Trump Tried to Steal an Election

On today’s podcast, our hosts discuss the latest round of statements from former President Donald ...

By

On today’s podcast, our hosts discuss the latest round of statements from former President Donald Trump and new reports about his role after the 2020 election. How are elected Republicans reacting? Plus, President Joe Biden has a Supreme Court seat to fill, and the world turns its eyes toward China as the Winter Olympics get underway.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (109)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. CrowdA

    Really, really appreciate Sarah's perspective about the way racism/sexism plays out in hiring.

    Collapse
  2. Scott Downey

    I love your podcast and I especially love Sarah’s perspective. I completely agree with Sarah that most interviewers think they have a fair process, are picking the “best” candidate, and don't identify with the "old boys club" hiring. Most don’t intentionally try to discriminate against others, especially because it’s typically illegal if it’s blatant enough. That being said, there are so many implicit biases that make it very challenging to make the process completely fair especially if you’re not actively trying to prevent biases. David discussed that if you just create a fair process you’ll get diversity. I wish it was that easy and if it is please tell me your secret sauce. I’ve been interviewing for a long time and still learning about limitations with interviewing process using an equity and inclusion lens. Many interviewers don't have the time or training to do it well.

    -WOS

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Giuseppe Capuano

    Thank for speaking about immigration, legal and illegal, appreciate it , a lot

    Collapse
  4. JayJoanFry

    I had a lot of thoughts in listening to this podcast (I always enjoy and appreciate them). As for Trump, I'm not sure I would describe him as doing all he did to "stay in power" like some svengali or someone like Robert Mugabe. I think it's actually more infantile than that. I think what he cares WAY more about that being in office or exercising power is NOT LOSING, or as he would put it, not being "a loser." Everything is about how he looks and how his ego is stroked. For example, if he really had cared about advancing an agenda, he wouldn't have gone to GA during the run-off election and single-handedly lost the Senate to the Democrats. He didn't care about that. He only cared about the notion that the election was stolen from him because he doesn't lose. That's evident in how he responds to politicians who express any disagreement or disapproval of him. They're "RINOs" even though they voted with him on policies more often (Liz Cheney) than those who exhibit proper obeisance, or at least don't criticize (Elise Stefanik). RINO=anyone who isn't on the Trump train, regardless of position or PARTY loyalty. On the issue of the SCOTUS nomination, it could be that Judge Childs would be a good choice. There's something to be said for the idea that one doesn't have to be a private college, private law school graduate (or as was said, even more narrowly a Harvard or Yale gradute - not even other Ivy League schools). I've also heard David say in AO that it would be good to have more actual trial experience. From a political perspective, it certainly wouldn't hurt to nominate someone Rep. Cliburn supports. She also would likely garner more Republican support - probably get all those who support Justice Brown earlier, as well as Sen Tim Scott. And even though her "evil" record of representing corporations in labor cases would stick in the craw a bit with a lot of Democrats, I can't imagine than any of them would vote against a Biden nominee who is, in fact, an African-American women. And this aspect of her legal background might garner some additional Republican votes.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Also, Sarah, have you never been to a place where you had to take trash down to a dump? I have. (And no, not because I was drunk or something.)

    Also, this is legitimately the first I learned that there had been an Olympic curling match on Wednesday.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    That’s some excuse Goldberg! “I was in sixth grade and Twitter wasn’t invented.” I’ll have you know that I was owning the libs in 1981 and I wasn’t even born!

    Just kidding. But if I worked at American Greatness, that’s probably what I would say.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jacob

    I'm surprised nobody noted the thinly-veiled antisemitism of the "we can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos" quote.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    John A. Daly

    This was worth listening to just to hear David say ass-slappin'.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Matt Hannon

    I think your next piece about this topic should look into the county clerks in Colorado that took copies of election equipment hard drives against protocols. Who directed them to do this and how is Mike Lindell involved? After all Tina Peters, Mesa County clerk-Grand Junction, took the hard drive images to Lindell's scam-posium. Now county clerks from Elbert and Douglas counties are under investigation also. More to come I'm sure.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Nikkimemmott

    Thinking about diversity and Supreme Court nominations, I am less interested in the current hubbub about the eventual nominee and more interested to see how we wrestle with what’s next. Leaving aside diversity of education and experience for a minute, assuming the next Justice is a black woman, the Court will have a more obvious racial and gender diversity - 4 women to 5 men. 2 African Americans, one Hispanic, and one Jew, at least by birth if not in practice, and 5 white people. Does having a more visible mix change the dynamics of diversity for future replacements? Can a president of either party nominate someone to replace Clarence Thomas that isn’t black? Do women start getting replaced with women and men replaced with men? I don’t even think you have to prioritize diversity particularly to be a little uncomfortable making a decision that reduced gender or ethnic diversity. How we navigate a greater awareness of diversity and maybe a sense that we should at least sustain the diversity we have even as we dislike or resist attempts to push diversity for its own sake in the coming years I think will be important in lots of contexts, not just the Supreme Court. And I really do want to keep having the conversation about education and experience diversity, too, since I think that could have a material difference in making the Court a little more in step with the country as a whole.

    And with regard to why are people not more upset about the revelations regarding Trump and Jan 6…. I can’t speak for everyone, but everything that’s come out is basically what I already knew or assumed happened. I appreciate the validation of evidence, but what we’re hearing now is pretty much what I figured. I am past expecting most Republican office holders to actually have a conviction about him and being willing to speak it plainly about him, and the Democrats have spoken out all along. If I thought I could actually persuade someone who liked Trump to turn away based on this evidence, I would at least try, but I can’t think of any Trump supporter I know that would give me the time of day if I even broached the subject. Not going to rant and rave about it. Will write my Senators and ask them to support Electoral Count Act reform and send $ to candidates that aren’t crazy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Toog

      What’s next on affirmative action for nominees is a very important question.

      Lots of progressives and even moderates defend explicit commitments like Biden’s, and cite past (usually squishier) commitments like Reagan saying he’d nominate a woman. But surely if this is going to happen at all, it’s very important that it be rare.

      Leaving the obvious arguments about merit aside, there are plenty of identities that haven’t been on the Court, like Native Americans, people with other religions besides Christian or Jewish, openly gay judges, etc. Some are too small, or too low-profile politically, ever to extract a commitment. And there are other kinds of diversity, like socioeconomic background.

      It would be a shame if it became the norm for a president (or even just a Dem president) to commit to an identity group first, freezing out a bunch of others and making them wait until they extract a precious identity commitment of their own. Having made this commitment to a black woman first, it is vital that Biden keep the precedent under control, and make no identity commitment about the next.

      Collapse
Load More