Rational Security – “Video Killed the Podcast Star” Edition

Date: November 13, 2025
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Panelists: Natalie Orpen, Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the dramatic recent developments in U.S. domestic national security, with the Lawfare team dissecting the end of the record federal government shutdown, President Trump's controversial pardons related to 2020 election efforts, and the Trump administration’s ramped-up prosecutions of perceived political enemies. The conversation is rich with insight, humor, and concern about the future of U.S. institutions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Transition to Video Podcasting

• The team opens by lamenting and (lightly) roasting the necessity of video recordings for podcasts—a recurring in-joke about self-consciousness, facial expressions, and the joy (or dread) of seeing each other’s apartments.
• Notable Quote (Quinta Jurecic): “I make so many faces while people are talking, and I want people to think that I'm respectful when actually I'm making extremely skeptical looks.” (00:53)
• The desire to maintain authenticity and focus amidst the distractions of video is a relatable motif.

2. Topic 1: The Government Shutdown Deal

Context:

• An historic government shutdown appears to be ending as the Senate passes a deal funding most government operations through January 30, with select funding (e.g., for SNAP and Veterans Affairs) through September 30.
• The deal, pushed through by seven Democratic senators and one Independent, is criticized as a partial cave to Republican demands.

Main Points:

• Political Dynamics:

  • Democrats faced internal tension between standing firm and worries over the precedent of abolishing the filibuster for appropriations.
  • Some senators feared the filibuster’s elimination could permanently shift legislative power dynamics.
  • The Democratic base had expected a harder line, especially as Trump took most public blame for the shutdown.
  • “There was a feeling that the Senate Democrats would be more likely to stand tall this time around…they did for a while…42 days.” (Eric, 10:23)

• Institutional Priorities:

  • The Senate’s “cooler heads” role, as a moderating force between Executive and House, played out.
  • Senators not running for reelection (some retiring) were primary supporters of the compromise, suggesting concern with institutional legacy.
    • “The fact that they're retiring…can be a reason one might argue that they should take a stand…or…want their legacy to be…the best functioning of the institution.” (Natalie, 16:33)

• Shutdown as a Political Tool:

  • Intense debate over whether shutdowns benefit Democrats, whose constituents rely on government competence.
  • Molly argued the shutdown drama seemed to be benefiting Democrats as it unfolded:
    • “When you have Trump literally suing not to give poor people money to buy food…that's what was happening the weekend that they decided to end the shutdown.” (Molly, 18:44)

• Missed Opportunities:

  • Panelists discussed the failure to secure more robust structural reforms safeguarding Congressional power against the Executive.
  • Sam Bagenstos’ ideas—such as restricting rescission powers and clarifying Congressional standing—were cited as examples of needed reforms.
    • “It is regrettable that Democrats were not able to get language in there regarding kind of rule of law issues, such as power over the purse issues…” (Eric, 19:45)

3. Key Legislative Nugget: The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act

• Natalie dove deep into an overlooked provision:
  • New cause of action: Senators (but not House members) can sue the government for up to $500,000 per incident if their data is accessed without notification—retroactive to Jan 2022.
  • “If the Senator and his or her chief of staff…have their phones searched and their email accounts searched, that's $2 million up to $2 million of taxpayer money.” (Natalie, 27:45)
  • The law limits delayed notification to cases where a Senator is the target (not just a subject) of an investigation, which may have future legal significance.
  • Constitutionality is debated: panelists question standing and retroactivity under recent Supreme Court doctrine (TransUnion v. Ramirez).
• Political and Procedural Process:
  • Molly raised procedural concerns, questioning if senators really knew (or read) what they voted for—a recurring theme in rushed mega-legislation.

4. Topic 2: Trump’s Pardons for 2020 Election Actors

Context:

• President Trump issues blanket pardons for dozens, including “fake electors” and high-profile figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, but notably not himself.
• Most federal charges either were never brought or already dismissed; state prosecutions and civil cases continue.

Panel Reactions:

• Symbolism & Signaling:

  • Pardons serve to reinforce loyalty and signal protection for those who may act for Trump in future election disputes.
    • “This is a game plan for the future…The idea is to tell people, no, no, no, don't worry. If we win, win, you're not going to be punished.” (Molly, 52:42)
  • The gestures may help recruitment of future actors willing to challenge election results on Trump’s behalf.

• Historical and Institutional Weaknesses:

  • The panel detailed the various methods used to interfere in the 2020 election, highlighting how institutional holes remain unaddressed.
    • “The way in which these types of interferences happened—there haven't been structural changes that would address and mitigate the risk of [them] happening again.” (Natalie, 46:00)

• Potential Unintended Consequences:

  • Pardoned individuals lose the right to invoke the Fifth—future investigations (Congressional) may compel their testimony.
    • “One consequence is that now, if for some reason a Democratic House…wants to subpoena these people, they would not be able to plead the Fifth Amendment.” (Eric, 57:00)

• State Enforcement as a New Frontier:

  • The possibility of states (like California) using long-arm statutes to pursue election interference crimes was floated (Scott, 58:18).

5. Topic 3: “Revenge Prosecutions” of Trump’s Enemies

Context:

• The Trump administration is using the DOJ to pursue high-profile investigations and prosecutions (e.g., James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff), often encountering resistance from both the judiciary and within DOJ.

Panel Insights:

• Legal Weakness & Political Intimidation:

  • Cases face strong dismissal motions on grounds like vindictive prosecution and improper appointments, with procedural irregularities rampant.
  • “Are they succeeding in intimidating people?… Are they going to succeed in winning a conviction? Extremely doubtful.” (Molly, 64:13)
  • Panelists stress that even failed prosecutions can have significant chilling effects, deterring both high-profile officials and ordinary people from opposing the administration.
    • “The mere fact of being investigated…can be incredibly expensive…hugely disruptive to your life…” (Natalie, 66:23)

• Broader Chilling Effects:

  • Not only elected officials—but “sandwich guy”/ordinary protesters, federal employees, and even law firms—are dissuaded from participating in or supporting opposition.
    • “You don't want to be Adam Schiff. You don't want to be the guy who has to…mount a defense…So I think it is chilling on people who are officials or representatives as well.” (Molly, 71:59)
  • The discussed “chilling effect” cannot be measured by what happens, only by what now doesn’t happen in public discourse, protest, or whistleblowing.

• Consequences for the Rule of Law:

  • The system relies on robust legal representation, but as more lawyers and firms shy away from representing targets, the justice system risks breakdown.
    • “If things can't get tripped out of court, if you don't have representation… you can't assume that the system will work out the way that it's supposed to.” (Natalie, 72:47)

• Narrative Wars:

  • Even failed indictments serve the administration politically, fueling “both sides” accusations and muddying public memory.

Notable Quotes

• Scott Anderson (re: Senate as institutional check):
  “The Senate is…stopping…the Trump administration not just from implementing the filibuster…Senate Republicans are actually the one stopping the Republican House from implementing its agenda…” (13:33)

• Molly Roberts (re: shutdown politics):
  “The narrative really was starting to get traction as people were feeling more pain.” (18:44)

• Natalie Orpen (re: chilling effect of investigations):
  “You can't prove how much this is happening…there are many, many, many law firms and lawyers that are not representing clients that they otherwise would have…” (72:47)

• Eric Columbus (on pardons and Congress):
  “…now, if for some reason a Democratic House…wants to subpoena these people, they would not be able to plead the Fifth Amendment.” (57:00)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:32–04:42: Banter on video podcasting, team introductions
• 05:24–22:44: Detailed analysis of the shutdown deal—politics, institutional implications, and outcome
• 27:37–41:58: Deep dive into senators’ new legal protections and implications for Congress-DOJ relations
• 43:00–58:18: Trump’s 2020-election-related pardons—motives, impact, and future consequences
• 61:26–79:43: “Revenge” prosecutions—legal weaknesses, political intent, and societal chilling effects
• 80:10–88:10: Object lessons & pop culture recommendations

Panel’s Object Lessons

• Natalie Orpen: New Yorker piece on fact-checking (“Given Facts Will Fix”), highlighting the importance of editorial integrity.
• Eric Columbus: The Week Junior magazine—news for kids, introducing future citizens to media literacy.
• Scott Anderson: Rediscovered joy in the Far Side cartoon archives—a daily source of humor and perspective.
• Molly Roberts: Jenny Holzer’s conceptual art at Glenstone, including January 6th FOIA’d documents turned into public installations.

Memorable Moments

• Humorous Self-Awareness:
  • Frequent jabs at their own podcasting skills, faces, and distractions; embracing transparency (“I want people to see when I don’t react because then it becomes painfully obvious I’m not listening…” – Scott, 01:03)
• Niche References:
  • Lawfare team’s inside jokes (e.g., “roomrater” Twitter, “sandwich guy” protestor).
• Personal Touches:
  • Several panelists referenced their children when discussing policy impacts, underscoring the real-world stakes of public policy.
• Quote of the Episode:
  • “A sorely tired man of superior skills was consenting to improve the work of someone who is at best lazy and at worst an imbecile.” – (New Yorker piece quoted by Natalie at 80:10)

Takeaway

This episode of Rational Security provides a thoughtful, nuanced, and often wryly funny look at the stresses facing U.S. democratic institutions—from legislative sausage-making and executive overreach to the enduring dangers posed by persistent “revenge” politics and the blurring of legal and political lines. The underlying tone is a mix of expertise, exasperation, and cautious hope that real structural reform may one day break the cycle.