This we support is also sponsored by Nature Box, gotta Nature, Baxter, Comstock weeds for fifty percent off your first order. The following podcast contains explicit language, says that we have a third cause sudden though it's got on here, but I think we have to start soon over care. I can call mad now he's he just He says oh Jesus, I'm on my way right downstairs. So this good Kosovo judge by met when I'm late tonight, like you know that. Remember that I future Hello, others are another set of weeds boxes, policy, podcast, emphatically, not Matthew, Iglesias. With that with as recline as usual, and Sarah Cliff is you didn't see it yeah, I'm in Seattle, where you'll be surprised to know it is grey and rainy. Well, yeah We are great,

great hometown public radio station get you out of. It sounds like you. Can you? Yes? Yes, thank you, I'm so You know we are. We are here, beginning to sort of process. What were Donald Trump means for Erika I one thing that has been, I think a very poor when it storyline over the past couple weeks and since election day that reporters have started to pay attention to is the fact that Donald Trump is not just the President elect he's also the owner of a large network of businesses. You know that's funny no trouble, businesses, yeah and well during the campaign he sort of frequently mentioned that he's a wealthy business man, the fact that this would pose some significant conflicts of interest was not a major focus at the time, but I ve seen that he has not resolved this conflict in any meaningful way. We ve had reports that he is talking to british politicians about wind farms that are

take his golf course that we have possibly talking to the prison of Argentina about Burma, for a skyscraper city and, finally, that didn't happen I slowly disagree. There was this theirs impeding storylines around this, so at the victory party for for the trumps Eric Trump there's photos of air travel with a couple of argentine developers who are their partners, Project in Buenos Aires awaiting reduce its an entirely clear, what's happening. Functional short term is a lot of business interests around the world. He is eight companies in Saudi Arabia, for example, an eight incorporated entities Have you any kind of business and Saudi Arabia you doing business with the savvy government in effect that just how Saudi Arabia works he's also present states. In addition to these things are we ve had about the direct from conversations and their social questions of he has standing loans from the Bank of China from Deutsche Bank

bank has a regulatory matter pending before the United States government. The Bank of China is controlled by the Chinese. Remember there's this like endless series, and I dont want overstate this point, because it's not exactly the same thing, but he also just settled a fraud case for twenty five million for trouble recipe yeah, I mean he. He settled after Trump University fraud case he charitable foundation. It came today in its most recent arrests, finding that they misused about three hundred thousand dollars worth of money. I just want to get elected like two weeks ago. This has not been a long time and a lot of stuff is stacking up by this is a framing point. I just want to take a deep breath and say what a fucking terrible failure. It was on the point of the media in general. I think, which did a over good job, if anything, a good working its way through what potential conflicts of interest could be posed by the Clinton Foundation, which in general this.

Annabelle Workin was pretty well constructed it to be careful on the stuff. Thumb wasn't always perfect, but they had thought about this and just not only not enough on the top step, but I think people did not get a very good. Understanding of what the issues where I think there is a lot of focus on ways in which trumps businesses might have screwed people over and some focus from David Ferrie hold on ways chums foundation that might have misused money. But one thing that really people do not force trump to deal with answer force out of a part of the debates or anything was how would he deal with this in office like how would to deal with the obvious conflicts of interest that are written through his work, although in trumps defense, he was asked about the enhanced occasions and he never said that he was going to handle it in any kind of satisfactory way. When I said he was going to do was turned management of his pennies over to his children

was not shy about the fact that his children were an important part of his political operation, and this has been of the continuing issues here is that his daughter around sat in with him in a meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan and she's suppose, Lincoln be managing his businesses. I would say on some level. This is a case of where journalists covering this campaign should have taken. He was saying a little bit more seriously. I think I literally literally yes, but literally an seriously and also weeds, the kind of thing where you know what politicians say and do makes a difference. Right, I mean there was a moment when Donald Trump needed to consolidate the Republican Party behind him, and there were some things he had to do to make that happen right. He clarified what his tax programme was and brought it into closer alignment with like what Paul Ryan's tax plants- and you know, I think the clear reason for that was that

I keep wanted to be able to say to house Republicans. They like we're on the same team that my plane in your plane are a little bit different, but they're like broadly similar and broadly Annabelle! I never saw an account that suggested that this was something that Republican. You know, members of Congress weren't comfortable with he had some problems. When that tape came out, he had some problems, such curio, but they never suggested that publicly. The very problem with this and since election day These stories have been coming out of this kind of it from beat of Democrats saying like hey. We should do something about this and Congress. We could do something about this. I am not sure that they could totally status actually handle it, but they could right now. The president is exempt from the conflict of interests, law that applies to other members of the executive branch Congress could change that Congress could Eliza. Cummings has simply suggested that the House Oversight Committee should hold some hearings in which they bring in.

Its representatives and try to talk this through on the record under oath? What's going on Jason Chafe, it's who chairs that committee He was not a particularly fervent supporter of Donald Trump during the campaign he said he would vote for him because the alternative was Hillary Clinton. At the moment, the alternative is not Hillary Clinton, Jason Schaefer could just to his job as the chairman of the government Oversight Committee. Maybe he would I don't want to prejudge it, but he's had two weeks to come and unless he hasn't done so, there's also United States Senate. You know Mitchell Mcconnell could say, we need to ask bushes appointees about this. He has only trumps appointees trumps. The only set Senate conformable person who trumpets put out yet happens to be a candidate for attorney general of the United States, which is actually the person who might be the locusts of some of this stuff. It could be the case that senators

Both parties question Jeff sessions rigorously about how he plans have the Justice Department handle less, but I've seen no like indication that they're going to do it and you know it is important, because the all systems of government have their sort of weaknesses in their fail points? There's no way you can just kind of right down on paper a comprehensive outlook for every situation that might possibly arise. The working system accounts checks and balances. Right, I mean they're. There are a lot of different ways you can see. Your government, but the american system bear some considerable costs in terms of inter branch conflict, but the benefit is supposed to be that in precisely this kind of situation. You have an entirely separate group of people with. Oh names on the ballot elected separately, with their own jobs in their own mandates and like they are supposed to do, oversight on the executive branch yell. When I think of what happened during the media failure. One of the bizarre things is that with Clinton like you,

was one organization there is the Clinton Foundation, and I thought this laser. Like kind of focus from the press, there there's a ton of. A ton of writing devoted to what they were doing weathers corruption with Trump. It's a very despair, network, ranging from like you know these companies in Saudi two things that are telling like Trump stakes. This is generally giant giant network have been says a weird way, even though that's much larger it. It seems to me like it made it. There is no clear point like oh, let's look at that Bosnia and it would have been a quite larger undertaking. kind of look at the whole network of trump businesses and try and figure out. You know, what's what not look like for president with a conflict of interest, might be it doesnt excuse the pun said. I think you guys are absolutely right that this was a place where there is blind. I turn to some important things are now dealing with that's kind of how I think about you, know why, and I think it also to do with having congressional Republicans

in power and being in a position where they could be kind of pushing the focus on the Clinton foundation. and not really seeing these same thing happening on the other side. Because of what the balance of power looked, I can Congress, so you could have done Instigations going going I'm going to focusing on this. I repeated drumbeat of the emails feeding into all of that, where the point as interested in the peace Matt wrote, provokes a car last week was about how are also looking at the different kind of corruption than we normally worry about an american government where for beauty, might worry about. People are awarding favour, is giving someone a good day and of giving a certain companies benefit and now we're talking about something. Quite front that I don't know. Maybe Matt knows more about this. Cause he's been writing about it. That feels a bit more for and about actually the president himself benefiting from What is happening that this isn't about rewarding

people you like people, you're friends was roaring. Your political allies is actually potential, your own own business interests and that deals a little bit different than the type of corruption We have worried about and thought about in years past, if you're anything like me, you know sometimes you wanna snack end. If what's allowed snack honours junk food, you gonna eat junk food and it's it's not great. So if you want a short lived, a healthier life, you start snacking healthier with Nature box. They make snacks that actually take great and their better for you agreed with high quality ingredients that are free from artificial colors flavors of sweeteners. She can feel ok about snacking. I like some their dried fruit stuff. They got great app, also great pairs. They also have some in a slightly more indulgent, principally things and there that that I also article four and they recently made their service even better. You can order as much as you want, as often as you want with no minimum perch required and you can cancel at any time I. So it's really simple you than a nature box dot com. You check out their snap catalogue

of our hundreds next to choose from there always adding new stuff. She choose what you want. They deliver Reggie your door, it's easy, but nature MAX. You never get bored his new stuff there each month, it's inspired by real customer feedback and if, for some reason something comes you don't like it, they will replace it for free is a good opportunity to try something new, I'm so right, now, you're, safe, even more because nature boxes offering offence fifty percent off your first order. If you got a nature box, dot com, slash reads: you gotta Nature Box, tat, complex weeds. At that we get credit. You get fifty percent of the first order, Nature box, tat, calm, slash! I think that something they got discuss. The lot during the election is the idea of Trump as a candidate who had a thorough tearing impulses. Sometimes it's got framed, I think, usually incorrectly, but but sometimes as fascist

people have a conceptual framework for the idea that the trump- maybe it's not hard to be committed to some of the niceties of the democratic process, something that I think is a more clear and pay the danger actually than that, where I do think there more institutional checks is not just the idea like trumpet as a threat hurry innocent, but a summary, it often happens in more strong man, led governments which is sort of a cup democracy. Something a situation where the canopy spent much more to the political systems will, and it's just. I think this is What did they mere peace? I'd like to hear you talk their yeah, so so I mean I kind of framed this surrender an article that an economist aimed challenges of Wallace. What is called the concept of systemic corruption in american history and

He saw dimensions that in linguistic in historical terms, when people in the eighteenth century talked about corruption. They didn't me in that. Ok, a rich business man, my bribe, a member of parliament and get him to you now help you out with it with a regulatory matter. What they meant was that the king might use his considerable personal well. an influence to subvert the political system, and that in turn would drive entire in a way of life and an economy through throughout the universe and you know. This is a sort of an old timey thing. How eighteenth century governments were structure but it's something that you see in more modern kinds of states where you have return regimes that are not ideological in nature, they don't have any particular set of principles and values that day

hours, but you create a situation in which, if you want to do business in a modern economy, you have to comply with certain kinds of regulations, and if the regulators don't care about their work, if they dont have some kind of principled view of what the these are for it turns out that what the agencies are for is to make sure that supporters of the regime get what they need to do business and that opponents of the regime don't have what they need to do. Business now, to be clear from, has not been in office at all, so he hasn't yet been in a position to do anything that is like that. He just had a lot of shady meetings things like that. The federal government just has this enormous amount of power, Donald Trump. as an enormous amount of weird business interests, business interests that we can't see, and we can see that he's not particularly trying to help.

potential conflict of interest rate, so you don't really know. What's existing sort of beneath the surface of the iceberg You run the risk that if he is stocks, the government with the sort of regulatory equivalence of Michael Flynn right like people who just no Donald Trump and like him and are dependent on him that you could have. You know what a whole governing regime in which you know say your bank credit and you don't want to run a foul of the regulators and you decide. What would you need to do to stay in the good side of the government is give generous loans to Donald Trump or cut off credit to wealthy businessmen who speak out against Donald Trump, and you create a society in which people need to make a really hard choice and they say do I want to be like a dissident whose whole life and activities is dedicated to some sort of visit against Donald Trump, or do I want to just go along and get along?

means to go along and get along is make sure you don't donate money to opposition political candidates right make Where that you don't own any media brands that you know say hostile things just come. Lay right and that's the only way to to kind of get by and that doesn't it doesnt work Are you to do anything fascistic or like court? Unquote, dictatorial and just more quires you to make policy and regulatory decisions in a corrupt sort of way and it's why it should make. I know, Some sort of liberal minded people take some solace in the idea. The Donald Trump seems like he isn't a like real conservative idiot log in the way that you know Mitt, Romney or or MIKE pen, sore or port. and were, but I think we should actually regard that as a fairly dangerous quality and president. That is a huge dishonest.

Listen to what this is yet another. Equally, it's good. I think it's good to not be extreme in your ideological viewpoint, but it's important for high ranking political officials to have real ideas and values that they believe in, because that itself is a kind of constraint tried. I would be my mind would be belong if President Mitt Romney use the regulatory state to try to coerce businesses into doing personal favours Mitt Romney, because I think Mitt Romney believes in free markets, and I think that he would want to staff and administration with other true believing free market People who they might make decisions that I think, are terrible, but they would be like decisions to let people pollute too much because they don't care about pollution. Donald Trump and chaired commissioner and Steve Ban in they do

Seem like a group of people who has a real commitment to any kind of ideas or principles other than themselves and their kind of aggrandizement, these hybrid eyes a little bit with the sort of establishment Republican Party, elected officials, but if they sort of colonise the whole government with just like random people who I'm old Trump knows and who we feels a person loyal to him. That is far more dangerous than some kind of government of true believers, even true the version really bad causes case your question gas, since even thinking about this lot, It is the best case scenario civility knew you know it is that Donald Trump does Super state ideological beliefs that didn't he just wants to work to benefit them. This business is the only ones to reward people who are as business allies. What are the levers to stop that? Who can

does that mean like how do you think about like the likely six ass. A failure of those levers getting pulled over the next listeners, the level which I think are actually strong. I mean the american political system, as it is written down and supposed to operate, has a very robust checks against this and its that almost all of these things require you to appoint people who confirmed by the United States, set right, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. So it means that Donald Trump to be able to sort of do the equivalent of a running down hill with its appointments. But it's important for Republicans to insist that Trump appoint qualified republican Party tat people are so like one Concrete example is that the rumour mail has really like two candidates for Treasury secretary out there. One of them is: is Japan selling, whose congressmen from Texas

as ideas about financial regulation that I think are kind of terrible, but who you know has been elected office for a long time who endorse TED crews and the primary, because he's a Texas guy who is the lead author of a bill to dismantle the Frank, which is what Donald Trump says he wants to do, but who also has led some sort of weirdo fights against the export? Import bank has a very uncompromising view about, he may and Freddy MAC, which is to say that my eye, I dont like job, hence hurling chick early. I wouldn't mind to see people criticise him, but he would be like a real treasury secretary. You know, with likes farm, stated opinions a track record politics you know, and a guy who is not just like a creature of Donald Trump, then the other guy you hear about is Stephen Maneuver,

who is up a rich guy. He came up at Goldman Sachs. You work for George Soros. He had his own hedge fund. He doesn't really talk much about politics. He was the top fundraiser for Donald Trump pain. There was an interesting business week, profile of him in which the reporters asked him why he was supporting Donald Trump, and he said you know the last time that all the time and they're not gonna, be asking that when I get a job in the administration, it's gonna be obvious way, really yeah! That's it. He didn't. He didn't Baltics point like when asked why he was supporting the presidential candidate. He was supporting. He did not offer any reasons Dela thinking I write rhetoric, that's the kind. And I know I know that you ve Donald Trump hands down a former banker a Wall Street veteran, a guy who, as far as I know, was completely untainted by scandal? There's no like forests.

Fire? Oh my God, Stephen! You can kind of thing, but I will We think it will be important for the country for people to say wait a minute we can have a treasury secretary who has no known views about american politics and whose stated reason for supporting for raising tens of millions of dollars for non trumps campaign is just that. Well, it would increase my personal political power. Like that's Willie, it's like it's kind of crazy and it wouldn't be totally unheard of for someone like that to get a cabin a job, I'm usually more like calmer, secretary of the Treasury Congresses, where you Yeah, but I mean you gonna, be there. swear entities on Senate Republicans much more so than centre Democrats, of the majority, but to say that to be like you'd need people who you could imagine a different republican president

waiting to these jobs, I think Jeff Sessions is like the line in that regard, but some of the peace who you hear buzzing out there are like really now I want to talk about. The incentives are centre, Republicans her, because I think it's important, I think, is one of those things were people need to pull their like vision up a little bit so, as you mentioned, centre pop have the power he or more recently. The power here is in twenty thirteen Democrats under under read. They cut the power to filibuster, so one difference between this in two thousand and eight, or even this, in wealthier permanent thousand and eight is it in a way. Even at Democrats came in depending on the month with fifty to fifty nine seats in the set

and she got six view, but it took a while for the Frank Recounter to work itself out. So Democrats came in bit Republicans had the filibuster and fill busted up when applied to Senate conformable nominees. So one reason folks, like Combash, all got Miss Amelia Tum Tum dash about rejected was the Democrats actually did need Republicans to at least let things go forward. Republicans don't need that anymore Democrats cut to filibuster on non, prim court nominees, which actually is a move. I support, but it means it with fifty two votes, which is what we expect republican staff. Is we think they're gonna win that Louisiana Senate run off with fifty two votes. They can just pass chumps nominees into office now one. I think the thing that happens here is it people sort of assume that Wolf Corps publicans won't exercise a real oversight power over Trump, because why would they

that comes out of world. I think both where, in general president's and their parties, pretty well aligned, but also where we think of his party's incentive measures making their president successful and usually I think that is a pretty good way to think about. Things uses a shorthand, and I don't think it is here. I don't think it is here for Republicans. Might my argument the argument, but make it not an argument. There are public and you need to go against their incentives and stand up for country It's actually that their incentives, a line, was standing up for countries in in two ways. One is that it is very bad for your political power to be associated with a president who collapses and scandal the demo. Searing example. This obvious is Nixon who, just to a total wrecking of republican Party after the impeachment bacon, come up other examples? Do scandal is bad that the president is your parties, figurehead and, to the extent that his brand,

daddy or brand is bad and Republicans are now the empower party bit tend to be the minority party that not in the White House Party that wins in mid term. So if they want to keep their jobs, one thing we should not do is Donald Trump destroy their brand for no reason. Another thing What I should do is actually want trump to run the country reasonably well, because one thing that also affects whether or not you get reelected is what the economy is doing well. What are you ve launched wars? You shouldn't have launched so so there to having a competent treasure. Secretary who could head off? Hopefully a fund

actual crisis if they were getting good information from staff on that. That is much better than that then having incompetent one. But the third thing here is that publicans and in this gets to how much you believe that people believe what they say they believe, but you mentioned Mitt Romney and his faith in free markets during twenty twelve and the subsequent twenty tall, something that a lot of Republicans have talked a lot about is crony capitalism. I am old enough to remember talking to people on twenty fifteen, where Republicans would explain that the big problem with Hillary Clinton and Poor thing about that, the rising Republican Party was that Republicans are really against cronic apples and they do not want to see the state. Do you know creating these kinds of connections between businesses and the government in part, because it makes the government more power

It is something you can talk about: inner peace, but to the extent that being a successful businessmen means supporting the government in power. That means a government in power gets more support from successful businessmen and it becomes more powerful becomes protected by its powerful clients, and so, if you are a Republican who believes in the things you ve been saying, you believe for a long time, one having a party become deeper if crony capitalism is bad but to adjust, it was bad. It's just you know only against the reason you said your in public life and I think people should worry about that saved reasons to be less optimistic, I'm not doing optimistic. I am making the argument. That is what I want. I do not think this is going to happen. I won't be cited earlier- this ok because the wiser than this is her publicans should think about it. Oh ok got it, so I think two things at all. Push back against this is data that this is in Republicans interests

what is your country talking short term visas, long term like in the long term? You could see a scandal of all they. You could see these problems coming out with business with remarks. Donald Trump is made but in the short term I mean a lot of politics is pretty personal again a lot of republican senators want to be the ones who have the president's ear and who invited over the White House in our part of whatever high level discussions are happening, so I think there's it strikes me as music along. Members as short term decision that legislators will make about Do they want to be in favour? with the White House, which I think is a pretty strong pauper, you know. You're someone who runs for office, like your whole job, is about getting people I q, you knew a kind of getting into these inner circles and working your way through the. to have more clout in Washington, This last point g you're, making about crony capitalism Here is how much that that flips

you written as there are a lot about, I'm looking on the name of the body of research, but the body research about how so much of our views on politics are really cut it. Our views and policy are motivated by politics that people are much more malleable. In what they think is the right role of government depending on what their party says is the right role of government It feels malleable to me that those views on crony Capitalist how to regulate it, that it may not. What is here in the past year has seen em. I was thinking to healthcare and of the individual mandate were that just because of whose supporting at flips from a foreign policy report I liked your policy democrats like. So those are two reasons why why am sceptical that it things old play out well, but you hear his will want to name a few, because these are the people who I think, reasonably could like play the role that I think both parties really neat played right.

I'm so one one person in this camp would be mightily right. He quite vocally oppose dogs and he represents Utah, which is a state that is very republican, but we're Donald Trump was freakish early unpopular for Europe. look. I mean Trump one new time the end by He is a senator who, I think, can feel confident that he is more popular with his constituents than Donald Trump is and who like spoke specifically about? that's right and again lead doesn't need to like buck the Republican Party on big ideological issues, but to insist that like well qualified people with a real track record and conservative politics are confirmed, I think, is a hundred Britain. on brand for him and like a lines with his local political interests and while he may officially take some shit for it from other people and his party like he, can in em, for for the kind of reasons that both of you mentioned that, like what Mitchell

on all really wants is for someone else to spike bad Trump nominees right and, like my glee, can tell much Mcconnell like he could be that guy or inherent shoe has less of a profile as a trump antagonize but is also from Utah is a big Gillian years old and I think, probably done running for reelection and might be interested in having like a pause. Reputation. History has already said: he's already begun, actually to create some republican party. Friction by saying that he's not just gonna go of parents, tax, reform, tax reform and to do something by partisan, so he does seem to want to player without a bridge building John Mccain, also a million years old, just reelected, I really think cannot get to run again. Did not you know. Why do you keep thinking these I can already have you ve seen the U S Senate, then I can barely alive anyway. I've been became also very vicious

Lee and senselessly personally attacked by Donald Trump. During the campaign, I think you know said some some in things about making about Trump already did speak out on the torture question specifically, since the election is definitely I who cares a lot about his personal legacy. His reputation is kind of a maverick type figure. You know someone who I think she should really think of. This then, when the other wing of the Party, Susan Collins, who has always been like, If you were going to name, maybe some Republican will break with their party like it would be Susan Collins Pillar one, the state of me- and you know she has no particular. Isn T go along with Donald Trump wanting to appoint wildly unqualified people to different parties.

She is insanely popular and main, and the only conceivable threat it seems to me to her reelection would be for her to somehow become complicit in, like massive corruption on the part of somebody else. She should just like not do that safeguard her nation and her political party. You know that starts to add up to enough people, but you go because you get anti bandwagon right if three or four republican senators start saying hey man, you know, let's make Amerika great again, but let's make Amerika great again by having qualified nominees, then like that's enough. This is why I wrote a peace that is very bleak about. This is called. We have a hundred days to stop something tat. Of imagining, but I mean if a hundred days to stop dollar charms of systematic, creating America, constitutional should searches, peace, outbox, dotcom so up, but don't we one of the ways I do think there is considerable urgency here, because I think

in some ways very easy to stop by huge problem here. It's just if, in the First him full of nominees, one or two of them get shot down for beef, like too weird and unqualified and and lacking independence from you know, people table Bob and we right, like you will tack in a different direction. I dont think, like some whole brand, new Trump will emerge you we ve seen time again? He is capable of dealing with his inner circle and saying: ok like gotta is now we ve got his ag now right, if send a Republican, say we're not going to confirm I ran those who we don't know anything about and who have no prior government service he'll stop throwing up those kind of appointing and like we will be ok- and one thing I think is gonna- be interesting here, so that the body of research Sarah referring to is the motivated reasoning, research. I am not.

Sure how much had actually applies to jump in the way would apply to say President Paul Ryan, imperfect as Trump comes in. A very strange and difficult relationship with his own party, I think this is a dynamic. We do not know how it is going to unfold, so I do not want to speak with too much confidence about it, but when Brok Obama was like two thousand and eight. He was beloved by Senate Democrats when George W Bush was elected into. Doesn't he was beloved by senator public. These these guys had a lot of relationships in the party of the fifty two members of the republican senators. Forty eleven of them did not endorse Donald Trump at all of the forty one who did Doorstone shop. One of them called him a delusional narcissist. Another said that he should not be trusted with nuclear weapons. Set a speck of dirt is more likely to be. Is more qualified to be president that was Rand Paul, who, I would add to your mad, who is a pretty principled sort of form of a libertarian

and more is a lot in general, but crony capitalism problems another who said that damage the pathological liar and, in addition, double chump said, his father might have killed J F K a guy honeymoon, amoral, nay world. He said, moreover, the same guy, as a result cause. I know the end, that's what I mean that I dont really feel like. I know how this is going to play. It was harder for Brok Obama to hold sixty members of the democratic Senate or fifty nine. Depending on the moment, then it was from to get them by the end of the campaign to endorse, like every democratic growth brok Abominate problem. There are a lot of members of the Republican Party right now who official members are public authority who, like genuinely hate and fear Donald TRY

but felt that one he was better than Hillary Clinton, who is better for them than Hillary Clinton? Rather Donald Trump, when is a win in which they probably keep the Senate. That proved to be true for them, but they have a lot of concern about him ended tit mats point. I think this is a place where that concern could hope we be expressed. It will be very hard. Then I can express concern by voting as a pole, Ryan but you're right that they believe in that, but what they really believe in and when I again like, I don't think they should believe for their own food for their own. Political good is letting Trump run a corrupt and incompetent administration, and- and my hope is that, They don't my hope is a day that they see this one. Clearly, I grew what you'd said, sir about there being short term and long term here, but I think that I don't think this is so long term. I think that the the the tendency of this kind of stuff

we're, as as a joke really like two or three weeks into this and the number of corruption stories breaking any given dates. Tremendous knots before before started doing anything, so I think this can turn particular Publican, who coming in with his favour building numbers already underwater, which we ve never seen before. I think this can turn pretty fast and Republicans would be wise to actually forced Trump to run a better administration that protects him in them a little more that's it I dont think they're necessarily. That's why I neither do I want to suggest is because I don't think people should take it for granted no aid and that people are going to do. I at least don't want. Some of you often criticise me format, but an end. I think european right I do not want to just be read in the baseline did, of course. No one will do this because our publicans and it would be bad for them in a big, acting its interest I think that is true no eye, and I at least hope that they are thinking seriously. About this. I mean, I know that

people on the hill are busy and often actually don't have that much time to be deliberative about what it is. They are doing. And they tend to run their offices on a little bit of an auto pilot, and I and you know people did not think tromp was going to win right. People really really do not think that he was going to win, so they did not spent much time preparing them mentally for this kind of situation and there's a little bit of a sort of shock dynamic in Washington, and I do hope that you know Republican senators especially are taking some time to like really think this out over a period of several different years at like what is the cost of speaking up in the short term, really like, really how bad is it going to be verses? How much good could be done by You know two or three people talking about one or two nominees and then just setting things and indifferent corps

and also when you considering you know, profitability to patch things up again with some of these people who criticized him like it cuts both way. Is you know so like? On the one hand, Marco Rubio at one point said, Donald Trump was a con artist who couldn't be trusted. Nuclear weapons and then he wound up endorsing for president. On the other hand, you know Donald was talking about, how marker Rubio was, I forget, what like choker and you know a fraud bubble. Bob Bob like when they needed to work together again they worked together again right. If you can, if you think Donald Trump is tapping bad people, and you can stop him from doing that, he will of course be mad, but if he then replaces them with different better people like you will be able to patch things up and and move along right. I mean this is a guy who died definitely hold grudges and nonetheless, is like not above putting these things behind him for the sake of winning elections

one of the things Donald Trump did over the last week was he held a meeting actually by the time comes out, will have helped to meetings with the press and dumb number. If you folks, remember, there's a long controversy during the presidential election were. Hillary Clinton did not hold a press conference Royal Donald Trump, who actually, as president, I really enjoyed press conferences, has held one or has not been allowed to hold one by his staff for a very long time, but by the end of the campaign, trumps relationship with the press corps, really bad. So on Monday, Donald Trump held a pretty big meeting with various members of press, including practically network executives from the major networks. Ankara's from the major networks it it seems to have been focused towards a television press, because that is the press. Donald Trump cares about it's interesting just contracting this a little bit with o bomber who tenant, I think, to give more consideration to written press because broke upon, enjoys reading things more than does not like cable news. How much anyway, so Donald Trump pulse

meeting and after the meeting Cleon Conway comes out, and she says it is a great meeting. It was cordial friendly? There was a great exchange of ideas. Everybody else comes out of this meeting and damage of apparently just sat there and persuaded the press for forty five minutes. Jeff Sucker, a liar by name, said Katy Ter from and be seized, and great reporting complained about her and just generally didn't just make people that meeting mad but sort of scared them. There's a good piece by David Rum, Nicotine Yorker. We talk to a bunch of folks at that meeting and in their just scared, like just at this. Guy does not understand the first amendment. He does not understand what our role as and he is a petulant bullying, immature character the same time since getting elected. Donald Trump is not only stopped tweeting, but a lot of his tweeting has been tweeting mean thing

at the New York Times. He he's continuously very mad at the New York Times, kept calling them failing New York Times and again, Donald Trump as President Elect. Now he doesn't need to be going to war with a New York Times and they've actually not been even reporting anything that damaging about him, but he just mad at them and he keeps tweeting it out so that the day after this bigger meeting with networks and others, he was supposed to have a meeting with the New York Times that meeting he then cancelled, because he said that your comes change. The rules which he said in a street was not very, then it appears to have come out to all, though you do. You know this is gonna, be sources, but its sources in the trunk in Trump land. People saying that reigns previous didn't think he should have a meeting with the New York Times. So Donald Trump by saying the New York Times had tried to change the ground rules, which, of course, in your comes denied ever changing the ground rules, because they did not try to change the rules.

Anyway, so that meaning got put back on on schedule on is is actually happening more or less as we record the spot cast. But though the point here is it, the whole trump is setting up for a very, very odd positional they should ship with the press in, and he is somebody who has benefited very much from understanding media dynamics in understanding how to get coverage, but he's angrier and angry and anger at the media. He went from really liking a lot of members in the media and seemingly continuously very shaft. Then he got so much coverage and cable news to being very angry at them, but is still addicted to cable, and so he just sits there getting matter. and matter and matter as he keeps particularly seem CNN on in in whatever room he happens to be in so this is just a bad start to things publicly about start. If you worried about the ways in which Trump might try to make his administration inaccessible, might try to construct the fault of information or might try to punish precedent that he thinks is, is negative towards him

he's already trying to do without the powers of the presidency simply using the power of his celebrity, but you know soon he will actually have the powers of the president and though be more, he could do to retaliate against the again quoting court failing New York Times. yeah, although I also think there's something that's a little just sort of more banal, least strategic about this, like I just don't think the New York Times its coverage of Donald Trump during the campaign was particularly negative. I don't take their coverage of him during the transition has been particularly negative, I thought in particular I mean the times. Staffers are incredibly defensive about this when you asked them about it and they should really fucking chill out

little bit but like they did in article saying that there were important conflict of interest. Questions raised by the fact that Doug banned once asked the State Department if he and Bill Clinton could get official diplomatic passports so that we could go to North Korea to try to rescue american hostages than the State Department told him no like. That was a front page in the New York Times. They didn't see fit to do any stories, Donald trumps Foundation, and it's like illegal campaign contributions. Things like that at any rate really do not on the Phoenician another didn't do, is better because the washing of has got the story, and I think they under plaited in part for that reason, but that they really do none yeah, because it was fair and hold story They did a story. They did a story about Hillary Clinton, a long story about Hillary Clinton ties to Goldman Sachs like a pretty good story right, but it didn't mention that the file

as chair of Donald Trump Campaign and his main fundraiser was a Goldman Sachs Guy, like I think it was. It was really bad like really bad Hillary Clinton, reporting and trump by positioning himself, as so antagonistic to the New York Times, is like causing other people, two like baseline, the New York Times as like the on the opposite end of the spectrum as bright Bart or Fox NEWS, or something like that, which is a way of marginalizing like actually critical, I dont want to say actually critical, but more critical journalists. right, is it that this is there's an element of sort of gamesmanship going on here right, where you have a lot of people every time Trump like tweet like the failing New York Times, is so unfair to me, I see like dozens of people.

Like I just increased my subscription, or you know like the New York Times, is the greatest thing ever and I think that's part of the game here right. I mean it If the New York Times is like the other mission to Donald Trump, but the New York Times is also committed to the New York Times. his view of journalism, which is very stayed very restrained even handed to a fault kind of thing like that is really really really very advantageous to him. You don't see Donald Trump Gonna tweets my against Chris Haze or mother Jones. I think is wised up and like no longer complains about David Fan, hold right because He knows not to elevate like his genuinely fearsome critics out there. It is instead setting up this kind of, like Patsy Debate, he's just now like wandered down to the New York Times to do questions with their reporters. Where he's just lying

constantly in his answered every question- and I just I guarantee you that the New York Times it's like headline right up of this will not be Donald Trump. Just showed up and lied to us a time right, that's like that's what he's doing it would not be a timely headline. I dont say that there's not how they're going to cover it is there in the tank for him. It's like the New York Times has a way right and like it's way is its way, but if you can define in the public eye that kind of like very low key, like super traditional journalism as like this is the people who are out to get me like that the good for Donald Trump, the fight on Twitter is very much at the times like you said, and it's really been. It almost feels like its picked up a little bit since Trump Card elected. That, like is that, if you look at the share of trees devoted to criticising the New York Times, it seems like it has become a large percentage of em what he treats about. But then you others like

parallel thing happening with the White House pressed world. That is seems to test how much coverage trump way. How much of the car that happens of the presidency rests on tradition and how much that will change under Trump this may be loaded insider. If I think it's worth explaining that the way news organisations. Do coverage of the presidency in Washington is that they have a pool schedule where some I'm a news organization follows the president round for the day, you obviously can't have this massive gag of reporters going with the President ever where he goes. They pick one percent, they file poor. What's the kind of rules of it, you can't keep anything to yourself, anything that you my publishing, your news organization, you have to share with anyone else member of the White House, correspondent association? it has from what I understand, but they ve been traditional for the President Elect to set up a traveling press pool to alert the passive where he is.

weighing to start doing those things before a transitions into the official role Trump has not been the most eager participant in the sea, especially in the first reading the election just was going where he like not alerting people leading, choose and push back to divide Us Press Association saying we need. We need to be able to us. this pool. The person who was on call wasn't notified of where he was going. I think there is a fair debate. The value of the pool end. What movements? We need someone. I bet it. I think it's India, of this mean a fight that that's a little more mundane. It's not like I'm Donald Humped trumps Twitter, like he hasn't been true, about how he doesn't want to poor reporter following him around, but it's going to matter either in terms of what we know about what the president is doing. A ties are less segmented innovative can have not fully extending the reach of Donald Trump, SAM business, some businesses,

regions and granted the pool isn't there for everything. There are not, therefore, he no private of office meetings, but there, when the president is going somewhere in that's an important function that this is served. I think it's a function that areas not do not run into law anywhere that this has to happen, but it's a function, the other either the last president we have had have accepted, and I think it still seems uncertain to me whether a President Donald Trump is going to accept having the idea of a White House Press pool and what that relationship ends up. Looking like, I think that is very much right and I also think we should make it one of the interesting just underlined she's here is whether or not the Trump staff will just be honest with the press. I think that Kelly and Conway specifically does does more lie. Then the interim himself does just more straight bald faced lying, saying, like the skies Orange sort of thing,

Then we really see before I mean it's not uncommon for politicians and political starfish to be a basic. It's not uncommon, for that would be careful. It's not uncommon whom to shade the truth in ways that are favourable to them or to emphasise the facts that give a misleading impression of a story because it leaves out contacts, but things like you walk out A meeting were trumped. Psych went to war with the present, and you say, as this great lovely polite defined meeting that that just that's a little bit different kind of thing. I will say that, in terms of reducing the Trump near time, stuff is fascinating in and mad, I think, I think you're and elsewhere. In writing. I will say I think the New York Times more good work on Trump and you're, giving them credit for like they are the ones who got his tax details. That was actually a pretty, I think, a pretty big deal, but even so I do

It's interesting that he is basically trying to make New York Times and CNN his foils right. Those are the two media organizations I think in part because of their the true that he really seems to absorb one thing. That seemed: true about Trump is that he watches a Lotta CNN and he reads: a lot of the New York Times means a guy who lives and hat, and he actually said in this meeting with the New York Times and note that he's not done a meeting like this so far, at least with the Washington Post or with the Wall Street, he didn't entered with walls, but not a big come sit down with a bunch of people on the record, and think part of. What's going on here. She said these are the ones who put bug him and he lashes back in the way that he does. I think, a fascinating statement. The last week on you saw it in the in the fight over Hamilton, which I do not want to go through and do it in great detail. But it's a question of is Trump crazy or is Trump crazy, like a fox kind of thing, right is trump.

Being a sort of big plan when he keeps tweeting about the failing New York Times, or is it just like personally super pissed off and suddenly, with Hamilton like was from trying to distract people for the fact that he had just settle the twenty five nine dollar fraud case and there's all these new stories about his crops in or does he you know just have that tendency and his tweeting? Let s analysis kind of the same way. I do not know how to distinguish things and its possible. Doesn't matter possible. A chump just has sort of crazy instincts. It also end up working for him, sometimes and sometimes not been an unusual way by. I do think that stuff is is meaningful, but I will sit my biggest concern with them in, and this is all about it to your point. Sarah just there's a lot of stuff. The Trump team and trump himself do that's pretty out of the ordinary, but one of the things is just he is accessible, but not honest and it's a sort of a weird thing

in in politicians that you often get politicians who are not accessible, but you know if you deal with them reasonably honest trump, actually does personally talk to the press quite a bit. He likes to interviews he likes to engage and he, even throughout the campaign, was giving enemies to the New York Times still fairly late, even after they had really hammered him on stuff like the taxes, but he is not honest in those interviews, and it just occurred to me that his White House will prize having any kind of like really accurate relationship with the press corps, and I think it's a situation with the media journalists, to consider doing something? That's unusual right I mean, A normal circumstance wait if the President of the United States is like I want to go on your tv show is, of course you want to present a United States. Have your tv show you have to ask herself at a certain point, though, and in the same goes for fur adviser senior members of the administration and assembling. You have to ask yourself

if somebody just wants to lie, what is the journalistic value exactly of putting that person on television, possible to structure. It is such that there value, but you have to really think about what you're doing you know Nemean and just sort of doing endless. Rounds of journalists talked about, and Conway journalists, Tweet would Kelly Conway told them then journalists like at the end of those tweets, are like none of that was true. Allow J K allow is like. Is that helping, like our people being informed by that kind of process? I dont think you ever want to save like well. If somebody like one,

I'm selling? That's not true, like you, ve gotta, like strike them of Eurostat forever, but like when we talk to. You know younger reporters on our staff right when you talk about like you, gotta make the call you have to like get comment from somebody spokesmen about your story. I will buy that the whole Brigham right, the underlying idea there is that you are going to obtain useful information right that if you dont make the call you might be missing out on something important if there's someone who is just like You know that what they're going to say to you is not going to be accurate, then I will why make that call right like what is that for? And I think we really you know how this problem, particularly with Trump, People right I mean you used to say, ok, Well, you know you can count on the spokesman to give an honest answer or if he can to give an honest answer to do a straightforward, Dodge B

if they just come out here into the briefing room and like live. ass. His off we're gonna stop quoting, though right. but Kelly and Conway has shown that she will keep getting quoted, no matter how ridiculous the stuff she says is, and I think that's like problem right if there were no consequences in terms of your access to the media megaphone, then you know this, like a total breakdown of the system are at this paper, doesn't might bring the White Paper's back. We're here, we're getting back great again, making making the pike hasn't rate again. So there is this. for that came out in twenty fifteen that others really interesting argument. It argued that these shows sixteen and pregnant was responsible for one third of the decline in teen team birth. and we ve been in this era, where the team birth rate is just dropping really quickly. We ve been trying understand, what's happening,

Two economist, Analyser Kearny, involving they argue that this shows exclaimed pregnant by show this really realistic portrayal of how much it sucks to be attained? Mom actually to really significant declines in ten childbearing and the way they did this. They looked at the areas of the country that watched MTV lots and they looked at where timber through falling alot They were able to show that the areas where you saw more MTV watching were also having the fastest decline in teen births. So that was a paper came out in twenty fifteen The way people are talking about today is one that argues that this is garbage. That basically says no. Sixty, I'm pregnant did not lead to this decline in team. Pregnancy comes from an account, asked at the City University of New York named David Agar, who would he did, which was the interesting. Was he basically extended back the data he said well the study. The most increase, daddy aid start where there was a Kearny. Philippine study starts a little,

before sixteen impregnate came on the air. Let's go back even further what he finds is going back? You see The trend happening before sixteen impregnate hits the air so you see he argues that something else was happening. Something is different about these areas that watch a lot of MTV and that essentially, that you ve had a spurious correlation. I've talked to the researchers on both sides of this. Talk to. Fellow being one of the authors of the original study. Here, who's that you know if you try out other data specifications, if you do a different time frame that the one that the Yeager paper it's out is kind of anomalous that, if you do seven out of a different time, specifications that use we'll get the result to their original paper, but it struck me as interesting one because it made me think a lot about how economic research is constructed, that you are able to find quite different results.

On the effects of this television show just depending on how you said Parameters of of what time period you're studying ends, the second is, you know how how they should shape about, how we think about preventing teen pregnancy like should we think of showing this real mystic tv show in sex heads class, for example, is that a good approach based on the research that we have? I think, up until this other working paper came out. You were said yeah. That seems like a reasonable show too I'm put on in a teen sex I'd class. I think, now. This study throws there are some cold water on the idea that a television show could have such a big effect on public health outcomes. This is one of those kind of study back and forth where, on the one hand, I'm not properly qualified to full adjudicate it on the other hand, this was result that came out of a very clever study design right. It was a very well done study, but was also very hard

belief, at least to me in the size of the effect of that that it was portraying, and I think that's why are ready. We all covered a right is very, very large effect for just idea that people watching sixteen and and pregnant again. I do not want to like firm come down on one side or the other, but as a colleague good Bayesian had he seen invasion. Beijing and basic things get Asian, I kind of started. This would like some scepticism and the the questioning of it. Just give me a little bit more. I am I am. I do not know enough to distinguish the different time secret but I am open to this revision. Will you do? I think that that is the point about bays and is is actually It is a good one with its weight that one thing that you in sort of a suppressed topic in a lot of these econometric studies

right is like how plausible do we find this result to be right as a researcher, if you do some number crunching and it tells you at the sun will probably rise tomorrow, the number crunching like that's, that's probably right, whereas if you, if you went through the add, and it's like a man. This is gonna son tomorrow. You should be clearly skeptical of of that kind of result. Right, that's the that's the baby and updated right. It depends on the strength of your prior commitments, but it's hard to discuss that explicitly in these kind of daddy's and its particularly because as a double edged sword where like this, crazy. Sounding idea that, like oh, some tv show massively reduced teen pregnancy, is exactly what makes it like an interesting paper that people write up and it gets written about. But your willingness to believe that a kind of statistical parts.

really does show. That should depend on like how plausible. It sounded in the opposite kind of way right. So like boring. Soundings statistical findings should be much more credible, then interesting sounding ones, but Indra, Sounding ones are much more interesting and so are much more likely to talk about them and you create a sort of confusing situation in there and and see this particularly in the very short of idiot logically waded aspects of of economics. Where do you know if you think that, like there's overwhelming theoretical reason to believe that the minimum wage causes unemployment. and it's very easy to finds it difficult tasks that will show that and if you don't believe that than those statistics look much less convincing and with this I'm pregnant thing. I do feel like we have a sort of like an undefined prior, like I've,

Ezra seemed like very, very sceptical of this. It did not strike me as that implausible. I was I get a tv show, spark fads like there's lots of babies named generis now, because there was a television show, so I don't know, but like the EU, would be good to actually, I think, to see a little bit less like in the weeds about the statistical methodology and a little bit more like what do we know about Whole universe of questions like do tv shows, have big effects on behaviour. Yeah, I believe colonel we have done another study on Sesame Street, so they actually gotten into studying this after this first study, I'm kind of I think, I'm somewhere when you guys, where it seems plausible to me that there is in fact, but I always found the idea that a television show would be responsible for one third of the decline in pregnancy to be quite larger effect than I would have expected from a television show, which is always kind of like put me on the

on the fence about the findings? I'd along discussion was still the Vienna one of the authors of the original paper about this, and yet we are talking as you to ask him what so bright timeframe to study it. S like a lot seems to Hendrick is there you know what when you get a Phd in economics. Do you learn like the right time frame to set up a study like this and there, he isn't you know the reason they chose their initial timeframe had to do with some of the data availability that they had county eight or maybe ever get the exact geographic area, but they had the right data to go back to. I think it was two thousand five, so you know that seem like a possible amount of time. I think took them like a few years before the show started- and I said you know- I think that's a good data sat, but you know going back two years, like the Yeager paper. Does you got a totally different rules There is no clear differentiation as they like. Oh that's, the rights, the right data that too used to like make a conclusion about what happened, which

I don't know make Vegas gives me like a little more scepticism, reading any research and makes anything our meeting of an entirely meaningless I'd like AIDS, that are now it's a little. It's a little stressful thinking threaten all nothing matters. How do you want it s me straight on many? You will never go to US museum issue when it uses to talk about a another paper that I was thinking about in an argument. Someone on twitter about today, which If we were to use of time right is her. Mom Lopez had had a pox and it's a fascinating paper. It shows it in a lot of the counties that really flipped from Obama and twenty twelve to trumpet twenty sixteen Ohio in Wisconsin, and I do this remember a little bit. So if I get a deterrent, please forgive me, but in eleven candidate flipped from twenty two to twenty, sixteen towards Trump in Ohio Wisconsin. Those are counties that have been hit really particularly hard by the heroin epidemic.

which is an interesting finding. So I put this up on twitter and had his excrete out of our talks about there being this correlation between these counties in and being hit by the heroin epidemic. And friend, a friend of mine, a friend of the podcast, cast a great political scientist, Brenda Nigh Han you no return or that correlation causation alert, and I think people have gotten any time but he put up a correlation based, study anywhere out, like somebody jumped up and correlation causation alert, and yes, correlation was literally in the excerpt. But but this goes to this point about like how do you think about these studies, which is that is something that I okay. So there is an interesting kind of mystery. Why did these counties move from Obama to Trump giving? These are two very different politicians and- and you can try to figure out a different ways to solve this mystery, but one way I hadn't thought of was that okay, there is his in in the places where it's at

This devastating opie owed epidemic right. That is really. If you live in an area where the opium epidemic has really has really head. It has completely changed what that areas like Sorry, you ve done more reporting on this, but but its genuinely devastating. It's now that this static keep coming back to Ethiopia, A bit I make as now killing more people in America than HIV Aids did at the height of the plague, and while, yes, the steady, does not prove that that this is what did it. I like when I think about my personal, like what do I think would have happened to community there was hit really hard by the open epidemic and any. I think that they might have become a whole lot more interested in politicians who promise larger solutions and somewhat more disenchanted with established from politicians from the party was not able to do anything about this, which is to say that the both most true and least fun

conclusion of all the stuff which is more study is needed, but I do think that it is sometimes a good waited. Just like try to think about paper is right. Obviously things can be true that you don't think are true and things you do think are true. Can can be false, but I didn't one problem in the present times, as it were to credulous things. It would just be interesting if that were true and then and then simultaneously. I do think we ve got to appoint the sometimes in public discourse, where it's like such a smart thing A correlation is not causation that we we ve lost you build. A correlation, is interesting, suggestive evidence that maybe we could talk about I mean sometimes you know. What's like one reason: correlation does improve causation. Is it can have cases of like joint causation, If you're not doing like physics, though, like if you're talking about politics, that itself can be interesting right. It entirely possible that some underlying morality is

people in a certain number of counties to like both shoot up heroin and vote for Donald Trump, which itself, would be an interesting. We should say in this case take oxy fire when the union into even if it's hard to blackmail, line right, but if there's like a bundle of impacts involving disappointment, Prime Age working class man does billowy, excite, illogical experience of pain, voting for extreme political candidates right like that, you will struggle to find ok. This is the thing that caused the other thing right. like a whole social trend that has some very salient sort of high points, because you wonder in any community right if you have a lot of deaths due to obviate overdoses,

you also have a lot of people who are presumably not dying of opiates overdoses, but who are being impacted by the same like social trends that that push. People there right and it's that sort of underlining push towards either more recreational drug use, more reliance on pharmaceutical, painkillers, like is fascinating right and not very plausibly like to politics. I think in my like a strong way that we should not be like woe. That's crazy. You know, relations searching thing and we ve seen it right in the trade literature, there's much greater use disability insurance in counties had been heavily exposed. China, trade? We know, like that's one correlation. We know that there is much higher self reported Pain among men who are out of labour force, of this, like there's something going on their speaking, something going on one thing that could be gone eyes. You could be done. Your friends to listen to the weeds

only the weeds, but if you do not check out our sneak preview of the Pica Sarah is working on it is on this feed. I really really think that Listeners, as are the show, will love it. I am someone who listens to show, and I really thought says, Pike S, spirits, to check that out thanks the literally hundreds of you who sent us feedback ideas for names it is so appreciate So thank you again for following arms. options we are reading all of the emails. So we really appreciate thanks play Seraphim Shapiro to Matt and Diseret. All of for tuning in the weeds is a box. I come and panoply production. and before I go, I'm in a plug as for contract, I guess this week, which is an interview with haven't Magee of most, is pretty fastened conversation on race, class, empathy and the election? I think box here would like it. And we'll see you next week