Carte Blanche and an Inside Strait

Summary

Podcast Summary: Talking Feds – “Carte Blanche and an Inside Strait”

Host: Harry Litman
Guests: Christy Greenberg, Jason Kander, Jasmine Wright
Date: April 13, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, the Talking Feds panel breaks down a chaotic and contentious week in U.S. law and politics. The main themes include the Trump administration’s tenuous ceasefire in Iran, the internal shakeup at the Department of Justice (DOJ) with Todd Blanche taking charge, ongoing scrutiny over the Epstein scandal, and Democrats’ rising fortunes in special elections. The discussion is frank, often incredulous, and rich with insider insight, highlighting the administration’s decision-making style, legal maneuverings, and political ramifications.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. The Iran War: Why Are We There?

[03:05–14:00]

• Decision-making Process: Jasmine Wright highlights reporting that Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran hinged on narrowly held meetings, with Israeli PM Netanyahu persuading Trump by warning of dire risks should the U.S. not act ([03:34], D).
• Lack of Clear Rationale: The administration gave little thought to broader implications or public buy-in, leading to chaos, such as U.S. Merchant Marine cadets being stranded because of lack of inter-agency communication ([04:38], D).
• Trump “Got Suckered”: Jason Kander draws an analogy: “Netanyahu has been selling this for years… and this president was like, wait, where’s the barbecue?” ([05:45], C).
• Unclear Goals and Moral Hazard: Christy Greenberg notes, “If you don’t state clearly what the mission is, it makes it that much easier to come out later and say mission accomplished.” She points out alarming theocratic language from War Secretary Pete Hegseth and highlights the abandoned civilian protections and religious rhetoric ([07:50], B).

---

2. Administration’s Style: Competence and Consequences

[10:02–14:00]

• Military Critique: Kander, as a former Army officer, calls Hegseth’s approach “chest beating” filled with buzzwords but lacking substance: “He’s the guy who learned a few words and he’s trying to throw them around as a smokescreen for a civilian press corps” ([12:49], C).
• Trump’s Priorities: Trump selected loyalists rather than experts. Kander likens Trump to “your civilian buddy who when you go out to the bar… mouths off…knowing you… have to fight” ([12:49], C).

---

3. Ceasefire and International Trust Erosion

[13:20–14:00]

• Tenuous Ceasefire: Jasmine Wright explains Iran’s deep mistrust, fueled by past experience where negotiations were paired with renewed U.S. bombing ([13:53], D).
• Bluster and Undermined Diplomacy: The panel slams Trump’s bellicose, erratic social media posts threatening war crimes: “It shows such weakness rather than strength when you can’t actually take him at his word…he’s just out there governing via social media posts, and that seems to be a recipe for disaster.” (Greenberg, [18:19], B).
• Pakistan as Mediator: Kander is “really embarrassed” that the U.S. had to rely on Pakistan to mediate, rather than serving as the stabilizing power ([20:08], C).

---

4. Did the U.S. ‘Lose’ the War?

[21:45–24:41]

• Consensus: Loss for the U.S.: All panelists agree that the U.S. is worse off:
  • If Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, “Where is the win?” (Greenberg, [22:03], B).
  • Kander: “We lost. But it’s weird because like, we shouldn’t have been playing...you lost the moment you started because you were in a fight, but you really didn’t understand why.” ([22:34], C).
  • Litman: “It is really a phenomenally unpopular war with the American people.” ([23:18], A).
• Historical Context: Kander notes initial public support for Iraq (75%) vs. Iran war (41%, now 25%). Predicts quick collective amnesia: “You won’t be able to find anybody who was for it.” ([23:25], C).

---

5. DOJ Upheaval: Todd Blanche’s Debut as Acting AG

[26:29–35:02]

• Total Loyalty to Trump: Blanche delivered a press conference signaling absolute obedience: “You have to say that you’re on board with retribution” (Greenberg, [26:29], B).
• Why Bondi Was Ousted: Greenberg argues Bondi failed to deliver convictions and the DOJ lost on cases because “the grand jury system and judges worked as it is supposed to” ([29:24], A).
• Blanche as Trump’s Fixer: Jasmine Wright calls Blanche “not…MAGA…but…Trump’s fixer. Whenever the president has a problem… it’s Todd Blanche answering the call” ([30:28], D).
• Skepticism on Prosecutorial Success: “If you’re being told to go out and indict and get a conviction of people who are completely innocent, you’re probably going to run into that problem.” (Kander, [33:41], C).

Notable Quotes

• Greenberg: “You can’t prosecute via press conference. There’s gotta be something behind it.” ([26:29], B)
• Wright: “His audience of one isn’t picking up on that…but other people in MAGA certainly are not exactly down with Todd Blanche in the same way.” ([30:28], D)

---

6. The Unfinished Epstein Saga

[35:02–38:10]

• Bondi’s Not Off the Hook: Democrats insist Bondi must still testify on her handling of Epstein. “She will certainly be subpoenaed” if Democrats win the House (Wright, [35:02], D).
• Administration’s Fumbling Response: Melania Trump’s out-of-the-blue denial of links to Epstein “astounded” staff: “Absolutely not a single person told me that Melania was going to say that” ([36:58], D).
• Persistent Public Distrust: “Nothing that the Department of Justice has done so far…has stopped that curiosity for people” ([37:00], D).

---

7. Retaliatory Prosecution: Cassidy Hutchinson

[38:10–41:16]

• Civil Rights Division Used for Political Cases: “It clearly makes no sense...if you’re leading the civil rights division, this is not a civil rights issue” (Greenberg, [38:55], B).
• Weak Case: The core “crime” is reporting hearsay, not perjury. Litman: “That is not perjury…She had heard it. That’s point one.” ([41:38], A)
• Political Theater: Greenberg: “It’s a show, it’s political theater, it’s not real.” ([41:16], B)

---

8. Special Elections: Democrats’ Growing Momentum

[44:29–54:30]

• Swing Toward Democrats: Even in red districts, Democrats are dramatically improving performance; a “25-point swing” in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s old seat ([44:29], A).
• GOP Disarray, Lack of Congressional Accomplishments: “Republicans in Congress…are basically saying, reelect me…if you want to give Donald Trump a blank check” (Greenberg, [49:40], B).
• Democratic Message Challenges: Wright: “What are Democrats for? They don’t really have a unified message for that.” ([54:30], D)
• Cautious Optimism: Kander: “I actually feel pretty cautiously optimistic” but warns Democrats not to “overthink it” ([52:48], C).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Kander on Trump & Netanyahu: “Netanyahu went fishing and he caught a Trump sized fish.” ([07:03], C)
• Greenberg on Hegseth: “He is talking about praying for overwhelming violence…He dismantled a program that would protect civilians, and you’re seeing children in Iran, a school of girls being murdered…” ([07:50], B)
• Wright on White House Mindset: “He wants to see a successful [military operation]…as long as they can define the military operation as successful, the American people will eventually view the conflict and what America has done as a success.” ([13:53], D)
• Kander’s military analogy: “He’s trying…to polish a turd. Sorry. By putting all these fancy sounding words on it. But they’re not fancy enough.” ([12:49], C)
• Litman’s incredulity: “It is really a phenomenally unpopular war with the American people.” ([23:18], A)
• On Melania’s statement: Wright: “Absolutely not a single person told me that Melania was going to say that in her statement to the press.” ([36:58], D)
• Kander on the U.S. losing moral standing: “For the first time that I can remember in my life, we’re one of the belligerent countries, and we need Pakistan to come in…” ([20:08], C)
• Greenberg on DOJ tactics: “You can’t keep telling somebody you can deliver and then not deliver and expect to keep your job. So we’ll see how this works out.” ([41:16], B)
• Kander on Democratic messaging: “Don’t get in somebody’s way when they’re making a fool out of themselves.” ([52:48], C)

---

Timestamps by Segment

• War decision making & strategy: [03:05–13:20]
• U.S. military culture & leadership critique: [10:02–14:00]
• Ceasefire, Lebanon, and int’l trust issues: [13:20–20:08]
• Has the U.S. lost the war? [21:45–24:41]
• DOJ shakeup: Bondi to Blanche: [26:29–35:02]
• Epstein scandal & Bondi’s fate: [35:02–38:10]
• Retaliatory DOJ prosecution (Hutchinson): [38:10–41:38]
• Democratic special election wins: [44:29–54:30]
• Five Words or Fewer (final feature): [55:14–55:56]

---

Conclusion

The episode presents a scathing, sometimes biting, but always informed roundtable on the Trump administration’s foreign and domestic maneuvers. The consensus is grim: the U.S. went to war on impulse, lacks a coherent strategy or victories, and has lost global standing. Internally, the DOJ has shifted to a model of total presidential loyalty and retribution, with little expectation that this new leadership will find legal or political success. Meanwhile, Democrats may be poised for success in the midterms, but their own messaging and organizational challenges loom.

Memorable FivWords or Fewer answers for Bondi’s new gig:

• “Argo will reveal in two weeks.” (Kander, [55:42], C)
• “Washed up loser lawyer, exactly what she called Jamie Raskin.” (Greenberg, [55:48], B)
• “Next astronaut to the moon.” (Wright, [55:54], D)

---

For listeners:
This episode is an unvarnished look at the current state of U.S. politics, international credibility, and rule of law—recommended for anyone wanting insight from veterans of government, law, and journalism.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. After standing down from his apocalyptic threats, Trump announced a fragile and bumpy ceasefire with Iran. For the moment, the bombs have stopped falling on Iran. But whether negotiations can bring a lasting end to the fighting and whether the US Will actually emerge safer and stronger from the conflict are far from clear. Meanwhile, Trump's crusade against enemies at home got a fresh face with Todd Blanche taking the reins at the Department of Justice. Blanche immediately signaled his guiding star, total obedience to Trump. As if to emphasize the point, the department debuted a new retribution case, this time against January 6th witness Cassidy Hutchinson. But Bondi hasn't fully left her tenure behind. Democrats insist that she's still on the hook for testimony on her handling of the Epstein scandal. Beyond Washington, another pair of special elections saw huge swings toward the Democrats. There's a growing sense that they hold a dominant hand for the coming elections. As one White House source told a national magazine, this war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November. The Senate and House to break down an explosive week that included a series of reversals and U turns for Trump, I'm pleased to welcome a great trio of expert observers of US Law and politics, and they are Christy Greenberg, the former deputy chief of the criminal division in the vaunted Southern District of New York. Christie's a prolific legal analyst now, and she hosts Courtside with Christy Greenberg on YouTube. Thanks for coming, Christy.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

Jason Kander, the president of National Expansion at Veterans Community Project. After serving in the army in Afghanistan, Jason was elected to the Missouri state legislature, later became Missouri Secretary of State. He hosts the terrific podcast Majority 54. Jason Kander, thank you as always, for your service. And thanks for returning to Talking Feds.

[C]

Great to be back. Thanks.

[A]

And Jasmine Wright, the White House correspondent, for Notice. Before joining Notice, Jasmine was a White House reporter with CNN where she covered the Biden administration and the 2020 and 2018 elections. I think it's her second time to Talking Feds. Thanks for returning, Jasmine.

[D]

Thanks so much for having me.

[A]

All right, so another week of heavy bombing, diplomatic brinkmanship, and the war with Iran. The overriding question, it seems from the start has been why exactly are we there? What result will bring it to a close? And there was some new reporting on these questions from a lot of outlets, including the New York Times. Anyone? What did we learn this week? About why Trump seems to have taken the country to war.

[D]

I think that we have both learned a lot about how the President decided to go to war. Obviously, I'm referencing that Maggie Haberman Jonathan Swan piece that is preempting their new book explaining how the President, through several meetings, including a briefing, they report with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, decided that now was the time to go to war and to try to take out Iranian leadership. And also some of those conversations that happened beforehand. But I'm not sure that we learned so much about why the President decided to do it outside of that. The Israelis made a case and he seemed to agree to it. According to that reporting, something that we reported this week at notice about, again, how some of those decisions were made, we reported that about a half dozen U.S. merchant Marine Academy cadets, so those are folks who are on US flagged vessels, some of them ultimately carrying some DoD equipment, were basically trapped in the Persian Gulf, which for about a month since those strikes began, because there was no notice from the DOD to the Department of Transportation, to other private companies who run these flagged vessels that are obviously very close to the military. Just another way we've seen that these decisions to go to war happened in such a small, enclosed group of advisors, and that they didn't really get the normal type of conversations about what are the implications of we go to the war, what could happen if we go to the war, who is at risk if we go to the war. That typically we've seen. In addition to, of course, there was no real consensus by the administration to build public sentiment around going to the war. So I wouldn't say that we know a lot about why still, but we certainly know a lot about how those decisions were made.

[C]

Yeah, I have a theory that's right on the back of that, which is, you know, you know, you ever get those, like, phishing text messages? It's gonna be great.

[A]

I haven't heard it yet when Jason says, you know, it's gonna be great.

[C]

Let's see. Will you ever get those fishing text messages that somebody saying, like, hey, do I have the right number? Or they're like, hey, are you going to the barbecue? And, you know, you. You know what that is, so you, you just ignore it. Or maybe sometimes you waste the time, mess with them, and. But then you're thinking, who does this work on? Well, Netanyahu has been selling this for years. He's been text messaging every president and saying they're going to get a nuke, like, right away. We got to do Something. And every president for years has been like, come on, man, I know what you're doing. And this president was like, wait, where's the barbecue? And that's, that's what I think happened, is he just frankly just completely got suckered. And the reason I say that is because while I don't think in the long run that this, like most of the decisions that Netanyahu has made is actually in the long term interest of Israel, I can very easily see what the argument is for why this war is in the interest of Israel. And I cannot in any way see what the argument is as to how it is in the interest of the United States. And so I think basically, you know, Netanyahu went fishing and he caught a Trump sized fish.

[A]

To Jasmine's point, he said risks of inaction are bigger than risks of action. And Trump went for that. Though the reporting seems to suggest, to Jasmine's point, about, we don't really know that just at a certain point, Trump had a notion and his close advisors all tend to put a lot of faith in that. But Netanyahu apparently, among other things, sold the kind of old idea, we've seen the movie before, that the US Is going to be welcomed as liberators when they get to Iran. Rubio said that's bullshit. Ratcliffe said that part is farcical. And yet Trump went ahead. Your thoughts about what we know and where we stand now about what the hell we're doing there?

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

It strikes me that if you don't state clearly what the mission is, it makes it that much easier to come out later and say mission accomplished. And that seems to be what they're doing here. They're changing their tune every mom. And I think that in particular, the language that we've heard from our war secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been not only alarming, but also, I think he's kind of given up the game. He had, I think, one post on social media where he talks about like, we're not there for nation building, we're not there to build a democracy. And I think he's right. I think they all knew going into this that regime change was unlikely. Yes, you could, you could kill their leader, but you weren't going to be able to necessarily put in anybody who was going to be more moderate or more willing to compromise. In fact, the people that are there now are worse, arguably. So I don't think that was ever necessarily the goal there. And this idea that there would be a popular uprising in support, I mean, Trump was told beforehand that that was not going to happen. And, you know, I think he wanted to display some military might. And he seems very, you know, big on the fact that in Venezuela there were no U.S. casualties. And look, that was a success. So let's just keep going. Let's just keep rolling with it and that'll be a good story. Not really realizing that that's deeply unpopular, not what the American people voted for when they voted for him. And again, I just kind of go back to if you're trying, if you're so troubled by this theocracy in Iran, the comments from our war secretary should be deeply troubling to you because we are not a theocracy. And yet he is talking about praying for overwhelming violence. He dismantled a program that would protect civilians, and you're seeing children in Iran, a school of girls being murdered. And yet the way that Pete Hegseth is invoking Christianity as the basis for the war and to support his bloodlust, I think should be troubling to anybody who supports a secular democracy.

[A]

Jason, I want to serve it up to you also and your guys as a former service member, because in the overall scheme of wars, the casualties haven't been that great. But we're talking about 15 service members killed, hundreds wounded. Jasmine made the point about the cadets caught completely by surprise. And it seems to me this point that Christie's now making all of you really, about the failure to articulate a reason for being there, has to really make, make former service members current service members. It sticks more in their crock because it's one thing to give the ultimate sacrifice for a virtuous reason that the people have bought into, but when we don't know what the hell we're doing there, what do you say to the parents of those 15 and the hundreds? Right.

[C]

I mean, I'm so glad that I'm not the person who has to try to justify this to them. And the thing about Hegseth and Trump as a duo is to me, there are two very recognizable archetypes, right? I mean, you got Trump who he likes to pick people, as we see from the second iteration of the Trump administration, who won't challenge him, will do whatever he wants to do, but who also come across as very strong but aren't. And so this is what I mean. Like Pete Hegseth, when I listen to him at his press conferences and he's asked broad strategic level military questions, he responds with words that to a civilian press corps sound like, well, sometimes, yeah, it's chest beating, but sometimes it's these buzzwords that are sort of like if you run a business and you don't know anything about it and your IT person doesn't really like your question, they just say a bunch of it things and you okay, well, you don't know what else to say back. So when I hear him talking about violence of action, we're going to secure this, we're going to do this. You know, I got out as a captain. I think Hegseth may have been a major for five minutes before he got out. Those are the things that we learned as company grade officers. We learned those terminologies and they are super valuable and useful if you are leading a platoon or you are leading a company. But if you are in charge of the Defense Department, that's why people who are in charge of the Defense Department usually have graduate degrees in national security studies. It's why they usually have decades of experience moving division level and core level assets around the world, managing multiple services. But he doesn't have that. And so he's trying to like to borrow a military expression, polish a turd. Sorry. By putting all these fancy sounding words on it. But they're not fancy enough. And so when somebody like me to your question, who is a company grade officer, hears it, I hear somebody who sounds like they just finished maybe the captain's career course and now they're in charge of the entire military. So that's who Hagseth is.

[A]

He.

[C]

He's the guy who learned a few words and he's trying to throw them around his smokescreen for a civilian press corps. And Trump is your civilian buddy who when you go out to the bar with all your military friends, mouths off, says all sorts of stuff, says whatever he wants to say, knowing that you and your friends are gonna be the ones who have to fight. And after a while you're like, hey, can somebody not invite that dude? And so that's the dynamic that we're dealing with. To your point about wanting to show military might. Yeah. Cause nobody named Trump has ever gone to be on the, you know, business and a military might. And so that's how I think we get here.

[A]

Jasmine, let me go back to you and fast forward to the present when we're supposedly in some kind of two week ceasefire, but it's extremely tenuous. And there's a controversy involving Lebanon, which new reporting shows Trump intended agreed the deal would cover. But while we are supposedly abstaining from bombing Iran, Israel continues to really pummel Hezbollah. But in Lebanon, is the US already operating in Bad faith on the world stage here, do you think?

[D]

I mean, that's what the Iranians are claiming. I mean, one of the things that they've kind of repeated over state media over the last 24 hours is that there are a lot of reasons why the Iranians don't trust the US and negotiators, not just because the last two times that they entered into negotiations, the US and began bombing them immediately after. I think that they have reason to be cautious, and that's what they continue saying. But Lebanon is going to be an issue. It's unclear to me whether the Iranians, you know, they have to save face and show that they will support Hezbollah because they had this whole regional force. And if they're not going to support them, then why would others in other parts of the Middle east support Iran? Of course. But it's not clear to me how far they're willing to go. I mean, so much of this, so much of this conversation is happening in public, but then it doesn't seem like what's happening in public is what the Trump administration is hearing. You know, just a few hours ago on Friday, one of the top Iranian officials said that they also need to talk about removing the sanctions before the negotiations even start, despite the fact that J.D. vance is in the air right now going to the negotiations. So the Iranians are really needling the US Seeing which leverage points that they can continue to push before stoking the ire of President Trump. And I think you're seeing him get more irritated. But the fact is, I was talking to one White House official weeks ago who said that it is President Trump above perhaps anybody else in the White House and dod, the larger administration that is willing to bear the political consequences, no matter what they might be for this military operation, because he wants to see a successful one. He believes that as long as they can define the military operation as successful, the American people will eventually view the conflict and what America has done as a success. And so now I don't think that that is true anymore. I think the president is one of the largest voices saying it's time to get out. And he's reading the tea leaves because we know that Donald Trump reads every poll on earth. Even if he says that, he hasn't said, seen that. And he is seeing the American people and saying that he's seeing the American people lose patience with this. And so I think you're seeing Iran recognize that the US Wants to get out and see how far they can push the limits here. But certainly there's been a concern from their side about whether or not they can even trust the US because it passes precedent. JD Vance may leave Islamabad on Sunday and then we start bombing on Monday.

[A]

And not just that, but we have a truly unhinged madman ahead of the ceasefire. That Dr. Strangelove rhetoric. Bomb him to the stone age and the like. Talk about unraveling whatever trust we have. What did you think about that? Really crazed over the top rhetoric and even legal consequences aside, because he was saying, here we come with the war crimes. What are the practical effects of a president who. It's not, you wouldn't even call it trash talk, right? It's just apocalyptic ravings. What the hell? And what does it mean for the US on the world stage?

[C]

I mean, the practical effect is just what you're saying is right or wrong. For decades, the United States has been the country that sort of set the standard. Now you can argue that we shouldn't be because we're also right or wrong, the only country that's ever actually dropped atomic bombs, right? But it has been in modern history, like certainly in our lifetimes, it has been that when it comes to the conduct of war, the conduct of diplomacy, all these kind of things, we have set the standard. And often that is just frankly, because we're the biggest player, right? So we've had the, that responsibility. And, you know, it ain't like there aren't other countries with the ability to wipe out our civilization. So it puts everybody in danger, right? It lowers the standard for that kind of talk. And when you lower, like, look at what's happened in our politics the last several years. When you lower the standard for discourse, the standard for discourse gets lower. And when you lower the standard for, say, wiping out a people, the likelihood of some group of people getting wiped out at some point becomes higher.

[B]

The other thing that struck me is one that he's doing this in a post over social media. This isn't like an address, a well thought out, you know, plan or strategy. It's just an impulsive post that he made about wiping out a civilization. And then, you know, to me, it shows such weakness rather than strength when you can't actually take him at his word. The people are like, oh, it's just rhetoric. This is how he negotiates. Like, no, he's using this strong language and nobody even believes him. I mean, you know, at some point, like, it's just, you know, he's bluffing, he's double bluffing, whatever. Like, at some point there isn't a Strategy, it's just a madman, as you said. And the fact that he gives this 8pm deadline and, like, who's going to negotiate that? Kushner and Witkoff? I mean, these are two people who, you know, their background is negotiating real estate deals. They have no real experience in this area, and they're not going to get a deal done by 8pm Everybody knows that. And so then it signals real weakness when you have to go to Pakistan, have another country kind of go in and now sort of broker some compromise to bail us out and have this sort of ceasefire, really that's, you know, fragile at best. And where Iran seems to really be, you know, I think in a much, much more of a position of strength than I think anybody would have thought, now that they really are controlling the strait. And so I just look at that as just yet another example of Trump just falling down and none of his advisors really being able to tell him clearly what they think he should and shouldn't be doing. And he's just out there governing via social media posts, and that seems to be a recipe for disaster.

[C]

Can we talk about the Pakistan thing for a second? Because that is wild to me, because my entire life, when there have been two countries at loggerheads and one or both of them seem to be belligerent and unable to speak to one another, and war is continuing unabated. There's always been one country, maybe a couple others sometimes, but one country you always knew was going to step in and be like, hey, you know what? We're going to broker something here. And it was us. And now, for the first time that I can remember in my life, we're one of the belligerent countries, and we need Pakistan to come in and be like, hey, everybody, let's. Let's get. You know, you go to your dugout, you go to your dugout, both teams are warned, and, like, we're. We're on the field trying to fight, as opposed to being the one that's like, hey, cooler heads. And that's really embarrassing, frankly.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, it is stunning. And to the point of, is he winning or losing. I think there might have been in the past a time where he talks tough and then he announces a ceasefire a couple hours before, and, oh, Trump got it done. And I was struck by how, contrary to that scenario, all of the reporting was that he and I ran. To borrow Jason's reference to pop culture, we did have a little bit of the, you know, Monty Python, a mere flesh wound. They've gotten carbon. But they are declaring victory absolutely unabashedly. In fact, let's close out with this question. If the status quo holds, will the US have lost this war?

[C]

Yes.

[D]

I think if the Strait of Hormuz isn't open, or that Iran maintains any control over the Strait of Hormuz, which was obviously not the status quo before the war, then the White House will have to answer a lot of questions about what actually was won here.

[A]

A lot of explaining to do.

[B]

I completely agree with that. I mean, it seems like with respect to the strait, we are in a worse position now than we were before we. So if you're looking for the win, where is the win? What have we gained? Yes, the leader has been killed. Yes, they have lost some of their ballistic missiles. But if Iran controls the strait and really then has a lot of leverage in that region and gas prices are going up and now Americans are feeling it, I'm not sure how anybody could call that a win.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, we lost. But it's weird because like, we shouldn't have been playing, you know, so it's, it's just so confusing. It's like one, like I'm very much a believer in the philosophy that nobody wins a war, so let's put that out there. But like, if you're going to put it in those terms, it's hard to figure out if you want, if nobody ever told you what the objective was. So kind of feels like you lost the moment you started because you were in a fight, but you really didn't understand why.

[A]

Yeah. Although I think Jasmine made this point that we will have when that day comes, some retrospective justification by Trump that will fit the facts totally and we'll see.

[D]

But certainly the President is gonna declare victory no matter what happens, right?

[A]

No matter what. But it's just not the cultural leader at this point. I mean, really, it's a phenomenally unpopular war with the American people.

[C]

Can I say about that? Cuz Jasmine is totally right. And the President will declare that it was not only a victory, that it was probably, some are saying, the greatest victory, you know, that's what's gonna happen. But we should remember that, you know, with the Iraq war would not be considered a popular war. When we started in the Iraq war with ground troops, by the way, 75% of the country supported it. When we started this war as just an air and naval campaign, 41% of the country supported it. Now that number's down to like one in four. So I agree with you 100%. That's what he's going to say. And I think over time, because memories are short that may grow. But I think that this will have a much faster road to where Iraq has gone now, because Iraq is a war where you can find people who are on record being for it and they will act like it's just a thing that happened. They don't know how it happened. It's weird. And I think we're going to get to there on Iran in like two months. Like you won't be able to find anybody who was for it.

[A]

And that's not withstanding that. The big difference is the Iraq war was totally prepared, you know, in ways that history is discredited. But Powell at the UN and all that stuff, and we'd had zero there.

[C]

They showed us the respect of actually taking the time to lie to us properly about that.

[A]

There you go. Hey everyone. Harry here. You know, I don't do many ads, but I made an exception a while back for Quince Clothing. And I'm here to tell you I'm still wearing my Quince organic cotton crew neck sweater all the time. And it and the Quince Comfort Stretch Traveler 5 pocket pants are the first things I reach for when I'm packing a suitcase. They're durable, they fit great, they look good, and they are inexpensive to boot. It's been a major addition to my closet and and now that it's getting warmer, I'm really looking forward to checking out the Quince Pima cotton T shirts. Refresh your [e-mail] TalkingFeds for free shipping and 365 day returns now available in Canada, too. Quints.com TalkingFeds talk to you later. All right, let's move to a domestic war zone. Of course, I'm talking about the Department of Justice. So Bondi out and new acting Attorney General Todd Blanche SDNY alum where Christie worked, gave this press conference early in the week where he just made it clear, screw you. Anyone who thinks otherwise. Whatever the president wants to do, that's fine. And whoever he wants to go after, that's fine. Christy, let me start with you, especially because you have a lot of colleagues who knew AUSA Blanche Nguyen. What have you made of his sort of debut taking the reins at the department?

[B]

I think actually the biggest lie that he said in that press conference was when he went through all the different iterations and scenarios of what could happen and then at the end said, well, I have no aspirations or goals or something like that. Like, no, no, no, we all know what the goal here is you want to be the Attorney General. And in order to get that job permanently, this is what you have to say. You have to say that you're on board with retribution. Even if you don't use those words. You have to signal to your audience of one, to President Trump, that you are on board and you are there to execute his agenda. And he has issues with various political enemies. Great. We're going to investigate them. We will take any referral. We will communicate. No firewalls. Yeah, he told Donald Trump exactly what he wanted to hear. But to be fair, so did Pam Bondi. And anybody who knows how the Justice Department works knows that the Deputy Attorney general, which was Todd Blanche's position before this, really effectively runs the Department of Justice. And the AG is, you know, a figurehead is not the right word, but is kind of more. More above it and at a higher level, kind of making policy, you know, decisions and looking at different priorities. But the nuts and bolts and the logistics of how the department is working, that's the Deputy Attorney General. So Todd Blanche has been running this department, and the part that was. There are so many parts that were just unbelievable. But when he said, nobody has any idea why Pam Bondi is not there anymore, how are you going to do anything different? What was upsetting before and how are you going to change it? And, I mean, the honest answer is, we all know what it was. Pam Bondi didn't deliver any wins. She didn't deliver a scalp. They just kept losing. They were losing before judges losing, before grand juries losing in front of juries, losing prosecutors, losing agents. I mean, people are leaving that department because they won't do what this department wants them to do. And so he knows all of this. Again, he can talk the talk, but ultimately, at the end of the day, I mean, Harry, you know this like, to actually prosecute a case successfully, to not only get the indictment, but then get the conviction, to successfully prosecute a case, you need facts, you need evidence. They can't prosecute via press conference. There's gotta be something behind it. And for a long time, I just thought, well, maybe the investigation and the pain of that for his political enemies would be enough for Trump to kind of put them through, having to deal with the financial resources, the time resources, having their reputations dragged through the mud, maybe that would be enough, but it clearly isn't. Trump wants results. He wants prosecutions, he wants wins. And I don't see Todd Blanche being able to deliver those. But if that press conference showed anything, it is that he is going to try.

[A]

Really? That and his comments to a conservative political group that he shouldn't have been in front of in any way, where he said boastfully, we've gotten rid of every FBI agent who worked on January 6th, and yeah, it did show his colors. And everyone who worked with Ms. DNY was both astonished and repulsed. You got to wonder, though, he already, to your point, had, it was pretty clear to me, was taking the reins on the Epstein stuff. And Bondi was more or less, I think a figurehead might be the right word, making, you know, social media things and then unfurling her unbelievable, nasty, contentious testimony when she had to show up. But you really gotta wonder. There's another hypothesis from Bondi's ineptitude about why they didn't get convictions. It's just what you said, and we ought to all be thankful for it, that actually the grand jury system and judges worked as it is supposed to. What is he supposed to do really to succeed? Where in Trump's in the audience of one, as Christie said, eyes she failed.

[D]

I mean, I think it's interesting because what he's supposed to do now is the reason why he has survived this far in Trump's orbit. I mean, to be clear here, he was not always kind of the president's number one guy when it comes to law. He obviously helped the president, but he is not somebody that people perceive as being, quote, unquote, Maga. He is not one of kind of the original OGs in that space. But what he is to the president and has continued to be in this role when he was a deputy, now acting is his fixer. Right. Whenever the president has a problem, it a lot of times has been Todd Blanche answering the call when they had a problem with Epstein and how it was being perceived. A lot of people in the White House blame Pam Bondi. It was Todd Blanche who started doing all the podcasts and who started kind of apologizing for the way that it's been run and saying that they'll do better, but not really doing anything quite differently when they had a problem with the way that Lindsey Halligan was being perceived. She was really irritating people in Virginia when she moved over to that role, in part because she had this huge security detail we reported at notice. It was Todd Blanche that got rid of that security detail that tried to make her seem more collegial with her colleagues so that they would want to engage in these pretty markedly political investigations that she was trying to launch against James Comey and other folks. And so he has been in this role, role in which he is doing what it takes to keep Trump happy. And people expect him to continue to do that, obviously, at a larger scale. I will say, though, to the point of, you know, him not being MAGA and him actually being the one that is running the department, that even though the president, obviously his audience of one isn't picking up on that, the President's other supporters and other people in his orbit have a lot of folks who I talked to when Bondi was first replaced blame, not Bondi, but Todd Blanche for the inability of these folks to have convictions at this point, the lack of actual prosecutions that have been brought against the amount of people that folks perceive to have targeted Donald Trump or to have targeted Donald Trump's friends have been brought against them. And so that blame is already there. The question is whether or not Donald Trump is really earnestly listening to it. And it's seems that since Todd Blanche is getting this real chance to prove his worth in this place, that the President isn't listening to those folks, but other people in MAGA certainly are not exactly down with Todd Blanche in the same way that the President is.

[A]

That's a great point. Go ahead, Jason.

[C]

Well, let me. Let me start this by saying that of the three people you've asked to guest here, I am 100% the least informed on the matter of what's going on at the doj in classic undeserved white man confidence. It won't stop me from having an opinion.

[A]

Bring it, Bring it.

[C]

And so what I will say is, having been around politics enough, it looks to me like Todd Blanche is a dude who's had Trump's ear for a long time. And Todd Blanche wanted to be Attorney General, and I bet Todd Blanche was Frank Underwood in his way through this whole thing.

[A]

Wow.

[C]

And probably had a couple of people in the presidency, or if not himself, that eventually made the president go, maybe it should be this guy instead of her. And that's based on nothing. I'm not a reporter. I have no sources. It just from the outside, that seems very plausible to me because they're all doing the same thing. There's nobody who's better at executing a terrible strategy or a terrible mission that they've been given by the president than anybody else. Which means Blanche is probably gonna run into the same problem, because if you're being told to go out and indict and get a conviction of people who are completely innocent, you're probably going to run into that problem.

[A]

That is a wee problem. Isn't it? Yeah. So look, it certainly advances the discussion. It's an excellent point in that way. And we're glad you didn't hold back. I'll say. As to Blanche, I think he's going, they're going to want him as acting for a long time. But I think the guy is unconfirmable and won't get the nomination because it would automatically put into play all the crap, all the skeletons dating back to Emile Beauvais. I don't think he gets there. Let me ask though, there's sort of a two count indictment against Bondi. Everyone focused a lot on the she didn't deliver the scalps as Christie said. There's also Epstein. What does his appointment in her alster mean for the whole Epstein mess?

[D]

Well, I think the most recent thing that we've seen this week is basically the DOJ saying that because Fam Bondi is no longer Attorney General, it would not be appropriate for her to go and be subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee. Democrats have basically said we don't agree with that. We're going to talk to our personal lawyers and she needs to come in. And so I think that this will, you know, I don't think that Pam Bondi is done with the Epstein files. I think that eventually she will have to come in, particularly if Democrats take over at least the House come November. She will certainly be subpoenaed. And, and we've seen what happens AKA Steve Bannon, when you don't answer Sabina. That being said, I think that the White House and the administration had hoped that the Epstein Fuhrer was really behind them. Obviously, we know the Iran war has taken over a lot of the oxygen. And then somebody named the first lady Melania Trump came yesterday and this empire, impromptu, totally surprising, what the hell anybody totally surprising moment and said that she had no, she has no connection to Epstein and basically said the liars who are publicizing whatever because no one knows exactly what she was talking about are wrong. And so, you know, this is obviously

[A]

so once everyone stopped talking about it,

[D]

which they weren't talking about this story that is not coming out about me. And so, you know, the people who I've talked to around Trump were just kind of basically astounded, had no really idea about why this was happening. I was at the White House asking questions earlier in the day like what should I know going into the weekend, what should I be focused on that you guys could roll out or something like that. And absolutely not a single person told me that Melania was going to say that in her statement to the press. So, you know, I think you can question whether or not they actually knew that was happening.

[A]

Supposedly Trump did not.

[D]

Donald Trump said him, but, you know, he says that he doesn't know a lot about what's happening either way. I think that this goes to the fact that in the beginning, the White House was hesitant about the Epson files for a myriad of reasons. Once I assume that they looked at them and saw that there was nothing really in them, they say, but in part because they felt that no matter how many documents they released, it would not be enough. And I think you're seeing this issue come up time and time again, proving them right, that no matter what they're doing, it's not going to be enough for people, because there are people within the administration that were outside of the administration just a year and a half ago that stoked the flames and claimed this massive conspiracy. And now people believe what they said. Obviously they weren't the first ones, but they certainly weren't the last ones. And so people believe what they're saying. And so it's difficult for folks to imagine that this issue of Epstein isn't going to become an issue time and time again because people want to know more because it is a grassroots effort. And nothing that the Department of Justice has done so far, including releasing millions of documents, but then withholding some others or having heavy redactions on them, has stopped that curiosity for people, including Melania's

[A]

statement on the reprisal prosecution point, this will seem a little inside baseball. So I'm going to you on it, Christie, but I thought it was a really important and striking announcement. They're going after Cassidy Hutchinson, who the country, I think lionized at the time when she came forward and gave a credible story that really inculpated Trump. But the person heading up the investigation, this goes among other things, to who's the possible successor to for Bondi Harmeet Dillon, the head of the civil rights division, is leading that investigation. Can you explain why that's anomalous and what do you personally make of it?

[B]

Well, I mean, it clearly makes no sense in the sense of if you're leading the civil rights division, this is not a civil rights issue. A civil rights issue that she could have been leading were investigating the killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Nicole Goode. That is squarely a civil rights issue, and that's not one that she took up. But this is just looking if somebody perjured themselves, that is not something that the Civil Rights Division would ever take up. That's something you would expect to have the U.S. attorney in D.C. jeanine Pirro, take up. But again, Jeanine Pirro just keeps striking out, keeps losing. And so maybe they figure, oh, it's not because we don't have evidence, it's because we have the wrong prosecutor. So now they're going to shift to somebody else who is a keyboard warrior. She shows up tough on, on X. But again, we're now talking about a court of law. You know, can she actually convince a grand jury that Cassidy Hutchinson perjured herself in her testimony? That is a tall order. Again, she would have to show that there was intent there, that she knowingly and willfully lied under oath. And again, those are hard cases to make and I can't imagine in this one that she would be successful. So it just seems as though it was more a desperation move. Pam Bondi apparently initiated this a few weeks before the reporting is that she heard rumblings that she may be on her way out. And this was kind of a last ditch effort. Okay, let me see if there's somebody else, some other, you know, case that I can get you to show you that we're trying to. Obviously it didn't work. I don't think it will succeed. But I am sure it is at least causing Cassidy Hutchinson to have to again have her counsel engaged to have to deal with all of this. It's a headache. She's back in the news again. Who knows what kind of a safety threat she deals with now, having a target on her back. I mean, generally in normal times, these kinds of investigations don't get announced. There's supposed to be things that are happening behind closed doors that, that wouldn't be public knowledge. And so again, I don't know that anybody's going to be successful in really getting him what he wants. I mean, look, in Florida they're investigating grand conspiracy, which was a prosecutor for over a decade. Never heard of that one.

[A]

Happens not to be a term in federal law, but. Yeah, right.

[B]

Yeah, but they're all just, it appears like it's a show, it's political theater, it's not real. And again, to the extent that they keep trying to tell Trump that they can make something happen and they can't. You can't keep telling somebody you can deliver and then not deliver and expect to keep your job. So we'll see how this works out.

[A]

All great points. I just want to add a couple. One legal and one, I guess you would say, political on the legal just so people understand how weak a case this is. The supposed charge against Kathy Hutchinson is. She reported that she had heard from someone else that Trump had lunged for the wheel of the beast because he wanted so much to go to the Capitol and they weren't letting him. She had heard that and another person said that didn't happen. That is not perjury. In fact, she certainly struck me as credible that she had heard it. That's point one. And point two, I do think it was telling about Harmeet Dhillon. She has been a really nasty bare teeth advocate for Trump from way back in election denier and the like. So they are kind of trotting her out in part to audition for the tough enough, strong enough, mean enough role, including for a potential nomination. 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.

[E]

Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we unpeel the truth about Pinot Noirs to see where the grapes shine best. Willamette Valley in Oregon or Burgundy, France. Here in the US we classify our New World wines by the grape. Old World wines like those in Europe are classified by the region. In France, Burgundy is not only the region where Pinot Noir wines are from, but it's also the Pinot's ancestral home. No pressure, Oregon to level set. Pinot Noir is a thin skinned grape which makes it difficult to grow, especially in warmer climates. Burgundy happens to have a cooler climate with ample cloud cover, making it the perfect home for Pinots. The cooler temperature allow the wines to ripen longer, giving the grapes extra time to develop more complex flavors. Like strawberry and dark berries to black tea and earthy minerality, Burgundy produces Pinot Noirs that are full of aromas and nuances. If we hop across the pond, we have Pinots from Willamette Valley in Oregon with similar cloud cover, climate and soil composition as Burgundy, Oregon produces smooth and fruity wines that are slightly earthy and most definitely tasty, giving the region a Burgundy a run for its money. You can find all of these at Total Wine and More, where we have a huge selection of Pinot Noirs from Oregon to Burgundy, plus wines from every region in between. All that's left now is to reach up to our shelves and pluck one out for yourself.

[A]

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. Okay, let's leave the troubled world of DOJ behind and get a little bit more political. Cuz the special elections that keep happening really seem to be putting spring in the step of the Democrats. Most recently, a Democrat lost by 12 points, however, in a total Ruby Red district, Marjorie Taylor Greene's old district. And that 12 point loss represented a 25 point swing from 2024. So, you know, the old saw goes all politics is local and that's what the Republicans are hoping. Oh, that's, you know, just special circumstances. You can't extrapolate. Others see signs of an apocalypse coming for the Republicans in the midterms. Who's right? How much can we make of the series? I just mentioned one of turnarounds and swings in special elections by Democrats.

[C]

As the most fiercely partisan member of this group, I suppose I will go first and give an answer that won't surprise you, which is, I think it's going to be a very good election for Democrats. Now there's a lot of time between now and then, but at the end of the day you just kind of keep it real simple. Trump came into office saying no more wars and we're going to make stuff less expensive and everything's more expensive and we're in a war like the most unpopular in a long time. And it's not the only one we've been in Right.

[D]

Since this started and it won't likely be the last. But continue.

[C]

Sorry, no, right on. Like even between now and November. That's a great point, Jasmine.

[D]

He already said our next conquest.

[C]

Yeah. So we're gonna keep doing this. And you know what? The big problem the Republicans have right now is that usually when you have a president in the Republic, you know, going into the midterm of their second term and they're very unpopular, they consider that to be a real problem for them and they do what they can to try and put Congress in a position, particularly if they already have Congress to stay in power. And the problem they have right now is that the President, who's very unpopular and is of the same party as them, doesn't really tend to care about people who are not him. And so he's not very motivated to do things, to pull up his numbers. He's very motivated to do things that make his life like a little bit better. So if something is annoying him, like the Epstein files, that kind of thing, or how people feel personally about him, particularly people whose opinion he cares about now, which is like his base, you know, he'll kind of try and do stuff about that, but he's not very motivated to go out there and make it easier for Republicans. So I think they have a big problem.

[D]

Yeah, I think that there is some real fear from Republicans. You know, one special election going the way of Democrats. Okay. Two special elections going the way of Democrats.

[A]

Hmm.

[D]

Three special elections going the way of Democrats. Oh, shit. Right. Particularly one that is in the President's backyard. I think that publicly they say that these are one offs, but how many one offs create a trend? And I think fundamentally the question that they're asking is, is the message from the top of the party, which is Donald Trump, one that is unifying our base and getting people excited to go out and vote, or is it one that is suppressing that? And I think you're seeing all of the signs from the war show that it is suppressing that. Now, when I talk to any of the Republicans, they say, come back to me in September. Let's see what it looks like. And I think that that's, you know, kind of fair. Right. You, you could see a world in which this war is wrapped up by the beginning of May, right before the President goes to China. And so then you have two more months of really terrible gas prices. And then September, October, you're coming out of it. Prices are going down a little bit. People are feeling a little bit more optimistic about affordability. Maybe they got a big tax return as the White House is. Has been preaching, and then they're in a very different scenario than they are now. But you have to think back. There are 31 seats that are up for grabs right now in which Donald Trump won by 10 points or less. That is where that money is. And if you only need two, three, four seats, I think right now, after Clay Fuller, it's 219 to 215 Republicans up. Of course, if you only need four or five seats. Right. That 31 number is looking really, really good for the House. The Senate, of course, it's a taller hill to climb. It's every day, it goes kind of up and down, up and down. The odds there are very slim, but for the House, the odds are not so slim. And so, you know, I think that the Republicans are really hoping for a unifying message from Donald Trump, specifically on affordability. His advisors are hoping that he focuses on affordability, and he just can't get that message out there because he's focused on so many other things and people are picking up on that.

[B]

Well, one thing that strikes me is that I don't understand how any of the Republicans in Congress really make the case for what they personally have accomplished, they are basically saying, reelect me or elect me. If you want to give Donald Trump a blank check, to just do whatever he wants, because he'll start a war, he'll do any number of things, and we don't question him. We go on cable news and say, war is peace, peace is war. And, you know, affordability. Oh, that was the Biden administration. And, you know, either, you know, gaslighting you into thinking that what's happening isn't happening or just blaming Biden for it. Like, it's one of two things. Whenever I turn on Fox or any of the other networks to try and hear what are the talking points. But what you never hear is anybody really questioning too hard what President Trump's agenda is or what he's doing. And to me, the vote is simple for people like, do you want more of the same? Do you want a Congress that is just not going to show up and is just going to let him do whatever he wants? Do you think this is a president who there should be no checks and balances for him? I mean, that's really the question. And given how his polling is looking, how unpopular he is looking, I would anticipate that most people would say, this is not a guy who we should give a blank check to. Now, if they take a step further than that and they say, okay, well, what are the Democrats offering as a counter? I think that gets tough. I don't necessarily see a clear message other than we're not him. And hopefully that will emerge more of like, well, what are the Democrats plans when they get in? How would they do things that differently, other than not be a madman and actually have strategy and listen to advisors and just, again, not be this person? And, you know, you see some people who, it seems like in the Democratic Party, their answer is to be mean and get in the gutter like Trump. And you see a lot of back and forth with a lot of 20, 28 presidential candidates, and they try to give as good as they get. You know, I don't know. I'm kind of waiting to see if there will be somebody who has more of the Barack Obama tone of, like, can we just, you know, have like, more of a hopeful message? Can we get to a place where, you know, we aren't looking for people who are former reality TV stars or TV stars and people who are, you know, going to have a message to kind of bring us out of this ugliness.

[A]

And it feels to me like you've served up, gopher pitch to D.H. kander on that. Let's turn finally to the Dems. You know, it is a bit of a mystery why the R's keep staying with him, but I think Jasmine kind of posited how do the Dems blow it, if you will? I mean, it is really true that right now that the field looks very well positioned for them. But as Christie says, it's not as if we have a cohesive message there. What are you nervous about? Certainly the party could screw it up. What do you hope not happen?

[C]

Oh, it's a good question. I'm not super nervous about the midterms. You know, there's plenty to be nervous about in general, about what happens between now and then. But I actually think that right now we're doing, you know, what's the old saying, you know, don't get in somebody's way when they're making a fool out of themselves. So we're doing a lot of that. And I suppose what we would do that would mess it up would be to overthink it and to start, you know, trying to come up with some message that's so broadly appealing that it says nothing. And I think that the most important thing in this moment is to be authentic. And the authentic thing is just to keep saying, like, what Pete Buttigieg has been saying, which is, you know, he said he was going to do this and he said he was going to do this. We said we would do those things. You didn't believe us, but he said that. And you voted for him because you believed him and he didn't do it. And I think that's pretty simple because what it's not, is it's not going so far as to having a message that's only he's bad because it's saying like, no, we're actually going to do the things that he said he was going to do. You know, So I actually feel pretty cautiously optimistic.

[A]

Fair enough. I'll just say very quickly as to Christie's point. If you look at the dynamic of the emerging, the kind of obvious presidential hopefuls, it's exactly on this axis of who's going to talk the toughest versus who's going to look like conciliators and play to a crowd that says let's have a new kind of politics when they have that, that target rich environment. And I do think the party is unsettled there.

[D]

When I ask Democrats this question, they say two things. One, that the DNC is broken, they don't have any money, and Donald Trump has $300 million war chest which he is planning to use, basically all of it for the midterms. And so when you get down to crunch time in October and you need the cash, is it DNC or the D trip is in a little bit better place. But are they going to be able to bridge that gap? A lot of people right now have a huge question mark and they don't know. And then secondly, the idea that yes, Donald Trump is unpopular and maybe that will fuel a turnover in the House, but the question then becomes what are Democrats for? And when you ask them, they don't really have a unified message for that.

[A]

All right, there you have it. It's an end for now, but we just have a minute for our final feature of five Words or Fewer. We take a question and each of us has to answer in five words or fewer. A lot of talk when Bondi was ousted that she is, in Trump's words and sort of her own, heading to a much needed this quote, an important new job in the private sector. What's her new gig going to be? 5 words or fewer.

[C]

Argo will reveal in two weeks

[B]

washed up loser lawyer, exactly what she called Jamie Raskin.

[A]

There you go.

[D]

Next astronaut to the moon.

[A]

Oh, excellent. And I'm going it's a little bit of a hard choice for me, but I'm going with straight of Hormuz security oversight. All right, we are out of time. Thank you so much, Jason, Christy and Jasmine. Hope to see you all again soon on Talking Feds. Till then, talk to you later. Thank you so much, Jason, Christy and Jasmine, 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 [e-mail] 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 to 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 newsland landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out [e-mail] 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, Hansam 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 Doledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.