Potsafe America is brought to you by Noom. There's a lot of weight loss products out there and they're kind of one size fits all. As if all of us have the same challenges or struggles or priorities and can just, you know, get a simple fix. Noom is different. Built for your psychology and your biology, meeting you where you are. They understand that not everyone is starting from the same place. Noom helps you understand the science behind your eating choices and why you have cravings. Your daily lessons are personalized to you and your goals. Those goals could be just snacking less. It could be trying not to eat late night. It could

Be portion control. It could be the kinds of foods you're eating. Maybe you wanna eat more protein and less carbs, or maybe you wanna eat more carbs, less protein. You do you. Noom has got you covered. They will create a plan for you that fits your needs and will work. Stay focused on what's important to you with Noom's psychology and biology-based approach. Sign up for your trial today at noom.com and check out Noom's first ever cookbook, The Noom Kitchen for 100 Healthy and Delicious Restaurants.

To promote better living. Available to buy now wherever books are sold. ♪ Good morning ♪ ♪ Baby it's a brand new day ♪ - Ready to wake up in a new destination nearly every day with Norwegian Cruise Line? Book today to get 70% off second guest to Alaska, Europe, and beyond. Plus everyone can enjoy their vacation with free unlimited open bar, free specialty dining, and more. Visit ncl.com, call your travel advisor, or 1-888-MCL-CRUISE. Offer ends soon. Norwegian Cruise Line ships registries in the Bahamas and USA. Restrictions apply. ♪ The rest of my life gon' start today ♪

- Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Tommy Vitor. - And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco. - Alyssa, it's so great to have you. We have a packed show today, my friend. Donald Trump, he's just starring in all kinds of legal dramas all over the world. He is, you know, the Secret Service's... Contemplating what to do if he spends time behind bars. You have the Biden administration taking big moves to help out consumers and workers. We might be banning TikTok. I don't know, the courts are gonna have something to say about that too. And state lawmakers in Arizona finally act to repeal their state's 1864 abortion ban.

Ago everybody. But first, we're recording this on Thursday afternoon East Coast time and it was a day of truly dizzying legal news. In Washington, the Supreme Court heard Oral arguments about whether Donald Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution for official acts and what constitutes official acts in the first place. This is very important for the January 6 case. Trump himself was stuck in a court in Manhattan sitting through more testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about the catch and kill scheme. More on that later. And for good measure, New York's highest court overturned Harvey Weinstein's conviction. And that was just today. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the Biden administration's challenge to Idaho's ultra strict abortion law and how it interacts with federal laws.

Of strict scrutiny is Leah Litman with us today. Truly, thank you for being here, Leah. You are saving the podcast. Anything wrong? Um, so I might characterize the Idaho case as not necessarily just about federal law and prompting Idaho's law, but instead whether women are people and get, they get to keep their organs. But you know, details. Will happen before the election? Way less likely. So the court seems inclined to reject Trump's very broad notion of immunity, which his lawyer said would make a president immune even if they directed the military to conduct a coup.

Have to make are likely to prolong the proceedings here until after the election. Outer bounds of official activity, whether some of those allegations could nonetheless be introduced at trial not to form the basis of criminal liability, but instead is evidence of the president's intent here. And all of those questions, they're just going to take up time because there have to be hearings, briefing, determines.

Is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. This is completely nonsensical and would immunize the president from criminal activity given that the Senate is not in the habit of impeaching and convicting presidents, but that's his argument. And so he's not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to make any arguments driving around in my Subaru because I just find it like I drive around, I listen, I try to take it in. And I sometimes, and this one in particular, I'm like...

Only only squirrels are at risk here. So there are several Nixon tie ins here. Of course, you know, Nixon famously or infamously said if the President does it, it's not illegal. Donald Trump's argument is like slightly more nuanced and that he's saying if a President does it, it's an official act and therefore immune from criminal prosecution and therefore effectively not illegal. But the Supreme Court heard several cases involving presidential claims of immunity

You know, in part because of the Nixon events, you know, and particularly Ford's pardon of Nixon, several justices pointed out that that seemed to reflect an understanding that, of course, presidents would and could be subject to criminal process if they needed to. No, no, no, you all have it all completely wrong. Presidents just can't be subject to criminal law. - I think you both have Trump derangement syndrome and it makes perfect sense that if I were-- And then I shoot them all myself and murder them. And then it's the next day and I'm no longer president and I haven't been impeached by the Senate so I get off scot-free. That makes sense to me. It is so wild. I actually, I love that everyone focuses kind of on that because I enjoy like the insider trading. Like this is what he would be doing. This is, this is.

A vivid and admittedly somewhat extreme example that's come up in the lower court's consideration of the issue is whether a president could order the military... The President decides that his rival is a corrupt person. - Within his official acts for which he can get immunity? - It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act. - They could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. - Right. So, what did you think of Trump's lawyer's answer there, Leah?

You know, unless the Senate impeached and convicted him first. So this is his argument. They did not feel the need to basically trim Thinner version of immunity and even go so far as to suggest that there need to be additional proceedings in order to determine whether President Trump's attempt to overturn the results of And so there's a reason why Trump's lawyer didn't feel the need to basically moderate his position arguing before this court Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself, right? - All right.

You know, I was not made aware if that happened, but she doesn't text me like she texts Mark Meadows. So maybe I missed something. Justice Barrett went a different route asking about specific things that Jack Smith is alleging that Trump did, and asking whether Trump's lawyers considered those official or private acts. Let's listen to a clip. Know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. -Private attorney was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. I mean, we disagree with the allegation, but that sounds private to me. Sounds private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. That also sounds private.

To attorneys including those mentioned above and a political consultant helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a co-conspirator Attorney directed that effort? You read it quickly I believe that's private I don't want to... what did you make of that? that exchange, ACB asking those questions and the answers. - I mean, unlike Justice Alito, she was actually willing to discuss the actual facts of this case and try to determine whether they were within the official activities or official scope of the president's duties. And it was encouraging in some respects that she was able to get a concession from Trump's lawyer. That several of the allegations in the indictment conceitedly do not concern official acts. And if that's right, then a trial. Is not flatly prohibited here. Instead, the trial could proceed based on the--

Allegations that Trump's lawyer is conceding are not entitled to immunity. And the fight is just going to be about how some of the-- the other allegations can be used here. -So, Leah, last question about the immunity case. So, everyone seemed to think that Trump's team's case for absolute immunity was pretty weak, but the government's lawyer didn't exactly have a smooth sailing either when it was his turn. A few of the conservative justices pushed him about the fraud statute that the government is using against Trump. Can you explain?

What that means, why it was unexpected, and whether you thought it was a big deal. - Yeah, so Justice Alito in particular wanted to ask the lawyer for special counsel, Jack Smith, whether the fraud statute, the conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is one of the charges that Jack Smith charged Donald Trump with, whether that statute could itself be unconstitutional because it's simply too vague and people don't know what it means. And so that is, I think, showing his hand that even if a trial is allowed to proceed without a blanket form of immunity, it's possible if and when the case goes back up to the Supreme Court that there are some justices who would. Just say these charges are per se invalid and cannot support a conviction. >> Wonderful. So we heard these arguments in late April. Does that mean we'll hear some sort of judgment in what, June, July? >> So by tradition and custom,

Supreme Court's term ends at the end of June. That is when they try to release all of the decisions in argued cases. But if they wait that long to release a decision in this case, they are all but guaranteeing there will not be a trial before the election. We should be watching to see whether they are able to issue a decision before the end of May because that at least holds out the remote possibility of some pre-election trial. Well, let's hope maybe someone will just leak a copy to Politico like with the Dobbs case. A different courtroom. So meanwhile, Donald Trump is in Manhattan. He's attending his criminal trial for paying to cover up the Stormy Daniels affair story. So the DA's team asked the judge to hold Trump in contempt of court for violating his gag order again. Prosecutors presented what they said were

or additional violations. Prosecutors now argue Trump has violated the gag order 14 times, I believe. Is that normal? Would any other defendant be allowed to violate a gag order - Usually they're allowed 10 free violations of gag orders. No, no, like one violation of a gag order. That's it. There's no kind of like free passes. It's almost as if this guy believes he is above the law. - Did you guys see the story in the New York Times about the Secret Service having like preliminary discussions about how to protect Trump in jail or Prison, jail prison, I don't know, if he goes for contempt because I just want to flag that to get the vibes up basically. I have to tell you, I would love to be a consultant on this project. Uh, Secret Service.

Trying to secure him in prison. I have it all mapped out in my head. He'd have to be in one wing. Secret Service would have to have rooms on either side. He'd have to have 24/7 protection. But I just imagine, they do have to be playing this out. It's a possibility. And I would just give it anything to be in those meetings. Thanks. I mean, listen, you are the coordinator in the White House for all things Secret Service. I can't imagine the conference calls and meetings. These guys right now, they must be losing their minds. The funniest thing is I actually, I mean, you remember my stint at Vice, I was there when Barack Obama was the first sitting president to visit a federal prison and that, and he wasn't going to prison.

Right. Right. Yeah. And that was like a huge thing. So, I cannot – I could not – I would not want to be the Secret Service agents on that rotation. No. It's 24-hour shifts in the jail. It doesn't sound very fun. At Rikers. I don't know. No, thanks. They probably sent him to like the, you know, Martha Stewart minimum security place. Yeah. We'll see. So, Alyssa, Trump said this morning outside the courthouse that he thinks he can win New York State in a general election. He did a meet and greet with some construction workers this morning in Manhattan. He's been holding rallies in the Bronx, Madison Square Garden, He went to a bodega the other day. What do you make of these campaign stops? He's not really playing for the New York State victory, right? Okay, so a couple things. Donald Trump, not a morning person. So the fact that he got up, I think he hit the ... It was like the JP Morgan construction site. I think he hit that between like 6.30 and 7 o'clock this morning. So one, he's scared. Okay? He is not doing these stops because he's not scared.

Second, it's always about the fine print with him. When he's talking about MSG, I'm like, maybe the Hulu theater at MSG. That's a capacity of 5,500. But I mean, in terms of like whether he could ever win New York at... A lifelong New Yorker. I think the last time a Republican won this state was Reagan in '84. And right now, Joe Biden is polling on average 10 points ahead of Trump. So I feel like we're... Yeah, he's just smart enough to know where the media is and he's going to go to them like a moth to a flame. I mean, those are facts and I feel confident in them, but I also don't want to have hubris because New York State is sort of responsible for the narrow margin in the house right now.

We won't talk about that. Switching gears again. So yesterday in Arizona, a grand jury handed down an indictment related to the state's fake electors scheme. They charged 11 fake electors themselves, as well as seven Trump aides whose names were redacted. But it was pretty clear who they were talking about, people like Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, et cetera. Likewise, it was obvious that the anonymous former president named as an unindicted co-conspirator is Donald Trump. Unless Obama has been getting into some shit that we have not heard about. Leah, what does it mean to be an unindicted co-conspirator? And does this mean Trump-- remain one or could he be indicted down the road? >> unindicted co-conspirator just means kind of for purposes of fleshing out, you know, the actual facts and giving the grand jury and the jury an idea about what actually happened.

You are including some other person's involvement. But for whatever reason, the grand jury or prosecutor did not decide to indict that person. So he was involved in the scheme but is not currently facing charges. It is possible he could face charges in the future, whether that's a possibility depends a little bit on when the statute of limitations for the crime would expire. Got it. And then I saw that Boris Epstein, who's a Trump aide, he was indicted in Arizona as part of this fake electors scheme, but he was in the courtroom today in Manhattan. He's been described as the person quarterbacking the legal defense. That seems complicated. Okay. Did no. How does that work? I mean, there's a bunch of lawyers who have been indicted, you know, in the course of Trump's efforts to overturn the election. It's not just Boris Epstein. I think Christine Bob, you know, was also indicted and she was named kind of the pro

in charge of election integrity for the RNC. So whole host of characters and certainly being a lawyer does not immunize you from legal process. Or mean you have the good judgment to avoid trying to overturn an election. Well said. Switching gears again back to the Supreme Court. Challenging it.

Or potentially prevent further deterioration of the emergency medical condition that caused the pregnant person to go to-- hospital in the first place and thereby risking them potentially becoming closer to death and risking death. And that is what the federal government says. Violates hospitals obligations under a federal law, EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care for emergency medical conditions in order to-- and further deterioration in order to prevent serious risk to bodily organs or-- Bodily functions and Idaho is like, nope, we can take a woman's uterus or kidney, pancreas, right, maybe some stomach, small intestine, large intestine. As long as she's not gonna die, all good. Jesus Christ. There was a moment yesterday where even Justice Barrett confessed to being shocked by an answer that had been given by Idaho's Solicitor General. Can you just help us understand what that moment was about?

And what your takeaway was? - Yes, so Justice Sotomayor had just finished going through a series of examples of actual cases where people had been denied abortions under restrictive abortion law similar to Idaho's, including cases like Anya Cook in Florida, who ended up, after being denied an abortion, put on life support because she lost so much blood, or people who went into septic shock, or people who had to have hysterectomies because of the amount of bleeding and complications that followed when they were denied abortion. And Justice Sotomayor kept asking the Idaho lawyer, could this person get an abortion under your law? And the Idaho lawyer basically said, maybe not, Would choose to indict the hospital or the doctor who performed them, at which point Justice Barrett said, this is shocking. To which I say, Sweetie, have you been paying attention for the last two years? On some level, it's good that she's shocked. On the other hand, it's like face eating leopard.

Are gonna eat your face too, Amy. - Yeah, there's been a lot of reporting about these scenarios that you're mentioning. Alyssa, you and Erin have covered the fight over abortion bans in many states in amazing detail on hysteria, which everyone should check out and subscribe to. Why is this case, do you think, important beyond Idaho? What does it tell us about the stakes and the momentum for each side? - There's so much. Like what Leah was just saying, this is bullshit. Like these laws and people, we're getting incredibly graphic and gruesome examples of how wrong these are. Republicans try to sound very middle of the road by saying, of course, the life of the mother. Exceptions for rape and incest, except the caveats around them are bullshit. Doctors, these are the...

Same states where there are huge penalties for a doctor who could potentially perform an abortion that someone could sue later and say, Oh, that wasn't actually-- They weren't close enough to dying, right? So on the one hand, these cases, I think, are showing the world what is really meant by these bans and how disingenuous a lot of the sort of caveats around the-- and the exceptions around some of these things that they say to try to make wholesome and they're not. They're trash. And also, I think that if you... I mean, and actually, Leah, I have a question for you. I have to throw this back to you. I really feel like the supremacy clause is having a moment because it has always been like the supremacy clause, like how is this even an issue with M'Tala? Like why are they trying to do this? But... what's the-

Beef with the supremacy clause now. They're challenging it left and right. >> PHYLLIS KRAVITCH So maybe I should just pause to explain what the supremacy clause is. >> JENNA TAYLOR Please. >> PHYLLIS KRAVITCH So the supremacy clause is part of the Constitution, and it declares that federal law is supreme. And in the M'Tala case, you know, the Biden administration marches into federal court and says there's a federal law, M'Tala, that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care. And the state says, but we don't want to apply, you know, stabilizing care, when that stabilizing care is an abortion. And when federal law says one thing that is inconsistent with state law, federal law is supposed to win out. Dynamic happening in the immigration case where you have Texas passing SB4 and then interfering with

immigration officers' attempts to enforce federal immigration law. And I think the supremacy clause, Alyssa, has moments when Democrats hold office because the Republican Supreme Court doesn't like to recognize that Democrats get to exercise political power and hold political power. And so in those instances, they say, well, of course, Texas gets to determine federal immigration policy rather than the Biden-Biden. And of course, Idaho gets to determine, you know, whether women can receive abortions that are necessary to save their organs rather than the federal law that Congress passed during the Reagan administration, by the way. And so it is just a further effort to impede, I think, Democratic administration's ability. To govern, and that is the threat that this supermajority Republican-controlled Supreme Court poses. JS Oof, man. Um, okay, last part of the question.

Piece of truly shitty legal news in this cornucopia of truly shitty legal news is that the New York court of appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape convictions. Leah, can you help us understand what happened here? What happens to Harvey Weinstein now? Like does he go to prison in California instead? He's not released, right? No, he's probably not going to be released. The court overturned his new York convictions on the ground that prosecutors had impermissibly been allowed to introduce evidence of prior bad acts for which he was not charged. And those prior bad acts were other sexual assaults. And the court ruled four to three that those previous sexual assaults were not relevant to to an issue at the trial, namely Harvey Weinstein's intent. The decision doesn't mean Harvey Weinstein is gonna go three, obviously he has the California convictions and it's--

Likely he will still be in jail while New York attempts to retry him. But I think the dissenting opinion, or one of the dissenting opinions got it right when they basically raised the-- that the majority opinion just inhabits this fantasy world that imagines when people make an accusation of sexual assault, a jury and people will necessarily-- Believe them and therefore there's no need to introduce evidence of someone's prior bad acts in order to establish their criminal intent and willingness to, you know, forcibly assault. Someone you know without their consent and so it was a disappointing decision um but that was what the court did so elise i mean Everything you read about this guy, he sounds very guilty, seems like an incredibly bad person. What do you think this news means?

for the broader Me Too movement, efforts to hold people like Harvey Weinstein accountable, and just, I don't know what it does to help people feel like this. Morale of seeing someone like this seem to catch a break from the New York Supreme Court? Look, it's not good. It's not good, Tommy. It's not good. I think that honestly, and like Leah Chiman, it's to me, it feels a lot like when Roe fell a little bit. Like, guess what, guys? It's not done. The fight's not over. We have to keep our foot on the gas. You know, just because we had a couple of, you know, marches and people were

pink hats doesn't mean that everything is all good and we can just move on. And it's why elections matter and we have to keep voting and, you know, Harvey is just a blip. Harvey is a blip and we just, we can't let this one, well, there are many, but we can't let this derail us. You know, we have to stay motivated. All right. Well, Leah, we truly cannot thank you enough for being here. You made this show exponentially smarter. So thank you. And everyone should subscribe to strict scrutiny. Truly like one of my favorite shows ever. So thank you again. Thank you so much for having me. All right. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back though, Alyssa and I will talk about what president Biden has been up to, what happens next after.

There is actually past a TikTok ban and the cloak and dagger madness that goes into the vice presidential selection process. You will not want to miss it. So stick around. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Do you tend to compare your life to others? Does social media play a part in that? It does. What do you do when you get caught up wishing your life looked... Like someone else's. You know what, that's not my problem. I don't get the like envy, but you know what I do do? I decide to use social media, I weigh in on things that suck and then terrible people criticize you and you could tell yourself it doesn't matter, but it actually does bother you. Which is why I do let strangers get me mad. I'm just, I've just started deleting tweets because I'm like, you know what, I just, I don't care. I don't need to let someone

And attack me all day long for no reason. - You wanna talk about it a little more? - I think this should go deeper, which is why BetterHelp is a sponsor of this show. - Tommy, Tommy, comparison is the thief of joy. - It is. - And it's easy to envy other people's lives. It might look like they have it all together on their Instagram, but in reality, they probably don't. Therapy can help you focus on what-- you want instead of what others have so you can start living your best life. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists any time for no additional charge.

Wants you to choose the latter. - The line that will undoubtedly appear in just a dozen convention speeches. Stop comparing and start focusing with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com/psa today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com/psa. - Hello, people of Earth. This is Paul Scheer, co-host of the Unspooled Podcast. Over the next few months, my co-host, Amy Nicholson, and I will be breaking down some of our favorite disasters to see if they still hold up in our disaster. Movie summer. We're talking about Independence Day, Godzilla minus one, 28 days later and more. You're not going to want to miss these conversations. I tell you, Unspooled is where it's at this summer. You can listen to new episodes of Unspooled every Thursday wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everyone. It's Ted from Consumer Cellular, the guy in the orange sweater. And this is your wake-up call. If you're paying too much for wireless service,

nightmare. Consumer Cellular has the same fast reliable coverage as the leading carriers for up to half the cost. So why keep spending more than you have to? Seriously, wake up and call 1-888-FREEDOM Or visit ConsumerCellular.com. Savings based on cost of Consumer Cellular's single line one five and 10 gig data plans with unlimited talk and text compared to lowest cost single line postpaid unlimited talk text and data plans offered by T-Mobile and Verizon January, 2024. So some less headline grabbing, but actually good news, while all this legal drama unfolds, is that the administration. Has been busy rolling out regulatory changes that are a big deal for actual people.

Today the Biden administration issued a final rule requiring airlines to issue cash refunds for canceled and delayed flights and to do it quickly. Anyone who has ever lost an airline voucher for hundreds of dollars knows how big of a deal that is. Then the FTC banned non-compete agreements for most new workers. So right now one in five workers face a non-compete. EPA issued a new regulation on coal power plants requiring them to cut their emissions by 90% by 2039 and tighten rules on other types of pollution from these plants. So obviously that's critical for climate change mitigation. The coal industry says they can't get to that emissions target by 2039 and that this whole effort is basically an effort to stamp out coal power in the U.S. altogether. Which doesn't make me sad. - Okay. - Yeah, seems fine. All right, Alyssa.

These regulations, they're obviously the right thing to do. They're great for consumers. But the question becomes, how do we make sure voters actually know about them? Any recommendations for the Biden team for actually selling some wins here? - Tommy, listen, before we recorded today, I was telling you how I like to print things out and highlight them. Okay, my advice for the Biden administration is borderline that basic. I wanna turn on AM/FM radio, and I wanna hear people talking about this. Do you know that 88% of Americans listen to AM/FM radio every week? - Wow. - That's 290. You know what else they should do? They should take out ads or write articles or op-eds for AARP magazine. You want to know why? You want to know why? 38 million readers. So I think they need to go like very...

Gorilla, very worms eye view and just do the things that people don't think are cool because I actually think that in some ways that's how people are consuming information. Totally. No, I'm with you. Listen, people hate the airlines. And if you hate airlines, you really hate airline vouchers because you're never allowed to use them. They're always like some reason you can't do it. You can't find them in your stupid. So like I love this rule. This is one of those things Biden did where I was like, why didn't we do that in the Obama days? That's so smart. I'm glad they did it. I agree with you. Like I do think this is fodder for a funny, tight digital ad too. Like you find In some like make a, you know, find someone who got screwed over or missed Christmas or whatever. People who don't care about politics remember that Trump sent them a check, right? Yes, yes. Tommy, this is my this is exactly what I'm talking about. Like there should be billboards in.

There should be, you know, when you go into a hotel and they have like the scrolling screen of like what weddings and which ballroom, it should be up there telling people exactly how they can like protect their vacations. People save up for a year or years to go on a vacation. They can be utterly fucked because of like an airline's malfeasance. This is real money for people. And so I think it's a real, if they don't try to get this out in every way, way, this is the thing that people could potentially remember. Discreet, it's memorable. People will love it. The non-compete clause stuff is-- it's a bigger deal for the labor market generally, but I think there's going to be a long legal fight. So people aren't necessarily going to feel this in their lives anytime soon. But again, this is where I would love to just see them lean into the fight. You know, you find some fast food workers. Who are harmed by a non-compete. You tell their stories in an ad. You lean into the legal case. Make the chamber of commerce--

Me here, right? Like find a villain, demagogue this. People remember stories like that. They resonate. They do. And it's like with everything, even just back to the travel vouchers, everything that's been going on with Boeing, why should a company that's making so much money, why should people who have saved up for an airline ticket to go to Disney World or visit their sick relative be the ones who are put out? And so I just, to me, this feels like Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. This is a yes. All of it. Yes, yes. So the question, I guess, again, is like, by election day, I imagine we'll be talking about sort of higher stakes issues, more thematic issues like abortion access, like the future of democracy. What do you think? Do you think Joe Biden's... Biden should be running a bunch of ads in October about how, you know, Joe Biden stuck it to United on your behalf, or you think it's going to be, you know, all row by that time. They should be fighting on every front, right? Because Tommy, people are motivated by all different kinds of things to show up at the polls on Election Day.

So yes, there are people who will be super motivated to save democracy. There are people who understand that every vote is a potential vote to bring back Roe. And so, you know, I think that they can't take anything for granted and they should have a strategy for each of these Yeah, so also this week, President Biden signed the bill that would ban TikTok if ByteDance, the parent company to TikTok, doesn't sell it within the next year. Casey Newton, great reporter for Platformer, wrote an interesting piece about just how much legal risk there actually is for the government's case here. The gist is that TikTok is likely to have a strong First Amendment argument against getting banned. The Supreme Court has previously found that Congress can't ban foreign propaganda, including specifically Chinese propaganda. So they'll have a case. Casey also points out that the government's other argument, which will be about data privacy, could also be weak given that the United States doesn't have any kind of national data privacy.

Privacy laws. So the suggestion that banning TikTok will fix that is silly. Like China could just go out and buy some data from data brokers. So let's just big picture. Where do you land on on this decision, whether it's the right or the wrong thing? Like I get obviously the national security concerns. I also do feel very bad for people who built a business Who have big followings, or who just, you know, rely on it for a sense of community that they just can't find where they live. Well, Tommy, first and foremost, couldn't we find something else to ban? Like, I don't know, assault weapons? That'd be nice. That'd be great. I'd rather do that. Let's ban assault weapons. That's a good idea. I mean, honestly, look, I'm a dinosaur, but I love TikTok. Once I discovered TikTok, I was like, This is incredible. All the Gen X videos, the sea shanty singing, like, I love it. There has to be a third way and there really kind of is, right? TikTok has, I think it's like 170 or 150.

Million US users. Someone's going to buy it? I mean, come on. Because that is the issue. It will be banned if it is not bought by someone in the US. I mean, I don't know. I guess I'm not too worked up about it. This feels like something that's going to get resolved because there are like 170 million people here who love it and, you know? I'm hopeful to. I mean, there's a Reuters report out today where they talked to a bunch of sources at TikTok that say that they would rather exit the US market than sell it because ultimately they feel like the algorithm is the secret sauce of TikTok and their algorithm is actually associated with a bunch of other ByteDance companies that Don't use that are used in China. I don't know that I necessarily buy that. I don't buy that. US markets a lot of cash. Come on!

people want to be here. But just to take on the congressional and the administration's argument, I mean, I've obviously not seen any of the intelligence that elected officials saw. It sounds like it was pretty compelling. We had Katie Porter in here who saw the intelligence, thought it was compelling, but thought the government hadn't made the case yet. I mean, the government's concerns are twofold. There's the question about data privacy and whether the Chinese Communist Party could go to ByteDance and say, I need this person's what, keystroke log or something. And then there's the question about whether TikTok could be used as a propaganda tool to shape US public opinion. The public opinion question is interesting to me because there's an organization called Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University.

They looked at popular hashtags and search terms. So some of them were like Taylor Swift or Trump. And they found that there were basically two Instagram posts for every one TikTok posts about those topics. But when you got to topics that were banned in China, the ratio changed. So it was eight to one when it came to the Uyghur. So eight posts on Instagram to one post on TikTok. 30 to 1 for Tibet, 57 to 1 for Tiananmen Square, 174 to 1 for the Hong Kong protests. So you're picking up what I'm putting down here. Picking up what you're putting down. Chinese Communist Party doesn't like, ain't going viral on TikTok. So look, your broader point is a good one. I hope that Congress doesn't look at this and just decide like, great work.

In New York, boys and girls, we just – we solve social media, right? Because the – our issues are not TikTok. It's about data privacy, protecting kids, understanding the mental health impact of social media, especially on young girls. So this is way bigger than TikTok, but this sort of anti-China sentiment allowed them to pass the first major tech regulation in what, a decade? Yeah. And you know the other thing, though, Tommy, I was going to say is that, you know, going back to 2020, Microsoft – before, right? And so back in 2020, Microsoft was getting together with Walmart and they were like, you know, let's do this. And then that didn't happen. But here's the one thing that makes me a little nervous is it's kind of like careful what you wish for because one of the people putting A bid right now with multiple investors to buy TikTok is Steve Mnuchin. Former Treasury Secretary for Donald Trump, yeah.

We're going to probably get some Saudi money in there too. Right. So, you know, it's just, it's kind of like, okay, if the, even though I was a little bit light in saying, you know, I think that someone's obviously going to buy it, there are like real roadblocks to that too, because... Because it couldn't, a meta trying to acquire it would probably not get approval. That would probably be seen as problematic. Same with Amazon. So it will require probably someone like a Steve Mnuchin to put together the money, but then can you say, well, we don't want Steve, it wouldn't be Steve Mnuchin owning it, but it's still not great. - No, that's a really good point because you're right. The companies that can afford it would have antitrust issues. So you are probably looking at some hodgepodge of investors with big backing. And someone like Steve Mnookin would, yeah, I don't want him with the keys to the algorithm either. So Donald Trump's trying to use this for political advantage, obviously. On Monday, he truthed, quote--

Just so everyone knows, especially young people, crooked Joe Biden is responsible for banning TikTok. Accurate, but not subtle. So Trump clearly thinks the ban can give him a political advantage with young people. The argument he's making is obviously complicated by the fact that in 2020, Trump himself issued an executive order trying to ban TikTok. Yeah, that EO was later blocked in court by a judge that Trump had appointed. How much political risk do you think this TikTok ban creates for Biden? I don't think it's that much risk, because it's weirdly the issue that's like United Democrats.

Republicans. So I don't think it's great for Biden, but I do think that that gives him some cover. Yeah. There was a little bit of polling on this back in the day. So there was 38% support for banning TikTok, 27% opposed in a poll in December of 2023. But the support number had dropped from 50% in March of 2023 to 38%. So it was going down. But to your point about this actually united Republicans and Democrats for once. That's because the only

Thing that seems to unite these guys is kind of Cold War 2.0 anti-China sentiment, right? And if Biden makes this part of a broader message about getting tough on China and says Trump is weak because he wanted to let the CCP keep their propaganda tool in the US and keep your kid hooked on it, I mean, that could be a powerful argument too. Totally. It's also weird that they passed this thing in seven weeks. That is like lightning fast, introduction to passage. Like, you can't get hurricane disaster funding that fast. Right, right. Last question. Or at all, sometimes. Yeah, or another. - So last thing on this list, the Biden campaign says it's gonna keep using TikTok even though they're banning it through the election, they're putting in some sort of enhanced security measures. Does that bother you? You think anyone cares? I mean, I don't think anyone really cares. I don't really care, but I think the bigger question is like, what are the enhanced security measures and can we get them? Right. And also, I mean, if they think TikTok is juicy.

The algorithm now, what's going to happen when Joe Biden is trying to post stuff on it later? Right. So I feel it's kind of like, Whatever. Do what you got to do right now. That's how I feel. Yeah. Do what you got to do to win. Two quick things before we go to break. One, Potsy of America is hitting the road this summer. The Democracy or Else book tour begins in Brooklyn on June 26th, followed by Boston on June 28th. We're also going to Madison, Wisconsin, Phoenix, Ann Arbor, and Philly. So come see us. You can find all the tour dates and get tickets at crooked.com/events. Also if you loved Alyssa Master Monaco on this episode, and of course you did, make Make sure you tune in to the next video.

Hysteria where she and Aaron Ryan cover everything from abortion rights to the weird interaction they had with the dude in the parking lot to politics to culture and more. Also check out Hysteria on YouTube. There. This fucking guy series is incredible and blown up on YouTube. New episodes of Hysteria drop every Thursday. Make sure you subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Up in our disaster movie summer. We're talking about Independence Day, Godzilla minus one, 28 days later and more. You're not going to want to miss these conversations. I tell you, Unspooled is where it's at this summer. You can listen to new episodes of Unspooled every Thursday wherever you get your podcasts.

The best things in life, they come in twos. Two scoops of ice cream, two tacos. And now for a limited time, get our best deal of the year. Buy any phone when you switch to Consumer Cellular and get two months of service free. That's right, the same fast, reliable, nationwide coverage as Big Wireless, now with two months free. Proof the best things in life really do come in twos. Visit ConsumerCellular.com or call 1-888-FREEDOM. Second and third month of monthly based service fee waived for new customers with the purchase of a phone and activation by July 31, 2024. Taxes, fees, and third party charges will apply. See website for additional details. Bye bye. - True, you might have a group chat to dissect your latest lapse in judgment with your girls. But when it comes to the Supreme Court ruling... On women's organs and ignoring oath bringing insurrectionists, it's going to take me...

More than an emoji reaction to figure out what it all means and how it affects you. That's where strict scrutiny comes in. Think of us as your personal group chat for all things SCOTUS related. If everyone in your group chat had constitutional law degrees or was constitutional law curious. We are breaking down every case, scrutinizing every bad decision, and giving you so much inside scoop on court culture, Andy Cohen is shaking in his boots. Wait, who is that again? Find new episodes of Strict Scrutiny every Monday, wherever you're at. Get your podcasts, and now on YouTube. And with a track record of the current court, there will be a lot to discuss. All right last topic here so we talked in our live show on Sunday about the Trump VP Hunt the selection process you didn't get

Way in. So I wanted to pick your brain on this and then just do some Alyssa story time. So who are you putting your money on right now in terms of the potential VP candidates? Who's your favorite? Who did you put your money on? I got to know. I mean, I tried to stir the pot a little bit, so I said Tulsi Gabbard could be interested.

In terms of just like generating a story, bringing on someone who was once a Democrat, showing that you're bipartisan. I don't think that's a good idea. I wouldn't do it if I were him, but. - No. See, I think that for Trump, like look, he has so much legal trouble right now. He's going to draw this out as long as humanly possible. He is going to wait until he feels the tidal wave a-coming with one of his legal things, and then he's gonna throw this into the universe. And I have to say, if I picked someone, 'cause you know, he loves a beauty pageant. He loves central casting. He loves all of it. I'm going with Kristi Noem. - Okay. I think Erin was there too. - Was she? Okay. She and I actually have not talked about it. Kristi Noem fits the bill. She is attractive, which matters to him. You know, I think South Dakota's had a Republican governor since like 2015 or something like that.

So, you know, and lieutenant governor anyway, so there's no like risk. It wouldn't be like a Carrie Lake situation. So yeah, I'm going to go with Kristi Noem. That's good. I mean, you know, sticking in the region, Doug Burgum could be your pick and he could write you like an unlimited check because I think if you're on the ticket, you can write as much as you want to yourself and he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There's that. But you're right. I mean, Trump, look, he's a lot of things. She's a little abortion fairy dust too, right? It's like she's a woman. Yeah. Which to him is like, will sell to people that he maybe isn't as bad as he says he is. But I think there's a little like, Look, I can't be that bad. I've got a woman with me. Yeah, that is absolutely the case. And he views it all at sort of optics and so and so's from central casting. You're right that he is, look, the guy's good at manipulating the press. He doesn't care about lying, so he's going to drag this out. He's going to He's going to add people. He's going to remove people. He's going to say, Dance for me. He's going to elevate their profiles. A hundred percent.

It makes sense because if he sends the vague Ramaswami to his state to campaign for him, that's one thing. But if a vague goes out and campaigns for you in a swing state and you leak in advance that he could be the vice presidential nominee that's going to get more attention, he's going to raise more money for you, right? There's no downside for Trump. No, none whatsoever. And he can honestly let this go as long as he wants to. It really, he can do it whenever the spirit moves him. Float away until the convention. Okay. So you oversaw the VP selection process in two different campaigns, both for John Kerry and for Barack Obama. Let's start with Kerry. How did he view the process and like given that literally every political reporter in the country is desperate to break this news. Tell us about some of the cloak and dagger shit.

To do that to keep it secret. So it's funny, because of the Kerry days, it's how Jeff Zeleny and I became friends because he's always been on the VP beat. We were both little babies back then. CNN reporter, then New York Times, I believe. Then New York Times. And so I worked for John Kerry back when Al Gore was considering him as a running mate in 2000. And Gore did this thing that was a little uncool where he wanted Joe Lieberman to be the big surprise. And so there was a lot of leaking that it was going to be John Kerry. And I was with John Kerry when it was announced that it was Joe Lieberman. And it was not great. And so when it was... You know, it's like you understood kind of what Gore was doing, but it really informed how John Kerry wanted to run the process then when he became the nominee in 2004. And he was like, I never want anyone to feel...

The way that I felt. And so, Alyssa, since you were like there with me, I want you to do this. And I want it to be such a secret. Literally, Tommy, we did such cloak and dagger stuff that people, reporters, thought there was a period of time before the convention, I think, John Kerry was getting a little work done on his teeth. And all the reporters were convinced that the meetings were actually happening in the dentist's office until they saw his new teeth. But we were doing... I mean, we had Bob Graham... I ate Chinese food with Bob Graham, you know, a senator, then senator from Florida. He had this diary, remember, that everyone, he would write everything. - Everything he did, yeah. - Even what he ate in the diary. So we were waiting for John Kerry and he...

Was like writing down. And my friend who used to work for him, she's like, Girl, you and that Chinese food order are now in the diary. So you were just hanging out with him somewhere? I hung out with all of these people for like, because the thing is, the way we would do it, say John Kerry, good example was Tom Vilsack. He was meeting with then governor of Iowa. Tom Vilsack. So if Carrie was going to meet with Vilsack, let's say five o'clock in the afternoon, I'm getting Vilsack in the The hotel upstairs with the full baseball hat, the whole thing, three hours earlier. I had the loveliest conversation with Tom Vilsack. He was like, Tell me about yourself, because I think he actually went to school in Upstate New York. All of these people, it was like Bob Graham, the reporters figured out that John Kerry, they thought John Kerry was meeting with someone. I physically pushed that man into a car and threw his jacket over his...

And was like, Go, go, go! It was like my little Olivia Pope moment. I was like, I can't believe it. - You're like kidnapping him, basically. And so the thing about it is, of all the people John Kerry met, we met them all over the country, we brought people to unexpected sort of locations where no one would see them at the airport and think, Oh, why is so-and-so here? And then like when we announced John Edwards, nobody knew. But he had an idea that it was going to be John Edwards. None of the meetings leaked in 2004. That is an amazing accomplishment, truly.

- People don't understand, I mean like everyone is watching this process. And there's a lot of people read into it and keeping that from leaking is amazing. How did Obama's process differ from Kerry's? - So it actually didn't differ much at all. He had fewer meetings with people than Kerry did. Kerry, I think I personally was there for like five or six meetings with Kerry. And with Obama, I think he did three. And the thing is, things had come a long way since then,

Jeff Zeleny had been iterating. He's like, Let's look at airports. Let's see where people are flying in and out of, to the point that it wasn't Joe Biden. One of the people, it might've been Evan Bayh, someone that Barack Obama was meeting with, I was like flying them into a different city's airport so that they couldn't, I think we used like East Philadelphia Airport, oh, it might've been Joe Biden. We used East Philadelphia Airport for Axelrod, David Axelrod and David Plouffe to go see Joe Biden. Like even staff members who were going to see some of these candidates, we were being super like- Just subterfuge. Because everybody had sort of picked up on the tricks, you know, because I was like very-- - Were these guys tracking the tail numbers of private planes? Are you talking about like sending a staffer to a public airport in the wrong city? - They were tracking because it's-- At this point, no one's flying commercial for this sort of stuff. They were tracking tail numbers to and from, you know, if there had been...

Rumors of, you know, Tim Kaine, for example. People are checking the DC airports. They're checking the Richmond airport. You know, I think we actually busted, I think one of our colleagues, Ted, Ted, busted Tim Kaine out of his house without his family even knowing. - Wow. - You know, because Barack Obama, the thing that then Senate, then Senator Obama felt was that what John Kerry did was so honorable, right? Because you wanna have the freedom to have conversations with people, but then not have them be humiliated for having agreed to be part of the process, right? Like nobody wants to be like, Oh yeah, like I didn't make the cut. And so I think that that was very respectful. And then if you look at Donald Trump, he has done the exact opposite of anyone ever. This is just a apprentice-like beauty.

Pageant which I even for Republicans I just think is really um it's like sad it's like mean to your point about the kind of giving these people some proper respect I mean you're not only holding out the hope that you might be the next vice president the United States you are asked to turn over all your financial details, these unbelievably intrusive vetting forms. It's like a security clearance on steroids, right? I mean, hundreds and hundreds of pages, everything you've ever done that might possibly be leaked to the press and be embarrassing to the campaign. Totally. There was one story. So for the Obama search, I was in the headquarters the whole time. I had people who I totally trusted who were out in the field sort of making these meetings happen. The best phone call I got was from one of our...

Dear friends, Jess, who was like, AM, Joe Biden. He had aviators on and a baseball hat and he got off the plane before I was there. And there was like a tour group that had come on a chartered flight into, I think we did the Biden meeting in Minneapolis, and all. All of these like older Americans are like on a bus and see Joe Biden and she was so worried that we'd been busted because him trying to look incognito was actually like And of Biden-ness. - Just looked like himself, yeah. - Totally. - Yeah, we gotta give him some different glasses next time. I mean, my, my final memory of that, of that whole process list was just like the night before trying to Go to bed. I had my phone on. And reporters were just rolling calls into my cell phone. It's like, guys, I'm not gonna answer this.

I'm not going to tell you who it is. I don't even know myself. I know there's three speeches. No, I knew there were three speeches. There were three speeches. I didn't even know until I had to have the charter company on hold and I just got. The airport. That was all I was told and it was just a couple of hours in advance. So a couple of hours in advance, you don't even know who's getting on the plane you chartered. That's how secret it was. Yeah. Someone bring me back. I want to do it again. Yeah. In hindsight, it was very fun. I mean, I think the- - Final question on this, I mean, I think what I'm wondering is, does Donald Trump really wanna do something interesting? Does he really want to shake things up or does he just want someone who won't outshine him who won't cause problems and he's going to be like, All right, J.D. Vance. Probably. I think that here's the problem with Trump is that because nothing he does is genuine or guided by logic or reason, we have no idea why he's going to end up picking someone.

You know, I mean, he could be around the MyPillow guy who's going to be like, Pick J.D. Vance, you'll win Ohio. You know, like, like, like he's so susceptible to-- Any sort of like counsel. - Last person you heard? - Yeah, it'll be interesting. But for some reason, I really do think he's gonna pick a woman. - Okay, well, we will, I'm sure be talking about this again.

Thank you so much for hosting today. Thank you again to Leah Litman. - Thanks, TV. - I had a blast. Let's do it again soon. - Totally. - If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our friends of the pod subscription community at crooked.com/friends. And if you're already doom scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safaree. Kira Joaquin is our senior producer. Reid Churlan is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of media.

Of production, Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Kohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kirill Palaviv, and Molly Lobel.