Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:01]
Harry Littman
New CBS Sunday.
- [00:02]
Susan Glasser
The Grammys, baby.
- [00:04]
Harry Littman
History will be made live. Unfiltered, unexpected. Bigger than ever. Bigger stars, bigger performances. Music's biggest night is getting bigger. Now you see what all the hype is about. Trevor Noah hosts the Grammy Awards live.
- [00:24]
Susan Glasser
Anything is possible.
- [00:26]
Harry Littman
CBS Sunday and streaming on Paramount. Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix online Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me, pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep woodworks and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started today@stitchfix.com Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify. Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. Another cold blooded killing in Minneapolis has brought the federal state standoff there to a potentially historic moment.
- [01:30]
Susan Glasser
Oh shit.
- [01:32]
Harry Littman
What the fuck? They killed.
- [01:35]
Susan Glasser
Did they fucking kill that guy?
- [01:37]
Harry Littman
Are you fucking kidding me?
- [01:38]
Susan Glasser
Dude.
- [01:41]
Ruth Marcus
Not again.
- [01:42]
Susan Glasser
Are you fucking kidding me?
- [01:44]
Harry Littman
On Saturday morning, Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Preddy, a 37 year old US citizen and ICU nurse. In the aftermath, federal authorities propounded a series of vicious lies about Preddy. Trump adviser Stephen Miller branded him a domestic terrorist and a would be assassin. DHS Secretary Christy Noem told the country that Preddy had come to kill law enforcement. And Vice President J.D. vance issued a statement blaming Minnesota Governor Walz and other local officials, which Trump echoed. All available videos of the event tell a very different story. There's a feel in the country which watched again in horror as federal agents killed an innocent person of a dam having broken and the situation in Minnesota having become unsustainable. At the top of this episode, you'll hear a conversation I had Sunday with Susan Glasser, who graciously came back on to talk about the latest horrifying events in Minneapolis. It had already been a week in which the Trump administration's profound corruption of the law enforcement and justice systems was on vivid display all week in Minnesota. Each new abuse and overreach by federal agents seemed to spur them to re up the ante. On Friday, the Twin Cities saw thousands of protesters gather and hundreds of businesses shudder to oppose the mounting brutality. And news broke that night that an FBI supervisor resigned after she was pressured to drop the investigation of Renee Good's killer. It was the newest sign of the widespread disgust and demoralization at the bureau, dozens of current and former FBI agents, savage Kash Patel's lazy and preening leadership in a blockbuster New York Times story on the bureau's rapid disintegration. And back in Washington, former special counsel Jack Smith had his long awaited public appearance before a hostile and House Judiciary Committee. Smith emerged from the hearing still very much in the crosshairs of Trump, who repeated that Smith is a, quote, deranged animal and again called on Pam Bondi and the DOJ to indict him on unspecified crimes. Now, my conversation with Susan Glasser in the wake of the killing of Alex Preddy. Susan Glaser, thanks so much for returning.
- [04:39]
Susan Glasser
Thank you for having me, Harry.
- [04:41]
Harry Littman
All right. You know, there's hundreds of questions everyone's been asking themselves about law and politics and the like. At the broadest gauge level, though, does this feel to you, as it did to me, as a possible, just complete critical turning point in the whole kind of effort of the Trump administration's kind of brutal operations in Minnesota?
- [05:10]
Susan Glasser
You know, look, Harry, what's so horrifying about this is that it's not an outlier, an aberration or an accident. But I think it is, unfortunately, the logical culmination of the spectacle that Donald Trump and his advisors arranged in Minneapolis. The conclusion here, especially when you look at the speed and rapidity with which senior officials in our own United States government manufactured the grossest lies and calumnies about this poor man who's just been killed as they did just not even two weeks earlier with the killing on the street of Renee Goode in Minneapolis. You look at that fact set, and I think there's no choice but to conclude that this is the Trump administration doing what it wants to do to sow fear and horror and trepidation in those Americans who dare to go out on the streets and oppose them with their First Amendment rights combined with a sense of impunity among the federal agents who they've given billions of dollars to and let loose on the streets of American cities that Donald Trump says, as he said about Minnesota, just again, two, not even two weeks ago, the day of retribution and reckoning is company. Well, we see I think, unfortunately here what does Donald Trump's version of retribution and reckoning mean? And it means a world in which the constitutional guarantees of things like free speech don't mean anything when faced with the brute, raw exercise of unchecked federal power.
- [06:57]
Harry Littman
Well put. Look, it's precisely a page from a totalitarian playbook. The immediate Circling and lying about it. Now, people have become accustomed to, maybe even indifferent to, the whole series of lies that drive the whole administration. But to me, the jarring contrast as the tape came out and frame by frame made clear that this victim had posed no risk at all. And just as you say, they were grotesque whoppers and immediate and reflexive. And I mean, all the way up to the top. I think of Kent State, maybe Korematsu, where the feds are the bad guys, our national government are the ones who are actually doing these, the transgressions under the Constitution. But the complete lying on display in from everyone up to and including Trump, Vance, Noem, Miller and the like. It struck me that there must be people listening to it who didn't feel this before, who were like, our national government is just lying to us the way we were taught. The Russian government lied to them. They, in addition to being responsible for the actions, they're just absolute scoundrels in their immediate tarring of the victim.
- [08:32]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, I mean, you mentioned Kent State. Somebody said to me the other day, it's like a Kent State is happening every day. And that, I think, is the aspect of the last few years that's so striking with Trump that it's sort of like Richard Nixon fever dream. Richard Nixon on steroids. Many of the abuses of power that, you know, the modern precedent for which is Nixon and those surrounding him, you know, this is just so much more. It's amplified and it's Nixonian, except taken to a much more extreme degree and of course, occurring in this very different news media cycle. But to your broader point about what does it mean for Americans to consider a world in which the federal government itself is the bad guy. Right. This is something, I think that's very hard in many ways. That's where you see the analogy between what's happening internationally with our friends and horrified allies in Europe and what's happening inside the United States. Because it's that sense of. It's not just that bad things happen, because, by the way, atrocities, mistakes, errors, excesses of force, they happen all the time under every kind of government. The question is how that government responds to them and what it tells you about the health of the rule of law and democracy. And, you know, I think it's. It's.
- [10:01]
Ruth Marcus
So what.
- [10:01]
Susan Glasser
What I think stands out both internationally right now and domestically, is this sense of the United States under Donald Trump seems to be switching sides. It's not just that it's failing to live up to its ideals, which has always been the case to one degree or another, but that it just seems to actually be on the side of bad when it comes to the president, that that's what feels so un American about this. The country that's built on immigration uses the excuse of purging brown people that we don't like in our country, is an excuse not only to terrorize those people, but to terrorize American citizens who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights to protect their neighbors, to protect the rule of law. And that is the thing that I. You know, again, it's hard because you could say, and I certainly am one who believes this, that they told us so in advance, and that in many ways, the shock is to realize that all those terrible things they said they would do are happening in our country. But at the same time, you have to admire the courage of everyday people. In Minnesota, the fight came to them. They didn't ask for that. And that's what I think is so particularly tragic about the killing of this young man. And obviously, as a parent, you read this story, the Associated Press reported that the parents of this young man, no one ever told them that it was their son who was killed until a reporter for the AP called them up in Colorado to tell them that. But, you know, I think of that statement that they said, you know, please put out the word that our son was this good man, he was this ICU nurse. But also, at least they can feel that when the call came, their son stood up for things that mean a lot to the country. And by the way, if you look at the video, he also died trying to help a woman. The last act of this ICU's nurse's life was to try to help a woman who was having the shit beat out of her by masked, armed federal goons who were kicking the shit out of this woman because she was there to bear witness to their acts of atrocities.
- [12:31]
Harry Littman
Americans posing no threat. Not that that makes, you know, brutality is brutality, but it really is stunning. Though. You mentioned Kent State, and you're right around that time, there were many different protests and a lot of unconstitutional action. Let me just ask you one final question. You're in D.C. and you're hearing, you know, government, both Congress and the executive branch, in the form of this bizarre letter from Pam Bondi to Minnesota saying, well, maybe we'll ease off if you give us your voter rolls. Does it feel on the ground as if this is really beginning to germinate some kind of. Of focus so that we won't have it just be, you know, two Weeks from now, everyone has forgotten about it.
- [13:26]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, I mean, that's a good point. It was striking that on Saturday, within hours of this occurring, as the, you know, multiple videos emerge from different vantage points. You know, the now legendary Woman in Pink, who's also, as I understand it, sworn an affidavit in a lawsuit that the city of Minneapolis immediately filed. But putting that aside, you are seeing a political reaction from Senate Democrats here in Washington. The timing of this was particularly bad from the point of view of Republicans since they have, you know, completely lost their spines and are forced into this position of reflexively defending the administration. That's going to be very difficult for them because this week there's a deadline of this coming Friday to pass the remaining appropriations bills, which they look to be on track to do. But in fact, now you saw Senate Democrats coming out en masse and saying, no, we are going to now refuse to support the billions of dollars in increased spending for ICE that the Trump administration used to fund this surge into American cities. And so I think that's pretty clear. They're not going to. I've seen the Senate Appropriations Chair, Susan Collins, whose, by the way, Senate seat is really on the line because of the excesses of the Trump administration, as she is one of the only remaining Republicans senators to have been elected from a Democratic voting state where ICE is now infiltrated. Exactly. And now ICE is there, too. She is now saying she's going to have to come up with some new bill by the end of the week that would basically take the ICE funding out in the hopes of at least passing funding for the other agencies. We'll see whether that's possible. The timeline is very short in part because we have this big snow and ice storm and that's happening here and, you know, Washington, D.C. in a snow and ice storm, it could be days. So that's one factor. You do see the political resistance kind of kicking to life in Washington. But, you know, we'll see. It's frankly been very muted so far in part because Democrats have been so wary and so burned of kind of giving Trump the fight that he seems to want. But this may be so horrifying that, you know, if it weren't minus 12 degrees below, you feel like you would see all of the American political leadership and, you know, celebrities and whatever. Flying to Minneapolis. I saw someone invoke the image of Selma, you know, and that's what happened, is that, you know, an atrocity occurs and people should come together and link arms non violently and say, enough, enough. And why is it just left to the leadership of Minneapolis to be the people saying enough? It should be the people of the country saying enough.
- [16:22]
Harry Littman
Susan Glasser, so good of you to be with us on this horrifying weekend. And now here's our episode to grapple with the startling news stories of Trump administration abuse and decay. I'm really happy to welcome three of the country's most insightful political and legal journalists, and they are Emily Bazelon, a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine. Emily also co hosts Slate's excellent political Gabfest podcast and she teaches at Yale Law School where she is the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law. Welcome as always, Emily.
- [17:07]
Ruth Marcus
Thank you.
- [17:08]
Emily Bazelon
Great to see all of you.
- [17:09]
Harry Littman
Susan Glasser, a staff writer at the New Yorker, where she writes columns on life in Washington and co hosts the political scene podcast Washington Roundtable. She previously served as editor of several DC Based publications. Great to see you, Susan.
- [17:28]
Susan Glasser
Great to be with you. Thank you.
- [17:30]
Harry Littman
And Ruth Marcus, a contributing writer at the New Yorker. She joined the magazine last year after a long and storied tenured the Washington Post, where in addition to writing her own column, she helped lead the paper's national coverage and then its opinion section, making her my former boss. We've had her on the show for a one on one, but this is her first time on a Talking Feds Roundtable. So welcome. Ruth Marcus.
- [17:58]
Ruth Marcus
Thank you for having me. I'm not sure boss is the right word. Co. Conspirator.
- [18:04]
Harry Littman
Exactly. Colleague with authority. Okay. You know, each of you has written really phenomenal pieces this week. I wanted to start with Emily's really great. It's a story, but it's almost in the form of an oral history where you call together so many comments by current and especially former members of the FBI focused on Kash Patel's very trouble tenure, more trouble than we knew. You know, it does paint a picture of, correct me if I'm wrong, dysfunction, self obsession, aversion to any of the real core work of the Bureau. You got so much, including many people who wanted anonymity. What did you see as the sort of most gobsmacking details that people told you?
- [18:57]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah, I mean, so first of all, we had 16 people on the record who have left the FBI in the last year talking about what they saw. And then you're right, also a bunch of unnamed sources because people have, you know, real fears of retaliation, whether they've left or are still inside the bureau. And I think overall, just to start like this is a really conservative Institution. Right. Filled with lots of people who've formerly been in the military or worked as police. And when Trump was elected, I think they thought, okay, this is a change of administration. We know this is a president who has called. Called the agency corrupt and argued that it had been weaponized during the Biden administration. But we still are hoping we can just do our jobs, put our heads down. And I think for a lot of them, that just became impossible sometimes because they were fired for having worked on cases that were now disfavored. And that in itself is a kind of transformation of FBI culture that had not really ever happened before. And then I think there are the, you know, issues of Patel himself. Lots of people told us stories, like, about, you know, a conference in the United Kingdom for the five eyes intelligence agencies abroad, in which there were all these, like, formal and proper meetings scheduled. And Patel was saying, like, I want to go to a premier soccer game. I want to go jet skiing, I.
- [20:20]
Harry Littman
Want my girlfriend to go to Buckingham Palace.
- [20:23]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah, exactly. So there's that kind of sense of, like, you know, mismanagement going on, and then there's just the way the actual work is being transformed. And a lot of FBI agents, instead of doing work that prevents terrorism or corruption or helps dismantle major criminal enterprises, they're like being asked to go out on the street and do immigration stops and grabs. And that is not what they trained for and not how they see their jobs. And so it was really like just a combination of all of this testimony more than any single anecdote that has stuck with me. And just the fact that, you know, more than 45 people would talk to us is a sign, I think, of internal breakdown because it goes so much against the culture for FBI agents and analysts to talk to reporters.
- [21:12]
Harry Littman
Yeah, I want to follow up on that and maybe bring Ruth or Susan in, because conservative. This is from my experience both in the field and at doj. Conservative is the right word, but not necessarily liberal. Conservative, although it's a common conception, accurate in my view, that the overall workforce is more politically conservative. But conservative here, I think, means very much traditional and really trusting in one another and a certain identification and insularity. And that seems part of what's been blown to bits.
- [21:47]
Ruth Marcus
This is a really buttoned up institution that is come. You know, I'm just going to continue with the clothing metaphor. It's coming apart at the seams. It's coming apart at the seams because it is so stressed by what's going on. And I thought this. We were Talking about tour de force, and it's plural. This was a singular, in the best sense of that word, tour de force on three different levels.
- [22:12]
Harry Littman
Emily's piece. Yeah, for sure.
- [22:13]
Ruth Marcus
The most amusing is the Kash Patel and his manifest unfitness for this job. My favorite isn't necessarily the five eyes. One is good when he arrives on the scene of a raid and is looking for an FBI raid jacket. Cause he needs the outfit. And the focus on tweeting. And what are we gonna tweet about something as opposed to what are we go. How are we gonna professionally handle a situation? So he is just, you know, again, unmasked as a despicably unqualified character. The one other thing I wanna say about it, just in case anybody missed this, the part where he says they're asking him how he likes to be briefed, and he announces, I don't read. This is not a quality you want in an FBI director. But the two things that are much more serious about this that you captured, Emily, are the degree to which there is just this mass grieving going on about the destruction of this institution for all the reasons that you explained. And then even worse, because this is not about an institution, it's about the country. The real risk that is being foisted on the American people by the dismantling and destruction that Patel and Fongino, until he was ousted, have wreaked on the institution. Unlike with messing with some other parts of government, there are real national security and public safety consequences here that we haven't really. If you talk to almost anybody at the Justice Department or in the law enforcement community and ask them what they're worried about, this is what they mentioned. But I think we have not captured that enough. And so I was really glad you had a very strong quote on that. Thank you.
- [24:01]
Harry Littman
Following up on that. So I think by some accounts in your story, Emily, 20% or so of the Bureau's just been put on these what they consider really small potato kinds of cases. You know, the Bureau hired me for national security to prevent threats from Al Qaeda and other groups throughout the near east, not to sit in a parking lot arresting immigrants. But to Ruth's point, people don't understand, but the FBI has earned its stripes or reputation as the premier law enforcement agency based on very long developing, meticulous kinds of investigations of the most serious things that are hard to put together. With everyone being diverted there, it really does seem. It's very, very hard to quantify, but the opportunity cost of the big, important cases that they're not doing national security. But also the biggest corruption cases, the biggest public corruption, all begin with the FBI. And you just have to think that those bad guys are having a lot easier time of it in the Trump administration.
- [25:11]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah. And also, this is a bureau that, you know, look, there's the Hoover era of the FBI, which has lots of shameful activities in it. But since Watergate, the FBI has tried to operate as a nonpartisan organ of government. And so, yes, Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, there were FBI agents working on his cases against Trump, but there were also FBI agents supporting Robert her, who was the special prosecutor looking into President Biden's use of classified documents while Biden was in office. And that's a kind of definitionally important, this idea that you pursue investigations without political fear or favor. And I think a lot of the people we were talking to just had a, you know, heartbreak over the loss of faith that that's how the FBI is operating. And what is happening in Minneapolis, you know, very recently, as our story was closing, was further evidence of that, where, you know, according to our sources, the FBI opened a civil rights investigation into the killing of Renee Good, which is like a pretty standard move when you have a shooting by a federal officer. And then our sources were telling us that Patel shut it down. And, yes, they're still investigating this killing, but they're doing it in terms of they tried to at least do this as an assault on the ICE officer.
- [26:34]
Susan Glasser
I think it's so important, and I'm so glad that you did this, because I think, you know, we're all in the sort of taking testimony, bearing witness stage because we don't know where it's going to end up.
- [26:44]
Ruth Marcus
And that's.
- [26:44]
Susan Glasser
That's sort of my question. I don't want to ask you to look too far in the future, but Kash Patel came into the FBI having written a book in which he explicitly talks about the plan to go after essentially an enemies list. He even has a long list of names that he thinks should belong on that enemies list. We all recall his very dishonest, at a minimum, testimony before Congress when he was seeking to get confirmed, in which he claimed, oh, no, we're absolutely not going to be investigating enemies of President Trump, when, in fact, then they immediately started to do that. So I feel like, you know, as you said, a lot of your sources are in the kind of mourning for what's been lost phase of this. I'm curious what you learned, and that helps to shape your thinking about what happens now that they are turning the wheels of this institution, along with the Justice Department itself, into a much more overtly political and politicized institution. Do you have a feeling that they will be able to accomplish that? That. That they will just simply fire anybody further who disagrees with their agenda or that there are internal limits for that? I mean, it's fascinating, right, because I was reading it, and I was thinking, you know, everybody has their weaknesses. And, you know, for Kash Patel, it's amazing how little time it took for it to become evident, you know, that his desire for junketeering and, you know, sort of the perks of office was going to be his particular weakness. But, you know, in a world of no accountability, where, you know, Donald Trump isn't gonna be firing anybody for abusing the perks of the office, what limits, if any, do you think exists still within that institution, and how will it play out as they seek to investigate political enemies of Trump? Is there. Is there any limits to it?
- [28:44]
Emily Bazelon
I think the limits are the voters. I mean, the limits are the next election.
- [28:47]
Total Wine and More Spokesperson
Right?
- [28:47]
Susan Glasser
Oh, then we're in trouble.
- [28:48]
Emily Bazelon
Well, I mean, right. Like, you know, Ruth wrote an excellent profile of Pam Bondi, the attorney General, a couple months ago, and it's all the peace. The people in power right now are in power because they don't have the normal ideas about safeguards and accountability, and they are saying yes to what the president wants to do and furthering his agenda, and there isn't a limit to it. And, you know, internally, there are lots of individual employees in the Justice Department who are trying to put on the brakes, and I think sometimes they succeed for some amount of time. But, yeah, the message is that they're all expendable. I mean, this week, Patel fired another bunch of agents, again for having worked on cases that are now disfavored. And they're really good at, like, kind of dribbling out these firings both to keep it in the news. So they're kind of feeding these firings to the base. Like, this whole idea that this agency is corrupt and that everything was weaponized against President Trump, they can keep putting people on the chopping block as, like, sacrifices to that rewriting of history. And then also, it's really chilling for employees to see that happening. Like, how are you supposed to stand up or, like, let people know that there is this problem, say, of, you know, domestic terrorism on the right that nobody wants to hear about?
- [30:11]
Susan Glasser
Like, it.
- [30:12]
Emily Bazelon
All the incentives are lining up the other way. And I think that the only limit is the voters. It's really hard to see how internally there is a way that the Trump administration thinks it's of kind to go too far.
- [30:24]
Ruth Marcus
I'm curious about even assuming the voters, which is, as Susan suggested, a pretty big assumption here, what it's like to. I was just having this conversation with somebody who's a Justice Department veteran about reforming the broader Justice Department in the sort of aftermath of the weaponization that Trump has basically ordered it to engage in. The bureau took a long time to fix itself, as you suggested, in the aftermath of Hoover. Can this bureau be saved even after Trump leaves and a different administration takes power?
- [31:03]
Emily Bazelon
I mean, it's a great question. I look, I like to be an optimist. I feel like if we had a kind of wholesale shift in American government, again, people would step up. There are lots of people, I'm sure you're talking to them, too, Ruth, who are outside the Justice Department looking in and would love to be back and be part of a kind of restoration. It feels remote right now. And the longer the inner culture, you know, cracks and is eroded, the harder it is. But when you think about Watergate and the abuse of government power of Watergate, we had this, like, period of real response to that in the 1970s where we had new laws passed. We had these kind of ethical rules and norms inside the Justice Department. So I think it is still possible. It just doesn't feel present.
- [31:55]
Ruth Marcus
I'm the Debbie Downer in this group, though, because the difference between Watergate and now is that there was a bipartisan consensus in the aftermath of Watergate, not about what needed to be done necessarily, and the details of that and how far it should go, but that something needed to be done. And, you know, people are not living on the same planet right now in the two different parties.
- [32:18]
Harry Littman
That's the important point. Watergate, as bad as it got, the basic staff and structure of DOJ always remained. And then the handoff could come to Ed Levy, two things. I mean, first, culture is really the watchword. Can't emphasize it enough. And when there's this kind of break and the people who come, you know, the cavalry returns. But the actual kinds of people that everyone has looked to and have really guided the Institute are just not there. Starting from a dead stop, I think is very hard. And the other thing I wanted to add, again, on the operational level, and, you know, we talked about lies from Patel, that stunning bit of testimony in Congress that I think the rank and file would really revile the deputy. So here when they were putting in Patel, they got a promise as you have to have the figurehead matters, but the deputy runs it day to day. And just as in the Department of Justice, they switch ground and put in a real, well, enforcer in that role. But there's no grown up with any kind of FBI sense anywhere in the sort of oversight.
- [33:37]
Susan Glasser
I agree with all of this, but Ruth, you're not gonna take my mantle here as a Debbie Downer. I refuse to allow you to do that because I gotta say, like, we're only one year into this. And the reason that I think Emily's sort of testimony taking is so important is because I'm looking ahead toward the next three years and imagining scenarios where Donald Trump is ordering the FBI to do something much worse than, you know, conduct in questionable immigration enforcement operations. But to go after American citizens for doing things like exercising their constitutional rights. That's the line that we're seeing crossed in Minnesota right now. That's the line, you know, that so far the State Department has crossed in throwing people out of the country who were writing or speaking and saying things they didn't like. But you know, imagine when FBI agents are kicking down doors at people like you and me, okay? Because that's going to happen at some point because we are designated as enemies of the people. So I would like to know what these people are going to do when they are given orders like that. In the same way that we're asking these questions as we should be asking questions about the U.S. military. And you know, we're now threatening to, we're using our Justice Department, by the way, to investigate members of Congress and senators who have just told members of the military that they don't have to follow illegal orders. And so I'm not like being like fantastical here. If we're investigating members of Congress for speech like that, how long is it gonna be until the FBI is asked to investigate columnists at the New York Times or elsewhere for speaking their minds or encouraging others to speak out? And so that's where this question of, okay, we've, I think it's important to record what's lost, but I also want to really understand what remains in that building because those are the people who will be asked to undertake things that, that really threaten the foundations and know.
- [35:47]
Harry Littman
That if they don't, they're going to get fired. That line, a huge line was crossed, as you guys probably all know, with the actual, I was at the department. It's a huge matter to subpoena or get a phone of a reporter. The actual search of a residence really, to Get a source of a non subject was stunning to me and a clear taboo. I'm sorry, go ahead.
- [36:11]
Emily Bazelon
No, I mean, and you're talking just to be clear about the search warrant executed on the home of Hannah Nathanson at the Washington Post.
- [36:17]
Harry Littman
Exactly.
- [36:18]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah, I guess I would. I mean, there are two things that I think are really important to me about your question, Susan. One is this way in which criminal investigations are now seeming like normal in a way that they never were and should not be. Right. So there is a set of rules, an idea of a particular kind of factual predicate that the FBI is supposed to have before they open an investigation. They're supposed to have an idea that someone committed a crime. And it's supposed to be not just a tweet. Not just a tweet. It's supposed to be about the activity, not the person. It's not like, oh, we're going to go after you, target and, and then find something you did. It's, we think a crime happened and now we're going to figure out who did it. And I think we've really lost that line. And that has been true in Minnesota. It is also true with this criminal investigation of Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook and James Comey and Letitia James, this kind of parade of Trump's enemies that we were talking about earlier. And that in itself is a real shift and cause for alarm. And then I think there's this question, I mean, Harry's right. Like, if people refuse to follow orders, they're going to get fired. We saw six prosecutors quit in Minneapolis rather than investigate Renee Good's wife and take part in that prosecution. What is missing right now is any kind of, you know, reverberation from a mass firing that actually leads to a change in policy. It's like we have lost that link. And I think this goes back to what you were saying about this lack of bipartisan agreement. Right. I mean, when Congress does not stand up to the executive branch, when they're not going, you know, en masse together to the White House or to the Justice Department to say no, then why stop? Like, this is an administration that always, it always tries to go too far and, and dares some counter force to stop it, and Congress, which is supposed to be, you know, first among equals in terms of the American separation of powers, is just not playing that role.
- [38:20]
Ruth Marcus
Foreign.
- [38:28]
Harry Littman
Hey, everyone, Harry here. As you may know, I'm extremely picky about advertisers and sponsors and do very few ads, but I'm making an exception because I've been really impressed by Quint's clothing. I am not what anyone would call a clothes horse, but I do really care about comfort and their clothes are super comfortable. I took the Traveler 5 pocket pants with me on a recent trip and I basically wore them every day. They were totally comfortable and my family said they looked good as well. Refresh your winter wardrobe with quince go to quince.com talking feds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com TalkingFeds Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com TalkingFeds.
- [39:42]
Ruth Marcus
There's another phenomenon at issue too here, I think, which is simply the overload factor. If you have the Saturday Night Massacre was such a stunning event. I mean, obviously it was the top leadership of the Justice Department that basically defenestrated themselves. But when you have three people resigning, it's an event. When you have 100 people fired, six prosecutors in this office, seven prosecutors in that office resigning, it's almost too much to take in when you have one outrageous pardon. I'm thinking about Bill Clinton and Mark Rich. This is a focus of attention and you can really grasp it. When there are a hundred, you can't grasp it. Same thing with weaponized prosecutions. You listed a whole bunch of the list is going to get too long for us to say. And I think that there is a way in which Trump is benefiting from the overload that he can cause as well.
- [40:44]
Harry Littman
And there's a corresponding phenomenon, I think, that he transgresses boundaries. And then while people are kind of taking stock of it, he goes pedal to the metal and goes even farther. I've got a piece arguing why the pow thing and the fry and walls are really even worse than Comey. But it's just that's the response and of course, zero element of the kind of institutionalism that at least made previous presidents like Nixon think, oh, you know, all of this, I think seems to be just music to his ears, especially because no one's playing Epstein lately. So much to talk about here, but I think we should move to Minneapolis. And Susan, I want to turn to your great piece where you describe what's going on there as Trump's most Trumpian accomplishments. So let's just start there. What makes it so essentially distinctively Trumpy?
- [41:38]
Susan Glasser
Well, look, first of all, this idea that America is under attack by invading hordes of, you know, illegal, criminal, brown skinned aliens, unfortunately has been at the heart of Trump's political appeal since the second, you know, that he entered politics in 2015. He himself believes this to be essentially a core part of his appeal to his voters, a key reason why he was reelected in 2024. You know, he went around the country promising mass deportations. Now, and I will tell you, having covered that, you know, I vividly recall being in Milwaukee for the convention at which he was nominated in 2024. And actually, it was one of the only applause lines that really, you know, got the audience worked up was mass deportations. Now, they held up big signs that said that, in fact, the only other thing that got them really going was, of course, the name of Donald Trump himself. You know, they really. It's very personalized around him. And then anything having to do with the idea of no men in women's sports and trans this and whatever, those were really the only policy things. To the extent that's a policy thing, as opposed to a visceral hatred of the other thing, you can choose which way you want to interpret it. And so combine that with Donald Trump's obsession, really dating back to his first term, for these sort of militarized displays of force. He's always wanted to deploy the American military or militarized type forces in American cities. He sees that display of strength as a projection, an extension of himself, actually. And he also sees himself at war, I think, in many ways with what he's called the enemy within. I think there's a lot of talk in my kind of foreign policy world about the Trump world order and the spheres of influence. But the truth is, he told us right before the 2024 election, something that, that I think we've yet to fully absorb. How breathtaking that is. He said, you know, America has adversaries in the world. It has Russia, it has China, but then it has the enemy within. And of these, the greatest threat to the United States is the enemy within. And when he gathered America's generals last summer, he and Pete Hegseth. Hegseth was talking about calisthenics and push ups, but Donald Trump was talking about what he. He termed it in that meeting, the war within. He said that, in fact, the US Military should be prepared not only to be used to fight civil disturbances, but also to view American cities as training grounds, quote, unquote. And I think that's what Minneapolis is right now, sort of a training ground, a demonstration project, a sort of a militarized spectacle of state sponsored violence. Essentially, that is the strength that Trump has wanted to project. And it's really, of course, haunting for all of us as citizens, as mothers. We look at these pictures of families and children. But I think for Donald Trump, it's really remarkable because he's a man for whom fighting and division and conflict are at the core of, of who he is as a person and a politician. And if that conflict doesn't exist, what he's telling us in Minneapolis is that he will create it in order to then come in and solve it. And I think it's the template, unfortunately, you know, not some outlier that, you know, represents an excess that they're going to curve. So I'm very, very haunted, as I'm sure all of you guys are, by this. I was just on a show before it came on with an Ms. Now host, Katie Tour, who was literally almost crying, I think she was crying actually when she was interviewing a woman who had been taking, picking up her children when this little five year old boy was taken by ice and she tried to intervene and say that she would take him and failed. And it was really an upsetting moment. And I think it's, it's an awful moment, but unfortunately it's an awfully predictable moment too.
- [45:59]
Ruth Marcus
Susan is there, if you were advising Trump, how much do you think he should beware the risk of overreach? Because for what I was saying before about the overload, there are some things that we can grasp onto. We can grasp the picture of the five year old with his little spider man backpack and his cute little hat being taken off and I might start crying also. And so is this Trumpian moment also risking an anti Trump backlash or is that too rosy? Scenarioish?
- [46:34]
Susan Glasser
Sure. No, I think it is. I mean, if in fact earlier today Donald Trump was, you know, changed his tune completely about the killing of Renee Good and said, oh yeah, that was terrible, that was a tragedy. However, remember, we have people, I just think they sort of forget the history that Donald Trump has already been in office for four years. The family separation fight of Trump 1.0 is a reminder here that people seem to have forgotten, which is that there was a huge uproar, actually a bigger backlash, sadly, than the one we're seeing now. And a that reflects the, you know, sort of complete and abject failure of the Republican Party to exist as a meaningful entity outside Donald Trump's brain. Because actually during the family separations fight, again, people have forgotten this. There was a huge uproar of Democrats and Republicans and it did cause Trump to back down. However, and this is very important in our reporting almost immediately after Trump backed down from that policy. He was telling his aides in the White House he wanted to put it back into effect. He wasn't sorry at all. And this is the story of Donald Trump on almost any of the very extreme things that he does. He may back away, but it's like with Greenland. Does Donald Trump still want to acquire Greenland? Absolutely. Does Donald Trump still want to impose across the board tariffs around the world? Absolutely. He may find himself stymied at certain points. And I think that's how I look at the situation with Minneapolis. You know, he may decide that in the short term it's gotten too hot and in a very, very cold place and pull back there. But this is core to who he is and what he's doing and the people surrounding him.
- [48:16]
Harry Littman
Wow. And I want to raise a point about this word maybe that's emerging as the watchword of this episode, culture. So, you know, we talked about the FBI culture and how it's been invaded and Rolfed. This, this agency is coming up sort of out of nowhere. There are all these new records, recruits given bounties for individual arrests. And so within the silo of ice, I think there is this very strong kind, not just gung ho, but really brutal kind of culture. You know, the first thing after the shooting, Jonathan Russell, right, he says fucking bitch about the woman he's just killed. So to me, there's a sense in contrast to the previous institutions, where these new guys who are all of a sudden, you know, growing like kudzu in the federal government, are in fact champions of the nastiest kinds of tactics and possibly are encouraged or if not buoyed by all the kinds of pushback and makes them more determined to show who's in charge, you know, on the streets. As a U.S. attorney or the Department of Justice used to investigate individual sort of rogue forces. And let me say, as I always do, most of law enforcement I respect a lot, and they've gotten better. There's some rogue ones, and then sometimes there are national policies that are really ill conceived. This combination with ICE of the kind of huge emphasis from Stephen Miller and Trump on down to this real rogue culture is I think, the most sort of dangerous confluence that I've seen in my career as, you know, in law enforcement.
- [50:08]
Emily Bazelon
I mean, one thing about this that is haunting me is the potential effect on the 2026 election or 28.
- [50:15]
Ruth Marcus
Right.
- [50:16]
Emily Bazelon
I mean, now I'm going to take my turn in the sort of predicting doom chair. Come on in.
- [50:22]
Ruth Marcus
There's lots of room, right?
- [50:24]
Emily Bazelon
I know so like, you know, we have federal laws that say that the government cannot deploy troops in a way that inhibits voting. They're not allowed to be at the polls. But what if ICE is already on the ground in cities like Minneapolis in a way that is aggressive and intimidating and could suppress the vote? Are judges going to really separate? You know, it's entirely possible to likely that this administration will make an argument about declaring an emergency. Or even short of that, oh, we're just out here enforcing federal immigration law. And it just like happens that there are some closeness to the polls or some effect on election day. And that is the kind of argument that is not necessarily easy for judges to dismiss. And also we have this lesson we've been learning, especially since Trump retook office, about how much slower legal remedies can be than the sort of, you know, action of the executive branch by decree and edict.
- [51:22]
Harry Littman
Well, I just want to add a quick thing because I've worked on election stuff. That's the kind of Achilles heel of the whole thing. 2000, Bush, Gore. Everyone knew that butterfly ballad was wrong, but there wasn't time. There's so much stuff you can't do to unscramble the eggs. And speed is always on the side of the, you know, bad guys, as it were.
- [51:43]
Emily Bazelon
The person with the army behind them, for example.
- [51:46]
Susan Glasser
Well, and again, this goes back to your most important point, Emily. Earlier we were talking about the FBI. It's the breakdown of one of our branches of government. If Congress doesn't function and there's no checks and balances, then ICE can do whatever the hell it wants. Donald Trump said, you know, this thing in that remarkable interview with the New York Times, and it was specifically talking about international law. They were asking about Greenland and Venezuela, but he said, no, I don't recognize international law. I'm only limited by my own morality, which, But I think that is his view and he said it out loud throughout his first term as well as this term. He said, basically, I have unlimited power under the Constitution. And I believe that he interprets the Supreme Court's immunity decision essentially to give him unlimited power to order this new militarized force to do whatever he wants them to do. And there's no alternative. Who's gonna stop them if they do arrest a five year old, if they kill a woman in cold blood on video, who's gonna stop them? I mean, who's, you know, that's the point about the FBI. That's again, what I keep coming back to is we have already created the conditions for our own nightmare scenarios. And that's the thing where I'm having a hard time and curious about the other people on this conversation, what your experience is. I don't think people understand that we've already created the conditions for these abuses, that it's not a speculative question about whether this could happen. The only question is what exactly is going to happen? And, you know, how bad will it be? And I, I just don't think people have fully grasped that. They already let the moment go by when the institutions were changed in order to enable this. Billions of dollars have already been given to create a new militarized force like ice, and they are now deployed. The question is only what they're going to do with all those guns and all those people, not whether we can stop the creation of an armed militia that is loyal to Trump and determined to rip people out of their homes without any regard for our loss.
- [54:02]
Ruth Marcus
I am going to take a unusual approach here and be optimistic. Is too strong. But say there remains some countervailing forces, though I take your point. One countervailing force is the courts. As problematic as they are, and as the very important point that the court's remedies take too long to catch up with the reality. Courts have stepped in to stop ice, courts have stepped in to stop the militarization. Yes, we may see the Insurrection Act. Courts have stepped in, grand juries have stepped in to refuse to bring ludicrous indictments. And you know, Lindsey Halligan is no longer the U.S. attorney, nor is Alina Habba.
- [54:54]
Susan Glasser
No, of course, I agree with that.
- [54:56]
Ruth Marcus
Just to be clear.
- [54:56]
Susan Glasser
I'm not saying that there aren't, but I also think, first of all, look at the trauma that we're wreaking on, you know, how many uncounted thousands of people without any justice. Right. I mean, you know, this is an incalculable, you know, sort of thing. And I'm just worried that again, the crisis may be. Has not yet been created that will really test, you know, these new institutions that have been put into place. But they already have been put into place.
- [55:25]
Ruth Marcus
Right.
- [55:25]
Susan Glasser
That's my point. You know, not that there's not any way to stop them, but.
- [55:29]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah, I feel like this is the penalty of paying really close attention right now. It feels like, you know, you're, I mean, Susan, you, you're playing a Cassandra role in a helpful way of like trying to warn people and be clear eyed about what's happened in hopes of addressing it faster rather than slower. And one thing that I think especially Especially the immigration enforcement has been very skillful at, from the Trump administration's point of view, is, is making it seem like the people who are vulnerable are the other.
- [56:01]
Ruth Marcus
Right?
- [56:01]
Emily Bazelon
I mean, immigrants don't have the same rights as Americans. And so there can be a lot of excuse making for this kind of enforcement, like even for snatching up five year olds. Well, this kid isn't here legally. And so we're going to look away and not really think necessarily about the ramifications of letting this power be unleashed against some people in this way that will make it more likely that it comes for American citizens in some way. It's. It just feels like lots of people are still not paying close attention. They are probably not the people listening to this podcast. And one of the biggest challenges is figuring out how to reach them and have this larger sense of a deeper awakening. Right. Like Trump is not popular right now. His numbers are sagging on any number of fronts. And if the normal laws of politics operate, then the Republicans will pay a price for that in 2026. Even before that, Republican politicians will take steps away from Trump and penalize him for his own sagging numbers. And yet right now those signals feel like they're broken. And I think that for me is still hard to understand. I don't really grasp why that's the case, but it feels like a really pressing part of this whole dynamic.
- [57:17]
Harry Littman
It does seem unprecedented in so many ways that he can sort of break what you take to be the normal rules of politics. Let's just go to one other aspect of this. We broach the complete bogus prosecution of Powell. A real element in Minneapolis is the DOJ now subpoenaing, not simply they've made really spurious charges against Frye and Walz, supposedly for impeding, conspiring to impede federal law enforcement with their speeches. They've also subpoenaed Keith Ellison, the Attorney General, and Mary Moriarty, the DA of Hennepin county, where Minneapolis is. What's that about? Or what do you see as the sort of DOJ part of this nasty game? And do you see some kind of mission afoot to basically stamp down on any even state driven investigation of Jonathan Ross, who shot and killed Renee? Good.
- [58:19]
Susan Glasser
I'd be interested what Ruth has to say here. I mean, this is my point. This is happening, guys. I mean, that's the truth. You want to talk about literally opening investigations of members of Congress, of senators, of governors and of mayors who disagree with the administration, opening criminal investigations of them. That is something that has never happened in any of our lifetimes. It is not the American system, and the system has already broken down so that there are people carrying out these orders at the Justice Department and at the FBI. So it's not a matter of speculation. The question is only how far we're going to push it, who else is going to be on the list and how far we're going to take it. And if you don't think that affects you, in Minnesota, they are carrying out what they claim to be citizenship checks and claiming that American citizens have to show them their documents and claiming that American citizens do not have the right to protest. That is not speculative. I am not talking about what might happen during the elections. I am talking about what they're already doing to American citizens.
- [59:32]
Harry Littman
All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and More. Each episode you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.
- [59:50]
Total Wine and More Spokesperson
Thanks, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we break out the three types of vodka to see if there's a clear difference. Vodka is typically a colorless, flavorless spirit served neat and freezer chilled. Simple, right? But long before the shot glasses are topped off and toasts are shouted, there's a fermenting process for vodka. That process involves distilling an organic base like barley, rye, wheat, even potatoes or corn to make one of three types of vodka. Plain flavored and infused rye can add a heavier texture and spice. Barley may be a little lighter and mild, while potatoes can add a creamy mouthfeel. Unflavored is the simplest and most traditional form of vodka. With a mixture of 40% ethanol and 60% water flavored, vodka has recently become extremely popular, adding flavors that range from fruit to dessert. Inspired options like chocolate. A charcoal filtered vodka provides a smoother taste perfect for creating a chocolate martini that tastes as great as it sounds. Lastly, there's infused vodka, also known as botanical vodka, where the distillers infuse the vodka by adding ingredients like herbs, flowers, spices and fruit, which are steamed into the spirit during the distillation process. It's an excellent choice to dial your drink in any flavor direction you want. The best part of them all is that you don't have to travel the world to find the greatest vodkas. Your local Total Wine and more has a large selection of every type and flavor, so all you have to do is clear out a little extra room in your freezer. So find what you love and love what you find only at Total Wine and More. Cheers.
- [61:32]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate.
- [61:38]
Ruth Marcus
Foreign.
- [61:46]
Harry Littman
You've been doing a lot of great reporting on the former special counsel Jack Smith. We tape on Friday, and his big public moment was yesterday. But obviously he is in some ways Trump target number one for a completely unwarranted kind of person prosecution. Let me just start with everyone here, what you thought of his testimony and where it plays in the overall. I mean, you've made the point, Susan, repeatedly, of just the sort of consciousness of the American people to just push back a little on, you know, the facts and what's happening. Was it an important day or not really?
- [62:28]
Ruth Marcus
I think it was an important day for history. And we, we are all, we are people of words and people of sound. We're not necessarily people of video. And yet the power being what had happened was Jack Smith testified earlier in private before the House Judiciary Committee. The transcript of that was released. I believe pretty much the only person who paid attention to it was me because there is so much less power in the printed word than there is in the video. So I thought it was important and slightly jarring, inexplicable choice for the House Judiciary Committee, which had really, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were really bested Smith in his private testimony and again yesterday managed something that I don't think I could have personally managed, which is he retained his absolute, I think the word is sang froid, since we're on various French phrases here throughout this event. I thought the most chilling moment came when he was asked if he expected that he would be indicted and criminally charged in this. And he said, yes, absolutely. And the reason that he expected that was that Trump had instructed the Justice Department to do so. And for somebody who was a career prosecutor to, number one, take that view of his vulnerability, number two, to voluntarily testify a couple times. And Harry knows as well as anybody the risk of multiple testimonies of, you know, you say something slightly differently and somebody can excuse the phrase, weaponize it against you. I thought that was just a, it felt like a very gut punch moment to me. I have to say I do think we see this through two completely different lenses. I watched Jack Smith's testimony and I think Republicans are making a big mistake because he does not look like, to me, like deranged Jack Smith. He looks like deliberate, careful, lawyerly Jack Smith. I think that all the different avenues that they tried to go after him on, was he lobbying for the job? Did he file a brief that was 165 pages, you know, capital punishment for that. Did he seek lawmakers and senators on telephone records, Just their records, just to buttress his case, following Justice Department rules? I thought they didn't lay a glove on him. And yet I am fully convinced that somebody from a different political perspective watching the same excerpts, or perhaps given our siloed news sources watching different excerpts, comes away from that episode with a completely different set of views. And I think that's just really a indictment, if you will, about where we are in our kind of polarized ecosystem.
- [65:31]
Emily Bazelon
I mean, also, it was a big gotcha game, right? For the reasons you said. If they can catch him in any kind of inconsistency between the closed door testimony he gave previously and this testimony, that's what they're looking for. Like that's what he was doing there. It wasn't really about anything else other than that. And it seemed to me also, Ruth, that he did his job, was clear and gave full explanations, but the whole thing was a setup. And so the best outcome is just that he doesn't get indicted.
- [66:01]
Ruth Marcus
Right.
- [66:01]
Emily Bazelon
Like there's no interrupt.
- [66:03]
Ruth Marcus
But I do think that setup is. Might be too. They would love it if it was a setup. I also think that might be too strong because he did request the ability to testify in public. I think he had a lot of confidence, warrantedly so, in his capacity to be deliberative and calm in the face of the Jim Jordans of the world. And I have to say, some of his colleagues make Jim Jordan look Solomonic.
- [66:31]
Emily Bazelon
Yeah, totally. No, that's a good corrective.
- [66:33]
Harry Littman
I mean, look, it was clearly a star chamber. You've made the point in general how people could play gotcha. But these were literally the interlocutors who were looking for any kind of possible mistake. And he needed as a prosecutor, I think, to be very calm as he was even phlegmatic. On the other hand, I agree with your basic point about, I think future documentaries, whatever, will use things from here. You think of Alexander Butterfield and how that leads off all Watergate stuff. On the other hand, I think some people were looking for more kind of klieg, like moments where he really, in sort of dramatic six o' clock news fashion, sticks it to Trump. That was never going to be it. And also he had to be so cautious, he couldn't talk at all about the second case because of Judge Eileen Cannon. Remember that. So I 100% agree with your assessment. Ruth did not lay a glove on him. And that had to be his Goal, though. Some were really hoping for him to really, you know, land some haymakers himself, but that was not in the offing.
- [67:41]
Ruth Marcus
I think that would have been a mistake for him.
- [67:44]
Harry Littman
Exactly, exactly.
- [67:45]
Ruth Marcus
Both legally a mistake, but also in terms of the. What he wants out there in the public record.
- [67:54]
Harry Littman
He's a steady prosecutor. That's who he is.
- [67:56]
Ruth Marcus
Trump cannot say Jack Smith without saying deranged what you want. It's like that guy didn't look that deranged to me. He looked like somebody who played by the rules. He looked like somebody who looked at the law. He looked like somebody who he kept telling us, has prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans, has chosen not to prosecute both Democrats and Republicans.
- [68:19]
Harry Littman
Yeah. And I think it does make it a little harder, even though they seem to be unbelievably brazen to go after him now. There's just such, you know, there's zero to work with.
- [68:30]
Susan Glasser
I was just gonna sort of say, just thinking big picture about it, you know, I mean, I guess I'm sort of of the view that it didn't break through to the. Ruth's point at the beginning of this conversation about just the overwhelming amount of things that we're dealing with this week. And when the president is, you know, sort of rupturing our entire relationship with NATO, it's probably hard for people to focus, and I don't think they did focus on this particular hearing on Capitol Hill. But I'm curious, Ruth, you wrote a really good piece just based on his previous round of testimony. But on this question of have Democrats concluded that it was an error to go after Donald Trump? You could argue that he used the various prosecutions against him very successfully and that it helped him become reelected to the presidency in 2024. It's certainly whatever you think of the merits of any of those cases. Right. You know, it's definitely contributed to a perception across the board that Donald Trump will never face accountability for anything. And he is now, just this week, I believe he actually specifically threatened that there would be prosecutions of those who stole the 2020 election from him. He just said that this week. And I'm just curious, like, listening to Jack Smith and thinking about this. Where do you come out on how history is going to look at this failed effort to hold Donald Trump accountable?
- [70:02]
Ruth Marcus
Well, I think it probably depends on whether you zero in on Jack Smith and the decision that he made, or whether you pull the lens out and think about not just what the legal environment was for Jack Smith and his decision making, but what the political environment Was. And what I specifically mean by that is I think we would think much differently about Jack Smith and the two, I think, righteous prosecutions, indictments that he brought against Donald Trump. We would think of him differently if there hadn't also been Fani Willis, if there hadn't also been Bragg's separate, entirely different indictment in Manhattan. And so I think there was a sense that voters got, whether accurately or not, of a bunch of different prosecutors piling on Trump. I think that as a matter of the political implications, it is fair for and probably accurate for Democrats and others and history to conclude that that backfired. But that doesn't mean that Jack Smith, whose job was not to think about that, whose job was specifically not to think about that, made the wrong decision in the cases that he had before him. I'm very sad that he did not, was not free to testify as fully as he could have, should have been allowed to. About the classified documents case, which is such a straightforward and understandable case, I think reasonable lawyers who look at this either now or 20 years from now will think he was hired as special counsel. His job was not to think about the political consequences. It was to think about what the interests of justice require and how you could look at Donald Trump's role in January 6th and the lead up to that and in the election, the effort to overturn the election and think that he alone should not face legal consequences. Leaving aside issues of immunity is hard for me to stomach.
- [72:09]
Emily Bazelon
I just want to add a bit about the timing, too, right. I mean, Smith was appointed late in the game because Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, pursued other potential routes of investigating Trump having to do with, you know, finances, etc. And so it, that is not Smith's doing that. By the time he started, the clock had been running for quite a while in President Biden's term. And so I always feel like that's an important part of this context, too, that if he had started out earlier and the proceedings had been able to continue longer, then we wouldn't necessarily have the same situation where it's like, you know, the line from the wire, like, if you're going to shoot for the king, you must not miss. And anyway, it's like also about when the indictments came down and then the decision that Judge Cannon made, which, you know, were like, pretty hard to defend, legally speaking, some of her rulings in the Mar? A Lago classified documents case.
- [73:06]
Harry Littman
All true, I and I. But I just want to close with, I think Ruth's question is incredibly important and a little bit inscrutable as we stand now, especially, Trump continues to carry on this indefatigable campaign to rewrite history. He says in DAVOS Yesterday, the 2020 election was rigged before the assembled and you just have to wonder whether in Orwellian fashion that kind of makes inroads so that the responsible historian in 30 years gives it an on the one hand. On the other hand, my best guess is he will go down Trump as a scene guerrilla criminal and all of Smith's charges will be substantiated in the verdict of history. But what an ultimate injustice if that's not the case. Hey, we are about out of time. We have only a minute for our final much loved feature, five Words or Fewer, where we take a question, each has to answer it in five words or fewer. And today's question is what alternate name was considered and rejected for Trump's Board of Peace? Anyone?
- [74:16]
Ruth Marcus
I'll go. I would just call it a Pay up now.
- [74:20]
Emily Bazelon
I like that.
- [74:20]
Harry Littman
Two words left. Very, very good first effort of your first time on talking to.
- [74:25]
Emily Bazelon
No, I was just gonna say we could just call it the Apprentice 2.
- [74:28]
Harry Littman
Wow, we got two people and only five words left. I don't know, Susan, you can maybe go to chat.
- [74:33]
Susan Glasser
I'm gonna take them a couple of the words. It's the Donald J. Trump Committee to run the world. That's what it is.
- [74:42]
Harry Littman
Okay. And I'm going with Nobel Peace Prize Acquisition Task Force. Thank you so much, Emily, Susan and Ruth. And thank you very much listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcast Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylittman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in and don't worry. As long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansam Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Doledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.
- [77:01]
Emily Bazelon
New Year, New Me Cute, but how about New Year, New Money? With Experian, you can actually take control of your finances. Check your FICO score, find ways to save and get matched with credit card offers, giving you time to power through those New Year school goals you know you're going to crush. Start the year off right. Download the Experian app, based on FICO's Core 8 model. Offers an approval not guaranteed. Eligibility requirements and terms apply subject to credit check, which may impact your credit scores. Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details.
- [77:29]
Harry Littman
Experian the New year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.