Overtime – Episode #689: Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan

The second half of the basketball season is here and the race to the playoffs continues on PrizePix,

the best daily fantasy sports app to cash in on your favorite sport.

The app is simple.

Pick more or less on at least two players for a shot to win up to a thousand times your cash.

Download the PrizePix app today and use code FIELD and get $50 instantly when you play $5.

That's code FIELD on PrizePix to get $50 instantly when you play $5.

Win or lose, you'll get $50 for just playing.

Guaranteed. PrizePix.
Run your game. Must be present in certain states.
Visit prizepix.com for restrictions and details. Your snacking routine can get a little dull.
Time for an Oikos remix or light and fit remix. Like a crunchy storm of sea salt, praline pretzels, dark chocolate, and butter toffee showering down into a smooth, creamy yogurt.
Enjoy six remix varieties, three Epic Complete Protein Oikos remix options, or three craveable light and fit remix options. See remixyogurt.com.
Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO Late Night series, Real Time with Bill Maher. All right, here we are with the host of the Ezra Klein Show podcast and the co-author of the book Abundance, Ezra Klein.
And he writes the weekly dish newsletter and hosts the podcast, The Dish Cast with Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan.
Okay, here are the questions. Andrew, what do you think of news that British intelligence knew COVID was a lab leak in

2020 and officially ignored their report? Not just knew, added a 95% certainty. Same with the German intelligence service.
March 2020. There's a new book out called COVID's Wake.
I was reading it this last couple of weeks. And the core paper that killed off any idea that this was a lab leak in China, the Proximal Origin paper, which was produced with Fauci and Collins of the NIH and NIAID, helping it along was a lie, a conscious lie, that the people who looked at it, we now have their emails, are saying in the very first days of looking at the virus, this looks very man-made to us.
This is so frigging obvious, this is man-made. So frigging obvious, one of them said.
And then they wrote the report saying there is no evidence that this was made in a lab. The question is, why? Why would they lie to us about that? And they did.
Well, I can give you one answer. The New York Times.
The New York Times said any questioning of this being from a lab was racist, which always struck me as odd because it seems much more racist to go, wow, these people are eating bats. I know.
I mean, it's just one example, but a good example of why people lost faith in the left, because they do stupid things like that. Not to be, and I told you so, but from the very beginning, I was saying, this shouldn't even be political, but it's at least a 50-50 it came from the lab, and that in 50 years, I can't imagine people going, wait, you mean in 2020, there was this thing that escaped from a lab in

Wuhan that... 50th came from the lab and that in 50 years i can't imagine people going wait you mean in 2020 there was this thing that escaped from a lab in wuhan that started in wuhan and there was a lab in wuhan that was studying it and they didn't think that was connected and they blamed it on bats really it just doesn't make any sense it makes a little bit more gaslight people so yes i don't think the Democrats are so much as forward as scientists who went along with this, knowing better.
It's their integrity I'm concerned about to actually lie and distort what they could see with their own eyes because they were afraid of politics. The other question is this.
This lab was a gain-of-function app. That means they were creating viruses, dangerous viruses, to figure out how to protect you from them.
This gain-of-function research was always dangerous. Everyone knew it was dangerous.
A long time ago, you go back to 2015, you will find a big meeting in London where they say there's one lab in the world most likely to have a problem with this, Wuhan. Do you know who was the biggest supporter of gain-of-function research for the last 30 years? Anthony Fauci.
Anthony Fauci. Now, remember that name.
There's a reason he was given a pardon back to 2014. There is something very wrong going on here.
Yeah, I also don't think he did it for nefarious reasons. There's an argument to be made.
There's an actual intellectual debate to be had. Should gain-of-function research be done? We want to get ahead of viruses.
The other answer is, the other response would be, it's too dangerous, because if it gets out, it's going to be bad. And that happened but it is a i don't think he's an evil guy like some people do who was trying to get rich off this no no okay he just made the wrong call no he knew from the get-go that the wuhan lab had security levels that were the average of a dentist's office it was they should have been at the highest level imaginable he knew that not only that yeah he, he made the wrong call.
The NIH and NID had helped fund it. So you don't want to go down in history as the person who helped develop the virus that killed millions of people.
You want to go down as the one who saved millions of people. That was at stake, a reputational matter.
Campfire season's back, and that means s'mores. But when you're at home treating yourself, take them over ice with Duncan's S'mores Cold Brew Concentrate.
And suddenly you're always treating yourself. The home with Duncan is where you want to be.
Click or tap the banner to shop now. Hi, this is Debbie, your Blinds.com now and get up to 40% off with minimum purchase.
Blinds.com rules and restrictions may apply. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.
Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name, your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law.
Not available in all states. A piece of a lot of this that seems insane to me is we are now years after, whether man-made or not, one of the worst disasters in human history.
And we are genuinely less prepared for the next one than the last one. It's not one of the worst disasters in human history.
I could name a hundred worst ones. Fair enough.
But it was bad. I didn't enjoy it.
But it was. But I mean.
I mean. Let's not be purple about it.
It was a bad pandemic. Let's put it that way.
A lot, lot worse. As pandemics? Genuinely not my point on this.
I'm happy to see that the Holocaust was worse than the pandemic. I think it's fine.
But in other things, other countries in this country, right, after something terrible happens, you often have these big bipartisan commissions that come up with a bunch of recommendations and try to create preparedness for next time. I sort of agree with you that we've gone way too far on airport security for too long.
But we did a lot on things like biosecurity that made sense and actually did make us safer. And we have learned, we have anti-learned lessons, right? On the one hand, we had amazing success with things like Operation Warp Speed.
And now you've got RFK Jr. running HHS.
On the other hand, a bunch of huge mistakes were made on things like lockdowns, and we're just arguing about them. We haven't put out, say, a new best practices, right? Gain of function research, which y'all were just talking about, it is just an argument.
It's something I try to keep paying attention to, and they haven't come out with strong new guidelines. Bird flu, everybody I read who knows what they're talking about says we are in a terrible

position on bird flu if it actually begins to mutate and make the jump.

We just have never figured out a way to find a policy equilibrium here, as opposed to sort

of keep rehabbing the argument.

The arguments are important.

Because everything gets politicized.

But everything gets politicized.

We don't have the capacity to come to agreements.

It's really bad that we're this unprepared now.

But that's why the integrity of science is so important.

I agree with you.

It's a bad that we're this unprepared now. But that's why the integrity of science is so important.
I agree with you on that. If we don't trust the scientists, who on earth are we going to trust? And I really want to trust them.
I want to trust them. I trusted Fauci during AIDS.
I'm really upset that I don't think I can trust him on this.

We need to have empirical, good, objective search for truth.

Right.

We have to all agree on that.

What I hated was when he said, I am the science.

That is so not what science is.

You're right.

We need to trust the science, which means we needed to hear all of the scientists and not shut out the people who weren't on the page.

That's what bothered me about this.

Okay.

Should we expect to learn anything revelatory from the JFK files just released?

Well, what do you mean expect?

We saw them and we didn't.

Is it time to move on from this conspiracy theory?

Well, I mean, do you think it's a conspiracy theory?

I mean, plainly, there was not a single gunman, right? We all agree on that, no? I mean, that... I have such weak opinions on this.
I decided not to have an opinion on this a long time ago. I mean, such an effort to not...
But the magic bullet. There could not have been a bullet that went through a guy, went around him, came back, went through the other guy, got lunch at the diner, came back, shot him in the back of the head.
I mean, it's just, come on. Everybody heard a shot from the grassy knoll.
I mean... I tell things we care.
I mean, honestly, I'm done with it. I mean, it's...
I don't... I don't think we'll ever know for sure because this was the final news dump.
And if they don't know now, they don't know. But the idea that the CIA is going to now suddenly go, you're right, we had something to do with it, if they did.
I'm not saying they did, but a lot of people wanted them dead. The idea that in the files somewhere, in all these files that they were going to release, and it was going to be this one page that says,

oh, we actually knew the whole time.

Right. It was always a little fanciful.

Yeah. That's why it's a little cruel to actually

give them everything, right? Because they could

always hope that some mystery was there.

Well, what was cruel

is to promote it, like,

it's going to be great, and then it's Al Capone's fault.

The Epstein files came out

all redacted.

What?

The redacted Epstein files are the ones I've always been more interested in.

Was a lot redacted from the Epstein files?

Yeah, it was a lot redacted in the Epstein files.

And what do you think?

I mean, I didn't go through and read them.

I was seeing other people who cared more about this than I did talk about this on social media.

But so long as we're talking about conspiracies, I've always thought that one's pretty weird.

And the Trump administration came in with this big show of releasing the files and then a bunch is blacked out. And they made that one look yet stranger.
Because Trump knew him, you mean, you think? I'm not making any suppositions on this. I'm just saying that when you come in, he makes such a big show of declassification and you're going to tell everybody everything, then it comes out and you don't, it's a little weird.
Right. Well, I always say, whenever there's a guy with a lot of money and you don't quite know how he got it, he's probably some kind of a pimp.
I've seen this before. I mean, that was Epstein's that was Epstein's magic power.
It's like, rich guys want to get laid. And sometimes it's like it's hard because they're famous or they have a wife or, you know.
So, I mean, but really, it's like, honey, I'm just going to have dinner at Epstein's house. He's a big philanthropist.
Yeah, not on the third floor, he wasn't. The U.S.
ranked 24th in the world's happiness index behind much poorer countries like Lithuania and Costa Rica. Why are Americans so happy? Well, go ahead.
Take a shot at it.

I mean, you've got an outside perspective.

Why aren't we happier?

I find the whole idea of happiness a little silly.

I mean, happiness is not...

And how do you measure it?

I know, it's bullshit.

These are polls they do of people that create news stories

and fill in for bad news days.

I mean, that's what this is.

I think so. I don't want's what this is.
I think so. I mean, all of a...

I don't want to live in Finland.

Right.

It's fucking dark and cold.

You can't see it in half a minute. It's freezing.

You're right.

I know.

It's so true.

They're all blissfully happy, but fine.

All right. Go ahead.
I think they're just fucking with us when they take the poll. You're right, it's dark, like pitch black for like two months of the year.
I mean, every meal is fish. It's miserable.
I've watched all those Netflix seasons as well. I mean, I've been in the Nordic countries, you know, like, I mean, you think, oh, it's going to be the Swedish bikini team.
And, you know, if you're there on a Tuesday, it looks like Cleveland. I swear to God.
I mean, they're lovely cities, but I was in Oslo on a Tuesday, and it was just, they weren't even blonde. They weren't even blonde, most of the people.
I was very, I wanted my money back. It was very disappointing.
Where are all the blondes? Okay. Do the controversies surrounding Disney's Snow White remake show that we are still in the thick of the culture wars? Oh, have we been following the Snow White? Actually, the first time I'm hearing of this.
Really? No. Yeah.
Okay. Good for you.
Well, the two stars are Gal Gadot. I'm happy for you.
Who, she was in the Israeli Defense Forces. She's Israeli.
And then Rachel Zegler plays Snow White. I think Gal plays the, I don't, I was not a child, so I don't follow that.
I don't know fairy tales. I never read comic books.
But something is.

Is this the one with the poison apple and the whatever it is? Yeah, it's the witchy. Okay, so they're in.
And Rachel Zegler, being 23 or whatever she is, like so many kids raised on TikTok, she's all for Infantata is the only global solution. So the two stars hate each other.
and then they couldn't put dwarfs because this is just so typical of the left. The progressives always finding a way to find their way back to doing something not progressive.
You'd think the most progressive thing would be get people jobs. And dwarfs want to work.
and he's just like a

golden dwarves want to work. He's like a stolen employment opportunity for dwarves.
There's not that many scripts that come down the pike. Not only seven of them.
Oh, and there's seven dwarf jobs here. But because, I think it was Peter Dinklage said, this is, you know, this is not right.

This is demeaning.

And they were like, what?

We just want to work.

We're dwarves.

So, ho, ho, ho.

Anyway, that's the... All right.

Does SpaceX rescuing the astronauts mean that we will privatize space travel?

Didn't we already?

I thought we did, yeah. What the fuck question is that? This guy's really out of it.
Do you agree with Bernie Sanders that progressives should shed the Democratic label and run as independents instead? Is that what he's saying now? Should they aim to be angry moderates? I think it would be good not for all Democrats to shed the label of Democrats, but I think they should, more people should run as independents in more places. Dan Osborne in Nebraska, that was a great race.
And it makes sense. And I mean, one of the ways that we've destroyed party competition in this country is that in a bunch of states, they either find the right so repugnant, I think at the moment for me, understandably, or the left so repugnant.

There actually is no competition. So having people run as independents and be able to make an argument outside of the party label, it makes sense.
I would like to see a lot of political donors are functionally counterproductive. I think creating the infrastructure for independent competition in states that are otherwise one-party control would actually be a great use of political philanthropy.
Okay. The thing I like, and we're just about to get it in D.C., is ranked choice voting.
One, two, three. You actually show people that you don't like this nutter, but you'd rather this nutter than that one.
So you give them a little priority and as the people, as the candidates fall out, when they get looked, they then contribute their vote to the next one. So you get a consensus candidate.
Is that a jungle? That's how we got Eric Adams in New York and it's really terrible. Can't blame it on ranked choice voting.
Is that a jungle primary? Is that what they call a jungle? No, a jungle primary is different. California's jungle primary, right? What does that mean? Jungle primary, I think, is that you have a bunch of people running, and the top two vote-getters, no matter what party they are, then have a runoff.
So that's how you get a general election in California. You have two Democrats running against each other.
Ranked choice is that the general election, you can have a lot of different candidates going, or in a primary, you can have a lot of different candidates,

and you're ranking through them.

So if you have people who are consensus,

like if everybody has kind of the same second choice,

but people are split between like three more extreme first choices,

you might get that second consensus candidate as the winner.

For the Eric Adams joke, ranked choice voting is a good idea.

We should do it.

Okay, Eric.

Thank you, everybody.

I appreciate it.

Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10.

Or watch them anytime on HBO On Demand.

For more information, log on to HBO.com.