D (3:28)

Here I wouldn't miss it.

A (3:30)

All right, let's begin. A lot of stuff going on this week, but with Attorney General Pam Bondies appearance a few days ago before the House Judiciary Committee. I guess it was no surprise, but she seemed to go all out to avoid giving answers and also to insult the questioners with pre, pre arranged talking points. To me it had a real kind of nails on the chalkboard feel. Was it purposeful? Does she only have that one speed? In short, what was Bondi thinking?

B (4:07)

She was thinking one thing. How can I be sure I am in the good graces of my cult leader who has already criticized me for not being tough enough. The low point, to me there were many, many low points was basically saying, who cares if little girls were raped? The Dao is at 50,000, she said.

A (4:27)

Wasn't that amazing?

B (4:28)

But there's another point here, Harry, that's important to make and that is, this wasn't just about Bondi. It was about the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans in Congress who have completely abandoned their institutional responsibilities. This is an oversight hearing. Oversight is a core responsibility of Congress. It means the Constitution says that Congress makes the laws. The executive is supposed to make sure that they are faithfully carried out. Executed is the term that's used. Oversight is to make sure that Congress is on top of what the executive is doing. And there wasn't, other than Thomas Massie, there was not a single Republican in the majority on that committee who did even the tiniest bit to move towards real oversight. Oversight is gone in this Congress. They will let Donald Trump and his minions do whatever they want, no matter how unconstitutional, how illegal. And when you have a Pam Bondi giving a middle finger to Congress, not just to the Democrats, and that no Republican stands up when Pam Bondi calls Jamie Raskin, perhaps the most loved member of the House, a washed up lawyer, it tells you volumes about who they are and where they are.

A (5:51)

I also had the impression, I want to know what you think, Charlie. This is your old party. I know, but all of these insults to Raskin, to Nadler, to Ted Lieu were prepared in advance. She came in with nothing to say except these sort of third grade insults. I want to get your sense, as Norm says, obviously performing for an audience of one. It's an audience whose approval ratings are plummeting. Is she even doing her big patron any favors with this kind of contemptuous. It really is the right word, as Norm says, performance.

D (6:31)

Well, Norm is absolutely right when he. First of all, the point about the lack of oversight. I think is incredibly important and the abdication of this Congress. And clearly she was. This was low theater for the audience of one. She needs better writers, by the way, on her juvenile mean girl burn book that she's using. And I certainly expected that we were gonna get the feces throwing howler monkey performance from her that we saw in the United States Senate. But there were a couple of moments that I think really did stand out. One of them was the one that Norm mentioned where she was asked, why aren't you indicting anyone in the Epstein cases? And she tries to divert into the. The 50,000 point DAO, which just landed flat. It was just absurd. It was offensive. And then, of course, there was the really iconic scene, and we've had a million photos of it, where she was invited to turn around and acknowledge the actual victims, survivors in the room, to apologize to them. They stood up, they raised their hands. Most of them had not been contacted by the Department of Justice. Every one of them said that they wanted to talk to the Department of Justice. They were right there. Now, you know, she could have, with a modicum of sympathy, just a scrap of sympathy, she could have turned around, right? She could have acknowledged them. She could have said, I have staffers in the room who will get your contact information if you have information. We want to hear it. This is how we do it. She could have done any of those things. Instead, she. She just sat there. She didn't look at them. She did not look them in the eye. They said afterwards that they felt degraded, they felt insulted. And that was really extraordinary. That was the extraordinary moment, the extent to which the Trump administration now and the Department of Justice have decided that they are going to completely alienate the victims of Epstein after building up this case for many, many years. So it was a horrifically bad performance by Pam Bondi. And the measure of it is when you see the number of folks in the MAGA world who are saying, this was embarrassing, this was terrible, she needs to resign or be fired. I'm always skeptical about divisions in maga. You know, how much of it's artificial, how much of it is simply performative. But there's no question about it. Donald Trump might have been sitting there and saying, you go, girl, but this was an embarrassment. And by the way, I described her as the embodiment of. Of the degradation of justice right now. I mean, she embodied it and played it out in the most dramatic way. And the timing was extraordinary. She comes in trailing these clouds of failure and abuse of grand juries, rejecting it so this was not a great moment for Pam Bondi. It was not a great moment for justice. And I did think the Democrats, you know, were aggressive. But it is certainly not a great moment for the Congress of the United States to allow itself to be turned into this kind of, you know, low, vulgar, crude.

C (9:32)

I agree with everything that Charlie and Norm have said here on this. And it just saddens me that this is the point that we've come to, where the administration's elected officials behave like this. Every American should be appalled. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. This is the Attorney General of the United States. Her job. Whoever is in that position, their job is to uphold the law and to be a fair arbiter of that and not to put on a performance like. And not only was it performative, but it was also Jerry Springer level performative. And that, to me, just undermines the gravity and the importance, I mean, of the department. It's the Department of Justice. And yet she feels empowered and emboldened to go out and disrespect members of Congress. It's not like the members of Congress didn't know, the Democrats didn't know that this is how she'd behave. Right. They said, we've seen how you performed in front of the Senate. They were prepared for her to be obnoxious and to come with the insults. Okay, fine. But I feel like it was a missed opportunity to get out there to the American people and remind them of the absolute corruption, of how she has destroyed the Department of Justice and how unprecedented that is. What they should have done is instead of, you know, if you're going to give her time, what she's going to do. So you just don't. I know that they like to give their soliloquies. They like to have their moments because the members want to get it clipped so that they can say, see, look what I did. I stood up to them. Okay, there's always going to be that. That happens all the time. But then at least use it to not repeat the same things over and over and over again. There is a litany of incredibly alarming and disturbing and potentially illegal amounts of corruption going on in this administration that you can tie directly to Donald Trump and his family, that you can tie directly to Donald Trump's pardons and how they have enriched themselves. Why would you not remind the American people, while you have the spotlight on you at these hearings, to go down that litany? You are a lobbyist for the Qataris. You were a Lobbyist for the JIO Group, which is building the private prisons that are detaining people that are almost like concentration camps in this country. You dismantled the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice. Like, we're not going to sit here and be lectured by you, Ms. Bondi, who you should never have been Attorney General in the first place. And I would never have voted for you if the vote had been in the House. This is why. So the American people know who they're dealing with. I just wish we would have seen more that, more of that. I thought it was a missed opportunity because I don't think the American people fully appreciate how terrible Pam Bondi actually is and what a disgrace she is to the office of the Attorney General.

A (12:21)

You know, I really hear you, that the department has been hollowed out in just horrific terms and ways that I feel this sort of week in, week out. How do you try to communicate it? Events that in at least our world, like resignations and the reprisal prosecutions, things that are completely seismic and antithetical to what the DOJ always has meant. And that will ensure, I think, that in the future, Pam Bondi's AG portrait is somewhere down in the basement. Let me try to zero in a little bit more on the Epstein stuff. Are they now, I mean, there's obviously that sort of ferocious pushback from, from some legislators, from. Those victims were a very eloquent silent tableau, as Charlie says. Are they really now trying to just, you know, tough it out and be done with it and, you know, bear that cost, but gamble on the rest of the country kind of seeing it as leaking out of the tires and old news?

B (13:27)

Yes, exactly.

D (13:28)

Well, shout out to you, Harry. You wrote that piece earlier this week where you laid out what exactly what their strategy was and what they were thinking. So I would urge people to go back and read all of that. I would suggest that the COVID up is failing to cover up. I'm sorry to interrupt you. No, but this was a really good. I thought, well, you talked about the delay, the dump and all of that stuff, but I don't think it's working.

A (13:53)

You don't think it's working? So in other words, you don't think it's serving the purpose of insulating Trump. I mean, look, we simultaneously, we have absolutely abysmal ratings, a lot of discontent in the land. But, you know, it depends on how you see his goals.

B (14:10)

There's another element of all of this, which is that we know from Pam Bondi's Burn book, as it were that the Justice Department was surveilling the members of Congress.

D (14:22)

Amazing.

B (14:22)

We're looking at these files, unredacted files, and they copied what Congresswoman Jayapal had searched, which itself is an outrageous breach of responsibility and ethics. But I also think that in these 3 million pages that they've released, beyond the 3 million that they haven't released, which is blatantly illegal, the law made it clear what the deadline was for the release of all of these files. We are going to find more and more of a drip, drip of suggestions. We already know, for example, that an Emirati billionaire who was deeply implicated in this has had to resign his position. He won't be prosecuted. We're going to find other names emerging with absolutely devastating information in the emails that were there. We know that it's not just Republicans. Katherine Rummler, who was the chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs, has now resigned after it became clear that she had given Epstein advice after he had been convicted. It's just so bizarre that people would do this stuff and the chips will fall as they should, wherever they go. But the idea that they're going to tough this out and have it all go away, I think is a fool's errand whether we will ultimately hold Donald Trump responsible for what he did. And if those names, the names of the perpetrators don't get out there, and this Justice Department views the perpetrators as the victims in all of this, that somehow some of this will get out and this is going to plague them in an ongoing way.

A (16:05)

You know, the redactions that we've talked about, so many of them are apparently names of famous people, but the administration thinks that the consequences, and it's fine in the public sector, in the private sector, but not for them. So I don't understand even how they can circle the wagons around Howard Lutnick, who flat out lied to the country. But their view seems to be not simply, no, not much more to see here, but even that there can be no political scalp or cost to the administration. And how the let Nick drum beat doesn't get louder is beyond me.

C (16:47)

Well, I can tell you why. It's because if anyone in the administration is held accountable, how do they do that and then not hold Trump accountable? It's the same thing with what we went through in Trump 1.0. So instead, no one is held accountable and then we end up with Trump 2.0 because no one was held accountable. It's a really ugly cycle here. And the audacity of Donald Trump to continue to say that there's nothing to see here. And to minimize what happened and to minimize the grotesque nature of Jeffrey Epstein's relationships and his behaviors, and then obviously the survivors and the trauma that they've had to relive. And I give so much credit to all of these women for standing up and speaking out, because it's not easy to do. And this is why a lot of women don't. And so it's encouraging to me to see how the country has rallied behind. A lot of the country has rallied behind these women and that there has been a legitimate bipartisan effort. It should have been a bigger bipartisan effort, but bipart nonetheless. It shows the American people that there is still some amount of shame that you can inflict on some of these people, particularly those members of Congress and elected who have daughters or where you can personalize it to be like that could have been your daughter or your sister or your wife when she was younger. You have to personalize what's going on here to make it relatable. And I think so many Americans, it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, looks at the situation and there's so many layers to it that are unbecoming, that the average American can understand why this is so terrible. But once again, if there are no consequences, then it becomes just another, well, that was terrible. And people move on. You can't do that because, yes, Donald Trump's approval rating is in the tank right now, but it's February. It's February. They have to continue to put this in the short list of egregious things that are destroying this country, from the economy to the character. And that is the message, because they think the American people, their attention span is short, so they're going to forget about this. They'll take the hits now, and by the time November comes along, this is going to be a story. Well, what does the Epstein files have to do with my life? The fact that I can't pay my mortgage or my grocery bill is too high. I'm sorry that happened to those women, but this has nothing to do with me. And that's the risk that Democrats run if they don't couple the Epstein story with a larger narrative that these people are unfit to serve and that they are unfit to have the trust of the American people to govern. But that's the risk that they run. And that's the risk that I think the Trump administration is also taking, thinking that it's not gonna matter when it comes time for people to vote.

A (19:33)

That is the human face from the victims and the shame point. Asha Rangapa wrote a really good and interesting point about it. But Charlie, you had, speaking of absence of consequences, you had a really great piece on your substack about this sort of split screen phenomenon where this is all anchored in the US and here, at least the government, it seems to be cost free or they're looking to just kind of bob and weave. But in Europe, governments are being brought down and people are being brought down.

D (20:06)

Yeah, well, and there's three points I want to make. First of all, the fact is we're still talking about the Epstein files, which is amazing. I mean, that's number one. Number two, I agree with Tara. Donald Trump, though, is not playing four dimensional chess. He's trapping himself. He's putting himself in a box canyon where he can't move out of it and he can't get rid of anybody in his administration without acknowledging that child sex trafficking is a bad thing. So he's kind of trapped. His options are limited. At the very moment when you had the split screen that you're talking about, there are consequences exploding all around the world. You look at what's happening. In fact, just today, you know, we are talking about Norway, we're talking about the gentleman from the Middle east, what's happening in Britain where the ambassador had been fired and now the chief of staff to the Prime Minister has been fired and the Prime Minister himself may lose his position. So increasingly, Donald Trump has isolated himself from the outrage that is breaking out around the world. This story is not going away. You know, events like we saw in Washington are not going to make it go away. It's amazing to me that it continues to go.

A (21:08)

You said that twice. Now. I just want to ask you, you say, on the one hand, it's amazing, we're still talking about it. On the other, you and Tara say it's not going away.

D (21:17)

Okay, no, no, it's amazing that we're still talking about it because. Because the news cycles have been so, you know, fast. Ah, okay. That most of these big scandals, we go, okay, that's gonna be a big deal. And then a week later you forget about it. We are talking about it in February, which is an indication that it is not going away despite all of the efforts that the administration has made. So they're not contradictory. And I think that this has taken Trump by surprise because normally what he does is. Does that Jedi mind joke, you've forgotten about all of this, or hey, have you noticed that I'm bombing this country? We're gonna go to war with Iran if anything comes out. And yet it chugs on. But the split screen is amazing where you are seeing the rolling consequences for everyone who is not part of Trump's circle. So Trump becomes. It really kind of raises the profile as the issue continues to bubble up. There's Trump doubling and tripling down in saying that I'm not gonna hold anyone in my world accountable, because if I do, then I will be held accountable. It is not a great position for.

B (22:17)

Donald Trump to be in just adding one thing. We know that Steve Bannon has been very successful in what he said in 2015. We can manipulate the press by flooding the zone with scandal after scandal after scandal. Cause they handle it. The normal way you deal with this stuff is it becomes a scandal. You report on it day after day after day, and it penetrates the consciousness of people and they've failed on this one miserably, just as Charlie said.

D (22:47)

And by the way, Bannon's going to be a problem for Trump, too. Yes, Bannon is all over these files. And so the question is, what's Bannon's relationship going to be with the Trump administration? I mean, it is kind of a drip, drip, drip, drip here.

A (23:01)

So much so, and I'm sorry, I can't stop myself on. Did you notice they slow rolled the certiorari petition to the Supreme Court and so his conviction is not yet final, meaning they have the same power as they did when Trump came in. Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction is going to get thrown out and there's not a damn thing anyone can can do about it. And it was complete manipulation. And one more thing, you know, we had a caption there of United States versus Bannon, which is to say they're on the same side. You know, the whole, it's just such a tangible demonstration of what's how. How the DOJ has completely switched its allegiance. And I don't mean party wise. I mean from justice without fear of favor to the Trump loyalists.

C (23:51)

And that argument should be made. That argument should be made by the Democrats. Because when people start to say, again, when Republicans question why are we still talking about this? Or Trump tries to do that, or they tried to move off of it, then they need to come back and say, no, this is a broader question about governance. Who do the American people want in charge? Do they want people who are on the same side as protecting child predators and, you know, sex traffickers who are willing to manipulate the system and undermine our system, or do you want people who respect the law, that that is a question that we should throw back to the American people and make the contrast when it's time for to consider voting, because I think sometimes it's not presented that way to the average voter, so they're not forced to think about it in those terms. They think that what happens in Washington or what happens in these cabinet agencies is removed from them. No, Pam Bondi, you work for the American people. The American people pay your tax dollars. In fact, you work for us. We have oversight over you because the American people vote us into office to make sure you're doing what you're supposed to do under the Constitution. Constitution. And you're not. And this is why, like, I just think that there's, there are ways politically where this argument about why we're still talking about this amongst the litany of other things that are hurting people's lives, this also hurts your life when the US justice system is being undermined by people who are this dishonest.

A (25:17)

Amen. And certainly, you know, you tried week in and week out. But I think the talking feds faithful have, have the sophistication to understand this. And, but it is sort of nerdy. But they've totally manipulated the system and cheated to spring Bannon. All right, Mr. Minnesota, here, you've had more than your share of service in the, in the last several years. I wanted to zero in on the news that they are all of a sudden backing away from Minnesota. We know, although they didn't make a big point of it, that they pulled the National Guard from various cities. What's going on? Homan tried to say, Tom Homan, Mr. $50,000 in a Cava bag, that there was this cooperation, but really the local officials sang a different tune, more like, ding dong, the witch is dead. How does Minnesota now fare at the end of this terribly damaging invasion, but having successfully gotten the boot off the neck?

B (26:21)

Well, we'll see if they take the boot off the neck. You know, to be frank, I haven't seen a single statement coming out of the mouths of Tom Homan or Bovino or any of the people involved here that was truthful.

A (26:35)

They lie and lie and lie.

B (26:37)

And we're seeing now in many court cases, one where they said they were assaulted with a broomstick and other things where they've had to draw back. When Tom Homan went into Minnesota to presumably lower the temperature, he said, well, we're changing our tactics. And they didn't change their tactics in the slightest fashion, and they're still going into Courthouses, they're lurking around schools. I will believe they pulled out of Minnesota when I see evidence that they have, and we don't have that evidence yet. But at the same time, there is zero reason to believe that they will change their tactics nationally. We now have the person in charge of ICE saying, we're going to suspend a couple of these agents who lied about what they'd done, and we'll hold them accountable. We'll see if they hold anybody accountable. What? Every one of these people and the Border Patrol is worse. They always have been. They're the ones who, you know, shot Alex Preddy in cold blood, and so far, nothing done about that. If they held anybody accountable where these agents believed that potentially they could be imprisoned for illegal, unconstitutional, sadistic conduct, we might see a change. There's no evidence of that at this point. If they do indeed pull back from Minnesota, as a Minnesotan, I will feel relieved, but I won't feel relieved as an American until we see it in other states as well. And we're now seeing individual atrocities taking place in many other states. They're not getting the same level of attention. And frankly, if they do pull back from Minnesota, it's a tactical move because they know that when we flooded the country with these outrageous videos of what they were doing, all of them in Minnesota and a state which has a small number of undocumented people compared to others, and in Minneapolis, a city which is more than 100 miles from the border. So a lot of the actions they were taking were illegal to begin with. Now they're going to try and diffuse that so that the outrages occur in so many places that it won't get the same level of attention. I give them no credit whatsoever, Harry, even if this is capitulation.

D (29:02)

The breaking news story, and I just wanted to get Norm's thoughts on all of this broke in the last hour, is that the director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said that the two officers involved in the January 14th chase shooting incident appeared to have lied under oath and are being investigated by doj. So, you know, I mean, under normal circumstances, I would think that the fact that you're actually referring people to the DOJ means you're serious about it. But the problem is, this is Pam Bondi's Department of Justice.

A (29:28)

That's right.

D (29:29)

So you wonder whether or not we're gonna have another one of these kabuki dances where it looks like we're gonna have an investigation which, you know, goes nowhere. But it is interesting to at least acknowledge, yeah, these officers lied There have been shootings that have taken place all over the country. And I think that at some point you need to pull back and go, what happened in Minneapolis was awful, but there are a lot of other shootings and there would have been more deaths had it not been for bad aim and excellent doctors who save some lives.

B (29:58)

So let's point out, Charlie, that not only did these agents lie, Greg Bevino lied directly to a federal judge and so far has gotten away with it. And it's bad. Greg Bevino, who after this American citizen was shot five times, and this was after they lied about whether she had rammed their vehicle when it was clear they rammed hers. And the guy bragged about it. And Greg Bevino immediately said, you're terrific. You know, we're going to give you more work to do.

C (30:33)

He told him not to retire.

B (30:35)

So the idea that anybody will be held accountable for this is way too far fetched. The same as Pam Bondi saying now they were going to do a thorough investigation of the deaths of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. Who would believe a word coming out of the mouths of these serial liars and sadistic grifters?

A (30:58)

And how could they do it seriously, when the head of the government has already announced the investigation? One more legal thing, taking that stance makes it gives them more ammunition to prevent or impede the state from going forward. So there's a practical upside. It does seem to me it's such an obvious move to say, okay, if somebody murders in cold blood, we enforce there. But I think Tara's point is so right. There's just this instinct. We can't give an inch anywhere because then, you know, we'll be overrun. Or that seems to be the Trump Doctrine.

C (31:34)

It opens the floodgates because there's so many instances. I mean, I've talked about this before that when I worked on Capitol Hill, I worked on federal law enforcement and immigration issues. And I was a huge advocate for two Border Patrol agents who were in fact unjustly prosecuted by the Department of Justice back in the before times. And so I learned a lot about the way this system works. And I can tell you that before the Trump era, there is no way in the world that one instance of these people on the streets that we're seeing that these agents on the streets that are pepper spraying, peaceful protesters, throwing women into the ground, these aggressive, aggressive moves, they would have been prosecuted under, at least under violation of civil rights, under color of Law, Section 242.

A (32:27)

Yeah, that's right.

C (32:27)

Right. You guys know, and I I watched this in horror going, what is going on? So. But the reason why it's so systemic throughout this agency, well, both of these agencies, ICE and Border Patrol, is because the signal has been put out that they're going to get away with it. That's why Donald Trump will pardon you. We're gonna. Don't worry about it. I mean, the fact that it's so sadistic that we have these text messages and some of the body cam video now where these guys are bragging, patting themselves on the back, and then we hear them say in that video with that poor woman, the teacher in Chicago who was shot five times, he said, quote, do something, bitch. Like, he says this on his body camera. It speaks to the mindset of these guys, unfortunately. But that's because the tone has been set from the top. So you start to just discipline one or two of them because they're so egregious that it demands some kind of. It's probably window dressing to the point everyone has made, because do you honestly trust a real and honest investigation for many of these people? No. But they have to go through the song and dance to shut people up, to make it seem like, well, we are doing something when we all know in the end they probably won't. But, like, if they do it to one or two, then they better be prepared to fire hundreds of these guys who are terribly trained, who are violating civil rights and are doing illegal things every single day on the streets of these cities. Are they prepared to do that? No. Which is why I think a lot of people are calling for. They're saying, abolish ice, which, of course, politically that term is like. But you probably should raise that agency and start something completely from scratch, because we do need enforcement. But this is not it.

A (34:06)

I really agree. And they're saying very strongly, look, it's you against them out there, and we are with you.

B (34:13)

I think we need to tie this actually back together in a strange world with the Epstein stuff there. We're talking about sexual predation against young women. These are predators against children. And beyond shooting people and beating people up, they are using children as lures to bring out their parents. They're throwing children into their concentration camps and keeping them well beyond what the law says they're able to do. They're denying them medications. So this is crimes against children along with everything else. And it's deliberate. This is not accidental.

A (35:04)

All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine. And more 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.

E (35:22)

Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we pop into the beer aisle for a closer look at the two main types of beers, ales versus lagers. And to help separate lagers from ales, it first comes down to one fermentation. That's the process where the yeast does its magic to give the beer its alcohol content and carbonation. Now, ales are fermented with top fermenting yeast at warm temperatures somewhere between 60 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas lagers are fermented with bottom fermenting yeast at colder temperatures between 35 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Because of their warm fermentations, ales can generally ferment and age in a relatively short period of time, three to five weeks. Lagers can take longer, up to six to eight weeks. The difference in temperatures and time means this. The quicker fermentation in ales, including stouts, Hefeweizens, pale ales and IPAs, creates a fruitier, spicier flavor that's crisp and refreshing. At Total Wine and More, we have over 1100 ales, so you can explore all you want. Lagers, including Hellas Pilsners, have a smoother, richer, more mellow and robust flavor than ales, thanks to their longer fermentation time. We can thank the Bavarian brewers from the Middle Ages for discovering the benefits of longer fermentation after storing their brews in ice caves during the winter. In fact, lager in German means to store, which adds up since lager beer was brewed, covered and stored with ice harvested from nearby lakes. At Total Wine and More, we have an ice cave of our own filled with a huge selection of ales and lagers from around the world. Just remember, the next time you enjoy one, give a little cheers to fermentation.

A (37:11)

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. Norm, sticking with you because this is your expertise, do you think? As we move into election season, are the Dems planning to make the midterms all about Trump? And should they? Or should they just track away from Hammond and ignore him?

B (37:35)

I think it's going to be more than just about Trump, and clearly they're now hammering away at the Epstein stuff, but it's going to come back to the economy and it will have to. But I think there's another theme here that Democrats should use as they're seeing more and more people uneasy about what's going on in the country. And that is the old argument for checks and balances. It is why we should have a majority, because if we have a majority in one House, we can put some limits on what these people are doing. And I think that's actually a more effective argument now than I've seen it in the past, although it has worked before in midterm elections. But let's face it, Charlie, Democrats have not had the message discipline that Republicans have had. They didn't go into this hearing with Bondi, going back to what Tara said with a strategy. It's every individual member for himself or herself. And you know, my mantra to the House Democrats for a long time has been get together every night and create a message for the week that everybody carries through on. Because the only way you can really deal effectively with the flood the zone argument is to focus on one thing and have it penetrated the consciousness of people. Now, they may not need that now because Trump's approval is cratering and Republicans approval is cratering. And the low information voters who went for Trump big time in the last presidential election have abandoned him. But their bigger problem at this point, which I'm sure we will get to, is that instead of reacting to a lower approval rating, to losing some of his own base by saying, geez, we better adjust our policies, it's doubled down and we will use voter suppression in every way we have to tilt these elections. That is the so called SAVE Act. It's also what we saw with Tulsi Gabbard outrageously going down to Georgia as they unethically seized the voting records from the last election. It's the promise made by Bannon and others that they will send ICE agents to the polls to haul out citizens to keep people from voting. It's the U.S. postal Service. If they do manage to keep voting by mail, saying that they're not going to postmark ballots when they're actually mailed, but only when they are received at their distribution centers, which will be delayed until they are no longer valid. It's all of those things. And Democrats can't just be about a message. It has to be about finding ways to counter these efforts to tilt the election illegally and irresponsibly.

A (40:22)

It seems to me that Trump has kind of given up on any legislative enactment. He's really doesn't seem to care at all about Congress.

B (40:34)

I think that's been true from the beginning because the Supreme Court gave him a gift. It was basically not only do we believe in the unitary executive, but we believe that the executive is supreme over Congress as well as. So he does not have any interest in doing legislation unless it is something like the SAVE act to basically suppress votes. And the one thing he's concerned about, if there were a Democratic majority, it's not that they'll pass legislation that will make him uncomfortable. He could veto all of that anyhow. It is that they will use this, as he says, to impeach him. But it's not about impeachment. It's about actually having meaningful hearings, having the contempt power, having the subpoena power that they do not have now because the Republicans in Congress have completely abandoned their own responsibility. So it's not about legislating. It's about, you know, finding ways to put them on the defensive.

C (41:29)

It was never about legislating. Yeah, I mean, Trump 2.0 was never about legislating. It was about being the retribution tour for him. He also promised mass deportation, which was a nod and a wink to Stephen Miller and the other nationalists in his orbit. But he doesn't care about that. He cares about the retribution and about enriching himself. And he gets off on the power. And it's obvious he has no use for Congress. He's complained about it. He doesn't respect the balance of powers. He doesn't respect the Constitution. And he's behaved that way since day one. He likes the plenary powers of the Constitution, like the pardon power, where he can just do whatever he wants. But as far as Congress passing laws and him having to abide by those things like they don't care, that's why they're trying to undermine so many parts of the Constitution, because that just gets in the way. You know, why should we even have elections? You know, I mean, the guy doesn't give a damn about actually governing in a constitutional democratic republic that we have here. So it's no shock that he's going to try to find as many executive workarounds to inflict his agenda, whatever that is, at this point, which in my opinion, is just to stay in power, because what else does he have? Donald Trump himself doesn't care about policy, but there are people around him who understand the long game here, which is why they're dismantling so many of these agencies and policies and ridding our government of experts and issue experts and scientists and all these people. This is going to take a long time to put back together. So you have to be careful. It's not just about Trump. It's also the people in his orbit who are embedded in all of these places in our government that are just destroying things in ways it's going to take us a very long time to repair. Those are the more dangerous people, in my opinion, in the long term, which is why you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Or it's not just about Trump. That's true, because he's the president, but it's also the people that come with him. His entire administration is a danger to our democracy.

A (43:44)

I was really struck and I wanted to serve up to you guys, the D.C. grand jury, the six members of the Congress, two sentence senators and four legislators who had issued the public service announcement. They went into the grand jury quietly to try to get an indictment. I've never heard of anything like this. They got zero, count them, zero votes for this. A huge legal blow. But again, Tara, and I think you've been really emphasizing this, they don't give a shit, really, because they're not governing in those terms. Is this the kind of debacle that I, as a former dojer, experience it as?

D (44:28)

Yes. I wrestle with what's truly more incredible about this story? You know, I think a lot of people were kind of blown away that the citizen members of the grand jury, not one of them bought the DOJ line, not one. I mean, that's unheard of, right? I mean, you're supposed to be able to indict a ham sandwich. So that got a lot of attention. However, even more incredible, and this is one where you need to step back, that apparently Donald Trump, who's been pounding and pounding, pounding on Pam Bondi to be more aggressive, wanted criminal indictments of six sitting members of Congress for something they said in a video. This is breathtaking, that he wanted them to be indicted. They tried to indict them on what, seditious conspiracies felony that carries what, 20 years in prison, that they thought that this was a prudent move to do, or something they needed to do to appease Donald Trump. And Jeanine Perrott, who's probably got the longest losing record of any U.S. attorney in American history right now, goes in before a grand jury and tries to do it. There's one other aspect that I think is worth mentioning, is that they do seem to be having a crisis of finding qualified, competent people. You mentioned Lindsey Halligan, the part time guy that they brought in to argue this case, what he's been doing, like dance photography or something like that. So apparently they're having a very, very hard time finding competent, qualified lawyers who are willing to befoul themselves in these particular cases. So what's the real big takeaway? How incredibly vindictive they are, how much overreach you saw in that case, how thorough the rejection was, but also cracks in the DOJ that, in fact, maybe what will bring them down is not the raw racism, recklessness, extremism, all that, but just the ranking incompetence with which they are trying to enact their campaign of retribution. But this was a huge deal, and I think there were a lot of people even on the Republican side who looked at that and goes, okay, seriously, this is what you're spending time on at the same week in which you're, you know, explaining why you are doing absolutely nothing about the Epstein case. You are going after our colleagues for something they said, and you wanted to charge them with felonies. An amazing story all the way around.

A (46:50)

Yeah. And you put it gently about the cracks in the foundation. I mean, it's rubble in the Department of Justice. There's an important distinction. They did bring this dance instructor was someone that Peron had worked with. But it's not simply that they have to beat the Bushes to find anyone who will support Trump. It's that those people come in and they don't know what they're doing. I don't think this case could have been, you know, pulled out of the fire by Jack Smith or anyone else.

C (47:22)

No.

A (47:22)

But, you know, we saw this with Lindsey Halligan as well, and there are collateral consequences to having so hollowed out the Department of Justice in terms of. Of their regular function of public safety, in terms of the confidence of the people that there are actually, you know, law enforcement forces there to protect them or do the right thing. You know, the whole thing is a total debacle. I spent some time last week trying to conceptualize how do you even begin the Herculean task post if we're, you know, in that position, which I think we will be. And, yeah, so much of what she has done, Blanche has done, et cetera, is out of our sight. But when the cavalry returns to the fourth and fifth floor of the Department of Justice, they're gonna find some awfully dazed zombie survivors and really no way to sort of get things going again. It, you know, it seems. Okay, you've mentioned a couple times, Tara, Trump is a real albatross to so many members. But I think there's real divisions within the Democratic Party of how much you try to focus on him and the administration. They, you know, once burned, twice shy, or however you put it, not A crystal ball question, but just a analysis as among your colleagues and former colleagues. What kind of election is it shaping up to be and are we sort of there yet? Are the midterms now the dominant event on the horizon or we're still in Epstein and shutdown and immigration land?

C (49:12)

Well, I would argue that we've been, it's been about the midterms since Donald Trump took office. I mean, the midterms started immediately. Once he took office. It was like, okay, we need to start preparing for what's gonna happen in 2026. That's the way Republicans approach things, as Charlie knows. I mean, we spent many years over there. There's no such thing as an off year. But Democrats have a different approach to this. And so 2025 was a challenge, at least in some of my areas, to get Democrats to understand, particularly Democratic donors and those folks who are normal, to stay engaged. There was a certain, a very long period of time where people were just disengaged. But you know, they may have been, but Trump's side was not. Now you have to catch up. Now the benefit of the, what Trump has done is that usually the devil always oversteps if you give them too much rope. The fact that their biggest policy promise, which was the mass deportation and tough on immigration and all of that has completely boomeranged and it's backfiring on them because they said it would be the worst of the worst. Well, five year old Liam Ramos was not the worst of the worst in his little bunny hat and being used as bait to get his parents. And you know, watching in these, Renee Good and Alex Preddy as American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights weren't supposed to be getting executed on the streets of our, of our country. Like they took it too far. So that even people who were like, well, we think there should be tough immigration, are like, whoa, that's not what you promised. So they're paying a political price for that because people are uncomfortable with it. And then of course, what's happening with the economy, it's always going to come back to how people feel about their everyday lives. And polling across the board and consistently since Donald Trump came in and allowed Doge to come in and completely decapitate our federal government and our agencies. And that sent a ripple effect throughout our economy. Along with the tariffs, all of these things, it's been multi pronged that are impacting people's everyday lives. It's forcing them to go, oh my gosh, okay, we're dealing with this every day. How do we make it stop. Well, it's the elections. How about you don't vote people like this into office, you vote them out of office. But Democrats need to make sure that they have a coherent enough message that ties all of this, you know, flooding the zone of chaos every day into a coherent message that we are not going to do that. You elect us, we are going to do this. Which is what our responsibility to you is as elected officials, health care, your small businesses. We're going to make sure that there aren't masked men snatching people off your streets like we need to. They almost need to take restoring order away from the magas and co op. That message, turn their message around, take the America first message and say whatever state they're from, it's going to be Texas first, Iowa first, New Jersey first, California first. Because I don't know what Donald Trump is doing. Donald Trump is doing Donald Trump first. They talk about America first, but how are any of these things America First? So they just, they should just turn it around, turn it around on them and bring and remind the American people who the adults in the room are and what it looks like to actually govern.

A (52:26)

Okay, a couple quick points. First, we just learned, you know, in the recent study shows that directly contrary to everything Trump has said, it's the American people who are paying for the tariffs and all the promises.

D (52:39)

Overwhelming.

A (52:40)

And then just one more point about Pam Bondi. And I agree, nothing like that tableau, but that one answer, you know, she couldn't even say, she wasn't even a position to say, well the price of eggs are down. She had to say, well the Dow is at that, that really sort of hits home to the regular American people. Here's my big response anyway. Charlie Sykes wanna take us home.

D (53:06)

Well, obviously we need to focus on the midterm elections and Democrats have to figure out how to win. And by the way, any way to win, they need to do it. They need to decide whether or not they are more interested in winning than scratching their ideological ID or chasing next bright shiny object. The other problem is there's a real danger. I think they need to run through the tape on this one because it's not about the midterm. It's about 2028 and they're going to have to get their act together to come up with an alternative to convince the public that they are not, you know, extremist, dangerous, you know, left winger social Democrats. They need to make the case that we are the party of common sense, of patriotism, that we will make you secure that we will make you prosperous, that we're for you and that he's for them, all of those things. But also, don't make the mistake that other parties have made in the past, which is to misread a victory in the midterm election as setting yourself up for the general election on issues like immigration is not sufficient. It is necessary to be adamantly opposed to Donald Trump's immigration policy. Absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient unless the Democrats come up with an alternative that is plausible, that they take the issue seriously. And so there is going to be a debate there. The danger, of course, is to let the id, the opposition, you know, push you into the kinds of positions that I think have, have hurt the Democrats in the past. I think they're going to do very well in the midterm. But the midterm is, is basically just the first round of the playoffs. It is not the Super Bowl. The super bowl is still coming up and the super bowl is still going to be a climb for them.

A (54:43)

And there you have it. And you know, Trump always looks terrible in isolation, but yeah, but it's always a specific contest. And one thing he is very good is at savaging other candidates. Okay, we just have a minute for a final feature. Five words or blockbuster story in the Wall Street Journal today about an all but open affair between DHS head Kristi Noem and her advisor, Anne Trump crony. We saw him in front of Congress looking contemptuous a few years back. Corey Lewandowski. And so the question is, what are the lovebirds doing for Valentine's Day? Five words or fewer.

D (55:26)

Oh, my God.

C (55:29)

Give me a second.

D (55:30)

I think it's too creepy to think about Valentine's Day between Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski. So I'm just gonna go with the regular traditional five words, five words advice. Christy, next time. Shoot. Corey.

C (55:47)

I've got it. It's morose, but hopefully not shooting more.

B (55:52)

Puppies, lovingly killing dogs and goats.

A (55:58)

And in honor of the Epstein disclosures, I'm going with with redaction. With redaction and redaction. Thank you so much, Norm, Tara and Charlie. 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 Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylitman.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 take 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 after 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 Hadrenathan, Emma Mason 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 Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.

F (58:20)

It's tax season, and at LifeLock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.