Amy Coney Barrett and Donald Trump's Taxes
Topics Discussed:
Amy Coney Barrett
Moment of Positivity
Donald Trump's Taxes
Outside of Politics
Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for daily news briefs, GIF news threads, and our real time reactions to breaking news. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs.
Episode Resources
How Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court could affect LGBTQ rights (Vox)
Birds in San Francisco started singing differently in the silence of the pandemic shutdown (CNN)
LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE (The New York Times)
Baked Apple Cider Doughnuts (The New York Times)
Transcript
Beth: [00:00:00] Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us for this episode of Pantsuit Politics. Slow news week. We're going to spend the first section of the show talking about the Supreme Court nomination. And then in the main segment, we will dive into blockbuster reporting from the New York times regarding the president's personal financial situation. We will end as always with what's on our minds outside of politics. And before we get started Abigail, welcome to our executive producers team. We have such an amazing group of people who help us make Pantsuit Politics and especially a group of members whose financial support allows us to provide transcripts and to do all the research that we do and to have the show well produced.
So thank you all for being part of this and Abigail, we are so honored that you're joining us.
Sarah: [00:00:45] And all of our patrons we'll get our first hot takes about the debate tonight between president Trump and former vice president, Joe Biden. We'll be on Instagram live sort of sharing our immediate reactions.
And then we're going to go on Patreon and do our immediate analysis. Now, in theory, we will talk about this in depth on Friday's show, but if this news cycle keeps up, who knows how much time we'll have to talk about the debate, considering that we are dealing with this blockbuster report and a record breaking confirmation process right now with Amy Coney Barrett.
Beth: [00:01:21] So, did you watch Amy Coney Barrett's acceptance speech, Sarah? Sarah: [00:01:25] I watched parts of it. What about you?
Beth: [00:01:27] Okay. I watched all of her. I did not watch the president's remarks introducing her. I just watched her speech in its entirety. So that unfolded over the weekend as the Memorial services were happening for justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The president announced that he has nominated Amy Coney Barrett. The quick facts, facts that I'm sure you've already heard, or that she is very young, 48 years old. She's from Indiana. She is an appellate judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals right now, hasn't been on the federal bench as long as most judges who come from the federal bench to the Supreme Court are.
So we have a limited body of work compared to what we often have when somebody is going onto the court. I've been spending the weekend reading some of her decisions. Just trying to get a feel for what kind of judge she is. A lot of the reporting about her opinions and the concerns, particularly about how she might conduct herself on the court, come from extra judicial writing.
So legal scholarship that she's written, speeches that she's given. People are trying to put together a portrait of who she might be as a justice based on less work than we often do, just because of her age.
Sarah: [00:02:37] So I'd like to talk about her age for just a second. Yeah. Let me ask you this question under any scenario, do you think that someone should be on the Supreme Court for 40 to 50 years?
Beth: [00:02:53] I think lifetime appointments are not serving the country well. And I don't think they serve the justice as well either. And so in my mind it would make sense. Well, I'm going to answer your question in a bigger way than you ask it. I'm so sorry if I were Joe Biden, assuming that he becomes the next president.
I would put together a commission of people to talk about changes to the Supreme Court. I would get all the dignitaries, all the people together to say, what should we do about this? Because I just think it's so clearly not working. I'll tell you that I personally would not want the responsibility of being a Supreme Court justice in my forties.
I cannot imagine that level of responsibility. At this age, and I cannot imagine staring down that level of responsibility for upwards of 40 years. I think that's too much to ask them. I think that's too much to ask of her. And, and I think it's not a reasonable expectation for anybody in our country or good for the country.
Sarah: [00:03:54] Yeah, I think it's way too long and it feels like we're just in a race to the bottom, you know, like, Oh, what's next a new legal graduate who we just know is, is locked into our particular form of interpretation. Now I will say for a long time, I have really wanted to see. A different type of representation on the court.
And in some way she checks those boxes, right? Like she didn't go to an Ivy league school, you know, right now I think they all went to Harvard or Yale. That's not okay with me. She has school aged children. Now would I want to tackle being a Supreme Court justice was with seven school aged children. No, no, I would not, but more power to her.
And I do think that there is something to be said for a justice in the middle of that particular life experience. That is, that is powerful. And that is exactly the sort of widening perspective and representation that we often need desperately in our democracy.
Beth: [00:04:55] And to be fair, that cuts against my comment about age, about not wanting to do it in your forties.
If you want someone on the court with school aged children, you are going to have someone in, you know, often who is in a younger age bracket. And I agree with you that that's a valuable perspective. I like that. She's a woman. I like that. She did not go to an Ivy league school. Now, the kind of representation I would like to see on the Supreme Court from here is like a public defender.
I'd like people with some life experience beyond clerking for Supreme Court justices, and then working appellate courts or being professors and going to the court. We do have such a narrow path to the Supreme Court right now that I also think doesn't serve us. So she. Certainly enriches the biography of the court.
And we're talking about this, like it's going to happen because I mean, Sarah, what do you think? I just think it's going to happen. I don't think there's any sense, pretending that this confirmation is not going to sail through.
Sarah: [00:05:47] I think that they're going to push it through a breakneck speed and she will become the next Supreme Court justice, unfortunately, because obviously I don't think that's the right thing to do.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't think that was the right thing to do. And in a majority of Americans, according to recent polling, do not think that is the right thing to do. It is hypocritical. It is a power grab. It is naked. Um, as far as what is motivating them, the unfortunate reality is there is little to nothing that Democrats can do to stop it.
Beth: [00:06:17] I think that's right. And so I think there are things about her that enrich the experience represented on the court and that's good. And I think that there are concerns, real ones about what kind of jurists she would be that are really hard to sort through because of the limited body of work we have to look at.
Sarah: [00:06:38] Well, and I also think there are other representation problems when she is confirmed, which I'm sure she will be. She will become the sixth out of nine justices that are Catholic. Now this is not an anti-Catholic bias. This is just an honest question. If we think that a particular religious denomination that represents 22% of the country should be represented by 66% of the Supreme Court justices.
I don't think that's an accident. I think it's usually problematic and I really am insulted that any mere mention of her Catholicism in particular, her membership in some particular branches of Catholicism is religious discrimination. When Joe Biden's running as a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic and that's used against them all the time implied that they're not really Catholics, that they're bad Catholics.
And so, you know, I think that that is an honest question. Not because it represents some sort of bias, but because like, is that what we want? Like, is that what we think is a fair representation of the country like that? When we push people through these teeny tiny little channels, as far as experiences, clerks, federal judicial positions, law school, alumni, like the representation gets narrower and narrower.
And in some way she pushes against that in some ways. She continues it.
Beth: [00:08:00] I have a hard time with knowing how to approach the discussion about her, because in so many ways, because of the timing here, the discussion is not about her as an individual. It is about whether this president at this time ought to be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice and have that person confirmed by a Congress that one chamber impeached, um, and the other narrowly acquitted.
So I hate for her that she's in this position. I have seen lots of outcry that she should not have accepted the nomination. And I think that's difficult because you know what lawyers are best at. Compartmentalization. That is the skill set in many ways of being a great lawyer, being able to dissect things and say, I know on the whole, you feel it should go this way.
But look at this piece, this piece matters. And. And we need that in our system, because that is how we ensure to the best of our ability. And we are always working on that project. We got a long way to go that our system has some component of actual jobs, justice in it. And so it is hard for me with a straight face to say a person who went to law school clerked for Supreme Court justice is sitting on a court of appeals who clearly has had this ambition. Is going to turn down the nomination. I just. I think we need to be really honest about the humanity of the people who sit on the Supreme Court. Good, bad and otherwise. And so I'm not willing to say like, she's a horrible person for accepting this nomination.
Would I personally want to be nominated by Donald Trump? I would not. I also don't have that ambition though. And I haven't worked my whole career to get there. And so I don't know how to feel about that. And the debate about faith to me is really fraught because in some senses, knowing what really matters to any judge is important.
And at the same time, good lawyers are masters of compartmentalization. And so I think it's more relevant to say, what do we see in the body of your work versus what do you personally adhere to? You know, One of the things that's been criticized about Amy Coney Barrett is a speech that she gave that was critical of the court's approach to marriage equality, because she is somebody who is always going to say, if a court is considering a right, what does history tell us about the scope of that right now, we can all disagree about that.
Judicial philosophy make no mistake. That is her judicial philosophy. And so in talking about this decision, you know, she really is making it clear that she's not going to be part of expanding rights as a jurist on the court. I think it's less clear about whether she would be part of rolling back rights the court has previously created, but I don't know that the way she's talking about these issues can be so neatly tied to her. Practice of Catholicism that it all marries up together. Do you know what I'm saying, Sarah? I just don't know how to adequately talk about someone's belief system and connection with confirmation.
Sarah: [00:11:32] I mean, I think the issue is because the Supreme Court has become such a political body and make no mistake that it has. Then there are issues of representation and you don't even have to make it about Catholicism. You can make it about the fact that she's clearly. A devoutly religious person. And that is also a minority view in our country currently. That's a minority perspective, but I think that honestly, you know what bugs me about all of this. Including the fact that, you know, Joe Biden said, I'm going to pick a female vice president and Ben Shapiro in his light crowed and crowed about it for months. But Donald Trump says, I'm going to pick a female replacement and they're silent.
That bothers me, but it's like, it's just the, you know, maybe the different ways that she pushes and constricts or the representation is really about my overall. Fury at the waist, this nomination and the Supreme Court in general, particularly because the nominees are confirmed by the Senate, just blows up all our ideas about representation.
We're talking about a president that a minority of Americans voted for. Picking a nominate and being confirmed by senators who represent a minority of Americans. I mean, that's, that's just the long and short of it. Right? And so now you're going to have a strong conservative majority in a body that was picked and confirmed by a minority view in this country.
I mean, This is a great article from box about how the Senate and its representation problems are way bigger than the electoral college, but you know, California's 39 million people get two senators while two senators also come from Wyoming with 578,000 people, Vermont 626,000 people and Alaska 737,000 people, six senators from California, Texas, and New York represent the same number of people as the 62.
Other senators from the smallest 31 States that's outrageous. And like that is what makes this particular situation. So enraging is that it's just the minority rule of people, flouting representation, because she's a young mother in our face and it pisses me off. It pisses me off.
Beth: [00:14:03] It's just, it's difficult for me because I don't disagree with any of what you just said. Let me just be clear. I would not vote to confirm anyone nominated by this president. What is making me feel conflicted in this conversation is just that I hate the word. Women are treated in processes like this, and I fully understand. That the jurisprudence we have from judge Barrett would suggest that you could fairly say this is not a person who is going to work to advance equal rights for women or anyone who is marginalized.
I think it's fair to say that. I think it's fair to say that she has some libertarian leanings. That could be helpful in some criminal justice cases, the gun that descent that she wrote, that people keep talking about, where she said that we cannot categorically deprive people. Who've committed felonies of their right to bear arms while I understand why that is concerning for gun activists.
I also think that there are some language in there that is helpful in terms of criminal justice reform. So there's always going to be with real qualified judges. And I mean, let us say. He did nominate a real qualified judge, not like judge Jeanine or something, which wouldn't have been out of the realm of stability, but with real qualified justice judges, there's always going to be some nuance.
There's always going to be some unpredictability, especially somebody going on the court. This young, we haven't seen that before, but we have seen before people going onto the court and evolving significantly in their views. I mean, Sarah and I did a whole conversation on Patreon and about how the court does seem to bring people to the middle, except in some circumstances. And those circumstances often tend to be people who had a confirmation process. So that was very, very ugly. And so I just don't, I don't want the discussion about this nominee to really be about Amy Coney Barrett, because if that happens, then what we have is a food fight over religion and a food fight over whether a mom can do this job and a hundred other things that are just really not relevant to the big structural issues that have gotten us into the morass that this nomination represents.
Sarah: [00:16:21] I don't know. I guess my point is though that some of those issues are representative of the structural issues with the Supreme Court in particular with the Senate to hurt us gun case as somebody who takes gun control very seriously.
That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that she's a judge, not a history professor and this, let me dig through. To figure out how the founding fathers felt about Medicare fraud. Cause that's why the guy was a felon. Give me a break. Give me a break. You know, it's not my problem with the fact that she's appointed by conservative justice.
I have huge masses problems with that approach to constitutional interpretation. Mainly the idea that again, you're going through and pretending to be a history professor and pretending that we can look to our founding fathers and mothers or whoever the tech is that all to apply to situations. That are out of the universe and galaxy of anything they could have comprehended.
I can't wait until we start talking about social media on the court and we have to use an originalist approach to the constitution. Decide how are, you know, George Washington felt about Facebook, come on, just come on. Like that drives me crazy. And I think it's just a. Excuse. I think it's an excuse. I think it sounds really nice to get up as she did during her acceptance speech in wax poetic about how the law holds the power.
And it's no longer democratic if we're not interpreting under the people who voted for it. Right. So it's just the people at the time that gave it its democratic power. And so we have to think about what. They would have considered bullshit. It has power because we, the people now are enforcing the laws and the idea that we all, every democratic log gets frozen in time by the people who voted for it, or the representatives who voted for it is ludicrous to me. And I know it sounds nice and it sounds appealing, but in application it is a disaster. It is a disaster. And all it does is secure power for those who already have it. That to me is what bugs me is that this particular interpretation type of interpretation is put on this altar now and cased in gold with the memory of Antonin Scalia and is perpetuated by minorities, whether they're electing the president through electoral college, whether they're confirming them through the Senate or what they're represented on the court. And you know that to me, I don't really, you know, I think that that is, that is the system that's at play here. And that's what bothers me.
Beth: [00:19:02] Yeah. I get all of that. And I know that people are like aiming with you and are going. I'm going to get email about being insufficiently outraged here and that's fine. I don't want important laws to be changed because of a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. I do not want to lose protection for marriage equality.
I do not want to lose Roe versus Wade. So I think everybody who listens knows where I stand on the substance here. I just want to be able to like, have. Conversations in some kind of meaningful framework. And while I think that you make really excellent points about that sort of originalist approach to interpretation, I think it's good when we have a Supreme Court that represents both more progressive and more conservative judicial philosophy.
In terms of the philosophy, not the outcome. And I think it's really good for the country when somebody liked justice, Gorsuch, pins, and opinion saying actually transgender people are protected by our employment discrimination laws, because it shows that the law is not just a tool for some kind of particular agenda when it's done correctly.
Now, do any of the judges get that right? All the time the justice has get that right. All the time. Of course they don't. Here's what I'm struggling to say. I think that Amy Coney Barrett is in practicality probably going to be very much like a Scalia or a Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. And I am not excited about having another person on the court of that bent, but that's where we are right now.
I feel like the conversation about her is going to be so much uglier because she is a woman carrying that flag. And I think we put on women expectations in every scene that we don't put on men. And I think that we would be having a totally different discussion if she were a man. And that is what bothers me here.
Not we, you and me, but we, the world talking about this, right. I think that it's like particularly galling to people that a woman would yeah. Approach the role in this way. And I both understand that and want to reject it because I think it's important that we reject it. And the religious angle bothers me too, because I don't want to have a conversation about whether a practitioner of Islam should be on the court.
Representation matters a lot to me on the court representation in our system matters a lot to me and I fully endorsed process reforms here. I think we should have them. I don't want to villainize this human being because of the position that she's in right now. And I don't want to do it in a way that perpetuates all of their representation issues that we're trying to struggle against.
Sarah: [00:22:01] Well, to me, I guess I'm confused. I don't see where she's being villainized. Now, let me say this, I've been spending time on Twitter this weekend. So maybe that's why I'm at a loss. To me she's being put up as sort of, you know, an angel in disguise. I feel like all the female representation, the fact that she's a mother of seven, all I've read about is that she's a mother of seven and she has two adopted children and a child with special needs.
And she's like, to me, it's that, that is working to her benefit instead of seeing her being villainized. And, you know, I think that the process is so outside the norm, but I don't see it falling necessarily on her individual. Shoulders, as far as she's the reason this is all, you know, falling apart.
Beth: [00:22:47] I think both things are happening and, and look, I find it to be like the ultimate gaslighting to have men writing these pieces about how wonderful this is for women.
Okay. I like it bothers me. I'm a hundred percent with you. I also know from watching Twitter, yes. And other forms of social media. And just having conversations in my life that we're doing with her, what we did with Brett Kavanaugh in a way we all kind of project our own stuff, miss nominee. And that happens when anybody is in the spotlight.
I certainly projected my own stuff onto Brett Kevin on, I do not apologize for that. I still find it outrageous that he sits on the Supreme Court. To me, the best conversation that we can have here is the process argument that you're making. What is happening when we have an impeached president who did not win the popular vote, but is still the president.
Making a nomination in the month before an election on a very rushed confirmation process during an election where we know there is the potential for dramatic swing in where the country is. And I think that's a hard call. I think it's a really hard call because I do think merit Garland should have gotten a hearing and been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
So I don't want to argue categorically that it's just too late for the president to put a justice up. I think this president's corruption is very separate from whether in a normal universe, someone like Amy Coney Barrett goes on the Supreme Court.
Sarah: [00:24:21] Yeah. I mean, listen, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg said when there are nine women on the court, she didn't mean nine Progressive's I'm more than happy.
To have female representation of a conservative originalist to the constitution. That's not the issue. It's not, I'm not even mad about, you know, devoutly religious people on the court, but you best believe that if six of the nine justices were Muslim. People would be in the streets. You know, it's like, to me, it's not that they are, that the point of view is it's just that it's overrepresented.
That to me is the issue it's overrepresented because the system rewards minority rule right now. And to me, that is the issue. And I don't think that's her fault. And I don't think she's unqualified to sit on the court. I don't think anybody should sit on the court for 40 to 50 years, but, and the, there is this gaslighting of, Oh, he was going to pick a woman to be the vice president.
That's so messed up. I did smile ever so slightly when at least some women, even at Trump rallies were consistent. Somebody asked one of the women at a Trump rally. Do you like that? She's a woman. They're like, Oh, I just want, no, it doesn't matter to me. I just want whoever's qualified. And I was like, well, at least you're consistent sister.
And I appreciate it. But to me, that's what, it's not that it's her as an individual. It's just the over representation. And particularly the issues with minority role. And the electoral college and the Senate that her confirmation represents.
Beth: [00:25:51] And then I just have to say to that, I just want whoever's qualified comment, like lots and lots of people are qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
So many, so many more people than we behave as though they are qualified. There are so many people qualified to be on the Supreme Court. There are so many good lawyers in this country from a variety of backgrounds. And so that's where I think you have the opportunity to get into representation. It's not like there are five people to pick from.
Yeah, there are lots and lots of people. So you could absolutely have a court that looks more like America. Now I don't think that the court should be in some kind of tests. Like I do think there is a term for judges and justices that make sense. We haven't found it yet. We should not be saying like, well today this is the percentage of the country that is you know, whatever, pick your demographic category, we've got to perfectly represent the country on this court. We're never going to be able to do that religiously or otherwise. We're never going to be able to do that, but we can do a lot better and we can be a lot more conscientious about it. Well, before we talk about the president's taxes and financial situation, I just wanted to bring to you
what I thought was the most beautiful story I read all weekend about how birds in San Francisco are singing differently during the pandemic. So pre pandemic, urban white crown Sparrow is breeding. Territories were almost three times as loud as in rural territories, but during the pandemic. The noise in urban areas became drastically the lower they basically, and we created a silent spring around the Bay area in San Francisco.
And birds responded. This is from a CNN piece that we'll link in the show notes by producing higher performance songs at lower amplitudes maximizing communication, distance and salients. We found that birds sang more softly when noise levels were lower and shorter recording distances before and during the shutter.
And I just thought that was a beautiful reminder, that nature is dynamic, that everything is connected. I just found such hope in the birds, like singing more softly to maximize communication. When the world quieted down a little bit.
Sarah: [00:28:09] Hmm. I love that. I love that I'm a bird watcher and I love listening to bird sing because it's like all the subtle shifts and the ways they respond to the environment, even when you go just to a slightly different location, it's like you learn another language.
It is really, it's really beautiful. And it opens up this whole other realm of input. Once you start noticing it.
Beth, you posted on Twitter that you spent your Sunday, you got prepared, you did your homework, you were ready for today's show. Yep. New York times they had some other plans for you and some other plans for us. They had some other plans for Trump who apparently didn't know this blockbuster report was coming.
Either, uh, for those of you who have not read all 9,000 words, and seriously, I said this a news brief, I recommend all 9,000 of them highly recommend all 9,000 words came out with a blockbuster report about the last 20 years of Trump's tax returns, which he has been trying to keep quiet. And I'm honestly a little surprised it took this long.
It's not like thousands of people don't have access to this kind of information, but they have gotten them and they contain. Lots and lots of interesting information.
Beth: [00:29:35] I think that one of the first important things to say about this reporting is that it is blockbuster because it is about an entire picture of his financial social situation.
It's not just that we've learned that he paid. $0 in taxes for a long period of time and only $750 for the past two years. It's that in addition to his income tax reporting, we also have this refund and negotiation with the IRS to the tune of almost $73 million that we have this president. Saddled with debt that he is personally guaranteed, much of which will be coming due in the next four years.
I think what's so important about it is that it's very holistic.
Sarah: [00:30:26] So let's start with the most basic infuriating fact, he did not pay federal income tax for 11 of the 18 years that they looked into. And in 2016 and 2017. His tax bill was only $750. Now, Beth, I don't know about you, but I paid a little bit more than $750 in 2016 for my personal federal income taxes. How about you?
Beth: [00:30:55] Yes. I paid a lot more than $750 for my entire adult life.
Sarah: [00:30:59] I mean, it's infuriating it's infuriating that while he was selling all of us on the fact that he was this wildly successful businessman, he's a millionaire, he's a billionaire and he is paying $750 in taxes the year he's elected. Do you know how much Barack Obama paid the year he was elected?
Beth: [00:31:22] How much?
Sarah: [00:31:23] 1.2 million. $1.2 million in income taxes. I can't even begin to tell you how mad this makes me.
Beth: [00:31:30] So I think it's important to say we do not yet know the legality of those tax returns.
Sarah: [00:31:38] Uh huh.
Beth: [00:31:39] It is weird that it came out to $750, two years in a row and zero, many years in a row. My taxes fluctuate quite a bit more than that.
And usually don't look like nice round numbers. So there are some things that raise a flag for sure. But we are already hearing from many of you that the conversation in your lives with Trump supporters sounds like, well, that's just him being like genius businessman. Everybody tries to minimize their tax.
Liability. And what I would say is first, well, we need more information to know that it was all legal and the way that he could show that it's all legal is just by, do you sing that information? But instead he has spent a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer funded lawyer fees to not provide that information to the public.
So if he's, if this is genius businessman, he can clear that right up.
Sarah: [00:32:37] Or if it's fake news, which he claims that they've just made all this up. Another easy, easy peasy way to clear it up is to turn over the tax returns that they're so, you know, wildly different from the times reporting. But to me, you know, The idea that this is genius business tactics, when it revolves around massive losses, that's one of the big strategies he uses is, and I don't even know if it's strategy at this point, or if he's just so bad at it, you know, he made a lot of money during the apprentice.
This is, this provides a lot of insight into those years when he was. Working on the apprentice there for opening up a lot of branding and licensing opportunities where he wouldn't necessarily build hotels, but he would sell them his name to put on them. And he made a lot of money. He made like $400 million doing that.
Meanwhile, he's taking the money he's making and pouring it into these golf courses that lose lots and lots of money, continue to lose money. Even after he becomes president and the membership goes up, he made a lot of money at Mara Lago after he became president from increasing the fees to join and then people joining.
So they could have access to him, which again, of questionable legality and then instill lost money. Like you can't. Yes, there is a lot of deductions going on here. He is clearly he loves to deduct including $70,000 for haircuts while giving AOC shit about her $250 haircut, whatever. But you, you know, Their deductions.
Don't get you to $750. I don't care what a tax genius you are. You're getting that way because you're telling the federal government I lost money. I lost, lost lots and lots and lots of money. And so you don't get to be both. You don't get to be a genius because you're not paying taxes and also a genius while losing so much money.
Beth: [00:34:21] Well, I want to say there are business owners who use those losses and that ability to carry losses forward in order to get a business off the ground and employ people and continue to do what they do. And so I don't want to. Villainize people who are listening, who think, but I do that in my business.
What I want to say is this is where again, I think the complete picture is important because I don't think the American dream is building business on top of business. On top of business leveraged to the hilt. Where there's no prospect of everyone fully getting paid down the road. This is not his first trip through a cycle of money.
Right. He inherits money. He invests it. The investments go sour. He does all of these tax maneuvers to avoid that liability, but he eventually ends up in bankruptcy court and people who loaned him money in good faith and people who performed work for him in good faith did not ultimately get paid. And so what happens?
He gets this opportunity to play successful business person on TV, and he does that and he makes lots of money again, and he spends all of that money. And again, gets loans on top of loans on top of lens and minimizes his tax liability. And again, it is looking. Very probable that a lot of people who loaned him money arguably in less good faith this time, because they had a track record to examine.
But a lot of people who've performed work for him in good faith will again, not get fully paid. I think that's a very different situation then. Small business that opens its stores takes out loans, carries a loss for a couple of years because operating a business and times comes with a loss, takes advantage of the tax laws that enable them to use that loss against whatever they might.
Oh, and eventually gets on their feet and pays their bills and pays their people and grows because they're doing good business work. That's just not the story of Donald Trump's career. And I don't want that story to get mixed up in conversations with family members who are projecting their feelings about how ordinary people do business onto it.
Sarah: [00:36:43] Well, and here's the other thing, you know, it wasn't just the times that came out with some reporting that first cycle, when he was approaching personal bankruptcy because of his obligations to these debts, he went to his father who was riddled with dementia and tried to steal his inheritance from his siblings.
Like the Washington post had all the details on that, including his own sister, Mary Trump in great detail sharing. What he was trying to do at the time, he's also sold off a massive amount of things. Stock portfolio. I thought that detail was pretty shocking that he only has about $800,000 in stocks.
Good. Considering his, you know, running the stock market, which he likes to brag about could help him with these personal items. But he sold that off, which was shortsighted. They sold the family business off is explained in great detail and Mary Trump's book, they sold out. I mean, his father's business was a good business.
It made a lot of money and they sold it off. Really at a loss, you know, he just, this cycle is running its course and you know, what's clear and what's backed up in Michael Cohen's book is that he thought running for presidency would build up that brand and open up more licensing opportunities. Well, that's gone because he is, you know, so controversial.
Nobody's looking to pay to put Trump on the side of a hotel anymore and, you know, debt. Is a national security risk, a president with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, especially coming off. The miss universe pageant in Moscow, which suddenly turned greater, you know, turned out a lot of profit for the first time and forever.
Like you put that into the financial story, you put that into his financial timeline and it all becomes so concerning. I'll tell you what, reading all of this and reading like how he was buying this property and how he's stacking this property and how he's using this property as a write off and depreciation and historical value.
Like I thought. No wonder he can't do the job of president. This is a lot of work to stay on top of, like, this is a very complicated financial scheme strategy, whatever you want to call it, like just reading the overview. I thought he has to be consumed with this. Like he has to know that these debts are coming due and the money is not there.
And not only the debts he's personally obligated to, but because of this negotiation with the IRS, So he's going to be on the hook to the IRS. If they can't settle for a hundred million dollars, he's going to have to pay back after interest plus the personal obligations, plus the criminal investigations and to not only these tax maneuvers, but campaign financing, all this stuff. I thought, God, no wonder he can't. Oh, I don't know. Manage the Corona virus response. He's too busy dealing with all of this.
Beth: [00:39:32] I think the stress level of the, the amount of loans that he is personally guaranteed is, has to be enormous. Here's the question that I've been wanting to ask you. Since I read this, we have this idea in America that anybody can be the president, but we also have an incredibly high standard.
For people who work with the president in terms of security clearance, people who work in the federal government at all. In some instances where we ask people before we show you this sensitive information and give you access to the most important decisions in terms of the protection of our country and the role our country plays in the world.
We need to know some things about you. And I just wonder if we need to talk about a pre-clearance assessment for people who run for president. It is disturbing to me in a national secure 30 cents that someone with this much debt has been sitting. With the kind of information about our country that he's been sitting with.
And I honestly believe if I'm really trying to like search my heart here. I honestly think I would have that concern about a person of any ideology, even somebody, if I think about someone who has a personality that I love, right. Who could be in this, this position? I think even with that person, I would say.
You've got this much debt all over the world that you're personally on the hook for. What are other countries going to do to exploit that, that, that does seem really problematic to me. And I don't want it to be that only wealthy people can run for president, but like having maxed out some personal credit cards is really different than tens of meters of dollars in loans.
Sarah: [00:41:10] I mean, listen, I'm not a national security expert, but I've watched a lot of Americans. They show. And that's always how they got to people, always on the gods of people, because they were under debt, like massive amounts of debt and the spies, whatever you want to call them would get in there and maneuver that it makes you very vulnerable.
It makes you very vulnerable. And he said, you know, the part to me that was so infuriating is, you know, not only do we not know his. Like who his debts are to, to foreign guys. But also we see that like he's paying more taxes to foreign governments than he is to the United States. Like he's so genius about tax code surely the Philippines aren't that hard to outsmart with regards to their tax code or else we need to take a lesson from them. Cause he's paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to countries like that. And $750 to the United States. Like I just think that the vulnerability. The, like you said, just the stress and I don't think he's just trying to protect himself.
I think he's trying to protect his family as well. I mean, we see within the report that he was paying Ivanka or they're matching up payments, they may do a quote unquote consultant and the exact same amount she received as a consultant, despite the fact that she was an employee for the company. I don't know how you pay somebody as an employee and as a consultant.
Oh, wait, I do. It's illegal. That's how you do it, but I think you're going to be on the hook for. If not some of these personal obligations. I mean, I just think they're all of their family's finances are caught up in this structure. And, you know, I don't know how any of them escape unscathed, not just with debt and with the financing part, but with the criminal investigation part.
Beth: [00:42:54] It's really frustrating to me that the president has so successfully attached his own image to what it means to be patriotic for so many people. And that he ran on this whole idea of America first and that we want to manufacture things in America. And when you look at his financial records, it is so clear that overseas deals are where his money comes from in so many respects and that his interests, not even if you think about the history, but his interest is in opening up additional markets for himself to pursue. And in working with foreign governments in a way that gives him an edge in those overseas markets. That's so it's just, you know, we're just being taken for such a ride.
By this family and people who sincerely think that he represents patriotic interests, I just feel like are being taken so advantage of in a way that is disgusting. And again, like we're always going to have con men. We always have, we always will to have a majority of the United States Senate willing to go along for that ride really disgusts me.
Sarah: [00:44:11] There was a part where I had, you know, it was just sort of had like a glimmer of hope where a Joe Biden was appealing to his former colleagues back to our conversation about the Supreme Court. He was like, anything. Do you have anything at all? Do you feel any obligation to your oath?
It's so frustrating. I don't know how this is going over. I don't know how they're reading this. I don't know if they feel any. Concern if it's just, I mean, I've, I've lost the plot as far as if you're a United States Senator and I think patriotism has just become code word for power above all else.
Like, all we care about is power, the transparency at which they operate, you know, under the. Guiding principle, that all that matters is that we're in charge. All that matters is that we keep power. That is the only value that is the only priority that is the only motivation is power. And that's what got us here.
That's what got us here. When we're thinking, boy, I wonder what will happen if a sitting president has debts called in and has to file for personal bankruptcy, wonder how we'll tackle that historical occurrence like we should not be here. And you know, what's really infuriating to me is there was all this hand wringing about, Oh, well, what would we do if Hillary Clinton is under investigation?
What will we do? Like that's, what's motivating to so many people. Well, what will we do if Donald Trump is in bankruptcy? As the president of the United States of America, what will we do if the head of the executive branch has the IRS calling forth a hundred million dollar tax liability against him?
Like I just, how did we get here? How did we get here? It feels like is so, so crazy-making,
Beth: [00:45:59] I would like to know the answer to this question from people who are ardent Trump supporters. Should a lender be able to foreclose on the president of the United States, because that is a very real possibility in the next four years.
If he is reelected that you would have lenders who would be seeking to foreclose on him. And what he's told us over and over again is that he is absolutely immune from lawsuits,
even though that's definitely not the legal standard, but. I'm interested in whether people who defend him, especially who defend him from what they say is a pro business angle would say, well, you know, if he took out a loan and didn't pay it back, according to the loan terms yeah.
He gets foreclosed on or not. I just, I would like to have that conversation in good faith with someone. Um, and I would also like to know whether they would be okay with the department of justice being involved in a lawsuit like that. Cause rest assured if that happened, if that came to pass, Bill Barr's department of justice would be in court arguing that the president is immune from that.
Sarah: [00:47:09] I mean, can you even, can you even. After the 2008 recession where millions of Americans lost their home, have to sit through taxpayers funding, his defense against foreclosure. I can't, I cannot, I cannot.
Beth: [00:47:34] That's just a very real possibility. I think when we talk about the stakes of the election, Understanding that they go beyond the headlines today is really important in this scenario.
Those that are presented by another four years of this president in office, in terms of what hits the court system and what could hit our, our newly six, three conservative majority of the Supreme Court are fraught. I promise you that even justice Kavanaugh does not want to be ruling on whether the president of the United States can be foreclosed on.
I promise the conservative majority of the Supreme Court does not want that case. It will stretch our system to its very limits to do this again.
Sarah: [00:48:17] I think it's just important that he, you know, I think what this report presents is that he is being stretched to his limits. And that is why he is willing to say, well, I don't know about turning over power.
You don't have a choice. You don't have a choice. Like I think that the narrative going forward, the more we learn about the pressures he is under is we will not protect you from your bad choices. The American people are under no obligation to protect you against criminal investigations and personal bankruptcy.
Those were your choices. Those were your choices and stop using, you know, if there's ever a moment for grace. Look at how millions of Americans are friends and family members are being used by this man to protect himself. Not for power, not even for culture Wars, not even if you know, you care deeply about these culture Wars.
That's not even what it's about to him. He's not even an idealogue. He's just, the check is coming due and he's using our friends and family members to protect himself.
Beth: [00:49:23] Yeah. And you know what? That, that helps me circle back to why I struggled so much in our conversation about Amy Coney Barrett, because I fully understand that the Republican party always manages to be the victim.
I fully understand that even as they flex really historic levels of power, In fast tracking the confirmation of this very young person to join the court. They will be victims all the way through that process and emphasize the things that I was emphasizing. Oh, we're treating her differently because she's a woman you're treating her this way because she's a Catholic, whatever.
But I come around to try to take those points seriously, because it's been so effective with people in my life. That line chain of thinking has sunk in really deeply. And I need my anger where it belongs. At the Republican party and people like Mitch McConnell who have made that kind of thought reflexive.
And when I say that, I feel that people are being used. It does not mean that I think those people are stupid. I do not. I think many of those people have very good intentions. I think most of those people want to be good citizens in our democracy. And I think that a lot has just sunk in through generations in terms of what we believe about the government.
And so even though a lot of it is disconnected from the reality of what happens as I understand that reality. I also want to struggle with those arguments in good faith, because I believe there are people of good faith making them, and I want to influence those people positively and be influenced by them positively.
Sarah: [00:51:13] Those arguments are not being made in, in good faith on Twitter or in editorials or on Fox news. And I mean, I don't know. I even struggle with the term good faith. I've had two experiences recently where I thought, you know, I guess I would ask what do we mean by good faith? Because they're not being made under full information.
You know, I had a family member talk to. Some friends and they were talking about the sort of sex trafficking conspiracies, and she brought up Pizzagate and they had no, no idea what she was talking about. Or I was talking to a family member about COVID and I mentioned the loss of sense and loss of taste.
Yeah. He had no idea what I was talking about. And it was just like such an important reminder that. Some of these arguments, they feel true to those people, but they're being parroted and they're not based on full and complete information. Just stuff like the taste and smell. I was so shocked by that because I thought that's surely everyone knows that like that's been everywhere, but the truth is they don't, it's not like this.
You know, I, I would believe that there are people, you know, making those arguments who have no idea that the population is so disproportionately represented in the United States Senate. Like that feels like something that's just water to me, but I have no doubt that, if you really laid it out for some Americans, they would go, Oh, I didn't realize it was that bad.
I didn't realize it was that out of whack. And I guess that's just, that's, what's hard is like, I think that they, you know, feel like they're making them in good faith in representation of their values, but the information is so lacking and I'm not sure how you tackle that without implying that. They're not smart or they're stupid or whatever, you know, like I think that that's, what's so difficult is that there is, there might not be a faith imbalanced, but there certainly is an information imbalance.
Beth: [00:53:07] I'm trying to use that term to distinguish a person who lives in a media echo chamber, but who is not exercising, the kind of power that gets exercised by Republican leadership.
Sarah: [00:53:21] Right.
Beth: [00:53:22] Because that person got into a media echo chamber for a reason. And it is because there's been no leadership. I tweeted about the New York times story.
You know, lots of people were saying, well, like, is this even gonna matter? And I just said, here's what our listeners have taught me. We don't know what matters. We have no idea what matters is amazing. The stories that Sarah and I get, where people say, this is the thing that pushed my inlaws to not vote for the president.
Like you just never ever know what's going to matter. And the media job isn't to decide what matters. Anyway, they're supposed to tell us things that are important so we can figure out what matters. Um, so I kind of hate that, that whole question, but I really liked our longtime listener. Lou's response to that, which was that when elected officials or party leaders start saying, well, this doesn't matter, they are purposefully ignoring the fact that it is part of their job to tell us what should matter.
And so that's the good faith distinction I'm making. Like. Ordinary citizen who doesn't have that kind of power, whether they have made much of an effort to get solid information or not, or to check their sources or to have any perspective outside of whatever echo chamber they're in. It is different to me than a person who is.
Job it is to know better and to say better. And that's the distinction I'm trying to make. And I mean, just to wind this up, I would say if we're talking about good faith, then. What this New York times reporting to me reveals is a complete absence of good faith proceeding through the world business owner, by this president at every turn, whether it's in securing financing or making investments or reporting what he's earned to the United States government, or being candid with the American people about what he's earned and how much he is paid in taxes, because of it.
I think this president has shown a complete absence of good faith, a complete absence of intention, even though it is his job to do so, especially in the position that he occupies now, a complete absence of intention to just do things that are fair and that apply to everybody else in the world. And that means the big problem.
What's on your mind outside of politics, Sarah?
Sarah: [00:56:06] I mean, well, it feels like fall, but it just feels like fall here and I'm tickled. Pink pumpkin. Am I tickled pumpkin? Is that a thing?
Beth: [00:56:14] It is now.
Sarah: [00:56:15] I love that's right. I love it. The weather has turned cool. Moved my indoor plants inside, I put up all my fall decorations.
I've started drinking pumpkin spice lattes, which Erin Moon said that you may not shame me about. Um, although she did shame me because I drink my pumpkin spice lattes with almond milk. Thank you very much. And I made Apple cider muffins this weekend that were delicious. I'll put the recipe in the show notes and I'm just like, I'm all in. I got my sweaters out. I'm all in on fall. It is. Such, such a delight.
Beth: [00:56:49] I love fall weather too. I've also put my Halloween decorations up. I'm excited about it. I thought I would give you a little update on my mom because so many of you have so generously asked and I've been trying to post on social media about this too, but here's what I want you to know today.
She is well enough to be complaining and I am so grateful. Like she thinks the hospital's butter is an affront to the idea of butter.
Sarah: [00:57:12] And it's probably not butter. She's probably right. It's probably that, like, if you look close and be like butter spread, get outta here,
Beth: [00:57:18] it's called promise. And she says, I don't know what they think they're promising, but it does not deliver.
So she's very offended by the butter. She thinks the biscuits are hard and dry and the saddest excuse for a biscuit she's ever seen. This morning her eggs were cold. Again. She does not like cold eggs. Her gravy is too peppery. I am so delighted by her complaints about the hospital, because I know now that like, this is my mom and there, there she is. There's her spirit. And there's her brain and feeling good enough to be dissatisfied with where you are, tells me that she has made tremendous progress. And I'm so glad she just texted me while we were recording to say that, um, our cousins, Brad and Ashley sent her some flowers and a blanket. And it's really nice to see some color in this hideous room.
I'm so pleased. I'm so happy.
Sarah: [00:58:09] Well, I know everybody is so thrilled to hear that. Uh, everybody's been praying and wishing her the best. And I know it's a long recovery, but it is nice to know that she's sort of entering a new stage.
Beth: [00:58:21] Yes. Thank you all so much for all of your good thoughts and sentiments. I cannot respond individually to every person, but I just want you to know that I read all of it and I'm so thankful.
Thank you for joining us for this episode of Pantsuit Politics. We got lots of exciting things coming up here on the show over the next couple of weeks. So, stay with us. We'll see you on Instagram to watch the debate and on Patreon to discuss it. And back here on Friday, just with whatever life has given us between now and then until then keep it nuanced y'all.