The January 6 Committee Results (with Rep. Jamie Raskin)
Congressman Jamie Raskin and the rest of the January 6 Committee are out with their final report. Andy asks Jamie about the chargeable offenses, what a criminal referral to the Justice Department does, and how to stop the Donald Trumps of the future. Raskin also discusses what Democrats can get done in this year’s divided government.
Keep up with Andy on Post and Twitter and Post @ASlavitt.
Follow Congressman Raskin on Twitter @RepRaskin.
Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.
Support the show by checking out our sponsors!
- Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: https://lemonadamedia.com/sponsors/
Check out these resources from today’s episode:
- Read the Jan 6th Committee’s final report: https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf
- Find vaccines, masks, testing, treatments, and other resources in your community: https://www.covid.gov/
- Order Andy’s book, “Preventable: The Inside Story of How Leadership Failures, Politics, and Selfishness Doomed the U.S. Coronavirus Response”: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250770165
Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia.
For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com/show/inthebubble.
Andy Slavitt, Jamie Raskin
Andy Slavitt 00:18
This is IN THE BUBBLE with Andy Slavitt. Welcome to 2023. I hope it’s starting out for you in a fashion that bring some of the worries and concerns over the last couple of years into subsiding a bit more and new opportunity, new joys, new good things ahead. In terms of the state of the world, at least as of this morning, we’re beginning the year with a conversation with Jamie Raskin. Jamie Raskin is the congressman from Maryland, who played a big role in January 6 committee, and we’re going to talk about where that committee landed the criminal referrals. And we’re going to talk about this new congress that’s coming in in fairly chaotic fashion. More on that more on Jamie in a moment. 2022 certainly had its challenges. Certainly COVID began the year and stayed with us in pretty significant form. It was the third largest cause of death in the US in 2022. And we had our share of very interesting new challenges come at us some from surprising places, the economy, inflation, things like that. The supreme court threw its share of challenges at us. But by 2022, by many measures, it was also a year of progress. There was progress against the impact of COVID Fewer people died, more people got back to their lives. The focus on democracy, here in the US and around the world, I think made some gains. Certainly the people looking to up end democracy in the US were largely defeated. And the cause of democracy I think was furthered in a big way, with the US and allied support for the people of Ukraine. This was not a good year for Vladimir Putin, not a good year for the leader of China, Xi, not a good year for people who were aiming to oppress others. And as we’ll talk about with Jamie Raskin in a few minutes, not a good year for the illegal, immoral undertakings of President Trump out of office. And certainly he seems to leave 2022 and enter 2023 with less power, and under more likelihood of facing accountability for some of what he has done. Then in the past, we have a new leader in Brazil, that’s a positive, we have a new government in Israel, however, that’s far right. And so it is no doubt that we enter the year with some progress. But with some challenges, and in the bubble, is going to make sure that we are covering all the elements of what’s going on with COVID. And the responses to COVID, including the fact that we sit here today with fewer medications, and less government support for the vaccines and for therapies than we have in the past, including the fact that we have an outbreak in China, which is of monumental proportions. And so as we dig into this year, whether it’s the things that divide us, whether it’s the political issues, whether it’s the climate, all the things that are troubling you we’re going to be able to face here and in the forum that brings you I think, the most honest information, the best conversations, and shine some light on some of these issues. And we’re gonna dive into a bunch of new and interesting topics that I know are in people’s minds. So Jamie Raskin, a congressperson from Maryland, a constitutional scholar, and clearly one of the people who has led the way on the legal cases against President Trump that have now been referred over to the Department of Justice. We’re going to ask him about that. We’re going to ask him about this new Republican majority, we’re going to ask him about what lies ahead for President Trump. It’s really going to be an interesting and a great conversation. I thank Jamie for taking the time to do this. A couple of days after we spoke, it was revealed to Jamie and revealed to him that Jamie was diagnosed with lymphoma, an aggressive but treatable form of cancer. He has remained optimistic. He has believes that there’s a path he is very positive about It’s but it is going to be, no doubt a challenge and a struggle for him over the next few months. So he will have all of our best wishes and thoughts as he goes through that. He is a fighter. And I hope you will enjoy this conversation as you listen to him as we discuss these important issues. And we look forward to the year with you together listened in the bubble.
Andy Slavitt 05:28
Congressman Raskin, welcome to the bubble. Happy New Year, and hope you had a great holiday.
Jamie Raskin 05:33
I’m delighted to be with you. Thank you very much, and Happy New Year to you.
Andy Slavitt 05:36
So God, let’s think back two years ago, January 6th, 2021. If I told you that day, or after that day had come to a close, that there’d be nearly 1000 successful prosecutions, but the Donald Trump would still be legally unscathed. How do you think you would have reacted?
Jamie Raskin 05:55
I suppose I would not have been that surprised, because like all good organized crime bosses, he takes care to insulate himself from the consequences of his own actions as much as it can. And so he builds several barriers and buffer zones between him and that what she causes to happen.
Andy Slavitt 06:16
Speaking of that, what’s the closest that we think we’ve come to a smoking gun? You know, it would be awfully nice, of course, to have him recorded talking to the proud boys, telling them directly what he wanted to have happen. Do you feel like we’re still missing that? Or do you feel like we’ve come close enough?
Jamie Raskin 06:33
Well, like all great demagogues, and criminal ringleaders, Donald Trump does his most significant and essential action in public. So when he told the crowd which was rapidly becoming a mob under his tutelage to fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. And when he urged everyone to go to the Capitol, and when he said that, when there’s cheating involved, they’re very different rules that apply, and so on. He was inciting and inflaming the crowd to go do exactly what they did. So, at this point, there’s really no question that he engaged in repeated efforts to overthrow the lawful presidential election result in 2020. And he did it. In the state legislatures, he did it with state election, officials with people like Brad Raffensperger, in Georgia, who he demanded fined him 11,780 votes, which was an invitation to election fraud. He did it by trying to stage a mini coup at the Department of Justice, so he could get the Department of Justice, just to call it corrupt, then leave it to my Republican friends in the house. And he did it by staging the vicious campaign against Vice President Pence in order to get him to step outside of his constitutional role, and simply declare trump the victor or kick the whole thing into the House of Representatives for a contingent election under the 12th Amendment, where they knew they had a sufficient number of state congressional delegations to win elections. So there’s no mystery about this. It’s not an Agatha Christie, who done it, we know exactly who did it. And none of it would have happened without Donald Trump. All of that happened because of him. And that doesn’t mean that he didn’t try to get slick at various points to obscure his intention. But when he sat there for several hours watching the violence unfold, he both abdicated and surrendered any claim to being the commander in chief and defending the government in the people, the United States, and he continued to be the insider in chief egging his troops along.
Andy Slavitt 09:01
And when you describe it, it reminds us of something that I think we just assume not think about, which is how many of our gates were actually run through, and how few were left. In other words, how close we may have been, if a couple of more things had gone his way to really being in a situation where he would have declared himself the president again. I watched every inch as did many Americans have the work that the committee did, and, you know, it offends on so many levels. It offends our sensibilities, and that was taken by quote that you made to I think it was Robert Costas. So that begs a question that maybe you could help the audience understand a little bit, which is help us understand what a criminal referral to the Justice Department does, what that means. And then from your perspective as not just a congress person, but as an attorney, a constitutional attorney. What is it? That offends because beyond the fencing the sensibilities, but where you saw the actual statute that is violated, that you’re referring to that you think the Attorney General or the special prosecutor can pick up?
Jamie Raskin 10:44
Yeah, well, the point that I was making there was that all of these events bound together constitute a major crime against American democracy, a kind of historical crime. And I went back and read, you know, some books about crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocides, things like that. And of course, there were individuals behind all of those things. And there’s really no punishment that can fit a crime of that immensity and gravity. Here, we’re looking at a crime against American constitutional democracy and attempt to overthrow American constitutional democracy. That itself is not a literal statutory crime. We don’t exactly have a crime that fits. But there are dozens and dozens of subsidiary crimes that were part of that mega crime. And some of those included assaulting a federal officer, conspiring to interfere with a Federal proceeding, defrauding the government of the United States, making false statements to the US government insurrection, and incitement to insurrection, and so on. So all of these were components, statutory parts of the mega crime that Donald Trump set into motion. And I know lots of people are frustrated that Donald Trump is still at large, because of this set of crimes as well as a whole bunch of other crimes and torts he’s committed, including allegations of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, bank fraud, real estate fraud, tax fraud, and so on. So definitely frustrating people. But I think the frustration is even at a larger level than that, because the truth is, even if you could nail him on all of those things, you know, if you could pierce through the thick crowd of lawyers and henchmen and underlying’s, who he surrounded himself with and you could get him on all of those things. It really would not be that satisfying. I mean, we’re talking about a pathetic old man, a coward. And so, you know, even if he were to get his comeuppance in court, finally, in his late 70s, or 80s, what would it really mean? You know, what we need to do is to figure out how to stop all of the Donald Trump’s in the future and these horrific movements and forces he’s unleashed against us as democracy.
Andy Slavitt 13:36
You know, it’s interesting when you talk about the Donald Trump’s in the future. You know, if I were to point to one place, where I think the committee had a very tangible impact, you know, you look at the midterm elections, and the large number of candidates that running for secretary of state attorney general or governor that, in fact backed the big lie, the point of view that the election was fraudulent in 2020. And those are battleground states. 100% of them got defeated. You know, is that some evidence that the public gets it as much as we’re divided as much as Donald Trump has his supporters and as much as the Republican Party stands? To some degree, not the elected officials, but the rank and file pretty loyalty to him? Is that some evidence that the country at large has been swayed that we need to be on the lookout for people like this in this kind of belief system and activity?
Jamie Raskin 14:38
Yes, absolutely. I mean, the vast majority of American people rejects coups, insurrections, electoral sabotage. Political Violence is a way of doing business. The vast majority of the country stands by democracy. That still leaves 10s of millions of people who are hypnotized and under the sway of Donald Trump’s BIG LIE And the rancid political conclusions that follow from that, right? When you’re organized politics around a big lie, it rapidly leads you down the road of fraud, corruption, violence, and if it keeps going worse, yeah, you know, towards civil war. So, you know, we’re in a race in America right now, between the will of the vast majority, which is pro-democracy, pro constitution, pro freedom, and a minority party, a shrinking minority party that is getting evermore extreme, and which has a bag of tricks based on anti-democratic institutions and practices in the country. So they thrive on voter suppression on gerrymandering, on right wing judicial activism, on manipulation of the Electoral College, which is still in the Constitution and is an essentially undemocratic institution. And now, we’ve seen an increasingly dangerous one, and the filibuster, and so on. So it’s basically the will of the majority to stand by the democracy, and to keep democracy moving, versus a right wing minority, which has lined up with racial and ethnic resentment and stereotyping, and hatred, basically. And, you know, that’s what we’re up against right now. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is very much the face of the new Republican Party.
Andy Slavitt 16:36
I want to ask you about the new Congress in a second. But before I do, I just want to ask you one final question about the work of the of the committee in the Justice Department. What are your thoughts on the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith? Is that a positive step?
Jamie Raskin 16:50
Yeah, I think it’s a positive step, you know, had your attorney general Garlin not appointed by Special Counsel, they would be saying, Why doesn’t he appoint a special counsel, he’s too political, he was named by Joe Biden, of course, when he appointed a special counsel, then they said, This is outrageous, and so on. So be it, you’re dealing with a political cult of considerable self-pity and self-styled victimhood.
Andy Slavitt 17:51
Let’s turn to talk about the new Congress coming back in session, a lot of things different own talk certainly about some of the things you talked about what the change in party controls gonna be like. But let me let’s start with the Democrats, reflect, if you will, on what the caucus will be like, now that Nancy Pelosi has retired from leadership, she’s still, of course, in the Congress. And what you expect from Hakim Jeffries, is in so many ways it may be for you as well, at some level hard to imagine the party without Nancy, as the speaker or the minority leader, she served for so many years. How do you see that evolution in the party?
Jamie Raskin 18:34
Well, she’s a masterful politician and political leader. And she has been the integrative force in the glue of our caucus for so long. So I think everybody enters with a little bit of trepidation. And it means that everybody needs to rise to the occasion. You know, we can’t have the attitude that Nancy Pelosi is going to solve everything. For us, it’s on us. And that’s kind of the sense that lots of middle aged people are having an American now, which is, hey, the whole future of the country rides on us and our ability to solve things enough that we’re giving a manageable situation to the next generations. So I think there’s a great sense of responsibility about it, a little bit of trepidation, but also a lot of hope to because there are lots of people like Hakeem Jeffries and the others who are stepping up at this point. And they have honed their skills and they’re ready to act. So I feel good about that.
Andy Slavitt 19:42
You know, the reality is like as much as McCarthy and I want to talk about here in a second has a really difficult time wielding control over that caucus and as much as they vote against our interests, or as some say, vote no but pray for yes, the Democrats have a big Tent wide belief system, to the job of getting stuff done getting the caucus to move forward as a group is something that’s been, you know, in some ways, nothing short of a miracle that we’ve kind of taken for granted under Pelosi. But, of course, you are now one of the most recognizable and respected figures in the party, I think you’re looking to potentially be ranking on oversight, which is going to be a very interesting committee this year. And you know, you’re not one of the faces that many of us have come to see as part of the moral center of what the party is or what it stands for.
Jamie Raskin 20:42
Well, I appreciate that. You know, I do have a great sense of responsibility based on what we’ve been through, and what we still have to go through. I mean, we’re still in the middle of this fight. Donald Trump is still at large, Roger Stone is telling us large, Steve Bannon is still at large. All of the forces of authoritarianism and anti semitism and racism and misogyny that had been unleashed by Donald Trump and his movement are still out there. And so I always think about Tocqueville saying, in democracy in America, that democracy in our country is either contracting and shriveling away where it’s growing and expanding, and we’ve got to get democracy back on the growth track. And so we’ve got to rest it away from those who would use the filibuster and voter suppression and gerrymandering, in order to choke off the will of the majority. But we’ve got a great leadership team and Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar and Jim Clyburn and Joe Neguse. We’ve got some really terrific people who are ready to roll and Nancy Pelosi is with us for two more years as it Steny Hoyer, he’s with us for two more years. And they will be, you know, critical soldiers in this fight. And I learned from all these people, every single day, and I find a huge reservoir of support and encouragement and solidarity out in the country. For what we’re doing. I mean, nobody is going to save democracy by himself or herself, or even with a small group, like the democracy itself, everywhere must assert itself against, you know, what President Biden rightly called the Neo fascism, or the semi fascism that’s been unleashed by the MAGA Republicans
Andy Slavitt 22:25
In a short period of time. So as we begin to, as we begin to head towards the new Congress, a lot of the stories for the Republican side are that McCarthy doesn’t quite have the speakership locked up. And of course, you know, you’re not in that caucus. But you know, the reporting, at least is that, you know, you’ve got a half a dozen to a dozen, or more certainly enough people to prevent him if they didn’t vote for him from getting the speakership. And I guess my question is not so much to predict what is or isn’t going to happen there. But the impact on how the Congress is going to be run, when you have a lot of power, basically, in this sort of small group of Republicans that are, you know, not prone to compromise on some of the things that are going to be important votes, like keeping the country running and paying its debts.
Jamie Raskin 23:20
Look, the essential problem facing the GOP today is years of capitulation and surrendered Donald Trump and his reactionary whims, and his brand of authoritarian politics. That’s something that exists within Kevin McCarthy, because we’ve seen him indulge and surrender to Donald Trump and all around him, and he’s empowered those forces. So I view that as the basic problem of the Republican Party, and when we were over in the Senate for the second impeachment and Republican senators would come and see me, I told them, they needed to vote to convict because the evidence compelled it because the country in the Constitution needed it. But if nothing else, moved them, including their oath of office, then they should consider that he would destroy their party and I think he will destroy their party. So that you know, that essential dynamic is playing itself out in Kevin McCarthy’s you know, effort to just build a bare majority to at least temporarily put him in the speakership. The person they really want to be speaker, of course, is Donald Trump, by their directly because you don’t have to be a member of the House to be elected speaker, or indirectly by putting someone in who would just take orders from Trump. So that I mean, that’s the basic problem, but they’ve created their bed and now they’re sleeping in it. And, you know, we’ve lost 8 of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Adam Kinzinger is leaving Liz Cheney, lost and so on. That’s a huge loss to the Republic, but it means that the GOP is growing evermore extreme.
Andy Slavitt 25:07
Yeah, no, it’s interesting when they right now about the quote unquote, moderate Republicans, you know, they’re talking about people that five years ago, 10 years ago, we call it the conservative right to study group and, and so forth. So it’s hard to know where you know where that responsible center is. And still, I think about, you know, as a country, you know, the question I think people are asking us is, just tell me how and why this matters. Okay, so we have divided government. So we know that not a lot, it’s gonna get done to doesn’t have the votes to pass both the House and the Senate. But what I think people have to understand, and I think maybe you can help people who don’t understand it is that there are a few things that actually have to get done that the that actually have to pass, including the ability for the country to pay its own debts. And so if there is any leverage point, to the most conservative of the Republican to want to kind of get their way. On other issues. That would be it. And so, you know, the noise is, of course, that they’re kind of coming up with their list of demands, that the right once, rather those demands are impeaching members of Biden’s cabinet or whether those demands are your ideological or what have you. Help us understand how that’s likely to play out, and why we shouldn’t all be very concerned about this.
Jamie Raskin 26:28
Well, they will be looking for every opportunity, especially around the debt ceiling, and the budget, shutting down the government and so on to exercise as much course of leverage as possible over the process. And of course, we’re talking about people who are perfectly fine with, you know, right wingers like Trump spending with reckless abandon, as long as it’s, you know, for their big corporations and their wealthy buddies and for their agenda. But you know, what, they’re likely to begin to, you know, dust off their claim to being fiscal conservatives, like they might start claiming to be constitutional patriots, again, even though their hero, Donald Trump is saying the Constitution should be set aside, and eliminated, essentially, in order for him to take office based on the 2020 election. But that won’t stop them. I mean, they have, you know, just a handful plays that they run over and over again, you know, and it is tremendously corrosive from the standpoint of the Democratic self-government in the country. So we’re going to try to get as much business done as we can in the lame duck period, because we have to, in terms of the debt ceiling in terms of the budget in terms of funding our democratic allies in Ukraine, who are resisting Donald Trump’s bosom buddy Vladimir Putin’s filthy, bloody aggression against their country. And basically, anything that we can do now, we will try to do now, because we understand that, you know, what we’re dealing with is, you know, a form of legislative hostage taking.
Andy Slavitt 28:42
You looked to the year ahead, what else should we expect? What else do you expect to see? Obviously, oversight will be one of the areas where they will have the reins usually serving an oversight. they’ve submitted their list of oversight priorities, which they’re looking at, then some oversight is obviously quite legitimate. And some of it is more of a show. What do you kind of expect? What should the public be aware of be ready for?
Jamie Raskin 29:09
Look, the Republican Party in 2020 went to their convention, and they came back and for the first time in modern political history, a major party said that they didn’t have a platform. And they literally have no platform. They have no substantive policy commitments, which tells you that their real platform is whatever Donald Trump tells them it is, Donald Trump will wake up and tell them what their platform is. And then their only real commitment is to voter suppression and trying to keep people from voting if they think that they’re not going to support them. So they ran their campaign because their pollsters told them to on inflation and crime to issues that they dropped like a hot potato after the election. They don’t have any program around inflation. They don’t have any program around crime other than to cover up for Donald Trump’s crimes and the crimes of their other political confederates. So what will they spend their time doing? Well, there’ll be talking about Hunter Biden, and his laptop and Hillary Clinton and her emails and Russia gate and, you know, just dusting off various conspiracy theories and scandals du jour. And it’s all to try to keep their political base inflamed and engaged. But it doesn’t speak to anybody else in the country. It doesn’t speak to the vast majority of Americans.
Andy Slavitt 30:40
Speaking of their political base, how much do you think Trump has been wounded? I’m speaking from now as a candidate. It’s a political candidate, not as a legal target. You know, there’s a lot of sort of early obituaries being written about his candidacy. You know, I think many of us will, who would look at that his potential reelection is such a nightmare scenario, aren’t so ready to not be concerned. What do you see, as you put that hat on? How wounded has he been by the last number of months?
Jamie Raskin 31:13
Well, let me start with this just because, you know, I am a constitutional law professor. So I think constitutionally before I think politically, and he’s not just ethically and morally, manifestly unqualified to be president, he is constitutionally disqualified from being president, section three of the 14th Amendment says that anybody who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution, and then abandons that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, shall never hold public office, again, federal or state, civil or military. So I start with the premise that at this point, he’s an enemy of the constitutional order. And he’s been constitutionally disqualified for running for president or any other office federal or we’re state, I would not underestimate the spellbinding political effect, he still has on a huge number of voters that the Republican Party needs. And whether it’s 45% or 40%, or 35%, it almost doesn’t matter, because he’s the one, the one candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination, who will take a walk on the party if he doesn’t get the nomination. So he exercises that coercive political leverage over their party. And, you know, I stand by my prediction, he will destroy the Republican Party, because they refused to deal with him in a meaningful constitutional way, when they had the opportunity to do so. Now, when we the Senate voted, it was the most widespread bipartisan vote to convict in American history in a presidential impeachment trial 57 to 43. But it fell short of the two thirds majority requirement for conviction. And so those 43 Republican senators who essentially violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and violated their oath to render impartial justice as jurors and you know, stood by Trump, those people will have a lot to account for not just to their country and their constitution, but also to their party, Lincoln’s party.
Andy Slavitt 33:32
You did a masterful job prosecuting that case. And I think, given the facts, I can only imagine that there were more than 60 senators sitting in the room saying this case has been proven regardless of how they voted.
Jamie Raskin 33:46
Well, and Mitch McConnell was one of them who got up afterwards and said, essentially, that the House impeachment managers made their case, there was no doubt that Donald Trump was ethically morally factually guilty and responsible for all these events. But he did not think the Senate had jurisdiction to try a former president. And 20 other Republican senators said same thing. They hung their hats on this procedural hook, which had been rejected by the Senate on the very first day of the trial 56 to 44, which made this really the greatest case of jury nullification in the history of the country, because they were saying the facts would compel a conviction. But, you know, we think despite two centuries of precedent, we can’t try someone who quickly resigns for office. We’re in which the Senate has always rejected and which that Senate did reject, but they went back to it in order to split the difference.
Andy Slavitt 34:44
I think you put your finger on it, once again, he is procedure to find a way out. And I think you will have probably both could imagine that if he had in fact voted to impeach he would have given permission to a lot of his rank and file to do the same final question for you. Taylor Swift, Ticketmaster, this an oversight matter, believe it or not, when I let people know that I was interviewing you today, that was one of the questions people wanted me to ask you the most, which is how come they couldn’t go see Taylor Swift? And what can be done about it?
Jamie Raskin 35:16
Because I’ve been preoccupied with this stuff. I don’t have a definitive answer for you on it. I’ve got a book that I’m going to read. Before we get back into session called all you need to know about the music business by Donald Passman. And I’m going to study that and I’m going to study what’s been going on there.
Andy Slavitt 35:34
How about this? How about this, divide and conquer you keep your attention focused on Trump and on all the things you need to do in the Congress, and we’ll let other people worry about Taylor Swift. I just wanted to ask you a fun question before we before we go. Congressman Raskin, thank you for the time today. I know what a busy day this is for you. And good luck in the next Congress. And thank you for standing up for justice and saying the things that are in America’s mind.
Jamie Raskin 36:01
Thank you so much. Great to be with you.
Andy Slavitt 36:17
Thank you to Jamie Raskin. He’s in all of our thoughts. I know, as he goes through this, this fight. I’m tell you what’s coming up. We’ve got a great couple of shows to start the year. Mark Leibovich is back. As we get a new Congress, Mark is going to walk us through what this new Congress and the chaos that ensued this week, with a vote to try to elect a speaker on the Republican side, what that means what that will mean for gridlock, what that will mean, for a lot of the things that may hold up the government this year and what it means for the Republican Party. We have the governor of the great state of Minnesota, Tim Walz, Tim won reelection, and has already started talking in fairly aggressive terms about reestablishing the voting rights, that have been taken away from people in some states. And so we’re going to talk with him about that, as well as a number of other things. I think you’ll find that great. And of course, we have our first COVID episode of the year, we’re gonna go deep into the new variants that are spreading on the East Coast, what’s happening in China, and that will be all coming to you next week. We’re glad you’re back with us. We are glad to be back. And we look forward to spending the year with you in your ear.
Thanks for listening to IN THE BUBBLE. We’re a production of Lemonada Media. Kathryn Barnes, Jackie Harris and Kyle Shiely produced our show, and they’re great. Our mix is by Noah Smith and James Barber, and they’re great, too. Steve Nelson is the vice president of the weekly content, and he’s okay, too. And of course, the ultimate bosses, Jessica Cordova Kramer and Stephanie Wittels Wachs, they executive produced the show, we love them dearly. Our theme was composed by Dan Molad and Oliver Hill, with additional music by Ivan Kuraev. You can find out more about our show on social media at @LemonadaMedia where you’ll also get the transcript of the show. And you can find me at @ASlavitt on Twitter. If you like what you heard today, why don’t you tell your friends to listen as well, and get them to write a review. Thanks so much, talk to you next time.