Ceasefire and Crossfire

Summary

Talking Feds – "Ceasefire and Crossfire" (October 13, 2025)

Host: Harry Litman
Guests: Susan Glasser, Emily Bazelon, Kristin Holmes

---

Overview

In this episode, host Harry Litman gathers a powerhouse panel—Susan Glasser (The New Yorker), Emily Bazelon (NYT Magazine, Yale), and first-time guest Kristin Holmes (CNN)—to dissect two seismic stories: a tentative Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and Donald Trump's intensifying domestic campaign to weaponize the Justice Department against his perceived enemies. The conversation swings from Middle East diplomacy and domestic political fallout, to Trump’s legal retribution tour and aggressive federal interventions in blue cities.

---

Main Segments & Timestamps

1. Trump’s Israel-Hamas Ceasefire: Real Breakthrough, or Mirage?

[04:11] – [13:46]

Key Points:

• Trump indeed engineered the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, wielding unprecedented personal leverage over Netanyahu (Susan Glasser: [04:54], [07:09]).
• Trump’s transactional, pro-Israel positioning and business ties with Gulf states, especially Qatar and UAE, played a major role ([04:54], [08:01]).
• The ceasefire is only a "phase one" deal, leaving critical questions about Gaza’s future, Hamas’ demilitarization, and postwar governance unresolved ([09:29], [10:57], [11:54]).
• Skepticism abounds over Trump’s attention span for the complex long-term diplomacy required ([09:29], [10:29]).
• On the ground in Israel, Trump is publicly celebrated, but experts warn of unresolved dangers ([08:52]).

Notable Quotes:

• Susan Glasser [04:54]:
  “Trump personally has styled himself... as the most pro-Israel president—that gave him enormous power. Because... why did this deal happen right now? It was because Donald Trump chose to put the screws on Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu didn’t really have anywhere else to go."
• Emily Bazelon [09:29]:
  “Isn’t the question what’s going to happen beyond the return of the hostages in this prisoner exchange? Because then things get much more complicated... it’s very hard to imagine Donald Trump engaging with that degree of interest over a long period.”

---

2. Political Ramifications of the Ceasefire, in Israel and the US

[13:46] – [18:44]

Key Points:

• The rare Trump diplomatic win may temporarily relieve pressure on US politicians—but deep divisions remain, especially among Democrats ([16:14], [16:57]).
• The 2026 Israeli election could be impacted; Netanyahu's alignment with Republicans may be alienating US Democrats ([16:57], [18:44]).
• The shift in US public opinion, especially among younger Democratic voters, is away from traditional pro-Israel sentiments.

Notable Quotes:

• Susan Glasser [16:57]:
  “Long-term Democratic... pulling away from Israel, that is a trajectory that is established, that is not going to reverse... especially true among young Democrats, including young Jewish Democrats.”
• Kristin Holmes [16:14]:
  “This is such a volatile moment... everything is so tenuous... I think we could get there again.”

---

3. Trump’s Legal Retribution Campaign: Halligan, Comey, Letitia James

[18:44] – [32:53]

Key Points:

• Trump’s DOJ is pursuing criminal cases against perceived opponents (Comey, Letitia James) on what appear to be extremely flimsy grounds ([18:44], [20:25]).
• Novice U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan brought the Letitia James indictment almost solo, bypassing customary DOJ coordination—a jaw-dropping breach of protocol ([22:11], [23:24], [24:46]).
• The prosecutions are explicitly retributive, personally ordered by Trump in writing, and the usual DOJ independence is “ended” ([27:09], [29:06]).
• These legal assaults may not end in convictions, but the process itself damages reputations and exacts huge costs ([26:32], [32:05]).
• Debate over whether Biden should have preemptively pardoned more figures on Trump's "enemies list" out of concern for overt political prosecutions ([33:41]).

Notable Quotes:

• Emily Bazelon [20:25]:
  “When the experienced prosecutors in your office look you in the eye and tell you they can’t do it... you’re not supposed to go to the grand jury and ask for an indictment.”
• Harry Litman [24:46]:
  “If you did something like that within 20 minutes, the next thing would happen is the phone call from the Deputy Attorney General firing you... a case of that gravity and magnitude.”
• Susan Glasser [29:06]:
  “Donald Trump is in charge of the Justice Department now on an operational sense... all three of them were his personal attorneys and that’s their qualification for the job.”
• Kristin Holmes [30:06]:
  “Not only is it that they’re not going to fire her, but instead they’re saying, like, great work that you did that, because they can’t come out against it... that would be going against the President.”
• Susan Glasser [33:07]:
  “This is vengeance in a much more concerted way... I think that he and the MAGA hardcore will not be satisfied with just sort of tying up these ‘enemies’ for a while with paperwork.”

---

4. The Weaponization of Federal Power in Blue Cities

[42:19] – [53:32]

Key Points:

• Trump is escalating federal interventions in "blue cities" under pretexts of rebellion and insurrection, using National Guard and federal agents ([43:31], [45:16]).
• Federal courts have started to push back, with a notable opinion by Judge Immergut (a Trump appointee) ruling Trump’s order was “untethered to the facts,” i.e., based on lies ([45:16], [46:22]).
• The Supreme Court's historical deference to executive claims of emergency powers is discussed as a dangerous precedent ([47:57], [51:10]).
• The panel raises the specter of Trump seeking to invoke the Insurrection Act to justify further crackdowns or even election interference ([51:10]).

Notable Quotes:

• Susan Glasser [45:16]:
  “This opinion said... it’s not martial law that we have in this country, but constitutional law. And... you can’t order the US Military into an American city on the basis of a pretext that is ‘untethered to the facts’…”
• Emily Bazelon [46:22]:
  “I feel like so many of us felt great relief from those ‘untethered to the facts’ lines in this opinion.”
• Kristin Holmes [51:10]:
  “When it comes to the president, I never rule anything out... before he goes into an Insurrection Act, I think that is just him posturing and threatening. But I also think that if it comes to it, he wants to do this, he will.”
• Harry Litman [52:17]:
  “As a legal matter, I think what Immerget did is so important because the principle that deference doesn’t equal swallowing lies will matter across the board…”

---

5. Final Segment: Light-Hearted Five-Word Challenge

[53:32] – [54:11]

The question: If Trump could choose, who would perform at the Super Bowl halftime show?

• Emily Bazelon: "Kid Rock. Good choice."
• Kristin Holmes: "Lara Trump, duet."
• Susan Glasser: "Donald John Trump."
• Harry Litman: "Roger Stone and the Felons."

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Susan Glasser plateaus the conversation with her color commentary on Trump’s transactional foreign policy:
  “World has different push and pulls than the next American midterm election… In a Mideast context, that means something different.” [04:54]
• Kristin Holmes reveals White House — and DOJ — disarray over the Letitia James indictment:
  “She had never presented in front of a grand jury before. So these are the first two times…” [23:24]
• Emily Bazelon flags the erosion of prosecutorial independence:
  “...to our whole rule of law—prosecutorial integrity and independence—it’s very high [cost].” [26:32]
• Harry Litman nails the gravity of DOJ breakdown:
  “Now he’s calling the shots from on high… literally it would have been impossible [before].” [38:43]
• Susan Glasser on the weaponization of law:
  “The tradition of how our Justice Department operated since Watergate has been ended.” [29:06]

---

Key Takeaways

• Trump as Diplomat: The ceasefire in the Middle East is real, but fragile, and may serve more as a PR coup than a path to lasting peace.
• Trump as Avenger: Legal reprisal against enemies is explicit, not disguised—norms of DOJ independence have collapsed at the top.
• Rule of Law under Siege: Judges are starting to push back on federal overreach, with "untethered to the facts" becoming a crucial standard.
• US/Israel Domestic Politics: Both countries' political dynamics are intertwined, with shifting US public opinion and political alliances having major long-term consequences.
• Dangerous Precedent: Weaponizing emergency powers, DOJ, and federal security assets against political enemies or cities is no longer hypothetical; it’s underway.

---

Episode Summary in Five Words

Law, vengeance, diplomacy—norms shredded.

Transcript

[Susan Glasser]

Introducing Metaray Band Display the world's most advanced AI glasses with a full color display built into the lens of the glasses. It's there when you need it and.

[Total Wine and More Announcer]

Gone when you don't.

[Susan Glasser]

Send and receive messages, translate or caption live conversations, collaborate with Meta, AI and more. Be one of the first to try Meta Ray ban display. Visit meta.com metaraybanddisplay to book a demo and find your pair.

[Harry Littman]

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. Could it really have been the same Donald Trump, corruptor of the Constitution and ransacker of the rule of law, who forged a tentative ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? Trump seemingly saw an opening to change the leverage dynamic in the wake of Israel's missile attack in Qatar and used it to maneuver Benjamin Netanyahu to sign on to a deal. As momentous as it is, the deal is partial and only a first step. Nobody can say for certain that the ceasefire will hold, and there are plenty of questions about how to ensure that Hamas not remilitarize and make war on Israel once again. Back in the States, Trump returned to his pattern of sending a strike force of federal agents and National Guard members to blue cities and having his orders overturned in the courts. Although not all the decisions went against the administration, the courts seem to be coming around to an understanding that Trump's assertions of rebellions in the various cities were, quote, untethered to the facts, that is Lies that judges need not and should not rubber stamp. And the Trump retribution tour secured a second enemy scalp when novice U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan announced an indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James for financial fraud. News broke later that Halligan went forward with the presentation of the grand jury herself without so much as notifying the AG or Deputy ag. If true, a breathtaking departure from standard operating procedure to chronicle Trump's efforts to make war at home and peace in the Middle East. We have a fantastic group of reporters and analysts, and they are Emily Bazelon. Emily's a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine, she co hosts Slate's excellent political Gabfest podcast, and she teaches at Yale Law School, where she's the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law. I'd like to hear the story of how Truman Capote has a named fellowship at Yale, but in any event, thanks so much for joining, Emily.

[Emily Bazelon]

Thanks for having me.

[Harry Littman]

Susan Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker, where she writes a really indispensable weekly column on life in Washington and also co hosts the Political Scene podcast. Susan previously served as editor of several DC Based publications and is the author of several books including 2024's the Divider with Peter Baker, which we covered in in a talking books episode. Susan, great to see you as always.

[Susan Glasser]

Great to be with you. Thank you.

[Harry Littman]

And Kristin Holmes, I love saying this and I say that more and more rarely. A first time guest to talking feds. Kristen's a senior White house correspondent for CNN. She's been covering Trump, D.C. politics and a wide range of other issues for the network since 2016 and has been a constant scoop getter and a go to person for an inside look at this administration. Kristen, thanks so much for joining.

[Kristin Holmes]

I'm so excited to be here. Thank you.

[Harry Littman]

All right, you know, let's start abroad where we normally don't focus so much. And we should note we're speaking Friday, but the ceasefire involving Israel and Hamas has provisionally been announced and nothing's gone awry yet. Let me start here. You know, I've at least been really rough on Trump for years and not just on his ethics, but on his abilities and focus and attention. What happened? It really does seem to be that he is the driving force and, you know, we need to give him his due. Am I missing something or is this truly a Trump engineered peace package?

[Susan Glasser]

Oh, it definitely is a Trump engineered peace package. But it's been interesting that the sort of dissonance of I think the American kind of political discourse trying to come to terms with this, you know, the world has different push and pulls than the next American midterm election. And, you know, Donald Trump is still Donald Trump in a Mideast context. That means something different. You know, he's a highly transactional figure who had enormous leverage in this situation, not only because the United States is, of course, been a longtime guarantor of Israeli security, also because the United States Republican Party and Donald Trump have consistently positioned themselves as the most pro Israel forces possible in the world. And Trump personally has styled himself, we can debate about whether it's accurate or not, as the most pro Israel president that gave him enormous power. Because and particularly I would say if you look at why did this deal happen right now, it was because Donald Trump chose for a variety of reasons that we can discuss to put the screws on Benjamin Netanyahu. And Netanyahu didn't really have anywhere else to go with it. And you know, I was speaking yesterday, Harry With Aaron David Miller, who has been a peace negotiator for US Presidents of both parties in the Middle East. I've known him for a couple decades. Aaron made the point, I think it's really important. It was almost an unprecedented level of pressure that the leader of Israel was subjected to in order to come to the table here. And while that was a very risky move for him politically because it risked the collapse of his far right wing coalition inside Israel that does not support making a peace deal, he also risked losing the support from Donald Trump that will be key to, to whether he has a political future in Israel or not. So, again, it's a remarkable moment that Trump chose to come to this point and partially it's explained by the other place where he has enormous leverage in the Middle east and enormous personal political and financial interests, and that is in the Gulf Arab states of Qatar and uae. And Donald Trump and his family are in business with those people. Qatar has played a key role in, in all of this, not only giving him a new, very, very expensive Air Force One for his use, going into business in a way, with his sons, with the sons of his Middle east envoy, Steve Witkoff. So they also have an enormous interest in ending this war right now on terms of that allow for as much Palestinian autonomy as possible. And so just these forces came together. It's a huge moment. And I think let's give the due to, let's hope and pray over this weekend that at least those 20 remaining hostages come out and that the fighting actually does stop.

[Kristin Holmes]

Just to elaborate a little bit on what Susan was saying, I think, you know, this relationship with Qatar really can't be overlooked. We, the United States, utilized, as Susan was saying, these golf partners in a way that the United States never had. And that's because of these ties that Donald Trump had. But the US has been reluctant to go into business to rely on them. We essentially used Qatar to get this deal done in more ways than one. I mean, just the strike in Qatar was a huge catalyst to get this deal done, as was the fact that Qatar was a mediator. And I think that that can't really be overlooked, that there was, yes, an enormous amount of pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, which President Trump was really able to put the screws to him. But also we were utilizing players in that region in a way that the US has been reluctant to do for decades.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah, I mean, the conventional narrative here is the, you know, it seems like a bit of a, of a strategic masterstroke that the strike on Qatar Actually, Trump saw it as his opening to put the screws to Netanyahu, but, you know, but to make or to make a deal, it's not as he's, you know, selling him down the river. Indeed, today in Israel, there are billboards up everywhere. Thank you, Donald Trump. That's definitely how it's playing in Israel itself. But that it was the exploitation of the strike, which Cutter and others were upset about, that enabled him to sort of close the deal.

[Emily Bazelon]

Well, isn't the question what's going to happen beyond presumably the return of the hostages in this prisoner exchange? Because then things get much more complicated. I mean, also there's right now a ceasefire, this question of what comes next for Gaza, how do you rebuild it? How are they actually going to put together governance? This board that's Trump is supposedly going to chair, that's going to oversee it, like all of that demands serious, sustained attention. It's very hard to imagine Donald Trump engaging with that degree of interest over a long period of time. It's possible there are other people, you know, Jared Kushner is getting credit for this, other people in the administration who will be interested enough to stay involved. But things are going to get sticky really soon. And I feel like from Trump's point of view, given how pro Israel his vantage point usually is, once the hostages are back, I wonder how much energy there's going to be for these really crucial steps going forward, I think for the Palestinians and for Israelis. But they're just going to be really hard.

[Harry Littman]

You know, it's a great point. The Nobel, he thinks he's already won the Nobel. But, you know, I'm not an expert in this area, but the idea, idea that Hamas, they have to promise to not in any way rebuild the infrastructure of war, including all the tunnels, give that up voluntarily, man. It's how they've operated, not just business, but whole nation for 20, 30 years. It seems hard to imagine they're just signing on.

[Susan Glasser]

I wanted to underscore Emily's point, because that really is the point. And Harry, just as a matter of what actually has happened here, even Donald Trump, you know, if you look at his actual announcement, he was very, he was careful to note it was only a phase one agreement. The phase one agreement does not cover the long term issues in any way. Now there's what Donald Trump says versus, you know, what's actually been agreed to. So I thought it was notable that, you know, when he starts talking about it, he calls it a quote unquote, momentous breakthrough. He said, this isn't just about Gaza. This is peace in the Middle East. He said, this is now a war that I have solved. That is over now. That is not really the case. And by the way, look into what's on that list. It's really remarkable. Of those, quote, unquote, eight, that one is this conflict in Gaza. Two of them were wars that literally were not even wars, which is pretty amazing, such as Egypt and Ethiopia.

[Harry Littman]

Not a conflict you solved the Crusades, we found out, didn't we?

[Susan Glasser]

Serbia and Kosovo years ago in the past, a conflict. Donald Trump had nothing to do with anything there. And on it goes. The, the, the militia fighting in the, the DRC in Rwanda continues, despite the quote, unquote, historic agreement Donald Trump got them to sign in June. But in terms of this moment, I just, I think, again, I come back to Emily's point, like, where will Donald Trump be in the next phase of negotiations? It's that phase two or phase three. Many of the experts that I've spoken with don't believe there will be any agreement beyond this ceasefire. And of course, that has been hanging over this terrible war ever since it was unleashed almost exactly two years ago to the day, because Netanyahu has been very reluctant to talk ever about what the future of post war Gaza would be that will break up his coalition. Donald Trump came into office talking about very extreme measures, such as basically depopulating Gaza of all the actual Gazans. He was asked about that the other day. Oh, no, no, that's not gonna happen. So who knows what's gonna happen? But the recipe for conflict continuing is unfortunately very high here, even in the short term. For example, what would it mean to have Hamas agree to demilitarization? Israelis are immediately going to become very concerned about the verification of that same on the Palestinian side. The question of what territory is Israel going to be allowed to occupy? How are they gonna jointly coexist in places like the border crossings? There are a lot of question marks here.

[Harry Littman]

It's just a really important cautionary note that all three of you are sounding, you know, whatever actual work and contribution he did here, the combination of his, let's say, short attention span and the incredible cultural mess of Israel and the occupied territories has to make for huge pause if you're just sort of betting what things will look like in a year. Kristen, can I ask, Trump lashed out at you at a press conference about the ceasefire. Congratulations, by the way. You've joined a very eminent club. But what were you trying to ask him? What happened there?

[Kristin Holmes]

Yeah, well, I was trying to ask him if he was personally involved in any of these talks, because we knew the negotiations were happening, and I wanted to know his level. Was he calling in? Was he talking to Bibi Netanyahu? And look, for a number of reasons, the entire event had spent their time bashing the mainstream media. And then I don't think he appreciated that question, as though he wasn't a part of it. But, you know, I think people had a lot of questions at that point. We. That was before Marco Rubio came into the room with that note, or perhaps right afterwards, actually, that he was taking those questions and they wanted to know the status of the deals and how he was and if he was having these conversations. And we hadn't gotten anywhere with the White House yet on just where exactly they were. And so that's when that happened.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah.

[Susan Glasser]

Okay.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah. Look, I just want to say once more, a buoyant day and weekend, but all kinds of reasons for hesitation about the notion that this so embittered generational conflict will, just because of a stroke of pen on a paper, kind of evaporate. And I think we leave it there now, you know, on Monday when this is published. Hopefully things are still together a week from then. Anyway, that's what will follow. I wanted to just have a closeout question about US Politics because, you know, it was a real factor, I think, in 2024, support for Israel seemed to push some swing voters against Harris in critical states like Michigan. And just in general, with the ongoing war, I think there's a pretty deep divide among Democratic voters, even among American Jews. Assuming the deal doesn't just completely crater in short order, what's your sense of its impact on the American political scene?

[Kristin Holmes]

I think we don't know yet. I think we're gonna have to wait and see. I mean, it was the idea that we can just say that if it hasn't cratered, what will happen? I mean, this is such a volatile moment and everything is so tenuous that we could be in a completely different place by the time the midterms come. I think that we are in an incredibly sensitive place during the last election, and I think we could get there again. I think that this will quell some of the tensions, but I also think that we just can't guess where we're going to be and where voters are going to be, you know, given what's happening on the ground there this early, because this has just been signed.

[Susan Glasser]

And by the way, there's also likely to be an election in Israel in 2026. And so that's something really good point to keep on the radar as well. And because, you know, the two go in tandem, actually, last time I remember when Trump was in office, the first term, basically Netanyahu, you might have thought that Donald Trump was his running mate this time. You know, there are tensions between the two, as we've seen. And it will be fascinating to see to what extent Trump lends his support in an ongoing basis to Netanyahu or how much it's unraveled. But those are unknowable questions. I think the long term Democratic capital D pulling away from Israel, that is a trajectory that is established, that is not going to reverse, that is not going to change course. Younger Americans today, amazing numbers by the way, of both parties, but in particular of the Democratic Party, are just not as supportive of Israel as historically the US Electorate has been. And that is especially true among young Democrats, including, by the way, among young Jewish Democrats. And so I think that is a long term trajectory. You know, many would look at Netanyahu, who's, by the way, the longest serving leader of Israel since its founding, and say that he sort of made a calculated choice to put in his lot with the American Republican Party. And of course, at a time of such polarization here in the US that's further pushed Democrats away from Israel as long as Netanyahu is in power. So while we don't know the future, I do think that trajectory is set. And probably there are just some Democrats who felt so bruised by what this issue did to them and their party in 2024 that they're probably hoping that it's just taken off the table a little bit in terms of American domestic politics, at least for now.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah, it's remarkable to me how reviled a figure Netanyahu is. But we're told, I mean, every coalition government he put together had this outsized influence by right wing ministers and support, supposedly the stranglehold that Trump had him has made them have at least a sort of partial divorce. So that would really change Israeli politics a lot, I think. Also, it's funny, my sense you would probably know better is that he's not a very popular figure, even in Israel, where he still has to go on trial and the like. But, but Trump is now the person people look up to. Okay, let's go back to more familiar and unpleasant, I'd say Trump territory. And this is his naked reprisal campaign to bring criminal charges against political enemies. So we had the Comey indictment. Now there are two Lindsey Halligan, the same Completely inexperienced rookie, his insurance lawyer from Florida pushed into the U.S. attorney's job in the Eastern District of Virginia. When the other person Trump had chosen said, I can't bring these cases, the facts and law aren't there. She's there. And now she's done it again with Letitia James, who in some ways was a. Was an even sharper antagonist for Trump, among other things, brought a really big and basically successful lawsuit, even though it got kind of trimmed on appeal. So let me just serve this up. You know, is this Comey 2.0 as naked, raw and odious, a sort of political prosecution, nothing else? Do you see differences between the two cases?

[Emily Bazelon]

I mean, it doesn't look different in the sense that based on what we know so far, the evidence is flimsy at best. Right. And we know in both cases that the former acting U.S. attorney Eric Siebert, who got pushed out it had a bunch of people chasing down every lead they could with these cases. Right. I mean, he wasn't ignoring them, he was looking into them, I think doing his best to find a basis for going to the grand jury because he knew that politically, that was the thing that the Trump administration wanted. Right. I mean, whether there was a factual predicate for investigating or not, they were trying to run this down, bringing in witnesses, et cetera. And so, you know, when the experienced prosecutors in your office look you in the eye and tell you they can't do it, and they just don't think there's probable cause, you're not supposed to go to the grand jury and ask for an indictment. And so Siebert, I think, quite nobly left, forced to resign. And now we have Halligan in there, and she went by herself without any of the career attorneys. Yeah, I mean, right, Harry, you know better than any of us, like, how unusual and bananas that is. She did the presentation to the grand jury, you know, talking to people who were around, it sounded like kind of a message. And the grand jury, as grand juries usually do, return the indictment. Apparently, it was one of the first cases this particular grand jury heard. And so sometimes a new grand jury is particularly likely to listen to a prosecutor. And, you know, now we're gonna find out how far this is gonna go, but we are definitely seeing the indictment of a president's perceived political antagonist based on evidence that other prosecutors passed on.

[Harry Littman]

Kristin, let me go to you. I was asked on CNN today that reports, and those are your reports, is that Halligan didn't even coordinate with the doj. In some ways, Bondi is kind of out of the loop. I think I called it, in this legal term, totally funky on your network, because that blows my mind. So tell us about that reporting and if you have any surmise about what's going on with the DOJ brass, Bondi, Blanche, et cetera, and this case.

[Kristin Holmes]

We had reported that Blanche and Bondi in particular, were opposed to the Letitia James case, that they were more open to the Comey case given the evidence that they had seen and possibly bringing that to a grand jury, but that they were actually opposed to the James case based on the information that they had been given by Eric Sievert and these career prosecutors that just basically said there wasn't enough to bring those charges. So that's one part of this. And I do want to note, Halligan did both of these by herself in front of a grand jury with very little prep. She was prepped by the FBI agents in the Comey case, not prepped at all for the Letitia James case. And she had never presented in front of a grand jury before. So these are the first two times that she has presented in front.

[Harry Littman]

She'd never been inside a U.S. attorney's office. It's so mind blowing for me as a former prosecutor.

[Susan Glasser]

Right.

[Kristin Holmes]

And so, you know, my understanding is that she just kind of decided that she wanted to bring this case. She knows.

[Susan Glasser]

She.

[Kristin Holmes]

She knows why she was put in that position. She knows what she is there to do, and that she had kind of run it by some DOJ officials that she was gonna pursue a case, but not really gone any further than that when it came to telling them win or what the was gonna look like or what she was going to present.

[Susan Glasser]

And.

[Kristin Holmes]

And that's why when the news broke on Thursday that she had secured an indictment in Letitia James case, it actually took Bondi and Blanche and the entire DOJ brass by surprise because they were not aware that she was going to do this. And in fact, I was told by a source that she was kind of just thinking, what day should I do it? Should I do it in Norfolk? Should I do it in Alexandria? I guess it makes more sense. I'll do it in Alexandria. Even though she's gonna appear in Norfolk. I mean, and this is, you know, what I'm being told was just batting around the idea of bringing these charges to a grand jury, and then decided to and ended up securing that indictment, and again, without the approval or even permission of Todd Blanche or Pam Bondi, only for them to learn about that she'd already gone through with It.

[Harry Littman]

Dear listeners, just please let. May I note from having been a U.S. attorney, if you did something like that within 20 minutes, the next thing would happen is the phone call from the deputy Attorney general firing. You're at just, no doubt about it, a case of that, of that gravity and magnitude. So I wonder in part, is that is this kind of engineered for deniability, or is it really just as Kristen reported, which, you know, makes my head go around 360 degrees?

[Emily Bazelon]

Well, I think it seems like there's some end runs around the leadership. And not to absolve the leadership of responsibility, but Ed Martin, who's head of this, you know, quote, weaponization working Group, who is a Trump loyalist, he knew about it because he posted a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge in the morning. So now we know what that was about. Did you guys see that? In the indictment, they said that James lived in Brooklyn, New Jersey. Like, they're really, you know, making it up as they go along. But, you know, when you hear about from people on the inside, the amount of influence that Martin has. Pulte, this guy in the housing office, I always forget what it's called, the mortgage. So nuts that he seems to have all this power in his.

[Kristin Holmes]

I don't think he's a lawyer either. Bill Pulte. I don't think Bill Pulte has a law degree, but he did get Trump's ear by talking about this with Lisa Cook with the mortgage fraud case and the Fed. And that really catapulted him in Trump's orbit. And most people didn't know who he was. And then he started pushing these ideas. And if you actually talked to some of Trump's most vicious attorneys who are out there saying that these people should be jailed, they were actually saying they didn't think there was a strong enough case against, behind the scenes, of course, against Letitia James, but also saying that they didn't understand what Bill Pulte was doing.

[Emily Bazelon]

Right. But, you know what's gonna happen now is it's gonna take a while for this to unwind, because that's how it works. And in the meantime, James is under indictment. There is some cloud of suspicion. We're all going to talk about all these facts and kind of take them seriously, because that's what happens when you get indicted. And the cost of that, you know, to her personally for sure, but also just to our whole rule of law, you know, all these ideas we have about prosecutorial integrity and independence, it's very high. And, you know, one imagines that they're going to be other people. You know, up next for this indictment because the list of enemies is longer than two names.

[Susan Glasser]

I think that's really the big picture point. Right. Like on some level, Donald Trump succeeds when he gets us just to sort of talk about the frameworks that he's set for us. And you know, there's a couple of things that just leap out in this moment. Both the Comey and the James prosecutions, they were ordered in writing by the President of the United States. Okay. And in some level, I think it's really striking. One of the kind of scooplets of the week was this Wall Street Journal confirming, in fact, that when Donald Trump put out a social media post, essentially ordering the Attorney General to go after Comey and James and now Senator Adam Schiff, that it was an errant direct message on his social media platform to the Attorney General that had been published. There's a lot of speculation about that. First of all, remarkable that that's how the President is communicating with his Attorney General. But more importantly, he put it in writing. And this is a really remarkable moment that speaks to this question, Harry, that you asked just now, which is, well, why isn't acting U.S. attorney in trouble for making an indictment of this political momentousness without consulting with her superiors? Well, the answer is, is that Donald Trump is in charge of the Justice Department now on an operational sense, on a day to day sense. And in fact, he's making all the calls. And the thing that this U.S. attorney in the Eastern District has in common with the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General is that all three of them were his personal attorneys and that's their qualification for the job. And I just think it's one of those things where it's happened pretty suddenly, but now we already can look back and say, yes, this tradition of how our Justice Department operated since Watergate has been ended. And now you have the President, United States personally directing prosecutions and ordering indictments from the Oval Office. So for me, again, hard to know what will happen. As Emily pointed out, these cases will take years to unfold potentially. But I also think it's just the revenge agenda. That's the other thing I wanted to sort of flag here. Very specifically, you know, it's doing onto others as he has been done to. That is Trump's mantra. It's very specific. It's not just random enemies. These are the people who persecuted him, who therefore must be literally persecuted. He can't know what's going to happen in the court cases. But at a minimum he wins, even if he loses these cases because they've spent years, millions of dollars, reputational damage, all those things. He's spoken about that in many of the lawsuits he used to file, even before he became president.

[Kristin Holmes]

Yeah. And I just want to add one thing. It's not just that she's not going to get fired by Todd Blanche or Attorney General Pam Bondi. They were celebrating it online because they. That's what they're supposed to do. They cannot come out against her getting an indictment against Letitia James because they know that that is part of the end goal here when you talk about this retribution. So not only is it that they're not going to fire her, but instead they're saying, like, great work that you did that, because they can't come out against it in any way, because that would be going against the President of the United States. And I will say something. You talk a lot about these cases and where they end up and what's going to happen. And for Donald Trump, a lot of that doesn't really matter for him, what matters is he believes that he was embarrassed that his house was searched at Mar A Lago, and he believes that people unjustly brought him to court in various circumstances. And he doesn't understand, and he didn't understand when it came to Eric Siebert why we can't just bring them to court like they brought him to court. And that's why he felt so strongly. You even heard him say this on the South Lawn, talking to report. If he goes to court and they're not guilty, well, then they're not guilty. Clearly showing that he doesn't care about that part. He cares about the part where John Bolton's home gets searched in front of cameras. He cares about Comey being embarrassed and being indicted. Those are the things that he cares about. It's not necessarily the end game. I don't even know that he's talking about Bolton's case because he got part of what he wanted out of that, which was Bolton publicly being searched the way that President Trump said felt he had publicly been searched. So if you're looking at it in terms of, oh, President Trump wants to just find them guilty. It's not just that there's a level of embarrassment of trying to get them to experience what he experienced, what he felt was unfair to him, obviously there's disagreement there in terms of what the evidence was in these various cases, but that is how he feels. And so that's really what he's looking for here is exactly what Lindsey Halligan is doing, bringing the charges.

[Emily Bazelon]

Right. I mean, just to underscore Susan's important point about the framing and how this affects what we all talk about and how we talk about it, he's really shown that the short term, the short news cycle has enormous power. Like you said, Kristen, doesn't really matter what happens later. If these cases fall apart later, that'll be later down the line. He's still getting the kind of bump and rush out of the now. And until his approval ratings really show that these kinds of moments hurt him, which we have not seen so far. Right. He's going to continue to ride these waves because, yeah, there are many waves and they might crash later, but he's not the one who's really paying the price at this point. You can always blame someone else, you can always fire someone, replace your personnel, et cetera.

[Susan Glasser]

It's an inside game. Right. I mean, you know, there's just no evidence to suggest that it's going to be kind of a voting issue for people. And so that's one thing. The other thing, though, I would actually say, though, that Donald Trump would like these people to go to jail.

[Emily Bazelon]

Oh, sure.

[Susan Glasser]

I actually, I don't think that it's just about publicly humiliating them. I think that he, as, you know, this is, this is vengeance in a much more, you know, concerted way, and that he actually wants them to go to jail. As, by the way, several of his MAGA supporters did go to jail, not only because of their role in the violent attack on the US Capitol after the 2020 election that he lost, but also, you know, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, they went to jail because they refused to testify before Congress. And I think that he and the MAGA hardcore will not be satisfied with just sort of tying up these, quote, unquote, enemies for, you know, a while with paperwork. So that's, that's one point. And it's interesting, I've been thinking a lot because of that about whether it's, you know, I'm reevaluating the decision by Joe Biden to offer preemptive pardons to a number of those on Trump's enemies list back in January. And I recall at the time, right. You know, people were like, obviously, I'm not even really talking about Joe Biden and his family. That's, that's a particular issue we, we can discuss. But, you know, people like Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci and Mark Milley, Trump had made very specific threats against them, but he had also made very specific threats at this point in time, certainly about James Comey and John Bolton. And I don't know what the right answer is, but it certainly had me thinking a lot in the last few days about was it the right call on Biden's part? Should he have pardoned more people? Were people too unwilling to believe that Donald Trump was going to follow through in his threats? I noticed yesterday an NPR piece from the summer of 2024 cataloging at that time more than 100 specific threats that Donald Trump had made to prosecute his enemies. And again, that was a long time ago. It's just a reflection of this moment that we're in, that even the people who anticipated very bad scenarios for Trump 2.0, in some ways those scenarios are now being exceeded. I suppose that's the story about why Biden didn't pardon more people.

[Harry Littman]

I want to make a couple lawyer or ex DOJ points, but this general idea, because I thought, I think it's quite likely both of these cases collapse. But I think it's also in almost any scenario, he'll have a way of somehow declaring victory or not caring about it and got the bump and push, as Emily said, including, by the way, the expense to the, you know, Letitia James, lifetime public servant, Comey as well. But in terms of the offense of the indictment, though, what's important to understand is even if they've now stumbled onto a picayune case that actually is valid, we don't know that yet. It's so poorly put together. But let me say this one thing in terms of picayune $18,000 in damages. Every U.S. attorney's office has prosecutorial guidelines how big a case has to be, not an office in the country that would even consider this kind of negligible amount of loss. But when you talk about selective prosecution, it doesn't matter. You made the point, Emily. Maybe this is one that they somehow think they can prove. The elements don't require that the charges be bogus. She will have a strong selective prosecution motion, in some ways even stronger than Comey, whether or not it's the case that they have some technically sound picayune case. So that's the bottom line. I want people to understand. Let me say, Kristen, again, man, you got, you guys have been, you personally been killing it on the reporting here. But you've also, you know, CNN has reported they're going to challenge her appointment, as Comey is going to do. Do you think she crashes and burns the same way Alina Haba has done, you know, in New Jersey?

[Kristin Holmes]

I really don't know. I think that in terms of what we've reported from Comey's attorney, it sounds as though there are a lot of ways here and loopholes that would get her off of the case. I don't know how they hold up in court, but this idea that by the time that he's actually brought in that her time will be up, she'll have already been there for 120 days. The fact that these are timed out jobs and they're supposed to hinge on the Senate confirmation, and obviously she was just appointed into this position, there's certainly going to be a lot of questions when it comes to her place in this and if this indictment holds, because again, one of the other arguments was that if she's not legitimately the US Attorney General, then the indictment is not legitimate because it was brought by her and by her alone. So, obviously there's a lot of legalese to parse through here. I think that Comey's clearly gonna do everything he can to have these charges dropped, which, of course is his right, and he should do as would anyone who had charges brought against them. So I just don't think we know where this goes right now. I mean, it's like everything when it comes to this President, it's like everything is always unprecedented. We're in a whole different ball game here. Not only is he prosecuting political enemies, but he's doing it with somebody that he just shoved into the office two days before. Yeah. I mean, it's so out there that we don't know. All we know is it's gonna play out in a court of law.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah. Let me describe how out there it is. Before he took office, there would be no possibility of a communication involving a case between anyone at DOJ and the White House. Now he's calling the shots from on high, but literally, it would have been impossible. I want to pick up on a point that, Kristen, you made that I found really galling and.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, can I just interrupt?

[Harry Littman]

Oh, I'm sorry. Please, go ahead. Yeah.

[Susan Glasser]

The reason I'm doing it is because the breaking news is that the Department of Justice is seeking charges on John Bolton.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah, that one I'm going to be really interested to see because they at least assert in that. Thank you. This just in. On the one hand, Bolton, from everyone who knows him, seems like way too sophisticated to have classified materials hanging around on the other. So we'll see. Keep us posted. Here was one point I wanted to make, though. I think as part of this agenda and Kristen reverted to it. It's felt to me anyway, that there's a collective sort of amnesia about January 6th itself and that this talking point is getting real purchase of, oh, they did it and then they did it and really sort of lumping them all together. When you had in January 6th the, you know, most incendiary crime maybe in the US history, the most righteous investigation, et cetera. But it feels to me like a tangible dividend for him is having people all kind of just see this was sort of. You could say the same with Fondi's obstreperous testimony last week. It's just voters say, ah, pox on all their houses. Everyone does bad stuff, rather than, you know, remembering as we should, in crystalline fashion, you know, what actually happened at the end of Trump's first term. 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.

[Total Wine and More Announcer]

Thanks, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we whip through the whiskeys to find out the difference between the three main types. Scotch, bourbon and rye. Whiskey, spelled without an e, is produced in Scotland and Canada, whereas whiskey spelled with an e means it's produced in the US And Ireland and includes Scotch, bourbon and rye. It's these grains that help define which type of whiskey it will become before it eventually lands among the thousands of bottles on the shelves at your local Total Wine and more. Now let's talk about Scotch. Scotch is typically made from malted barley blended with other grains, and that helps give it a little bit of a bite, making it more of acquired taste. Bourbon must be made from at least 51% corn produced in the US and aged in new charred oak barrels. The oak gives this brown liquid its signature sweet flavor. And then there's rye, which must be made from at least. Yep, you guessed it, 51% rye. Rye is a type of grass in the wheat family that has a spicy, edgier flavor, adding a little extra kick you may not find in a bourbon. For a true test of bourbon versus rye, we recommend you pop into Total Wine. Maybe grab a bottle of Scotch while you're here. But to really get to know the differences in Scotch, bourbon and rye, start by talking to the guides at Total Wine and More, who are more than happy to talk day or night about whiskey, with or without an e. Thanks.

[Harry Littman]

To our friends at Total Wine and More for today's A Spirited Debate. Okay, shall we move on to Portland and Chicago. We have now a really expanding effort by Trump to militarize either with so called federalized National Guard, but already very big sort of squads of ICE agents and other agents and a lot of indications that they're just, you know, breaking heads and using excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Just yesterday, in two different lawsuits, the administration was told stand down in Illinois. But the Portland opinion went up to the 9th Circuit and it looked like that might be vulnerable to some kind of reversal. I don't know if anyone's been falling on the ground, but a feature that to me is not getting a lot of play is willingly. Texas has stormed in. We have like National Guard from Texas on the ground in Chicago as if it's some kind of like civil war. The whole thing seems like such a recipe for discord and polarization.

[Susan Glasser]

I'm just, I'm glad that we're talking about this because it strikes me that, you know, this again is a moment and it's worth marking that Trump has now taken what might have been a one off. You know, here's a crisis in a particular city or even, you know, over the summer here in D.C. and he has now said, this is a template for how I'm going to act on some level. He has, I think, fundamentally shifted in this second presidency what the idea of American national security is. He outlined that in his speech to the generals in Quantico a week ago. He said, basically America's at war with the enemy within, defined by him, the enemy within. And now it's American cities that will be the training ground for our US Military. So rather than foreign threats, it's now internal domestic threats that have come to be constituted as a national security emergency. And he's followed that up this week with this remarkable language. He said that Portland was a war ravaged city. He said that Chicago was like a war zone. He said that both Chicago and Portland were essentially in a state of rebellion and insurrection against the United States. And it strikes observers who listen to those arguments in the Ninth Circuit that there's a high likelihood that the district court's judge ruling would be overruled. But it's worth, I think for your listeners, just for a second, this was a remarkable opinion by a Trump appointed federal district judge, Karen Immergut, a conservative. She actually had been a prosecutor in the Ken Starr investigation of President Clinton.

[Harry Littman]

She deposed Monica Lewinsky.

[Susan Glasser]

Right, exactly. She interviewed Monica Lewinsky. I remember it well. This opinion said two very important things that I think define the contours of what's happening here? Number one, she said that it's not a matter, you know, that Donald Trump and what he's doing is wrong because it's not martial law that we have in this country, but constitutional law. And then underpinning that, of course, is the untruthfulness and the almost absurdity of the pretext that's launched it. And she said, you know, you can't order the US Military into an American city on the basis of a pretext that is, quote, untethered to the facts. And I just think those two things alone tell you where we're at right now. This opinion, again, it may be overruled by the Circuit Court, but I still think it really crystallizes the nature of why it's so significant that Trump has chosen to pick this fight with what he calls radical left, democratic cities.

[Emily Bazelon]

I feel like so many of us felt great relief from those untethered to the facts lines in this opinion. You know, Judge Immerga to Trump appointee seeming like she's really looking at the facts, which the Supreme Court has really chosen not to do in case after case. Right. I mean, yes, true, the Supreme Court has largely been operating in the land of emergency petitions, but that's its choice. And they seem kind of willfully blind to a lot of the actual facts and the misrepresentations that the Trump administration is making. And so it was like a relief that a judge was actually assessing the facts on the ground.

[Total Wine and More Announcer]

But.

[Emily Bazelon]

And you were touching on this, Susan. I'm also getting worried that this is all about provoking. And so the facts are going to change on the ground because people are going to get mad, and then that becomes an excuse for more government troops in the streets. Right. It didn't work that well, especially in D.C. mostly. It seems, from what I've heard, you guys are there, not me, that the National Guard is, like, picking up trash. There hasn't been a lot of, you know, conflagration. But that doesn't mean that in every city, people are going to be super chill about having troops around.

[Susan Glasser]

And, Harry, this goes to. I mean, a little lawyer question for you here. Yeah, but that the reason, Emily, I think, for that is because even if Trump does send the National Guard in, there actually are limited. Right. You know, in terms of. They're supposed to be defending federal installations or building.

[Emily Bazelon]

Yes. They can't do law enforcement.

[Susan Glasser]

Exactly.

[Emily Bazelon]

Yes.

[Harry Littman]

So there are two aspects to what's going on. One is this one. They go in and you have all of Trump's Rhetoric being people are getting killed, we're going to go in, etc. But then they go to court and they have to say, oh, we're just trying to defend. But then they're confronted and this was, you know, immigrant had a hearing with video after video that shows them completely violating the fourth Amendment. And relatedly they're not sticking to the Tom Homan line of just a quick Terry stop question to see if they develop probable cause. They're like attacking entire apartment buildings, right. Rappelling down as if for going after bin Laden or whatever. The second part, I actually think I've been focused on this for a long time and I was really buoyed by the immigrant opinion. And for this reason, Breyer had made a similar ruling at a district court. Chuck Breyer and a panel of the 9th Circuit said you need to defer, it needs to have deference. And they had reversed. And in general, if you look at the history of Insurrection act litigation or the arguments even in the Supreme Court over the last year that deference has been equated with holding for the President, you know, they just sort of say, oh, we have to defer now and immerget so logical in a very sort of cool headed, un sensational kind of opinion. She's you know, I defer, but after I defer, you know, I'll kind of sympathetically think about what they're doing, et cetera. That is not the same thing as swallowing whole bald faced lies. And that is the Trumpian problem kind of. Everyone knows, including judges, that he comes up and has just completely propounded a fiction and the time's going to come that if the Supreme Court ever swallows that the law is, is an ass. But if they know otherwise, I really think the immigrant formulation matters a lot. That's why I'm worried there'll be a sort of not just reversal, but a thoughtless reversal. But that idea is now in the water. They did the same thing in Illinois yesterday. There's no insurrection. Go away. And to answer your other question on the substance, yeah, he has to have one of three reasons and the only one remotely applicable would be that one that says there's a rebellion or if he moves to the Insurrection act, which I think there's a lot of reasons he won't want to, that it's an insurrection and there are definitions of those things. And again, as Immerse said, sporadic violence, you know, we're talking about 30 people at a time demonstrating, maybe one person throwing a rock, whatever. It just is not a rebellion. Against the authority of the United States. Well, let me ask, because I served it up. Insurrection act, he's now brandishing that saber. I don't know if anyone has thoughts on just this Insurrection act piece. And to make the legal point on it, it would permit the thing that is still prohibited, that military folks could come in and act like cops, whereas now they have to do these supportive ancillary functions, although they're not keeping to them. But that's the law.

[Kristin Holmes]

I'll tell you what I say about everything. When it comes to the president, I never rule anything out. So even if it's politically incendiary, I do think they're going to try and exhaust every legal avenue that they can. I mean, obviously we've seen in the past that's worked to their advantage. So before he goes into an Insurrection Act, I think that that is just him posturing and threatening. But I also think that if it comes to it, he wants to do this, he will.

[Emily Bazelon]

I think it'll depend a lot on what the circuit courts do. If they overrule these district court judges and then he can use the National Guard and keep going with what he's doing, I think they'll be less likely to move on to the Insurrection Act. But, I mean, it seems like he was testing, right?

[Harry Littman]

Always.

[Emily Bazelon]

You know, we think it's much more incendiary. But going back to points we were talking about earlier, when does the public actually respond with, you know, a real sense of urgency and crisis and dismay to all of these moves? We just really haven't seen it yet. So it seems like he will keep pushing until there's. I mean, we have seen it. Jimmy Kimmel.

[Harry Littman]

Jimmy Kimmel. But not. But not Portland. Right?

[Susan Glasser]

Yes.

[Harry Littman]

My number one concern in the ball I try to keep my eye on is that through some phony baloney claim of deference, he's able to get the courts of appeals or Supreme Court to greenlight some assertion of emergency powers, which in turn he then uses to mess with the election. But that's the. As a legal matter, I think what Immerget did is so important because the principle that deference doesn't equal swallowing lies will matter across the board because I think he just needs one kind of solid emergency power, and then he can do a sort of knight's move to try to mess with the election. Okay, we are out of time. And Kristen, it's been so nice to have you. I hope you'll come back. Maybe you'll leave now because, you know, the final feature on talking Feds much beloved by listeners, not always by guests is we get a question and we have to answer in five words or fewer. And the question today is Trump seems very hot and bothered that the rapper Bad Bunny is slated to perform at this year's super bowl halftime show. Who, if he had his druthers, would he insert which he might try to.

[Emily Bazelon]

Yeah, Kid Rock, Good choice.

[Kristin Holmes]

Lara Trump, duet nice.

[Harry Littman]

5. Exactly. Man, she is on the screws.

[Susan Glasser]

Okay, no, there's only one answer. Only one answer here, folks. Donald John Trump. If there's an opportunity for millions of people to be watching him, that's the guy he wants in the, in the.

[Harry Littman]

Center singing My Way.

[Emily Bazelon]

Okay, Emily, I was thinking of going both old school and Trump bringing someone back from the grave. So let's see, this is six words, back from the grave. Charlton Heston.

[Harry Littman]

Perfect. Yeah. And I'm going with, you know that great doo wop group, Roger Stone and the Felons. Thank you so much, Emily, Susan, and Kristen. 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. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Check us out as well 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. And 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. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. 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 Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McGardo, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsa Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard, and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshay Turbalu and Sebastian Navarro 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.

[Susan Glasser]

Sa.