Transcript:
Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone. Welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger. It is summer vacation season, so my lovely co-host Daniella Gibbs Léger is on a much-deserved break. So joining me today is our brilliant digital producer, Muggs Leone. Muggs, welcome to “The Tent.”
Muggs Leone: Thank you so much, Colin. It’s definitely a weird feeling to be in Daniella’s seat and not one seat over where I usually am, but I’m looking forward to our conversation today.
Seeberger: Well, Muggs, like I said, it is summer. We’ve been in the thick of it here in D.C. this week. It has been ungodly hot.
Seeberger: How are you holding up?
Leone: I’m doing all right. I’m doing OK. I keep mentioning parasols to people, and I keep saying we need to bring them back into style.
Leone: I keep thinking of—there’s a “Tom and Jerry” Sherlock Holmes movie where she sings a song about her bumbershoot, which is what she calls her parasol. And I’ve mentioned that at least twice this week, and the fact that I’ve mentioned it twice is more than I’ve done in the past five years. So go check it out. It’s just a fun little time. That’s what’s on my mind this week,
Seeberger: I can get down with Team Parasol.
Leone: But as if June couldn’t be oppressive enough with this hot, hot weather, the Supreme Court has been making more and more decisions that make me go, “OK, well, I see what you’re doing over there,” which I heard you had a chance to talk about this week with our guest?
Seeberger: I did. I spoke with journalist and legal expert Kimberly Atkins Stohr. We chatted about Trump’s expansion of executive power, some recent and anticipated Supreme Court rulings, and the state of the rule of law in America.
Here’s what she had to say about it.
Kimberly Atkins Stohr: We are in a position right now where, instead of really having three separate and co-equal branches of government on the federal level, the way it’s playing out in actuality is that the executive branch is far more powerful than the other two. And it’s in part really because both Congress and the judiciary has been giving up its power bit by bit for decades.
Leone: Well I look forward to giving it a listen later today, but first we’ve got to get to some news.
Seeberger: We certainly do, and this week things are getting absolutely to crunch time on Capitol Hill. You may have been tracking that Senate Republicans are planning to take up Trump’s, quote-unquote, “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
The president, of course, has called for Republicans on Capitol Hill to pass this thing and send it to his desk by July 4, saying because he wants to deliver a present for the American people.
Seeberger: I think that the American people are not quite sold on the bill of goods that they’re being sold.
Leone: What makes you say that, Colin?
Seeberger: Well we have seen poll after poll after poll from Fox News, Quinnipiac, KFF, Pew, Washington Post, and Ipsos. They nearly all find that this bill is incredibly underwater by about a 2-1 margin.
And we also are finding that more and more Americans are actually finding out about this bill. They know what’s in it. The messaging around the massive cuts to Medicaid, massive cuts to food assistance—all to give tax cuts to the ultrawealthy—are breaking through.
And I have to say, Muggs, Democrats are of course playing an important role in driving home that message, but so, too, are Republican senators.
Seeberger: You may have seen earlier this week that in a closed-door conversation among Senate Republicans, former Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) from Kentucky said that, “I know folks are hearing a lot about these Medicaid cuts from a lot of their constituents, but they’ll get over it,” is what he said.
Leone: You know, who needs health care?
Leone: It’s not that important.
Seeberger: I mean, I’m not sure that one of the tens of thousands of people who may lose their lives every year because of these proposals will just be able to get over Republicans’ cuts to Medicaid, yet here we are. And of course, this comes on top of the comments that we heard from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) following passage of the House budget bill that, well, “We’re all just going to die, right?”
So it seems like the callousness and the lack of empathy that Senate Republicans have for people who need access to health care, basic access to health care, is just becoming more and more transparent every day. And that’s why you’re seeing some Senate Republicans actually starting to buckle under the pressure.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) pointed out in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans earlier this week that their plan would steal $40 billion for Medicaid from North Carolina. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has expressed concerns about some of the provisions’ impact on people on Medicaid in her state. More than one-quarter of people in Maine rely on Medicaid for health care coverage. So it’s no doubt that the pressure is building, and the voices of the American people are having a real impact.
Leone: Yeah, for sure, Colin. And I hope some of Susan Collins’ concerns are addressed by the fact that the Senate parliamentarian has been nixing a number of the provisions from the reconciliation package through a procedure known as the “Byrd bath,” which sounds like a lovely way to cool down in this hot weather. But it’s actually a very important rule because it means that things that don’t pass through it will require 60 votes in the Senate—which, I’ll remind folks, they only have 53 votes right now in the Senate, those Republicans. So it seems a bit challenging for them if the parliamentarian is like, “You can’t put this in here.”
And just to recap, the parliamentarian has ruled a number of proposals in the large, big bad bill that they violate the reconciliation rules. And some of those include limiting states’ ability to enact providers taxes to raise funding for Medicaid; the sale of public lands, which is making a lot of waves on social media; repeal of EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] emissions guidelines; and eliminating funding for the CFPB [Consumer Finance Protection Bureau], just to name a few.
So the fight is paying off, and Republicans are melting under the pressure. But that doesn’t mean that we can give up the fight, Colin, and it’s more important than ever that people continue to call their members of Congress and tell them all of the bad things that are in this big, bad bill.
Seeberger: Yeah, I mean, the stuff that we’ve seen from the parliamentarian this week has been—we can’t undersell what an earthquake this has been in terms of shaping the effort to pass this bill. Republicans are looking at about one-quarter of the amount of savings from spending cuts that they were hoping to enact through this bill now being put on the chopping block.
That is forcing them to go back to the drawing table and figure out, “OK, well, what are some other ways that we can structure these things? See if we can get them through the parliamentarian?” And all of that is important context because we’re talking about making massive, massive changes—changes that could lead to 16 million Americans losing their health care.
And Republicans are like, “Hey, we’re trying to pass this thing in a matter of hours for a bill that you’ve never seen, nobody’s conducted independent analysis of.” And so we’re just supposed to sit down, be quiet, and just vote “yes”? No, it’s ridiculous. And the American people can see right through it.
You don’t make major changes to a huge segment of America’s economy and on an issue as personal and as irreversible as health care without knowing what the heck you’re doing.
Leone: As Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said, “I hadn’t read it, so I didn’t know.” And it’s like, that’s your job. That’s your job.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean—and these things, we’re talking about changes that could really make the cost of things skyrocket, whether it’s for energy bills, or health care, groceries, so many other things.
And speaking of affordability, we need to switch gears because on Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, as you may have seen.
Leone: Oh, I did see, Colin. And I was living for the live updates. It was a major upset. Who doesn’t love a zero-to-hero story? I mean, literally months ago, Mandani—no one had heard of him, no one expected much of him. And here he is, he beat Andrew Cuomo and is the Democratic nominee for mayor of NYC.
And it’s just so wild to have seen. He even broke through onto my social media. Really he’s just resonating with people online. So, Colin, what have you seen? What are you feeling? What are you thinking about all of this?
Seeberger: Well, I mean, I think that it’s unquestionable that his rise was astonishing, both for—obviously, the electoral success coming from nowhere. But two, also, I think, laid out some key lessons for people running for office in terms of how they can connect with voters right now.
If you drill down to strategy, it was actually pretty simple. He talked about affordability. He talked about it again. And again. And then he talked about it some more. And we know voters, they care about the cost of living. They have made that message absolutely clear time and time again. And Mamdani, he directly responded to voters’ concerns.
He was talking about issues like housing affordability, the ability to afford child care, or even to be able to commute to work. And he’s clearly done a lot of listening to voters, too, and really crafted his core message framework for his campaign and his policy agenda by speaking with people, not just speaking at them or over them, telling them how they should feel about certain things. He’s an authentic guy, and I think that voters credit him for that.
Leone: Yeah. And when he has done all of this without avoiding the social issues, right? I mean, his identity as a Muslim man drew a lot of attention, especially from some of his counterparts, but he really skillfully navigated that, between his quippy remarks during debates and partnering with Brad Lander, one of the other mayoral candidates who is a Jewish man.
He fully embraced his identity and used it as part of his campaign. And it shows that you can bring yourself into a campaign, and that’s not a hindrance. It can be a benefit to you.
Seeberger: Oh, and he also evolved on a number of positions that he had taken over the years in a way that actually reflected the wants and desires of the people whose support he was trying to earn.
And I also say, Muggs—and this is, I think, really important for a lot of people aspiring for elected office—is like, he didn’t take the bait on making his identity or his ideas or ideology a litmus test. It wasn’t a campaign that was driven around, “I’m the real progressive, and you are not.” It really was all about—and this is really, I’m going to date myself here—but for the politicos listening to this conversation, really was a page right out of former Sen. Paul Wellstone’s (D-MN) playbook of really—if you’re trying to build a political movement, you need anybody and everybody who wants to to be able to find a home in the movement that you’re trying to build.
And so, folks he had disagreements with, he didn’t lash out at them. Folks who said, “I’m not supporting your candidacy,” he didn’t spend the day after his electoral victory lashing out at those folks. He said, “Where we have areas of agreement, I want to work together to make New York City a better place for people to work, live, and raise a family.” And I think that kind of style, that approach of building the broadest coalition possible and welcoming any and all newcomers is a great lesson for anybody who actually wants to make real change in this country.
Leone: Definitely, Colin. And, I mean, he did it in this new environment of the social media apparatus that we exist in. I mean, as a Gen-Zer myself, as one of the youths, I think that Zohran speaks to us.
Seeberger: Speak to us, Muggs. Tell us olds what we need to know.
Leone: Well, listen, I would never use that term. Again, broad coalition, everyone’s involved. But I think that Zohran really was able to use some of the new tools that we have and used social media and short-form video content to his advantage.
I mean, like I said, he even broke through onto my algorithm. And I have a very carefully curated—like, Dungeons and Dragons, theater, and drag queens. I keep it very, very happy-go-lucky on my social media. But he broke through.
Seeberger: Lucky you. I have not been blessed with such an algorithm.
Leone: You’ve got to hop on the train, Colin.
Leone: But he broke through. And when I see things like that, I pay attention because I don’t see it that naturally on my algorithm. I saw some of his videos about how he walked the length of Manhattan prior to the election. I even saw a fun video where like, apparently people on his campaign were telling him he talked too much with his hands, which I sympathize with. And so he had a video where it was just one of his campaign people telling him, “Keep your hands in your pockets.”
And it was funny. And it reflected this—we keep talking about authenticity needed in politics, especially, honestly, on the left. We have struggled to find an identity that meshes well with policy. And I think that he did it. And he was able to bring himself and use these fun ideas and really get this network online—and without relying solely on these more traditional social media networks. He used them, but they weren’t the sole focus of his campaign.
And I think that really showed how he built this grassroots support that nobody saw coming. And that why I was surprised on election night.
Seeberger: I totally agree. I also think that one of his campaign strategists, Rebecca Katz, put it really well in a piece that she wrote for The New York Times.
She said, “I am begging Democrats to embrace candidates who can authentically speak to the electorate they’re running to represent, whether they’re in red, blue, urban or rural areas.”
And let’s be very clear: Zohran Mamdani’s message or platform is not going to work for a Democrat in Iowa or a Democrat in Montana. But I also think that there are very key lessons that folks who want to win the support of their voters and want to enter public service can take away from his victory. And I think that anybody who underestimates, I think especially young candidates, candidates who are willing to put themselves out there do so at their own peril.
I think there’s been a lot of candidates who are like, “Oh, trying new things is a risk or a waste of resources.” When in actuality, it’s a critical component and tactic of campaigning in our current political landscape.
Leone: Yeah, I mean, if you think something’s a good idea, that’s you being authentic. And so give it a try. And if it doesn’t work, recalibrate, listen to feedback, and move on. I totally agree, Colin.
But that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Seeberger: And stick around for my interview with Kimberly Atkins Stohr in just a beat.
Seeberger: Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a senior opinion writer and columnist for The Boston Globe. She’s also a contributor to MSNBC and WBUR and is the host of the podcast “Justice By Design.” She’s the former Washington bureau chief for the Boston Herald. Before entering journalism, she was a trial and appellate litigation attorney in Boston.
Kimberly Atkins, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Atkins Stohr: Thank you so much for having me.
Seeberger: Well I really am excited to have you on the show. We are in the thick of Supreme Court decision season. The term is winding down in its final days.
But before we get to the Supreme Court, I have to ask you about the military strikes that the U.S. conducted last week in Iran. President Trump called for these strikes unilaterally. He did so without approval from Congress. This is just the latest example that we’ve seen of presidents of both parties working to expand executive power by consolidating control of American war powers in the presidency.
What is your take? Do you think America’s founders, if they were around today, do you think they’d be all cool with this expansion of power that we’ve seen?
Atkins Stohr: No. I think this is one of many things that they would be quite shocked to see taking place. And you’re absolutely right: This is not the first time that presidents have used their power, particularly in a way that involves international conflict, without the kind of congressional support that the founders intended.
It is Congress that is to give the president the authority to start a war or engage in military strikes. But Congress has, in essence, for decades abdicated and just given up that power by allowing presidents to do it without saying anything. I mean, a lot of the military strikes that we have seen before now, in operations that we’ve seen in places like Syria or Afghanistan or elsewhere, are all based off of the same congressional authorization that was just meant for Afghanistan immediately after the 9/11 attacks over 20 years ago.
That’s something that’s supposed to happen each and every time something like this happens. But this is one of many areas where Congress has sort of given up its power, ceded its authority to the executive, and the executive willingly has taken it and run with it.
And that’s why we are in a position right now where, instead of really having three separate and co-equal branches of government on the federal level, the way it’s playing out in actuality is that the executive branch is far more powerful than the other two. And it’s in part really because both Congress and the judiciary has been giving up its power bit by bit for decades.
Seeberger: Well that’s terrifying. And speaking of the judiciary, to switch gears, the Supreme Court, like I mentioned, is set to deliver its final decisions over the course of the next week.
Where are we in that process? And what do the rulings that we’ve seen so far say about the state of the court?
Atkins Stohr: Yeah. So we are almost at the finish line as we record this. There are five remaining opinions to be decided, some of them among the biggest of the term, as is often the case. Things like the redistricting case out of Louisiana over whether there can be two Black opportunity districts, meaning there are districts where there are enough Black voters so that they may have a reasonable opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. Before this, there was a map that packed all the Black voters, or the majority of Black voters, into one district.
The Supreme Court has already said that it’s fine to draw lines based on political reasons. And for example, Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) district is pretty much gerrymandered to protect him because he is the Speaker. That’s constitutionally OK, but you’re not supposed to do it on the basis of race. So that has been a real flashpoint in voting rights.
One case that’s not technically on the merits docket but that will have a big impact is the birthright citizenship case, which began on the court’s shadow docket, the emergency docket. But they put it on the merits docket, in a way, by having arguments and briefings.
But the biggest issue in that case is whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions when it comes to challenges to executive policies. We’ve seen this, for example, with the mifepristone case from a couple of years ago, where a single judge essentially tried to revoke the FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. And that was not allowed to happen. You’re seeing it now with judges issuing nationwide injunctions on things like President Trump’s immigration and deportation policies.
That’s going to make a big difference in terms of executive power. I think that’s probably the single most important case that we’re waiting on.
Seeberger: Well, Kimberly, in a number of the different cases that we’ve had decisions handed down for thus far, we have seen in several instances Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest justice on the Court, has broken with her extremist, far-right colleagues and ruled in a way that I think a lot of people didn’t expect.
What do you think is behind that? And are there lessons for bringing lawsuits against what may be unlawful actions by the Trump administration that folks should be keeping in mind for how they appeal to Justice Barrett, given the fact that she does seem to be more willing than a Justice [Clarence] Thomas or a Justice [Samuel] Alito to side with her liberal colleagues in some particular cases? And do you think she’ll side with those more liberal justices more often?
Atkins Stohr: So the way I would describe Justice Barrett’s jurisprudence so far is that she is certainly her own justice. She doesn’t just follow the majority for the sake of following the majority. But she’s also one of the most reliably conservative votes on this court.
I think there was—perhaps people wanted to see signs that she could become more like a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in terms of being a lot more pragmatic with rulings and reaching out more and trying to find greater consensus, including with those on the liberal side of the court’s ideological spectrum.
But I really don’t see that. I think in case-by-case, fact-specific and law-specific cases, yes, she has broken with the majority. But by and large, she is a solid member of that conservative majority. And I think one big example of that was in the recent decision in [United States v.] Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on transgender-affirming care.
She went beyond the majority in that case who just said, “There is no violation here, but we’re not going to answer the question more broadly as to whether trans people get a heightened standard of scrutiny for laws that target them.” She said she outright that she doesn’t think they do.
Atkins Stohr: So I think that we shouldn’t read too much into it. It’s very similar to Justice Thomas. He is a conservative, but he has his very own views. You often see him writing concurrences or ruling for different reasons on cases. But he’s as conservative as they come, and so is she.
Seeberger: That’s a great point. Well we’re recording this on Thursday morning. We have just gotten some breaking news that the Supreme Court announced that they paved the way for states to defund Planned Parenthood and block their clinics from receiving payments through Medicaid.
Can you talk about this decision and its ramifications? I, for one, am really concerned that we could see people struggling with longer wait times and delayed diagnoses for things as people are getting fewer pap smears and other sorts of care in light of this ruling. What’s the impact?
Atkins Stohr: It’s devastating. So this case basically was a challenge brought by citizens seeking to sue to stop the state of South Carolina from denying Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. It’s important to note that federal law already prohibits any federally funded medical institution from using those federal funds for abortion care, and Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for that.
But keep in mind that abortion care is just a tiny part, as you alluded to, to what Planned Parenthood does. Planned Parenthood is a crucial health provider for lower-income people or people who need the care, who can’t get it for any other reason.
I’ll tell a personal story here. I went to Planned Parenthood when I was in my early twenties—not for an abortion, but because as a college student I was still on my parents’ insurance, and I wanted to get care. I sought out care for both medical and mental health care that I didn’t want to have those reports sent back to my parents. And so I went to Planned Parenthood because that was all that I could afford.
By denying Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, it makes it very difficult—if not impossible—for them to remain operating in states like South Carolina. So this was an attack, a targeted attack, on Planned Parenthood that was defended on a creative legal argument. But the Supreme Court went along with it, and I think you’re only going to see more of this sort of approach to politically targeting health care providers like that.
It’s going to have a tremendous impact. There are some states that only have a single Planned Parenthood facility—states like Missouri—operating. There are some who have none. And that creates health care deserts for citizens who now, according to the Supreme Court, have no right of action to challenge those decisions.
Seeberger: Especially when you are putting all that against a backdrop of congressional Republicans trying to enact the largest cuts to Medicaid ever that could close hospitals all across rural communities.
Seeberger: And so these things are happening at the same time, and the harms are compounding in ways that could have tremendously grave implications for people and their ability to obtain health care.
Atkins Stohr: Absolutely right.
Seeberger: Speaking of obtaining health care—you mentioned the Skrmetti case, where the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. I want to ask, what does this decision mean for the future of trans rights more broadly, as well as the ability of people, trans or nontrans, to get the medical care that they need?
Atkins Stohr: Legally speaking, the ruling was not as bad as it could have been. We could have had five or more justices simply say that when it comes to equal protection claims under the Constitution, that trans people and LGBTQ people do not have the same protections as, for example, women have when they sue based on discrimination, based on gender. That that is not gender-based discrimination.
I think it defies logic to say that laws specifically targeting trans people is not on the basis of gender. In fact, the law in Tennessee has the word “sex” in it 19 times. So it’s certainly one that targets that. But what I think this means more broadly is the fact that some hard-fought civil rights gains that were made on behalf of LGBTQ people in America are being eroded.
We are here at the 10th anniversary of the Obergefell [v. Hodges] decision that ensured that LGBTQ people can marry who they love. We saw just a few years back the Supreme Court say that when it comes to the federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination, that the protection against gender-based discrimination also includes sexual orientation and gender identity. But now you’re seeing the Supreme Court take a really big step back from that. And they didn’t explain or distinguish what, if anything, has changed from that decision to what they did. There are a lot of people who are concerned that even the Obergefell decision could be overturned in the future.
So I think this is a real flashpoint where the rights that protect one of the most marginalized groups in our society are really being eroded. It’s really something that 10 years ago when I was in the courtroom when they handed down Obergefell, if you told me that a decade later we’d be here, I’d be really shocked.
Seeberger: It seems like a lot of the warnings, a lot of the concerns that people raised as this court was getting packed with seemingly more extreme justice after more extreme justice are starting to materialize.
Switching gears, earlier this week, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration to allow them to deport undocumented immigrants to countries they’re not from with no notice and without giving these immigrants the chance to object for fear of persecution or a threat that they may be tortured.
What effects will this decision incur on the rule of law and due process more broadly in the United States?
Atkins Stohr: Yeah. I have to be honest with you, that ruling, I think, made me see the Supreme Court in a different way. And I’ve been an attorney for almost three decades, and I’ve been covering the court for almost two. And the fact that in this case—as you pointed out, we are talking about the practice of swiftly removing people from the United States. We’ve seen the images of people basically being disappeared by masked ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents, at times, given very little notice. Next thing you know, they’re on planes to countries where they’ve never been, where they have no ties, where they have no resources, just because these countries agreed to take them.
That violates federal law, which requires that notice be given, and also due process, the opportunity to make a case as to why they should not be treated this way. It also violates international human rights treaty that the United States is a part of.
And it’s worth mentioning, too, and this is important, that the Trump administration, despite district court orders telling them to stop, continued the practice anyway. So they’ve already violated court orders. And the Supreme Court essentially blessed the practice by the administration by saying, while these challenges continue, the Trump administration can continue to do this practice.
I thought just the fact that the administration previously violated court orders, even if you think those orders may not have been reasonable—and that’s something the Supreme Court can take up on the merits—to say that the harm of perhaps an overly broad order by a district court is greater than what these people are suffering, and therefore the balance is that that practice should continue while this challenge continues? I can’t expect the justices at this point to uphold the rule of law when the administration is so clearly and flagrantly flouting it. So I don’t know how the court comes back from that, but I don’t expect them to be a backstop for our democracy.
Seeberger: OK. That’s a lot to unpack, and the weight is overwhelming. I will say, we have seen the courts in several instances strike down many of the Trump administration’s attempts to break the rule of law, be it firing government employees or slashing agencies that are overseen by Congress.
Do you think the courts are serving as an effective check on the executive branch, or are they ceding too much of that power?
Atkins Stohr: I think some are trying, certainly lower court judges, trial level and appellate level, to some extent, judges are trying to do just that. I mean, it’s understandable that there are vagaries in the law because a lot of these actions involve things that have never happened before.
So these are cases of first impression in terms of the law that we have. So courts are wrangling through this, and trying to work through this, and figuring out what the right approach is under the law. But it’s still clear, as I pointed out, in some cases—like with these removals to third countries—that it’s not right, even if there is not a specific precedent that has governed this. And you are seeing this at the lower level.
What the Supreme Court is doing—and let’s be clear, the Supreme Court has not ruled on any of these issues yet—all they are doing is getting emergency petitions after lower court orders or rulings, which are basically asking the court to halt or put aside those rulings while the case proceeds.
But there are a lot of tea leaves that can be read from that.
Atkins Stohr: Just as in the case with the deportations. And in other cases, the Supreme Court has allowed those lower court orders halting the Trump administration to stand as those challenges continue.
So for some of those areas, the verdict is still out as to what the Supreme Court might ultimately do. But I think when it comes to the immigration policy, the Trump administration got the message loud and clear, and you’re only going to see them put the foot down on the gas when it comes to those policies because it clearly believes, as from the response from the DHS [Department of Homeland Security], which basically said “fire up those deportation planes.” It’s clear to them that they got the message from the Supreme Court, and I can’t say that they’re wrong.
Seeberger: Wow. OK. On that note, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Atkins Stohr: Thank you. Sorry it wasn’t under better circumstances.
Seeberger: Indeed. All right, folks, that is what we have for today. Please go back and check out previous episodes. Please stay cool. But Muggs, we have to talk about some things that have been getting me through this heatwave over the course of the last week.
I’ve been spending lots of time inside, clearly.
Seeberger: And I’ve also been catching up on current events.
Seeberger: Folks may who are true crime followers, what have you, may have seen the news last week that Karen Reed, who was accused of murdering her then-boyfriend John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, was found not guilty. I know lots of people have been following this case. I’ve been tracking it somewhat.
And then I started diving into the HBO documentary after the not guilty ruling.
Seeberger: And, I don’t know, man, I don’t know. Seems like it’s very possible that she may have killed her boyfriend. But I will say, there was one witness for me that I still can’t put the pieces of the puzzle together.
So apparently, one of the witnesses—or, excuse me, one of the people called to the stand or whatever to testify, she Googled on her phone and deleted it, “Hos”—not “how,”—it was clearly a spelling mistake meaning to say, “How long to die in the cold.”
Seeberger: And so that may have been the small little thing that prevented the jury from being able to—
Leone: I’m so curious of the timeline of it. Because was it, like, she Googled it
Seeberger: Before he was ever discovered.
Leone: Yeah, because I love the idea of they walk outside, they see the body, and she’s like, “How long has he been out here?” And immediately is Googling it. Because honestly, I understand. I would do the same thing. I’d be very curious.
I haven’t been following too terribly closely. I had to read up. The one thing that stood out to me is I know there’s lots of issues with the investigator, and that’s why the jury was unable to reach a solid decision, because of the evidence collection. And I read a line of report that was like, there was discrepancies between gathering evidence and filing evidence. As someone who works as an executive assistant and does plenty of filing, I’m like, I would never. Like imagine misfiling paperwork. Imagine misfiling evidence. That’s wild to me that this is your job, and you—I can’t imagine, Colin. I can’t imagine.
Leone: But speaking of pop culture.
Seeberger: And speaking of evidence.
Leone: Speaking of evidence.
Seeberger: Receipts, timeline, proof, screenshots.
Leone: In preparation for our conversation today, I did start watching “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.”
Leone: I’m only four episodes in, so no major spoilers. My big hot take is first, second episode, I wanted to be Team Whitney. I really did. Because I am not a fan when a show gives me an underdog. And I feel like Taylor was so written to be an underdog. Listen, I do sympathize. But I never want to root for the one that I feel like I’m supposed to root for.
Leone: So I was like, “I’m Team Whitney, of course.” And then when she does the cereal box.
Leone: And gets so upset. When Whitney gets upset that the—it was Demi, right?
Leone: Demi, yeah. When Demi gets upset, and Whitney gets upset that Demi’s upset, I’m like, “Girl, what are you talking about?” You came in here, did a prank on what she very clearly wanted to be like a chill girl’s night, where like we’re all kumbaya-ing, and I was like, “Whitney, you’ve gone too far, girl.” And I live for the drama, but I can’t support you.
Seeberger: Yeah. Well the drama, Muggs, does not stop just four episodes in, so you’ll need to keep pressing through.
I am very much looking forward to this season two—or at least first half of season two; it seems like they’re going to pick it back up later in the year—they’re having a reunion special moderated by Nick Viall of “The Viall Files,” for our fellow podcast listeners. And yeah, I am ready to see these folks bring the receipts, the proof, the timeline, the screenshots. And it is going to be something.
Leone: I’m sure it will. Well I’ll try and catch up so I can watch it, but I probably won’t make it that far.
Seeberger: As you all should. And with that, that’s going to do it for us this week, folks. Please go back again and check out previous episodes. Stay cool, and we’ll talk to you next week.
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Collin Seeberger, and Daniella Gibbs Léger. Muggs Leone is our digital producer and guest host for this episode, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, and Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Jacob Jordan is our writer. Hai Phan, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.