Will the Trump Presidential Library Have an Impeachment Section?

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, no, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with a class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Yeah.

Aka Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

I'm Isaac Dover, and this week on Radio Atlantic, I sat down with Tom Steyer.

You may know Steyer now as one of the billionaires running in the Democratic presidential race, but he's been funding grassroots organizing efforts for years.

First on climate change, then on mobilizing young people, and in these past two years, on impeachment.

He's brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice at the FBI, and in direct violation of the Constitution, he's taken money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news organizations that report the truth.

If that isn't a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become?

That's Tom Steyer in an ad he started running in October of 2017.

His group, Need to Impeach, spent millions of dollars running ads across the country over the last two years, and it claims now over 8 million members, which for comparison's sake is 3 million more than the NRA.

Steyer was out front on impeachment, and with his money and organizing, he's been a real factor in making impeachment a constant topic in politics long before Trump called the President of Ukraine.

and asked for a favor.

The two of us were in Los Angeles for Thursday's Democratic debate.

With the House voting on impeachment the day before, we wanted to talk with him about this moment and what it meant in history.

So we asked him to meet me at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, about an hour outside of town in Yorbelinda.

This was another weird day in the life of being a political reporter.

Richard Nixon, on the day the President of the United States was being impeached, with the guy who helped lead the impeachment campaign.

They, and I'm not joking, wouldn't let us record around the Nixon exhibits themselves, though they were nice enough to give us a room to do the interview in.

So we took a walk around the museum right before we started.

There's a scale model of the Oval Office.

He wouldn't quite go for it when I asked if he wanted to sit down in the chair behind the desk.

We watched the video of Nixon's farewell speech.

Steyer was talking back at the screen, saying, baloney, baloney, a few times.

And of course, we spent some time in the Watergate exhibit.

We sat down right after, just as the House was debating impeachment.

We talked about his thoughts on on the vote, his decision to run himself, and about some fascinating family history that's motivated him through all of this.

Take a listen.

Well, so let's just start with, we're sitting here

at the Nixon Library.

Donald Trump will be impeached today.

What goes through your head with all of that?

Look, my opinion about

Trump is that

the articles of impeachment, as you know, are very limited.

You had a much longer list that you wanted it to be.

Look, I just think there is a much longer list.

I think that there's

a pattern of both corruption and obstruction that goes back, you know, virtually to the very first day of his presidency.

And,

you know, it's hard

to miss.

And I think that

when you see that kind of corruption, then you know that it's not an isolated incident and it's not an isolated incident.

And I think if you look at the Nixon record,

you see the same thing, that there were some good things that happened, but there was a pattern of corruption that came out in a break into the Democratic National Committee.

But then it opened up this whole,

I don't know what the right metaphor is, picking up a rock and seeing all the bugs under it.

You know, obviously there's a 50-year,

you know,

I think it's an official, I'm not sure of the exact act, but there's a official secrets act where information is kept confidential for 50 years.

We're getting there.

Yeah.

And I don't know if you've heard, but I've listened to a few of the tapes.

I haven't done, I'm sure there are a whole bunch of tapes.

I listened to a few of them because they were considered to be shocking, and they were shocking.

Aaron Powell,

is there a sense of with Trump being impeached, this is something you were working toward for a long time?

Is it a feeling of at least we got to this even if it's not the full impeachment list that you'd want?

Is it satisfaction?

Is it...

Well, I think, you know, the whole point about

impeachment of this president is about rule of law

and the will of the American people being respected.

I mean, obviously, I started, I didn't start arguing and yelling about this.

I started a petition drive so the American people's voice could be heard.

And that's how I see it, is I've always felt this was an issue of would the will and voice of the American people be heard?

And I still think that's the case.

Would the facts be put on TV in front of them?

And obviously since this president has not allowed anyone from his administration, even former members of administration, to testify, in fact, there's been a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.

We were talking about that, that there was testimony from people in the White House.

We know about the famous missing tape portion because of something that came out in testimony, and that's not something that has happened with the Trump administration.

It's not just something that hasn't happened, it's been deliberately prevented from happening.

That in fact,

President Nixon allowed his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, and his deputy chief of staff, John Ehrlichman, to testify along with everybody else.

And so, you know, the White House lawyer was John Dean.

So that there were a bunch of people under oath in front of the Senate being grilled by a body that was bipartisan, where people were trying to get to the truth.

And the staff was also bipartisan.

So in effect, the system worked.

As much as there was trust me, intense political competition in the country in 1974.

There was also a sense of putting the country and the Constitution ahead of partisanship.

You know, famously, the Republicans shifted.

Now, did they shift because the public shifted?

Actually, the public move on this has been very comparable to what happened in 1974.

But the Republican reaction has been completely different.

You know, I think...

I listened to some of the speeches on NPR today on both sides, and I will say the histrionics were extreme.

I asked you as we were walking through for what your memories were of Nixon at the time.

I wonder if you can talk a little bit about that now.

When it felt to you that there was something wrong with the Nixon presidency, you were young, right?

But

you sort of came of age.

as the presidency.

You were 11 when he was elected.

For anybody who was born after Watergate, which includes me,

it's a closed historical incident that just all happened sort of as one thing.

But it wasn't that.

It was what we were, what you were living through in the same way.

This was the guy who was prolonging the war.

This was a guy who was expanding the war.

This is a guy who's secretly moving the war into places that he had no congressional approval to do in Laos and Cambodia.

This was

a guy who,

I mean,

it's hard to overestimate how much American society was broken down on generational,

on general basis.

Vietnam was a huge rift in America in terms of how people felt about it.

So was civil rights.

So are we, is it, how does it compare?

Are we more torn apart now?

Well, nobody's, you know, we have seen, let's be clear, we are seeing political violence in this country.

I mean, because that's exactly what happened in El Paso.

That's what happened, you know, we're seeing, that's what happened at Mother Emmanuel Church.

That's what happened at Tree of Life.

You know, we're seeing political violence.

We're not seeing political violence on the same scale.

It doesn't seem as if we're seeing organized political violence and we haven't seen assassinations.

But we're see so you know, I would say, no, it was much,

much more raw

in 1968 than it is.

I mean, good grief.

Come on.

But I mean, there is is a sense, I think, clearly in the United States, of people talking across a big divide.

If you listen to those speeches in the House today,

it literally could, they could have been describing completely different incidents.

Yeah.

Which is

very strange.

There was no sense of, you made a good point, Isaac, but here's why I think that there's a better point to be made or a more important point.

No, it was like, whatever you said is 100% false.

Now let me tell you something completely different that's 100% true.

That's a divide.

And that's a divide that's different.

I feel like in the 60s, and again, I didn't live through them, but

that the country was at each other's throats,

but they could sort of, people could agree,

this is my hand around your throat and your hand around my throat.

And now it's a different kind of argument that we're having, where it's not even, you can't even have the argument because you're just talking past each other.

But you know, that makes it, you know, Isaac, if you may excuse me for saying so, I think that that sounds to me like

false equivalence.

Because you're saying, oh, that they're people talking differently, and there's an implication in that framework that they're equivalently accurate and equivalently well-intentioned.

And I just don't believe it.

Look,

you're right to be on the

other side.

That's not what I meant by it.

There's a group who are not telling the truth, who are obscuring the fact, who are breaking, going against the Constitution, who are acting on a partisan basis

in a way that I believe will hurt the nation.

And that's completely different.

And if I may say so, on civil rights, there was a group that was right and there was a group that was wrong.

And they both held their opinions fervently.

And if you look at Vietnam, it turns out there was a group that was right and there was a group that was wrong.

And they both held their opinions fervently.

And I believe that's the case here.

Is that, in fact,

you know that that's exactly why I started needing to impeach?

There was a right and a wrong,

and the fact that the people disagreed fervently didn't make them right.

And that's my point:

you know what?

It's not that different from the 60s in that way.

That there was a fervent.

Look, the Civil War was a difference of opinion, too.

But there was a right and a wrong.

And you know, as I would like to say, don't be wrong on the key moral issue of your generation.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

When we come back, I asked Steyer about his father's work as a lawyer in the Nuremberg trials and how that's motivated his activism ever since.

Stay tuned.

Hey there, I'm Claudina Bade, and I lead the audio team here at The Atlantic.

I think a lot about what makes great audio journalism.

It commands your attention, but isn't noisy.

It brings you closer to the subject, but leaves room for you to make up your own mind.

And when you hear someone tell their story in their own voice, you understand it in a deeper way.

When you subscribe to The Atlantic, you'll be supporting this kind of journalism.

You'll also enjoy new benefits just for Atlantic subscribers on Apple Podcasts.

Think ad-free episodes of our shows and subscriber-only audio articles.

To join us, go to theatlantic.com/slash listener.

That's theatlantic.com/slash listener.

If you're already a subscriber, thanks.

You can head to the Atlantic's channel page on Apple Podcasts and start listening right now.

I want to talk about your father a little bit, who is someone that you have started talking more about on the trail, the experience that he had early in his career.

Talk about that a little bit.

We have to understand, my parents were born, my father was born in 1918, my mother was born in 1924.

And they came from a,

both of them

a simple attitude about truth and decency

and a real sense that there's right and there's wrong.

They didn't have, my parents did not have a lot of moral ambiguity.

That's how they raised you guys.

Yeah.

And so my father did, you know, he,

what I've said is, which is, you know, my dad graduated from law school at 21.

So that means he had to have graduated from college at 18.

So he was hustled through school and then he became a lawyer.

Because he was smart or because they were trying to save him money?

It was free.

It's public school.

They weren't saving any money.

Probably the public school was trying to save money.

No, because he was doing well in school and they felt like, you know, why have him in the third grade?

We can stick him into the fourth grade.

So maybe they were trying to save money.

But

so what that meant was he became a lawyer and then he left to go in the Navy because everybody

Not just my family, but every family in World War II felt like guys felt like and it was more men than women, but I'm sure women felt it too.

It changed American society.

But people felt like there's something going on here.

People have to show up to do the right thing.

And my father felt that really strongly.

And he, the service that he could get into with bad eyes was the Navy.

So he went into that as a naval officer.

And then at the end of the war, because

he was already a lawyer, and because he'd got, I'm sure, because he had high grades in law school,

they sent him over to Nuremberg to be the assistant to the chief prosecutor.

What did that entail?

What was that?

It really meant, I think,

doing a lot of interviews.

I think the first Nuremberg trial, which he was associated with, took about a year.

And they basically only tried about 26 of the most senior Nazis.

It was a show trial.

It was to show the world that, you know, you can't commit massive war crimes and kill millions of innocent people, that it wasn't war, that they were waging war on civilians, and that they were doing all kinds of things that had nothing to do with what you would think of as war or the the limits of how we understood it.

Did he talk about that when you were a kid?

No, but he because to me

it wasn't he my father didn't talk about anything.

Yeah.

He was just a reserve guy.

Yeah, I don't know if it I think that was generational too.

The few things he said were

these were terrible, terrible, terrible people doing terrible, terrible things and then lying about it.

And the lies were absolutely not credible.

And so, and I think his point, and I think the point of a lot of the subsequent history was

people didn't really stand up to them, that they got in and then people accommodated to them because it turned out that accommodating to them made sense.

And so there was this, you know, it wasn't, it was not something that happened overnight.

It was a process within Germany.

And his point was, you can never accommodate to these people.

You can never go along with these people for a second.

I mean, I just imagine a guy who was

a young Jewish lawyer in Nuremberg

with these Nazis, just such a searing thing for him.

But, you know, but that isn't probably how my dad saw it.

My problem, dad probably just saw it as right and wrong.

That like, here are some people who've done really, really, really terrible things, and I'm a lawyer, and we're holding them to account, and they're sitting here lying to my face.

Not going to let them get away with it.

But, you know, but the thing about my dad in this was

this was not an isolate, you know, this was an extreme example of how my parents felt about right and wrong.

Look, the reason that they, I can remember very clearly their reaction to Watergate.

President lied to the American people, has to go.

Full stop.

Done.

No conversation.

He lied to the American people.

He has to go.

Can't do it.

That's absolutely unacceptable.

It's not partly unacceptable.

Explain to me how it happened.

Oh, I forgive you.

No.

President lied to the American people.

He has to go.

Over.

Like, there's no excuse.

By that standard, did Bill Clinton have to go?

No.

In fact, I talked to, the funny thing is, I talked to my mother during the Clinton impeachment, and she said, he's a good man.

They're trying to railroad him.

But he lied.

And she said, he's a good man, and they're trying to railroad him.

I'm just telling you, I had that very conversation with my mother.

Did you say, but he lied

down the heart?

I said, mom, what do you think?

She's like, he's a good man, and they're trying to railroad him.

I said, are you worried at all about it?

No, absolutely not.

It's a good president trying to do the right thing.

These people are just trying to railroad him.

That would seem like a shifting of principle.

But it's the exact same shift.

The American people met.

Because if you went back to 1974, my mom and father were absolutely in the heart of American public opinion, which was he lied, he has to go.

And in 1990, whatever it was, 1998, my mom was absolutely in the heart of public opinion, which is he's a good man and a good president, and they're trying to railroad him.

So

it really is.

She was absolutely American in both instances, Isaac.

When you start talking about your father, Simon Nuremberg, is it because of Trump?

Is that what brought it out and you?

Because that it does

also, I think, is an expression of

who he was.

It's a story that says who he was, which is he's somebody who was both value-driven

and patriotic.

Do you remember the process that led you to starting Need to Impeach?

Not specifically.

I remember thinking, I came out for impeachment before Need to Impeach.

Yeah.

The issue to me.

Which is like early in 2017.

Look, I've said repeatedly, as far as I'm concerned, there is a pattern of corruption and obstruction that started on the first day.

And the House has only brought forward very limited articles of impeachment, specifically around the Ukraine incident.

But there was a pattern

of corruption and obstruction that began the very first day of his presidency.

And it's been consistent.

The Ukraine is very consistent with it.

His obstruction obstruction

of information about the Ukraine has been they're trying him.

Part of the defense obstruction about a case of obstruction.

Right.

And part of the defense that has come up for him is people saying, well, like, you know, this is how the president does things.

Right?

Do they say that?

Some Republicans say that, yeah.

Well, this is how he talks to people.

This is, this is what it is for him.

So what are we making such a big deal out of it?

Well, that's, you know, unconsciously ironic because obviously it's extremely corrupt and that is how he does things and they're right.

It's just not

a defense to say but he's always corrupt.

That's how he does stuff.

It's like, yeah, exactly my point.

They agree with me in other words.

Or they're like, this is how you do it in business.

You know something about business.

Is that how you do it in business?

If you're a criminal,

that is how you do it in business, which is my point.

Look, I don't need to speculate about

his intentions.

What I can see for sure are his deeds.

And I can see its consistent pattern.

And I can see that he,

you know, you can call it breaking the rules.

Those rules are what we call the law.

Those rules are what we call the Constitution.

Those rules are what we call his oath of office.

So, you know, we can say he's breaking the rules like, you know, he's a truant who's showing up late to school because he's smoking cigarettes.

But actually what he's doing is breaking his oath of office to the American people consistently, putting himself ahead of his responsibilities and his obligations.

And so,

look, it's not a close call.

This is not a close call.

And so need to impeach.

You were already for impeachment.

You start it because you want to get the mobilization for this.

This is about the American people.

This has always been about the American people.

American politics is about the American people.

I'm a grassroots person.

You know, if you look at what I've done for the last 10 years, it's organize people to be registered and vote, to organize around ideas, to fight against unchecked corporate power.

It's people, but it's always trying to get power to the people away from what I would think of as corrupt elites, which, by the way, has turned out to be true.

And so, and that's the case here.

It's really trying to get the voice and power to the American people against a corrupt elite.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I feel like it is fair to say that you,

I've said this to you before, I've written this, that you helped create the

impeachment as an idea that was sort of normalized in people's minds, that it was something that to be considered through the work and the investment that you put into it and the advertising, the mailers, and the campaign that you did.

Does it feel that way, that this impeachment, that Trump being impeached,

has something to do with you pushing it through?

I don't think it has to do with the 8 million people who signed the petition.

Signed a petition of a group that you started and were mobilized by

50 town halls to talk to people.

Look, Isaac, I felt, and I think millions of people felt exactly the same way I did, that we weren't being listened to.

That Washington, D.C.

viewed corruption as

political expedient, opposing it was about being politically expedient, not right and wrong.

Look,

without the rule of law, this country doesn't work.

I don't know how many people in Congress and the Senate have traveled around the world and see how the world works when there isn't a rule of law.

But I can tell you, in those countries, you don't want to live.

And those are countries where, in fact,

the president of the country uses his presidency to enrich almost always himself.

And people have...

Yeah, there aren't many examples of female presidents.

Some.

I guess the president of Brazil, the former president, yeah.

There have been some.

But I'm just saying.

You know, and people don't, and people think that somehow that's not expensive.

That's unbelievably expensive.

You know, it is, and it never ends.

There is never a limit to the appetite, and there is never a limit to the cost.

And it's not, you know, that is not what we want in the United States of America, full stop under any circumstance.

And when we see it, we should be fighting back against it.

How do you think we should remember Donald Trump?

How do you think we will?

It ain't over.

Honestly, it ain't over.

Does it concern you to see this feeling of the sort of glorification of Richard Nixon to think that that could be Donald Trump?

Well, I think that to be fair to the people who set up this library, there's a big thing about Watergate here.

I mean, I would say of this library, at least a third of it's about Watergate.

And in terms of the time of his life, he lived 80 plus years, and that was maximum two.

Yeah.

Honestly.

So there's

if you think about what Nixon is remembered for,

I mean, that might be the thing he's most remembered for.

I mean, he opened up China.

I told you he signed the EPA and Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

He

devised the Southern Strategy for the Republican Party, which has turned out to be a particularly noxious idea.

and devastating to the United States.

He expanded the war illegally and

appears to have tried to prevent it from being ended for his own personal political reasons.

So he's done a lot of different things, but what people remember for is Watergate.

You're okay with that?

Well, you know,

I think Watergate actually was

symptomatic of something about Richard Nixon that was true, that was corrupt.

that that may not the break into the DNZ and the cover cover-up may not have been the most corrupt thing he ever did In fact, it's pretty clear that it wasn't, but it was symptomatic of an attitude.

And so do I think that there were other parts to Richard Nixon's life that were much more

exemplary and positive?

Yes.

But what I think is the same thing.

Do you think that you can say that about Donald Trump?

Well, you know, honestly, it's hard for me to see a single thing he does that I agree with.

And people have asked me that, and he signed a

bill to reduce anything.

He signed a bill to reduce sentencing this year.

The First Step Act, yeah.

Right.

So I thought that, and people ask, what do I agree with?

I agreed with that.

Yeah.

I want to just talk briefly about how you made that decision

to run for president in the atmosphere of all this.

You had been working on need to impeach since the fall of 2017.

You'd done a lot of work in the midterms in 2018.

You were on the verge of running the beginning of this year, had a trip to Iowa that then ended up being a trip to Iowa, which you announced you weren't running.

And then at the end of June, you decided, no, I actually have to run.

And then announced in July.

What is it that makes it so that you felt like at that moment you had to get in it?

You were the first of the late entrants, right?

That's a fair way to put it.

I think that's right.

Yeah.

Like there's you and

Patrick and Michael.

But a lot earlier.

A lot earlier.

Right.

You were in July, they were in November.

I was worried that no one was leveling with the people in the United States.

I was worried no one, you know, I thought there was a lot of, I watched the debates, I thought there's a lot of policy discussion here about important differences, but no discussion about the fact that this government's broken and all this is

out of reach until we get back government of Biden for the people.

And I felt we have to have that conversation.

We have to have that conversation.

And also, there is no one in this race who has a chance to win who's going to make climate their first priority.

Jay Ainsley was in the race, but he had been in the race for a long time.

He was polling at around 1%.

He got out about a month after you got in.

Yes.

And I think I felt like

I know Jay, respect Jay, admire Jay, thought that he you know, maybe he would in fact catch fire and be have a real chance to make his case.

But it didn't seem like that was likely, honestly.

And I'm not trying to be, I don't mean in any way to denigrate the way he ran his.

He dropped out of the race the month after you got in.

It wasn't just because of you.

No.

I mean, I was.

The campaign wasn't working.

Right.

At the beginning of the year, I thought, you know, I thought, okay, there's everybody and is

his brother and her sister are running.

And so there's no need for me to do this.

that you know someone's going to show up and is going to be talking about what's really going on And so I can just

do what I'm doing.

A bunch of grassroots work.

And then I felt like, no, people are, you know, there is something going on here that's not being discussed.

And it's absolutely essential.

And we honestly can't afford not to have, this is going to turn out.

Look, I think the way we know this is a generational change election is turnout.

If the turnout's normal, it's not a generational change election.

It's an election.

But everything leads me to believe this will be a generational change election and the turnout will be gigantic because

people are really upset and people think on both sides that the other side really doesn't understand what's going on in the world in a real way.

The

political ramifications of this are impossible to guess from impeachment how it'll play out.

But I do think that what we can say is that it's going to move to the Senate and there are not the votes there to remove the president from office.

Does that concern you?

Does it concern you what happens when he is acquitted by the Senate?

Look, my

desire in this whole thing always was for televised public hearings so the American people could make up our mind and get the information.

You got like part of what you wanted.

There were televised hearings, but not to the extent that you wanted.

Not even close.

Right.

That in fact, if you think about the Watergate hearings, what percent of the people who testified and which important people who testified were prevented from testifying in this case?

All of them.

Yeah.

All of them.

So in effect,

we didn't get what I was asking for.

The American people still, in some polls, over half of them want them impeached and removed.

But it was on a schedule.

But I think it's also something where...

That doesn't mean the House shouldn't have done what it did.

It absolutely should have.

And, you know, I believe if the American people look at this and they that these Republican senators are going to be doing something they're going to live with for the rest of their life.

And history is going to make up its mind.

And as I, you know, in 1974,

what was it?

Was I don't know what the right number was, but maybe 55% or 60% of Americans want Richard Nixon impeached and removed.

Today, 99% think he was guilty.

You know, I think in 1998, something like 30% of Americans wanted

Bill Clinton impeached and removed.

Now it's probably 1%.

It's like it doesn't stay.

History comes out at a different place.

But you're confident history is going to come out in your place.

Yes.

It's not a close.

Isaac, this is not a close call.

This is not a, you know, hair's breadth, hair's trigger call here.

This is a straightforward question about facts.

And it's a, it's a...

It's a very, very consistent history that people are going to look at

when all the emotion is stripped away and all the histrionics and all the screaming and yelling people are going to look at the facts and go are you kidding me really

look everybody in america is sick of this

everybody in america is sick of this division and it's you know honestly but i do want to say this is a false equivalence between these sides There is a false equivalence.

There is a right and wrong here.

And the people who, it's very clear.

And the history is going to be very clear about that.

No, and it's, I mean, I was trying to to say this before, it's a hard thing for reporters to deal with when there are people who are saying things that are factually not true, which is often what is coming out of

Republican members of the House and out of the president's mouth.

And how you handle that when it's being

said in a way

that is not

anything but adamant.

And

so it can...

But the natural instinct for a lot lot of reporters is to this one, to that one, and it's not the right thing to do.

Because that absolutely miscasts the facts.

And we've seen it in so many instances.

As somebody who's been working on climate for so long, it's like saying, one person says, you know, that the sun came up this morning and the other person says it didn't.

Well, it's like, no, actually the sun came up this morning.

So saying that there's someone who didn't say it implies that it's kind of, well, it's anybody's guess.

Well, no, it isn't.

And that's the problem with false equivalents,

this sense of like both sides are partisan and both sides are upset, and there's some equivalence there.

There's no equivalence.

One side is denying the facts, one side is putting partisanship ahead of the country, period.

And over time, everyone's going to figure that out when the screaming ends.

All right.

Tom Steyer, thanks for being here on Radio Atlantic.

Nice to see you, Isaac.

Pleasure.

That'll do it for this week of Radio Atlantic.

Thanks to Kevin Townsend for producing and editing this episode and for driving with me to Yorbelinda.

And to Catherine Wells, the executive producer for Atlantic Podcasts.

Our theme music is the Battle Hymn of the Republic, as interpreted by John Baptiste.

And if you want to support the show and all the work we do here at The Atlantic, the best way is with a subscription.

Just go to theatlantic.com/slash radio.

Subscribe.

Thanks for listening.

We'll be off for the holidays.

We'll catch you next year.