Inside the New York Times' Failures Covering Graham Platner

- Hey everybody, welcome to next up with me, Mark Calford. I'm the Aponymous host of this program editor in Chief of Live Interactivity of Platform. Two way, thanks to everybody for being nexters

for being here.

“I think you're going to like today's show quite a bit.”

Two great guests to a very smart people. White House correspondent for the Daily Wire, Mary Morgan O'Lan will be here, as well as Democrats, judges, and former Hillary Clinton can't paint manager Patty Sully's doel to talk about

the state of her party. And I will also talk about Mary Margaret's exclusive interview with JD Vance. But before they're here, I want to give you my reported monologue,

breaking down the New York Times coverage of Grand Planner, particularly their failure in initially reporting and then following up on a story they wrote about Grand Planner. Really, it's connected to Grand Planner.

This report of monologue is not about Grand Planner. It's about the New York Times,

one of the most powerful institutions in the country.

And it raises serious questions about what any powerful institution needs to have, which is accountability. In this case, the accountability that they owe their sources, and the accountability that they own their readers

and listeners and viewers, their audience. It's about accountability and accountability's of that trust. And I've just been so disappointed in the New York Times. I read it every day. It's one of America's great institutions,

but what they've done on this particular story from June 4th is of a piece with what they did on Russia gate, of a piece with what they did on coverage of Joe Biden's mental decline. These are failures of journalism in the first instance,

and then compounded by the lack of accountability. So I'm going to walk through the chronology of this

“and explain to you why I think this is so troubling”

for the questions about accountability and for the New York Times. On June 4th, the time published, a big exclusive. It was labeled exclusive. And it was about accusations against Grand Planner

from a number of women he dated. This story was long-awaited in my world because for months, really, we'd heard rumors about different news organizations, including the New York Times, working on stories

about Grand Planner. And in my world amongst journalists and people in politics, Democrats and Republicans, some of the alleged accusations. I say alleged accusations, because people didn't really know exactly

what would be alleged or reported were very serious, very serious. And you heard me say it on all my programs, that if the stuff that was being alleged came out, it would be the end of his campaign. So the Times and June wrote a story.

It was largely based on the accounts of three women who had previously dated Grand Planner.

“One of whom is a woman named Lindsay Fivefield.”

So as I read the article right when it came out, there were three things that struck me that I found to be unusual. On one level, this was a story that, as it was written, followed the pattern of a lot of other New York Times stories.

I've read, and others have read about powerful men

against who allegations are being made, often the allegations summer on the record, summer not they're attributed to someone without naming them. But as I read the story, three things stuck out, as I said, first was the lead of the story,

the very beginning of the story, was what's called in the business an anecdote will lead, not a hard news lead. And the anecdotal lead was this, it said, on Tuesday evening after a whirlwind day in Washington,

Grand Planner, the Democratic candidate for Senate and Maine, Rush Tome, rumors were spreading from Portland to the Potomac, about Mr. Planner's messy personal life, after news reports, he had sent sexual messages to women while married, he goes on from there.

Let's say the New York Times didn't investigation, and Grand Planner had robbed a bank and killed 12 people. That's how the story would lead. It would say the New York Times has found the Grand Planner had robbed a bank

and in the process killed 12 people. They wouldn't say, Grand Planner was of set last Tuesdays, people, reporters were making inquiries. So that anecdotal lead about him being worried about journalists looking to his past,

rather than the gray allegations that are reported deep in the story, had struck me as odd. And when I read the anecdotal lead, I thought, well, there must not be serious allegations

that they found in this investigation, or they would have led with it. In fact, the allegations, the peace include alleged physical abuse and imprisonment. So that's one thing that struck me as odd.

The second thing was high up in the story,

and throughout the peace, there are quotes from other women, not the three who were cited criticizing him. Other women, plaid nerd previously dated, speaking very favorably about him. OK, I've read a lot of these types of stories in the New York Times

some negative pattern of behavior.

“Typically, they don't give a lot of real estate in these stories”

to sources who run catared to the theme in the point of the article, typically they're a nun. In this story, we counted 31 positive references to Graham Planner in this story. Again, struck me as very unusual, OK?

Then finally, Lindsay Five, how do I mention?

Is clearly the main person giving an account in the story on the record, main source to the article? She's identified in the piece over and over, as a woman who's a Republican, who has ties to conservative organizations.

Over and over, they reference it. As if to call into question, the credibility of the very person they're relying on as the primary source of the story. Also struck me as kind of unusual.

So people in my world started after the story ran, they started texting around and emailing around, and a lot of them deem the story, a quote unquote nothing burger, OK? That's the phrase people in politics

“need to use when a story falls short of whatever one”

is expecting based on the pre-publication chatter, about what people thought might be in the story. We heard all these allegations even more serious than the troubling allegations that were raised in the time speeds.

I had a different reaction. I didn't think it was a nothing burger. I re-read it. And then I strongly suspected something was wrong. Because the way the story was written,

it didn't make any sense to me a given the orientation of the New York Times, given what they reported within the piece. This seemed not like what we now know is a called Catch and Kill,

where somebody an organization reports a story, claims it as an exclusive to their sources,

and then never publishes it to kill it, right,

to make sure it never sees the light of day for nefarious reasons. This was more insidious even than Catch and Kill. This was catch and soften. Because although planner denounced the allegations

in the story as false, the series, when he said, in effect he was a bad boyfriend, but he didn't do any of the physical things that he was alleged to have done, he said this was a partisan hit job.

And suggested that because of Lindsey Fivefield's background, this story was not on the up and up. And he got off very easily given the nature of the allegations. Again, this was last month. The proof that he got off easy

was that even after this story was published and read widely, most of his prominent supporters stayed with him. They didn't abandon him as they would subsequently, weeks later, when he was accused by rape by one woman quoted in the time story,

but where the times did not air that particular allegation. Only then did planner, hemorrhage support and was forced out of the race. Most of the world just moved on after the near time story. It did not change planner's hold on the nomination at all.

Well, two people didn't move on. One of them was me because I read that piece and I thought there's something wrong here. And I then saw the other person who didn't move on. And that was Lindsey.

She went on social media almost immediately and she expressed her disappointment in the story and eventually expressed outrage and have a near time to treat it or okay. And I looked at that and I said,

well, this is an unusual situation.

Never seen anything quite like this

where the near times has a source who trusted the paper to share extremely painful things that she's alleging about grand planner from her past. She makes these various claims and then they in effect betray her.

And I thought, well, it happens that people don't like stuff for it and about them in the near times, but not quite like this, okay.

“So what were her main points that she put on social media?”

She said, the paper suggested her that she'd be kind of a subordinate character in this, not the main character that her account would be backing up the accounts of others who were making other and more serious charges.

And that's not the way the story's written. And the story she is, the main character. And that puts a really sharp frame around, a distinct frame around her Republican background. She is a Republican, she has worked in conservative places.

But by making her the main character and by making her accusations central to the peace, it allowed Plattener and Plattener's defenders to say, well, this is just an accusation from a Republican. The second thing that Lindsay alleged,

which I found quite striking, was that the times have failed to contact many of the people that she'd recommended they reach out to, who could buttress support her account, okay. And it didn't help matters in terms of my concern

and apparently Lindsay's, that the near times lead reporter on a lot of the me two stories they did, not on this story, went on TV and downplayed the seriousness of our own papers, account of the allegations that Lindsay had made, okay?

the subject of unflattering your time story,

go public with their complaints. That's not uncommon at all, but this was different. In theory here, Lindsay was the quote unquote hero of this story. I used that word loosely, but in theory,

they were building an investigation into Plattener's conduct around her. She's the accuser being given the platform of the New York Times to share her story and to ostensibly or achieve the same goal that she shares with the newspaper

to hold Grant Plattener accountable for what she and others in the piece of the age was behavior that they found is qualifying. I thought for sure that other people in my business would find this battle between Lindsay five field

and the New York Times to be a story

“that was interesting, compelling, and very important.”

They said, here's someone's account,

she's a Republican, and then she goes,

"Publican says, no, they missed lead me. I trusted them and they missed lead me." And instead, this is what I'm talking about now, has gotten almost no coverage. It's gotten almost no coverage.

All these people who covered the media full time, most of them were liberal and pro-democratic. They didn't make a big deal about this, they ignored it. Even though it's just an interesting story, New York Times source accuses New York Times of betraying her.

Okay, even as she continued to point out, her complaints about the story, with documentation. Of all the ways the Times had allegedly misled her and failed to run down the elements of the chief provided them and all the sources.

Here's A1, here's statement from Lindsay five field, about the New York Times, okay? Put it up here. I gave them the contact information for five friends. They called the two who I clarified would not know about the views,

“but would be able to affirm our relationship timelines”

in central. They simply did not call the other three. So, here she is working with the Times to help them. And they just don't call the people she says to call, what happens when a source trusts her reporter,

especially in a sensitive case like this, where she's a mom, she wanted to move past his phase of her life. She sees this guy who she thinks is a bad guy running for Senate. She trusts the New York Times as a conservative. And she says call these people, here are their names.

Here's how to reach them. And the Times just doesn't call, okay? This is a betrayal. And again, even if you don't want to say, and I don't know all the facts,

but I know these facts, I know they relied on her for their story, and I know she expressed public disappointment in what they did with specificity. And what they didn't response was occasionally,

they would tweet out non-responsive statements defending their peace. They would just say, you know, we're proud of the peace blah, blah, blah. Lindsay kept that. But if you use days ago, out of the blue,

the Times published a feature is under there, they've a thing called Times Insider, where they say, we're gonna show you behind the curtain how our journalism's done. And it had this headline.

It said, how the Times reported the grand planner story. Two senior editors discussed the difficult effort to track down allegations against the leading Democrat for Senate in Maine. And the questions had soon followed, okay?

So I saw that and I said, well, thank goodness. They're gonna take responsibility and address the concerns that Lindsay raised. And others have raised.

“They did address one key point about which”

there had been public confusion. And I credit there was their explanation here. They did not publish the rape allegation that eventually led to a planner being forced with the raise. But they said, and I don't know reason to disbelieve them,

that they couldn't publish it because it was only shared off the record. And that the woman subsequently shared it on the record with Politico. And they said, the reason Lindsay was the focus of their story

was because she had shared the most on the record. Now, I think they, from her account, they misled her that even though she shared a lot, she wouldn't be the main one. But what they did in address and a story meant specifically

to be forthcoming and address concerns that had been raised. What they did in address was Lindsay's concerns about their failure to reach out to others who she had recommended with specificity

who could confirm her account of what had happened. We asked the New York Times to explain how they could write a whole piece, ostensibly addressing complaints about the story and how it was both reported and written. And this is what they gave us in response.

Here's the New York Times statement, A4, please. The Times, June 4th reporting on Graham Platon

and his patterned behavior was a powerful

and original piece of journalism that presented deeply personally accounts and many new facts for the first time. That is all true. As a result of what this original article broke open,

the Times and other outlets continue to produce

that revealed even more details about the sensitive and upsetting experiences that women who knew Platon are went through, also true. Next, in the ensuing weeks, partisan commentators and politically-aligned media

have put forward false allegations and criticisms about the Times journalism process. Some true, some false because, as we'll get to, Lindsay's allegations about their process, I have no reason to believe our false.

The story carefully reported what we could confirm at the time was factually accurate and fair

“and it alerted the public to important new information”

about a candidate for the Senate all true. What they don't address here and maybe Lindsay's not telling the truth,

but here's what, according to what Lindsay says,

here's what they're not addressing. Her allegations that the reporters call only two of the five friends she provided. Her claim that they never contacted the other three friends who knew about the abuse, her allegation

that they didn't interview her former roommate who allegedly witnessed Platon or stalking her. Her claim that they declined to contact her ex-fiancee or priest, despite her offering them as corroborating witnesses.

And then lastly, her assertion at the Times ignored documentary evidence that she provided to them, like Landlord E-Mails that she sent her landlord, dire entries and screenshots of messages.

So again, she's very specific about what the New York Times has not addressed. And these are not small things.

She trusted them, she trusted them.

“She talked to them, she thought she'd be a minor character,”

supporting character, they make her the main character, they label her a Republican. And then they don't make the case with validation as much as they could have according to Lindsay. They then write a piece claiming

to explain what how they did it and it doesn't explain her stuff. I can understand why she's not satisfied with how the New York Times has treated this. I have no idea what the reporters think about it.

You saw this statement from the New York Times. It doesn't address this. And why this is so troubling to me is you've got someone who's come forward at great personal risk, emotionally difficult.

Share is her story, helps the reporters report the story, is told how she'll be portrayed in the piece. They then portray her in a totally different way. Label her conservative, opening the door to the piece being dismissed as just a partisan hit job

by Platner and Democratic supporters of Platner. And then they failed to follow up and make the case as strong as possible. And then when she criticizes them publicly,

they basically blow her off both online

and then the piece and the New York Times were ostensibly meant to address this to my mind, meant to blow off her concerns. This is so troubling. This institution needs to be accountable.

When you take on a sensitive story, you're responsible to your sources. Your responsibility is to treat them fairly, to keep them in the loop about what you're doing, to address the concerns that they raised

and the process of writing, reporting, and writing the story, and to take the information that they give you and make a good faith effort to confirm it. And Lindsey claims it didn't do that. Lindsey claims they basically betrayed her.

And while eventually this led to the result she was looking for for the people to understand more about her vision of Grand Platner, I still would like the New York Times to be forthcoming. Address her actual concerns.

“How could you have written the piece the way you did?”

How could you have made her the character you made her into? How could you have written so much positive about Platner in the piece? And then Lindsey's concerns, how could you have known the help she provided you

to try to make the case in a stronger and more documented way to make it more difficult for Grand Platner to go on with the campaign? Those are the questions that I would like addressed. That's my reporting of where we are now.

The balls in the court of the New York Times to explain how they failed someone who trusted them. All right, there you have it. Let me know what you think. Let me know if I'm being too hard in the New York Times

or maybe not hard enough. Email me your thoughts on today's report. Add next up at devilmakeairmedia.com. Again, that's next up at devilmakeairmedia.com. Quick break, when we come back,

one of the greatest reporters cover in the White House. Today, Mayor Margaret Olan, White House correspondent for the Daily Wire, will join us to talk about the president in the way to the death of Lindsey Graham, the president, War with the Ron, and the vice president,

who she interviewed, Mary Margaret Olan, is next up. (upbeat music) A lot of what we do here on this program is we look at the story underneath the story. So let's do that now with something many of you

are dealing with currently your Medicare coverage. If you're 64 years or older, check your Medicare plan because two plans with the exact same coverage,

and nobody's gonna point it out to you.

You can overpay for the same thing

“and you'll never know it unless someone goes looking.”

Chapter does the looking for you. They're the only Medicare advisors to compare every plan nationwide. They'll look at your doctors, your prescriptions, and preferences and they'll find the plan that's the best fit for you.

Chapter advisors, they aren't paid to steer you to any certain plan. If they look and they find that you're on the best plan for you now, they'll tell you that, but if not, they'll find you a better one and I'll be make the switch.

Folks who switch with Chapter last year, say to an average, get this of $1100. That is real money. So give my friends over a chapter or call find out what your statement isn't telling you.

It's a free resource to this audience and that review your option in under 20 minutes. Call right now 262-454-0503 that's 262-454-0503. - Welcome back, everybody. Next up, and joining me now, Mary Margaret Olehan,

White House correspondent for the Daily Wire, really a great reporter, and if you watch her in the briefing room or when she's in the pool with the president, she's, as we like to say, tough, but fair, and I know from talking to folks in the White House

and in the White House press corps, widely respected and buy her colleagues and buy the people she covers, which in this day and age, ain't easy to do. Mary Margaret, welcome, thank you for being here.

- Thanks for having me, Mark, and for those kind words. I really appreciate it, it's a tough business out there, but we appreciate our friends in the media, especially like you.

- Yeah, well, thank you, 'cause I'm always pleased

when you're in the pool because I know the great questions will be asked, some of your colleagues give me less confidence. One advantage you have that I'm jealous of, I'm envious of is I don't spend much time the way it has anymore, I don't live in Washington.

And there's certain things you can only kind of intuit with the touch and feel of being there. So the last few days have been so tumultuous around Iran. What's your sense of like say the building? Are people are they nervous?

Are they frustrated? Are they angry? What's kind of the fingertip feel and smooth

“of the administration over the latest developments?”

- Well, I think Mark, all of it is kind of synch with this over-tone of sadness about the tea. That has been, I would say, the overarching commentary, the overarching subject at the web and that's then then out on in the movements going forward.

Graham keeps coming up. It's already as if he has been passed for a long time. People will bring him up and I even heard on a podcast earlier this morning. Oh, I wonder what Lindsey Graham would have thought

about this and he's only been passed for a few days now. So obviously, that is a strong overtone in all of these conversations. But the tone that I'm perceiving from the White House, and even from the press core, is a little more of apprehension

as we approach the ongoing situation in Iran what will happen next, whether this will be a war that just goes on and on and on is really the question at a lot of the forefront of a lot of people's minds. I think Caitlin Collins asked the President

a variation of this yesterday in the Oval Office. I asked the Vice President very bluntly, we had an interview last week and I asked him as well. And the sense that I'm getting is that, the Vice President, most people in the White House

are arguing we will continue negotiating well the President wants us to. And that's kind of the statuary that I'm perceiving as of right now, which is not super bolstering mark. I would say it's a little confusing as to the state of things

and when this war, which true has not been more than a year, and is fairly short compared to many, many other wars that the United States has been embroiled in.

“But when it will come to a close and how that honestly will happen.”

- You know, the President, it's hard for me to get so excited as some of my sources do and some of my audience does and even some people need a administration do. When the President says anything about Iran because he says stuff that he doesn't mean

or he says stuff that he'll take back the next day. So for instance, people are asking me detailed questions about how would they collect the 25% searcherage on cargo that goes through the straight.

And I say, that'll never happen.

I'm not sure the President will ever even mention it again. But that's something that's gonna happen. It does it seem right now, like there's a plan. You know, if you believe them, the plan is blockade, escort, leve this, leve this reimbursement,

continue the negotiations, the extent the Iranians are willing and continue to strike them militarily. That seems like a mismatch rather than a clear plan. How clear is to you what their intentions are now? - Well, from my perspective, the people I talk to,

they zoom out rather than zoom in.

it's more of a generalization, such as, you know, we need to teach the Iranians or the Iranians need to show us that they're in a position to negotiate and not to continue striking. You know, we will meet violence with violence, it's that kind

of rhetoric that I'm hearing rather than specifics on the deal or specifics on what Iran will agree to or not agree to. You know, perhaps that's just the people that I'm speaking to, perhaps that's just, you know, the perspective I'm getting there.

But for me, not too many specifics and more of a generalized look Iran must change its posture because where we are right now is not a place that we're gonna reach a deal. - Does the President seem to you to be different

in terms of frustration, confusion, uncertainty than he's been in other times? I've heard some people say that. I'm just wondering whether you're I see this moment with the relationship with what to do about Iran

is it different than it's been throughout the months of the conflict or not? - Well, I'd say certainly more pissed off at Iran than he's been in a while and I mean, we saw this last week in the way that he was describing Iran.

“You know, he called them Skum, I believe.”

The negotiators, he called them Kuku at one point, but his rhetoric, you know, the President

is always very honest about what he thinks.

But I found his rhetoric last week to be particularly interesting and he seemed to say, stay in that head space and be very frustrated. I would say with how the Iranians have gone back and forth from the negotiating table then to the press

and back on social media then back to the negotiators. So that's the posture I've seen from him. - Do you have an idea what Jared Kushner and Steve we'd call for doing all day these days? They have other portfolios, they're supposed to be building

Gaza and ending the Russia Ukraine conflict. But do you have a sense of how engaged they are right now on this matter of Iran? - I don't, but you know, it is funny Mark to see, we had Gaza so much in the news.

We're constantly talking about Gaza not too long ago. And now it seems to never be on the tip of anyone's tongue, even though we had such grand plans for, the president had such grand plans for its reconstruction.

“So worth in ask on my part I think to the White House”

on how that's going and what role we can see in that. - I saw a story the other day that said they had nine peacekeepers lined up and they need more than nine to do it. But otherwise it has completely fallen off.

And of course there was a period when the president was bragging about it as an accomplishment. And people were pointing out that while progress had been made in terms of a ceasefire and a plan, then not much else had happened.

These rallies attacked Gaza the other day. So even the ceasefire portion of it is not full proof. And so I guess I'll give them some grace and call to work in progress. Let's talk about your conversation with the Vice President.

This broadcast, you may or may not know this. We are the broadcast of record of JD events. We're just making sure to try and understand how everybody feels about the guy.

Like you, I know people who think he's awesome, just incredible.

And then I know people who think he's a phony or he's been a clips by Marka Rubio, et cetera. I find him very consistent in demeanor. He seems like an unflappable guy. We'll get to the substance of what you talked about,

but in terms of a tell us about where you talked to him and what his demeanor was like, what kind of the mood music of that was. - Yeah, so I traveled with the Vice President fairly often Mark and so I've gotten opportunities

to see him up close on many occasions, especially on trips where he interacts with the United States military. And these are trips that I treasure. I'd love to see the United States military interacting

with any high political figures, whether it's President or the Vice President. But Vance has a special bond with them because he was, I think they say,

once we're in always Marine, he is the United States

and Marine, not active duty anymore. And he has that background and so can really identify with the troops in that way. And so I've asked him questions in front of the troops. I've also sat down with him and talked to him

for 25 minutes for a good lengthy time. And I'll say, you know, his demeanor is very similar in both settings. He's ready to engage with the press, especially the hospital press.

“Sometimes I think he likes the hospital press even more”

than in the non-hospital press. But he was very honest with me. And we talked about a number of issues, including one that I found particularly poignant, which is the trial of Tyler Robinson,

who is accused of killing Charlie Kirk. Vance told me he thinks that there's very clear evidence. And that's his own words, clear evidence. The Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. And I found that super interesting not only

because it was topical, but because in the new book regime change with Maggie Heyerman, Jonathan Swan, there were suggestions that Vance was a conspiracy theorist, which he and self as jokes that's true. He's, you know, enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

But the suggestion was that he was amenable

And it wasn't really clarified what exactly that was. You know, whether it was the Candace Owen's theories that Erica Kirk had something to do with killing her husband and that TPUSA was in on it. All of those nebulous claims out there.

So I thought it would be good to get his clear thoughts on it.

“So again, he said, I think it was Tyler Robinson,”

that it killed Charlie Kirk.

But he said he's always going to wonder who Radicalized

to Tyler Robinson, what left wing networks were involved. All of the murmurings online with these different, you know, transgender or far left activists who, you know, were quite buzzing around that time. Said he's always going to wonder about these things

and they're always going to be honest blind. So more to that effect and you know, you're oligizing his friend, but saying, look, we have this evidence in front of us. Let's just not ignore the evidence

that we have before us when it is so clear. Talk about. - Yeah, good. No, and I think, you know, the conspiracy aspect of things, he himself joked.

He said, you know, on the conspiracy angle, he understands that this is something that he has talked about in the past.

I believe he's even joked about how deeply he's been invested

and interested in the Epstein files, for example. He is very interested in those sorts of topics. But at the same time, he encouraged, you know, honesty. And I think rational behavior in how we view these types of things.

- It's so striking to me two years after the present was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania. We know next to nothing about that gentleman. And that has given rise to conspiracy theories, same with the manic use of killing Charlie Kirk.

We still don't really know, as the bias present point out, we still don't really understand exactly why he did what he did although there's some theories. And the prosecutor seemed to have a pretty strong case against him.

Did the vice president was he emotional on that topic or his normal clinical zero, zero and one self?

“- You know, I think he's talked about it enough”

and done enough media on discussing his friends passing that he's, you know, in control of his emotions when he speaks about it, at least that was my take on it. But he did repeatedly dwell on the end. Erica, his widow and his children, and one thing that

Vance brought up that I thought was, you know, moving from a family perspective was that he doesn't think that Charlie's kids are necessarily going to remember him because they're so young and they're so little. And so Vance and sharing that he says, you know,

he said to me, if anything happened to me, meaning himself, you know, his kids would remember him. They're old enough that they would remember him. And he is thankful for that, but it makes him pause and does make him very emotional to think of how his friends

children may not remember him. And he wants to help Erica and that effort to remember their father. So I found that, I found that moving Mark, and I think it's a signifier that it's still emotional

to him, no matter how, you know, articulately he can talk about it, given the manyments that he spent on television discussing this very topic. - Yeah, of course, Charlie's kids will have hours and hours of video they can look at it again.

“But they're not going to know what his lab, remember what his lab”

feels like or any of that. Just the back to a point I made, I want to ask you about, I find the vice president to be one of the most consistent people I've ever seen in terms of mood. He seems to, unlike the president who's, you know,

a man of many moods, he just seems to be the same, pretty even all the time. Is that your experience with him? - Yeah, I mean, he's pretty even. If you're with him in the Oval Office or, you know,

it's so funny that the random places that I've observed these, the president or the vice president in, whether they're on the couch and the Oval Office, meeting with world leaders, or they're, you know, in a bilateral, or they're in the east room with Netanyahu.

He maintains composure, he's always ready to laugh.

I've noticed him have some good chuckles. - Yeah. - At what the president might have to say, occasionally, depending on who's in the room with him, it's he and Pete Heggseth that are chuckling together

or him and Marco Rubio. That's an always an interesting dynamic to observe. But in general, yeah, he's pretty composed. I haven't really seen him get to upset, except maybe Zelensky in that infamous,

but even then, even then on that day, he's always, as you said, he's always willing to laugh. He's always finding the humor in situations. And I find it fun to peeling, but I also find it accessible.

You know, and people, again, is this an obsession of mine now, because I know people whose judgment I trust who have such diverse and views of J.D. Evans, the people who like him, I just find it so winning that he'll joke about being a conspiracy theorist.

He'll joke in almost any situation. Maybe that's just my own preference, but I like a person who's up for a good laugh at all times. - I do too, and I think, you know, not to get a little too deep on this here,

I would say he survived a lot of different trauma

and his own family, and I think it could be evidence to what he's gone through in the past

“that, you know, you have to have a certain amount of humor”

to survive certain things like that, or to keep a stiff up or lip when it comes to some of these family experiences. And I think he's written about how that's helped him along the way.

So it's possible that that has something to do with it as well, but he's got that politician that politicians smile down as well. So I think he's learned a lot in his tenure as a senator, and now as a vice president, and I think no one can argue whether you like him or not, that he's not good at media,

because he has mastered the hostile interview like I was saying before, and he truly seems to enjoy it. - Yeah, he's very skilled guy. All right, I've wrapped it around here. We go really quick answers, and no essays,

just like little rapid response.

Best thing about covering the White House. - proximity, proximity to the president. - Yeah, worst thing about covering the White House. - The heat, the smells occasionally, and that break bigger number.

- At least understood things, or most misunderstood thing about Donald Trump. - Most misunderstood, gosh, that's so hard. I think he's his level of sarcasm,

“and jokes, I think he truly enjoys a lot of the stuff”

that he talks about in a way that people miss out out on. - Yeah, most surprising thing about the physical grounds of the White House that people haven't been there wouldn't know. - They're much smaller than you would think. - Yeah, the West Wing is nothing like it is

on the show of the West Wing, it's got a little worn of offices. Most pathetic lunch you've had when you've been stuck in the White House. - Maybe just a gatorade, or a chomp, or a granola bar. Probably a Celsius that I grabbed from the machine

in the cafeteria area. - Yeah, just a gatorade is a little pathetic, but we've all been there in that space. But most underrated member of the Trump administration. - Oh, man, that's good.

- Yeah, probably Steven Miller, I would have said.

- It's always the right answer, no matter how powerful.

The left is built him up is so powerful. And I say to people in the left, you actually are underestimating, understating, just how powerful the guy is. He's like all powerful.

A next cabinet secretary to leave? - Oh. Oh, Mark, that's a hard one. - Do your best. - Cash Patel.

- Cash Patel, excellent. And here's the last one.

“Best White House reporter, not including you.”

- Oh, how's it going? - I would say, one of my best friends, Shelby Talcott. - Yeah, she seems excellent. I never met her, I followed her work.

She seems very good. You know what, you know what I like about her? She seems like you, she's tough as nails. - It's very tough. - Yeah, she seems like a very tough person.

It was just good if you're covering the White House, 'cause no matter whether it's Democrats or Republicans, it is a tough beat. Mary Margaret, remind people where they can see all your work. - You can see it dailywired.com

and on Twitter and Mary Mark, Olehann. - All right, love having you on, thank you for making time and we look forward to following your stuff. - Thank you, Mark. - Next up, my take on an unexpected

or actually expected presidential change. That's next up. In today's world, finding solutions to deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem pretty uncommon.

Suer, century, environmental technologies is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs and prevent costly sewer system failures

before they occur. The result improved performance reduced operating expenses and long-term savings for taxpayers. Environmental advocates, value cleaner waterways,

healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources and technologies that can reduce vibrato contamination in waterways. Physical conservatives on the other hand, they value cost control, efficiency

and a solid return on investment. Suer, century, environmental technologies delivers on all of those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and protecting budgets.

It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both with systems that are faster to install cheaper to operate and better for overall infrastructure performance. Suer, century, environmental technologies helps communities become more resilient

while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, concerns, energy, safeguards, waterways, reduces contamination and protects public health, everyone benefits. Suer, century, environmental technologies faster, cheaper,

better for more information on all of this. Go to www.suercentri.com right now that's www.suercentri.com.

All right, next up, the President Trump,

throughout the conflict with Iran, has, let's say, been flexible. It's turned on a dime. Has shifted his stance.

“And in the beginning, people said, well,”

that's Trump, that's what he does. And then there was a wave when people said, well, the credibility of the Commander-in-Chief at a time of war probably would be better off if he didn't flip flops so often.

Say on Monday, I'm going to Germany and then Tuesday, I'm going to Brazil. But then just today, he did it again. Less than 24 hours or so after the President said, he was going to impose a 25% fee to pay back the United States,

25% of the value of all cargo that went through the straight-of-war moves as part of a new plan to block hate Iran and escort ships through the straight. He's also going to collect 25%. Less than about a day after he said that,

the President took it all back. He said, well, I got some calls from the Gulf state leaders and they had a better idea. That was just pay us money to invest in the United States. I don't have this conflict's going to end.

And I know we've always talked about the mad man theory

and Trump being unpredictable gives him an advantage

“because nobody knows what he's going to do.”

But the minute he announced this, people ask me, has he going to organize this? Has the money going to be collected? When will this start? What part of the government will collect it?

I refused to answer. I said, he's not going to happen. This will never happen. And I said, if past is prologue, the President will take this back or he'll never mention it again.

One of the two things, not going to happen. Either he'll never mention it again. And when he's asked about it, he'll make something up or he'll take it back. So today on true social, he took it back.

I'm cheering for the United States to win the war.

I get the mad man theory.

I get that Iran is unpredictable foe. And he got to match that sometimes with being unpredictable. But it is even within the administration. And certainly amongst America's allies, but even with the administration, people

did not look at this as something serious. It's deadly serious. It's serious as a heart attack to say the United States after saying Iran cannot charge for going through the straight because the straight must be unfettered by people

trying to make money off of it. After saying that for weeks, the administration, the President, head of his administration says, well, now we're going to charge. It's unserious.

And it's problematic for the credibility of the United States and for the Commander-in-Chief. And this one will be forgotten probably like all the others. But at a time when the President is fighting Iran for credibility on the international stage,

you can say fierce, a fierce foe who frequently will lie. Credibility, honesty, consistency seemed to me to be more of the coin of the realm than floating up proposal on a Monday and taking it back on a Tuesday.

“All right, that's what I think about that.”

Next up, joining me, will be the great Patty Sully's Doyle Democrat strategist for An Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008. And someone who is wise in the ways the challenges are party-faced today, faces today.

Patty Sully's Doyle is next up. (upbeat music) So think about the last 30 bucks that you spent. Maybe it was on a streaming subscription that you don't even watch or a lunch, you've already forgotten.

That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre gold allows you to turn that lost money into something better, physical 24 carats with gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds up. And once you hit the price of a bar,

they ship it straight to your front door. This is real gold we're talking about. In your hand, at your home and over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization.

And for you collectors out there, this is really cool. They just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Matel, strictly kept and once they're gone, they're gone forever. While you're checking those out, claim your free entry,

so the speed club sweepstakes. They're giving away a 1 gram Hot Wheels Gold Bar plus, this massive grand prize, the 10 gram, 24 carat gold Hot Wheels Bar. Both of them come in official collector packaging

and they're up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com/mark. So again, start stacking today at getacregold.com/mark. Subscribe today. (upbeat music)

All right, next up, and joining me now, Patty Sly's door returning Jeopardy champion, fan favorite of all nexters, Democrat strategist, she ran Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008. And everyone, everyone I talked to ever,

about Democrat politics say, well, Patty would know, or ask what is Patty think, or Patty's probably right about that.

We'd have to talk to people, we'll get her on. Thank you for being here.

- Thanks Mark for having me in first.

Matt, even though it's not true, but guys. - It's all true. As you know, you just, you command respect amongst all the people we know who've done a lot of presidentials and other races. Just tell me your broad view of the state of relations

between the so-called establishment wing of the party and the Democratic Socialist wing. Your friend, fellow Chicagoan, Bill Daily, wrote a piece of the Wall Street Journal this week, kind of raising the alarm, ringing the alarm,

and saying, we got to kick the socialist out of here because they're dangerous. Where are you on? Just how would you characterize the relationship right now between the Democrat Socialist and the Democrats?

- Yeah, I'm gonna quote my, well,

our old dear friend, Harold Ike's, this is a sticky wicked, isn't it? Now, you know, when Bill Daily, who I love, says, we gotta kick 'em out here, who's the we in that sense?

Is it the establishment, which is what,

“you know, where's the, that's where the friction is?”

I say it's a sticky wicked because it has been, you know, tricky for, as long as I can remember, in politics, how do you run in different parts of the country, run in a primary stand on policies that, you know, will really help you in a primary,

but could you use some damage in a general election? - May even disqualify you in a general election. And when you're running in places like, New York City, versus, you know, and our remain, Michigan, it's problematic.

Democrats are a wide array of views, we are a big tent, as I like to say, but I see it as raising some issues that I think will be resolved in a very vigorous primary season in 2028.

- Yep, well said, when Hillary Clinton Iran, she ran against five guys. None of them were super left wing, and in fact, the two, challenged her the most John Edwards in Barack Obama,

they kind of ran to her right on some things,

“and they were more populous, that's how she's,”

but you had interest groups. Can you remember back in 2008, what were the left wing pressures that Hillary felt that she had to kind of worry about of people who had come and asked questions,

and town halls, or hackler? Do you remember what were the big left wing issues that she said, I don't want to go that far left, but you had to worry about. Do you recall what those were?

- Yeah. - The two that done her in as I just say, one was her vote on the Iraq War, that was a big one. I think I still believe that cost her the Iowa caucuses.

- Yeah. - And then she was on a string of winning in my view in many people's view, almost every single debate in that Democratic primary. Until she got the question on whether or not

immigrants should have driver's license, or not, if it's in a should have driver's license. And she kind of, you know, hemmed in hot and wanted to, you know, be true to her, to left flank, but it just did not land well.

She tried to have it both ways, it didn't land well. So those are the two big ones that-- - We're rivals to her left on that issue, or not, do you remember? - I don't remember, Alice.

I don't know, actually, I don't remember them. - Yeah, I think they got off easy 'cause Tim Russard asked her the question,

“but I think they all were roughly in the same place.”

So you take those two issues, the opposition to a war and that was unpopular, and then driver's license for people in the country legally. And you compare them to abolish the police, abolish prisons, abolish ice, right?

And on Israel, basically, in some cases,

side with Hamas over Israel, those are far to the left of what she had to do with. So it seems to me, that's a good illustration of how much the divide has grown. And I would say, also, that wing of the party,

the extreme left is more influential now, than it was back then. Back then, it was labor unions and other groups, right? So how did this happen? How did the far left go further to the left

and at the same time have more influence within the party? - I think it is quite generational.

for these democratic socialist,

and I don't even think, the demolishing prisons is just too much for me and defunding the police is just too much. And I don't even think those two issues fall in democratic socialism, I really do.

But so you have some even people to the left of democratic socialist, I think. I think it's generational.

“I think we have young people coming of age”

who are having a hard time finding a job have strong views on Israel and Gaza who have had a hard time being able to afford to buy home, et cetera, and it's the new generation of voters

who are like, you know, maybe we should take a look at this.

This is not so crazy. And I think what the 2020-8ers are gonna have problems with is doing what Bill Clinton did so well in '92 this triangulation of going more right, but keeping the base engaged.

And it's gonna be tough, it's gonna be very tough. - He did it at a time, I give people in the all the time. So the party was against the death penalty, against right to work, against NAFTA, against welfare reform. And he did it all because he's politician of a generation.

But those positions are nothing compared again, relatively mild and nuanced compared to what they're dealing with now. When I look at everybody in your part of the party, the Bill Daily Wing and everybody would say, well, somebody's gonna have to do that.

And people point to Josh Shapiro and Rom, Emmanuel, as the two who seem most poised to do it, the governor Shapiro in the other day, and a couple interviews said there's gonna be have to be a big battle, kind of like what you said.

But then I look at Rom going to Israel and criticizing Israel in Israel.

“And I wonder, is it really a path to the nomination?”

Is it really a path to brain the party together to take on that fight if you're not a once-in-a-generation politician? Which, let's be honest, none of these folks are. Is it really a politically smart and attainable thing to do?

- First of all, Rom's speech in Israel was excellent.

And I encourage everybody to listen to it. He may not be the politician that Bill Clinton was, but he is extraordinarily smart, not just on policy, but in this case, I think on politics. I think, like I said, it's gonna be very, very, very hard.

I kind of forgot what your actual question was. - Just, I mean, is it a path? If the goal of someone who in 2028 is a presidential candidate is say, I wanna bring the party back to the center,

I wanna eliminate someone who can win a general election. And I'd like to be the nominee myself, like those are the goals of what Bill Clinton tried to do. Is that really, is there someone who can really pull that off, given how far to the left the party is,

given how angry that wing of the party is? I mean, if you're that candidate and you go to a town hall in New Hampshire, there'll be 20 kids in the front row who will hackle you, who will change, who will change about Palestine.

- I don't think we've seen that yet. I remember your question. None of the people that we've seen that are considering running for president thus far are the have the political ability of a Bill Clinton

or a Barack Obama. - Yeah. - Yet, there's a lot of time left and there's a lot of kick in the tires to happen. And there's a lot of campaigning to be done.

“And I think, you know, someone like Josh Shapiro,”

who is eloquent, as a great experience, great resume as a governor in terms of getting things done, can learn it, some of the skills can be learned. But like I said, it's gonna be tough. A lot, a lot's gonna go into the calculation.

Certainly the primary schedule is gonna go into the calculation. Are we gonna start in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, as we have forever and ever? Are we gonna start in places like Nevada or South Carolina or a state that's much more left?

Or are we gonna start in a place like Michigan,

as a swing state, is very viable.

So there's a lot of factors that are gonna go into it. It's gonna be hard, it's gonna be hard

“for him, and do you know this guy, Hassan Piker, do you know him?”

- I don't know him personally, no, but I have him, yes. - What would Bill Clinton, if this Al-Sia, Dr. Al-Sia wins the Democrat nomination of Michigan, he's supported by Mr. Piker. What would Bill Clinton and his peak say about that?

What do you just ignore it? Because I look at the leaders of your party and they have Chuck Schumer and how keen Jeffries, when they're asked about guys like that, again, it's the same on the right,

they don't denounce a lot of people on their fringe,

common podcasters, but I just look at them

and they're just trying to pretend it's not happening, that a guy like that is so influential in the party. So what would Bill Clinton, what would Hillary Clinton, if they were out in the field today, what would they say about that guy?

- I think they both would denounce them. - Yeah. - They would have denounce Graham Platynar. - Yeah. - I think, you know, I'm Nazi tattoo. They would have lost them at Nazi tattoo.

There needs to be some commitment to what you believe and what is right and what you believe is right

“and you have to have sort of the strength and authenticity”

to come out there and call it as you see it. - Yeah, that's true. - So if Elizabeth Warren... - Yeah, that's true. - So if Elizabeth Warren were here with us, who well after the Nazi tattoo and all these other things, including the New York Times story

from five weeks ago, and she says he's my kind of guy. If she were here, what would you say to her, would you say to her, a big mistake or how could you do that? Like, and she's not the only one, I'm just singling her app because she's run for president

and she's a woman, how would you say to anybody in the party who didn't follow that advice and stayed with them up until days ago? - Yeah, I think I would say, are you aware? I feel aware of all of the facts and yes, if you are

in your still forum, I think you're making a big mistake. I would, of course, say that. - Is it a moral mistake? Is it a mistake for the party? What's the nature of the mistake?

- I understand the thought process and I don't want to

“sing a lot of Elizabeth Warren, I think of all of the--”

- She's in a large group, you can just speak to the choir. - She's a very large group. I think that, I understand the thought process. I understand that the party is anti-establishment. I understand that the party wants to move forward

and not backward. I understand that we want someone who can talk to working-class people, somebody who has new ideas, brave ideas, bold ideas. I get all of that, but I think we can have all of that

without that person, that someone getting a Nazi tattoo and not removing it, even after he or she found out, it was a Nazi tattoo. I'm not a-- - I think that's pretty simple, and that's pretty basic.

- On the other end of the scale, somebody who, every Democrat we know is all Gaga, is John Ossoff, in Georgia. - Yes, I've heard other. - I've heard other. - He's got a God worthy, I think. - I know he's young and some of us would say perdi.

Besides that, why are people, I just want to hear in your sage words, why are so many Democrats, not just want them to run for president, but look at him as like a template of this as the kind of person we need is a leader of the party now.

- I want him to win his Senate race before we start talking about him running for president. I don't, let's take it easy here, but I think he delivers the message in very, very clear terms, you know,

in terms of big corporations are bad. And billionaires are bad, and the power of corruption

and politics, and here's what we need to do, ABC and D.

I think he speaks the message in very, very clear, understandable terms. He is young, he is handsome, he's a powerful orator, and I think he, you know, could be that person that I just described, the anti-establishment,

He could be, I don't think he's there yet, he could be. - Yeah. - There are a lot of I think that could be. - Yeah, who else would you put on the list of could be besides Shapiro and Osaf?

- Um, certainly on a, on a, on a, you know, more left, I think Gavin Newsom is, is also a very good orator, he's a fighter, he's got new ideas, he's a clear communicator, he's handsome, all of that.

AOC, even, you know, I think she's a very clear communicator. Interestingly enough, she did not endorse platinum, right? - Yeah, she did not, she kept her distance. And I think that speaks volumes about, you know,

“there is, there is a line you have to draw for it.”

- Yeah, yeah, are there other people on the ballot in the midterms, whether they're well known or not, who you look at and you say, not necessarily running for present, if you say, well, that's a, that's a good Democrat, that's the,

that's kind of a template for what Democrat should be like. - Uh, well, certainly John Osaf, we talked to Adam. - Well, Josh Supiro is technically on the ballot, right? - Yeah, yes, he's romping to real action.

- He's romping to real action. I like shared brown a lot, I like it. I like Cooper a lot in North Carolina. I like, you know, Haley Stevens is a friend of mine, we worked together for a long time, super smart,

turned, you know, a red district blue in the state of Michigan, which is pretty impressive. - Um, who else do I like? - You know, this, a sands guy running for governor of Iowa, you watch him at all?

- Well, I, I, I, I, I, I don't know him well, but I, speaking of Iowa, I really like turned a lot. - Yeah. - He's great. - Um.

- Yeah, and, and on the economy, are there issues

people are talking about, here's what the Democrats' ideas

on the economy that are impressing you, or is it more just a critique of Donald Trump? - That, to me, is a losing argument. We did that in 2024, just a critique of Donald Trump, and it, it lost us all seven swings states.

I would, I would imagine that anyone who is seriously thinking of running for president in 2028 has to develop a clear platform on how to make the American dream more affordable. And the people that I see doing that currently,

arom, AOC, with, with specific ideas Bernie Sanders. - You know, I make, I've currently back to making my front runner for the nomination. - You're kidding.

- Nope.

“Nope, I think he's gonna see a vacuum to run”

and he could have won the nomination twice, and he's got one flaw. - He's old. - I know. - He's old, but everybody's, everybody's got a flaw.

- He's, yeah, but that's a pretty significant flaw, especially after what we went through. - I hear you, yeah, I hear you, yeah. - But he, he leads, I talk about this on my show. So if I'm, he leads a movement.

AOC does lead a movement, she's popular. - Yeah. - But she doesn't lead a movement. And, uh, we'll see, do you think he would run against her? I don't think he would run against her.

- No, but I don't think she'd run against him. I don't think she's gonna run. I think, I think he'll say, we need a progressive, a social democrat to be the president, to be the nominee,

and there's no one else who can do it. That's my secret theory, not so secret.

“But, but, but, but you'd have to handle the age thing.”

If you were his advisor, and he said, Patty, I'm gonna run, I wanna, I wanna address the age thing, head on, how age and health, head on. What would you advise him to do? - Well, in all honesty, I advise him to do exactly what he's doing,

which I mean, he seems to have an incredible amount of energy,

and, you know, metabolism for this kind of thing, and stamina at all. - Yeah. - So, be out there, and-- - Be out there.

- Yeah, just do it. - Go out. - Or he's doing it. - He's doing it. - He's doing it.

He'll be in, he'll be in Michigan this week. I'm, he's doing it. - Yeah. Patty, thank you, love that you on, really great to you. Have a great time.

Have a great rest of July, we'll have you back soon. - Okay, thank you. - Thank you so much. - That's it for today's program. Back Thursday with the brand new episodes,

a lot of news this week, so, no shortage of stuff to talk about. Make sure you subscribe to the program on YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast,

so you always know what's coming.

Next up. (upbeat music)