Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, it’s National Sour Candy Day. Are you a fan?
Gibbs Léger: I am a fan. I particularly love Sour Patch Kids. I think they’re the perfect vessel for sourness.
Seeberger: I love me a Sour Patch Kid—especially the red ones. I know they’re so different. But personally, I think my favorite are those Trolli Sour Brite Crawler gummy worms from back in the day. I just remember visions from my youth, being in a swim meet and in between races just shoving them in my mouth and giving me the real, needed boost for that next race.
Gibbs Léger: I’m sure nutritionists approve, no doubt.
Seeberger: Of course.
Gibbs Léger: Well candy aside, we did have a serious conversation this week, but I heard it was a really good one.
Seeberger: It was. I talked with former Alabama U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D) about the need to stanch out political violence in this country and really bring the temperature down on our national discourse.
Gibbs Léger: That sounds like such an important conversation. But first, we have to get to some news.
As you all probably know by now, a gunman fired at former President Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania last weekend. The attack killed a former fire chief, injured two other rally attendees, and clipped Trump’s ear.
I want to be crystal clear here: We at “The Tent” and CAP Action condemn this attack. While I don’t share Trump’s vision for the country, all politicians—all of them—have a right to share their views without the threat of violence. I’m relieved that he wasn’t more seriously hurt, and I am heartbroken for the loved ones of Corey Comperatore, who was killed shielding his family from the bullets.
Debating ideas is essential to a functioning democracy, and violence has no place in solving our differences. Full stop. Right now, Americans are deciding between two very different visions for our nation’s future. One—the MAGA vision—feeds, grows off, and promises more violence. The other is a progressive vision, where no one fears for their lives or their loved ones, and where weapons of war are banned from our streets so they are less likely to be used against politicians—or against elementary schoolers, moviegoers, or concert attendees, for that matter.
And I want to suggest why that second vision is the right one for our country. Police officers arrested a man outside of the RNC [Republican National Convention] with an AK-47 on Tuesday night. If you want any more proof that we desperately need gun reform, there you have it.
Seeberger: Say it louder for the people in the back, Daniella. Of course, you won’t hear calls for gun reform or a progressive vision for our country at the Republican National Convention this week.
Here’s what you will hear about, though: Donald Trump’s newly selected running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R). His vision for our country is so extreme and wildly out of touch with where the public is. His vision for our country would put Donald Trump before the American people. Full stop. He was chosen because he’ll do what Mike Pence refused to do, and that is reject the election results on January 6 and certify the peaceful transfer of power that we should come to expect in this country. He’ll break the law, overturn election results, and bend over backward to enact Donald Trump’s extreme MAGA agenda—no matter how devastating it is for American families. He’s said so himself.
And if you need any further proof, just look at what JD Vance was saying about Donald Trump in 2016. He was one of his biggest critics. He suggested Trump could, quote, “be America’s Hitler,” close quote. He called him “reprehensible” and even equated the MAGA agenda with cultural heroin. Again, those are his words.
But when offered the chance to rule our nation, he suddenly shifted gears and was singing a different tune. It’s clear that neither he nor Trump govern with conviction. What they want is to exercise control over the American people. It’s why they both like that far-right MAGA playbook, Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation, so much: It was made for people just like them.
And it gets worse: In recent months, as the veepstakes has picked up steam, Vance himself has said that he has no problem with Donald Trump using the government to go after his political enemies. He said that he would have not certified the 2020 election results like Mike Pence did as vice president on January 6 and refused to accept the 2024 election results—even though people haven’t even voted in this election.
He supports a nationwide abortion ban, has voiced support for abortion bans like that in Texas that include no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. He’s blocked bills to codify Roe v. Wade and protect IVF [in vitro fertilization]. He also opposes support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression and has praised far-right strongmen like Viktor Orbán of Hungary. He’s also flip-flopped on his previous support for cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Really, just to put a finer point on it: In the immediate hours after the attack on President Trump this past weekend, Sen. Vance had the audacity to suggest that President Biden was somehow responsible for the shooting. Not only is that a reprehensible lie, it’s outrageous that a potential vice president would suggest something like that with no proof at all. It puts politicians—Democrats or Republicans—in harm’s way when you traffic in those kind of baseless conspiracy theories. It’s why even Republicans like former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R) have said this should disqualify Vance from being nominated for vice president.
That said, I really can’t say that I’m surprised Sen. Vance’s reaction was what it was when he has long suggested that things like the events that occurred on January 6 are a form of legitimate political protest in this country—even though 140 police officers were battered and abused that day.
Gibbs Léger: It’s really horrific how people like JD Vance are trying to twist tragedy for political gain, while Democratic leaders are rightly responding to the events with universal condemnation and are pleading for Americans to respect their fellow citizens—
Seeberger: That’s right.
Gibbs Léger: —regardless of their political views. I’m not sure that folks know on the other side what “respect” means. But speaking of twisting things for political gain, we also have to talk about this wild court decision that came out of Florida earlier this week.
Seeberger: Oh no.
Gibbs Léger: I know, I know. 800 years ago, better known as Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the special counsel’s classified documents case against Donald Trump on the grounds that the appointment of Jack Smith was quote-unquote “unconstitutional.”
Seeberger: I’m sorry?
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. It is a stunning decision so out of step with the law, it brings Judge Cannon’s impartiality into question. She’s brushing off 50 years of legal precedent that allow the Justice Department to appoint special counsels to handle politically sensitive investigations in an independent manner.
This process has been in place since the Watergate scandal and has since been repeatedly affirmed by the [U.S.] Supreme Court. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in 2019, when they upheld Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
So this ruling will seriously hinder efforts to hold the former president accountable for allegations that he undermined our national security—serious charges of removing and haphazardly storing scores of highly classified documents related to nuclear weapons, military plans, and intelligence operations.
Seeberger: Sounds not great.
Gibbs Léger: Not great at all. The Federal Appeals Court should quickly overturn this fringe decision, and Judge Cannon should be removed from overseeing this case.
Seeberger: And that is a baseline.
Gibbs Léger: Yes.
Seeberger: Let’s be very clear. I also just have to say that I think it’s completely ironic when you have people who are sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, who literally got their mark in professional legal work by working for special prosecutors. I mean, Brett Kavanaugh literally worked for Ken Starr going after Bill Clinton.
Gibbs Léger: The irony.
Seeberger: The irony is so rich. And I just gotta say that the timing of this decision from Judge Cannon is so starkly brazen. Coming on the first day of the RNC, are you kidding me? It’s such an obvious display of partiality that undermines the nation’s Constitution.
It’s worth noting that Trump appointed Judge Cannon after he lost the 2020 election and refused to certify the election results. It’s also revealing that Judge Cannon made this decision on the heels of challenges brought by radical right-wing organizations including Koch [Industries] and the Landmark Legal Foundation. But her decision has to be added to a list of over a dozen examples of judicial interference in democratic elections by Republican-appointed judges, such as the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling, which would allow a president to interfere with election results or authorize them to cook up investigations into their political opponents—so long as it was quote-unquote “an official act.”
In this country, no one is above the law. The American people deserve to have this case adjudicated, and that should have happened before the election, so that the American people have the information they need when they’re walking into the ballot box. But instead, the special counsel is going to be forced to go through a lengthy appeals process, which is only going to drag out and delay the process of accountability. That’s really what Donald Trump and his allies want, in the hopes that they can return to power before this case ever reaches a conclusion.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, it’s all really concerning—they’re just trying to run out the clock. Oh, speaking of time, that’s all the time that we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Sen. Doug Jones in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Seeberger: Doug Jones is a distinguished senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, whose work focuses on racial justice and equality, voting rights, and law enforcement reform. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a U.S. senator for Alabama. He’s a celebrated prosecutor who brought long-overdue justice to the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. He also helped guide the successful Supreme Court nomination of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sen. Doug Jones, it’s great to have you on “The Tent.”
Doug Jones: Thanks so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today.
Seeberger: Well, I’m just going to dive right in. It has obviously been a really historic and unprecedented week in American politics.
I want to start with talking about the shooting of former President Trump this past Saturday at a political rally. It has really, I think, shaken the American people. And a lot of us are asking, how do we get to a point in this country where people are motivated to commit political violence like we saw this past Saturday? And what do you think are some of the root causes that got us to that point?
Jones: Well it’s a great question, and I hope it did shake the American public. Sometimes I see out there kind of a mixed views about that. There are people obviously shaken to their core. It was horrific. On the other hand, I read something the other day where we should all be calling for—it’s reasonable to call for unity. It’s reasonable to make sure that we turn the temperature down. But it’s not reasonable to be surprised.
And so I think while so many were shaken, there was an element to this that people said, “This may have been inevitable.” Because I think we’ve come to a point in this country where it’s not just political violence, but it’s just violence in general.
We hear all the time: Whenever anything like this happens, whenever there is a Uvalde shooting, whenever there is a mass shooting, whenever there is senseless murder—and we had a number of them here in Birmingham, [Alabama,] just this past weekend—people say that there’s no place for this in America. There’s no place for violence. And on a real theoretical level, we know that’s true. From a heart level, we know that’s true. But from a practical level, we have made a place for violence in America. We have invited violence to sit at the table, be part of the family, and we condemn them when they open their mouth, but then we go right back to our same habits, which I think is really a dangerous place to be in this country.
So I hope that people will see this as a way to dial things back—not just in the political rhetoric, but just taking a look at violence in general: the root causes, the guns, anything that we can do to stop people from solving differences, whether they are political, business, social, family, personal—stop solving your problems with violence, and particularly with gun violence.
Seeberger: Hear, hear, senator. You talked a bit about calls to bring the temperature down, and I’m curious—in order to do that, we need to recognize where there’s been a ratcheting up of violent rhetoric, particularly on the far right. And also, how we respond to incidents of political violence when they happen.
Case in point: Just a few days ago, the president of the Heritage Foundation was on national television, and he promised a second American revolution was underway and that it would remain “bloodless,” were his words, “if the left allows it to be.” It’s just outrageous and really dangerous stuff.
How do we set the record straight on where these escalations are coming from, as well as how our leaders are responding in different ways to incidents of political violence, so that we can actually make progress in turning down the temperature and demanding better from our elected officials?
Jones: Look, I think people on both sides of the aisle just can’t call out the people on the other side of the aisle. We have to make sure that you take the politics out of the rhetoric and simply say, “That is not acceptable.” And that is not easy to do in this partisan world.
We saw that happen just this past weekend. Within minutes after the shots rang out in Pennsylvania, you had people like JD Vance—who’s now on the ticket—blaming Joe Biden for simply saying that the election of Donald Trump would be a threat to democracy. You saw a congressman from Georgia saying that Biden had actually ordered the shooting. Just outrageous things. And those talking points—except for the ordering of that, that was way the hell out—but the Vance talking points have been picked up by all Republicans at this point. The speaker of the House said the same thing.
I was on a media show with former Gov. [Jim] Gilmore (R) from Virginia the other day. He started out with the same thing. And it’s a false equivalency. You cannot talk about robust political differences—and we’ve got to have that, we really need to foster robust political differences here in campaigning—with the rhetoric that we have seen coming from the right—and frankly, particularly Donald Trump.
Dog whistle politics, inciting people to do violence—and not in very specific—I mean, look, no one is out there saying, “Grab your guns, and let’s go attack.” It’s done in different ways. And political violence, by the way, should not be considered just an attack on a political figure or a threat on a political figure.
Seeberger: That’s right.
Jones: Political violence can also be attack on immigrants, attack on a religious sect, a denomination. It can be any number of attacks on community members, for their political beliefs, that are not political figures. And that’s what we’re seeing more and more of these days.
And it has statistically, no one can objectively argue that most of that rhetoric is coming from the right, most of the attacks are coming from the right—but not all, not all. And I do think we have to acknowledge that when there are more progressive voices that also say things in the heat of something that could be taken the wrong way, then Democrats—folks like us—need to call that out, too.
Remember, the last real political violence that we saw was a shooting of a Republican leader in Congress, Steve Scalise (LA). He was just practicing baseball one morning for the congressional baseball game, and someone that really was a follower on the left opened fire, and it was Republican practice.
But before we can turn the temperature down, we’ve got to recognize who has turned it up—and we’ve got to acknowledge who has turned it up—and then that way we can, I think, begin to dial things back. But that acknowledgement—I don’t see coming, I haven’t seen it coming in the last few days from any of my friends on the right.
Seeberger: I think that you started to get at a really important point, and that is: Incidents of political violence are not just an attack on the political figures themselves, they’re fundamentally an attack on our democracy—this entire project, right? And they’re an assault on all of us who want to participate and want to preserve that system.
Just to pivot gears a little bit—the shooting was on Saturday. We saw a couple days later, the Republicans have kicked off their national convention this week that’s taking place in Milwaukee. And just 48 hours later, we’re continuing to see some of that really vitriolic rhetoric coming out of the Republican National Convention.
What are some of the narratives that you’re keeping tabs on? I tuned in myself last night and heard speakers talking about, “Democrats will stab you in the back” or, “Democrats are destroying this country.” And how do you approach balancing the need to talk about the contrast in visions, while at the same time not using language that is inciting hate, one, and two—even worse—drifting toward language invoking physical assaults against people?
Jones: Look, I think that that is more difficult in today’s world for a couple of reasons. Number one, when I was growing up, it would not be unheard of to say, “Oh man, look, they really put a bullseye on you,” or, “We’re going to target him. I’m going to put that player on another team in my crosshairs.” That was just a figure of speech. And it still is for so many people.
I think one of the things that people have got to say more of is, “We’re going to put him in the crosshairs of the ballot box,” OK? Because at the end of the day, that’s how you resolve political differences. You do it at the ballot box. I don’t think we qualify that enough by saying that. But at the same time, we can’t completely get away from rhetoric that people have used for generations, for centuries, that should not evoke any kind of outwardly manifestation of violence. For instance, I don’t believe anything that folks have said about Donald Trump being an existential threat to democracy has invoked any kind of violent response toward him.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Jones: I just don’t think people going, “Oh my God, the only way we can save democracy is to commit some kind of violence with Donald Trump,” anymore—and I think it was pretty hypocritical for him not to get criticized for it—but I don’t think it anymore than when [Sen.] Ron Johnson (R-WI) in the opening speech, in Milwaukee, said that Joe Biden was a clear and present danger.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Jones: It’s the fact that we have two different standards. Democrats have done this, too, by the way. I mean, let’s be candid. It’s mainly coming from the right, but it’s the different standards. And what I think we really need to focus on is rhetoric that dehumanizes individuals, whether they are called vermin, whether or not certain people are poisoning the blood of Americans. I think that dehumanizing people gives a permission structure. That’s number one.
I also think we have to look at how we treat people that commit violence. Best example that I can give you right now is that January 6 insurrectionists are being hailed as heroes. They are being honored as patriots and as political prisoners or hostages. And that gives a permission structure. And it’s important for people to remember that when I say it gives a permission structure—most people in a partisan way say it gives permission structure for those on the right to do it again.
But it also could give permission structure for folks on the left to say, “Well whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander. If they can do it, by God, so can we.” Political rhetoric like this, violent rhetoric, filters into the psyche of certain people. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the right or the left, it filters in to a certain way. And they react, and that’s what we’ve got to guard against. I think we just have to be a little bit more vigilant, but I also think we have to acknowledge the rhetoric when it happens, at the time it happens. And it’s not just about reporting it and saying it. People on both parties have to work together to try to condemn the rhetoric when it’s truly this kind of rhetoric.
Look, let me say this real quick: I grew up in Jim Crow. I saw Bull Connor invoke and give a permission structure for the [Ku Klux] Klan. I saw George Wallace do things that gave a permission structure for the Klan to do violence, to blow up bombs at a church on a Sunday morning, to blow up bombs at homes. There was their words and deeds. Words have consequences. Words have meaning. And we’ve got to make sure that we work on that.
Seeberger: And those words certainly exist in a particular context. Senator, I want to talk to you—because of your background, you’re a former prosecutor—I want to talk to you about this far-right Project 2025 agenda. One of the components of that plan is basically to empower the president to use the [U.S.] Department of Justice as their own legal clearinghouse to do their own personal bidding, giving the president the power to weaponize the Department of Justice against their political opponents, or kill off investigations into—maybe it is campaign political donors, right? Whatever it may be.
I’m curious for your thoughts on the proposal and why Americans should be concerned about this sort of politicization of the federal government, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity decision.
Jones: Yeah, no, it’s really frightening. Now, as a practical matter, I think some of that has existed in the past.
Remember in “the Saturday Night Massacre”—which is called a massacre and no one was killed, they were just fired—going back to rhetoric. In the 1970s, what happened when Richard Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the special prosecutor? The attorney general resigned. And then the next in line resigned. And then the next in line resigned. And it took, ultimately, Robert Bork, I believe, or [William] Rehnquist—I think it was Bork that fired Archibald Cox. And then there was such pressure on him that they had to appoint another special prosecutor, and Leon Jaworski came in.
So, the president has a lot of power already vis-a-vis the Department of Justice, but it hasn’t been exercised, because presidents generally have respected that independent nature, and they haven’t ordered that.
And so what I think Project 2025 is doing is basically saying, “Forget the norms, forget the right thing to do, forget the ethics, forget the morality of it—just give the president the authority to do whatever the hell he wants to do.” And the Supreme Court has now said, “OK, that’s fine. He can do that. She can do that.”
Which, as a little bit of [an] aside, should mean to the American people that all of a sudden policy should take a little bit of a backseat to character. Who is sitting in that Oval Office—their character, their integrity, their respect for the institutions of law, for the rule of law, for the institutions of government, should be probably paramount now given the enormous unchecked power that the Supreme Court has handed to the president of the United States. So I think it’s very dangerous for that to be articulated that way. One would think that anyone who has respect for the Constitution of the United States and for people would put as a pronouncement just the opposite.
Seeberger: I mean, I think that your point on our system of justice having been predicated on norms and the urgency that’s created by the court, I think it really underscores the need to erect some more sturdy guardrails, more formally shaping what that relationship should look like given these new powers available to the president to an exceptional degree.
So before you go, I do want to ask you also about a very unique documentary film, “War Game,” which documents a role-playing exercise undertaken by you and officials from five past presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican. In that exercise, you’re responding to a hypothetical attempted military coup.
I think it is particularly relevant given the fragility of the peaceful transfer of power that really had a spotlight shone on it on January 6. Can you tell us a little bit about your experience with this exercise, the film, and lessons you learned from it that we should be thinking about in this particular moment?
Jones: Yeah, I hope folks will go and take a look at the film when it comes out. It’s being released in limited release I think on August the 1st, and hopefully it’s going to be streaming in the fall. The VoteVets Foundation teamed up with some folks to do this exercise, and it was a kind of a war game.
I played the attorney general of the United States. It’s unscripted. Steve Bullock (D), who was the former governor of Montana, played the president of the United States. Heidi Heitkamp (D), former senator, was his top aide. And you had General Wesley Clark as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And what was really fascinating about this is that we knew this was another January 6-like insurrection, and that’s basically all we knew. We had a basic of the group. But all of a sudden, it turned into that military concern that it is a military coup that infiltrated our military, our National Guard, it spread to states, and we were reacting in real time. You had a Department of Defense, Homeland Security, DOJ, the White House, the Situation Room. And we had bad guys in another room that were directing all of the problems that we were reacting to.
And I think one of the things was ultimately going to be whether or not the president invoked the Insurrection Act to quell this, which everyone was loath to do, and ultimately did not—maybe a spoiler alert. But what I learned in that was that trying to stop this, trying to prepare ahead of time, you have to take into so many potential possibilities. Because there was so much misdirection that was being thrown at us—the government officials—that we wanted to react to, we needed to react to, but at the same time, we had to look behind our back. We had to look at our left and our right flank, and things were happening very quickly. Things on January 6 escalated very rapidly.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Jones: And I think the one thing that we learned is you’ve got to really start planning for that and seeing how things go. And at the end of the day, I think it’s important that the president of the United States be getting objective opinions from different sources in different ways, and you got a team that is giving him an area. But you’ve got an alternative there, and you’ve got an alternative here, so that everybody can understand that that’s the way the presidency should operate. And I worry sometimes that—especially if the next administration is Donald Trump-like—that you’re not going to have that. You’re going to simply have, “What do you want to do, Mr. President? We’ll execute it.” And that’s going to be a real dangerous situation.
Seeberger: Well, that is a very terrifying thought. I hate to leave our listeners on that, but Sen. Doug Jones, so grateful for your time and appreciate all your wisdom.
Jones: Thank you. It’s a pleasure being with you guys.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Well, that’s going to do it for us today. As always, please go back and listen to previous episodes. So Colin, “Bachelorette.” Are we up to date?
Seeberger: We are not.
Gibbs Léger: Colin!
Seeberger: I know, I’m sorry. I’m sorry, listeners. I have been a little bit preoccupied with doing the parenting thing. I was solo parenting end of last week, I just haven’t had time. What are your reviews? Are we liking the beginning of the season?
Gibbs Léger: I am liking the beginning of the season.
Seeberger: OK.
Gibbs Léger: I think the move to immediately take them out of the United States and take them to Australia was great because everybody is off their footing now.
Seeberger: Yeah.
Gibbs Léger: You’re in a foreign country, you don’t know what’s happening and what’s going to come next. It’s not the same old, you know, “Bachelor” mansion. So I thought it was really smart.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, it’s going to be interesting to see them in this new environment, given the fact that usually in a “Bachelor” season, they’re doing fake wedding proposals and photo shoots and whatnot, or standup comedy acts and whatnot.
So I feel like it’s also going to be interesting both for their ability to build relationships, but also the fact that the audience is going to get to potentially see less of the contestants’ personalities early on in the program. So, I’m curious to see how the producers strike that balance.
Gibbs Léger: I will say, without spoiling anything, we saw some personality this week.
Seeberger: OK.
Gibbs Léger: And I have thoughts, so we’ll just have to wait to discuss.
Seeberger: OK, I will have to open up the DVR. What I have had time to do, though, is to catch up on “Presumed Innocent.” I know we’ve talked about it on the show before. And I sat down on Friday night, I started the whole series, and I blew through five of the six episodes, watched the sixth one on Saturday, and just was completely enthralled. If you know me, you know that I can’t stay up after the sun goes down to save my life.
The amount of times that my husband and I have sat down to watch a show or a movie and I crash like 10 minutes in—it’s ridiculous. But I was just totally captured by the show. It was amazing. Especially after the first episode, you get right in there. And Rusty Babich—I think it’s Babich, right? Sabich? I forget. Regardless, the Jake Gyllenhaal character, you just see him navigating all of these individual relationships—whether it is professional or that with his spouse or how he’s managing his relationship with his children at the same time being accused of having murdered a former colleague. It is so gripping, I can’t stop watching it.
Gibbs Léger: It’s so good. Every now and then you come across a show that reminds you: Acting is truly an art form—like good acting, right? There’s a lot of crap out there on TV, let’s be honest, right?
Seeberger: I mean, yeah.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. But like, this whole series is just chock full of people who are good at their craft. And so you are immediately drawn in, like you said. And all the performances are great. Even the kids—who, I don’t know how old they are in real life—but, amazing.
Seeberger: So good.
Gibbs Léger: So, so good. I think I’m one episode behind, and another one drops this week. But I’m in. I’m all in. It’s so good. So, so good.
Seeberger: Well, I don’t know about you, but I am very much looking forward to watching episode seven. Just dropped yesterday, and I am going to be diving right in this weekend.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, because we’re going to be staying inside because it’s too hot to go outside.
Seeberger: That it is. That it is.
Gibbs Léger: All right. On that note, folks, I hope wherever you are, that you are staying cool and comfortable. Global warming is making its presence known this summer. My child’s camp was cancelled the other day because it was too hot for them to be outside.
Seeberger: Yeah, it’s awful.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, and then I read something on Capital Weather Gang where they were like, “Oh, this may be our norm in a couple of years.” I’m like—
Seeberger: I’d like to “control-alt-delete” myself from this timeline.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I want to remove myself from that narrative, please. Thank you very much.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: But for real, guys, take care of yourselves, hydrate, and we’ll talk to you next week.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.