so many things the country needs to be doing? Why are we voting for the fiftieth time to try to repeal a lot, has been on the books and is helping people, and I think that there is
element. I've been evident. Are you in this for a while now that I think that the two elements of the critique against Trump and by extension, Republicans, is to argue against the chaos and the corruption and that we have to but did make the chaos thing work? You can just be an aesthetic feel like man, I'm so tired of all the of the news in the tweets. It has to have consequences the people's lot. That's right that they that, and I think that there is an opportunity in the tariffs and in this trade war with candidate, that its can affect people in their pocket books and that we have real things. We need
doing when this fixing education or in improving health care or infrastructure whatever it is. We are instead of doing those things we are fighting with Canada and I think that that is thus be part of the argument. Again,
and struck, but we have to make it we have to show how about we have to show a cost, but their meals pocketbooks in an opportunity cost for the country on the things that people really in a bipartisan basis agree need to be dealt with
yeah, I think that's right. I gave in drawing the line from the chaos and corruption to actual real world consequences for people is, is critical here, there's other this larger question on foreign policy right which, as you know a few weeks ago,
a senior white as official told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic? The trumps foreign policy doctrine can be described as where America Bitch, which is just really something
and yet so so. This is sort of his like. I don't care about the rest of the world, no apologies kind of stuff and that certainly how he has acted towards our allies and how we are
the towards all of our allies at the G7. And yet, when it comes to dictators, an autocrat like Putin and Kim Jong earn, you know is
to sing from couldn't be nicer, more accommodating, lucky ease, peace, pain for Kim Jong and hotel he's making coins is not imposing sanctions on Putin. Why do you think? Why do you think the Donald Trump is more comfortable with autocrat and dictators than he is with sort of the heads democracies around the world? I mean, I think it is simply, though I mean for me for my attitude no perspective he feels and closest to them. He doesn't care about the things that most leaders care about, because my accumulating in maintaining power in power
is in. It is a good in and of itself. It is not to be used for something we are not getting elected to office so that we can reduce regulations or cut taxes or on democratic side, help fight climate change or give health care to people or raise a minimum wage is the power is all that matters.
If the policy positions that you need to achieve, that power are one way
he'll. Do that the other way it if their different, he would change. He does not only once is power, and that makes it
very similar, that that is what he has intervened in common with Putin Kim Jong earn dwelleth she in China and in their is just like there. He in true dough or Mccrone or Merkel, or Brok Obama, Hillary Clinton or any one else there like they don't speak the same language. He doesn't even. He cannot inside that little brain of his. He can't fathom the idea that you do these jobs to do something. He does these jobs to have this job and keep it as long as possible. And this because there is no- I mean you see. This is a fact that there is no coherent governing our policy. Ideology does even, though what'd the reason that everything is about only alive on during the Brok, momentous
because he has no other framework by which to make a decision, and so when I can't, I can't even imagine with a conversation are like with other world leaders because they're, not speaking even they made it even other using translators, threats speaking a language, the other one understands. I also think it just comes down to the fact that he is lazy. An ignorant and a nurse assist and democracy is messy. It requires compromise, it requires diplomacy, it requires not taking all the credit yourself and working with other people. It requires dealing with the media in the press, which also can be very critical and all of these things that are required and democracy, which is really hard work, he's one have anything to do with that. He's used to being the head
of his business and head of his organism and snapping his fingers and getting everything he wants and when he looks around the world and he sees Putin or she's that a China or any these autocrat, all they have to do is snap their fingers and something in their country gets done and if they don't like their cause,
rich? Then they you know than they shut down the media because they have state, run media or like what Putin
He, u know, doesn't
Journalists in open kills journalists, or at least you know, can
all the media and Trump sort of looks at then he's like men, that's probably a pretty good deal and that's very dangerous. Its
like, he may not be that he started off. Is this like sinister,
You know, dictator and waiting here where he's trying to like take over the robot, but he's just he's a lazy
ignorant narcissists any wants everyone to do what he says, and democracy is not that democracy requires
but to work as we look at all these leaders that are trying to like work with other people and he's like thought tat, I mean there's all these reports that he went to the g7 he and want to go. He went late. He left early.
He was falling asleep during some of the meetings like he does want to do any the shit he just wants to like snap. His fingers gets off down and take the credit. Yet you had on a really important point, which is other leaders of both parties in this country and, frankly, other parties in the traditional liberal democracies that make up the g seven. They believed that the fundamentals of democracy are things worth protecting trump use them as simply annoyances that prevented from doing what he wants to do,
so that the main hake he has like I sort of hate, it's a cheap to do the trumps, a fascist or he's an authoritarian he's a dictator like we're not living in an authoritarian government, yet ah in United States. But he has the approach. If he could, he would be an authoritarian, because that's just he doesn't care about democracy and it is the minutes.
That's what it is simply not good enough, and I do think, though, what that requires is for democrats- and you know, whichever Republicans
or any other wanna join along. It requires a defence of democracy itself as we fight against Trump. You know, and I do think that as we look towards the election, obviously the economy has to come first in healthcare in all these issues, but what he's doing and in what he's? What he's trying to fight against here? Is it something larger and it's a defensive in a while,
Democracy still is the best system of governance in the world, which is not something that we'd everything we have to defend internally
not in our lifetime, but I do think that's necessary with Trump
in speaking about the Republicans after this whole G7 debacle, Jeff Lake, Susan Collins, Ben SAS, John Mccain of the usual suspects, they'll tweeted, their disapproval of trumps behaviour and, of course, did nothing else. What else could somebody's Republicans do if they wanted to actually do more than just tweet about it? The tweets make me so angry.
I don't even don't even just like we're tired of your tweets. Sad tweets are the new thoughts and prayers for, and it is like.
They are in charge of committees. They could propose laws, they could have hearings, they could you subpoena power, they could call witnesses, they could ask for
documents there is it like they have. They are
a separate, but equal branch of government, and so they have how
then extend beyond two hundred eighty characters of sadness and so a maiden liver they don't.
I mean in the somebody was able Mitch we're gonna want. Let him do anything for you. That's probably true, because he's terrible, but you could still user committee. You could try to do things you could be. You could push literally. You could work with Democrats, God fucking forbid, but you could work
Democrats to try to bring some of these bills for the four, because there will be majorities as on somebody think you could do
since the Senate, Saint candidate is our friend not our enemy and so like they have a set of tools like, let's be honest, the power the executive, despite what
Susan says in prickly in areas like foreign policy exceed the ability of Congress and a lot of ways to try to have it in. But there are things they can do to make an actual participants and raise wholly hell beyond a tweed, and so I mean it is available to them. They just won't do it, because they are all that it is a party of trumps applicants now that, if that is what they are, because that is what they now believed to be the best politics. The only potential check on Donald Trump is a democratic congress, but is it there are zero Republicans who have shown the bare willing to check trump at all, even the ones who are tweeting, because what you said, the tweets, dough manner you more. It was one thing like the first time,
a flake, got up on the second floor and and and made a speech or the or the first time that you know Susan Collins at something, then he thought ok, maybe they're. Starting with the speech. Maybe then they'll graduate to some real action now its clear that these people don't want to do anything or
too afraid to do anything, either unwilling to anything or or their secretly happy with the agenda whatever it may be there not doing anything. If you want some kind of a check on this president, if you want to curtail his
our in some way, even in a small way. The only option you have as a democratic Congress in november- that's it-
thanks for reminding us of that. Just like Susan collars vote them all out every single
one of them positively
has brought by Tommy. Don't tell me, I have a question for you yet what, with the summer weather heating up, how are your old cotton boxers holding up well sort of a hard one answer? I don't know anymore old, shitty cotton boxers because it made the switch you I feel like I have
Khan boxes and ninety ninety eight Tommy, I gotta talk from my mom. I swear
Are they a little soggy in kind of damp like a swamp know we live in LA in at Washington,
true, there's no humidity here, we're fine
Some people's underwear just aren't designed to handle all that sweat, which is why you need
upgraded. Underwear from Tommy, John, the revolutionary clothing brain. That's redefine comfort for people everywhere, including us too.
John combines lightweight breathable fabrics with panted designs for can only be described as this is an quotations, the perfect fit perfect fit and, of course, their where'd. You proof,
you'll never have to worry about that swampy feeling because Tommy Johns Moist
you're working Fabrics, Jesus Christ,
whispered should write off your body and their cool cotton fabric dries forty five times faster and keeps you two to three times: cooler and traditional cotton honey
they quantify the specific metrics, where there were two five straight from the lab
olive Tommy John agenda indoors, back by the best peril over where it's free guarantee say
Uncomfortable awesome, all summer, along with time and John no adjustment needed hurried
the agenda complex cricket for twenty percent of the first order. That's time agenda come such crooked. For twenty percent off Tom Agenda Com- slash crook
POD save America's brought by Hubble? Are you
of overpaying for uncomfortable contact lenses ad than I am
you over where your contact lenses to save money. Again, I've perfect vision. I do, I don't think I've changed mine from
What if I told you that you can get a fresh pair of lenses for every single day for less sixty contacts for three through dollars? That's a good price as a contact lens broken
do the math its barely one dollar per day. This is women.
Fordable another brands got hobble contacts, dot com and get your first two weeks free ourselves directly to use. They can offer contacts for half the price
They can send you don't optometrist if you don't have a prescription today, getting caught
it has never been more convenient, affordable, no more overpaying or over wearing gotta Hubble context. I come to get your first two weeks of lenses for free, that's fifteen pairs of Linda's, absolutely free, gotta, Hubble context I come and see. The difference makes her to select our show puff
Save America check out. That's h! You baby Ellie contacts, dot com, okay, so where, according this before trumps Post, North Korea
summit press conference, but let's talk about all the expectations and potential outcomes heading into this thing. Trumps people are basically
saying that his main message to Kim Jong OWN is, you know, give up your nukes and will make sure that you and your people are rich and safe
So my first question is no matter what happens here. How does how does Kim Jong entrust Trump to keep his word on any deal? And, second, how do any of US trust whatever Trump and Kim say about what happened during the summit? Well, John, I think you're being deeply and ferreted out. I don't drop when this when this is over. When the summit has ever, he is gonna sit down with one of America's toughest journalists for a hard hitting half our interview about this.
And the truth will come out from the questions. You didn't deeply incisive questions of one shot Kennedy who will there we go so now? We have everyone is a liar. Why would we believe anyone we?
two guys who are
known for their dishonesty who are going to kill me.
Came to us to their people through state tv? That is what's gonna happen, so that there is no real waited now and its deeply dangerous that we sent in in ignoramus to have a one on one discussion with a murderous dictator about the future of nuclear security in the world. It's crazy! It is absolutely crucial
it's, it's just ridiculous. I mean that the meeting is supposed to be one on one they're, not gonna, have any staff present. When I read and so Donald Trump we know,
but one can say something about Donald Trump as it applies to us all. The time we ve caught him in a million lies the press climate, a million, lies whatever the fuckin debate about whether you want to call it a lie or not alive. They are misstatements. There lie
he doesn't tell the truth to the american people and is the one thing
no about him. So whatever
he has set in this press conference, which you
I'll know by now, but we don't
we have no way of knowing. If it's true,
have no way of knowing if Kim Jong and story is true, either because he's also a liar. We have two liars and you put the fate of the world and nuclear weapons and then they're going to come out and they're gonna give press conferences at world gonna pretend like this
tell us something about what happened. Why would we do that? Why,
We pretend that this is going to give us any information that we can rely on. I dont understand like we will address.
Now the prediction business. So we don't really know what's gonna happen, but it it does feel like both sides are more interested in the spectacle than the substance. He hunted and they both have real incentive to at least walk away and the first day with a wind of some kind, but even if there is no agreement that will meet again wrote meet us, it's like. I think they both do not want this to blow up in their face. So it's possible that trumps tat like we're dealing with two further unpredictable beings here, so I mean that
yeah, as we just mentioned, Trump, is fighting with Canada right now, so he can fight with anyone. But on his face it feels like we're going to be where they're going to sit down they're, going to have a discussion they're going to
some measure of deceit of a decision to keep talking, which is how even with normal leaders this is how this would most likely
happen, or least is a little work, as Rapporteur put the cart before the horse by having, by bringing the two principles to speak to each other. So soon in the past,
yes, but usually people that their discussions don't blow up in the room they may blow up later, when the debt, when you get to the actual details, because I can't be for Kim, forgive Jonah, but I
You know that Donald Trump Card Details- guys, if you like he's getting into the nitty gritty of the inspection regime, would be interested in exchange for sanctions or what
Trump admitted drum, say he thinks drugs that he thinks he's well prepared because he doesn't have to prepare much.
It's all about attitude in this.
What action is called his good, but let me
I say this with us, which is in his evidence, for why he did need to prepare. Was that Hillary Clinton prepare for the debates and he won the presidency a great oak.
Greater Spargo. This visit Elizabeth Axes calls his his great man, theory trumps, great man very, which is Trump thinking. This is all about. Personalities is that would diplomacy is all about just two personalities in a room making a deal. That is why a wide of the media with
they think it s about yeah, which is why this play had drunk advantages because the media covers spectacle and they do not
cover individuals and personalities, and they do not do a good enough job covering like systemic conditions that led to certain decisions being made, and we cover at Like Shakespeare and not substance right, so that's like it. We have to have it, has to be a narrative arc and ask a protagonist in an antagonist and heroes Journey and all the other things you learn
in an creative writing, one, a wine and what gets lost in that. As the press, you point out the broader forces that are the things. It actually drive political sentiment and world events, as opposed to just two dude in a room which is how the trunk paper pitching this year, and we can look at them. Ok, what brought Kim Jong on to the table while a couple of things one! It may be that the sanctions on North Korea have gone to a point where their economy is suffering so badly. That came junk once the sanctions to go away. Number two Kim Jong is at the table because he has finally developed the capability to launch a nuclear weapon and potentially strike the United States, and so
but he has that power and thinks he can be taken seriously. He will go to the negotiating table and start talking. So these are the. If it wasn't, I saw somewhere. You know. I think this is an access as well. There are they
Even some democrats have said that trumps madmen.
Routine on twitter calling them. You know rocket man and all this kind of stuff has brought Kim Jong into the table. Bull shit. I don't which Democrats adapter stupid that their there there are broader systemic condition
the broad Kim Jong Moon to the negotiating table, and it was not Donald Trump Fucking tweets bits of in their couple things on the Democrats here. One is part of that argument, wise, that's how we got the hostages back, so what crazy tweets of Morocco Barbours led to the hostages. They came back there.
Brok, Obama's presidency or George Bush's or build Clinton's? Look how many palm administrations have gotten hostages from North Korea? Right and second, I do think that the democratic response here is not to try to get to the hawkish side of Trump on North Korea. That is correct like we can, we can point
out that he has given away the store at the front end. He is give in Kim Jong own in recognition on the international stage that he would never otherwise get from agreeing to this to this summit and that's a critique. This issue equity of history, teaches approach of achieving a diplomatic solution, but we should be for a diplomatic solution here. We don't like I don't want to get to the world where are sort of partisan polarization suggests that, while trunks gonna do diplomacy that we're gonna call diplomacy, soft and we're gonna try to be even tougher on North Korea, the dramatic gets, I think, there's no political point in that its, but it's also Jim, is stupid, like weaken, weaken it of the urgency today to commemorate trumps. Historic summit sends out or opera resource dark document trying to compare trump success too about Miss fares and withdrew. It lets me better, they aren't see here and just let's be, let's beat
forthright in our critique, but let's not try to choose a political position simply because it's the polar opposite of trumps on North Korea. No, I I will praise the willingness of the Trump Administration to say you know, there's nothing wrong with engaging in diplomacy, even its were, even if it's with a dictator with nuclear weapons that we should meet some of these leaders, one on one. What I'm critiquing is the fact that we sent a fucking more,
to go. Do the job who is bragging about how he's not prepared who is not studied the issues
doesn't care who hasn't prepared for the meeting at all. You know that that's the problem with this. It's not the problem
being negotiated in the diplomacy itself is not the problem. The problem is who were sending, and it's always going to be the case. Wouldn't give it a choice? Would you send you can send one of these three people, Donald Trump Dennis Rodman or the person who came up with the idea of renaming the international house of pancakes,
the international House burgers, but definitely the IRA person, because
I don't know they got, they get them a bunch of attention today. So who knows, but that's a tough one, certain
then I love the whole Dennis Rodman storyline, coming back into into play here
who was the first era Donald Rumsfeld of ours.
It was. It was Trump flak. J, hugging Gibbey, who explained that Dennis Rodman and trumpet sums relationship is Dennis. Robin was the greatest rebound. There can be a history which is a debatable but arguable point. Yeah tromp was the greatest negotiator in the history of the world, so the two of them had something in common, which was basically northwest our propaganda emanating from our own White House Vieira and stay tv foxes
Yeah no makes total sense. Ok, let's do worst outcome best outcome of these negotiations or even though, in the worst no come do we know we have to set out loud. I think we can all gas super circle. We re. We note that without a best outcome, as I run a clay the rand deal, but for North Korea Right- and I think that is- I think that is
the test here is: does what comes out of this and look? I don't think we should again. We need patients here. Negotiations diplomacy require patients. I dont think that out of this summit, anyone should necessarily exists.
Act, especially since only gonna me for a few hours and they ve already like moved up their departure and leaving early that these guys,
walk out of here with the full deal like. Maybe it's just the beginning of many different, you know negotiating sessions, but
I think, at the end of the day, we have to say like does this deal Match
or is it better than that
the IRAN deal, which had tough verified
all international inspections? It's probably the harder for various reasons for international inspectors to
went to North Korea and make sure there are no nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapon production anywhere? Then what
even in IRAN, is came willing to give up all of his nuclear making.
Poverty run. Of course, we dont think they had the above all by the time that the deal was done, but they had a lot of uranium enrichment capacity, and so the question is: can we have that same verifiable result with North Korea?
and I think that's and look Trump didn't think the around deal with any good so now will see if he can
the deal that is as good or better than mere under. Somehow I feel like the right wing. Critics of the around deal will not hold Trump in his deal with North Korea to a similar Sandra. They held a bomb ass. I feel like for this brief moment. They will walk away from their long term. Intellectual consistency on issues of foreign policy. You have come
the fucking hypocrites somewhat eyes. I saw some already complaining today
that Tom. You know trumpets decided not to bring up any human rights abuses in this meeting at all, which you now, I'm not terribly surprised that I know the trumps is not a human rights crusader.
But again look. I remember that you know a lot of criticism of the Koran deal was okay. Well, you
What about all of runs in state sponsored terror on the Middle EAST? What about their missile particular about as other stuff? And it's like yeah, we
Iran does a lot of bad shit. The
negotiations were about nuclear weapons and the potential for them to develop nuclear weapons, which would change the game in the Middle EAST.
And already has not. Are our thought in the it was not you know, will
this deal and then suddenly everything in IRAN will be wonderful. It's that the dead, the worst threat here is a nuclear armed IRAN and, I think, look, I think, with North Korea,
the same thing. The worst third here is IRAN, as North Korea having a whole bunch of nuclear weapons, especially nuclear weapons that can strike the United States and for some reason we can. You know neutralize that threat, there's probably so gonna be awful human rights abuses in north korean awful other things that they do that. We should also continue to try to take care of and to stop. But you know this focuses on nuclear weapons. I actually think he should have brought it. He should bring it up. I should have thought of that spending on what time liner or assisting and right now it would be perfunctory at best, even with a different president of actually seem to care about human rights right by the we should get the best deal we can. That makes the world as safe as possible and every year for that's, not gonna, get a snack us off all the Palms North Korea for sure, but but I think it is important and how the president I had states addresses responds to
who tweets about someone who runs death camps in his country, that we don't lose sight of that fact in turning this into some sort of romance bathroom brain, so I think, like that, has that should be. It won't be, but it should be in part of contacts for how we discuss how trumped discusses Kim Jump and in the north korean regime
when you walk out and say, is a great guy. I respect him alive way better.
Then just it like that has consequences. It sends a message to human rights abusers in other authoritarian regimes all over the world right. We have to have not I'm not for anyway saying the Obama administration was perfect on us. We absolutely were not, but we we need to value. The idea is standing up for human rights and, if you're, just gonna give a real pat on the back in some twitter plaudits to a guy who runs death camps and starts as country. That's a bat
thing, and I think trumps should be criticised for that. If and when he does, it came. Jungle is not. Your Bianca
let's talk about healthcare news
sweet the Trump administrations, justice departments that it would no longer defend the affordable care act in court, specifically the part of the law, the protects,
two hundred and thirty million Americans, with pre existing conditions from being denied covered by insurance companies. The Justice Department took the position is part of a case in which Texas and nineteen other conservative attorney
Gunnar attorney General are challenging the affordable, correct as unconstitutional. We're going to talk about what
an unusual and dramatic step. This is by the Justice Department with our guest Don really whose job it was defend, the eighty eight Supreme Court when he was a biomass general, but I thought you and I should talk about sort of the political aspects of this story. First,
First of all, just another example of how unbelief
nobly awful just Jeff sessions is, as attorney general, there was this decision that happened. This came out on
a night today on Monday Jeff sessions by the way also decided that the United
states will no longer grant asylum to victims of domestic violence or gangway,
once that those will no longer be categories by which we looked at people coming here from other countries fleeing violence and say we will grant you asylum, which is just beyond despicable to me. We should just take up a second to talk about that before we go back to the healthcare thing it is, it run so counter to who we as Americans. At least. I thought we were prior to this moment that it is, it is secondary, and I think it is a reminder- and I wanna get overly dark here by
We get caught up in the tweets and in the mother investigation and what crazy thing to trumped you today or whereas Maloney or all of this, and what we are missing, underneath even the policy travesty of this administration is just this fundamental shift in what it means to be an American. What it means to be America that it just the some very basic things that have been at the core of our national narrative to ourselves a why we thought our country was exceptional, indifferent and we'd like us that we do. I say this autumn: we do. We have very often failed to live up to that belief in our selves, but we're Trump in sessions and cursed in the Olsson, and everyone else are eroding that on a daily basis, because the the president,
is for better or worse sets the moral tone for the country, and we have an immoral human being in that office. Right now, and so the ideas were now gonna polarize the country round. This idea it isn't, it will now be Fer, a significant portion of their public and party, a sign of weakness to care about the most vulnerable immigrants, the ones that, despite our all the other fights about legalization, the dreamers anything else. The one thing that there has been some measure of bypassing remit on was asylum seekers that was truly at the coup
or young of white our country was about and that that change today and it's gonna take a lot of work to get that back. It really is. This decision also reveals the Donald Trump Immigration policy is not about fixing a broken immigration system. It is not about protecting Americans from crime or from gangs or from drugs. It is not about protecting american jobs, because if a was there a whole bunch of policies that they could have pursued, that would have may be done. Those things this immigration policy is about cruelty. It is about telling people from other countries. You do not look like. We do, and we do not want you here- we are going to separate we're going to tear away children from their parents when they come here fleeing from violence. For all the talk about Emma's thirteen, we want to protect Americans from gangs. These are people who
were fleeing from gangs fleeing from gang violence fleeing from domestic violence. Coming to you, I'd stating, please save me, do not semi back your save me save my children and we are saying no go back. We don't want you and there is no good reason for that. There's no reason for that other than pure fucking racism is despicable, dishpan, edit. The message and belief of the Republican Party under Trop and the message we are sending to the world is that empathy, his weakness, a threat that compassion is weakness and if you feel for these people, then you're soft and you are not welcome and that where that is a lesson that we are teaching.
To a generation of trump supporters and its main, the we are dig yourselves in this country travel over. This why Trump is digging America into a deep moral hold us getting
atomic and by the way in everyone knows that we ve said this before too wise,
if session still keep his job after tromp attacks on twitter all the time
I am about the rush investigation. Well, just sessions keeps his job because, while ROD, Rosen
is dealing with the rush investigation is in the spotlight. Jeff sessions can go off and do all the
herbal things on immigration. That he's been dreaming about doing his entire career, and this and now back to this
will correct decision is another thing the job sessions gets to do, which is taken
very unusual step view
Are you not unprecedented, but almost ten percent instead of saying that the Justice Department is not going to defend the law of the land and
I have to say politically last we were talking about how to keep healthcare in the news, since, if the top issue for most voters is this an actual gift for Democrats, this decision- and how should we talk about it? How should Democrats talk about it from now until the elections? I think the simplest message is trunk. The travel restoration republicans wanna make believe that pre protections for prefer people, processing conditions is unconstitutional and they want to take us from this. Can those protections away from tens of millions of Americans you if you want to say that from happening
I like Democrats, the letter, I met a message that that's not just can be popular democratic voters or even depended voters, but republican voters as well. I mean Donald Trump himself at the
getting it when he first became president said why the preexisting condition part of the law. I like that, that's good. Of course. He then did everything he could undermine it because
he doesn't care, he's a liar he's too stupid to understand that allow works, probably a combination of all the above, but now
you're right. His administration is on record saying the pre existing conditions. They believe that the law, the protects people with Greece, a condition, is unconstitutional and they are siding with insurance companies that want to screw people over. That's where the Trump Administration put themselves and even Donald Trump, by the way can't.
Believe, but this is politically smart because of all the things he talks about on Twitter. Of all the comments he makes. He has not said a word about this, a word because he knows how unpopular invented this is gonna, be whether things where this is a gigantic. Massively consequential say we're talking about it here. Our gas is gonna die,
about it. But it's also happened in the week at the summit the week of the fort worth.
The war with Canada of twenty eighteen and it is gonna, be encumbered a woods
we'll. Do our part with our little microphones here but Democrats are gonna, have to carry this message every single day in every way possible on the campaign trail
paid media earned media, and I think one of the tests will be humor predominance last week, but Miss Connell and what would be a bit of massive
Someone impressively strategic cynicism, cancel the August recess, so the Democrats who need to go home and campaign cannot do so.
And sinner humor and the Democrats that they going to spend that
there are two make that healthcare month and spent. Let's talk about healthcare, so this will be the test. Can they leverage that month to draw attention in focus to health care, and I think that's the exact right approach to what a pretty tough the other Mcdonald's hands along handed them?
But it's that like they'll, do than August, and they got do it every day between now and election day. Yeah. That's about smart of humor
one more thing we're also talking last week with RON claim about how the court should be a top issue for our base for democratic voters and twenty.
Team. Well now we have
We ve seen how Trump and Republicans are trying to use the courts to undo the affordable, correct,
and we also had a ruling today from the Supreme Court. That said this,
eight of Ohio
is allowed to purge voters from the voter rules, just because they have
Voted in awhile, which has some
It will disproportionately disenfranchise people of color people who are poor people who don't vote very often, and it is
awful decision, I saw as item Miller on Twitter, say I'd love to hear the Maghreb people.
Conservatives actually try to defend why this is the right decision to say it is ok for a state to take people who have registered to vote
off the voter registration rules, just because they haven't voted in a couple years,
and I didn't see any good, unseemly, good responses to tell my fifth good defences. There is just dying able I had the answer, which was it helps them when that's the truth answer, there's no there's! No other argument, that's what this is about and that nothing more yeah and this at a look at this. If you don't think the courts in Borneo, think this court is a big issue.
You know we have one of these justices retire. We're gonna, have and trumpets to appoint a justice like Neil Gore such this was a five for decision. Today was a wheel,
It was down to five four. We get another justice like Gore such things like the affordable character in jeopardy. Things like voter protections, voter enfranchised people, voting rights are in jeopardy. Here it is in you know, Jeff sessions in his justice department. They get to do whatever they want. It is a bad bad combination and people should
very much care about those issues we hadn t November. But now, when we come back, we will talk more about this. The decision, the Justice Department not to defend the affordable care
act with a man who knows this issue very well. The former solicitor general of the United States Don really
when we come back to parliament
has brought you buy, Simplice Ave, fair it simply.
In twenty seventeen, the better Business Bureau heard more than five thousand complaints about alarm companies that puts home security in the top ten percent of most complained about industry, a man, but we have a way to fix it simply safe, simply safe,
of contracts and hidden fees, they work hard to earn their customers business instead of relying on tricks and fine print. Simply savers accompany the treaty. Right, however, is that today Tommy
very rare. I like snow, those other nine companies are I mean, but the ruthless we'll call him up and we won't. I
simply say for years there good people at least since we started this pledge gas company. It's why they ve got an eight plus rating with a better Business Bureau, a plus that's pretty good you're, the guy from simply slave patrols. My
really nice. That's really great Bruce with its Bruce topic that simply save as well,
security should be you're getting the best protection period or more, but simply save today it simply saved our com, such great media, that simply saved our complex cricket media to protect your home and family with an eight plus homes. Security system simply sift outcome. Slash cricket media, as always pod save America's brought by the cash app. The good folks had the Cashman that fact that the good people of the catch up you know is the fastest and easiest way to pay people back to catch up. As an look you downloaded put in the corporate say: five goes to you. Five dollars goes to a monument.
Action which is helping reduce gun violence across Amerika and here's the best part of today's catch up and what you don't have to hear any stories about Spencer. No, I actually went to an escape route Spencer last night, if I was gonna, tell you or even make it out, Spencer Filmy escape room, so you have to pay back with a cash at the fastest and easiest way to Paypal back. Everyone is downloading it, so you should to put in the code pod save
you go on the pod. Today we have the former solicitor general of the United States, dont, really don. Welcome. Ask
to be talking with you. How are you guys we're good were good
we miss you monsieur to work at all things considered a vain neck rags actually done. We wanted to bring you want to talk about the Justice Department decision not to defend the affordable, correct in court. This is obviously a love. It's been challenged many times before you defended it before the Supreme Court and twenty twelve. What was your first reaction when you heard that
and leadership of the justice department- no longer wanted to defend critical sections of this law? Well, it was really sad in oh. I try to
fair minded and think put myself in there,
person. Shoes think is there some way can justify this, but got a sad.
I just don't see it. The Sir John
the Justice Department and the do its job to just farm. To defend statutes when their attack this constitutional- and we can talk about why and
it's really hard to see a good reason that would justify them, deciding that they weren't gonna step up and defend this law yet willing to say so. How does it work when the Justice Department reaches this kind of decision to not defend a current law? What kind of
president, is there for those. How unusual is it, and we know why? Is there a sort of this precedent in place that you know the Justice Department is poster defended
even if they don't necessarily, even if the current administration doesn't necessarily agree with them right. Well that
and we can descend into legal mockery, but basically it's pretty comments,
its notion, which is that in our system,
Congress makes the law
if you want to change the law, you go to Congress. So if a new president comes in new executive and they don't like a law on the books, the answer is go to Congress
from changing course. That's exactly what President Trump and Report
and tried to do in the Congress refused
appeal the SBA, the problem with
not defending along court when someone's challenge to discuss two is that there is a way in which you really
in the law and to your own hands and
deciding that you're gonna
change, the law by not defending it and allowing the courts to strike down rather than going
the process on our constitution that disposed to go through, which is that make Congress pass and long. That's that
the basic principle and theirs
There are some occasions on which the Justice Department won't defend a law, but their very rare and the basic stuff,
now that the Justice Department historically applies, is the stand
of whether there is a reasonable argument available to defend the law against constitutional challenge and if there is then just Barman supposed to defend them,
only when there isn't that the judge
farm goes in and says we can
found the law, so that has happened.
Sometimes in our history, but it's
very rare- and I think that the real problem here is its
very hard to get to the conclusion that there is no reasonable arguments. It
Then the law in the face of the challenge set Texas in these other states abroad dot. I think this was before you
Time is general by my my time, I'm wrong, but how would you compare
trust this decision of decision of d o j to not defend sections of Doma, the defensive marriage.
Yeah right everybody's, bring it up that comparison now and
I wasn't yet as G and I actually didn't play any part in this-
they should not to defend damages the law. For my work for before going to the government brought one of the child
just a dull man saw was,
then two years of may come in, and so I didn't participate in that decision, but I think I understand it pretty well, and I think I can
in the difference- and I think there are two really big differences
the first one is this. That decision was made not to defend omen, two thousand and eleven and Dama course
had been passed some what fifteen years earlier and there
really important developments in those fifteen years, one was, I think, as a society we came
to have an understanding that a law that we may be thought in
mid nineteen nineties was annexed
the law came to be under
stood as something that was totally unjustifiable. Discrimination against people,
no good reason and then equally employ,
they may be. More importantly, for this conversation in two thousand and three
court decided a k
call Lawrence against Texas, which said that it was unconstitutional
criminalize, consensual, same sex relationships and, basically
recognize the premise of constitutional dignity for gay and lesbian people, and so, when you come to the question of
whether there is a reasonable argument to defend the constitutionality of abdomen two thousand eleven you gotta take those developments into account its contrast
with what we
the law. That's allegedly unconstitutional the law that zero out the tax, payment,
make if you didn't have health and
son of the SBA
law was signed by this president just a few months ago, prison
Probably he didn't think the law
some constitutional when he signed it,
into law, there hasn't been any intervene.
Change in the law or in
society and factual circumstances. That's anything
people to what happened with respect to Doma
and then there is another point
who again, this is kind of a walking point, but I do things really important that you're, even if you think,
that zeroing out the tax for not having insurance makes the
and a provision of the law on constitute
standing alone and even if you think, there's no reasonable argument for that? You know that
that doesn't mean you bring the entire Asia down or you you also wipe out. The prohibition
non discrimination against people with pre existing conditions.
The question under the law is whether Congress would have wanted those other provisions to survive. Even if this, in
Alan provision was found.
Channel and the
sir to that seems to me to be blazing Lee Obvious, because the Congress and two thousand seventeen its ear it out the tax, but it left all the rest of the law.
Place, and you know that's not an ideological thing that justice and neutral principle that Justice departed
must apply in courts, are supposed to apply in adjudicating. These cases says it
You try to respect the intent of Congress,
as the body in our system that makes laws and you preserve as much of the law
who can preserve consistent with holding yet
provision unconstitutional in I mean that's exactly what happened in
the SBA itself with the decision of chief justice
Roberts about Medicaid and the Medikit expansion in two thousand twelve remember he stood
down the mandatory character of that. He said that the Congress couldn't require every state to adopt the medicate expansion, but then
the all he did was strike down the mandatory part of expansion. He left the expansion in place and made an optional for states to to accepted and that
it's an application of this principle which, as I said, is just a neutral principle. It's not it's not really
about what your views of the constitution or substantive law amount to its about how courts disposed to behave
in a situation like this in respecting the judgements of progress which, after our reflection of the democratic process and have that them chronic legitimacy to them that I don't have your member this, but in your confirmation hearing a senator who looked a lot like turn, General Jeff session said that, had he been that certain surgeon he said is that the solicitor general should have resigned over the decision not to defend all myself. He either as we,
from some of his comments is a short memory or no sense of irony, so I said I'd. I found that in the research I found previously. I do remember that so dont. What? What are the next steps with this case like what happens now that the government is not defending the law when this case goes too far,
For this, the cases before a federal district judge
level. Judge down in Texas sentence was brought by this twenty states, and course she now the OJ
coming in and that's not just that they didn't defend. They found the brief saying they thought the law is unconstitutional, and that is that that you should also
strike, down the ban on discriminate against people with pre existing conditions, but a nun
other states led by California have intervened in this case to defend the loss constitutionality. So I suspect what
I'm pretty sure what will happen is that California, in those
states will take up
the role of providing a vigorous, aggressive defence of the constitution on the lawn. I'm quite sure, as this case goes through the system. That ultimately that's the view. That's gonna prevail,
what concerns me most about the precedent that this current justice department is setting by taking this kind of action. Would it what do you think at stake for the rule of law here? Why do you think it goes right to the heart of the court?
respect for the rule of law, because the
SK of allowing this kind of
decision is that you'll just
take it as an administration, on the basis of political
considerations and not really be applying the standard that the department store applies, which is whether this rhythm argument to defend the law when laws
you don't like are challenged. You'll just make a judgement that you won't defend them,
and then you go in and you'll tell a court. You don't think there's a reasonable arguments, but it'll become increasingly clear and
that what you are doing is essentially making a political choice.
Meant to allow the court's too, to take out
law that you don't like, rather than going through the process,
our constitution, provides for which is having a congress. Consider whether to do that and
the more you do at the easier is gonna get to do, and then
when one administration does it and the opposing parties comes in later than
the risk is that there are going to point to the president
fire administration and say well. If they did it, we should do to and you're gonna
go into one of these down
spiral. So we see over and over again with respect to then the norms that really matter and really hold our constitution together and make it work now done. I read that three Justice Department officials registered a protest over this decision. You always who worked in the justice former long time. Let your colleague for
are there, what do you think about this yeah? So what they did was they withdrew from the case
they took their names off the brief that
an extremely unusual thing to do, and while I like,
dont know what was in their minds have talked to them is pretty
wrong signal that they felt like they could not in good faith, associate themselves with
position being taken and that's pretty.
Serious and really rare, and you know the lawyers and the Justice Department. I worked with him for the better
are eight years and came to have the just incredible respect for them, because they are a political in, although they do
their political views aside. They served democratic administrations and republican administrations and they vary
often go into cord and argue amber.
The United States for position that they don't agree with personally and they take great professional pride in their ability to do
swimming, as I think it is fair to assume that they did
and that this one was over the line. That's that's really something quite significant. Well, hopefully, of this case was on the courts. Will I will find that the less it is somewhat frivolous
against the idea. Well, you know, but we need to be careful about that, because you remember back with the initial challenges the SBA when their found two thousand tat a lot of votes on the progressive side they's,
They had kind of a similar reactions and why you know this challenges got no so
since to it at all and didn't really take it seriously and on the right.
You know the machine a word into
old into gear and and the argument
and more and more steam over time and what seemed like a fringe position. Two thousand ten became a mainstream position on the right in two thousand twelve and became within a hair s breadth,
losing their case. I think we need to that
our toes about this too, because I imagine that we're gonna see something quite like that is. This goes forward good thing to keep in mind dont. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. My pleasure great
and with it are based it don't really for joining us today, and we will see you again on Thursday and it will be me Tommy and Ben roads right here
studio talking about the new tax, everyone s wake I feel
Transcript generated on 2020-04-01.