Loading summary
Transcript97 lines
- [00:00]
Josh Marshall
Foreign.
- [00:07]
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. It seems scarcely possible for Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to go any farther upriver, but Bondi managed it to the evident delight of the president. Ignoring the objections of career prosecutors, Bondi spearheaded charges which a magistrate previously had rejected against Don Lemon and another independent journalist for their part in covering and now, in the department's official view, fomenting a protest in a Minnesota church. Meanwhile, the administration dispatched border czar Tom Homan to the state to try to rescue its ultra controversial immigration operations. Homan arrived with talk of compromise, even as Trump himself continued to tar Alex Preddy, whose killing still fuels national outrage as an agitator and perhaps insurrectionist. The appalled reaction around the country to ICE's abuses in Minnesota have given the Democrats a card to play in the latest shutdown showdown. A fragile deal is in place to fund the government while putting some small restraints on ice. And in another entry in the WTF annals of the doj, the department served a warrant on the Fulton county election office, apparently pursuing Trump's dearly held illusion that the 2020 election was rigged. The department capped its week of bizarre moves with the release of a huge tranche of several million Jeffrey Epstein documents, which analysts and journalists quickly began to delve through to discuss the political and legal earthquakes caused by the killing of Alex Preddy and other seismic events of the week. I'm really pleased to welcome a trio that combines deep knowledge of the White House, DHS and Capitol Hill. And they are Kristen Holmes, coming to us now from the White House. She'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, a kind of pivotal year in history, I might add. She's been a constant scoop getter and a go to person for an inside look at the administration. Kristen, thanks so much for rejoining us on Talking Feds.
- [02:56]
Kristen Holmes
Happy to be here.
- [02:57]
Harry Littman
Juliette Kiam, a stalwart who's been a little bit busy of late and is bound for the Olympics. One of her many high profile clients in just a few days. She is the faculty chair of the Homeland Security Program at Harvard's Kennedy School, a senior National Security Analyst at CNN, and a contributor to the Atlantic magazine. She served for years as Obama's Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental affairs at dhs. Always great to welcome You, Juliette Keim.
- [03:26]
Juliette Kayyem
I'm so glad to be back, I think.
- [03:29]
Harry Littman
And Josh Marshall, a journalist, blogger and the founder of the first and still the best Talking Points Memo. He also hosts the Josh Marshall Podcast, where where he provides insight into the big political stories of the day. Thanks so much as always, Josh, for being here.
- [03:47]
Josh Marshall
Thanks for having me.
- [03:48]
Harry Littman
All right. Well, a few things have happened this morning as we tape Friday, and I wanted to touch on at least one briefly. So federal agents arrested Don Lemon and Georgia Ford, an independent journalist in Minnesota, over his presence at this protest in the St. Paul church in he's charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights, those being the religious observance rights, some of whom seemed supportive and others of whom did seem disrupted. Pam Bonney in particular seems to be making it her life's work to get Lemon in jail. We know that career prosecutors recommended against it and she insisted. And she spent a couple days in Minneapolis herself working on this case. Why the obsession with him with reporters in general? Is it bonafide or just a attempt at distraction from many other things like release of the Epstein files this morning? What the hell?
- [04:51]
Kristen Holmes
I don't think that it's about the Epstein files. I think that this is much more an issue of revenge for the president, who has long viewed Don Lemon as a thorn in his side and it is a clear violation of press freedom. But for the White House, they are not viewing this just as an individual event, although of course, they are saying it. I mean, this is something that President Trump has almost willed into existence for some time with his rhetoric. When it comes particularly to Don Lemon, we know that he has a number of journalists who have gotten under his skin, and Don is one of them. And it certainly seems as though the Justice Department was doing everything they could to figure out a way to arrest Don Lemon.
- [05:37]
Harry Littman
And is the idea the pain and expense of the arrest and a case they know they can't bring or, you know, they got a grand jury to sign off on the charges. Do they really think they they can ensnare him for something?
- [05:50]
Kristen Holmes
I'm not entirely sure that it matters.
- [05:52]
Josh Marshall
Yeah, I don't even think they think that far ahead.
- [05:55]
Harry Littman
Right.
- [05:55]
Josh Marshall
You know, I've been looking at various of these cases that have come up we've seen over the last seven or eight. Some of them are with, you know, high profile enemies. And to that point, you know, you have the general malice and aggression towards reporters and the news media. But then you have these people who are part of the Donald Trump cinematic universe because Donald Trump has made Them part of the, of the Donald Trump Cinematic Universe. James Comey, Letitia James, Don Lemon, that these are, again, it's like, you know, the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They're characters. And in that sense, Trump knows that, and the people around Trump know that it would be really good to find something to, if nothing else, just arrest Don Lemon. Right. An arrest is a humilia, is intentionally a humiliating experience. Right. That's why more privileged people get the opportunity to turn themselves in. And in a lot of these cases that I've seen, like, I was looking at one of these recently and I tried to think like, okay, they don't seem to have this part of evidence that you need for this kind of charge. Like, so what's, what's that about? Did they not. Did they not think about that? And then I sort of drew back and I realized, okay, you're thinking about this all wrong. You know, you get it going and then you see where it goes. And they're, they're often happy enough to drop these cases if they're not going well. So it's just, you know, you just kind of do as many of them as they can. And, you know, one of the things about Trumpism is that the non Trump people think in this kind of discursive way. Is it about the lawyer bills or is it about that you've been charged with a felony? It's not about any of those things. It's just you just do a lot of stuff, a lot of aggression towards the bad people, and you just see where it goes. It's not that thought out.
- [07:48]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, it is. It's performative in the same way that Secretary Noem at DHS has her performative aspects to, you know, the costumes. This is the Attorney General Bondi sort of performative aspects. It is. And, and a little bit I know we're going to get into later, sort of Tulsi Gabbard also shows up at this raid in Georgia, which we're going to talk about in, you know, slinky black jeans, and she's looking all hip and like, hiding behind a corner. So what is Bondi doing? I mean, look, the White House tweeted out to show you how little, with lack of seriousness that they take this tweeted out when life gives you lemons. And then a picture of Don Lemon and says, don Lemon arrested. And it has two small emojis on it of chains. People who don't know Don Lemon is African American and probably one of the better known former CNN hosts. And I want to get to cnn. Kristen and I are both there. I can be fired easily. She's full time. So I can say this. Donald Trump hates CNN and we know it. And he likes to go after the host, go after Kaitlan Collins, go after various reporters. Don Lem was asked to leave cnn. I don't know the history of him, but he's identified with one of the networks, one of the cable networks that Trump is constantly after. And I thought it was interesting that cnn, though Don Lemon, is long gone and has built a very impressive independent media empire, much like what Josh has done, where I think I read somewhere he has more viewers on his YouTube site than he ever did for his show, where he has built this thing of, of, of people who, who follow him and are invested in him. And this is what the White House wants to tear down as well. So it's both, you know, the, the traditional media was CNN and then this new media. And I will say to CNN's credit, they did have a very important message, I think, coming from the former employer of Don Lemon, because that's when Lemon got under Trump's skin and probably responsible for his departure in some way.
- [09:58]
Harry Littman
Okay, just a very few quick legal points because this is late break and we have so much else to talk about. But this case is, I think, headed for a total crash against a brick wall when it, when they begin to unveil it. But very quickly, Bondi, who's taken personal and just to Josh, but on top of everything else, they always have such incredibly bad taste. The lemon and the lemonades and stuff tested aside. But legally, she's talking a lot about coordinated. I'm betting that they have some kind of evidence involving what, you know, Josh or everyone here on the would know is very common, routine stuff also. But, you know, before they go in some. And that'll be part of the conspiracy. Conspiracy charges for face the religious stuff requires force. Good luck with that. And I'll just say that when it comes to it, although there's a lot of Supreme Court statements out there suggesting there's nothing special about the press, it's really in cases where they're elevating personal stuff. Press is mentioned in the Constitution. Many more statements about the importance of a free press. So to the extent they're banking in some way on nothing special, we know that's false. And at the Department of Justice, before a real department, this would have never even been considered. All right, so much more to come on this. But for, for now, let's go back to. Well, this arises out of Minneapolis I said in Blue sky, it's kind of a trifecta for Bondi. The immigration stuff, the religious stuff and the Enemy, as you put it, the Don Lemon stuff. But it seems like they've been trying to back things off. They also, you know, be the kind of retreat in Maine. And yet Tom Homan is now in charge in Minneapolis. There's raids and abuses are going on. We have previewed a lot of stuff this weekend. Where do you see. Maybe I can start with you, Kristen. The White House being here, they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth, trying to temporize, but also double down in Minneapolis itself.
- [12:10]
Kristen Holmes
Yeah. And I think on the immigration rhetoric. So I would say this, that there is nobody inside the administration who doesn't think that tensions do need to come down in Minneapolis. Everybody saw the video of the fatal shooting of Alex Preddy and everybody understands that there needs to be kind of an off ramp here within the administration. And I would say with the local and state officials on the ground in Minnesota too, Tom Homan was a clear choice to go in. He's worked with Democrats and Republicans. He is really considered the grownup in the room. He has decades of law enforcement experience. And while truthfully he is ultimately a hardline immigration crackdown enforcer, he does have different rhetoric and a different kind of skill set than, say, someone like Stephen Miller or Greg Bevino, who we saw leading that. So bringing him in was a clear attempt to try and de escalate the situation. President Trump still has a base to appease to. He still has a number of people who even are unhappy that there's rhetoric or, or conversations around de escalating the situation. And we heard him last night kind of saying the complete opposite of what Homan said saying on the red carpet. We're not going to be drawing down in Minnesota. And what was so striking about that was that it wasn't just Tom Homan who said it. White House officials told me before Homan even did that press conference that they were going to be drawing down in Minnesota. I think the real way to move forward here and to see what they're up to is to watch what they do now. I don't think they're going to change in terms of the kind of immigration crackdown that President Trump wants and ran on across the country. However, it does seem as though they're going to at least walk away from or distance themselves from this idea of non targeted sweeps kind of clashing with agitators and protesters getting in the streets. It seems as Though instead they're going to go back to what Homan's actual, you know, believes his specialty is and the White House believes his specialty is, which is still large scale immigration crackdown. But it is targeted operations that yes, we'll still have collaterals, people who get swept up, but not in the way that you're seeing these kind of one offs of a target parking lot or a Home Depot. These are more thought out, slow rolled operations that take time and are coordinated efforts by law enforcement. Not kind of like a patch or quilt of whatever they want to do once they're there.
- [14:43]
Josh Marshall
You know, this is one thing I've thought a lot about in just what we've seen over the last few weeks. So you see this stuff in Minneapolis. Exactly a point you're making, which is that just on its face, I'm not sure this is the most efficient way to deport people. Like, it really doesn't, it's not very targeted.
- [14:59]
Harry Littman
Right.
- [14:59]
Juliette Kayyem
The numbers aren't that impressive. They're not.
- [15:01]
Josh Marshall
Yeah, just in the most basic sense, like this doesn't seem like a very, you know, because they clearly have all these different motives. On the one hand, they want to have really big numbers of deportations. They want to use big numbers of deportations to really cast a pall of fear among undocumented people so they'll just leave the country. They, they don't want to wait around to get deported. They're also trying to create this very, very visible penumbra of menace in blue cities that has nothing to do with undocumented people. It is this kind of punitive push.
- [15:38]
Harry Littman
And can I just throw in mess with elections in that as well, Josh?
- [15:41]
Josh Marshall
Yeah, well, all sorts of. I mean there is the mass deportation thing and then there is everything else they are trying to do with ice, which is clearly in some sense to create like a secret police, national secret police that operates in a fourth amendment free zone, basically because of this, you know, roving hundred mile. It's like you're at the airport when, you know, I don't know if other people have this. And this probably just says something about my personality when I come in from outside the country and I'm getting asked questions, well, this are you. This? And I'm like, dude, I'm an American, get out of my way. I want to go home. What are you talking about?
- [16:17]
Harry Littman
I thought I was.
- [16:17]
Josh Marshall
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, but, but I think we all understand that at a border entry they don't know you're an American yet. Or, you know, okay, but, but the way that this whole system has basically taken that little. That border entry set of rules and just say, we're gonna apply it everywhere. So, yeah, you have all of these things, but, you know, to the other point on, are they deescalating or. I think part of it is. I don't think Steve Miller wants to deescalate. You know, yes, he may think that this is a little hot for the moment, but he. But they. This is still the plan. But as so many other things with Trump, what really happened here is one day Trump went out there and basically said, okay, yeah, this is a bit much. Or, you know, Bevino, he's a little. He's a little feral. Right. And then everybody has to kind of fall in line with what Trump said. And then, like last night, he says something different.
- [17:07]
Kristen Holmes
Yeah.
- [17:07]
Josh Marshall
So are they escalating or de. Escalating? Well, it depends what Trump says day by day.
- [17:12]
Harry Littman
Did you notice Kristi Noem saying in everything I did, I did. At the direction of President Trump and Steven. Steven, you know, who's the real guy?
- [17:21]
Juliette Kayyem
Then she didn't do her homework because Trump 1.0 also had a secretary of Homeland Security who followed Stephen Miller out the door. So, you know, it's a tiny violin right there.
- [17:34]
Harry Littman
All right, so well played, as it were. But. So, Juliet, I wanted to ask you about Homan. And because you tweeted out, Homan himself comes out and says, well, if they would just give us access to jails where the actual serious, you know, presumably the murders and rapists and pet eaters and such are housed, then that would be fine. And of course, Minnesota came out right away and said, dude, if I can talk Josh speak for a second, you've got them. We've been giving them to you all the way. What the hell are you trying to say? So you had some thoughts about Homan's bona fides here?
- [18:11]
Juliette Kayyem
Well, I'm talking as if the Trump tweets didn't exist or, you know, social media didn't exist last night. So they have what I. You know, the kill and slander theory of ice, immigration last Saturday. Right. You couldn't even. You. You barely even knew what the news was before the secretary and Stephen Miller and J.D. vance came out slandering the victim. That clearly did not work because there were too many videos. And I do want to say that when we look back at what happened at Minnesota, there's things for people to learn about this pushback. And I think one of them was this idea that people were. They had, I say, jobs but like they had something to do. It wasn't just protest for protest sake. The governor, the mayor, others were saying, take videos, the whistles, the delivery of food. It was action oriented. Not just protest, but. But anyway, the week unfolds as we do home. Bevino is out because he didn't know that Trump was gonna change his mind. Stephen Miller starts to placate him, you know, whatever it is that he was trying to do and come off as a reasonable one, that's not gonna work. Noem is left out to dry, and then you have Homan step in. Homan needs. I'm gonna assume they want a little bit of an off ramp, but that off ramp is a complete lie. They want the American public to believe that blue states and blue cities do not allow ICE in to deport people who've been convicted of violent crimes. That is absolutely not true. The most. Boston allows that. The most liberal cities, the most liberal states obviously do not want to pay for an undocumented immigrant. They're super expensive. Get them out of here. So what you see Homan doing is a sleight of hand. He uses the word jail. Jail can mean a lot of things. You could be in jail for not having your immigration papers now, right? That doesn't mean that you are actually a criminal. You could even be a U.S. citizen. So he says, they're not letting us in the jails. They say the jails. You're putting hundreds of people into jail. They're not convicted. Most of these cases are going to go away. Prison, someone convicted, you come in and you take them. So Holman's claiming that Minnesota is not allowing them to deport convicted felons and therefore creating this false narrative. So I just wanted to make it clear as Minnesota made it clear, look, he needs an off ramp. He's got to find one. One assumes that gives him a narrative because, you know, he has to satisfy this weird lane that Trump has given him. I will say, you know, to Chris Point Homan, who I've known for years, he's gotten more conservative, but, you know, he was always a conservative institutionalist. You don't, you don't spend your career in something called Customs and Border Protection or Customs Enforcement or Border Protection without really believing in it. But he, he also believes in the department and order and as Christian Johnson and effectiveness. Like, because when you look at the numbers, this is just bogus. I mean, Obama deported more people and people. The left hated Obama for it, but it wasn't. It wasn't this. He's up against this. What, you know, what you would call this sort of radical, I would say unlawful immigration policy directives coming out of the White House. I don't know who wins this. I don't, because before last night, before Trump piped in again, one assumes that Stephen Miller got to him late at night, I thought that, okay, it's gonna be conservative, but it's gonna be conservative in the way Kristen was describing, like, well thought out, targeted. We know where we're going and we're not just showing up in a Home Depot parking lot looking for dark people.
- [21:52]
Harry Littman
And putting it that way, by the way, who's gonna win? It paints a picture of a administration in chaos. Right. You have actors on different sides actually getting out front of the President, hoping that that will influence.
- [22:05]
Juliette Kayyem
Can I just give a piece of hope on this? Just one thing. When you say who's gonna win, I mean, part of it as the American public is very, very confusing about this issue. But my glimmer of hope, because I was critical of my party, the Democrats on Biden, sort of ignoring the border issue, is most Americans now appear to agree we want stronger borders, stop the abuses of asylum, get, you know, get, get things in order. And we really, really do not like interior enforcement. Again, unless it's violent people. I can get 90% of America there.
- [22:40]
Harry Littman
Right.
- [22:40]
Juliette Kayyem
Whether the Democrats pick up on this or some wing of the Republican Party picks up on this. But I think what you're seeing in the polling against Trump now is he's done whatever you think he's done incredibly well at the border. It's this interior stuff that is madness.
- [22:56]
Harry Littman
And by the way, that has huge implications for trying to invoke the Insurrection Act. Cuz that would be exactly what it is. Boots on the ground, acting as law enforcement.
- [23:05]
Josh Marshall
To Juliet's point, one of the things that's very striking, Donald Trump is underwater on every, every, really every issue right now except the border. Actual border security as opposed to immigration as the catch all, he's way underwater. The various ways that they describe, you know, these blue city surges are incredibly unpopular, but the public actually distinguishes pretty clearly. They support that. It is like the one thing that, you know, not by a lot, maybe plus five or something like that, but we get sort of surprised when the public at large makes a distinction that it shouldn't be a terribly strange distinction to make. Yes. You know, you kind of, you, you just sort of reinforce the border. It's literally harder to get through the, you know, US international borders as opposed to, you know, it's Funny, I was talking with someone, can't remember who, a few days ago, and they were saying, it's Minnesota. What is border, what is Customs and Border protection? I mean, obviously Minnesota has an international border. It's not one that, you know in US terms that we think about in those terms. But, but Minneapolis is not a border city. You know, especially since the US Canadian border isn't, isn't, you know, a particularly reinforced one. So people see this and they're like, what, you know, what the f. What are we talking about here? And I do think, I mean, it's funny, there was a piece in the Times a couple days ago, opinion piece, that went over, I think, the history that all of us know here, which is how you have this evolution of particularly Customs and Border Protection, that again, you start out with the hundred year old version of the airport rules, right? And then you slowly say like, okay, we're going to kind of take those rules with us to other parts of the country. And you know, you see these videos often with press where you'll have some ICE or border protection person just say like move or I'll rest you. And I'm thinking like, what are they talking about? Like, I get that these guys don't follow the rules a lot, but like, what are you talking about? You know, and again, just that you're taking those border rules and you know, taking them nationwide literally. And I do think that is something, you know, we've always had this hundred miles thing and as long as it wasn't, you know, sort of used too aggressively, like, okay, there's some cases where you, you know, you are looking for people who shouldn't be in the country, but the laws really need to be tightened up because you can see here where it really is a total end run around the whole corpus of civil liberties and search and seizure. None of that matters suddenly because you have a CBP badge on. And that's crazy. That's crazy. Cause clearly you do have people who are willing to abuse it.
- [25:53]
Harry Littman
And on this point a lot of people don't realize because we lumped them together, the people who killed Alex Preddy, those were CBP officials, not ice. And that might be important. And speaking of which, some more things are happening in Minnesota than just the ICE overall kind of expansion retreat or whatever it is. Let's talk about Preddy. So Julia, you were with me in doj. We have Todd Blantz this morning announcing that there's an investigation by DOJ's Civil Rights Division of Preddy, which they declined to do for good, you know, in a different DOJ where they had credibility, you could say, great, they're coming in in this DOJ where even as this is announced, Trump tweets out that Preddy was a agitator and possibly an insurrectionist. And Blanche is. Don't get excited, guys. This is just a routine investigation.
- [26:49]
Kristen Holmes
So.
- [26:50]
Harry Littman
So you have to wonder if it's a prelude to just more effectively screwing with anything Minnesota tries to do. But what was your impression, everyone's impression about they're now apparently finding religion, as it were, and saying we'll investigate the Preddy shooting.
- [27:08]
Juliette Kayyem
Well, I started off in that division, my career as a civil rights attorney. And I guess I just have two thoughts. I mean, one is this would have been a no brainer. I mean, the fact that we're seven days later is just shows just how.
- [27:23]
Harry Littman
And good as well?
- [27:24]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, and good as well. Just like how the basic contours of the department in terms of what it views its mission, what the assistant Attorney General for civil rights views as her mission, is off tremendously. I think the second thing is that I think you're right. Todd Blanche has been very surprising to me as deputy Attorney General. He's part of the sort, you know, even killed, you know, big law firm world of D.C. that you and I know. And you know, he's sort of rabid right now. And I do think that this is a way to undermine the state and local investigation, which I believe will probably still go forward because there's just too many rifts between the parties. And I just want to end with this is like this isn't just about Minnesota, you know, for me, you know, who's worked in the pre and post 911 world and it's had its problems and it's been overkill and I get it. But like the integration of local, state and federal resources to try to minimize harm for American citizens really has been a success story. And it's being broken across the board. And you think about it with the military as well. I mean, we integrated the military into homeland security capabilities in terms of response that didn't have the political overlay that the military, even the National Guard now has. That stuff. Regardless of the specific case that stuff is going to. Is. Is you're seeing it across the country is just now it took a year to dismantle, you know, an apparatus that had been building up for 25 years.
- [29:03]
Harry Littman
And the District of Minnesota knows that you have people there. You know, normally they would work together. I had, I did a, a one on one discussion will probably drop in a few days with Bill Yeomans, who, you know, Juliet, as sort of ultimate professional, not a political appointee there. 24 years through Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. bush. He said he has never. Zero, not once seen the department not simply hang back, but literally try to impede and erect hurdles to a state investigation. I just want to serve up for either Josh or Kristen. There was this video from 11 days before he was killed showing Preddy obviously agitating with ICE officials. It certainly seems to most professionals when you focus on that I've talked to, this is, you know, you don't want to prejudge things can come out on investigation, but man, oh man, oh man, does this look like an unwarranted, unjustified execution? You know, you have Trump coming out saying agitated, probably insurrectionist. Is this as ugly and one sided, do you think for the country as it appears to professional prosecutors?
- [30:21]
Josh Marshall
I think so. The reason I feel most confident about that is because I think Donald Trump thought so. And, you know, we have this, we always have this, this weird duality to Trump. On the one hand, he is, you know, people say, well, it's not Kristi Noem, it's Stephen Miller behind Kristi Noem. Well, it's Donald Trump behind Stephen Miller. And so he believes deeply in this kind of predatory, xenophobic, you know, kind of cleansing violence kind of thing. So he's very behind this. But. But since he's Donald Trump, he also gets how things play on tv, right? And you see this video, you see a guy holding up his cell phone. He's crashed on by like half a dozen guys. You see them like wailing on him, right? Just hitting him and stuff.
- [31:10]
Harry Littman
Pepper spray and then hitting him with the canister of the pepper spray. What about that?
- [31:14]
Josh Marshall
Yeah. So clearly not just violence. And policing often involves violence, out of control violence. You see people who look like they're mad, they're pissed, right? And suddenly he's shot, he's laying there dead. And people see that and you're like, I don't really care if he, like lost his temper a week ago. It's like that old Bill Cosby thing we're talking about. We're talking about you. We're not talking about what happened last week. And you see it and it's shocking. And I do think that's why you had that thing, because again, Donald Trump's a TV guy, right? That he kind of gets like, oof, that doesn't look good.
- [31:47]
Kristen Holmes
Yeah, I agree, Josh. I also think that Trump, whatever you believe in his politics, more so than any other politician that we've seen in modern times, does have a finger on the pulse of where the mass mentality is. I mean, I'll just raise the fact that immigration was a huge issue for a lot of Americans that no one was talking about. And he tapped into that. And when he watched this play out, you know, I was told in the hours after the shooting that Trump was immediately defending the agent. And that shifted. He started hearing from other people. He started watching the different angles of the clip. And that is also why you saw that statement that Stephen Miller gave me about the fact that the initial response for the Department of Homeland Security, which we know was given to Kristi Noem by Stephen Miller, was based on the initial reports from the CBP on the ground. That was a clear passing of the buck to those agents on the ground and saying we had the wrong information. When I went forward and said he was a would be assassin. And as you note, this is all coming from Donald Trump. He is the one who is dictating that message. And all of a sudden, it became clear to Donald Trump before it became clear to anybody else that this was not good and it wasn't a winner. Now, what I will say, and I said this to somebody on the phone, a close Trump ally last night when we were discussing this video and they said, not good, Kristen. The new video, not good. And I said, well, okay, but. And he said. And I just paused and he said, but I mean, I don't want anyone to be killed while they're protesting. And I was like, that's the point. What this video does, it doesn't change the facts of what happened to Alex Brady that we all saw on video. What this video does is it allows Donald Trump, as so many things have done for the last decade, to muddy the water. Right? It becomes somewhat of a talking point, something that Republicans can put forward. It doesn't change the facts. And I actually think we heard, I think it was Todd Blanche today who said, essentially was asked about the video and said, well, that doesn't really impact our investigation because that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the events of that day. And I think that Donald Trump knows that. I think that the White House knows that. And I think they are all looking at the events of. But I do think this is essentially an opportunity when it comes to the president and to his hardline supporters to point to something that just makes things go from black and white to a Teeny, tiny bit gray. And that's the area that Donald Trump likes to operate in the best, because it means that he can kind of string the facts and manipulate the facts just enough to where there are questions. That's what this video did. That didn't exist before the video. There was no gray. There was no opportunity for him to play around in with information. It was the video we all saw. It was striking. It was horrifying. And that is why you heard him saying, I need an honest investigation, because he was reading the same room that we were all reading, which was people watching this, Republicans and Democrats alike with their mouth open. And this video doesn't change those facts, but it does just give Donald Trump that teeny, tiny area that he needs to be where he operates best.
- [35:10]
Josh Marshall
Two points on that. I think I agree with you. I think about it a little differently. And that is in. But gets to the same point that in sort of the modern media world, it is often not so much that you have to give your side of the debate something compelling to say or something that really makes any sense to say, but they have to have something to say, because if they have nothing to say, then it's like a route, right? It's like one side is like, undefended. That I think is kind of what happened with the Renee Goode thing, because people said, well, she had a car and like a car weighs 2 tons or 3 tons or whatever, and kind of like, oh, you know, all this kind of stuff. But that's really a big thing. And I think what happened a few days ago with the White House is at a certain point, they had nothing to say because clearly this guy, you know, they got out early with this, like, he's brandishing a weapon. That's not the case. He's kind of doing nothing, and 30 seconds later, he's dead. What do you say to that? Right. It's just. There's. There's nothing you can say. But I will say the other point is, and I think this is where our national press conversation can get a little misleading sometimes, that the way the Renee Goode story played out, it did have this sense of, well, you know, not good for the White House, but there's their side and there's the other side. And, you know, there's this kind of thing. And. But when you actually looked at the. The various ways we can gauge public opinion, not just polls, but. But including polls, people hated it. It was not. There wasn't. There wasn't in. In the way the public was receiving It. There kind of weren't two sides. It was really unpopular. People were really disturbed by it. So I think both of those are true, that you're right, that it kind of. I guess the way I would see it, it gives the White House side, the MAGA side something to say. And that's not much, but it's better than being silent. You can't let your side have nothing to say because then all is lost in this kind of very kinetic media ecosystem.
- [37:15]
Harry Littman
And the other thing about the ecosystem, of course, is it's very siloed, so they're only talking in their own silo. But they do have to have something. I want to move more to national politics, but close with two quick trial lawyers points, if they're to the extent they're valuable. Looking ahead first, it's not clear to me none of the officers knows anything about that episode. It's not clear to me that it's relevant or that it comes in at trial. That's point one and point two. Like Juliet, if you've seen a lot of these cases and you know, Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section much more frequently doesn't go forward. These cases are hard. People don't like them. And cops, many of them are doing their best. But when you sort of isolate out the bad apples, we've got two faces. Of the things I've seen a lot. The first one is here, the frenetic not thinking about it. The guy who actually shoots, turns around from dealing with. With the women who've been pushed down and kind of right away is shooting and it's a total melee. And they're obviously, no one's thinking, no one knows what they're doing. But then the good is in a way, a sort of the opposite. The casualness of it. The sauntering by Ross around the court and, you know, the setting up, chop and boom. It's another way of showing failure to even think about constitutional rights. But it's very different tableaus pointing in the same direction. Just thinking with a trial lawyer's hat.
- [38:40]
Josh Marshall
The thing that always just hit me about the good killing is he's sitting there with his iPhone. He doesn't stop with the iPhone to shoot her. Like, if, you know, if a police officer is going to shoot me, I at least want them to focus on shooting me. Right. He can't even focus his attention enough. Yeah, yeah.
- [39:00]
Harry Littman
On a day's work. Fucking bitch.
- [39:01]
Josh Marshall
Yeah, exactly, exactly, exactly, exact. It's crazy.
- [39:12]
Harry Littman
All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor Total Wine and more. Each episode, you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.
- [39:31]
Josh Marshall
Thank you, Harry.
- [39:31]
Total Wine and More Host
In today's spirited debate, we dig up the dirt on the agave plant to find out the difference between tequila and Mezcal. So first things first. Tequila is a type of Mezcal, much like bourbon is a type of whiskey. In general, tequilas are Mezcals, but not all Mezcals are tequilas. Allow me to explain. Tequila can only come from the blue agave plant in specific regions of Mexico, like the region of Jalisco, where the City of Tequila is located. No coincidence there. Mezcal, however, can be made from many varieties of agave, specifically from the heart of the agave known as the pina. The distillery process for tequila and mezcal is also different. Tequila is produced by steaming the blue agave and then distilling it in copper stills for a toasty, clean taste. On the other hand, mezcal, which appropriately means oven cooked agave, is cooked in earthen pits with wood and charcoal before being distilled in clay pots. No wonder mezcal, which is typically consumed straight, has more of a smoky, earthy taste. Of course, the best way to get to know the differences between tequila and Mezcal is to pick up a bottle of each from your Total Wine and more, and pour hundreds of years of tradition right into your glass. Cheers.
- [40:49]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's a spirited debate. Let's move to the broader stage because the Dems seem to be getting some spine about government shutdown politics specifically because of the ICE abuses and the political tailwind it gives them. As both of you have mentioned. On the other hand, fragile deal seems to be taking place to avert a showdown by placing meaningful conditions on ICE funding, but only ICE funding. And supposedly Trump is very involved here, so it's a very moving target. Could change over the weekend. But interesting to me, the Dems, unlike the Republicans last time around when they thought they possibly, I think they maybe miscalculated but had an advantage. Everyone seems to really want to avoid a shutdown. Is that a correct impression on my part? And if so, why this time?
- [41:48]
Kristen Holmes
Yes, I mean, the politics of a shutdown were bad. They were bad for everybody. The last for everybody.
- [41:55]
Harry Littman
Okay?
- [41:55]
Kristen Holmes
For everybody. It didn't. I mean, the White House could call it a Democratic shutdown as much as they wanted to, and everybody blames everybody when the government shut downs. I mean they blame Washington. They don't even necessarily, as far as we can see, you know, always tend to just blame the party in power at a certain point. They're pissed off at everybody. And it certainly didn't play well with Republicans. You know, no matter how many times that Trump said it was a Democratic shutdown, it just wasn't being taken that way. And so not that it was good for Democrats. And so you've seen a lot of reach out from the White House. You've seen them, they tried to invite Democratic leadership over two days ago to the White House. They were rebuffed. But there is a lot of negotiating going on right now behind closed doors. And ultimately, I mean, I don't know what is going to be, you know, conceded, but it certainly seems as though they're going out of their way to try and avoid this. And you've heard President Trump say that too. I mean, he's kind of said, I think we'll get there. I think they're negotiating. You know, definitely not the kind of bravado Trump we heard the first time around, which is let it shut down. We saw how that went.
- [43:09]
Josh Marshall
That is clearly where the Democrats are, where the leadership, the Senate leadership is. But I think the challenge for them is that, you know, having that shutdown looming gives them a lot of leverage. And to the extent that they focus it only on the Department of Homeland Security, that, I mean, they must know this. But I wonder if there's, you know, I wonder if they've quite internalized this, that pretty much all of the sort of the power ministry parts of the Department of Homeland Security are going to be under the exception to any shutdown. So all, you know, all these places are going to keep running. So like a Department of Homeland Security shutdown is going to be pretty nominal, Right.
- [43:47]
Harry Littman
Super hard to enforce also, right? Well, yes, they can decide.
- [43:51]
Josh Marshall
Right, exactly. But even, but even in a basic sense, you know, policing organizations are not going to be closed down in a government shutdown. That's just, that's just obvious. And obviously the administration has a great deal of leeway deciding what's essential and non essential. So they could find themselves in a situation where it is a purely nominal shutdown that no one really cares about. It would just be a Department of Homeland Security, like operating off the books, basically.
- [44:17]
Harry Littman
But still operating, right?
- [44:18]
Josh Marshall
Yes, exactly, exactly.
- [44:19]
Juliette Kayyem
But I mean, even if that's the case, you know, department is wildly unpopular. NOME is wildly unpopular. I sort of feel like if the Democrats at least keep on the table for two weeks some of the conditions. And I would have added no leaving. I mean, I would have gone further. I would. Even though she's just window, she honestly is just window dressing. We know she's got a very close and relationship with her chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski, who really basically runs the show and is somewhat on the outs, presumably with the White House. I think it will be good to have a discussion about masking or at least beyond and, and the kind of raise that ICE is doing, because they are wildly unpopular, even if the Democrats fold in two weeks or even if you get only some of the concessions. But I just, I, I, I want them to defend Noem. I mean, I see, I don't think her leave, I don't think her replacement would be any better or maybe be more qualified. But I just, I think it's time to have them have to defend her. And I would have put that on the tape.
- [45:24]
Josh Marshall
I definitely agree with you, Juliet, that I think even if they don't win in sort of these formal terms, a lot of what happened to the White House with the ongoing fight over Obamacare is that you had something that people who follow politics and kind of these policy issues we're thinking about, but you created this couple month long period where every day you have the White House basically want to say, yes, we actually want all these people to lose their health care. And we actually, and, and, and you have the Democrats saying, like, you know, the rates are going to go up by 500%. Let's just undo that. And you have, you have the White House and you have these, a lot of people in Congress saying, no, we really want that. That's great. And having them, as you say, with masking, with all, with all of these things, people don't like that. It freaks people out. That's like, and I was really struck by, you know, Thom Tillis had this statement yesterday, I think, where, you know, and he's obviously getting pretty hostile to ice, but him saying, well, but masking, you need to mask. And I have this, I keep thinking to myself, how is it that the most abusive metro police departments in the country can have a matter. Of course, you have to show your face and wear a badge. Like how, you know, it's just, it's so obvious, people, and it, it freaks people out. It upsets people.
- [46:40]
Harry Littman
It's a total totalitarian tableau. Right? This is a hyper inside Washington question. But so very quickly, on the last showdown, it really seemed to me that Schumer in particular was losing the confidence of the Dems And I think this has real implications going into the midterms. Jeffries was also on the House side being pretty passive. But Schumer in particular seems to be running the show here, including on a possible compromise that takes away this, you know, more grandiose political gesture and seems to be back in his stride. Do I have that right? And does that surprise you? Just briefly, the raw politics here, I.
- [47:23]
Josh Marshall
Think there are definitely staunch Democratic partisans who are still not satisfied. But I think for most people, you look at it and you say they went from trying to get this bill passed to just saying no. And they have introduced this idea that they've got a long checklist of things they want changed. And the White House has basically said, okay, let's talk. So, you know, he's driving this. And I do think that's different. And it's, you know, Chuck Schumer is a politician from a very different age. He's a politician of the 80s and 90s, really. And it's been very difficult for him to get his head around this politics. But, you know, you can, you may not be able to teach an old dog new tricks, but you can get them to sit right, shake hands, all that kind of stuff. So it's because he's coming along.
- [48:11]
Juliette Kayyem
I don't have any deep insights into this. I'm just going to say when I heard Schumer at the beginning of Trump 2.0, I mean, I turned to Kristen on whether it's successful, who said, look, we don't have the House, we don't have the Senate, we barely have the courts of even. We don't have the White House. What we can do is make sure that Trump is not popular and keep him below 40%. If that's your metric, good job. I mean, right? I mean, he doesn't have many other tools. You know, my kids, you know, are for Brian Schatz. You know, they want new leadership. But if that's how he went into this, you know, it's true.
- [48:50]
Harry Littman
Fair enough. Okay. Juliet sticking with you because as we said, and you really focused on this, why this search in Georgia? I can just say, and you know, this, too, very unusual, even if you have good stuff to do, a search of an election office. And what the hell was the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard doing on the scene for it? I think you already commented on her wardrobe. What's going on down there? And I'll just, this is not a legal question, but I'll say legally. The legal pundits me include are kind of scratching their heads. What do they possibly have that got a magistrate to sign off on probable cause for the crimes that they have outlined? How much does it dovetail with what Trump has been crowing about, you know, most recently in Davos, but still just the whole picture of it, how's it, how's it fit in to the, you know, Marvel Comics, I think Josh mentioned a few. Is a really good organizing image here. You know, the whole, the whole gang and tableau.
- [49:54]
Juliette Kayyem
All I'm going to say is your problem, Harry, is you're looking at through a legal lens. And I'm just going to quote Kristen and say it's for that, that, that narrative that they want through the political lens. And look, this is a three alarm fire, guys. I mean this is, you know, they held it off for a year. I think it's also a sign of a certain tremendous amount of panic. Maybe I'm just, you know, wishcasting at this stage. But this seems like why are you pulling this lever? Now I raise this, I'm not a doctor, but it just seems like the, the narrative of Trump as not healthy. That we're hearing from European leaders, which lets the press pick up on that narrative. Seems consistent with a little bit of panic. But I just pick up on what Kristen was saying about this is the. It's not about law, it's about the narrative.
- [50:45]
Harry Littman
What do you mean exactly? 3 alarm fire for the country, for the administrative. What's that mean?
- [50:51]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, I mean I'm not like being casual about it, but the idea that we didn't expect this to happen is of course this was gonna happen. I mean this is the President led. I'll give you the verb, you know, helped, help inspire. I'll give them their facilitated. Facilitated, whatever the legal terminology is an insurrection to stay in power. The idea that he gets out any other way except overwhelming defeat or JD Vance is on the ballot in 2028. I just don't see it. And I'm not casual about it. It's out crazy. But like how did you think this was gonna end with this group? Until the Republicans start pushing back, it's not gonna. Or the Democrats get the Senate. So that's what I meant.
- [51:44]
Josh Marshall
I certainly have those thoughts about the extent to which he is physically and mentally fragmenting. But the main prism that. And we still have this question, to Harry's point, some judge signed off on this. So that is a kind of question in itself. Like what was the. Did they just do some forum shopping and they found, you know, found the right person or what. But my sort of governing overall sense of this is that this is really characterological for Trump, and that is that as he gets less popular and in a domestic political sense, gets weaker, it is unavoidable for him that he will try to lash out in opposition to that loss of power. And for an American president, what that really means is that you lean into the many prerogative powers in which your power is all but untrammeled, that really there are no limits. And we can talk about war powers and stuff, but in the use of the American military, certainly in the short term, an American president can do almost anything he wants. And that's why we're talking about Greenland and we're talking about Venezuela, we're talking about Iran. Because in military terms, again, whatever the Constitution says, how we have elaborated and articulated this system, short term, president can do anything. He's a dictator of the US army and the doj, this DOJ is kind of the same. And, sure, you got to find a judge. But, like, that's the thing, is that, is that as he gets weaker, he will lash out more and more in these prerogative powers where. Where there's, you know, it doesn't matter how popular he is because he can do whatever he wants until he, as long as he's president, he can command the US military.
- [53:26]
Kristen Holmes
On the Fulton county and the 2020 election, I think that I get what you guys are saying, but I also just think Tulsi Gabbard needed a job. Like, she's not good at being the Director of National Intelligence. If you talk to anyone who is working with her, she's completely isolated. She's in over her head. She had no idea how to run an agency this big. She's been in and out of Trump's, like, good graces for the last year. You know, there were moments where they were excluding her from critical meetings about Iran. I mean, that's literally part of her job. Like, what else is the DNI doing if they're not talking about internal intelligence on Iran? Like, I mean, it's crazy. She needed a job. And there's one way to always make sure that you are in the good graces of the boss, which is take a pet project and run with it. Everybody knows if you've listened to Donald Trump for the past four years, five years now, six years, that 2020 election is a pet project. If you want to get in the front door of the White House and get a meeting with Susie Wiles and Donald Trump on a regular basis. And you need a topic to get you there. Talking about election fraud is certainly the one that's going to open the door.
- [54:36]
Josh Marshall
That makes a lot of sense.
- [54:37]
Kristen Holmes
If she can't even get in the door on Iran, she's going to try to get in the door whatever way she can. So she picked up a pet project and they said, and they were, I think, as far as I can tell from the White House. I mean, I had multiple White House officials at one point telling me he was done with her the second she started talking about the voting stuff back in it. And so to me, it's like she picked this up. She did what she could. She took, she's taking this as far as she can possibly take it showing up on the ground there. You know, I mean, this is, this is clear for me. You know, this is her project now. And I think it came about at a time where they were all kind of hanging her out to dry. And now all of a sudden she's back in the loop to doing voting stuff. And there's one thing that's going to keep you not fired is if you're doing this kind of investigation. And he's happy about it because now he gets to say, look at what they did in Georgia.
- [55:28]
Harry Littman
Another really excellent point. And you know, it brings home that never underestimate the force of just personal selfish ambition motivation, especially in Washington, D.C.
- [55:40]
Josh Marshall
You know, Harry, that may also go to the question of the magistrate judge because, you know, the one thing an ODNI can do, God, I hope not, but it might well is bring in kind of like, ooh, there's some foreign stuff and can't really get into all the details, but it's pretty bad. And as think as we know, a magistrate judge is going to be leery of saying, like, I remember your Venezuela stuff. I'm not falling for that. You know, if you have a sort of a top state minister saying we've got critical national security information that we can only tell you in Outlook line.
- [56:10]
Harry Littman
That'S could well be. And they've kept the affidavit undercover for now, but we're going to see what did they actually tell the guy.
- [56:18]
Juliette Kayyem
And, and to Kristen's point, why was she there? Like, except for, I mean, like, come on, she's like not lifting boxes.
- [56:26]
Harry Littman
She's like there for the photo, 700 of them.
- [56:28]
Kristen Holmes
Even Todd, I don't know if you heard Todd Blanche today. He's like, she happened to be stopping by in Atlanta. Like, okay, like, who he was like, I don't know, like she just happened to be there. It's like, oh, okay. I mean that was like a full on photo op. Like I. What do you mean she just happened to be there? Like they flew in, they flew in there and then we all, we had a pool with them like traveling over to there. It's not like, oh, she just stopped in like because she was in Atlanta.
- [56:54]
Harry Littman
Oh me. Right. Great conversation. And we are out of time, unfortunately. Except for our final feature of five Words or Fewer where we pose a question that we all have to answer in five words or fewer. This is the big moment for the release of Melania where Amazon put in a huge amount of marketing money into the documentary. Somewhat controversial. Any good movie tends to have a subtitle in five words or fewer.
- [57:24]
Kristen Holmes
What's the subtitle of Melania Bezos Lit Money on Fire.
- [57:30]
Josh Marshall
Wow, that's good. That's good.
- [57:32]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah.
- [57:32]
Harry Littman
God, she's good.
- [57:34]
Juliette Kayyem
That was really good.
- [57:35]
Josh Marshall
Bezos. Big Bribe. Wet Kiss. Not as, not as good as Tristan's, but I had, I had, I had to do something.
- [57:42]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [57:43]
Juliette Kayyem
Oh, you guys, I'm not good at stuff like this. Okay. I have to like, how about just wait for the prequel.
- [57:49]
Harry Littman
There you go. That's a great one. The pre love for Melania.
- [57:54]
Kristen Holmes
Exactly.
- [57:55]
Harry Littman
Would be excellent. And I just always, I want to go toward the President. So my, my entry is See it or get indicted. Thank you so much Kristen, Juliet, and Josh. 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 OSS on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylitman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will Keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw. Associate producer, Becca Haveian. Sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsam Hadranathan, 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.
- [60:03]
Kristen Holmes
Sa.