Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:00]
Total Wine Host
Hey guys. Finding the perfect gift for the food
- [00:02]
Charlie Sykes
lover in your life is easy thanks to Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships America's most iconic foods
- [00:08]
Total Wine Host
straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin BBQ from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has you covered. Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time get 20% off your first order with promo Code Gift. That's Promo Code Gift.
- [00:29]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Starting a business can seem like a
- [00:30]
Liz Oyer
daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com specialoffer.
- [01:03]
Harry Littman
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion on the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. After some last minute drama and a razor thin vote, Todd Blanche won confirmation as Attorney general. The pivotal Republican senators whose votes put Blanche over the top offered make weight reasoning that ignored Blanche's record of fundamental abuses in office. It's a shameful ratification of Blanche's lawless service and personal dedication above everything else to Donald Trump. Elsewhere, Trump and his acolytes didn't fare as well. The President continued to fume at Jeanine Perrott after she dropped her bogus prosecution of the hand picked scapegoat for the Reflecting Pool debacle and a court of appeals rebuffed Trump's emergency effort to restart building on the East Wing ballroom. Trump closed the week by issuing new executive orders aimed at narrowing the guarantee of birthright citizenship. One order seemed to flagrantly contradict the recent Supreme Court ruling that rejected Trump's previous attempted REWRITE of the 14th Amendment. This new line of attack on immigrants comes on the heels of a record setting month for the administration's deportation drive. To discuss a week packed with drama on Capitol Hill, in the Oval office and in D.C. courtrooms, I'm pleased to welcome three superb commentators with expert insight into the resulting political and legal fallout. And they are Liz Lawyer Liz was the US pardon attorney from 2022 until Trump fired her in March 2025. She's now a prominent and vital legal commentator. She's got a great substack lawyer Oyer and a podcast of her own, is this really Legal? And I'm always glad when I get to say this. It's her first time on Talking Fed. So welcome and thanks for joining.
- [03:29]
Liz Oyer
Liz, thank you for having me. Great to be here.
- [03:32]
Harry Littman
Not her first time, but it's been a minute from the days when she was a stalwart that I hope will return. But Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon, and she has represented parts of southeast Pennsylvania since 2018 and has risen to prominence in the House. She's on the House Judiciary Committee and Rules Committee and a ranking member for subcommittees for both. Great to see you again, Congresswoman Scanlon.
- [03:59]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. Glad to be here with my favorite
- [04:01]
Harry Littman
legal eagle and a current and prior stalwart of talking feds, Charlie Sykes, known to all but a founder and former editor in chief of the Bulwark. Also a longtime radio host for WTMJ in Wisconsin. His substack to the contrary, where I'm really pleased to be a regular guest hosts terrific analysis and conversations in defense of our democracy. Great to see you as always.
- [04:29]
Charlie Sykes
Charlie Sykes, Good to be back, Harry.
- [04:32]
Harry Littman
All right, the news of the morning of the day. Todd Blanche, we learned this morning it's all over. But the voting for Mr. Blanche seemed nail biting for a second there when Lisa Murkowski came out opposed. But Bill Cassidy, the final decision maker, he's decided to support Blanche and that almost certainly puts him over the top. Let's start with what Cassidy had to say. He was influenced, he said, by former ags, especially Bill Barr. Barr had made this argument in the Wall Street Journal that Blanche will keep the trains running on time better than another choice. He didn't even mention the former ag, the litany of misconduct, the tax case settlement, the reprisal prosecutions, does the rationale well better than the next guy and he'll be able to keep things running hold water in your view?
- [05:29]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
If I can say, I don't think it's the Senate's job to say, oh, it could be worse. I mean, if the Senate would actually stand up and do its job and vote down some of these yahoos, I think we'd be in a much better place.
- [05:43]
Liz Oyer
Yeah, this is absolutely pathetic. I mean, what Cornyn said a few days ago is very similar to what Cassidy said today. Cornyn said there's nothing we can do to rein in this president. And that's essentially what Bill Cassidy said on the Senate floor Today that he thinks that Todd Blanch, essentially the best we're gonna do. It is actually their job under the Constitution to reign in this out of control president. That is the whole purpose of this advice and consent process that we have gone through. It has been incredibly, incredibly up and down. It's been a roller coaster. But at the end of the day, every single person has folded. Tillis and Cornyn folded, and now Cassidy has folded and now Blanche is going to be confirmed. And the Senate is essentially endorsing everything that Blanche has done to date based on the decision to confirm him. I mean, Cassidy's logic was something along the lines that we are helping Blanche by giving him Senate confirmation to push back on Donald Trump. That makes no sense. What they're actually doing is they are endorsing everything Blanche has done in service of Donald Trump, all of the corruption, all of the misconduct over the last 18 months, and they are now giving him a mandate to keep it going.
- [06:55]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I couldn't agree more strongly. I'm trying to come up with a stronger word than pathetic to describe the cave in. I mean, I suppose after 10 years, we should be used to Republican senators caving in. If the rumors of Republican conscience had a glimmer of truth to it, this would be the moment when you would stand up the architect of the Epstein file, cover up all of the corruption, the weaponization, and then you just vote to confirm him. When everything is happening in broad daylight, we are seeing the most corrupt administration in American history. And what does the Senate do? Basically say, there's nothing we can do about it. We have no constitutional role in reining in the president. Liz is absolutely right. What is the whole point of the United States Senate except to rein in the executive when it engages in this extra unconstitutional behavior? And every single day we get another indication of how far Donald Trump is prepared to push the law, to bend the law, to come up with new ways to grift and graft from the Oval Office. And what does the Senate do? Say, yeah, let's put in this yes man who has proven that he will do anything. Now, I suppose the only logic which escapes me is that if you don't confirm him, it'll be what, Matt GAETZ two Again, it'll be somebody worse. But again, this is not the job of the Senate to do that sort of thing. And I will admit to a flicker of naivete that I thought that this might be the vote where the people who were feeling a little bit of buyer's remorse over voting for Tulsi Gabbard and Cash Patel and RFK Jr. And Pete Hegseth would go, you know, not going to be fooled again. But they're all in. They're all in.
- [08:39]
Harry Littman
I've just got to add, you know, Liz used the word endorse and you used the word record. Look, some of these other things, the close calls, you could stand up and say, maybe in office, this is a ratification. And a ratification of what they know is really, I mean, it really pains me. And Liz, as alum and congresswoman, you've been really focused on oversight of the doj. You can't do worse. You can't be more antithetical to the mission of justice without fear or favor than bringing cases for which there's no evidence, not to mention all the self enrichment. So, really, I think I'll go with pusillanimous for the adjective. We were seeking out, Charlie. But the really pusillanimous point here is they completely knew what they were doing. He's not only staked the claim in his actions, he's championed them. He said the president has every right to bring cases without any factual or legal basis and literally defended it. And, you know, this point of, oh, he'll push back on Trump. There's maybe the slightest evidence that he'll do it when they're gonna lose for sure. But there's zero effort of trying to reign him in and follow the Constitution.
- [09:58]
Charlie Sykes
See, this is the key. It is the ratification is the embracing and endorsement of everything he's doing. But it's happened in broad daylight. They will not be able to say later, I didn't see that coming. Well, I didn't sign up for that. They have signed up for everything that comes because it's not as if the evidence wasn't there. It's not as if the warnings were not there. It's not as if they didn't have a critical mass of people who could have pushed back. And by the way, the naivete of Cornyn and Tillis believing that somehow they had gotten some sort of an agreement on the slush fund, there's, you know, loopholes you can drive. Drive trucks through. And I'll leave it to the lawyers to describe that. But naivete doesn't seem a strong enough word either to describe that. That cave in.
- [10:43]
Liz Oyer
Lisa Murkowski got it exactly right when she said in her statement explaining why she was opposing him that Blanche can say whatever he wants right now while the Senate has leverage over him. But as soon as he is confirmed, the Senate has no leverage and he is Free to revive this slush funds, to revive this immunity agreement, to do whatever he wants. So she is not the only person who sees that and knows that. She's just the only person who was willing to say it out loud. I have to say that what shocks me is that there are so few Republican votes that are even in play on this particular nominee. I mean, Murkowski and Collins cited laundry lists of reasons to oppose Todd Blanche, ranging from the Epstein files to what he recently told abortion groups about making Dobbs the law of the land in every single state, to the politicized prosecutions and abuses of the mishandling of the Epstein files and mistreatment of the victims. I mean, there are so many reasons, how can we be talking about this coming down to about five Republicans who are even giving any serious consideration to whether to reject this nomination.
- [11:50]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
So Murkowski and Collins have gotten it. I'm wondering if the through line is the way Pelosi got it. At the same time, this is toddler management, right? If you allow a toddler to keep misbehaving, if you don't shut it down early, then they just keep pushing the bounds. I mean, when one of my kids was 2, he drove us crazy until we figured out that no, you had to really be firm and say no and mean no. It feels like that is the continuing story with the Senate. It's like, oh, well, you know, be good this time and we'll let it go. But to see it in this context with the Attorney General of the United States, when it's someone who already has displayed so much misconduct around production of the Epstein Files, around a variety of other things he's been involved in and has been unable to separate himself from being the President's lawyer, whether it's with respect to Ghislaine Maxwell or with respect to the tax cases, et cetera. I mean, the man just should not be up for that position. And you can't excuse it.
- [12:56]
Charlie Sykes
So, Harry, a couple of weeks ago, I said voting to confirm Todd Blanche would be like the Senate voting to confirm John Mitchell after Watergate, after all this. Except this is way worse, I actually think, because there's been a Watergate every single week, so that falls short. Also, I remember the last time I was on your show, Barbara Boxer was on. The former senator from California. What was her line about Susan Collins? That Susan Collins will always show up when you don't need her.
- [13:25]
Harry Littman
Right.
- [13:25]
Charlie Sykes
And so, you know, this morning when I saw that she was gonna vote against Todd Blanche, I thought, well, you know, that she will never be the decisive vote to take him down. So she probably looked around, saw what the vote count was, knew that she could vote no without effect, which is kind of, kind of her brand, isn't it?
- [13:44]
Harry Littman
Yeah. Well, let's follow up with just that. And the point you made. Is there a way of seeing this as all theater? I think it's not just Collins, but the leadership. That said you're in a tough fight in Maine. They've gone blue. Last presidential elections. This one you can do will forgive you. Susan, Wonder if the whole thing, you know, they, they had kind of calculated was coming down to Cassidy, even Murkowski. You know, in a sense, every Republican makes out here. They, you know, Cornyn and Tillis and Murkowski and Collins get to say that they were opposed, but he gets the ag, Trump gets his trophy. I wonder if this was more sort of stage managed to look more dramatic than it actually was. That's sort of an imponderable. But, you know, you' been there, Congresswoman.
- [14:36]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, we've seen that in the House explicitly with a number of these big votes, whether it was the big ugly bill or voting to extend the Affordable Care act tax credits. I mean, we see time and time again these folks in these tight elections kind of get a by, but they still pass it through. And so Trump gets what he wants and these folks get to go home. There's one in my state and they say, oh, yep, no, I'm really independent, even though when it counts, they provide the votes that they need to pass some of this stuff.
- [15:06]
Liz Oyer
What I can understand is what is going on with these senators who are on their way out of office. I mean, a couple of folks that we've been talking about had their political careers ended by Donald Trump. They owe him nothing. There is no way that he can hurt them politically. So why are they continuing to do his bidding? That would apply to Cornyn and Cassidy in particular, who lost to primary challengers who were backed by Donald Trump. And I keep coming back to this idea that there must be something that they are worried about when they go out into the private sector. Are they hoping to sit on boards that Donald Trump could potentially block them from? Are they hoping that they will have opportunities in the private sector that Donald Trump could take away from them? There has to be some explanation for why they are still doing his bidding. And I am particularly surprised by John Cornyn because during Blanche's confirmation hearing, he asked very hard legal questions about this settlement fund. And he made the point that your say so that it's dead does not make it dead as a matter of law. This is a legally binding contract and the only way it can be modified is with the consent of both parties in writing. That would mean Donald Trump would have to agree to it in writing. We all know that he won't agree to it. In fact, he is appealing the decision of the court in Florida that held that it was illegally entered into, which shows that he is actively trying to keep the fund alive. So the idea that he is now satisfied with this one sided memo that Blanche signed, that doesn't have buy in from Donald Trump and has no legally binding effect. I mean, it just doesn't address the issues that he raised at the confirmation hearing at all. It is legally worthless. And I am just searching for an explanation as to why he folded.
- [16:50]
Charlie Sykes
Well, Liz's question is exactly the right question because I think one of the enduring mysteries has been the willingness of senators and congressmen to humiliate themselves. And there was a time when a senior member of the United States Senate had a certain amount of pride and a certain amount of dignity and, you know, would not cave in this particular way. It's like, okay, you have no political future anyway. Why not do the right thing? And here's a very bright line of the right thing. You have to understand that there is life after office. But if you buck Trump on something like this, you will be excommunicated. You will not be just thrown out of office, but your other opportunities, the corporate boards, that entire ecosystem that you've lived in. I mean, let's face it, you know, these people have spent years developing a network of contacts, of friends, of associates, business people, and they have to return to that. Do they want to be lobbyists? If you're a lobbyist, who's going to take your phone call if you're Persona non grata? I think these are bullshit explanations. I think that there's a certain point where you can do it. But I think that they're terrified that, oh, you know, I'm going to end up like Jeff Flake or I'm going to end up like Liz Cheney. You know, the Democrats are not going to embrace them, the left is not going to embrace them. They will be orphans, they will be on a small desert island. Some of us are okay with that. But obviously people who have spent their lives in politics are not okay with that. But the extent of alienation from everyone you've known and done business with is complete. Now in the MAGA universe, I mean,
- [18:26]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I think that plays out, as we've seen with the white shoe law firms. Yes. You know, some of them caved immediately. And those are the types of places that senators end up. Now, not all of them caved. And the ones that fought back to Charlie's point were successful. So it is a choice. And they may be making a false choice there, but certainly in certain quarters, not only will you be Persona non grata, but the place that might possibly hire you will be Persona non grata. And if the experience of former House members is anything, you could get charged with mortgage fraud, or you could get charged with other crimes, or you could just have to deal with the litany of death threats that Republican electeds who oppose Donald Trump seem to get on a daily basis when he turns his eye of Sauron on people.
- [19:20]
Harry Littman
Well put. Yeah, that's a really that general point. Their ruthlessness, remember, with the law firms, anyone who was affiliated in any way, they would go after, they would really try to bankrupt them. Liz, you testified to the Senate about Blanche's unfitness. Can you just tell us about the core of your case against him and whether it's been answered by anyone in any way?
- [19:45]
Liz Oyer
The short answer is no. None of it really got any traction whatsoever. But I testified, starting from my own personal experience at the Department of Justice, I was a non political official. I was a career employee, meaning that it was expected that I would continue to serve regardless of who held the presidency. So my tenure started during the Biden administration, but continued under Donald Trump until Todd Blanch was confirmed as Deputy Attorney General. About seven weeks into the administration, he fired me. He sent me a one page memo saying, you're fired under Article 2 of the Constitution. And what had happened leading up to my firing is what I talked about in my testimony, which is I was asked by Mr. Blanche's staff to rubber stamp a political favor for a friend of the President. I was asked to sign off on reinstating the firearm ownership rights of the actor Mel Gibson, who has a personal relationship with Donald Trump. He had lost his right to own a gun when he was convicted of a very serious crime involving domestic violence. And he wrote a letter to the Justice Department after Trump was reelected and back in office saying, please give me my gun rights back. And I was in turn asked to recommend that the Attorney General sign off on reinstating his gun rights based on his relationship with Donald Trump, not based on merits or considerations of public safety. It is actually very dangerous to arm domestic abusers. And without any investigation or reason to believe that he could safely Have a firearm. I couldn't make that recommendation. And literally within hours of communicating that to Blanche's staff, I was fired. So I spoke about that in my congressional testimony. And I also spoke about the larger harm that Todd Blanche has done to the Department of justice during the 18 months or so that he has been leading it as Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General.
- [21:35]
Harry Littman
A very glum and disappointing day during the debate. We did hear some pretty strong opposition from the likes of Senators Whitehouse and Schiff. I wanted to direct this in the first instance to you, Congresswoman Scanlon. Do you think that the controversial issues that Blanche skated by on are likely to resurface as oversight, even possibly impeachment issues? Should the Dems take back the House or the House and Senate?
- [22:06]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I hope so, yeah. I mean, I think he certainly left the door open for some high crimes and misdemeanors, and certainly we have some very talented people leading the Oversight Committee now. So I wouldn't be at all surprised, particularly if this continues. I mean, right now he's embroiled in a fight with the federal judge over failing to produce the documents for judicial review in the Epstein matter. So, yeah, I think there'll be plenty of material.
- [22:37]
Harry Littman
Let's move now to another prominent Trump Dojer, who you could say is in hot water. So Jeanine Perot had to drop the Reflecting Pool case with a humiliating confession that they just got it completely wrong and they're chosen. Patsy Davey Hearn was innocent. Let's start with Perot. I wrote a substack a couple on this, but on Monday saying no Brownie points here, she was sort of forced into it, but I know there's other views. Taking the conduct of the whole case from announcement to where we stand now, how do you sort of evaluate her role as against what a U.S. attorney ought to be doing?
- [23:24]
Liz Oyer
One thing that's really remarkable about the motion to dismiss that Pirro filed in this case is that it's 20 pages long. When the government is trying to dismiss a case, they usually submit something very short to the court. She felt like she had to justify why she was moving to dismiss this case, this prosecution that's very important to the President and very politically charged. And her reasons to my view as a lawyer, really mapped out exactly why she and her colleagues who brought this in the first place should be dismissed, disciplined. She acknowledged that she did no investigation before bringing these charges. She essentially says she has now investigated and sought information from the Department of the Interior about what really happened. And now that they've given her the information. She knows that there is no legal basis for these charges. So it is prosecuting 101 that you start with the investigation, you conduct the investigation before you bring the charges. So she should have had all of this information. She should have known everything that is in her motion to dismiss before she decided to jump to bringing the most serious type of charge, which is a felony charge, against Mr. Hearn. She basically gave a roadmap, I think, to a bar misconduct complaint against her and her colleague for failing to investigate before bringing criminal charges. This is not like filing a frivolous lawsuit. This is bringing a prosecution that endangers the liberty and the constitutional rights of a citizen of our country. So to do that so recklessly without conducting the appropriate investigation is really just a tremendous betrayal of the sacred duties of a federal prosecutor.
- [25:04]
Charlie Sykes
And this is the Blanche Department of Justice, though. I mean, it's going back to our first topic. And if she ends up getting fired, it's sort of a signal that, you know, you sign up to work for the Trump Blanch Department of Justice, and you will be asked to engage in exactly this kind of conduct. Because the president doesn't care whether there is evidence. He doesn't care whether or not the charges will go through. He just wants to push the big lie, even though it seems sometimes trivial and comical. The reflecting pond, although obviously bringing criminal charges is not comical at all. Where Donald Trump wanted his supporters to believe the obvious lie, that this was vandalism, and to bring the charge to advance that, but here you also have this collision of kleptocracy with kakistocracy. The kleptocracy being the criminal behavior. The kakistocracy of the government by stupid people. This is what happens when you stock your government with loyalists as opposed to people who are competent and smart. So you have this incredible scene in the Oval Office where Jeanine Perrott, of all people, is saying that the Secretary of Interior, Doug Burgum, is an incompetent
- [26:12]
Harry Littman
liar who's in the office. He's across from her, right.
- [26:15]
Charlie Sykes
And he's been lying to Donald Trump and probably enjoying this whole thing. But this is an extraordinary moment where Donald Trump's lies and his ability to push the Department of Justice to do obviously, the kinds of conduct that Liz just described should be subject to disbarment. Again, you sign up now for this, you're putting your law license at risk because you know that this sort of thing will be demanded. That's why Pam Bondi is gone. And Todd Blanche is there because Todd Blanche will never say no to Donald Trump. But again, one of the great ironies of life is that Jeanine Perot, of all people, is the one who basically said, yeah, I'm not falling on this sword.
- [26:59]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
And isn't that where, you know, when everybody's fretting about how far is this going to go and what is going to save the country and the Constitution? The courts have been the backstop through so much of this because even the folks who are, you know, will do almost anything for Donald Trump when it comes to lying to the court and, you know, suborning perjury and making up cases when we've got lawyers who don't want to put their livelihood at risk, that that's where the rubber meets the road some of the time.
- [27:31]
Liz Oyer
Yeah. I just want to point out that this ties back to something that happened earlier this year that kind of flew under the radar, which is that the Justice Department, while Pam Bondi was still there, proposed a new rule that would prohibit state bar associations from disciplining lawyers who work for the Department of Justice. So state bar associations across the country are the ones who have the authority to impose discipline on licensed attorneys that is external to the Justice Department, and they are under the control of individual states. It has been taken for granted for decades that Justice Department lawyers are subject to those rules of conduct. This administration does not like that because they have lawyers sticking their necks over the lines of legal ethics all the time. And those people do not want to be accountable to anyone outside the Justice Department because they can't count on Donald Trump having their back or getting them out of trouble or granting them pardon or cleaning up their mess. So they are trying to shut down those external disciplinary authorities. And in Washington, D.C. where many lawyers at the Justice Department are licensed, they have. The Justice Department is actually suing the State Bar Council to try to block them from disciplining lawyers in the Justice Department. State bar associations are incredibly important right now because they're one of the last lines of defense against attorney misconduct and abuses of the authority of the Justice Department. And that is exactly why the Justice Department Department is trying to shut them down.
- [29:03]
Harry Littman
And it used to be, by the way, I want to point out, as Liz will know, there were two avenues of real serious potential sanction. One was internal. You know, the inspector general's inspectors general, sorry, in the various agencies, they have all been pithed and made to be Trump loyalists. So really is the states are the ones left. And there is already a complaint pending against Perot that this is now more fodder for. In fact, this gets a little legal, but I think it's important. So she moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning they could bring the charges again. And there is Trump in the Oval Office saying, you folded like an umbrella. You choked. I still think it was vandals, et cetera. And I wouldn't feel comfortable if I'm hearing that it won't come up again. And here I think they've done something really clever. You should dismiss it with prejudice, that the prosecution acted in bad faith. And there is, once you start looking carefully what happened in the grand jury, they didn't put in. They made this a felony on the guy. A total. It's just Kafkaesque as can be. He's just made to order for this talking point. And they didn't give the grand jury any information about the element that makes it a felony, namely damages. And the grand jury asked about that. Now we know in this recent motion, 20 minutes pass, they bring the guy back, and he says, oh, yeah, I think it's $1,000 easily. And the prosecutor says, well, I think that takes care of that. Right, Ladies and gentlemen, if that's as it seems to be from the motion, that's flagrant prosecutorial coaching and misconduct. And what it means for Jeanine Perot is this case that she wanted to put on ice is very active, and it's the exact kind of thing that could result in bar charges for her.
- [31:00]
Liz Oyer
Yeah, she probably hopes that it will be dismissed with prejudice, even though that's not what she's asking for, because that will put an end to this. And then she can blame the judge for saying, you know, for ending the case permanently. There is nowhere good for her to go with this.
- [31:15]
Harry Littman
I think that's really right. I think they. And maybe they'll even do it, knowing what lies behind. Let me just ask. We've all seen, you know, Noam Bondi, people be on kind of death watch and they all get decapitated. It seems pretty bad for her, but she goes back with him a long way. Do you have a sense. Is she hanging by a thread at this point with Trump, or has she stared down the crisis?
- [31:43]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
All of my White House sources. Yeah, Yeah. I don't have any.
- [31:48]
Charlie Sykes
Mary Gay.
- [31:49]
Harry Littman
Mary Gay.
- [31:50]
Charlie Sykes
We all have that in common, right?
- [31:53]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I mean, certainly there are other people who are supposedly on death watch. I mean, we keep hearing about Hegseth, and he seems to have stirred up a little White House, sire. I'm hearing. Because I've been doing a lot of work in the immigration sector that Mag is not happy with Mark Wayne Mullen because he understands there's a distinction between someone who crossed the border legally versus illegally and has a pending asylum case. So, you know, get in line. Janine.
- [32:19]
Liz Oyer
Yeah, I don't think that she, I think she's one of the few that doesn't really feel like she has a lot to lose if she's fired. I mean, she's at the end of her career. She's kind of doing this as a capstone type of job. She doesn't need the job. And if this is the end of the road for her, I don't think that she's going to go kicking and screaming. But I think that may be exactly why Donald Trump will keep her around. She's a pretty no drama, no nonsense type of person. She actually has quite a bit of legal experience, unlike many people who are thrust into these important jobs. And, you know, she's not gonna embarrass herself to save Donald Trump, but as a result, she's probably also not gonna embarrass him in some of the ways that some of these other folks might. So I wouldn't be surprised if she's able to hang on. And I think that if she doesn't, she, she probably will not go with all of the drama that like a Kristi Noem, for example, brought to the table at the end.
- [33:14]
Harry Littman
That seems really a smart point to me. Just a, you know, one quick question on the this just in. Breaking news of this morning. We tape on Friday. The appeals court, 2 to 1 vote, has now blocked Trump's ballroom. And I would think, Congresswoman Scanlon, it must have been booing for you that they were if you've had a chance to look at it, it's not simply on the law, but they were so strong on the need for congressional approval, this being about Congress's authority to mar and really deface the beautiful landscape of Washington, D.C. let me ask you this, since we have the privilege of having you with us. Do you see any possibility now that Congress, which the court is saying, clearly it's your job, we'll actually step up and try to take control of the issue.
- [34:07]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I would love it if Congress would do that, but I don't have a whole lot of hope under Speaker Johnson because he doesn't do anything unless Donald Trump tells him to. I mean, I'm thrilled with the decision. You know, just the idea that this is the ultimate people's House, the White House, this is the people's Capitol and it's not the back nine at Bedminster. So, you know, we really, Congress should be involved in these discussions. And it's just, it's another area where the failure of Republicans in the House and the Senate to step up and say, wait a minute, you know, put the brakes on this is just mind boggling to me.
- [34:49]
Charlie Sykes
I'm fascinated to see what the Supreme Court does with all of this. All of the originalists on the court, whether or not they will recognize that Congress actually has a role. I don't know what Liz thinks about that. I just, it's hard for me to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. But it is interesting. The appeals court did go pretty hard on Article 1 versus Article 2 and what you need to do. And you know, the Congress is not a bunch of potted plants.
- [35:17]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
All evidence to the contrary.
- [35:18]
Charlie Sykes
All evidence to the contrary. But it will be also, let's say that they, you know, uphold this decision. What an interesting vote for members of Congress to have to take maybe before the midterms. Are you gonna vote for the Billion Dollar Ballroom? You know, at the same time that we're now getting all of these red light flashes about the economy, the jobs numbers, the stakes keep rising all the
- [35:43]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
time, as do the building estimates.
- [35:45]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [35:46]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I mean, you know, it was gonna be 400,000 donated by the usual suspects. And we're in the billions with everything.
- [35:54]
Liz Oyer
We're approaching the point where I think people are asking, why do we send these 535 people to Washington D.C. who make up Congress if they have no role to play in anything? I mean, they're supposed to be the ones who decide how our money gets spent. But Trump is deciding on his own how he wants to spend our money, and he's throwing it at his pet projects all over Washington D.C. i mean, I was leaving the city where I live about a week ago, and I saw these two statues that he has painted bright gold, and they just look absolutely insane. And they've been there for much longer than I've been alive. And now they are suddenly like almost fluorescent gold for no reason. Nobody needed that to be done, and I'm sure it cost a fortune. And then we've got this morning, you know, the events in the Senate with Todd Blanche and Bill Cassidy announcing that he's not gonna oppose his nomination because what can the Senate possibly do to rein in the President? I mean, why are, why is Congress there if their view is that they don't have a role to play in reining in any of this overreach by the President. I think a lot of Americans are really starting to question why we send these 535 people to Washington, D.C. this
- [37:03]
Charlie Sykes
is not the way James Madison thought it was going to play out, right?
- [37:06]
Harry Littman
No, they didn't see it this way. And by the way, I really commend the opinion. There are many paragraphs there that really sound themes and very readable ways that are just stirring about what the country's about and the landscape's about. But they say, oh, this isn't about policy. And it's true. But the point that underlies what you're saying, Liz, it doesn't come up too much on this law and politics podcast is the guy is so gaudy, his taste is so friggin horrible, you know, and on top of everything else, that this is what we would be saddled with. All right, so I do want to say on the Supreme Court, I think you're going to see it play out in terms of standing. If the six push back, they'll say the National Historic Trust didn't have standing, but they do have standing under current law. But that current law has to do with aesthetics and the like. A lot of conservatives don't like it. I predict that's where the battle will be. And the court did give two weeks for the administration to go forward. 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.
- [38:31]
Total Wine Host
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we uncork the notion of drinking bottled wine versus canned wine. Yeah, wine in a can. Wine connoisseurs may stay true to the bottle, but wine canosaurs have adopted the untraditional packaging for its added convenience. Ideal for picnics, concerts and outdoor events. Really anywhere? Corkscrews are scarce, and since aluminum cools faster than glass, it reduces the time it takes to chill your favorite Sauvignon Blanche. But swirling your wine in a glass does help it open up, which gives it a lot more flavor. Of course, you can always transfer your canned wine to a glass, but if you're looking to experience the subtleties of a nice bottle, drinking from a glass adds a lot. There are wines more suited to the bottle, and there are those well suited for the canned life. Crisp and sparkling whites and particular tend to fare best in cans. But bigger, bolder wines will usually benefit from a nice glass it would seem both have their place still on the fence. Between bottles or cans, there's always wine in a box.
- [39:44]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's a spirited debate. Man, oh, man, really big stuff happening on immigration where you've worked a lot, Congresswoman. I definitely wanted to get to it. So, Trump versus Barbara. If you are a citizen and you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning the Chief justice makes very, very clear you have to follow the laws. You know, diplomats, you get a parking ticket, you can rip it up. But if you're subject to the laws, end of story, you're a citizen. We have a executive order. And by the way, executive has no role to play here. That just adds these categories of miscreants who the country won't like very much, but they're certainly subject to the laws. So it just seems to me that this is like an easy fly in the teeth of the Court's opinion. But I want to know if I'm being too blithe about this first executive order anyway that tries to expand the classes of people who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment.
- [40:57]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, it's my toddler analogy, right? It's like, you try one way and then you get shut down. Okay, I'm gonna try the same thing another way. I mean, I was looking at the order, and I think this is the first time it hasn't been specifically directed at Kamala Harris, because his initial one was, you know, if you have two people who are here on student visas, yada, yada, yada, it's like, okay, yeah, we saw that one coming. But they're just gonna keep trying. And if the court should give them this wedge, then they'll keep trying to drive it further. So it needs to be shut down.
- [41:35]
Harry Littman
Thus saith we all. I do wanna point out that Stephen Miller, legal authority that he is, cited the other great legal authority in the country, Donald Trump, for the proposition that the 14th Amendment is all about, and only about restoring citizenship to. Of slaves. The very point that one justice of the Supreme Court made, that being Clarence Thomas. In one side of their mouth, they say, we're not. We're not changing anything. We're following the court. And then it seems so flagrantly to disregard the clear import. I just, you know, I know it's always tricky to do predictions, but I just can't see this getting out of the box. All right, let's talk more about this deportation drive. And I wanted to go back to you, Congresswoman. Last month, you got A very close look at ice's work up close. You visited one of the detention centers in central Pennsylvania for many hours. Tell us about that.
- [42:38]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Sure. This is the largest detention center in the Northeast, Moshannon Valley in central Pennsylvania. They're holding about 1600 detainees right now. Of course, detention is not supposed to be a criminal punishment. It's just supposed to make sure people show up to their court appointments, et cetera. Average stay there is now in the 30 to 40 day range. People are dressed in prison garb, they are eating prison food, and many of them are people who have been picked up when they were attending their court dates. So I mean, it's increasingly clear that this is a fiction about, you know, picking up the worst of the worst. They're picking up the people. It's easy to pick up people who are showing up for their court appointments, going to work, you know, going to school, et cetera. Actually had a little bit of experience. I was flying out of Boston two weeks ago and saw a couple DHS folks with dogs walking through the gate section. And I actually followed him and took a picture because it struck me that this was weird that they would be in the place where people were boarding domestic flights. And shortly after that was when we started getting increasing reports of people being picked up in airports. Folks who are here, who came here legally, are working legally, are going about their daily business, flying for work or to go see. We've got an au pair in the Philadelphia area who was going to a World cup game. There's a Ukrainian woman from my district who was going to visit a child for a birthday. People who have been here, law abiding people waiting for their long overdue adjustment of status petitions or asylum petitions to be heard and they're getting picked up and put in detention. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars to be housing these folks. What was very disturbing. What? Sorry, I'm on my.
- [44:36]
Harry Littman
No, no, go for it. It's very fox now.
- [44:39]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
But particularly disturbing was concessions from folks at the facility. They couldn't run the facility without the detainee labor. I mean they are using detainees to run the food service and the laundry and to clean the toilets and the showers and the housing areas. There are two full time janitors for the entire facility housing 1,600 people. They pay these folks $1 a day. So you know, supposedly we're deporting these people so they don't take Americans jobs. Well, right now you are using slave labor in these detention centers rather than American labor. So that Geo and The place I visited was a privately run prison facility so that GEO and Core Civics and these other places can make a fortune, which you will see if you look at their quarterly earnings reports.
- [45:33]
Harry Littman
I mean, just crazy work makes us free.
- [45:36]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Yeah, yeah. It's really, really disturbing. I was not allowed to speak to folks in detention, so I could just observe and try to see what I could see just from walking through the place. But it's such a scam. It is such a scam and it's so racist and it's just so evil. And to be having this done in the name of the United States and wasting taxpayer dollars on this, it's just wrong in every direction.
- [46:07]
Harry Littman
Let's broaden this a bit, Charlie and Liz, because there's a sense that it's just as bad as ever, but more below the radar, which is a cross cutting theme in the Trump administration. Terrible things happen. The media or somebody focused on focuses on it for a while. Like the unlawful war crime of blasting Fisher Beebe off. That's still happening. So much is still happening in July. Bringing it home to this topic, ICE recorded the most arrests of any month in Trump's second term. So it kind of feels like the day to day outrage has vanished as we talk about the slush fund or Todd Blanche notwithstanding two fatal shootings in the same month in Maine and Texas. Has Trump pulled off what he seemed determined to do after the tragedies in Minnesota, namely, same deportation agenda, but less bad pr?
- [47:05]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I guess I would like to come at it from a slightly different angle because maybe the answer to that is yes, tragically. But as a recovering journalist, as a former newspaper reporter, I often will think like, what stories are we missing? What are we not covering? What do we not know? And you think about these massive detention facilities and what is going on behind closed doors that they don't want members of Congress to see or members of Congress to talk to people about. And I think of what the stories and the histories of the future looking back on this will say was going on in our name, that this is our legacy of our time. And we don't have any idea, we don't know whether we have Abu Graves all over the country committing these acts against migrants again in our name as an official action of the US Government. So the fact that this is not top of mind or at the top of the front page is kind of ominous for me because it is going on, as you point out, it is escalating. But what's going on in the shadows? What happens when Nobody is looking. You know, how do we behave, you know, when things are happening in the dark, when things are happening behind closed doors? And that is literally what's happening in these detention facilities. So I think this is a terrifying story, and I do wonder what we're going to learn 10, 20 years from now. I hope it's not that long. I hope we'll find out. But again, this is also, you know, part of the problem is that local journalism has been in absolute freefall. We just don't have the resources. You know, back in the day, there were reporters and newspapers who would be, you know, figuring out ways of doing this. We have the sort of the best of times and the worst of times. At one level, we have some of the best journalism that we've ever seen in our lives. At the same time, you get below that out into the country and, you know, we have these ghost newsrooms. And I wonder whether, again, how many of these stories were missing. And that haunts me.
- [49:05]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I think there's a lot to be said. Just, I mean, there's been some really key reporting from a group called Penn Live. They followed a few of these stories about a hunger strike at this place, about the chaplain who was accused by a couple women who were then deported of sexual harassment. So, you know, when there is a focus, we're seeing some things. And you mentioned that we're having the escalation again. It was January when they were really trying to meet that 2000 a day quota from the White House. When we saw the killings in Minnesota, well, June, July, they're back to trying to hit that quota. And that's when we saw deaths in Texas and Maine. And now we're seeing more outrage as it's starting to impact people more, as we're seeing these airport detentions and more courthouse detentions.
- [49:57]
Harry Littman
And I want to bring it back to a legal issue which I think conjoins with your point, both of your points, Congresswoman Char, about keeping things undercover. The single legal issue that the administration is fighting the hardest, getting its head handed to it by court after court after court, literally in the thousands of cases, and overwhelmingly getting clobbered at the district court level and now at the court of appeals, they want to be able to go in and take the very residents who've been here for years and have families and jobs and everything that a sensible immigration policy would say you shouldn't get at. And they want. What do they want to do? They want to grab them and not let them even be out on bond while they're challenging whether or not they can be deported, which often they can be. All they're saying is we get to have bond. And this is where the administration has been making this total cockamamie claim that well, they're really applicants for admission. They can be here for 30 years, they're still applicants for admission. Why are they doing this and getting their heads handed to them by court after court? And I think this is the answer. If they get this ability, which they've been instructed now to keep going for, even though they keep losing until it gets to the Supreme Court, we'll see. They don't have to show anybody anything they can grab folks, people have been here, as I say, for years, families, jobs, etc. Put them in the detention center and that's it. So it's that kind of control that, you know, doesn't even let them out to make their claims. And it really does to me seem this kind of terrifying theme of authoritarian society to not just deport but silence all these people who are for all intents and purposes are our neighbors.
- [52:00]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Just a couple things on that. I mean the social media that you get, people are like they're illegals, they have no rights, et cetera. And so having to do the civics education of if, if an immigrant doesn't have a due process right, then none of us do, that the warrant requirement doesn't exist if you don't have it for everyone. Because who's to say you're an immigrant or not? Who's to say that you have a legal claim or not? Who's to say it's your house or not? We have seen that they've done these warrantless arrests. They dragged a citizen out of his house in Minnesota because they didn't have to go before a judge and show they had the right guy, that there was a crime, that it was the right house. So you know, the whole fact that we due process is central to our Constitution and there's a reason why it impacts everyone. But I do just want to give a huge shout out to the public interest community in Philadelphia because they are literally getting people's information as they go into their ice check ins as they are trying to follow the rules and if they don't come out, someone's filing a habeas petition on their behalf because if they don't get it quickly, you know, day of before they get transferred to another jurisdiction, then the person's in trouble. So there have been thousands of these filed and as you said, they are very, very successful. The federal Courts are going a little crazy because the burden's falling on them, but they are standing up and they're, you know, the firewall right now.
- [53:33]
Harry Littman
And kudos to the whole coalition of lawyers. You know, we found this out when they were taking people to Seekot.
- [53:39]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
Yes.
- [53:40]
Harry Littman
Unless it's we don't know whether Abrego Garcia is the only guy who wasn't supposed to be there. What we know is a few people there somehow got word to ACLU lawyers who showed up. But for all we know, there are people just as victimized their rights just as a bridge. Sorry, miss. Former pardon attorney Liz Oyer. Last word to you.
- [54:03]
Liz Oyer
Yeah, so one of the most encouraging things that I have seen throughout this assault on our rule of law is the way people have mobilized in the immigration community, Immigration lawyers and advocates who have stood up and gotten involved and defended the rights of people who the administration just wants to deport without due process. That, to me, shows that on some level, our democracy is still working the way that it's intended to. We have Republicans in Congress who are refusing to do their job. We have had some disappointing rulings from the Supreme Court. But at the end of the day, we still have so many people in this country who are doing what they can from the the platform they have to fight for the rights of their neighbors and our fellow Americans. And that is what gives me hope, even in these really dark times and even on really depressing days like this one, where we start the day with the news that Todd Blanche is likely to become our next Attorney General.
- [55:03]
Harry Littman
And there's an end and a sort of buoyant one for now on a great and wide ranging discussion. Thanks for everyone. We just have a minute for our final feature. Five words or fewer. And here's the question for today. Trump had been building a helicopter landing pad in front of the White House, but apparently even he thought it was too ugly and is scrapping it. What will he put on the White House front lawn instead? Five words or fewer.
- [55:33]
Charlie Sykes
Permanent Thunderdome for mma.
- [55:37]
Harry Littman
Excellent.
- [55:39]
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon
I was going to go with a drive through bribe Lane.
- [55:44]
Liz Oyer
I'll say. A giant statue of himself.
- [55:47]
Charlie Sykes
Ooh, yeah.
- [55:50]
Harry Littman
And in gold, of course.
- [55:51]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, bright gold.
- [55:53]
Harry Littman
And I'm going with an even bigger ballroom. Thank you so much, Liz, Congresswoman Scanlon, and Charles 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 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 Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansum Hadrenathan, 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 Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.