Slate's Political Gabfest - DP [Hearts] MB

gistfile1.txt

Hello and welcome to the Slate political gabfest for November 14th, 2019. The DP Arts MB addition. I am said DP David Plots of Atlas obscura joining me from New Haven is Emily bazelon of Yale University of not New Haven's Boston, but that's right off to New Haven, but she's in New England New England. It's just like a one

 Small region up there. Hello Emily bazelon of Yale the New York Times magazine. Hello and chuckling in his usual warm specifically way is John Dickerson of cbs's 60 minutes from New York. Hello John. Hello to John. Did you sleep out last night for covenant house? That's tonight. You're sleeping out tonight. Yeah. Is there a way that people could hear this and still support it? Oh, you're so sweet. Yeah. I mean, I guess if they just go to my Twitter page, it's the PIN.

 and tweet and that'll take you to the donors choose website where they can donate people have been extremely generous and it's been really lovely to see

 on today's gabfest will the first public impeachment hearing change the debate about impeachment then be still my Beating Heart Michael Bloomberg Michael. If I like to call them is preparing to run for president as is Deval Patrick who I don't call anything at all. Then the Supreme Court seems ready to endorse to support to validate. The president's plan to end Dhaka the dreamers.

 I'm that going to happen. Is that a legit decision from the court? If it does come plus we'll have cocktail chatter.

 On Wednesday, we saw the first public hearings in the impeachment investigation by the House of Representatives of President Trump the house intelligence committee chaired by Adam Schiff.

 Held the first hearings at the invited Bill Taylor and George can't to testify publicly. What were the highlights Emily? Well, there were two new pieces of information important. I would say pieces of information from Bill Taylor one was that an aid of his who I think now the Democrats are trying to schedule to testify that this Aid overheard a phone call between Gordon Sandlin the ambassador to the EU and

 President Trump this is the day after Trump's call Whistlin ski and on the overheard phone call Trump is asking Sandlin about this hope he has that the ukrainians are going to investigate Joe Biden and his son and so it seems like confirmation that this is really what's on Trump's mind as he's withholding. The military aid. The second piece of information is that the ukrainians were aware that this military aid was being held up as they were trying to figure out.

 What to do and how to handle the pressure they were getting from Trump and Giuliani, I think we already knew that that time line was falling into place. The ukrainians had this knowledge of the withheld military aid earlier and maybe John will remember which other witness told us that but I felt like that defense that Trump and his allies to put out there as already been falling apart. And so just to play it out. The defense was well, this couldn't have been a real pressure campaign because ukrainians didn't even know.

 They weren't receiving this Aid. It seems like that is just not the case. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so first of all we should step back and remind ourselves where we were last week because even this line of argument I think Emily correct me if I'm wrong slots into a weird defense and Slots into the defense that if it didn't happen and if Ukraine didn't know about it, it wasn't illegal or it wasn't wrong various stages. Ukraine doesn't need to know that the president is doing what's alleged if the president is doing.

 What's alleged in they just hasn't gotten to that point in the in the activity. So that's just one one quick thing about this. Another important thing is that there is Jim Jordan the congressman from Ohio is said who made the case that Emily outline just now has said, you know, the investigation was never launched what wasn't launched was the announcement of the investigation. There's been testimony or there will be testimony and there's been reporting that in fact, the announcement was about to be made that an interview between the Ukraine president.

 And freed sakaki on CNN was actually scheduled and he was going to announce this and then because the aid started to flow that interview was canceled. But on the phone call with the president that summarized in what the president calls the transcript the Ukraine president promises to do the investigation. So in fact, he did make a promise to the president that he would do the investigation. So when Congressman Jordan says that the invest there was no investigation while he had promised the president that it would exist, but what the whole the wrangling was about and what the Democrats point to is.

 The wrangling was about making a public announcement about this which they argue was actually more important to the president because he wasn't genuinely interested in a corruption investigation. He was interested in at a public statement that would hurt Joe Biden in the context of the presidential campaign and and just to go back to the obvious point, which is that attempted extortion and extortion which fails for whatever reason is still an attempted extortion like because just because the full force of it

 Not carried through it is still an attempted extortion and and in fact for Ukrainian soldiers who died during the period when the aid was held up you could argue with a life-or-death decision. It may have been that that Aid and equipment and training that might have saved lives among the Ukrainian Army. We're lost because this was held up for time. It's not enough to say there's no the quid pro quo didn't wasn't carried forward. I mean, I think it also matters that the reason this extortion plot fell apart was

 not that Trump had a change of heart and suddenly thought oh my God. What am I doing? I can't abuse my power in this way. The reason it fell apart was that they started getting caught and Congress got really mad that this Aid that they had authorized was being withheld and it started to Rattle The Diplomatic Corps so much that they're you know was a whistleblower complaint. I mean to me and just of assessing the situation that makes a big difference. Yes. So just three things quick things that also got fuzzy to up in the first day of testimony about that.

 R1 is that the aid is Emily just said was authorized by Congress and signed by the president. So if the president was as interested in corruption as his Defenders say there had already been an investigation into Ukrainian corruption, which is a prerequisite for releasing that money. But also the president was in this case he had president has free rein extraordinary rain not total free rein and National Security issues. But in this one, he was constrained by a law that he had already sent and also that there are some of the president's defense Defenders have said well, this is just

 the tailor and can't who testified on Wednesday or just unhappy about the direction and u.s. Foreign policy under Donald Trump. Certainly that's the case you could tell but this isn't just about a dispute over policy. This is about whether a president who is given his power by the people use the power in the service of the national interest or used it in his own private interest and that it seems to me was another thing that got kind of fuzzy it up. It is so maddening to hear this absolute bullshit about the concern about

 Abruption and the president's legitimate concern the pretense. It would be so much better. If everyone were just honest about it all like I'm not saying it would have it would mitigate the crime that was committed or the wrong that was committed against the country but this level of hypocrisy in line about the pretense that other there is an actual attempt to constrain corruption and that's what this Administration is cares about is so it's such an insult to all of us. We all know this is being done for purely political purposes. That is the only

 Only reason it's happening. That's only reason anyone cares about it. And like let's just come out and say it and just like let's agree that that's why it's being done. And do you decide whether that's an impeachable offense or not? But tip to put this this kind of complete potemkin, excuse up. There is maddening. I think that falsity though is crucial because if you're going to argue that okay this happened but it wasn't worth impeaching you have to hold on to that facade, right and that is where they're going to end up because they the facts

 Going to drive them there.

 Well the the know but they've ended up at the big Mulvaney has already done it. I mean they've already conceded the political piece of it Mulvaney has already said we did it for political reasons and then they took it back right? I mean they keep sort of circling around this but if they give up on the idea of like, oh, this was really about corruption and becomes harder to argue that this was acceptable conduct and we just shouldn't worry about it very much. Well it but there are people this is what's still soaked. So messy is that there are some

 Republicans who say nope. He cared about corruption. This had nothing to do with the Biden's then there are others who say he shouldn't have tried to Target Biden but it's not impeachable. They still haven't gotten the story straight and the president effect on Sunday tweeted to Republicans. Don't don't say there was anything wrong. It was a perfect phone call. There was nothing there was nothing wrong here. I think the problem with the corruption thing is that there's not a large body of evidence showing the president with deep-seated passion for corruption a b if you ask extra on the contrary, there's a ton of evidence that the president

 a deep-seated passion for corruption. It's his special he cares more about corruption than he does about anything else anyway, but I did the actually that was Joe Congressman Heinz his point was not that the president was trying to end corruption, but he was trying to aim corruption. I thought that was a clever clever sound bite but these two witnesses could have been used by Republicans to make the corruption case. In other words. They know quite a lot about corruption in Ukraine and presumably if the president were as interested as his Defenders say

 The two people involved in Ukraine policy would say. Oh, yes. I remember all those meetings. We had at the agency and interagency level where we were told about how much the president cared about corruption and how much he wanted to button back the the oligarchs and I remember but there was no pre-record like that because the present is not shown a broad interest in Ukraine corruption, at least that ever came to them and they would be two people who would who would probably who would probably know about

 It so it does seem it seems to be a post-hoc rationalization. But all Republicans need for their own purposes is a sufficient post hoc rationalization to get through the process. So Emily the Republican strategy seems to be several there several elements, but one key elements that came out on Wednesday was this is all hearsay. This is all hearsay it secondhand.

 We don't know you didn't hear it. You never talk to the president you you're alleging this conspiracy Orchestra by the present you've never talked to him. And and the people you've you're citing some Aid of yours who overheard a conversation really is that all you've got? That's hearsay. What are the problems with that? I mean there's so there's so many problems with it. I think it's actually a fairly effective dilatory stalling rhetorical play, but from a substantive perspective what's wrong with it?

 Well, the main thing is that the people who have the first hand knowledge. The White House is blocking from testifying. So Mick Mulvaney Mike Pompeo or Secretary of State the question of whether John Bolton is going to testify he's kind of playing footsie right now with the idea of like, oh, I need a court order in order to show up. No, he does not need a court order. There's no law or precedent from the Supreme Court suggesting that he can't show up for a congressional subpoena. Now the White House could then try to block

 Certain lines of questions by invoke executive privilege, but that's a different matter. That's about specific questions. Not the idea of showing up at all. So if none of the main players who were talking to President Trump are going to testify then yes, you're going to have this Outer Circle less inner circle of people who had knowledge of what was happening and who become the main Witnesses for it, right? And but and then if you were a Democrat who was in that position because it seems the Democrats are not

 Right now going to pursue the very languorous cork process of forcing people under subpoena to testify or trying to get a quick to order them to testify. What what should the Democrats do about this Republican defense? I mean, I think they should point it out. They should say well if you want the people who were in the room with President Trump, like hand them over we're eager to talk to them. We would love to hear what they have to say. Right? And without that testimony. The question is whether there's enough.

 Damning facts piling up that you don't really need the principles involved to confirm all of it. Right? I mean the Republican defenses. This is a big deal to impeach and remove the president and so we should be hearing from the people in the room. Okay. Well either you give us the people in the room or you're not at that defense becomes less potent because you're the ones who are preventing us from hearing those people's accounts. But if you're being a smart strategist wouldn't we all agree that the smartest thing to do is

 Say this is all hearsay. These people weren't on, you know, they weren't in the room and then never provide the people who are in the room. Yeah, I think it's the best thing a step right? It's definitely gonna work in the sense that he's certainly not gonna be removed from office in this process. And this is a one of several useful covers. They have given themselves one of several fig leaves that there they've their sewing into a loincloth of Defense what so John it was a you know, what was described Yesterday by Taylor and Kent was breathtaking and it

 I think somebody somebody who had missed the last five years and was brought in to hear this testimony would be like, oh my God, the president of the United States did this this is what's happening in the United States my God, he will be removed and moments. But obviously we the rest of us have lived through these past some years of the Trump presidency and of the extremely short half-life of Trumps candles and of the extremely low impact of these these TV moments and the the non durability these moments because

 Are these counter-narratives these two completely different narratives? So is there anything that you see happening are that happened yesterday or that you foresee happening? That could be a breakout moment that does shift how people see things a couple of things. I mean, you know, this is a this is a I don't know what my this is either a jigsaw puzzle or it's a marathon or but I mean we were this yesterday's hearing like in all hearings and all these things is to is to describe one piece of the puzzle.

 And then presumably through the rest of the process. All the other pieces will be put together in the and the picture that's described. You know the see the the seashore seen that the puzzle is supposed to be they've laid out and then all the pieces get put together and you see if it looks like a sea shore or it looks like, you know, I mountainscape and but but that's a long process and what I think the Trump campaign in 2015 all the way through his campaign and now the Trump presidency has done I think effectively is condition.

 People in the press and in general the citizenry to evaluations and momentary Applause meters and approval ratings. So when Eric Trump talks about his father's presidency or his father's campaign. And what was so amazing. The first thing he talks about is the ratings yesterday the White House Press Secretary talked about how it was a boring hearing other Defenders of the president talked about how it was so boring so that we've come into this funny place where if something is boring, it's

 Valid. Oh boy, that's going to get us and we're going to be an awful shape if that is true. But that's not just this President. That's of course been everything that's happened starting in the television age. So I think one thing that was the most interesting yesterday which connects what I just said with with I think we were saying earlier is the side the phone call that Emily mentioned when we started which is the overheard phone call between us online and the president now we have to this is literally a game of telephone. So we have to kind of triangulate make sure this is right. Okay, because

 is here you have Taylor describing what an aide told him that he overheard from Sunland the president. So there's a lot of ways in which this cannot turn out to be what Taylor said it was but let's imagine it was the reason that's important. Of course, is it because it puts more detail on the central character here, which is the president being fixated on Biden which again is this instance in turning American statecraft not towards American interest, but in terms of to his private interest and so if you got a couple more pieces of data like that,

 Which are show this direct connection between the president and his fixation on his likely opponent. Then you have you know, then the Democrats case is strengthened. So that was one moment yesterday while it was not pyrotechnic or cinematic. It was I think substantively useful for those trying to build the case against the president. I before we get to the end there are three points that really Disturbed me. I certainly think this is

 Worthy of impeachment what what is described that they have Behavior? The president has described as worthy of impeachment and it is an important investigation to have and it's absolutely shocking that that u.s. Foreign policy is sebenza born done to the president's personal interest in this way. There are three things that are so disturbing about this process that just worried me for the future of the country and I just want to put the marker out and it's all the fault of the president and his supporters. I would note it's not the fault of the investigation one is

 The lack of cooperation from the executive branch and the refusal to treat this as a legitimate investigation cooperate with it to provide witnesses to provide evidence to answer questions is puts at risk the very notion that there are the separation of powers can survive and that the legislature can exist in in a form that can check the executive. Is it the or that there could be any check on the executive? That's number one. Number two, there is no agreement on a set of facts that there is a partisan media on the right.

 Decided it will not treat the facts that are being laid out in an honest and straightforward way and instead it treating them in this absolutely honky-tonk bizarre. Like let's just let's chat it up. Let's pretend that things are obviously that are untrue or true way and causing there to be no shared set of beliefs around what is happening or shared set of knowledge. That's super disturbing and finally and maybe the most importantly is the

 Crediting of public servants of bureaucrats at people who work for government the systematic attacks on Kent and Taylor and others who have been involved in this investigation people who've worked selflessly and admirably in the National interest for Republican presidents for democratic presidents. That's damn. These are all things that is damaged. We are doing for a generation forever in this country if we allow this to go forward and so I'm not saying that the impeachment process is causing any patient.

 This is revealing why it's a revealing this and starkest relief. I would turn your first point a quarter and say I think it's actually the legislature that should have enough self-respect to stand up for its own role in in life. This is something that passed with bipartisan report on President signed, you know, they as a member of mean it's extremely you go back and read the way Congress used to behave when people had backbones I mean Spiro Agnew

 Tried to convince an Idaho senator to vote with the president and he said I was going to vote with the president. But now I'm not in any time you try and pressure me. I will vote the opposite way you want now go away. This is a an ally of the president's this is a fellow Republican but they've believed that they had some of their own powers and they represented the country and its most diverse form in the house in the Senate and that that was necessary in a separation of powers. That is that's gone. So that's one thing that has nothing to do with left or right. It just has to do with the different.

 Inches and then the other point you make I think is really really really important and I think it's a part of the conversation here either in the impeachment context or the or the or the general election. This is the first time we've had an impeachment when there's a re-election coming and that's I think the idea Emily you'll correct me if I'm wrong with the idea of vicarious liability the president in taking the position in doing the initial thing, but then also in taking the position he has has caused people to rush to his defense and in so doing they have some

 of them attacked people like tailoring can't who whatever you may think of them are public servants who dedicated their lives to America to both parties to the idea of America and who represent and they said this in their opening statement the stuff that animates the American government all around the world and and and animate service in all of those jobs where you don't get any public praise, but you do it for for your sense of patriotism and your sense of America.

 I use I really agree with you that this is a there's a real cost here and you saw it in the in the opening statements of the two men who talked about why they do what they do and why they believe what they believe death listeners. We have our annual conundrum show coming up live at the foxy Fox Theater in Oakland, California on December 18th, and we are being joined by special guest Adam Savage the myth. The legend of Mythbusters is going to join us as a guest to help us solve some of the true the

 true Mysteries the true problems that Americans contemplate that they grapple with every day. So go to sleep.com live to get tickets for our December 18th show in Oakland and tweet to us with your conundrum at hashtag conundrum at slate gabfest or go to our slate.com conundrum page and you can fill out a form there where you can submit your conundrum. So, how is my week you asked my week was pretty darn good because I just

 I've heard that my crush my bow ideal of politics.

 The Dorothy to my Toto Michael Bloomberg is planning to enter the Democratic primary for president. What a day. What a week. What a month by the time you're done. I'm a beast a puddle on the floor of rage and sorrow and I won't be able to say anything also Deval Patrick former Governor Massachusetts close friend of President Obama is also going to enter the Democratic primary so Emily, what are these two likely entries signal?

 Both of these gentlemen passed up a chance a year ago to get into the Democratic primary is whose is it was getting going? Obviously, they see something they see a possibility or they are concerned about something. So what is it? What is it? See something say something. I think they are concerned about Joe Biden candidacy and as they watch Joe Biden fade and flicker as he has done in his presidential campaigns in the past. And I think do we have someone in the field who can really unite the moderate and Progressive wings of the

 take party and then reach out to some of the independence who presumably the Democrats need to win the White House. I think this is also nervousness on the part of some of the big donors in the Democratic party who don't always have the wisest judgment and it's important to note that 75% of democratic voters feel perfectly satisfied with the choices that they currently have. So this is a kind of top-down set of concerns and you know for Michael Bloomberg, it's really just like Michael Bloomberg.

 siding to get in and I'm sure there are lots of Consultants whispering in his ear because they can make a lot of money if he decides to run I would get rid of all Whispering Michael Bloomberg's are oh my God, just make sure but I don't know why that's playing around trick one imagines that some of the Obama people are talking to him because he is close with Obama and they weren't necessarily super excited about buying as a candidate to begin with so that seems like it has maybe more

 Us to it though. I really wonder if someone who's been working for Bain Capital for Lo these many years since he got out of politics is going to be able to do all that uniting that is supposedly what needs to happen. Michael Bloomberg like yes, he had his technocratic effective moments in New York. He was so terrible on stop and frisk and criminal justice policy. He is never for one second reckoned with any of that indeed he continues to defend it and so for me, Michael Bloomberg is

 Like I just it pains me a great deal to imagine that this is how he is going to light his money on fire John to Bloomberg. We're going to we're going to get to that in a minute. Emily will talk about his letting his money on fire in a second and he's sure he's not just giving burglar that money. Maybe you have been whispering in his ear and that's my God that would be so great if I was getting by Bloomberg what a thought I support him and he could pay me.

 Me that would be that's the best of all possible worlds. I'm kidding you have to dissolve the show, but I've never so angry with you. I'm I'm just a note. This is all just kidding. But so Michael Bloomberg like many billionaires John has been at the butt-end of attacks by Elizabeth Warren who's making a wealth tax a big deal in her campaign and by Bernie Sanders to and do you think we already have one billionaire in the Democratic race, Tom?

 Fire, do you think that Bloomberg Centre helps this case of Warren's or I feel like the Bloomberg candidacy is really a gift to Elizabeth Warren, even though I'm sure Bluebird intends it as the exact opposite well implicit in it is that she's doing well enough that that he's worried and also implicit is the Joe Biden is not doing well enough and so he's worried and that's also true of the Deval Patrick campaign. So that's two things that help burn and hurt by.

 Biden so and to the extent that it helps Warren directly and then sort of secondarily it helps her directly by you know, thinking she's doing well enough and helps her secondarily by by damaging one of her Rivals. So I think that's all good. I think the problem is that the polls show and you know my gosh bringing, you know, an enormous grain of salt about the polls, but but they have shown a steady kind of slow increase for

 Warren that does seem to have plateaued a little bit. So so the question then is has she had a kind of ceiling and what does that mean? You know, you can hit a ceiling and then move on that is something her candidacy has to worry about but what this means now for the Democratic race is a lot more messiness going around and I don't quite see how it gets.

 Resolved I mean you're going to have a nice because now you have Deval Patrick basically is probably not going to compete in Iowa. I think and then you have Bloomberg being a bit just a big-money participant and that's just a lot of energy in the system that can bounce all kinds of different ways. So I it's going to be fascinating and and the the argument the best argument that that Bloomberg could make is one that nobody wants to hear but the best argument is

 Basically presidents can only focus on two or three things one of them. They have to focus on his National Security and covert operations. So that's one taken off the table the other two if you believe that climate change is existential. Okay, the president's gonna have to deal with that. That's two and three if you think economic income disparities need to be reordered then maybe that's the third although it's quite hard to do outside of kind of some kind of deal with Congress to pass some legislation, which makes it more durable and more broadly shared. So in today's

 Political environment that would be a super heavy lift. But if at least on the first two Bloomberg could say look I can get things done. I've been able to get things done and while all the issues that Democratic primary voters care about are basically a very small percentage of what a president directly does and what I will do is appoint people who care about these issues a lot but that we know from experience presidents don't get to don't get to actually do much on those issues. That's the best case he can make

 Going to like to hear that case because the primary is fought over the issues that presidents don't have either direct control over or don't have a lot of have it's much messier than the things they do have direct control over. I want to I'm going to use the balance of my time. I want to use some time. I do want to talk about Bloomberg substantively. So I think what Bloomberg does not bring to the table as a presidential candidate is pretty extraordinary and I'm sure it will Doom his candidacy one. He is old he 77 years old and he's not a young.

 Set on he's an old 77. He doesn't he's not he's a sharp guy but he's not as sharp as he was at 67 or 57 and there's nowhere to go in that butt down. So I think if you're concerned about an old candidate Bloomberg has that problem worse then maybe anybody in the race, but but by himself, he does not have a great history around me to there things that he is alleged to have said two women in his employ. In fact claims that have been made complaints and lawsuits to

 Ft doesn't have a fantastic record on issues that are really of concern to a lot of Democrats these days and should be of concern to all of us. He's a rich guy who really lives like a rich guy horses Islands Jets Bloomberg just seems like a rich dude who is likes being really rich stop and frisk is Emily touched on is devastating. It was a terrible policy that like severely impacted Black and Latino man in particular in New York City over many years. It was was illegal, right Emma.

 Ali judge has made them. Basically if not entirely stop it but a severely curtail it because yes, it was a form of racial profiling she found. Yeah. Yeah. I mean with the loathes grasping illegal and not very effective policy that created a huge amount of resentment. Okay all true. I just would note that if you were doing a any Universe where you had a chief executive that you wanted to run a country. Well, he would be your clear number one draft pick like and with no one very close in.

 Place there is nobody who hit his was an extraordinarily successful self-made businessman who built a company it defeated other people competing against him in the field made markets more efficient, you know, you know and create a huge amount of wealth while doing it and and huge contributions to have news and information is collected and gathered. He was an incredibly effective mayor of New York City New York City got richer more prosperous much better run.

 Public policy innovator left and right and Center all over the place and you know and made mistakes a stop-and-frisk was a mistake. So but if you look at what New York was at the beginning of his mayorship and what it was at the end. There is no doubt that what he did and the people he appointed and what they did was extraordinary it made the city, you know, the most successful and prosperous city in America and he's incredible philanthropist as well what he has spent his money on post. Mayoral Ms. Mayorship and even during his mayoralty

 Chip has been really valuable and what he's done on guns and what he's done on climate has been effective and targeted and serious and ruthless. The guy just knows how to get shit done in a way that almost nobody else in public life does and we I don't think he can be elected president. I don't think he's a perfectly good campaigner. I think he there all sorts of ways in which he is. He's an athame to this Democratic field, but I think we would be we would be foolish and short-sighted to

 to to say he shouldn't participate in this primary or say he doesn't have the like the kind he hasn't earned the right to really make a serious run here because I'm like Jesus I can I get you a little visual listener Emily and wish like looking sort of patiently and then just Ridin in I roll there was an extraordinary eye roll that you were unable to see but I wish their eye rolls could be heard only I wrote. Yeah John good. No. Well, actually we should just go if you do are

 dying to say something or you just I rolling I mean the president is not the CEO like if we were trying to choose are cold-blooded manager to implement other people's ideas and we could be sure that some of his terrible ideas and I would say, you know his his he has a real mix of values some of them line up with Democratic priorities like gun violence and climate change and some of them really don't and I don't see

 see anything that reassures me that the problems with his tenure in mayor and New York are things that he recognizes so I just feel like this is not the right role for someone like him. I'm sorry what is wrong with being a heterodox thinker in this world? He's better at being heterodox. But if you cause a great deal of harm to a whole community of people and you fail to recognize it indeed you continue to defend it long past the expiration date long past when other people have

 Admitted that this was not worth the cost the human cost. That is a problem. Like that's not heterodox. That's being really stubborn about something that you thought was a good idea and wanted to try that turned out to be terrible, but I agree that that was a bad policy and he seems not to have come to any Reckoning with it, but

 Hey, this is a very long I'm willing to cut him a break because he's a very long record of public service and public accomplishment and private service and private accomplishment. And so certainly what I want to hear from him and I think he should run every candidate has a trade-off. So the candidate who is a 10 on your values scale may not be very high up on the other scales were part of leadership. And that is either going to be a big problem if it's a presidency of Crisis and a presidency of

 Decision-making because somebody who's got the perfect values but hasn't seen the time in the batting cage facing lots and lots and lots of Hard difficult decisions of a kind of president makes which are unlike any other kind of decision. But if you've had a history of making tough decisions, you've got some experience on this, you know, we don't know what the president's he's going to face, but you make a compromise with any of the candidates. And so the question then is are the compromises you would have to make on Bloomberg that much different.

 With respect that these to the actual job they're going to do then the compromises you would make for the other kinds of candidates who may be great on one thing but but have Bloomberg style deficiencies in the other characteristics that a president needs. I think. Yeah, I this is all fine. So well, but John's this person's kind of see is going nowhere, but I also think it is very different to think of a Michael Bloomberg how to see than Tom steyer candidacy and and there's this there's this way in which people sort of dismissed Bloomberg. Oh, you know,

 Big pile of money running for president and it's not that I mean Bloomberg has a great big pile of money. I'm sure he will deploy it he will hire lots of people who will pay them a lot. He will spend a lot of money. He will buy a lot of ads and if there's a vanity to it, of course, there's a vanity but there's a vanity in the service of his somebody who has a record of enormous accomplishment and could can make a legitimate case, which I don't think this tire can that hey, I've done this I've done this version of this job in the private sector in the public sector and philanthropy I would do it.

 Better and different than other people here. You should at least listen to me. Can can I ask what you guys think of Deval Patrick and just add this one thing you talked about speaking so far in the candidacy. So the kind of rhetorical skills of a candidate have not been overwhelming of anybody on the Stompy. I mean the sure they can fire up their voters, but that's not where you know real rhetorical greats have been they've been able to capture an entire country and though we totally overvalue the power of rhetoric in

 Presidency it's not totally unimportant part of the job. Whoever the next president is. If it's not Donald Trump will have this repair work to do on the country and just kind of speak to the country. And that's one of the things people say Deval Patrick has and brings to the Rays. Do you think anybody cares about that in Democratic politics or is it like all primary races really focused on the core things that the party base is care about I think people care about that. I mean, I think if Patrick

 can fire up audiences and you know light up the debate stage people will take note and there might be space for a new person to come in its kind of crazy given how many options there are and you could imagine that Kamala Harris and core of the Cory Booker are seething over this because they are both offering Candice to use that aren't like wholly different from Deval Patrick. I mean Pete Buddha judge could say the same thing and his own youthful weird way, I suppose if Patrick

 Capture people's imaginations, then I think that could make a difference slight Plus members you get bonus segments on the gab Fest others like podcast go to slate.com flash gabfest plus to become a member today today. Our bonus segment will be about the crisis and student journalism. Maybe not crisis. Maybe that's not the right word, but the controversies and student journalism as embodied by two fights at Harvard and Northwestern over a student newspapers.

 Go to slate.com gabfest plus support for the gab Fest comes from Mac Weldon, Mac Weldon, believes in smart design and premium fabrics and Mac Weldon. The mission is simple, make sure all of your Basics are smartly designed and that shopping for them is easy and convenient. All Mac Weldon Fabrics are engineered in house from scratch and their design process is meticulous. You can count on the fit being the same each time the folks at Mac Weldon obsess over every Stitch and

 Team until they reach their definition of perfection as a Mac Weldon customer. I can tell you my Mac Weldon. Bathing suit is fantastic. My Mac. Well, no underwear is fantastic have a Mac Weldon shirt that I love Mac. Weldon have the most comfortable socks shirts under shirts hoodies sweatpants and more. They also have a line of silver underwear and shirts that are naturally antimicrobial not only do Mac weldon's underwear socks and shirts look good. They perform well, too. They're great for working out for going to work and for everyday life.

 For 20% off your first order visit Mac Weldon.com and enter promo code gabfest. That's Mac Weldon.com promo code gabfest.

 The dreamers case was that the Supreme Court this week didn't actually seemed to be a case about dreamers. What was it a case about? Well, it's a case about whether President Trump can rescind the order that was sparing dreamers from detention and deportation. That was an order that President Obama put place after trying very hard to reach a legislative compromise with Congress. And so, you know, normally one president can enact an executive order and the next

 Come withdraw it that is probably sadly to me and for the dreamers what is going to happen in this case? But the Trump Administration as is so often true did this in a kind of Helter Skelter fashion instead of saying we don't think it's a good policy idea to spare dreamers for deportation. They put the whole weight of their decision to withdraw this order on the idea that it was illegal to begin with that Theory comes from a challenge not actually too.

 The dreamers but to another order of President Obama signed that spared and created kind of work authorization status for close relatives of dreamers that other program which is called dopa not DACA. The problem is that while there was an appeals court ruling that said President Obama had gone too far the Supreme Court split 44 on that case. So we don't have any definitive decision about this related program much less the one that affects the dreamers themselves.

 And it did seem like the Trump Administration was basically trying to dock responsibility instead of saying we don't care about saving the dreamers. They were saying oh there's nothing we could do here because President Obama broke the law and so the argument before The Supreme Court, you know, the liberal justices who are very sympathetic to the dreamers were emphasizing that kind of weirdness in the Trump administration's approach, but the problem was a couple of years later the Trump Administration when

 Kirsten Nielsen was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. She came in and signed a further order in which she added a very thin paragraph that did provide some policy justification. And so for the five conservative justices who are more, you know amenable to the Trump administration's proclivities here that provides a kind of rationale for letting the Trump Administration go ahead and you know, basically this is a fight

 Legal fight over agency power and the 1940s law the administrative procedures act which set certain limits on how agencies can go about making decisions and then changing their decisions. But at bottom this is a political matter and when the country elected President Trump the country gave him the power to run the Department of Homeland Security. And so even if this order Were Somehow to be stopped before this kind of technical reason certainly the presidency has

 Power to make this change. It's just a matter of how they go about it. And I think really if people don't like the idea of thousands of dreamers being deported then they need to elect a different president building one. Emily just said there is this way in which this is a is an Optics fight, which is that the Trump Administration could easily get rid of this policy, but to get rid of this policy would have to come out and say we're getting rid of this policy that helps dreamers and instead they they're choosing this way.

 Where they can deflect blame and deflect responsibility and say, oh, it's Obama's fault. It's the laws fault. It's congress's fault is not us that's getting rid of it. We just it's insupportable under current law. And so it just can't be done regrets. Sorry. Sorry dreamers, we'd love to help you but we can't it's a way of don't of avoiding responsibility for it. I think there is there is this I'm not sympathetic. I think this is a very was a very good policy and it's a Humane policy and it's obscene that

 I would get rid of it and it's dumb that the Trump Administration will now spend resources targeting the most useful kind of people who are here under these circumstances the most innocent kind of people so it's bad government, but they are not wrong that the law and Congress the Congress has ducked a responsibility here that Congress could perfectly well step step forward and make life clearer for dreamers and set up some sort of path where they could

 could stay in the United States under certain circumstances even without a path to citizenship and they've not done it now. It's you know, they haven't done it because largely because Republicans don't want to put an immigration win on the books for Democrats, but it is true that the Congress has really Congress for the past 30 years is essentially not managed to get anything done on immigration. That's a big problem. You know, if you had a president who had a kind of larger.

 You about the reforms needed in government and thought you know, the legislature is the place that these two should these questions should be adjudicated in answered and I'm going to use the power of my office not to tell them what to do to basically to tell them to go do it to get to stop messing around here. Republicans have have not embraced this also because they don't they don't want to have a nightmare in their own party because there's obviously, you know, there was comprehensive immigration.

 Reform passed in the Senate and it broke down in the house. There were various attempts to try to make it go back, you know to try to get to President Trump to do as several different people suggested to him and kind of Nixon goes to China where he made a kind of grand deal or a deal that included the dreamers plus some other things and he retreated each time when he got blowback from his base. If you if you had a president who's who came in and said Congress must deal with this because we can't have this.

 Keep going back and forth in executive orders and having basically being a kind of weird back and forth between the executive and the judicial that would be it would be great to see that because basically this is a problem that should be handled by Congress and isn't being and doesn't seem to be able to be handled in the foreseeable future and it's just one more way in which we're stuck and then you having a new president. I don't think it's going to change the dynamic of

 Of the senate or the house. So I mean unless the new president brings in with them a huge, you know wave of Reform and and and members of Congress are elected along with that and it's kind of crazy right because there's an 80% of the country support deportation relief for dreamers and eighty percent of the country also is in favor of border security let mean whatever that means to people it just seems like there is a compromise to be had here and Congress can't find it because it's so

 Rised well, and and if you had a mean this President could have done it easily If he if he had the pain threshold on this issue that he has on so many others. I mean imagine if he wanted to be as disruptive in this issue as he is in so many other ways he could tell those members of his own party for the purposes of making a big deal and for the purposes of getting, you know, half a loaf or 80% of a loaf. He could have deployed a lot of energy towards trying to do something which would have been

 Hugely risky but he's done lots of risky things so far and and he would have and when you think of who has leverage in the in the system as it stands right now, he has the most leverage because of his relationship with this issue and his base and so it's a it's a missed opportunity to use the bully pulpit and and to use his strength within his own party. You know, I mean, I think one reason why as we learned this week, is that his chief advisor and immigration.

 Stephen Miller is fundamentally a white supremacist white nationalist. So he got from the reveal of a bunch of emails that you sent in 2015-2016. It's the person who is the architect of the policy around immigration does not he is not one of the 80% who want immigration want deportation relief for dreamers. Well, I think he's there's no evidence that the president diverts in his views from Miller on those on those points Emily last question on this.

 The court will issue its ruling. Let's assume it's in favor of the Trump Administration sometime early next year, correct. And then that will be in the teeth of the cabinet and June probably maybe earlier so into the teeth of the presidential campaign. Do you think there's any chance that this DHS starts to actually Deport dreamers or will they just find a way to kind of push this forward past election day, so they're not, you know, taking doctors and teachers out of their communities and sending them back to countries that never been to

 I mean that's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Right which kind of goes back to the root of all of this and if they want to defer the deportations to spare themselves that kind of election period coverage they can put off the deportations. But then what's the point of rescinding the order there you go support for the gab Fest comes from Casper. You spent a third of your life sleeping so you should be comfortable when you do it Casper is the sleeper and that makes expertly designed products to help you get.

 Best Rest one night at a time Casper products are cleverly designed to mimic human curves providing comfort for all kinds of bodies. The original Casper mattress combines multiple supportive memory foams for Quality sleep surface with the right amounts of both sink and bounce. It's breathable design helps you sleep cool, and it regulates your body's temperature throughout the night with over 20,000 reviews in an average of 4.8 Stars across Casper Amazon and Google Casper is

 coming the internet's favorite mattress Casper also offers three other mattresses the wave the essential in the hybrid and they offer an array of a related products like pillows and sheets to ensure an overall better sleep experience Casper's free shipping and hassle free returns. If you're not completely satisfied, you can be sure of your purchase with Casper's 100 night risk-free sleep on it trial get $100 toward select mattresses by visiting Casper.com gabfest and using gabfest a check out again.

 Hundred dollars toward select mattresses by visiting Casper.com gabfest and using Code gabfest a check out terms and conditions apply. All right, let's go to cocktail chatter Emily bazelon when you're having a delicious rum based cocktail when you're thinking tropically in this winter weather. What are you going to be drinking and chattering about I want to recommend to new book?

 That I have thoroughly enjoyed. One of them is a collection of poetry called felon by my friend Dwayne baths. It's really wonderful. It's gotten a ton of attention. I thought it was just a joy to read and also, you know, obviously it's dark moments. It's a book called felon, but there's a tremendous amount of kind of Hope along the way in these poems and I really recommend it and the second book is actually a book that Duane told me to read and he was right. It's called the world doesn't require you. It's a book of short stories.

 Is by Rihanna Makar Scott and it's just this interesting foray into a kind of made-up black community and the characters there which which I recommend Jean Valjean. What do you chatter about? I'm chattering about the most recent Pew research center poles. Not that recent. It came out in early October but on American attitudes and partisanship and it confirms everything we know.

 Three years ago. They did a study in 2016 and found that there was great more partisan Division and animosity than before and now they have three years later find that that animosity has only deepened but it's interesting to see the ways in which it's happened and it's familiar certainly too familiar to our listeners that people are not just separate on the way they view things but the way they view each other so that the Democrats aren't just wrong but that they're evil and on a patriotic and the same with the same with

 Democrats see them as as last moral than the majority of Democrats see them as less moral than other kinds of people in the country also in this is that 73% of the public disagree over basic facts to get David mentioned this earlier. And so that both sides agree by about the same numbers that that we are in a situation where nobody can even agree on basic facts and what I wondered was whether this is an issue if the goal of a president is to see an urgent need in the country come up with a plan for attacking

 packing it and then try and convince half the the country that you're right, which is a model of thinking about the presidency that George Reed who worked for LBJ used to talk about doing is this something that we should seek to have presidents put at the top of their to-do list, you know, the fifth most important thing the 10th most important thing because there's a when you look at it, you could even see it as the gateway to all other conversations you can't or is it something that's just not going to be solved and therefore President should should operate in that world rather than

 Trying to operate in a way that fixes that world. And so that's what it made me think about but the pure report is makes interesting reading even if you don't seek to engage on that question. My chatter quickly is well too quickly won one is about a New York Times story on blue versus red cities or blue versus red Metro areas. It's called red and blue economies are heading and sharply different directions. Very interesting piece in the times just looked at economic growth and the nature of the economic growth and

 different cities in the US and found that I mean not unsurprisingly that mostly cities are blue blue or cities have more college degrees more diversity much higher real estate prices generally stronger economies red or cities are whiter. They are more homogeneous. They economic growth is still there tends to come from manufacturing jobs. There's a lot less job stability cost of living is cheaper and then there's certain kinds of cities which looked like they should be blue but are red. So Provo Utah looks like if you look at

 Demographically, it should be blue City, but it's red because it probably because it has a large Mormon population. El Paso Texas looks like it should be red but it's blue because probably because there's a large Hispanic population really interesting story that's worth a read about the kind of the ways in which cities are different second quick chatter if you were going to be in Brooklyn, or you can be in Brooklyn on Monday night. We're doing a really fun Atlas obscura event for a new book. We have a new book, which is a updated Edition. I've talked about of our guide to the world's hidden wonders and we

 to do a night of trivia and the world's wonders and taste some of the world's most amazing foods and it's going to be really fun. So go to the Bell House on Monday night and you can sign up for that Atlas obscura listeners. What a great set of chatters this week. Keep them coming tweet them to us at at slate gabfest and I want to talk about one that's a ruse for of our sent us through constant sender of really good listener chatters.

 This week you sense a sense an LA Times story about a scientist named art Shapiro who's a California scientist who has been counting the number of butterflies in California for 47 years. He set out to do this for five years. He was going to count number butterflies at a bunch of different spots in California. He just keeps doing it and keeps doing it keeps doing it. It's a it's a amazing profiled a person who is just incredibly dedicated and as a result has compiled this monstrous and

 super useful and terrifying data set about butterflies in California, which are signal animals and sort of signal threat of climate change and the changing nature of the weather and the climate in California. So really moving profile also James Kelly sent us a tiny little thing building off of our discussion of war dogs last week the Texas. This is interesting Texas. Just had a voter referendum which past ninety three to seven.

 That when police dogs and other police horses finish up their work. They are no longer going to be classified as government property. And so that they can retire and live with their trainers until now they've been classified as government property and that's could be destroyed or sold or auctioned and now they they can instead live out of retirement with the people have taken care of them. So that's a nice thing the Texas did good for you, Texas. That is our show for today. The gab Fest is produced by Jocelyn Frank.

 A researcher is a Bridget Dunlap Gabrielle Roth is editorial director, June Thomas managing producers like podcasts. So many people helping Rosemary help me here in DC and Melissa. Stephanie cone is helping Emily in Boston John. I don't even know where you are. Maybe Alan's help me and now Dustin gervase is happening Dustin gervase helping you in New York, so that just there's so many people helping us. Everyone's helping come to our live show December 18th or conundrum show in Oakland, California.

 Fox Theater slate.com live for tickets for Emily and John. I'm David Plots. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you next week. Hello Slate Plus. How are you? We got some business today. We're doing two things. We're going to talk about college journalism. And then I just I have to come back to my own challenge to myself. I will be reciting Where the Wild Things Are I have not thought about it, but awesome.

 Except myself, but no hell no. No. No I said I wasn't going to and I didn't I'm a truth truthful honest person. Like what is in there? What is in the cavernous recesses of the plots brain that is ever cheesier and holy or every minute but let's start by talking about this interesting crisis and college journalism Emily. Do you want to set the table or I can set the table on it? Yeah, so they've been to controversies in the last few weeks. The first one was at Harvard where Harvard journalist for the Crimson I believe.

 Newspapers called they were doing a story about the Crimson Alum. That's what I my little dick. They were doing a story about ice deportations. Right? It was a protest about ice that was is a protest student protest device and the journalist decided to call ICE for comment about the protest students at Harvard were Furious about this said that this phone call this request for comment was going to put at harm.

 Really the student protesters and a whole bunch of student groups groups of students of color. But also like the Harvard Democrats all are I think boycotting the Crimson right now in protest of this decision, so that is sort of exhibit a exhibit B is at Northwestern where Jeff sessions was coming to speak students protested his talk, they came in through a back entrance. They were kind of tussling their way to get in there was a student reporter who was there taking pictures and then

 After the protest student journalist used social media and the phone book to find contact information for some of the protesters and called them for comment there was an uproar among the student protesters objecting to these basic tactics of Journalism. The students the journalists at the daily Northwestern then issued an abject apology saying that they hadn't been recognized saying that they hadn't paid enough attention to the safety and well-being.

 One of their fellow students they were really sorry and then the dean of the journalism School wrote I think a very well, I think I as a professional journalist. I think lots of professional journalists were relieved to see him appear on the scene to say, you know, look journalist should always be thinking about the way they go about doing their job and making sure that they are not causing discomfort to people if they can avoid it like they shouldn't be rude they shouldn't be up in your face if there's another way to do it, but the dean was essentially

 Ddaeng the premise of using the phone book of taking pictures of recording events, which there was no other paper of record their to do that kind of reporting, you know for me looking at all of this. I feel protective of the student journalist. I feel bad for these kids in Northwestern who are sort of in Whiplash mode. Like they were taking it from these Lefty protesters and now they are taking it on Twitter from all these professional journalists who are accusing them of kind of selling out the basic ethos of the profession. I also don't

 don't really understand these claims that there is a threat to people safety from Gareth fans. That was just a teaser to hear the rest of our sleep less conversation. Go to slate.com gabfest plus to become a slate plus member today. I'm Madeline Baron hosted the investigative podcast in the dark. Our latest season covers the story of Curtis flowers a black man in Mississippi tried six times for the same crime and the white prosecutor determined to see an

 Muted reporting revealed surprising new evidence, which proved pivotal in the Supreme Court's decision to hear flowers case this spring the New York Times calls in the dark a virtuosic feet of reporting. You can catch up on in the dark now on Apple podcasts or wherever you choose to listen.