Texas Democrats Working Remote

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security.

It's August, which hopefully means you're on vacation and trying to tune out the political circus for a bit.

Knowing Simply Safe is proactively watching

a little bit.

Knowing Simply Safe is proactively watching your home, ready to stop threats before they happen, brings some actual peace of mind.

You know what is Simply Safe?

You know who has a Simply Safe?

Who?

John Lovett set it up himself.

What?

Somehow.

I'm just hearing this now.

Somehow, some way.

Top of the line sensors.

You can turn it on and off from his phone.

You can protect your whole house, not only from burglars and break-ins, but also from other bad things that could befall your property, like water damage or smoke, or you fill in the blanks there.

Highly recommend it.

Most security systems only take action after someone breaks in, and that is too late.

Simply Safe's new active guard outdoor protection helps stop break-ins before they happen.

If someone's lurking, agents talk to them in real time.

They turn on spotlights.

They can call the police, proactively deterring crime before it starts.

I think I've told you my pitch that underemployed roast comedians should work for SimplySafe.

I like that.

Just shit all over those burglars as they're trying to break in.

Neg them, you know.

That t-shirt.

Named Best Home Security System of 2025 by CNET.

4 million Americans trust SimplySafe.

It's ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek USA Today.

Monitoring plan started around $1 a day.

There's a 60-day money-back guarantee.

There's no contracts and no hidden fees.

Visit simplysafe.com/slash crooked to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan to get your first month free.

That's simplysafe.com/slash crooked.

There's no safe like simply safe.

When choosing a home services professional, trust is everything.

At Service Champions, we're committed to providing the highest level of service every time, and we have the track record to prove it.

Our certified technicians have been the trusted choice of Northern California homeowners for over 22 years.

Right now, we're offering an air conditioner tune-up for only $68.

Take advantage of this special now and get a free duct inspection.

Call 805CHAMPS or visit servicechampions.net.

Welcome to Plot Save America.

I'm John Favreau.

I'm John Lovett.

I'm Tommy Detour.

On today's show, we'll talk about Texas Democrats fleeing the state to stop a Republican gerrymander.

And one of those Democrats, State Representative James Tellerico, talked to Lovett about what their plan is.

We'll also talk about the firm behind all those spam fundraising texts, Trump backing off his campaign promise to cover IVF, his decision to transfer Ghelaine Maxwell to a minimum security facility, and his new favorite actress.

Sidney Sweeney.

But let's start with the fact that the economic data released by the U.S.

government will no longer be as trustworthy because Donald Trump fired the economist who ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics after we got a bad jobs report on Friday.

The report showed that the economy added an estimated 73,000 jobs in July, about half of what economists expected.

And worse, the report showed that the economy created 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than originally estimated.

On top of that, we've had fairly anemic economic growth in the first half of the year, and inflation has started ticking up again.

The reason for all of this is not a huge mystery.

As the AP put it, quote, U.S.

hiring is slowing sharply as President Donald Trump's erratic and radical trade policies paralyze businesses and raise doubts about the outlook for the world's largest economy.

This undoubtedly led to some self-reflection on Trump's part, who promptly decided to shoot the messenger.

Dr.

Erica McIntarfer was confirmed by the Senate to lead the BLS in 2024 by a vote of 86 to 8.

Two of those yes votes were from Mark Arubio and J.D.

Vance.

But sadly, she had to go because she and all the nonpartisan economists who worked for her didn't count up the number of jobs in a way that made Trump look good.

Here he is Sunday offering his trademark non-factual explanation.

We'll be announcing a new statistician sometime over the next three, four days.

We had no confidence.

I mean, the numbers were ridiculous what she announced.

If you remember, just before the election, this woman came out with these phenomenal numbers on Biden's

economy.

Phenomenal numbers.

and then right after the election they announced that those numbers were wrong

and that's what they did the other day so

it's a scam in my opinion my opinion is just it's just additional scam was he speaking to a giant swarm of bees

what was that

did he say additional scam additional it's an additional scam additional is that like a is that like addition like personal subtraction kind of thing

i don't know i don't know i think it's just just hey new scam just dropped.

Also, what he said there was completely inaccurate.

They announced the revision in August of 2024, which is well before the presidential election.

So he's just not talking about anything that's real there.

Kevin Hassett, the ostensibly qualified economist who runs Trump's National Economic Council, he's taken a few swings at explaining the situation over the last few days.

Here he is on the Sunday shows, and then on Monday, he apparently forgot his talking points.

Let's listen.

Does the administration have any evidence that it was rigged, as the president said?

And will you be presenting that to the American public?

Well, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could appear to partisans.

Oh, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence.

The markets seem to believe the revisions in the numbers more than they believed the original numbers.

That's why you saw bond yields tumble on Friday.

Are you in agreement with that?

Do you think we are starting to see a real slowdown in the jobs market?

Yeah, I think the jobs numbers were slower than we expected.

I think that like one of the explanations for revisions is they have more complete data.

And so I think it is likely that the revisions are a better read of the data if the data are not being manipulated.

And so.

So I've lost track.

Were the jobs numbers rigged or were they bad?

It's strange to have someone just forget himself and actually kind of answer the question as if Mitt Romney were president.

Within the span of 24 hours.

Kevin Hasse gets trotted out to defend the most hilariously stupid shit.

Like, he was also on ABC News when Trump slapped tariffs on Brazil because they were mad that Brazil was prosecuting the former president for leading their own version on January 6th.

You guys want to take a crack at explaining why this is such a big deal?

So.

Crack away, cracker.

That's inappropriate.

I don't, listen, maybe you're too hooked on woke Jaguar, but we're not saying that kind of thing.

We will get to woke Jaguar.

We will get to Woke Jaguar.

We will get to woke Jaguar.

So

in June of 2020, come back with me.

Take a trip down memory lane with me.

I didn't like it then.

In June of 2020, the job numbers come out for May, and they're surprisingly good, right?

They're not good.

They're terrible, but they're not as bad as they thought.

And the report said that firms had added 2.5 million jobs back, that the unemployment rate was only 13%.

But even in the moment, The Bureau of Labor Statistics said, hey, we think we're having a problem collecting data.

We think that our Census Bureau takers are are putting the wrong numbers in.

The actual employment rate is probably higher than 16%.

Trump didn't threaten to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

He didn't say, hey, everybody, be careful.

Some of this data may be exaggerated.

He was ecstatic.

He said the economy is roaring back.

Larry Kudlow said that there was a boom, right?

And Republicans at the time used this error.

to slow down any hope of doing more stimulus.

Democrats had passed a stimulus bill.

A lot of unemployment aid was running out.

A lot of emergency measures running out.

Democrats were like, we need to help.

And Trump was like, no, the numbers are amazing.

So we don't need to do this anymore.

It delayed aid for another six months, even though people were in crisis.

We make decisions based on this data.

If people are losing jobs, they're losing jobs whether or not the data shows it or not.

They are being hurt whether or not climate change is real, whether you believe in it or not.

And Trump doesn't care.

about how to respond to the actual facts of what's happening on the ground, what he can do to make the economy better, what he can do to bring costs down, what he can do to increase the number of jobs.

He just wants the numbers to be better.

And he's doing that across the board.

It's extremely dangerous to no longer be able to rely on economic data because we can't trust that this administration will release any information that puts Trump in a bad light.

Yeah, I mean, this is supposed to be pretty wonky stuff, right?

Unemployment, wages, inflation, like boring data.

And everyone relies on this.

The Fed, the Treasury Department, the White House, Congress, financial markets, banks, small businesses.

And so they don't expect the BLS to be perfect, but they expect the process and the data itself to be nonpartisan and independent.

And if you undercut that independence, that's a huge problem going forward.

Because there have been people that have called the process into question.

Like Steve Bannon has been on this beat for a long time.

He's always said the BLS is partisan and it's rigged.

But the experts usually understand that this is good data and it's real.

If the experts start to question the data underpinning the U.S.

economy, that's a huge problem because the world could decide, I don't know, man, like maybe

does the BLS have the courage to put out data that President Trump doesn't like in the future?

And like if you're, if you're, like the world could look at our economy and say, there is just too much political risk baked in.

It's the tariffs.

It's the BLS data.

It's

Trump's interference with the Fed.

What if he fires Jerome Powell?

And they could decide, like, I don't know, man, like, should we buy treasuries?

Should we put money in the stock market?

Like, let's just move on.

Let's go invest somewhere else.

And historically speaking, like, that ends very badly.

We could talk about the Greek example.

We could talk about Argentina.

But the long story short is when you mess with economic data, it leads to enormous pain, both within your country, but also systemically.

And just in case people don't know how this all works.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, obviously the head of it is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

That is the person that Donald Trump fired.

But the rest of the Bureau is just a bunch of nonpartisan economists, and they follow very strict statistical methodological standards.

They are reviewed by outside experts.

They are transparent, the standards they use.

So none of this is like a black box.

And what they do is for the jobs numbers, they do a survey of businesses all across the country.

And then for the unemployment rate, they do a survey of households, of who's working in the household.

And the reason that sometimes you get revisions in the data is because a lot of companies and some households don't answer the survey until after the survey is closed.

So sometimes people are just late

getting their survey responses.

So we've had revisions dating back to 1979 when this whole system was first set up.

So it's like not unusual at all.

It's a much bigger revision over the last two months than at any time

since COVID.

But also

we have had a shock to the economy with tariffs.

We have immigration raids reducing the workforce.

We've had massive government job cuts because of Doge and other Trump actions.

So there's been a lot going on that wouldn't make two months of fairly large revisions like totally out of the ordinary.

But to your point, Tommy, like the reason this is so important, like you said, you've got people who want to maybe invest in the United States, who might want to buy treasury bonds.

Also, Jerome Powell and the Fed, they're going to set the, they're going to decide whether they're going to do a rate cut, what the interest rates are going to be.

If they can't make that decision based on the data and trust the data, then that's going to be a huge problem.

Also, by the way, cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on this economic data and unemployment insurance benefits too.

So if...

because as you mentioned, Lovett, it's not just jobs numbers, it's also inflation that comes out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation numbers.

So if Trump gets someone in there who gives him an inflation number that's lower than it really is,

The government's not going to adjust people's Social Security benefits to keep up with the cost of living, nor are they going to adjust unemployment benefits to keep up with the cost of living.

So people are going to get fucked with unemployment benefits and Social Security if the inflation numbers are wrong.

If this were a one-off, if Donald Trump was a calm,

rational actor who had long believed there was a problem with the data collection, and this was a culmination of his long-standing beef in no particular direction with the way the government measures statistics, fine.

That's not what's going on here.

A lot of people pretending that that might be what's going on here, that Trump has always felt as though the Bureau of Labor Statistics was making mistakes.

We know what's going on.

Donald Trump has launched a war on how the government collects and disseminates information.

In March, Trump's commerce secretary disbanded the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee along with another outside group.

Very wonky stuff.

That group exists.

It's a panel of outside experts.

It exists for one purpose, to meet to talk about how the government can do a better job of accurately measuring economic information.

Luttnick told them that their mission had been, quote, fulfilled.

Alex McGillis at ProPublica reported on all the ways in which Doge targeted data collection, specifically data on drug use, pregnancy, maternal mortality, adoption, accidental deaths, HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, educational outcomes, even just weather balloons not going up as frequently, something that came up when there were those terrible floods in Texas.

In Trump's first term, researchers at the USDA reported that Trump's trade war with China was devastating farmers, among other reports that embarrassed the administration.

What do they do?

They take the USDA economic researchers, they move their office under the political wing of the agency, and then they go further.

They announce that they're physically moving the researchers' offices to Kansas City.

And so they told a bunch of economists in D.C., oh, we don't like your reports.

You can quit or you can move your whole family to Kansas City.

And a lot of them quit as a result.

But the reality was the reality, we now know how devastating Trump's trade war was for farmers.

Bankruptcies went up.

Calls to suicide hotlines went up.

He gets angry because the headlines are bad, but the actual facts remain the facts.

The damage is the damage.

He doesn't care about the outcome.

He cares about the story.

And all these people are now going around trying to claim that Donald Trump is just trying to clean up our economic reports.

When meanwhile, we're going to end up in a situation where every week

we're going to get a new story about how our chocolate rations are up.

And yet, no chocolate.

Yeah, I mean, so he's, on one hand, by doing this, he's going to cause a lot of damage.

On the other hand, he's not going to fix his problem because people are still

going to be feeling pain if the economy takes a turn.

Right.

Well, that's what doesn't make sense about this.

Why freak out now?

The midterms are a long ways away.

You just passed your big economic package.

Like, the stock market is ripping.

I just, I don't understand why.

I guess maybe just kind of like...

take out the trash now, like make your structural reform now because you watched Steve Bannon on the war room rant about this and it inspired you to make a move, but it's kind of just petulant.

Also, I mean, it came right after he, I believe, tweeted that he was repositioning two nuclear subs because he got in a Twitter fight with Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of Russia.

Yeah, and today he's like watching CNBC and he's tweeting about or truthing about Elizabeth Warren.

He's yelling at her.

He's just, he's, I think the Epstein thing is really shaking him.

And the, look, look.

When you look at the last two months of economic data that was revised, the jobs numbers were revised, I think he is thinking, and so probably his administration, too, like, oh, maybe the economy is softening here.

There's an air problem.

So it's like, you might as well

fire the BLS person now so we can start cooking the jobs numbers.

Yeah, better things get bad.

Better to do it now than

next year, right?

As you're getting closer to the election.

It's by the way, why they disbanded those panels.

They don't want anyone from the outside looking in and seeing what they're doing, right?

It's part of a plan.

This is they're doing this across the board.

Padzave America is brought to you by Haya.

Typical children's vitamins are often packed with sugar, unhealthy chemicals, and unnecessary additives.

Haya offers a super-powered, chewable vitamin with zero sugar and gummy additives that still taste great, even for picky eaters.

It's designed to fill common nutritional gaps in children's diets, providing the full body nourishment they need.

Formulated with the help of pediatricians and nutritional experts, Haya is pressed with a blend of 12 organic fruits and veggies, then supercharged with 15 essential vitamins and minerals.

It's non-GMO, vegan, dairy-free, allergy-free, gelatin-free, nut-free, everything else you can imagine.

Every single batch is third-party tested in a qualified GMP-compliant lab using scientifically validated testing methods, so you know the product is safe and nutritious.

HAIA is designed for kids two and up and sent straight to your door so parents have one less thing to worry about.

Charlie takes Haya vitamins, has for a couple years, and he thinks they taste great.

And they give him all the vitamins he doesn't get from being a picky eater, like they said.

And, you know, we're going to be able to do that.

The other day he solved the twin prime conjecture, which is the question of whether there's infinitely many primes primes P such that P plus 2 is also prime.

For example, 3 plus 2 is 5, 11 plus 2 is 13, etc.

You know, he solved it.

Charlie has taught me things about the solar system and the Titanic sinking that I had never known in my entire 44 years on this Earth.

So I will not be surprised.

The Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness thing.

Again, this comes directly from Haya Vitamins.

Yeah.

So just letting you know.

Are you tired of battling with your kids to eat their greens?

Haya now has kids' daily greens and superfoods.

Imagine the problems they could solve with that.

A chocolate-flavored greens powder designed specifically for kids packed with 55-plus whole food ingredients to support brain power development and digestion.

Just scoop, shake, and sip with milk or any non-dairy beverage for a delicious and nutritious boost your kids will actually enjoy.

The same multivitamin that more than a million kids and parents love are now available with Disney's the Lion King with a new Lion King unboxing experience, including a Lion King bottle and Lion King stickers.

Don't sleep on that.

And we've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best-selling children's vitamin.

Receive 50% off your first order.

To claim this deal, you must go to hiahealth.com/slash crooked.

This deal is not available on their regular website.

Go to H-I-Y-A-H-E-A-L-T-H.com/slash crooked and get your kids the full body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults.

How many discounts does USAA Auto Insurance offer?

Too many to say here.

Multi-vehicle discount, safe driver discount, uh, new vehicle discount, storage discount, legacy.

How many discounts will you stack up?

Tap the banner or visit usaa.com/slash auto Restrictions apply.

All right.

And another sign that democracy in America isn't exactly alive and well, the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest and/or remove from office more than 50 Democratic legislators unless they let Abbott fulfill Trump's request to squeeze five more Republican House seats out of Texas just in time for the 2026 midterms.

Abbott has called a special session so the Republican majority can redraw the already gerrymandered maps.

But the Democrats fled the state in order to prevent the session from taking place since the Texas Constitution says that two-thirds of the legislature must be present to do business.

Abbott then released a letter claiming that if Democrats weren't back by the time the session began on Monday, they could be removed from office.

He also claims Democrats could face felony charges if they tried to fundraise in order to pay the $500 a day fine that comes with missing a session.

Most of the quorum busters went to Illinois, where they were welcomed by Governor J.B.

Pritzker.

Just before we recorded this, Lovett spoke with one of of those Democrats, State Representative James Tellerico, about his decision to leave and what happens next.

Here's that interview.

Welcome to Pond Save America, Representative James Tallerico of Texas.

First of all, what can you tell us about where you are?

Well, I'm in a nondescript hotel conference room.

That's all I can tell you.

We are in Illinois, and it's appropriate because this is the land of Lincoln.

And Abraham Lincoln actually broke quorum back in 1840 when he was a state senator by jumping out of the window of the Illinois state capitol.

Thankfully, I didn't have to jump out of any windows in Texas.

But we are joining a long tradition in America of standing up to bullies, of speaking truth to power, of causing good trouble.

And I know my colleagues and I are proud to do this work regardless of what consequences may come.

So let's talk about that.

Your governor says you've forfeited your office, have you?

No, I'm still doing my job, even though I'm not in the state of Texas.

I was actually doing constituent services this morning with my team from this hotel room.

And we're also trying to shine a national spotlight on this Trump redistricting power grab that's happening in Texas, because it doesn't just affect Texans.

It literally affects every American.

Trump is trying to insulate himself from the will of the public.

He's trying to shield himself from the voters and from accountability.

And if we allow that to happen, if we let power go unchecked in this country, I am worried about where it will lead.

And so that's why my colleagues and I felt we needed to take this dramatic step of leaving the state and breaking quorum.

So as you noted, there's a proud tradition.

of this in our country and in Texas.

This has happened before.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time a governor, and this has happened under Republican governors in the past as well, has asserted that somehow he has the power to remove legislators from office.

Now, the Attorney General Ken Paxton said that that would be challenging.

What do you make of that threat?

It's very consistent because the whole point of these rigged maps is to rob Texans of their ability to elect the candidates of their choice.

And so now Greg Abbott is literally trying to remove the people's elected official from their office.

This is a page right outside of Trump's authoritarian playbook, and he does it with less charm and less humor and less charisma than Trump, but it is still just as dangerous, and we should reject it.

Now, again, this is not a Democrat thing.

All of us should reject it, whether you're a Democrat, an Independent, or a Republican.

Yeah, like presumably if your voters are unhappy with your decision to do this on their behalf, even though you're doing it for the right reasons, they have many, there's an opportunity for you to be removed from office in an election.

Exactly.

And that's how people change their government is they elect new people to represent them.

And that's what these maps threaten.

And again, it doesn't just threaten it for Democrats.

It threatens it for everyone.

And so it's why we've got to push back against this power grab.

I should say that gerrymandering happens across the country.

And it does happen in blue states, just like red states.

But this is a whole nother level.

Usually we adjust district boundaries at the beginning of a a decade, right after a census comes out, because you have to adjust lines based on population.

But Trump has asked Texas Republicans to redraw the maps they just drew in 2021 so that he can get five more seats.

And it's a little reminiscent of when he called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find 11,000 votes.

Thankfully, Georgia Republicans said no.

Texas Republicans said, how about Thursday?

And it's why my colleagues and I felt the need to leave our beloved state, break quorum, and stop this power grab from going through.

So,

you know, you're being threatened by the governor.

A map would have to be in place or be picked by December to be in place for 2026.

How does this play out?

What happens now?

Well, we're taking this one special session at a time, and the special session in Texas is going to last two more weeks.

So all of my colleagues, there's 57 of us in total, we have all agreed to stay out of the state capitol for the next two weeks to kill these maps and stop them from going through.

Now, the governor can call another special session.

He may, and if he does, we will assess our options.

But I am hopeful that some of the threats from blue state governors,

some threats of retaliation, I'm hoping that can convince Texas Republicans, maybe even Donald Trump, to walk back from the brink.

because they see that the gains they could make in Texas could be wiped out in a state like California.

Again, the goal is not for every state to be gerrymandered.

The goal is ultimately to take politics out of this process because it is the rot at the core of our broken political system.

But Democrats can't unilaterally disarm.

We have to stand up to bullies.

We got to look them in the eye and not blink.

So I wanted to ask you about that because there has been this push for fair maps.

A lot of

prominent Democrats got behind it.

Some of them are sticking with that and saying, no, no, we can't play this game the way Republicans do.

Others are saying we have to fight fire with fire.

Were Democrats who embraced nonpartisan redistricting, were they fighting with a hand tied behind their back?

That's what Governor Kathy Hochul said today.

Well, I just want to say I am proud to be a part of a political party that still has principles, that still has a positive vision for what this democracy could be, how we could fix this democracy so it can actually work for regular people.

I am proud of that, but we can't let that vision get in the way of the current reality.

And right now, one party is attempting to cheat by redrawing the maps in the middle of a decade.

They are cheating.

It's like two football teams coming out of the locker room at halftime and the team that's ahead says they want to change the rules for the second half so they can win the game.

All of us would recognize that as blatant cheating.

And if they're going to cheat, we're not going to play.

And if they're going to cheat, all rules are off the table.

And that means blue states are free to respond with retaliation.

But this is not the vision.

You know, having a descending spiral of partisanship is not what we want.

We ultimately want fair maps and fair elections for every state and for every American.

So, you're apparently going to be fined $500 per missed day of the session.

Abbott says he'll bring felony charges if anyone fundraises to cover that.

What are we going to do?

What are we doing about this expense here?

Well, my colleagues and I are going to pay these fines ourselves.

And I should say,

state representatives in Texas, we're part-time.

We earn $600 a month before taxes for our work in the legislature, which means we have to have day jobs to make ends meet and to pay our bills.

We're leaving those day jobs to

break quorum.

We also have colleagues who are leaving young children, some that are leaving aging parents.

So this is not a decision we made lightly.

And we knew there were going to be consequences, financial, political, possibly even legal consequences, but we're willing to pay those because we believe so strongly that this power grab in Texas is a threat to the future of our republic.

So obviously you hope that Abbott and the Republicans back down, but they may not.

Like what kind of arrangements did you make, did some of your colleagues make, for this to potentially last for not days, not weeks, but potentially months?

We recognize that.

And we know going in that this could be longer than two weeks.

We're trying not to get too lost in the hypotheticals because who knows what will happen in two weeks?

Who knows what Texas Republicans are going to do, what Donald Trump's going to do, what blue state governors are going to do, what the American people are going to do.

Part of the goal of this quorum break was to inspire action across the country.

I do think that courage is

contagious.

And I think once people see someone standing up, it makes it easier for them to stand up, whether that is them volunteering, whether it's them protesting, whether it's them donating to this quorum break to help us fund the food and the travel and the lodgings.

You know, that is a form of action that can, I think, push back against this kind of power grab.

And we're going to have to see that action multiplied a lot in the next election if we're going to protect the democratic process and fix this democracy going forward.

Representative Tallarico, thanks for stopping by.

I appreciate it.

Good luck wherever you are.

Thanks for having me.

That was Representative James Tallarico.

What do you guys think about this whole situation, Tommy?

I think we're in a tough spot.

I mean, the ball is firmly rolling in Texas, even if it doesn't get done in this special session because these guys are out of town.

Abbot can just call another one.

Republicans in Texas have pulled this shit before.

They didn't really face any political consequences.

Five seats is a huge deal in the midterms.

So I wish we lived in a world where Texas voters like across the political spectrum were outraged by the fact that Republicans are more focused on, on they called a special session to do two things flood relief and redistricting they put redistricting first they're not prioritizing the actual needs of their states but I just don't think we live in that world and have it as a leverage and these lawmakers have day jobs and the you know families and obligations they can't be on the run forever like I don't know it feels like we're in a bad spot they just have to hold out till December they can't

it's August 4th it's it look the three months it's very like it's they get to have day jobs these are human beings it's It's such a like old school and practical, it's like, you know, we got rid of the real filibusters, so we have these virtual filibusters, so everything is sort of a game theory and gamesmanship.

But this is a real,

like, why is, why don't they do this for other votes you're going to lose?

Because it's really hard to do.

You have to physically leave the state.

You may not be able to come back until the special session is over, and Abbott can just call another special session.

There's a lot of ways these have ended.

These happened in Texas in the past.

They've happened in other states in the past.

Sometimes you get concessions and people come back.

Sometimes your bluff is called and they just wait you out.

And eventually people have to go home because that's where they keep things like, you know, their families

and jobs and life.

The jobs thing is the tough one because it's a part-time job, Texas, the legislature.

And also now you're paying $500 a day, which they say they're going to pay out of their pockets because he's threatening that any kind of money they take is for bribery and that's how they could probably get the feds involved.

Right now they can't get the feds involved

being in the other state right now.

Until Donald Trump makes a call to ICE or his buddy Cash Patel at the FBI, I wouldn't surprise me.

What does Hellerico say about what they're He's basically like they're taking it, they're paying it themselves.

They're all trying not to think past this special session.

They're putting a lot of hope on the fact that this is creating public pressure.

They're putting a lot of hope on the fact that blue state governors are stepping up to threaten retaliation.

But a lot of it is just hoping that.

Abbott will back down, which doesn't seem particularly likely, and not thinking more.

I asked him specifically, are you prepared to do this through December?

And he just wouldn't go beyond saying they're doing it through this special session and not trying to be in hypotheticals.

And I should say the reason I mentioned December, the reason December is getting thrown around is they would have to redraw the maps by December in order to get it done in time for the midterms in 26 for the ballots and everything else.

So if they could hold out to December, but you're right, it's three months.

So that's the tough part.

And then I think, look, the hope is that, you know, this OnlyFans, they're all starting is going to generate the revenue because there's no crime against that.

To be clear, like Abbott.

I guess they could take it.

Yeah, I guess they could take other jobs.

You could take other jobs.

Or they could work remote.

Yeah, some of them I'm sure can work remote.

You have to have a hybrid work model, whatever their real day jobs are.

But

Abbott's threat here, you know, Democrats did this in Texas.

Rick Perry was the governor.

And there are all kinds of threats.

And people say they're going to be punished when they return to the legislature.

But no one said that they could suddenly forfeit their...

their jobs that or that the governor could usurp the power of the voters and suddenly remove people from office.

That wasn't an option in the past that they suddenly discovered because of some non-binding opinion by Attorney General Ken Paxton that even Ken Paxton says the governor's reading too much into, who's a lunatic, who even Ken Paxton says the governor is reading too much into.

And it does seem like that threat, the remove them from office threat, is a bluff.

Like that is not, I mean, I think that the best case for this is not going to work is they have to get home at some point.

But not only is there no binding legal opinion that he can remove them from office, but they would have to file that in all 50 districts, some of which are very Democratic districts, and then they would have to hold special elections to,

you know, replace them.

And all this has to get bunned down by December.

So I think that's pretty bullshit.

The whole like, we're going to remove you from office thing.

And then the felony thing for the bribes, who knows?

That's where you get into the feds.

But this is where like Paxton is going further, right?

He's going further by doing this mid-decade redistricting, but he's also going further by like trying to make this illegal when it is not illegal to break quorum.

What they're doing is not a crime.

The Texas Supreme Court has already decided that.

And so he's frustrated by the fact that what they're doing has been not just historically justified, but also just not breaking the law.

So he's looking for any excuse he can find to try to prosecute these people.

Yeah.

So it seems like the most likely way for Democrats to fight back is Democrats in other states to do this themselves.

We have talked about this a little bit.

Newsom, obviously Tommy and I talked to Newsom about this, and he sort of laid out his plan here, which is, you know, maybe calling a special election to change the Constitution.

Kathy Hochl is now saying that she might try to do something, though it appears she can't really do anything until 2027.

No, yeah, it doesn't sound like they can do anything through their, to get changes through their process would take till 2027, which doesn't help us in the midterms.

Yeah.

So she's, she's talking a lot, talking a big game, Kathy Hochl.

And look, maybe, I mean, she could be right about, yeah, if she can't get it done in the midterms, but they do this, she's going to go ahead and try to do it for the future, but it's not going to help with the midterms.

And then J.B.

Pritzker.

Yeah, that's a tough one.

I think our real options are Gavin Newsom.

We talked about the options he has to go on offense.

There's a chance to pick up some seats in Illinois.

There's maybe one seat in Maryland.

I think Governor Westmore is deciding whether to go to his legislature to talk to them about trying to change the maps and get us another seat.

But there's a long-term problem that could be even bigger.

Like our buddy, Brian Tyler-Cohen, interviewed a Democratic lawyer named Mark Elias a couple days ago where he kind of laid this all out.

And the gist, though, is the Supreme Court is reviewing whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act violates the Constitution.

And if it does, if it gets struck down, Republicans could redraw dozens of congressional districts and get rid of like all of these black majority districts, especially in the South, which means you have a state like Alabama that could go from having five Republicans to Democrats to just seven Republican districts.

So there's like this massive, scary, scary threat looming down the pike here if the Supreme Court goes the wrong way.

Yeah, the long-term challenge here is that Democrats just don't control as many state legislatures as Republicans do.

Aaron Powell, and look, I mean, what's happening in Texas is kind of enabled by Donald Trump's recent success with Latino voters and their ability to rethink how to draw those districts based on that success.

Aaron Powell, and now that might be a reason for optimism or that they have miscalculated.

I think Dan and I were talking about this.

I can't remember who I talked to about anything anymore.

But, you know, these are like Trump plus 10, Trump plus 15 districts, but that is in the presidential election and in the midterms, even in the midterms.

Dan was pointing this out that Betto lost to Abbott in 2022, Beto O'Rourke.

He still won the Latino vote by like 15, 20 points more than

Kamala Harris did in 2024.

So, you know,

it could screw them for the midterms.

But either way, if you're starting to go nationwide, it's pretty bad.

Yeah, I mean, look, also.

More broadly, they can redraw the maps.

They can also accidentally draw Republicans out of their seat.

If they try to over-gerrymander, try to make too many seats for themselves based on a projection for 2024 or just not understanding the electorate, all of a sudden, in a wave election, which hopefully we can generate in the midterms, all of a sudden they got a little too cocky and a little too greedy, thought they could draw themselves a couple extra seats.

And then

those Republican plus three, plus five, plus seven seats all of a sudden swing and they've lost some races.

I mean, the deeper problem here is Democrats live in too few places, too.

We have really big, big majorities in these concentrated areas, and Republicans have still large but slimmer majorities in tons of rural places.

And that gives Republicans more of an ability to draw these favorable maps.

But in Texas specifically, I think the new proposed districts make 30 districts places where Trump won by 10 points, which is up from 25.

So that's a lot.

And also just in Texas, Biden won Latinos by 17 points in 2020.

Trump won by 10 in 2024.

So it's a big swing.

Probably will not swing like that without Donald Trump at the top of the ballot.

I totally agree with that.

But I do think in Texas, it feels like they're pretty well protected with this version of the gerrymander and it's tough.

I don't know.

We'll see.

Not for midterms, it's much different, but

we'll see.

Trump plus 10 is tough.

Yeah, well, two, yeah, three are Trump plus 10, two or Trump plus 15, or it might be the other way.

The 15s seem pretty tough, but the 10s, 10 in a midterm.

Dan was saying he thinks that could be overcome.

All right, I'll take hopeful, Dan.

Pod Save America is brought to you by ZipRecruiter.

Sometimes it can be overwhelming to have too many options.

Yeah, I've been to the Cheesecake Factory.

That menu goes on for days.

And you know what?

I love every page.

You know what everyone wants?

You want curation.

You know what I mean?

So we're not, we don't have enough of that.

I don't want 100 things.

I want five of the best options, and then I pick one.

And the same applies if you're a business owner who's hiring.

It can be overwhelming to have too many candidates to sort through, but you're, but you're in luck.

ZipRecruiter now gives you the power to proactively find and connect with the best ones quickly.

How?

Through their innovative resume database.

And right now you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/slash crooked.

ZipRecruiter's resume database quickly identifies top candidates for your roles through advanced filtering.

See a candidate you're really interested in.

You can unlock their contact info instantly.

320,000 new resumes are added monthly, which means you can reach more potential hires and fill roles faster.

No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site site based on G2.

We've used ZipRecruiter here at Crook Imedia.

Sure have.

Found great candidates.

We found them fast.

We hired them quickly.

And that's really important because you can spend a lot of time looking for vetting, sourcing candidates, and it can bog down your organization.

You want to get great people in fast and ZipRecruiter can help you do it.

Skip the candidate overload.

Instead, streamline your hiring with ZipRecruiter.

See why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

Just go to this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash crooked.

Go now, try it for free, ziprecruiter.com slash crooked.

Again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash crooked.

ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, The Three Questions with Andy Richter.

Each week, I invite friends, comedians, actors, and musicians to discuss these three questions.

Where do you come from?

Where are you going?

And what have you learned?

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bow and Ted Danson, Tig Nataro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more.

You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter call-in show episodes where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.

Listen to the three questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.

In other Democratic campaign news, it turns out that all those fundraising texts and emails we love to complain about aren't just incredibly annoying.

They also may be incredibly ineffective unless you're a big consulting firm that takes a huge cut of the money.

Over the weekend, an investigation from independent data journalist Adam Bonneka at the On Data and Democracy Substack found that a single firm, Mothership Strategies, founded by former digital staffers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is behind most of these spam packs.

According to Adam's review of FEC filings, Mothership has taken in $678 million from individual donors since 2018, and they've pocketed at least $159 million of that, reporting it as, quote, consulting fees.

Even more depressing of that $678 million, only $11 million has gone to actual campaigns, candidates, or Democratic committees.

That's two cents on the dollar.

We reached out to Mothership to ask about this and got the following quote.

This substack is completely inaccurate and contains numerous false and misleading claims about Mothership and our clients.

The truth is that Mothership supports Democratic campaigns, PACs, issue advocacy organizations, and more in raising critical funds.

We have directly raised over $400 million for dozens of campaigns and member-connected PAC clients.

Further, a majority of the funds that are reported by the FEC as going to Mothership are passed through funds the company actually pays to our clients' other vendors, including advertising partners, to support their programmatic work.

So just reading the statement now, but doesn't seem to

conflict with anything in the actual Substack piece.

I mean, I think what they're probably equibling with is how much goes to the company as profits versus what is paid through the company.

But look, the broader point is that like all this money just goes to perpetuate the fundraising cycle, and that is the problem.

It's like I did a, just stepping back, I did an episode on this a few weeks back and why it's impossible to get the fundraising text to stop when you, when you text stop every, I've text stopped five times today.

Have you guys gotten a flood today?

I've gotten like 10 fundraising solicitations.

It's really

John, I'm trans.

I got one that said John, so John, I'm transit.

Okay, so the reason it never stops when you press stop is because that removes your number from that campaign or super PAX list.

There's no like do not spam registry or like universal do not spam list.

And so if you've donated even to like one candidate in your life, that can go into a list that gets sold to consultants or data brokers, and they can sell your list and your information over and over and over.

over again in perpetuity, which is why it is, can feel like and maybe is impossible to get off these lists.

And I think the problem is like when you press party leaders about how annoying and damaging these fundraising tactics are, they just kind of shrug their shoulders and say, well, they work.

But what this article suggests is that they don't work.

They're incredibly inefficient.

An enormous amount of money goes in, but very little goes out to the causes.

And obviously, the people of Mothership Strategies kind of quibble about how much is going to them versus other vendors.

But all of this money is going to do more fundraising, right?

It's like not a lot of it is going towards the actual political causes.

And they're not saying that in the statement, by the way, that they're not trying to argue that actually more is going.

They're just saying it's not all going to us.

It's all going to some vendors as well.

At least that's what the statement says.

Or maybe some share of it is going to advertising and is being counted in the wrong way.

Who knows?

We'll get, you know, they're claiming this is largely inaccurate.

We'll see.

But like stepping back, this is a stupid way to run a fucking party, right?

Like, let's say more of it is going out than this article claims or some way in which he's over counting something, right?

First of all, I don't think you're going to to land at the end and be like, wow, it's actually really good.

But put that aside,

there was this report that came out that Democrats send a far greater share of their fundraising dollars to safe seats than Republicans do.

And one reason is that fundraising has become this sort of scorched earth, kind of

hammering Democrats over and over and over and over again with requests.

And in that kind of

environment, more charismatic figures, more more sensational opponents, right?

Less strategic decisions are going to be made about money.

And yes, I am sure that sending out a blast of fundraising text, you get a report back saying like we sent out text and $100,000 came in or $40,000 came in.

You do that again and again and again.

It starts to become real money.

But the cost is that this big group of hyper-engaged Democrats who have been funding the resistance for almost a decade now are exhausted and angry and mistrustful of this entire process.

And these are the people you want not just to donate to you, but to advocate for you on their social media, to believe in you, to believe in the process.

And all of this is just so cynical.

Yeah, I mean, I think the problem is with direct mail, like the old school way, there would be literal costs.

You'd have stamps, you would envelopes, you would have paper, right?

And with just hammering like a file full of text numbers or emails or cell phone addresses, like there's zero cost to that.

And so you can just go after these people over and over and over again.

And again, we don't know about the top line numbers in the story, but there's one example that seemed pretty egregious to me, just that got at the waste and the self-dealing here, which is there is a super PAC called N Citizens United, which I've definitely gotten,

right?

So apparently that PAC was created by two principles from Mothership Strategies.

So of course, N Citizens United then hires Mothership Strategies to do their text and email and fundraising.

So at the end of the day, like N Citizens United PAC raises a ton of money from like well-meaning people that largely goes to pay the guys who started the PAC for the services.

And so that doesn't really benefit anyone.

And it's also, like you said, you are, it's not just that you're annoying people and harming the Democratic Party brand, you're hurting the people who care enough or care the most, who are willing to give money.

You're also raising expect, just, it made me think of this because of the name.

You're raising expectations for people who have no, like end Citizens United.

You're not going to end Citizens United.

Change the Supreme Court.

Right.

That's what's going to happen.

You're going to wait around.

We're going to have to get a whole new court to have a chance to end Citizens United.

So like this, this, that one, all of the ones that they listed, all the packs they listed in the sub stack are all, like I recognize most of them because they're all on our phones.

They're all.

Constantly.

Yeah.

And I do.

And they're all ridiculous.

And the fundraising pitches all sound ridiculous.

The emails sound ridiculous.

It's like, it's crazy.

And by the way, like.

I am sure in the deluge of texts we're getting, there are legitimate requests from campaigns I'll either want to or will ultimately donate to, but I have to ignore all of these messages.

Cause first of all, you don't know if they're reliable or not.

You don't know if they're true, right?

Like for every dollar that's going to mothership strategies, who knows how many fake tests are going to kind of guileless senior citizens who have been horrified by Trump and want to help and are watching MSNBC and are super engaged and just donating on their phone to random numbers.

It's a stupid and ridiculous system.

And more Democratic politicians need to stop participating in this.

process.

And maybe it requires a little bit of, there is like a

little bit of like a network effect and sort of a

sort of collective action problem but there has to be some alternative including democrats working together to figure out some other way of reaching voters that's less of a deluge and less sort of a of a kind of like winner takes all everyone going after everybody all the time yeah and i think that and i i talked a little bit with ken martin about this the chairman of the dnc when i interviewed him for uh youtube check it out pod save america youtube and he does seem like he seemed this was before this story came out but he seemed like uh he wants to do more to call them out.

And remember the Harris campaign.

I heard he's pissed about this.

He's pissed about it.

He was very pissed when I talked to him about it.

And also, I think the Harris campaign in 2024 did call out some of these spam packs as well.

Yeah, I mean, there's spam packs that are like horribly spammy, right?

Like whenever someone's running, it's Marjorie Taylor Greene.

There'll always be some candidate that will raise like $20 million and it'll all go to consulting services that somehow benefit them.

Then there's also PACs that will send out texts and emails that include photos of politicians that are in no way connected to the PAC.

Like that's really predatory.

There are people that get locked into recurring donations in really deceptive ways.

Like what's sad about this is it's even worse on the Republican side.

Like what they do to their donors is disgusting.

This is everything Trump does.

Everything that Trump does.

But I do think the candidates working with firms that do abusive practices need to cut ties with them.

And they also need to recognize that you end up feeding your online donors into this ecosystem and churn of fraud and self-dealing, and you're harming your own people.

Totally.

And I also think like the article, this article claims that this firm, Mothership Strategies, is kind of insulated by its connections with senior elected officials in the Democratic Party.

And those officials say, you know, basically it's no big deal because the tactics work and we need the money and everyone benefits at the end.

And like, I've been in meetings with you guys where we've heard that directly from top officials in the party.

They're off-the-record conversations, so we're not going to name names, but it's sort of like a shrug, like, well, it works.

And, you know, if an annoying text is the worst thing in your life, like, you know, you got bigger problems.

And I just think like that is bad.

We need to take this seriously and not brush it off.

And like my advice.

It sounds like it doesn't work.

Well, right.

And my advice to listeners is: never give to someone the texts you or emails you.

If you care about a cause or a candidate, research it, go to their website, give directly.

Make these texts so inefficient that they go away.

Yes, for sure.

Yeah, I can't imagine.

Yeah.

Is anybody like that's what's also hard to like?

I don't know anybody that's donating via these texts because it's it's old senior social people.

Yeah.

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

These days, it feels like there's advice for everything.

Cold plunges, gratitude journals, screen detoxes.

But how do you know what actually works for you?

With the internet and information overload about mental health and wellness, it can be a struggle to know what's true and what actions to take these days.

Using trusted resources and talking to live therapists can get you personalized recommendations and help you break through the noise.

Therapy is great.

Never thought I would go to therapy, and then I did a couple years ago, and now I love it.

It's really helpful to talk to someone.

There's a lot going on for all of us.

Even if you don't think you need therapy, you could probably benefit from it.

BetterHelp's perfect for this because you don't even have to go to a therapist's office.

You can just do it online from your home.

With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally.

It works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews.

Convenient too, you can join a session with a therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life.

Plus, you can switch therapists at any time.

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.

Talk it out with BetterHelp.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash PSA.

That's betterh.com slash PSA.

Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, The Three Questions with Andy Richter.

Each week, I invite friends, comedians, actors, and musicians to discuss these three questions.

Where do you come from?

Where are you going?

And what have you learned?

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowen, Ted Danson, Tig Nataro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more.

You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call-In Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.

Listen to the three questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.

So at this point, Trump has broken so many campaign promises, it's hard to keep track, but there's one in particular we wanted to flag.

You might remember Trump saying a lot of things like this during the 2024 campaign.

I'm announcing today in a major statement that under the Trump administration, your government will pay for or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment, fertilization for women.

We are going to be paying for that treatment.

So we are paying for that treatment

or for all Americans that get it, all Americans that need it.

Oh, I want to talk about IVF.

You don't hear that.

I'm the father of IVF, so I want to hear this question.

That was always so weird.

So sadly, the father of IVF thing.

I remember that.

So on Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration does not plan to require health insurance to cover fertility treatments and IVF, nor have it mandated in Obamacare, nor provide government subsidies to make the procedures more affordable.

A White House spokesperson told the Post that the Trump administration is, quote, committed like none before it to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge.

So one survey from last year, one in eight women or their partner said they needed some form of fertility treatments in order to get pregnant, but only one in 10 had received it.

And about 2% of all babies born in the U.S.

are a result of IVF.

specifically.

You think Trump ignores this promise at his own peril?

Yeah, I do.

I think a lot of people care deeply about this, and I think the political cost is cumulative.

There's a critical mass of lies like this.

And just for those that don't know, IVF is insanely expensive.

The average cost of a cycle is $14,000 to $25,000, depending on where you live in this country.

Many patients have to do multiple cycles, so you could be talking $30,000, $50,000, $75,000.

And

that is...

just way out of reach for a lot of people.

But it's not a small thing you're trying to get, right?

Like this is about having a child, right?

This is like deeply painful and important to people and i think a lot of folks in the political world were skeptical of this promise because the timing how cynical it was and how expensive it was but for a lot of people like a lot of voters heard this and this was their only hope of ever being able to afford ivf and potentially having a baby and this is a life-changing massive broken promise that is not a small thing it's not something you'll forget it's not you know, insignificant to someone's life.

And I think it is outraging a lot of people.

And we saw like Andrew Schultz, the host of the Flagrant podcast, like he has talked about how he and his wife went through IVF, how this was, he was sort of like a single-issue voter in some ways, and this was really important to him.

And he was posting about this over the weekend.

Like a lot of people are profoundly hurt and betrayed.

It's also like extremely cynical.

It's not like it's a broken promise where a lot of politicians broken promises.

Like, well, we tried and we sent a bill to Congress and it didn't work out or we tried to do some executive action.

Like back in February, they released an executive order, an action, or a proclamation or something that was, it was directing all of the federal agencies to come back in 50 or 60 days and let the president know what they could do to make IVF more affordable.

Those days have come and gone.

Nothing.

We haven't heard anything about it.

Nope.

It was basically just in February.

It was done in February just to get a headline that the Trump administration was going to do something about it.

And then until the Washington Post called them up and asked them about it, we heard nothing.

Yeah, look, it was cynical at the time, right?

And it was sort of along the lines of the promise on no tax on tips.

It was on the line of sort of some of the other promises he was making, trying to appeal to a broader,

beyond the sort of Republican coalition that had existed.

But this was like a

such a kind of half-baked promise, right?

IVF is incredibly expensive.

It would be a big deal if you mandated that insurance companies cover it.

It is also controversial on the right.

There are a lot of

anti-abortion Republicans who are opposed to IVF.

This story was kicked off because of a ruling in Alabama that suddenly called the possibility of IVF into question in that state and jeopardized the ability of women to access IVF if they wanted it.

And it was extremely unpopular.

It was extremely damaging.

It was the natural consequence of the court's abortion ruling.

And all of a sudden, Trump faced this terrible news cycle.

And he says,

I'm the dad of IVF, whatever the fuck that means.

And I'm going to make sure everybody can, anybody who wants IVF can get IVF.

Even like for policymakers, it's a difficult question.

How many cycles do you cover?

How do you mandate this?

It's expensive and it's important and it's a hard policy, right?

And he just sort of went off half-cocked to win these votes and they had no intention of following through on it.

And this is the end result.

And it's this.

It's a whole bunch of other issues where he's done the exact same thing.

By the way, I think part of it is the promise to release the Epstein files.

He's not going to release the Epstein files.

Like all these promises that he made, he had no intention to solve.

But I do think to Tommy's point, like for a lot of people, this was something that was going to change their lives and it's just not happening.

In that last clip, we played.

I remember watching that.

It was a Fox News town hall in Georgia.

They built it as like a women's town hall.

You could hear Harris Faulkner think her name there.

It's just like so unbelievably credulous.

Everyone knew that that announcement was bullshit.

The math didn't add up.

There was no way they could afford to pay for it.

It was not part of any of his plans.

Calling himself the father of the IBF.

Just like,

just was a reminder of how terribly Fox News treats its own viewers and voters.

It's treated them like idiots.

What do you guys think is going to happen if he gets the question on this?

Do you think he's going to say,

we're looking into it?

A couple more weeks?

Yeah, two weeks.

You're going to have a plan on that in two weeks.

Why are you asking me that question?

That's a terrible question.

That's a hateful question.

Yeah, maybe he won't get the question because, you know, it's just all Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend.

Yeah, who's the, by the way, you're talking about the next head of Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Speaking of Trump's broken promises, the one that's been getting the most attention these last few weeks was his promise to release the Epstein files.

Instead, Trump's DOJ has just released Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, Ghelaine Maxwell, from a federal prison in Florida to a minimum security facility in Texas known as Club Fed.

Sounds nice.

According to Bureau of Prisons regulations, sex offenders like Maxwell are supposed to be held in facilities like the one in Florida, not the minimum security camp in Texas.

Naturally, when Trump took questions for the first time since the transfer was announced, he got some probing questions on the controversy that everyone's talking about.

Actress Sidney Sweeney, it could not speak as that she was a registered Republican.

Any thoughts on that?

Then who was?

Sidney Sweeney.

She's like a very hot actress right now.

She's a registered Republican.

Thank you, Ricky.

Great question.

Great shouted question.

Glad we got him on the record there.

No Galene Maxwell question.

Trump followed that up with a Monday morning post praising Sweeney, attacking the car company Jaguar for a new supposedly woke ad.

Wasn't that like a year ago?

I have no idea.

So I'll look into that one.

Yeah.

I remember that a while ago.

Yeah.

And he also claimed, once again, that Taylor Swift has stopped being popular since she endorsed Kamala.

She did a $2 billion grossing tour.

It changed the economy of Sweden.

We're seeing a bump.

This Taylor Swift bump in the Swedish economy can't be counted on next year.

Before we get to Sidney Sweeney, thoughts on the latest in the Epstein case?

We got Maxwell.

Just no explanation.

It's worth just repeating that Ghelene Maxwell is not a good person.

Like, she groomed these 14-year-old girls.

She abused them herself.

She sought out girls who had been abused themselves or confided in her.

One Epstein victim, Virginia Jufre, said about Ghelene Maxwell, I think this is on CBS, she is a monster.

She's worse than Epstein.

She was vicious.

She was evil.

I know that woman, Virginia Juffrey, died by suicide in April of this year.

So this is fucked up.

So there was a report from

other prisoners at Club Fed who were there for theft and other nonviolent offensive, who are personally disgusted to have to be with Ghelene Maxwell.

And I'm sorry we have to look to these people for their moral leadership.

But Ghelene Maxwell is not a non-violent offender because she participated in sexual abuse.

That is a violent act.

She is a violent offender.

She should not be in a place for white-collar criminals.

Just because it was a rich person and took place on a fancy island doesn't make it a white-collar crime.

She is a violent criminal offender.

And where we're at now is, we know Trump was in the Epstein files.

That's what his attorney general told him.

We know that he dispatched his former personal attorney to meet with Ghelene Maxwell for, what was it, eight and a half hours, some terms over two days.

We know that Trump has been asked about whether he will pardon Ghelene Maxwell.

He won't say he won't.

He won't address it.

And then we find out without explanation, she's being transferred from a less pleasant facility to what's known as Club Fed.

A previous controversy years ago was when Trump said that he wished Ghelaine Maxwell well, right?

And so what conclusion are you meant to draw other than Donald Trump's lawyers are currying favor with Ghelaine Maxwell, dangling a pardon in the hopes that she'll absolve him of any culpability, given that his name appears in the files and he had a long-term relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Again, we're recording this Monday afternoon.

We got this news on Friday about the transfer and no one, no responses from the administration on this, from the DOJ, from the Bureau of Prisons, from the White House.

We have no idea why she was transferred.

We have no idea what Todd Blanche talked to Ghelaine Maxwell about over the course of two days.

So we just don't get these questions answered.

But the DOJ did have time to leak to Fox News that they're going to a grand jury to conduct an investigation into the Obama administration for this Russiagate bullshit that you can't even figure out what the crime might be or what law might be broken.

So they were able to let Fox know that they are conducting this investigation, but no answer on Glene Maxwell.

And we also know that a thousand FBI staffers worked 24-7 to review something like 100,000 documents.

in the Epstein files.

And we know that they spent a bunch of time redacting Donald Trump's name.

And now we're not going to get to see those files, according to Donald Trump.

So nothing shady there.

No answers on that either.

Nope.

No questions on that.

No answers on that.

We're just all flying blind here.

Whatever the Trump administration wants to tell us about what they're doing with Ghelane Maxwell or the Obama administration or Russia Gate or the jobs numbers,

that's what we have to deal with.

And then they just fucking trolled us all with that.

I don't know if you guys saw the post today from the White House that said the most transparent administration in history.

That's just, they know they're not.

And they're just, there's just a fuck you to everything.

How about it?

It's just a big fuck you.

To their base too, by the way, to like.

Mostly, yeah.

Right.

Well, they, you know, they spent a lot of, they put a lot of attention on sort of trying to win the kind of crank vote and appeal to a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

And they put Cash Batel and Dan Bungino in these positions of authority, two people that espouse some version of

conspiracy theories, which at this point I think are true, about Epstein and about QAnon,

claiming there's a vast global pedophilia ring run by the powerful and the elite.

And the next thing we know, Donald Trump is president, and they are laying out the red carpet for one of the most

notorious sex traffickers in American history at this point,

who participated in terrible crimes for a very long time.

And there's just

no accountability for it.

All these Republicans are silent in the face of it, and it's disgusting.

More importantly, would you guys like to weigh in on the Sidney Sweeney discourse now that we know she is a registered Republican, reportedly, and now that the President of the United States has weighed in on this multiple times.

So it is just a pun on the word jeans.

Yep, it is.

Just a pun.

Just a pun on the word jeans.

Good jeans, but it's not, it could be jeans inherited or it could be jeans that she's wearing.

See, it's funny.

It is a very dumb annoying story.

There's also something to be said about the fact that like, The White House is able to kick this stuff up whenever it wants.

It can be like six people commenting on like a TikTok.

It doesn't have to be a TikTok creator.

It's like, you know, it's like that genre of really annoying internet story.

It's like the internet is furious about this new Sydney Sweeney ad.

And it's like some people commenting over on Blue Sky and suddenly it's an article and suddenly all of the MAGA media ecosystem is talking about it and the White House is releasing statements.

Like, when do we get to do that?

Yeah.

It's also there's a stopover, though, with, you know, random style writers' opinion.

Like it was, there was Washington Post piece about a couple of

things.

So it's like, that's where it starts, and then it goes from there to the Fox, right?

And then they're all talking about on the five, and then it goes to Donald Trump.

It's like a whole.

Well, we made we made a commenter president.

I mean, that's the problem.

He is one of the commenters beneath the story, but he also happens.

He's the commenter.

Yeah, he's America's chief commenter.

I will say the woke Jaguar ads.

So why are they woke and what are they?

Well, first of all, I just would point out that Jaguar is a British company.

It's not really, I don't think it's been really affected by America's woke problem, according to Trump.

But

they redid their logo and it's very ugly.

And that's for non-woke reasons.

The new Jaguar logo was very bad.

This happened in late 2024, by the way.

Yeah, it's quite old.

It's quite old.

It's so old.

And everybody was like, hey, you did a bad job on your logo.

This is the other problem with Trump is like, we've lost all sense of time, whether we've done this thing before.

Have we already seen this episode?

Are we back to the episode?

When did the Jaguar thing happen?

He's talking about Taylor Swift again.

What is happening?

Do you need the person who just like, you know,

that Dylan Mulvaney, what a brave person.

I find what she's doing really interesting and I like her.

I'm going to send her a six pack of Bud Light.

Do you think that person knew that two and a half years later, the president of the United States was going to be like, that fucking Bud Light's got to be stopped?

Yeah, and like there's going to be kid rock, like machine gunning Bud Light cans or something.

Anyway.

That's Sidney Sweeney.

That's what we're dealing with now.

This is day day 13 or 14 of the Discourse.

Let's see.

Let's see how long we can do.

And she was pardoned for her involvement in January 6th.

That's one of the reasons this is so controversial, or is it just the ad?

I can't remember.

She is in the Epscene 5.

All right, two quick things before we go to break.

After unsuccessfully seeking asylum in Canada, Lovett is back.

There's new shows at Dynasty Typewriter this Thursday, August 7th, along with you guys have special guests.

You have Ken Jennings?

Ken Jennings and Amy Schneider to Jeopardy Legends, plus Tim Heidecker.

That's awesome.

I didn't realize he said yes.

I'm finding out from this.

We had a great show out this weekend with Patton Oswald and Alice Wetterlin and Peppermint and Ashley Nicole Black.

I also, we put the mono from the monologue from Love Relieve It on the Ponte of America.

We just call it mono now.

Is that just like

the street term?

It's our internal term for it.

I'm sorry.

Now I'm embarrassed.

I couldn't name it after a disease that puts you out of

the kissing disease term?

Has the kissing disease come for you?

Six-month nap.

Remember when we both got mono at the same time?

That was weird.

I have never had mono.

Okay.

all right, all right, calm down, calm down.

We never had mono.

You got it.

You got it, buddy.

Mics are on.

Never had mono.

She was down for the cat.

Yeah, just two weeks off.

Very tired.

Pre-COVID.

Anyway, but

I was really proud of the monologue we did this week because we talked about Epstein and we talked about Gaza and talked about all the conspiracy theories, which is on the Ponte of America feed if you want to check it out.

Crooked.com slash events.

If you want to go see Love It in person at Dynasty Typewriter.

Also, a reminder: speaking of events, we announced our first ever Crooked Con last week, and tickets are already going fast.

Crooked Con is a chance to hear from smart people inside and outside the Crooked Universe about how to galvanize the pro-democracy movement, as if it needs galvanizing.

We'll be in Washington, D.C.

for two days.

We're going to kick things off with Pod Save America Live at the Warner Theater on Thursday, November 6th.

Then on Friday, November 7th, we'll be at the Wharf.

The Wharf.

Anyway, it's going to be really fun.

We're going to have organizers, strategists, politicians that aren't annoying.

James Talrica is going to show up with his clothes on a bindle because he's been on the road.

Riding the rail to DC.

Oh, man.

If they can make it till then, we will give them, well, we won't pay them because we don't want to do any of the felony stuff.

But, you know, we'll give them food and water.

I think legally it has to be finger food.

You're going to give them commodities.

Anyway, hold on till then, guys.

Lobbying-wise, I think you can sit, you can't eat, but if you're standing, it's a single-time.

We'll invite our families so they can say hi to their families.

I haven't seen them in a couple months.

Everybody gets one phone call.

Tickets are on sale now.

Head to crookedcon.com for tickets, lineup announcements in the coming weeks, and more.

That's C-R-O-O-K-E-D-C-O-N.com.

We've also got a limited amount of discounted tickets when you use the code FREEDOM and Content.

Again, that's one word, all caps, freedom and content.

So get your tickets soon and we'll see you there.

That's our show for today.

Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday.

Talk to everybody then.

If you want to listen to Pod Safe America ad-free or get access to our subscriber Discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our Friends of the Pod community at crooked.com slash friends or subscribe on Apple Podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed.

Also, please consider leaving us a review to help boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked.

Pod Save America is a crooked media production.

Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illick Frank, and Saul Rubin.

Our associate producer is Farah Safari.

Austin Fisher is our senior producer.

Reed Sherlin is our executive editor.

Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics.

The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglund and Charlotte Landis.

Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant.

Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hefcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Pelavieve, David Toles, and Ryan Young.

Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

Hi there, it's Andy Richter and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, The Three Questions with Andy Richter.

Each week I invite friends, comedians, actors, and musicians to discuss these three questions.

Where do you come from?

Where are you going?

And what have you learned?

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bow and Ted Danson, Tig Nataro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more.

You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call-In Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.

Listen to the three questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach?

Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.

With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications.

Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely, and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place.

Sign up for Green Light today at greenlight.com slash podcast.