Donald Trump's 2024 Legal Calendar

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • DeSantis Drops Out of the Presidential Race

  • Trump’s Legal and Electoral Questions

    • Is Donald Trump Loyal to the Constitution?

    • Is Donald Trump Eligible to Serve/Disqualified from Running?

    • Did Donald Trump pressure other people to commit crime on his behalf?

    • Is Donald Trump Trustworthy?

  • The Uvalde Report

  • Outside of Politics: A Different Approach to Scheduling

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the world of Pantsuit Politics. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

DONALD TRUMP’S LEGAL CHALLENGES

THE UVALDE REPORT

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:12] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

[00:00:14] Music Interlude  

Sarah [00:00:29] We're so glad you're here with us today. We're going to talk about institutions today. We're going to talk about the Justice Department in particular. We're going to talk about their upcoming trials with regards to Donald Trump. We're talking about Donald Trump's calendar in a big way. He's got a lot going on, guys. We want to walk through that a little bit. But we're also going to talk about the Justice Department's critical incident report involving the tragic shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and how institutions are dealing with difficult things in American life. And then we're going to talk about meetings. We're talking about meetings. We're going to talk gatherings and parties. And Beth would like us all to just gather around, she has a new approach she'd like us all to try on.  

Beth [00:01:12] I would like us to take a different approach to scheduling.  

Sarah [00:01:15] Different approach to scheduling. That's right. 

Beth [00:01:17]  That's where I am. In the first part of our conversation today, we are talking about the former president and his legal woes, and we are trying to take a very big picture approach to that discussion, to think about that from the perspective of voters. I mentioned in this conversation that I am a nerd, and I find all of the legal maneuvering around that pretty fascinating. And so if you would like to join me to get your arms even more around what's happening in these trials, if you feel a little bit lost when you hear about legal news generally, I try to in a very accessible and often, I hope, lighthearted way, walk through what is going on in the world, especially for people who are not lawyers but want to deeply understand issues that are in the headlines as legal news will be for the rest of this year. So I would love for you to listen to More to Say with me on Tuesdays through Fridays on our premium channels. On Fridays, Sarah is with me and you basically get a bonus episode of this podcast that's a little spicier than what happens here throughout the week. So nerd out with me three days a week and then have some fun with us on Fridays on More to Say. All the information on how to join us there will be in the show notes.  

Sarah [00:02:26] Up next, we're going to talk about Donald Trump's 2024 calendar.  

[00:02:29] Music Interlude.  

[00:02:40] Beth, today is the New Hampshire primary. And you said on one of our meetings earlier today, you felt like people were really waking up to the presidential election that is, in fact, happening this year, just in case anybody forgotten or deliberately avoided that reality. It is happening this year. In fact, speaking of deliberately avoiding that reality, we felt this was an important moment to really take in the depth and complexity of Donald Trump's legal calendar as we, in fact, face electing another president.  

Beth [00:03:19] It does seem like people are becoming aware that the election is happening this year. What is unfortunate is that this election has both felt longer and shorter than other primary elections for a bunch of complex reasons. It's like it's been going on forever, so we don't care about it. And we're not close enough to November yet. But at the same time, I'm hearing a lot of how is it that everybody's dropping out already? People haven't even voted yet.  

Sarah [00:03:45] What? People say that?  

Beth [00:03:47] Yes.  

Sarah [00:03:48] Oh, no.  

Beth [00:03:50] And I think that it's a relevant question. It does feel like this has been pretty compressed because today is the New Hampshire primary. It is the first primary. We have only had the Iowa caucus. And on the Republican side, we are down to Donald Trump and Nikki Haley. But I do want to spend some time talking about the former president's calendar, because as he is running for office, his campaign is built in many ways around fundraising off of his court appearances.  

Sarah [00:04:22] Well, now, wait a second. Just time out real fast. I do want to take a moment because you said something very quickly that I think we should speak to, because I think it's relevant to the perspective we want to bring to this calendar discussion. Which is we're down to Nikki Haley and Donald Trump because Ron DeSantis dropped out. And when we began this discussion of the presidential primary. There were lots of people who felt like he's a done deal. He's more dangerous than Trump. We're not taking this seriously enough. DeSantis is going to sweep the floor. He's going to be our next president. Be afraid. Be afraid. Be afraid. That did not in fact turn out to be true.  

Beth [00:05:01]  We never thought that was going to turn out to be true.  

Sarah [00:05:04] Yes, but other people did. And I'm not bringing it up to pat ourselves on the back. Although, if anybody wants to do that, we'll just take a quick moment. But just to say like, see, this is what we meant. You just don't know until you know. You don't know what kind of candidate somebody is going to be. You don't know how people are going to react. Whenever you're using information about previous voters or previous election cycles, they are just that- previous. And so it's particularly with this election cycle and these voters this is the first fully post pandemic presidential election. This is going to be an incumbent president and a former president for the first time in like 100 plus years. This former president is going to be on trial in lots of places. So, yes, there is this sense of deflated, like, are we back here again? And also everything is different.  

Beth [00:05:58] While we pat ourselves on the back about seeing it correctly around DeSantis, I will say I did not see it correctly around Nikki Haley. 

Sarah [00:06:05] Word. Didn't see her coming.  

Beth [00:06:06] I did not think in 100 years that she would have been the last person standing against Donald Trump. I'm very, very surprised by that. I did anticipate that most of these folks would drop out and endorse Trump. And even as I anticipated it, it still makes me feel that ugh feeling.  

Sarah [00:06:24] Makes me so mad.  

Beth [00:06:25] I think with DeSantis, it was more obvious than even most because he wants a political future. I think his wife would like to have a political future. I think they really believe they've got something. I think that we have seen they really don't have it. 

Sarah [00:06:41] They don't. Somebody should tell them. He's like, people are telling me I just trumped this year. I'll catch you in 2028. I'm like, friend somebody-- no, somebody needs to tell him the truth. You are boring. You're never going to be president.  

Beth [00:06:50] I don't think that anyone could have anticipated that going to court would provide opportunities for Team Trump to raise money and to say, "Look at how persecuted I am. Give me your $20 so I can keep going."  

Sarah [00:07:05] Well, I can see the fundraising component because you're raising it off people who have a particular psychological attachment to him. But I did not see the just overall increasing support. That part has caught me a little bit off guard.  

Beth [00:07:17] Among elected officials who ought to know better.  

Sarah [00:07:20] Yes.  

Beth [00:07:21] So I wanted to think today about his calendar in these court appearances, less in terms of the legal issues, which I like. I enjoy thinking about the legal issues, so it's hard for me. But I wanted to think about it less in terms of the legal issues and more in terms of what these proceedings should represent to voters. Because like it or not, and I don't, these legal proceedings are intertwined with this election. He's making it an election issue. And so I think it's important to make it an election issue then as a person who does not believe that he's fit to serve. And so I feel like these proceedings answer different questions about him. Can I offer this questions for your consideration, Sarah?  

Sarah [00:08:00] Absolutely.  

Beth [00:08:01] Okay. The first question that I think is being considered through the court system right now, and that should be considered by the electorate is, is he loyal to the Constitution? We have had a congressional body try to answer this through the January 6th committee's work.  

Sarah [00:08:16] I mean, it does seem like a very important place to start.  

Beth [00:08:19] Starting at the very beginning, as Julie Andrews told us in The Sound of Music, is always the right place to start. A very good place.  

Sarah [00:08:25] That's right.  

Beth [00:08:26] Is he loyal to the Constitution? And this is really being tested in the District of Columbia, where he is being charged with corruptly obstructing the proceeding that peacefully transfers power in our country, as well as defrauding the United States and working against people's rights to vote. It's a few number of charges in this case compared to the others, but they are incredibly significant charges. This case feels frozen as we are recording because we're waiting on an appellate court. So Trump comes into this court and moves to dismiss the entire thing because he says he is absolutely immune from criminal liability for anything he might have done as president. Anything. That anything a president does is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. Now, if you are an originalist type, a 1776 type person, let's think about what that argument means. That is the argument of a king. We started this whole situation because we did not want to have a king anymore, and he is arguing that a president must be a king in order to do the job. And we are waiting on an appellate court to make a decision about that argument that will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court will have to decide how fast they're going to hear it. And that's really a big question mark right now.  

Sarah [00:09:47] Yeah, there was a lot of coverage of the oral arguments and some of the judges really pushing this legal reasoning. If a sitting president sent a team of Navy Seals to assassinate a rival, could we charge them criminally? And Trump's attorney was like, "Well, I don't know. I think he'd have to be impeached first." I mean, that's absurd. And you don't have to go back to 1776. This line of reasoning has been fully explored throughout American history with Richard Nixon, with Bill Clinton. So, to me, this situation is unique. And there are other challenges to his candidacy. There are other sources of criminal liability that are unique and hard and haven't been thought through, but this ain't one of them. This is not something that we haven't explored or thought about because Donald Trump hasn't been on the scene. So I think it would be incredibly difficult for the Supreme Court to come forward and say, oh, yeah, definitely absolute immunity. That's the precedent. That's what we've battled, not just with the originalist text, but over decades in the American court system.  

Beth [00:10:51] I actually don't think the Supreme Court will say that. What I don't know is how fast the court will act. This case is set for trial on March 4th. Happens to be my birthday.  

Sarah [00:11:02] Happy birthday. That's a good present.  

Beth [00:11:03] The question for me is will the Supreme Court act quickly enough for this case to go to trial on March 4th? This will be a complex trial. It will need some time to proceed. And can this be done before the election, is the big question in my mind. But I think this case is about whether he is loyal to the Constitution. What a thing it would be if the American people legitimately elected someone who believes that a president is absolutely immune for anything that he does while he's in office.  

Sarah [00:11:34] Yeah. To me, the part that never stops being shocking is how often in all these different legal pursuits, it's basically like, well, we're not arguing whether he committed insurrection. That's pretty much established in the record. We're arguing about does he have illegal immunity? Does he belong on the ballot? Does he have a right to run again if he is an insurrectionist? Because, again, the record through the January 6th committee, through the investigations in both Georgia and I think Jack Smith, it's not hard to prove. It's just not hard to prove that he went out there and tried to subvert the results of the election and the legal processes set up in the Constitution, and that is a violation of the oath he took when he became president of the United States.  

Beth [00:12:21] Yeah, another question being answered here is, is he disqualified from appearing on the ballot? And a little cleanup I want to do is to your point, because I said in an earlier episode when we talked about this, states are reaching different conclusions. And I think that falsely leaves an impression that states are reaching different conclusions about whether he engaged in insurrection. And they are not.  

Sarah [00:12:42] They're really not.  

Beth [00:12:43] They are not. States are reaching different conclusions about who under state law or by what process under state law can that question be asked, decided, and executed upon? So you have a really different law in Michigan than you have in Colorado. In Colorado, you've got to go promise things to the Secretary of State about your qualification to appear on the ballot. And then there is a court process to challenge people's qualifications. In Michigan, the secretary of state is supposed to watch the news and see who's running and put those things on the ballot.  

Sarah [00:13:19] That's wild to me. When you said that on Patreon, I was like, wait, what? That's banana pants, guys, that's not against Michigan. Clean that up, friends. You got a hole in your process.  

Beth [00:13:29] And then they check with the party. And anyway, in Michigan, the court has said, "We think that a person who's not eligible to hold office can win the primary." Now, we don't know what happens after that. What happens after that? What if it is the case that in Michigan you can win the primary, but then be not eligible to serve in office? What happens in the general election? I don't know. So you think you'd want to get that right. I do think there's some cleanup work to do there, but that's why we have states coming to different conclusions. It's about the technical issues of ballot access under state law and who has what authority to decide a matter like this. But to your point, Sarah, no one has said, "Hmm, doesn't look insurrectionary enough to me." No one is saying that.  

Sarah [00:14:13] Everybody's like, no, plenty of insurrection here to pass the threshold. We are good to go on that aspect of this argument. And it is fascinating and although frustrating and important reminder that this very decentralized, complicated process is its own kind of strength. Because it would be a weak point in a weird way, if there was just one way to do it, so he could get one quick answer from a stacked Supreme Court that says, no, you're good under this process. And so everybody put them on the ballot everywhere. Because I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that the best option available to us to not tax our system any further is to disqualify him from the ballot because he should be disqualified. We're not putting him in jail. We're not depriving them of his liberty. I would like to see that happen as well. But this is not something that he has some fundamental right to. And he committed insurrection and violated his constitutional oath, and therefore should not be allowed to be on the ballot and run for president of the United States.  

Beth [00:15:13] This is something I've changed my mind on completely. I started out believing that this option should not even be pursued. As I have read the briefs in the state court decisions, the brief of the Secretary of State of Maine who considered this very carefully. Everybody's going back and citing Merriam Webster from the 1800s. The more I look at all of this, the more persuaded I am that this is correct, that this is the correct result under the Constitution. So like the D.C. circuit case is kind of frozen in time as we wait on an appellate court, we are frozen in time in this case waiting on the Supreme Court right now, but not for long. There will be oral argument in this case on February 8th.  

Sarah [00:15:53] You're talking about Colorado.  

Beth [00:15:53]  I'm talking about Colorado.  

Sarah [00:15:55] Because there are many of these cases, but you're talking about Colorado.  

Beth [00:15:57]  That's right. And everybody else is kind of hanging out waiting for Colorado. In Maine. We just had a court explicitly say, "I'm not doing anything until we hear from the Supreme Court on this." And that's the right answer. So hopefully the Supreme Court will decide this in a way that gives us real clarity about both the primary and the general election in all states. But that's a big ask from the Supreme Court and definitely not guaranteed.  

Sarah [00:16:22] And of this one in particular.  

Beth [00:16:24] Yes. You mentioned Georgia, which is the most complicated case, I think, against him. Here's the question I think Georgia is trying to answer for us as an electorate. Has Donald Trump pressured other people to commit crimes on his behalf? I think that's all you really need to know about Georgia.  

Sarah [00:16:41] Yeah, because that's the RICO. That's what that's how you charge under RICO, is you say I have a web of criminality. And there was this connection where he was pressuring people to break the law. And that's why we're bringing this crime boss in. And I think it fits personally, but that's definitely the center question.  

Beth [00:16:57] So Georgia is Trump plus 18 co-defendants, four of whom have pled guilty now. It is a pattern of activity violating election laws, pressuring people to violate their oath of office. Georgia is not going to happen before this election. So that question doesn't get answered. But that's a question that's out there. I think the fact that question exists is an important one for the electorate. Has he pressured other people to commit crimes for him?  

Sarah [00:17:22] Now, what do you think about this Fani Willis situation that's slowing us down where they're investigating whether she had an affair with her coworker.  

Beth [00:17:31] I do not have an opinion yet because I want to see what the results of the hearing are. I want to see what she has to say about it in court. That's what her office has said. We'll discuss it in court. I think the judge down there has done an excellent job handling all of this, so I am reserving judgment. I'm a full neutral on it.  

Sarah [00:17:49] Okay. That seems fair to me.  

Beth [00:17:49] I group all of the other cases against him, Sarah, under the heading: is he trustworthy?  

Sarah [00:17:55] I would like to edit that question. How about: is there something wrong with him? I just read the Peggy Noonan editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and she has this great moment where she's like, Nikki Haley should just come out and say there's something wrong with him. And I think that's a fair question. Is there something wrong with him as we get through? Because there's a lot. First of all, I just feel like 91 criminal charges, not even including the legal liability-- because here's what bothers me, Beth. When people are like, they just go after Trump-- I'm not saying that Trump is not a unique creature in American politics. But I just want to say, people hated George W Bush. I include myself among them. Thought he was a threat to our republic. Believed he was committing war crimes. Hated him. There was such vitriol. Go back and read some old Anne Lamott. You'll find it. You'll run into it. People really, really hated George W Bush and thought that he was a unique and terrible threat to America. And we did not see 91 criminal charges or increasing legal liability. So I don't buy this like it's just because they hate him. Like it's just because he's Trump and they just hate Trump and they just want all Republicans to go away. No, it's really not. That's not what's going on here guys. There is something wrong with him, and it's not just that we don't like him.  

Beth [00:19:20] I never hated George W Bush. And I always kind of struggled with that feeling about him because I thought, I understand you disagreeing with him. I understand him making terrible mistakes. Really, throughout my adult life, it has been a progression of understanding more and more that he made terrible, terrible mistakes. But I always believed that he loved this. I never had a question is George W Bush loyal to the Constitution. Never. I never questioned did George W Bush pressure other people to commit crimes on his behalf. I just didn't. So the trustworthiness category is probably where a lot of people have issues with George W Bush. And I think we have a number of those related to Donald Trump. And I take your point, is something wrong with him, because of the breadth of the type of issues here. It's like in every corner of his life there is a pattern of lying to the point of criminality.  

Sarah [00:20:09] He just can't. He wants to, but he can't.  

Beth [00:20:10] So in Florida we have the classified documents case. And that goes, for purposes of this election, to his trustworthiness with national security information. That case is all about him not handling national security information the way that he was supposed to, and then lying about that. That's all it is. That is set for trial in May. I will be shocked if it goes to trial in May. The judge seems to be slow walking that case. And it's a complicated case to try because it involves a bunch of classified information. And so you have to balance the rights of a criminal defendant to present a defense to a jury, along with the fact that a lot of this case is about stuff that nobody is supposed to see. So it's a tough one. It's going to take a while. In New York, we still have a criminal case pending about him falsifying records related to payments to Stormy Daniels. That trial set for March 25th. Now they have kind of said this is the hardest case to make out. Legally, this is the toughest theory, I think, of all of these.  

Sarah [00:21:14] Yes. This is our New York prosecutor.  

Beth [00:21:16] Yes, Alvin Bragg. And this is the one where he's kind of said everybody else can go first. It's fine. So I think this will happen only if that DC trial gets moved. That's my sense of things. I think that if there is a criminal trial happening in Washington DC, this case will bump. But we'll see. Then we have civil suits. We have the state of New York as a civil matter, not a criminal matter, coming forward and saying this man has for years been inflating his net worth in a way that defrauded lenders and insurers. If you have seen a new video of Trump being deposed over the weekend, it's from this case that was back in April, but it has just been released in response to media requests under New York's Freedom of Information law. I think everyone should spend a few minutes watching this. I think you should watch him being deposed, that's just an official proceeding and say, "Do I want to send him to the United Nations? Do I want him to be at a summit with other leaders talking about important things?" I just think that this is a good piece of evidence as you weigh your choices as a voter.  

Sarah [00:22:27] Well, I'll tell you, Beth, it's the last one to me, that is the answer too. Is something wrong with him? And the answer is yes, which is the civil suit brought by E Jean Carroll. So we all remember she sued Trump in 2019 and in 2022. She sued, alleging that he raped her in a dressing room and then claimed that she was lying about it. And it was the second suit that we all remember from May of last year, where we received a verdict that he did sexually abuse her and that he defamed her. They awarded her $2 million in damages for the sexual abuse and 3 million in damages for the defamation. And then he just could not keep his mouth shut. Could not do it. He continued to defame her. He continued to call her a liar. And he is now back. Not to establish the facts about whether or not he defamed her, because that is self-evident, just to decide how much money he's going to pay her this time. And to me, friends, countrymen, lend me your ear. He does not have enough self-control to not call this woman a liar. Is this the type of person you want in the white House? He cannot just shut up. Can I just say this to Beth? This is the one where I'm like, "Republicans, is this who you want as your candidate?" Because I think you can tell yourself there's a professional campaign staff and people are paying closer attention and they're doing better. But y'all, he can't. He can't do it. He can shine it on like in his victory speech in Iowa. A little bit here, a little bit there. That won't be enough. He will do this. He will continue to talk about her. He will continue to talk about 2020. He will continue to be racist and insult people. And so it's like, I don't understand why the leaders in the Republican Party knowing this, seeing this, witnessing it, being in a room with the man, understanding that there is something wrong with him and he cannot stop lying were like, "Yep, let's do it."  

Beth [00:24:27] It's every step along the way. I don't think you can hear the facts that E Jean Carroll alleges about what happened and say that didn't sound right. That doesn't sound like him. Of course, it does. It does sound like him. It sounds very consistent with the way that he's talked about women his entire life. And then she finally says something about it, and he calls her a liar to the point where she gets death threats. And then he has the nerve in a court where they said, "You're lying. She's telling the truth. We've decided it. You need to stop saying this," he says, "Well, I shouldn't have to pay her anything because this has been amazing for her. I have so raised her profile, she is actually benefited from all of this publicity." That is how he thinks. I believe he believes that.  

Sarah [00:25:12] Yes, agreed.  

Beth [00:25:13] And that is where there is something wrong. There's something wrong. That is not the mindset of a person who should be one of the most powerful people on the planet.  

Sarah [00:25:23] So he had to disrupt his campaigning right now to go to that trial. When we're just talking about like a TikTok through what's happening, that is happening right now. That second trial.  

Beth [00:25:33] Then we have February 8th Nevada caucusing and the oral argument at the Supreme Court on whether he should be disqualified from being on the ballot. February 12th and 13th right here in the heart of primary season, there are significant hearings in the classified documents case. February 15th, pretrial motions in the New York criminal case. South Carolina then votes on the 24th. Michigan votes on the 27th. Idaho and Missouri on March 2nd. March 4th he's supposed to have that trial in Washington, D.C., as North Dakota votes. Super Tuesday, the next day, he could be in trial over whether he is disloyal to the Constitution on Super Tuesday.  

Sarah [00:26:20] On Super Tuesday. And then there's the New York criminal trial is scheduled for March 25th. Again, we don't know if many of these will take place. We're skeptical of these calendars. But just to put this in perspective, May 20th is the classified documents trial. Then we have the RNC July 15th or 18th. He'll have a little break till June unless anything gets delayed, of course. And then September 16th, there's debates scheduled for the presidential election. Another one scheduled for October 1st. I don't think he's going to come to any of these in case anybody cares what I think. And then the election is November 5th.  

Beth [00:26:52] And the Electoral College votes on December 17th. And suddenly those post-election deadlines have had to become meaningful to us because of the way he conducted himself during the last election. And all of that is in some ways a lot of time, and other ways a blink and it will be here. But this man has also said the fact that any of this is happening is election interference. He declared his candidacy so early so that he could say all along, "I'm always the victim. I'm the victim because of the timing. I'm a victim because anybody who would think anything bad about me, anyone who would critique me, must be hopelessly biased against me. I am the victim. I'm the victim. I'm the victim." And that, too, is a mindset that I do not want in the most powerful person on the planet.  

Sarah [00:27:42] I mean, it wasn't early. It was immediate. I mean, that should be part of the argument around whether or not he really believes he lost because he declared for 2024, almost a million. I will never as long as I live forget Jon Favreau's tweet, break the New York Times needle off and stick it in my eye. If we have to do this again in 2024. Because we had no time. We had no time to think. And maybe that would have been even more brutal, right? Maybe having a week or a month or a couple months where he thought we were free of him before he rolled back into town would have been even worse. But there was no time. I don't remember a moment I took a breath and thought, yes, we did it, we elected Joe Biden, we can move on, before he was already saying, no, I'll be back.  

Beth [00:28:24] And here is what I am really having a hard time with. Peggy Noonan's column that you referenced wrote about things that are uniquely disquieting to those of us who are not fans of Trump. It is uniquely disquieting to me that we have created this universe where all of these things we just listed exist and are true. And are being litigated and are distracting and are dividing people. All of these things are true. And yet every single person we measure against him Joe Biden, Nikki Haley, even Ron DeSantis, for whom I have not a shred of sympathy, every single one of those people we act like they have to be perfect in order to beat him. They have to be perfect. I was just listening to an episode of Start Here this morning. Let me think about how to say this. I was listening to an episode of Start Here before the New Hampshire primary, where someone who had supported Chris Christie was being interviewed in kind of, what are you going to do now that Chris Christie is out? And this person was considering voting for Donald Trump, even though this person was an active Chris Christie supporter because they just don't trust Nikki Haley. And that's what we do. It's like she has to be perfect or else he gets to be the default. This person who has all these trial dates, all of these felony charges, who's so obviously done all of these things, gets the benefit of being the default. Even as to Joe Biden, people will talk about like, well, all of this but Biden. It's like, really? He gets to be the default when we're questioning whether he's loyal to the United States Constitution. That is uniquely disquieting to me.  

Sarah [00:30:11] Yeah, that was what happened with Hillary. Butter emails. Everybody remember butter emails? I do. I bet she does too. I had a friend who told me that like, well, I don't know about the emails. And I'm like, I don't know if it's because he is uniquely ensconced in our psyches over four decades of being present in American culture. I don't know if that's what it is. I don't know if it is what Peggy Noonan writes about that we have this real fissure between the elites and the non elites, and people feel attacked by the direction of elite American culture. I don't know if it's drug addiction. I don't know. I don't know if it's post Covid. I don't know what it is. And maybe it's just everything and. But that we cannot [inaudible] this man's death grip off of the American political reality or just the American reality. Look, we had an episode on our premium channel about the inevitable death of Donald Trump, because I don't know what else is going to shake it loose. I truly don't.  

Beth [00:31:22] And I don't even know how to feel about the media coverage of him at this point. I think you're right that him being ensconced in our psyches is a huge part of why he gets to be the default. And I have been frustrated with the inevitable coverage of this race, that this race is inevitable, that it is going to be Trump. That really even if Nikki Haley pulls off magic in New Hampshire, what's the path after that? That has a momentum, right? Because people want to vote in a way that will matter the next time. They want to hear your vote could matter here. At the same time, I understand that you got to report the facts. And the facts seem to be that a lot of Republican primary voters, the surefire Republican primary voters, want this. He is their default, and they want him to be. And I don't know what to do about that. But I do want us to have a sense of agency. And I don't want us to let all these cases become white noise. These are serious questions that are being not only litigated, but grappled with inside our justice system and that cannot be contained only by our justice system. And I want us to be present to that and to take it seriously, not in a way of following every discovery dispute by reading all the blogs and listening to all the podcasts. Like the nerds like me can do that. But the civic call here is to stay with it and to say like, gosh, it does matter to me if he didn't handle classified documents appropriately. It does matter to me that a judge has repeatedly said, just keep Jean Carroll's name out your mouth and he can't do it. Those things matter to me.  

Sarah [00:33:05] Can't do it. Well, and I think there's this really interesting thing I witnessed in my own family's discussion, which is the cynicism of like, well, I don't think that'll happen. Versus grappling with we are in charge, this is democracy. And that's what I really want to push on. Don't do this. Don't do that. He'll get out of it. He'll get out of it again. He's slippery. I think we just have this sort of reoccurring narrative. It's around Bill Clinton. It was around Richard Nixon that this idea of there are certain moments in American politics, there are certain figures in American politics that just cannot be held to account. And I refuse to accept that. I refuse to accept that. And don't let your cynicism become a stand-in for real analysis. That's what I see. People are overwhelmed by this calendar. They don't understand the legal proceedings. So they just go to the easy thing, which is they'll never get him. He'll never go to jail. And like, just stop. Don't do that. That's not helpful. It's not true and it's not helpful because I think this is too big. This is too complicated. Even my husband was like, he's going to win. I'm like, what are you talking about? It's January, 57,000 people in Iowa have told us how they feel and that's it. Stop with this. Just stop. 

Beth [00:34:33]  I think you cannot take for granted that he's going to win. And you cannot take for granted that he's going to lose it. Is it a choosing time. That's what it is. It is a choosing time. And I will say that they'll never get him one. They're not out to get him. They are prosecuting cases under the law. And courts will decide what the facts are and what those facts lead them to conclude under the law. But secondly, that is inconsistent with the record of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice does not bring federal criminal charges and miss very often. They take these cases incredibly seriously. These are high risk cases. A bunch of people are in charge of these cases who care very much about the credibility of the Department of Justice for the future. This is not a shot in the dark. These cases never would have been filed if they thought they were not imminently winnable. And I just think we have to remember that. And that is not because of where they're filed. There's a case in Florida, there's a case in DC. They're filed where they're filed because that's what the law requires. But we have to believe in the jurors in these places too to show up and be fair and honest and hear the arguments and make their best call. It is a time for choosing everywhere.  

Sarah [00:35:46] Well, let's talk about the Department of Justice in a very different context, but I think connected to the threat of institutions grappling with very difficult questions and issues that will continue long after any trial or any report. And that is the Department of Justice's critical incident report on the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.  

[00:36:11] Music Interlude.  

[00:36:21] Beth, do you remember after Uvalde happened, that there was all this chatter? I specifically remember a tweet where a citizen from Uvalde was like, something has happened, no one's paying attention. It was very vague. There was like a call for podcasters. We even had a discussion like should we interview this person? And you were like, we are not investigative journalists. That was a wise conclusion. But I do remember this sort of cloud of something is wrong and we need help and no one's answering our questions. Something bad happened here and you couldn't tell, like, did somebody do something on purpose? Is this just negligence? But I just remember all of that bubbling up after the shooting.  

Beth [00:37:05] I do too, and I specifically remember how discordant it was to see all of that and have it arriving in our inboxes, versus Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, talking about the competence of the law enforcement response to the Uvalde shooting. It just felt like what was coming out through official channels did not match at all what you were hearing from the people in the community, the people most directly affected by the tragedy. And sometimes that happens. But this had a different degree about it.  

Sarah [00:37:37] It really did. They were crying out. And so what we now know is that through the process of that crying out, something is wrong.  

Sarah [00:37:47] Something went badly wrong here. The mayor of Uvalde reached out to the Justice Department to do an investigation, which they call a critical incident review. They've done numerous as mass shootings have increased in American life. This one, they spent over 50 days in the community, 200 plus interviews, hours and hours of work. This is a 600 page report from the Justice Department about what happened not just that day, but after the fact.  

Beth [00:38:13]  And can we pause on that for a second on the fact that the mayor reached out?  

Sarah [00:38:19] That's what I thought too.  

Beth [00:38:21] That is a brave act because the mayor reached out knowing that when you invite the Justice Department to town is going to be uncomfortable for everybody. It's going to be painful. You are going to create a ton of vulnerability for yourself and other people. You have no idea how that's going to turn out. So for a mayor, a politically elected official to say, "I hear my community saying something went wrong here and we need an objective outside perspective on that. And I am going to go to the most intense one that exists in this country to get it," I just think that is to be commended and should not be lost as we get into the details of all of this.  

Sarah [00:39:01]  No, I totally agree. I wanted to talk about this study because when all the reporting came out with Attorney General Merrick Garland, really incredible press conference. I was immediately struck by the prolific use of the word failure. There was a failure here on so many levels. And some of them, I think if you followed closely this shooting, are not a surprise to you. As a school shooting survivor, I recognized pretty quickly just from the national reporting I read that they did what you're not supposed to do, which is treat them like a barricaded subject instead of an active shooter. Post Columbine, I remember this at the time. I remember it very well. It's every single one of these shootings that you cannot wait. You just have to go in. If you've seen the video from The Covenant shooting in Nashville, you see the police do exactly what you're supposed to do. Charge right in there with almost complete disregard for their own safety, and take out an active shooter. And that did not happen here. I felt like that aspect of it was abundantly clear pretty soon after the shooting. There was a lot of blame. The head of the school security system was saying, well, I wasn't in charge. And everybody was like, you were acting like you were charge. You weren't letting us in. But just as we got more details, it was brutal. And I thought, well, the Justice Department report will come out and it will say, yeah, that's what they did. And that was bad and we shouldn't do that anymore. And I just wasn't expecting the breadth and depth of them taking-- I don't know if responsibility is the right word. But just being honest, like, yes, that happened and people died as a result. We want to be very clear, people died who would not have died if law enforcement had not made these decisions. And I just thought that was-- refreshing is not a word I want to use in this situation, but I'm just trying to think of a way to say it just felt so impactful for them to say there was a failure and because of that, people died.  

Beth [00:41:08] I think the clarity around that is really important as a forward looking prospect to say to police departments, law enforcement agencies all over the country, here is the worst case study imaginable for you to learn from. These failures, big and small, and a whole bunch of different levels over an excruciatingly long period of time caused people to die who would not have died otherwise. It cuts through. It's easy to kind of say about the active shooter situation, well, post Columbine, this happens. That was in a lot of reporting. It's been in a lot of reporting. As I was staring at those words on the page, Columbine was 25 years ago. It should be striking that we are not asking the departments in Uvalde, Texas, to have cutting edge knowledge about this 25 years of a miserably large volume of information about how to respond to active shooters and this fundamental of treating it as an active shooter versus a barricaded subject went wrong. That is striking. And I think that it took the clarity of this report saying and people died because of it, to really have that sink in.  

Sarah [00:42:31] Well, because I thought there were two really important parts of that analysis and conclusion, which is like, yes, in theory we all know this, but unless you're trained around this type of response, it doesn't matter. There was a shocking, shocking amount of failure surrounding the lack of training. No active shooter training up and down all these different agencies in their response. And I thought it was particularly important that they said they were not trying to work together. Because that's what happened. Everybody got there, nobody knew who was in charge. And the people who were sort of acting like they were in charge really didn't know what they were doing. There was just no training. So we can say we all accept that this could happen in our community. We have all these active shooter trainings. Our kids are forced to go through this, to go through these trainings. But unless law enforcement is trained around this particular scenario, this is the ways in which it can degrade and degrade very, very quickly to tragic results. I mean, they stood there for an hour looking for a key to a door that was not locked. It was not locked.  

Sarah [00:43:44] And I told you at the time, like, I don't know if I could get over that as a parent. I don't know if I could get over reading this and understanding that my child might have survived otherwise. And you could hear it in Merrick Garland's voice how often he was like, they didn't deserve this. They didn't deserve this.  

Beth [00:44:01]  It's awful for the families. It's awful for the many, many law enforcement personnel who were there. I can't imagine having been there. There were so many people.  

Sarah [00:44:16] One of whom was the husband of the teacher in the classroom.  

Beth [00:44:19] The suffering that those people have to be contending with over basic things. Like that failure to establish a command post. The person who seemed to be most in charge didn't have his radios on him. He put his radios down. So all the way around you've got all of this talent there, so many people with so much training and so many weapons, so much equipment, and they can't coordinate because fundamentally not everybody has a radio. It is so hard to think about those little things that it's easy to get complacent about. And that is a word that Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta used. There was some complacency around locking the doors in the school, but there is complacency on the part of lots of us about little things that end up making such a difference in an emergency.  

Sarah [00:45:17] The word I think about a lot when I read, particularly about the failure of leadership surrounding Uvalde, is just ego. There was just an enormous amount of ego that I guess I'll just know the right thing to do. And I'm a good person and I care, and I'm a big guy with a big gun and so it'll be okay. It wasn't even the failure to go into the room. Afterwards, the way that they increased and compounded these people suffering by sending kids home who were shot on a bus instead of to the hospital, by the way that they told people their loved one was alive when they were not. I cannot fathom. These social media posts where everyone in the school is okay that they never fixed, they just never went to Facebook and deleted it. Like, I can't think of anything except a culture that says we're right, we're right. I don't want to make this necessarily a political thing, but I do think there is something to one party rule in a state, which is what Texas has. Where you get to this, where you get to you don't have competition, you don't have questioning of leadership, you don't have real choices on the ballot where people say, what's the best way to approach this? Is there a different way? I don't think that matters. I do think that this found fertile ground in a place like that. I just do.  

Beth [00:46:48] If I were to point to a political factor, and maybe this is like more cultural is the egg and political is the chicken, but I think that many of us are policy and procedure fatigued in ways that we can't even name. I was reading this morning this little blurb about how many of us don't pay attention to the safety instructions on flights. And yet, if you look at what happened in Japan, where you could have had this horrific, horrific loss of life and no one died because everyone in a very orderly fashion did what you are supposed to do in the event of an emergency. And I stopped when I read that and thought, I don't know if Americans could follow those instructions the way those passengers did. I think culturally we have a problem with being exhausted by other roles, so we're just kind of zoning out in a lot of different places. And when you read this report, it's incredibly detailed, hundreds of pages. It's a lot of procedure. It's a lot of chain of command and who does what. And yes, have the radio. And this is how we do these things step by step by step, because our individual judgment fails us in situations of this kind of stress. And of course it does. I am not at all without sympathy for these people. In fact, I feel tremendous sympathy for the folks who did the worst wrong here. I can't imagine living with that. I feel tremendous sympathy about it. I think the wake up call for all of us is to say my individual judgment will fail me in situations like this. And even though I feel a sense of fatigue about being told what to do in my life, and I feel like everything is more complicated than it needs to be, some things have been studied-- well, many things-- and the rules are there because the rules will help keep us safe in those situations. And it's hard to accept that, but accepting it would have saved lives here and it could save lives in the future. And I feel like that's what Merrick Garland is saying. Like we shouldn't be dealing with any of this, but we are.  

Sarah [00:48:59] But if we have to.  

Beth [00:49:00] And so we got to do it the right way.  

Sarah [00:49:02] Yeah. I was really struck when she said not all of these critical incident reviews are bad. Some of the people doing this study did the right thing and saved lives at different moments, at different tragedies. Please don't misunderstand, this has been done well, just not here. I thought that was really, really important that she said that to say some people do follow the procedures. Sometimes there is a role for professionals. I just feel like there's a disdain for professionalism in American life right now, and I think it's dangerous. I think there are roles for professionals. I will never, as long as I live, forget a conversation I had as a new commissioner with a member of our Paducah Police Department, which is a professional police department. And this police officer was contrasting with elected police departments because most sheriff's departments are elected. Not that they're not trained. Many, many sheriffs across the country have enormous professional experience. But there is a risk when it's an elected position, right? And he was like, look, I'm not a cowboy in a white hat. I follow the rules and procedures because I'm a professional, and then I go home knowing that I did the best I could. And it's like, that's what's missing here. There was this sense of like, I'll just roll in there and I'll be the hero, which is just as dangerous as the ideology we were talking about Donald Trump. That I'll be the victim because he wants to be both. Lots of people do. I want to be the victim and the hero. And no one saying, how can I be a professional? How can I be a professional?  

Beth [00:50:30] And to a difficult part of this report for the family as I know, I also respect that the Department of Justice in putting this report together did not just exercise the anguish they feel about these failures. They did not name a lot of officers involved that day because their policy is that for people outside of leadership ranks, they don't name them. They talk about ranks and classes and job titles, but they don't write these reports to shame individuals far down the chain of command. And I think that is the right thing to do. And I know that is painful, because if my child died that day and I was being told directly that they didn't have to and they shouldn't have, I'd probably want to shame everybody involved to forever. There probably wouldn't be enough shame in the world. I hope that I could move beyond that at some point, but I am clear about the fact that I would have a lot of feelings that I wouldn't wish to have under those circumstances. But I really respect that this report was compiled professionally according to the rules, not specific to Uvalde, but the way we always do it, because I think there's a lot of value in that.  

Sarah [00:51:43] Well, and I think that's true of their treatment of the shooter who they never name. Because I think when we're talking about the way we get caught up in heroes and victims, we also get caught up in villains. And I think that's why this report struck me so strongly and brought up emotions that usually I can keep under control after 20 plus years. Because it just felt like so often the story is, well, it's just this terrible, heinous person who did this terrible, awful thing. And to hear someone with the authority and power of Merrick Garland say, no, this was a failure on lots of levels, and our kids deserve better than this, it just felt incredibly powerful. It just felt like, yeah, things are going wrong when 19 children are shot in their school building. There's a failure. And I really think he held that well. He said this was an 18 year old who had access to weapons of war. But we are not going to do anything about it, I guess, on the political level. So until then--  

Beth [00:52:53] We have to lock the doors at school.  

Sarah [00:52:55] We have to lock the doors at school. We have to train law enforcement. To me, sometimes I wonder why law enforcement does not lead passionately the call for gun control. I know there are people out there that do that, and I know that they often are opposed to some of the state legislation that the NRA fights for. But, to me, it's like we're putting it all on their back. Well, we're not going to do anything about it at the societal level. So they have to be perfect so that more children aren't killed. Because it's not like we're saying all the children would have lived. We're just saying a small number of them might have survived. But I just felt like he, in an incredible way, just faced the horror of this. And I think when we have so much doubt and anger and cynicism towards our institutions to hear an institution of the authority of the Department of Justice stand up and say there were cascading failures here and people died. And we have 270 plus recommendations about what we can do and what other people should do next time. It's just, like I said, that sort of professionalism, it didn't feel empty. It didn't feel empty. It felt like it mattered. It feels like it does matter. I hope the people of Uvalde feel that way because as a school shooting survivor myself, listening to him, it mattered to me. It mattered to me even though mine was so different and it was decades ago, it did matter. And I just thought it was really, really important to hold it up because the news cycle has already moved on. The people of Uvalde, I promise, have not. The people of Covenant have not. The people of parkland have not.  

Beth [00:54:35] The people of Columbine have not. I mean, on and on and on.  

Sarah [00:54:39] And on and on and on. And so just to hear someone saying these things, saying we looked at it, we studied it-- and, again, this is not the first critical incident report. I don't know why this one impacted me in a way that others have not, but it really mattered. And I think it does matter. And I think everyone should take a minute. I don't think you have to read all 600 pages of the report, but I think the press conference is worth your time. Or even an article about the press conference is worth your time, because we're at a moment where the institutions are trying to address institutional failures. And sometimes I think that is the best path forward.  

[00:55:16] Music Interlude.  

[00:55:27] Beth, we're going to go back to the calendar. You have some thoughts, questions, concerns, suggestions.  

Beth [00:55:35] Humble request, maybe.  

Sarah [00:55:37] Humble request surrounding scheduling and meetings.  

Beth [00:55:42] I am begging everyone.  

Sarah [00:55:44] Not humble. We went from humble request to begging very rapidly.  

Beth [00:55:49] I do feel a lot of intensity about this. I just want us to all decide when we are going to do a thing, a social thing, a business thing, anything, an event.  

Sarah [00:56:03] It's like a biblical when more than one are gathered. That's what you're talking about.  

Beth [00:56:08] Thank you. Yes.  

Sarah [00:56:09] Okay. More than one are gathered.  

Beth [00:56:10] When more than one are gathered, I would just like the event organizer to say, "Here's when this will happen. I hope you can make it in and if you can't, I understand.  

Sarah [00:56:21] Okay. All right.  

Beth [00:56:23] I do not ever again in my life really want to send a text or an email that has 10 windows of time when I'm available to see how they match up to someone else's. I just sent a doodle poll this morning for a meeting and hated myself. I I'm mad at myself. I just want to say I'm having a thing and I hope that you can come. And if you can't, we will miss you. And you can give your input another way or I will send you the notes from it, or I will catch you another time.  

Sarah [00:56:55] Or we can just deal with the discomfort of missing something. That's okay too.  

Beth [00:56:59] Sometimes we just miss things and that is okay too. I just feel like there is all this pressure to align calendars around everything. And at the same time, everyone hates aligning calendars and I find it exhausting. So that's where I am.  

Sarah [00:57:16] I feel like there's some real energetic things happening here, and I'm going to try to pick them up and put them together for you.  

Beth [00:57:22] Okay.  

Sarah [00:57:23] One, 2024 is a weird year. I don't know if you've taken a look at your calendar.  

Beth [00:57:26] It's full.  

Sarah [00:57:27] Well, it's just weird. I don't even mean full, I mean weird. We had Christmas Eve on Sunday. We had New Year's Eve on Sunday. We have Ash Wednesday on Valentine's Day. Easter is on March 31st. There's just some weird things happening. You see what I'm saying?  

Beth [00:57:41] I do.  

Sarah [00:57:43] It's a little weird out there right now.  

Beth [00:57:45] I will say both things are true for me. It's weirdly scheduled, and also I already have months down the road where there are no weekends left. Like I am booked out for 2024.  

Sarah [00:57:58] I don't love that for you. That might be a different discussion. We might need to cancel some things. Okay. But to me that's like maybe that's why we're all like, don't know. Because it's just weird. March 31st for Easter. What's happening? Okay. So I think that's part of it. And then it does feel like in combination with that, I'm hearing a lot of what I'm going to broadly describe as analog talk. There's a big piece about flip phones. I think I want to get one. I'm not even lying. I want one where I can switch back and forth, but I do think I want one. There seems to be a lot of just getting over, moving on from the algorithms giving you all the options. Ezra Klein had a conversation about how nobody likes Spotify anymore. Like, the Internet's not fun anymore. It's just bombarding you with choices. And everybody's like, I want out. I would like off this ride. And so I feel like there's a lot of this kind of coalescing around, can we just go back? Can we try some of the old ways? Because they did work for a very long time where we just get an invitation, you can go or you don't. Just because the internet allows us to create endless options and opportunities does not mean we need to take that allowance.  

Beth [00:59:13] I think there's fairness to that. Maybe I should start just sending a paper invitation if I'm going to host a gathering.  

Sarah [00:59:21] Yeah. This is when it is.  

Beth [00:59:21] This is when it is.  

Sarah [00:59:23] This is when it is.  

Beth [00:59:24] I also think, though, the other current of it is like, it is hard to say no to an invitation for many, many people. And I have no problem when someone declines an invitation of mine. I want you to respond. If I text you and say, would you like to come to this thing that I'm having? I would like for you to say yes or no, but I really don't care which it is. You know what I mean? My feelings are not going to be hurt if it's a no. I just want to know. But I totally understand that people have lives and do lots of things and make a lot of choices about how they spend their time. And sometimes I might be a yes on that and sometimes I might not. I don't even care the reason, you don't have to tell me anything about why or why not. I'll just take a yes or a no. And I think that because I don't know,, the vibe of texting is so specific, it's kind of hard to just say no thank you over text the way that you would just check regrets on an RSVP card or something.  

Sarah [01:00:22] Yeah, it's not like back in the day you were writing and why you couldn't make it to the wedding. I mean, maybe that information would get communicated some way or another, but not on the RSVP card. I think it's hard. Sometimes I'm like, I do want to know, but I don't because the truth is that the excuse is probably not going to be good enough for me. I'm always going to be like, you could have move some things around because I would have. But the older I get, the less I get like that. The more I'm just like, whatever. Can we just move on? There will be another one. The stakes around everything get a little bit lower the more you realize it'll be Christmas again in five minutes, even after this weird year. And so I think holding all of that loosely is really important. I do think the sort of revenge travel, revenge attendance post-pandemic is waning. That people are like, okay, I don't have to just go balls to the walls to make up for 2020, 2021, whatever. I did really love that tweet that was like pre 2015 is nostalgia, 2015 to 2019 is 2016, and then 2019 to 2022 is the pandemic. They were like, don't ask. This is just how it works. Because I do think 2016 expands to a long time in my head. But I think we're like kind of slowly getting out of that. Every year is starting to feel like, in fact, a year. A fast year, but a year. It does feel like the markers are coming back online and we can sort of enjoy. I mean, I went to an event last weekend that was so different, even though it was the same event from the one we had before. And I just kind of was like, well, that's interesting. Doesn't have to be better or worse. It's just different. Just kind of holding that and letting that work on you and not feeling the FOMO. Because I think we've also hit peak FOMO. There's just too much out there, thanks to the internet that is now just one big exercise in advertising, which is how it feels to me. That we can just kind of go, huh? And then move on.  

Beth [01:02:30] I have no FOMO. I honestly would not assess the strength or weakness of your excuse for not coming to something. If you just are tired and need a night in at the time that I want to do a thing, I don't care. I really don't because I understand it. One of the hardest boundaries that I put in place for myself a long time ago, with the assistance of an excellent therapist, was that I am not responsible for giving anyone a specific window of my time. Now, if I want to be in relationships with people, I got to invest in them and I do owe them time. But I don't owe them 130 to 2. This was really important for me when I worked in an office, When somebody knocks on my door, I don't owe them the specific block of time that they showed up at my door unless I committed to it earlier. When my phone rings, I don't know the person on the other end that block of time for the call. I got to have a little bit more control in my life over my own priorities than that. And so I totally respect other people who say, nope, that's not going to work for me. I want that to be the end of the discussion. It's not going to work for me. Okay, well, catch you next time. But we're not going to check with everybody again for a new date. It's just this is the date.  

Sarah [01:03:46] Because a time that works for everyone doesn't exist.  

Beth [01:03:49] Right.  

Sarah [01:03:50] Just everybody repeat that to themselves. A time that works for everyone doesn't exist. That is not the nature of time.  

Beth [01:03:55] I think that this is a lot to me about leadership. I just want to personally be a leader who says, I've decided for us. I'm not going to engage everyone's time in making a decision about when we're going to meet. I've picked the meeting time and I want other people to do that for me. I'm happy to be led in that way as well.  

Sarah [01:04:16] We can't wait to hear your thoughts on this. If you have somehow magicked upon an organization or a group that has perfected this, please share it with us here at Pantsuit Politics. We want to hear more.  

Beth [01:04:29] I especially want to hear from the people who live in organizational cultures, where people just grab time on your calendar from Outlook, because I also find that obnoxious and offensive where everyone expects that every single thing you might care about will be blocked as busy on your calendar, and if it's not blocked as busy, they can become entitled to that block of time. This is a thing.  

Sarah [01:04:50] I don't like that.  

Beth [01:04:51] This is a big thing, and I would like to hear from those of you navigating that, like, what you do. I took, when I was in a culture sort of like that [inaudible] some places. But I just started blocking huge windows of time that said on my calendar "work" but showed as busy, because you do need some time for that, right? To just sit and work.  

Sarah [01:05:11] Yeah, I love it. Well, thank you for being with us today. If you liked today's show, don't forget to check out our premium channels for more work and discussions just like this. We hope your 2024 is the best available to you, no matter what weird calendar energy or what lies ahead for former President Donald Trump. We'll be back in your ears on Friday. And until then, keep it nuanced, y'all.  

[01:05:51] Music Interlude 

Sarah: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. 

Beth: Alise Napp is our managing director. Maggie Penton is our director of Community Engagement. 

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima. 

Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family. 

Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Maggie Penton1 Comment