0:00

Presented by the US Travel

0:02

Association. Everyone needs a lawyer, even

0:05

the president of the United States. And

0:07

if you've been a Democrat in the White House over the last

0:09

30 years, Bob Bauer

0:12

has in some capacity been your

0:14

guy. Currently,

0:17

Bauer is president Joe Biden's personal lawyer.

0:20

Prior to that, he was general

0:22

counsel for both of Barack Obama's

0:24

presidential campaigns and Obama's

0:26

White House counsel. He

0:28

also served as counsel to Senate Democrats

0:31

during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. And

0:33

in 2000, he was the top lawyer

0:35

for New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley's presidential

0:37

primary campaign against Al Gore. It

0:40

was in that campaign that Bauer first became

0:42

an expert in a unique political

0:44

art, playing the role of

0:46

his candidate's rival during debate prep.

0:50

In 2020, he helped Biden

0:52

prepare for debates by playing Bernie Sanders

0:54

in the primaries and Donald Trump

0:56

in the general election. It

0:59

was his job to insult and impugn Biden

1:01

the way that Trump would. In

1:03

all of the debate preps,

1:05

and whether it was the Trump debate

1:07

prep or Gore Bradley or others that

1:09

I've done, you cannot be

1:12

afraid of laying down on the

1:14

table something that your candidate

1:16

that you're preparing this for won't like.

1:19

With the first presidential debate less than one week

1:21

away and both Biden and Trump cramming to

1:23

prepare for it, I wanted Bauer

1:25

to come on and help us preview the big

1:27

event. Bauer also has

1:30

a new book out, The Unraveling,

1:32

Reflections on Politics Without Ethics and

1:35

Democracy in Crisis, which

1:37

is an account of his accumulated wisdom

1:39

in decades of work at the highest

1:41

levels of American politics and

1:43

government. Bauer

1:46

and I met downtown in Washington on

1:48

Thursday afternoon and discussed what

1:50

it's like to prepare Biden for a Trump debate,

1:53

whether or not Democratic prosecutors have

1:55

overdone it on pursuing

1:57

legal actions against Trump, whether

1:59

his I

20:00

want to draw a distinction

20:02

for the moment between Trump campaign

20:04

slash Republican National Committee activity and

20:08

what I would call other electional

20:11

denialist or election

20:13

integrity defense activity that you see

20:15

that may be encouraged, but it's

20:18

coming from other sources, again,

20:21

sources of support for what the Republicans are

20:23

claiming about elections. Like the Steve Adkins of

20:25

the world, that kind of thing. Yeah, and

20:27

different nonprofit organizations that show up and file

20:29

suits and different

20:31

election officials now who make claims about

20:33

their authority and we're seeing and have

20:36

seen election officials saying, no, if I'm

20:38

not satisfied with the outcome here, I

20:40

may not certify. I'll just block

20:42

it. And you saw that play out very dramatically

20:44

in Michigan in 2020. That

20:47

is something that we

20:50

might see more of this time around. I wouldn't

20:52

say, by the way, we're going to see it

20:54

widely and across the board if

20:56

I could. And this is more than a footnote. At

21:00

the same time as I'm active in the Biden campaign and I

21:02

discussed this in the book, I'm

21:05

very active on bipartisan voting

21:09

reform and election administration. I

21:11

think that's really important. The two parties have

21:14

to collaborate, if they can at all, to

21:16

protect the system fundamentally and to defend it,

21:18

and in particular, to stand

21:20

up for professional election administration. And

21:23

I will tell you that in the travels that I've

21:25

done around the country recently in battleground

21:28

states with Republicans, with

21:30

Ben Ginsburg and others, I

21:33

find Republican as well as Democratic

21:35

election officials who are really

21:37

determined to do this the right

21:39

way. But I just want to raise the point

21:42

that, yes, there are going to be election officials

21:44

who may be prepared to create trouble. Is

21:46

there anything preemptively that you do

21:48

when you encounter public commentary from

21:51

election officials that telegraph

21:53

that? Well,

21:55

yes. I mean, there are

21:58

things that you can do to lay down markers.

22:00

and certainly to respond quickly as soon as you

22:02

hear that they're operating on that theory. Right

22:05

now, there is a legal case

22:07

that is developed in Fulton County,

22:09

Georgia, precisely this kind that involves

22:11

both an election official who is

22:13

insisting on, if

22:16

you will, discretionary certification authority rather than

22:18

the ministerial act has widely been accepted

22:20

to be and should be under the

22:22

law and just certifying the results that

22:24

are reported up. The

22:26

state election board itself in rulemaking may

22:29

be, if you will, toying around

22:31

with the authority the election officials have

22:34

to refuse certification. This is not the

22:36

Trump-Racketerring case? No, no, no. This

22:38

is a different Fulton County case. This is a voting case. Well,

22:40

not totally unrelated, but yeah. Well, it's correct. By

22:43

legal subject matter, it's totally unrelated, but you're

22:45

correct. It's not topically unrelated. Yeah.

22:48

You write a lot about campaign

22:50

finance reform in the book. You

22:53

have a very nuanced view of

22:55

political reform. I found it really

22:57

refreshing reading your views. You're very

22:59

aware of unintended consequences when it

23:02

comes to political reform. You basically

23:04

think that the history of campaign

23:06

finance is a history of unintended

23:08

consequences. Refreshingly you say,

23:10

I don't repent in

23:13

terms of your skepticism. I

23:18

can't help but ask one

23:21

more preface to this question. You

23:24

talk about the famous John Edwards case. You

23:27

note that his political career ended

23:29

in another sex scandal that became

23:32

foolishly a criminal prosecution that did

23:34

not move the jury. I

23:38

can't help but notice your criticisms of

23:41

campaign finance, of the Edwards case. It

23:43

seems like you would be very, very

23:45

skeptical of the

23:47

Trump case in

23:49

Manhattan when it comes to elevating

23:52

those bookkeeping

23:56

frauds to a campaign finance

23:59

violation. I

24:02

bet you, Ryan, you know that I'm not going to address that question,

24:05

but you did your job by asking

24:07

it. But surely Bob Bauer does not

24:09

think that a private

24:12

NDA should be a reportable campaign

24:14

finance expense. Well,

24:18

I don't know that you framed the issue of the case correctly

24:20

there. I'm sorry for that. Correct me.

24:22

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure

24:24

that's the issue of the case. Or

24:26

the reimbursement. Listen, for professional and representational

24:28

reasons, my commenting on a case like

24:30

that, which by the way is ongoing

24:32

because the- No sentencing. Trump is appealing,

24:34

would be inappropriate. In

24:36

the book- Why would it be inappropriate? Because

24:38

I don't want any confusion between the views that I

24:41

express and the views that

24:43

others that I'm involved with professionally might hold. I

24:45

don't want someone to say, and you can imagine

24:47

it, oh, the Democrats, one

24:50

of the Democrats presidential campaign lawyers or Biden's

24:52

lawyer has said this. Presented

25:00

by the US Travel Association,

25:02

air travel innovations make getting there

25:04

this summer more safe, secure, and

25:07

seamless. In

25:14

writing about this in the book,

25:16

you note that one lesson you learned

25:19

there was to ask

25:21

for forgiveness rather than

25:23

permission when you're out there expressing

25:25

your opinions. One,

25:28

I think that that's the spirit with which we should have

25:30

this conversation. But

25:33

two, did you ask anyone

25:36

about publishing this book? No. You

25:38

didn't ask the president? No. I

25:40

don't think he would have expected me to, but I don't know because I

25:42

didn't ask. My

25:45

day job- This is a big guy. Oh, I'm

25:47

sorry. Please don't go. Let

25:49

me be clear. I, after many, many years in

25:51

private practice and the vast majority of it, some

25:53

38 years taking out

25:55

some time for government work, spent

25:57

at the same law firm, I left my

26:00

law firm so that I could

26:02

devote myself full-time to the legal academy and I'm at NYU

26:05

Law. And the

26:08

reason was that I wanted to get

26:10

away from being

26:12

bound, if you will, in the expression of my

26:14

views, any particular interest that I was thought to

26:16

represent or be responsible for. Now,

26:19

I made a fateful decision. I don't regret in the least.

26:22

I decided to maintain what I called a little

26:25

pack of legacy clients with whom I had a

26:27

close personal relationship, one of whom was

26:29

Joe Biden, who I didn't

26:31

know decided to run for president and

26:34

became president. And so that

26:36

took that narrow

26:39

band of representations and significantly expanded

26:41

it. So I, in that respect,

26:43

in that area of concern

26:46

about what I say about matters that are

26:48

directly relevant to his administration or to his

26:50

campaign, I have to observe

26:52

constraints. But other than that, I teach

26:54

what I am going to teach and I write what I'm going

26:57

to write. And of course, you say forgiveness rather

26:59

than permission. In

27:03

writing this book, I was mindful. There's an

27:05

attorney-client privilege I want to respect, their client

27:07

confidentiality I want to respect. I

27:09

have stories I would have loved to put in the book.

27:12

Sometimes you tell stories without the name. It's going to

27:14

be a little frustrating. It's a bit of a correct.

27:17

I tried to be sensitive to the

27:19

trust that people have proposed to me, I

27:21

hope, as a lawyer. But

27:23

I also don't want anyone to own a decision about

27:26

what I write. And so no,

27:28

I wrote this book without seeking permission. And

27:30

just so people understand, you are not one

27:32

of these Biden lifers. You met

27:34

Biden via working for the

27:36

Obama campaign. That's correct. I knew him before. I

27:39

had met him when I was doing a lot

27:41

of Senate legal work, campaign work, but

27:43

I did not represent him at the time and I

27:45

didn't come to really know him or represent him personally

27:47

until he became the

27:50

vice presidential pick of President Obama.

27:52

The president has said that he

27:54

would not pardon his son, Hunter

27:56

Biden, but as someone who

27:59

is a friend advisor to

28:01

the president, would

28:03

you recommend that he do that? That

28:05

he changes mind about that? Your

28:09

tenacity is impressive. You're

28:12

well aware that I'm not

28:14

going to respond to a question like that, but

28:16

I admire you for keeping on it. Alright,

28:20

this one I am going to press you

28:22

on because when you talk about the Her

28:25

investigation, your

28:27

whole spiel

28:30

on that is about why

28:32

you couldn't talk about it in real

28:34

time because you needed to protect the

28:36

integrity of the investigation. Okay, that investigation

28:39

is now over. You've

28:41

written about it in the book, so let's,

28:43

I hope we can talk a little bit

28:45

about that and I'd like to start here

28:47

with asking you what your reaction was upon

28:49

reading the first draft of the Her report.

28:52

To be sure, I want to be very clear, the

28:55

only part of the book

28:57

that deals with Her investigation was that

28:59

issue that you just raised, press dissatisfaction

29:01

with the level of transparency they thought

29:04

had been provided by the

29:06

administration. So I addressed that in a chapter on

29:08

the press. Yes. Right. Yes. So I didn't otherwise

29:10

discuss the classified documents investigation, it would have been

29:13

entirely inappropriate for me to do so. I can

29:17

track what I have said in

29:19

letters that had been released as one of

29:21

his counsel and I

29:24

can just

29:26

say generally that, how

29:34

would I put it? I obviously

29:38

had major differences with

29:41

the way the investigation went. I

29:44

think it ended up legally, absolutely legally,

29:46

where it had to end.

29:48

I mean it had to end the way it did because

29:51

there was in my judgment no case to be made to

29:53

the contrary, no matter how much somebody

29:55

might stretch to make that case to the

29:57

contrary. But as you

29:59

know, And I've said this

30:02

publicly. We wrote letters that have

30:04

been released. We wrote letters to both Rob Herr and to

30:06

the department that some of

30:08

the editorializing that Rob Herr did

30:10

in that report that I otherwise

30:12

thought was not assembled very in

30:14

my judgment effectively or well. Assembled.

30:18

Meaning I thought the report in

30:20

a number of respects just did

30:23

not meet my expectations for how

30:26

it would be done. I mean, there's already

30:28

a controversy about how much

30:30

special counsels should say. As you recall, when

30:32

these regulations were promulgated, the idea

30:34

was to get away from the hundreds of

30:36

pages that the so-called independent counsels from a

30:38

prior era had produced and

30:40

then generate what was essentially,

30:43

I'm almost quoting from the regulations, not quite

30:46

a limited confidential report to the attorney general

30:48

who in turn would make a decision

30:50

about what to release in the public interest. But

30:52

the report received would focus on whether a

30:54

case should be brought or declined. And

30:57

it would be limited in character to that

30:59

objective. And now we have these tomes that

31:02

come out. Mueller, Herr. Absolutely. So are we

31:04

back? Durham. Durham. Yes. And

31:06

I think that's very regrettable. It's

31:10

unfortunate. And by the way- And that extends to the

31:12

Mueller case as well? It

31:17

is difficult as

31:19

a process matter as

31:22

much as I think Bob Mueller was committed to

31:24

writing volume one to warn the American public about

31:26

the extent of foreign government

31:28

interference in our elections to take

31:30

the 400 page report that he produced

31:32

in every aspect of it and say it

31:36

conform to what my expectations would have been

31:38

if reports under the special counsel rules. But

31:40

that's the report that he wrote. And that

31:42

was the report the attorney general, although as

31:44

we know, Bill Barr reluctantly then

31:46

passed on to the Congress and then

31:49

released to the American public. And

31:51

of course, in the

31:53

hands of Bob Mueller, it

31:56

might be very different than the hands of somebody else. Like

31:59

her. So you can say- Bob Mueller's

32:01

a professional. Well, or John Durham. Let's

32:03

not forget John Durham. You're

32:06

probably right. It sounds like you would rank him down

32:08

at the bottom of those three. Well, let me

32:11

just say something about that. I just think it's

32:13

worth remembering this. And that is, John

32:16

Durham took two cases to

32:18

trial and lost both of them almost instantly. And

32:22

yet, he wrote 300

32:24

pages to vindicate, you know,

32:26

the position he'd taken all along was that

32:28

there was some irregularity in

32:31

this whole investigation of the connection between the

32:33

Trump campaign and the Russians and so forth.

32:36

But he took his main cases to trial and he

32:38

lost them both and he lost them like

32:40

within a day or two. And the jury came back and

32:42

said, no, go. And yet, 300 plus

32:45

pages, unedited, untouched by

32:47

anybody else, went from John Durham to

32:49

the world in connection with

32:51

the whole business of trying to persuade people

32:54

of his view, his political view, that

32:57

the Department of Justice had been corrupted and

32:59

people around the department had been corrupted to

33:03

take after Donald Trump over this whole Russian

33:05

allegation. And that's not how these regulations were

33:07

expected to work. So my

33:09

colleague, Jack, I'm sorry. Do you think

33:11

that her a

33:13

Trump appointee was

33:15

partisan in the way he pursued that case?

33:19

I don't want to characterize him in that way. I certainly

33:22

think in many respects, he was misguided, but

33:24

I'm not going to say that he had

33:26

a political agenda. I didn't have any indication that

33:28

he had a political agenda. But

33:30

the editorializing in the report was,

33:33

first of all, in my view, flatly

33:35

inconsistent with departmental guidelines for the way

33:37

third parties are treated or subjects

33:40

who are not charged or third

33:43

parties are treated in reports like that. And

33:46

I truly do not understand it. There's

33:48

so much political pressure under the independent

33:50

counsel statute, it was thought to

33:53

result in independent counsel investigations that

33:55

never ended or that created pressures

33:57

to prosecute. But.

36:00

odd arrangement that produced

36:02

a famous dissent from Justice Scalia, but

36:04

an odd arrangement under which the

36:07

judiciary was involved in an appointment and

36:09

supervision. And it wasn't good for

36:11

the judiciary. That did not work out well at

36:13

all, and it was ill-conceived in the first instance.

36:16

So the notion was, let's return it to the Department

36:18

of Justice and provide enough

36:21

independence so that the public can have

36:23

confidence in the special prosecutor's

36:25

ability to escape any kind of political pressure,

36:28

but let's not disturb the Attorney General's role

36:30

as head of the Department and

36:32

ensure that the Attorney General has

36:34

adequate opportunity and a

36:37

conceded authority to learn

36:40

about the investigation as it unfolds, to

36:43

supervise it as appropriate. But

36:45

every decision, from whether the charges should be

36:47

brought to the major investigative decisions

36:49

are ones under the Attorney General's supervision. But what

36:51

happens? Special counsels are referred

36:53

to as independent counsels. The independent

36:56

counsel mindset takes hold. The press reports it as

36:58

a major sin if there

37:00

is any possible involvement by DOJ and the supervision

37:02

of the special counsel. And so

37:04

it's all collapsed back into something that looks

37:06

awful like the independent counsel statute.

37:11

One thought about what

37:13

the Mueller Prosecution Team intent tried to

37:16

do here was to

37:18

inform not just the public debate, but

37:20

perhaps the congressional debate about whether impeachment

37:22

might be appropriate. But of course, one

37:24

of the steps that was taken in

37:26

the independent counsel repeal was to

37:30

take away from somebody like

37:32

a special counsel what the independent

37:34

counsel previously had, which was the

37:36

authority to actually report to the

37:38

Congress that they had found evidence

37:41

of potentially impeachable offenses. And that's what Ken

37:43

started with Bill Clinton. He went to the

37:45

Congress and said, I have

37:48

found evidence of impeachable offenses.

37:51

By the way, amazing as it

37:53

is to think back and became one of

37:55

the lead witnesses for the Republican in the

37:57

House impeachment proceeding. Yeah. Part

38:00

of the legal team for the Senate Democrats. That's correct. But

38:02

that's not the way things should go. That's not the way

38:04

things should go And he of

38:06

course all of the evidence and witnesses

38:09

were then turned over to Congress in

38:12

the fight over the her report It's

38:16

up to the Attorney General for instance The

38:18

president said he didn't want the

38:20

audio recordings of his interview with

38:22

the special counsel released to Congress

38:25

Was he able to do that under the independent counsel rule?

38:28

Would he have been able to do that? Or

38:30

it would have been up to the independent counsel him or herself That

38:35

is a good question I'm

38:37

not sure in every application. I had the answer off the top

38:40

of my head. Do you think? That

38:42

was the right decision not to hand over the tapes Another

38:45

question asking me that goes to what I can't discuss

38:48

Why I can't express an opinion about something like that. That's

38:50

not my call to make Publicly whatever

38:52

I have ever said on that topic is something I

38:54

have to keep to myself. All right, it's not in

38:57

the book Imagine if I were

38:59

your lawyer wouldn't you want me to be this circumspect of

39:01

course you would There

39:04

all right, but this is something you write about

39:06

which I found really interesting is You're

39:09

you are harshly critical of Democrats

39:12

in 2022 Supporting

39:14

MAGA candidates in GOP primaries

39:16

you talk about how former

39:19

senator Claire McCaskill Once

39:22

bragged about in Politico magazine, I

39:24

believe Pioneering that it really became

39:26

a thing in 2022. I remember

39:29

a lot of Democrats I remember a lot of

39:31

political observers at the time saying this

39:33

didn't work out so well in 2016 Whatever.

39:36

Everyone wished Trump did was

39:38

the nominee you think it's a bad idea I'm

39:41

very troubled by it. By the way, I think

39:44

very highly a player McCaskill on this I have

39:46

clearly a disagreement with her I don't even know

39:48

what she thinks about it at the present time

39:51

And she certainly is not the only one since

39:53

then who I mean she I haven't heard her

39:55

expressive opinion since then others have clearly acted on

39:57

that basic theory that I Pelosi

39:59

was leading, Polisian Schumer, he was very

40:02

important, you know, top, top Democratic officials

40:04

in the 20, in charge of the

40:06

2020 mid, 2022 midterms who, you know,

40:09

gave the go ahead for that. It worked out. It

40:14

worked in the midterms. Anyway, lay

40:16

out your case of concern about it. Let

40:19

me just begin with a practical point, which is

40:21

not an ethical point. The practical point is be

40:23

careful what you wish for. And

40:26

I just think it's a very dangerous game to play.

40:31

The idea that you would spend money to persuade people

40:33

to vote for someone you actually think is dangerous if

40:35

they were to win office raises for

40:37

me some significant questions. And then

40:39

a concern that's related to

40:41

that is it is

40:43

fundamentally a concerted effort to spend money

40:45

to deceive voters. And

40:48

explain that because I don't think that is

40:51

intuitive to a lot of political

40:54

minded listeners who listen to this. I think like as

40:56

you point out in the book, a lot of people

40:58

just think, oh, that's smart. Yes.

41:00

Right. And they're sort of, you

41:02

know, yes. Explain why it's dishonest.

41:06

It is an attempt

41:08

to how would you call

41:10

goad voters into voting for

41:12

somebody that you are confident that

41:16

should they care about this, they

41:18

wouldn't vote for if they knew they couldn't win. In

41:20

other words, you're saying to the voters, vote for this

41:23

person, vote for Ryan Lizza because

41:25

he's a true conservative, right? And

41:27

they vote for Ryan Lizza. Maybe by the

41:29

way, they're also encouraged to see some of

41:32

this coming if they know what's coming from

41:34

Democrats because they think, why? If the Democrats

41:36

think this is a true conservative, this must

41:38

be a really true conservative. They're scared of

41:40

him. Right. Exactly. And they're touting that candidate's

41:42

bona fides as a conservative candidate.

41:45

But when what they're really trying to do is

41:47

to have the voters focus on

41:49

that without realizing that

41:51

the game that's being played is to put

41:54

the most beatable Republican candidate on the ticket.

41:57

And as you know, in other

41:59

contexts like micro-targeting. We

42:03

have a significant issue with the

42:06

manipulation, disinformation,

42:08

disinformation, fake AI,

42:10

various kinds of

42:12

targeting practices with manipulating the

42:14

electorate. This

42:16

particular form that you and I are discussing, that

42:19

kind of manipulation by which

42:21

you try to persuade them that the candidate

42:23

they really want and who is the most

42:25

beatable is the candidate they should nominate, is

42:28

that the moment

42:30

the example that we should most

42:32

worry about it is the most

42:34

troubling of all the potential examples

42:36

in that category? Maybe not, especially

42:39

given deepfakes, AI. But

42:43

I think it's something it's

42:45

worth really thinking hard about and I am not a

42:47

fan of it. I think

42:50

what happens eventually is this all catches

42:52

up to the

42:55

political process because

42:58

voters ultimately conclude that policy

43:01

is a dirty business. The

43:03

people that they expect to lead the country or who

43:05

are vying to lead the country are constantly pulling the

43:07

wool over their eyes. It's just

43:09

filthy. It's a tough business.

43:11

I'm all in favor of waging hard,

43:14

tough campaigns. I'm all in favor

43:16

of putting before the electorate

43:18

a very tough characterization of your opposition, even

43:21

if it's not a characterization that your opposition

43:23

necessarily thinks is fair. I'm not worried about

43:25

any of that, but there have to be

43:27

some lines or ultimately the process

43:29

itself falls into discredit and that's what we're

43:31

dealing with right now. What's

43:33

interesting is when you're writing about these things,

43:36

a recurring theme is you're obviously

43:38

a Democrat and I want Democrats to win

43:40

and work for the president and are playing

43:43

Donald Trump in debate prep. I'm

43:48

not going to get you to talk about that anyway. But

43:52

you repeatedly express concern about things

43:54

that you don't like on the

43:56

Republican side being

43:59

imported. to the

44:02

democratic side. And in the example we

44:04

just talked about, you know, that was

44:06

something that the democrats themselves are doing.

44:09

What are the ones that concern you? What

44:11

are the norm violations of the last 10

44:13

years that you worry that your own party

44:15

might say, you know what, this is

44:17

just how it's done now and we

44:19

need to do that. What are the ones

44:21

that you want to tell democrats, no, that's

44:23

a line we shouldn't ever cross. So

44:26

I don't... The ones that are

44:28

legitimately on the table. I

44:31

don't know that I'm worried that Republican

44:33

practices in the Trump era are being

44:35

imported into the Democratic Party. The Democratic

44:37

Party is standing pretty strong against Trump

44:39

politics. I'm not worried the democrats are

44:42

stepping away from that. But

44:44

there is a kind of ends

44:46

just to minds of means mentality, particularly

44:49

at a time of polarization and, if

44:51

you will, an existential politics in which losing

44:55

is unthinkable. There's

44:57

a danger that unless we think

44:59

hard about these practices and norms and what's required

45:01

to keep them alive, some

45:04

of these ends, means, resolutions

45:07

are going to weaken. But I

45:09

don't... I wouldn't look at the Democratic Party today

45:11

and say, oh, I think they're heading the way of Donald Trump. I

45:13

don't say that in the book. Well, one quote, this is one

45:15

I wrote down, but I thought it was in several places. This

45:19

was on the dangers of election denialism spreading.

45:22

So in 2024, will Republicans

45:25

supporting the Republican candidates... I

45:28

might have a typo here. Have a

45:30

ready-made argument for rejecting the results of

45:32

a lost election. So do

45:34

their adversaries, who may make the

45:37

case that the rules clamping down

45:39

on voter access achieved their partisan

45:41

goal, but made impossible acceptance of

45:43

the results. That's

45:50

what I was talking about when I... Oh, I see.

45:52

I see. Criticisms of

45:54

election denialism, concern that

45:57

these tools... And that does happen in

45:59

politics.