GENTLEMEN.

WELCOME BACK TO "A LATE SHOW."

JOINING ME TONIGHT ARE THE DELIGHTFUL HOSTS OF MY FAVORITE

PODCAST THAT ISN'T ABOUT "THE LORD OF THE RINGS," "THE SLATE

POLITICAL GABFEST."

PLEASE WELCOME, EMILY BAZELON, JOHN DICKERSON, AND DAVID PLOTZ!

HELLO, YOU THREE.

>> HEY, STEPHEN.

>> Stephen: IT'S SO NICE TO SEE YOU.

I NORMALLY JUST HEAR YOU ON THURSDAYS OR FRIDAYS.

FOR THE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DO NOT YET KNOW ABOUT THE "SLATE

POLITICAL GABFEST."

IT WAS MY GATEWAY DRUG FOR PODCASTS.

IT WAS THE FIRST PODCAST I LISTENED TO SO ALL MY PODCAST

ADDICTIONS ARE YOUR FAULT.

WHAT DAYS DO THE NEW ONES COME OUT?

>> THEY COME OUT THURSDAY EVENINGS.

>> Stephen: WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THE SHOW IS IT FEELS LIKE-- IT

HAS ALWAYS FELT TO ME FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE INTERESTED IN

POLITICS, IS YOU'RE THE FOURTH PERSON AT A LITTLE FOUR-TOP

LUNCH TABLE ON A FRIDAY AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT

JUST HAPPENED AND WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN WASHINGTON, OR WHAT

THE MAJOR ISSUES ARE.

HOW DID IT START?

WHAT'S THE ORIGIN STORY OF THIS LITTLE-- THIS LITTLE POLITICAL

AVENGERS?

>> THE FIRST PRODUCER OF THE "GAB FEST" ANDY BOWERS SAID HE

WANTED A SHOW THAT WOULD BE LIKE HANGING OUT AT THE BAR WITH THE

PANELISTS ON TV AFTER THE SHOW.

SO FORGET THE BORING PART.

FORGET THE STUFF YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SAY.

HE WANTED JUST LIKE WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT, WHAT

JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE HANGING OUT.

THAT WAS THE CONCEPTION.

SO LUCKILY FOR US, NOBODY LISTENED TO THE SHOW FOR THE

FIRST YEAR OR SO, SO WE DID FEEL LIKE WE WERE JUST HANGING OUT

BECAUSE NO ONE TOLD US THEY HAD HEARD IT.

BY THE TIME PEOPLE STARTED LISTENING, WE HAD AN IDEA-- WE

HAVE A LOT OF TRUST AMONG US ABOUT HOW TO DO THE SHOW.

>> WHEN WE DID THE FIRST SHOW WE HAD, "A," NO IDEA.

WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LISTEN TO IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE MOST

BORING PEOPLE AT THE BAR OR THE PEOPLE THEY DON'T LET INTO THE

BAR WERE TALKING ABOUT.

I MEAN, WE WERE-- WE WERE-- WE HAD A LEARNING CURVE TO GO.

>> WE'RE STILL THE NERDS AT THE BAR!

>> Stephen: SURE, SURE.

AND THAT'S THE-- THAT'S THE TAG LINE FOR THE 15th

ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION, "NOT AS BORING AS WE USED TO BE.

JOHN DICKERSON."

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SELL THEM.

>> Stephen: EMILY, AXEIOS REPORTED YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT

IS PLANNING MASS PARDONS LIKE CHRISTMAS GIFTS, EVEN TO PEOPLE

NOT ASKING FOR THEM.

ARE THERE RULES ON ISSUING PARDONS?

OR CAN WE JUST SORT OF LODE THE PARDONS IN THE TANK AND CROP

DUST ALL HIS CRONIES WITH FORGIVENESS?

>> HE CAN GIVE THEM OUT AS HE CHOOSES.

MAYBE HE CAN'T PARDON HIMSELF, BUT EVEN THAT ISN'T CLEAR.

BUT WHAT I LIKE THE BEST ABOUT THE STORY YOU JUST TOLD, IS ARE

BEING OFFERED PARDONS WHO DON'T WANT PARDONS.

THEY'RE LIKE, "I DIDN'T DO A CRIME.

I DON'T WANT THE STIGMA OF YOUR SUGGESTION THEY DID.

PLEASE DON'T PARDON ME."

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

>> Stephen: I THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND,

THERE'S A 100-YEAR-OLD RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT SAYS

ACCEPTING A PARDON IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT.

>> RIGHT.

IT SUGGESTS THAT YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG AND THAT THERE

IS SOMETHING TO FORGIVE HERE.

AND SO, THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF LIMIT ON PARDONS IN

TERMS OF HOW THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY USES THEM, SOME SENSE

THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY WRONGDOING.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US NOT TO LOSE

THAT NORM BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS BEING LOST.

>> Stephen: DAVID, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT ONE OF YOUR

PARTICULAR IDIOCENTRICKITIES THAT I NOTICED OVER THE YEARS,

YOU'RE SORT OF FAMOUS AMONG GAPFEST FANS WITH BEING OKAY

WITH POLITICAL CORRUPTION, THAT A LITTLE CORRUPTION IS OKAY.

WHEN TRUMP IS OUT OF OFFICE, DO YOU THINK-- AND THIS IS FOR

EVERYBODY, BUT AT FIRST TO DAVID-- SHOULD THERE BE

INVESTIGATIONS?

BECAUSE DON'T YOU HAVE A SENSE THAT THIS-- THIS ORGANIZATION

MADE THE HARDING ADMINISTRATION LOOK LIKE CHOIR BOYS?

AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE THROWN IN JAIL, WE SHOULD KNOW

WHAT HAPPENED?

>> I THINK I WAS FOR POLITICAL CORRUPTION BEFORE DONALD TRUMP

SHOWED UP.

I'M FOR POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK A LITTLE

BIT OF FAVOR-DOING-- POLITICS IS SORT OF ART OF DOING FAVORS FOR

EACH OTHER.

YOU GET A LITTLE SOMETHING FROM ME, AND GET A LITTLE SOMETHING

FROM YOU.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT CAN BE CORRUPT.

>> Stephen: SO EAR MARKS YOU'RE OKAY WITH?

>> 100% OKAY WITH EAR MARKS.

WHAT'S SHOCKING-- WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW MUCH-- HOW MANY PEOPLE

HAVE DRILLED THINGS, HOW MUCH SOOT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BE

DUMPED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, HOW MUCH MERCURY I'M GETTING TO

INJECHT BECAUSE SOME TEXAS COMPANY IS ALLOWED TO POUR

MERCURY.

AND IT'S-- IT IS HORRIFYING TO IMAGINE WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

THAT SAID, I DON'T KNOW THAT-- I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR THE

COUNTRY'S GOOD THAT YEARS OF INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT THE

TRUMPS HAVE DONE IS GOING TO GET US VERY FAR.

>> BUT IF WE DON'T INVESTIGATE, IF WE DON'T AT LEAST LOOK UNDER

THE ROCK, THEN WE LOSE THAT KIND OF DETERRENCE, RIGHT?

THEN THE NEXT PEOPLE COME ALONG, AND THERE'S THIS-- YOU'VE JUST

LOWERED THE BAR FOR WHAT THE NEXT SET OF POLITICIANS FEEL

LIKE THEY CAN DO.

>> ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS-- ONE OF THE REASONS YOU NEED TO FIND

OUT WHAT HAPPENED IS BECAUSE IN THE OLD DAYS, THE NORMS WOULD B

BE-- WOULD BE POLICED BY PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN PARTY.

I MEAN, SO THAT YOU COULD AGREE THAT SOMEBODY HAD STEPPED OVER A

LINE, AND NOBODY SHOULD DO THAT WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO GO

ALL THE WAY TO HAVING AN INVESTIGATION.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE IN A MOMENT WHEN NORMS CAN BE BROKEN AND NOBODY

FROM YOUR TEAM WILL SPEAK UP, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN NAIL DOWN

THE INFORMATION AND SAY, "THIS IN FACT WAS A LINE THAT WAS

CROSSED," IS BY TAKING IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO AN

INVESTIGATION.

>> BUT, JOHN, THEN YOU END UP WITH IMPEACHMENT-- WHICH WAS THE

RIGHT THING TO DO-- BUT WHERE YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY-- I MEAN, A

COUNTRY OPERATING HALF OF THEM IN A MASS DELUSION OR WILLFUL

DELUSION.

>> WELL, BUT THAT'S-- >> YOU MEAN PEOPLE DIDN'T

BELIEVE THE INFORMATION.

>> THEY CHOSE NOT IGNORE-- AND THAT'S SO WORRYING THAT YOU HAVE

THESE PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE SYSTEMS.

YOU UNCOVER THE TRUTH, BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COUNTRY

DOESN'T LISTEN?

>> BUT, I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE BEING MADE NOW, THE

PRESIDENT'S FRAUDULENT CASE ABOUT THE ELECTION, ONE OF THE

WAYS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ARGUE TO SOMEBODY THAT IT IS TRULY

FRAUDULENT IS THAT THE COURTS HAVE THROWN IT OUT WITH SUCH

PREJUDICE.

NOW, THAT MAY NOT CONVINCE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, AND ONE OF

THE DANGERS OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS JUST ALLOWING THE

PRESIDENT TO LIE ABOUT THE ELECTION AND SEEMINGLY TO

SUPPORT HIM IS THAT IT ALLOWS THAT IDEA TO SINK IN.

BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO REJECT THAT IDEA FROM PEOPLE WHO

BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE, YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF

THE COURTS AND THE JUDGES, SOME OF WHOM WERE APPOINTED BY

PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO SAY NOT ONLY IS THERE NO CASE HERE, BUT

YOU SHOULDN'T BE ASKING TO DO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DO AT ALL,

EVEN BASED ON THE-- EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ALSO ASKING TO DO IT

BASED ON INCREDIBLY FLIMSY EVIDENCE.

AND THAT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO ARGUE THIS IS BEYOND THE

BOUND, AT LEAST YOU NOW HAVE A NUMBER OF JUDGES WHO HAVE

ASSERTED THAT, AND THEY'RE NOT JUST-- THESE AREN'T POLITICAL

PUNDITS SAYING THIS.

THESE ARE ACTUAL JUDGES, WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE A STRONGER CASE,

THOUGH I RECOGNIZE LOTS OF PEOPLE WON'T BELIEVE THAT CASE.

>> Stephen: WE JUST HAVE TO GET 74 MILLION PEOPLE TO LISTEN

TO THE "SLATE POLITICAL GABFEST" EVERY WEEK, AND THE COUNTRY

WOULD BE FINE.

WE HAVE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK.

BUT WHEN WE COME BACK, I WILL ASK THE HOSTES YES THEY THINK

THE G.O.P. IS GOING ALONG WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIMS OF

ELECTION FRAUD.

STICK AROUND.

♪ ♪ ♪