Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:02]
Sponsor Announcer 1
This episode is brought to you by NBA on Prime. This Tuesday at 8:30 Eastern it's the Emirates NBA Cup Championship Game on Prime. This year's quest for the cup has been building to this the championship game live from Las Vegas. Not a Prime member. Sign up for a 30 day free trial to get started today. The Emirates NBA Cup Championship Game this Tuesday at 8:30 Eastern only on Prime. Restrictions apply. See Amazon.com amazonprime for details.
- [00:29]
Alison Camerota
Hablas Espanol spries to Dioech if you.
- [00:32]
Sponsor Announcer 2
Used Babbel, you would Babbel's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com Spotify spelled B-A-B-E-L.com Spotify rules and restrictions may apply.
- [01:00]
John Lemire
Foreign.
- [01:05]
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 was a week full of indications that Donald Trump's iron grip on the Republican Party may be loosening. The president's all out offensive to get Indiana Republicans to re gerrymander their congressional map backfired badly. State senators there hung tough, handing a key loss to Trump in a ruby red state, another sign that Trump may be losing his political mojo. His big rally to address growing concerns about the economy was a flop. His performance was roundly panned even by fellow Republicans, and recent polling shows that two thirds of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy. The administration also drew unaccustomed flak from both houses of Congress, where lawmakers seemed determined to forge ahead with an investigation of US Strikes in the Caribbean. For his part, Trump continued to provoke Venezuela with military force, though his end goal is far from clear. And the week brought the administration fresh legal rebukes, another failure to indict Letitia James and an order to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Meanwhile, Judge Jeb Boasberg is stepping up his investigation of whether way back in March, Trump officials knowingly disobeyed his order to turn the planes around to discuss Trump's daughter deflating political fortunes and the various misadventures at home and abroad that are producing a series of setbacks. I'm really pleased to welcome three of the country's sharpest students of US Politics and they are Alison Camerota. Alison's an award winning journalist and author. She was the longtime anchor of CNN's morning show, earning two Emmy Awards in the process. She she now co hosts the podcast Sanity with Dave Briggs. And you can also find her on her own substack alisoncammerata.substack.com Alison, thanks as always for joining.
- [03:30]
Alison Camerota
Great to see you, Harry.
- [03:31]
Harry Littman
David French, a columnist for the New York Times. He's also a former JAG officer who earned a bronze star in Iraq. Since leaving full time law practice back in 2015, David's become a prominent voice in American politics and American conservatism. David, thank you for your service. Thank you as always for joining Talking Feds.
- [03:53]
David French
It's great to see you, Harry.
- [03:55]
Harry Littman
And if I can mention it, I hope it's okay cause you and your wife tweeted it fantastic news about her clean bill of health in battling cancer two years post.
- [04:05]
David French
Diagnosis with this particular kind of cancer is like the big, big milestone. So it's wonderful.
- [04:10]
Alison Camerota
That's great. That's wonderful, David.
- [04:12]
Harry Littman
John Lemire, he is the co host of Ms. Now's Morning Joe as well as a staff writer at the Atlant. John's covered the White House since 2016, enrolls as the White House bureau chief at Politico and prior to that as a White House correspondent for the Associated Press. Been a little bit. So great to see you, John. Thanks for coming.
- [04:35]
John Lemire
Happy to be back.
- [04:36]
Harry Littman
Let's start with the possibility that this week augurs a kind of loosening grip of Trump on his own party. He spent months lobbying Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional maps, hoping to flip to D seats. And it failed pretty miserably this week. The Senate went against it by too much of a margin, 19 to 31, to sort of isolate villains. Even a majority of the Republicans in the body opposed it. How big a deal is it in the overall sweep of Trump rule? And why so a reliable red state bucking the president like this in the first place?
- [05:21]
John Lemire
I think it is a big deal. We know that President Trump is desperate to have his party maintain control of Congress next year because if the Democrats even get one House, let's say the House, they'll be able to block whatever's left of his legislative agenda. They'll also be armed with the power of the subpoena. They can run committee after committee, investigation after investigation. They can even talk Impeachment again if they want. So that's fueled a lot of Trump's more radical moves this year, and that includes this push. This is highly unusual push to redistrict a number of states. Texas gone along with it. He's been a bully, but his bullying efforts in Indiana didn't work. And that includes JD Vance went there twice. Trump, as you say, has been all over Truth Social and his public comments urging Indiana to do this, and they opted against it, and somewhat decisively. And I think it's reflective of this subtly new weakened state. The president is in this low moment with his poll numbers, with a criticism that he's been too much in a bubble. He doesn't understand affordability. You know, what's he doing in Venezuela? The list goes on and on and on. And I think that they, Republicans, who are very fearful to holding onto their jobs going forward for the first time, just might, don't want to overstate it, but just might be looking past Trump, starting to imagine what a post Trump future would look like, and they wouldn't go along with his bidding here.
- [06:45]
Alison Camerota
Harry. I also just think it's a remarkable testament to people at some point having to fall back on their own moral compass. What these Indiana Republicans did is really notable, and we should mention they defied their personal livelihoods. In other words, Trump is threatening to, you know, primary all of them, and any Republican who voted against him, he's gonna try to oust. He is threatening their states funding, federal funding, so all sorts of important programs will dry up. And they had to endure personal threats and swatting incidents on their home. So the level of courage that this took is so, I don't know, admirable. It's so astonishing in this moment, and I hear what Jonathan's saying, but it feels like it even predated some of these things. These guys were opposed to, opposed to this redistricting. And a lot of their constituents were. Even before that, we knew about the Venezuela madness and even before Trump said lunatic things about affordability. I mean, they really didn't want to do it. And I think from anything I've read talking to voters, they were just like, why are we focused on this? Oh, let's not do this. This could bite us in the future. No, we don't care about this. I mean, is it that easy that people just kind of woke up and came back to sanity?
- [08:04]
Harry Littman
I don't know, David, I see you vigorously nodding, and I want to serve it up to you, but I just want to add, they're exactly the kind of strong arm tactics both wholesale and retail that he successfully used to get his now, you know, then controversial, now arguably disastrous final nominees through the Senate. And you know, that great interarum Trump effect of I can primary you has seemed nuclear before and maybe it's been diffused. Your thoughts?
- [08:37]
David French
This is what's notable and absolutely want to double down on Jonathan's statement that, look, things can change. We're reading tea leaves to some extent here, although this actually happened. But this is the first time I've really seen elected Republicans take Benjamin Franklin's advice, which is we must all hang together or most assuredly, we will hang separately. Right. And, and for 10 years, if you defied Trump as a Republican, you hung separately. I mean, it goes back to Jeff Flake, it goes to Bob Corker. I mean, we can just do this person after person after person. If you put your head above the foxhole, you got knocked off. Right. And so what happened is that we had this dynamic where it was a collective action problem. You had a lot of discontent, but any given individual was going to fail. Here you had, I believe it was 21, 21 senators who together confronted the Trump position, who together withstood the threats and the intimidation. And look, this atmosphere of threats and intimidation, as Allison said, has worked in the past. It's almost always worked in the past. You know, Peter Meyer very famously wrote or said in the Atlantic, this was right after January 6, that a lot of his colleagues voted not to certify the election just out of raw fear for their families. So there wasn't even the courage for that collective action around January 6th, truly. But here we had it. And I think it's connected to a lot of different things. Weariness, the personal nature of the attacks hitting these Indiana senators in a particularly egregious way, the weakening of the president. I mean, look, we're looking at an off year election cycle where the lowest Democratic shift in a congressional election was, was 13 points, the lowest. And that was in my old district of Tennessee, seven, just a couple of weeks ago. And so there's a lot of, a lot of indications here. I have been saying for a while that we'll know that the Trump hold has broken when Republicans, a critical mass of Republicans in Congress, fear the general election voter more than they fear Trump. And that will be a clear sign that that fever is breaking. And I think we're moving if present trends continue with a giant.
- [10:51]
Harry Littman
If. Right.
- [10:53]
David French
Giant. If, if present trends continue. That's where we're headed.
- [10:56]
Harry Littman
And let me just Ask you serve this up to John and Allison, you know, with all caveats accepted. And man, have we been wrong in foretelling his doom again and again, starting with what? Access Hollywood.
- [11:09]
David French
But isn't that the truth?
- [11:10]
Harry Littman
It seems to me his number one achievement is winning in whatever fashion. And so in that sense, it seems that while there's a lot that's specific about the Indiana dynamic, the mere fact of losing in a high profile event where he went to the mat is itself a possible augury of ebbing strength that could play out in myriad kinds of disputes across the board. Does that seem fair?
- [11:44]
John Lemire
Yeah, I think it does. I mean, the polls reflect it. He's at the lowest point of his term right now, and he's hitting uncertain issues, issues that he's supposed to be his strengths, like immigration and the economy. His poll numbers now are as low as they ever were in the first term as well. And that stands in stark contrast to the first, you know, 6ish months of this term where he was, he was a steamroller. He kind of got everything he wanted done, done. Some of it was messy, but he got it done. And things have really changed. And I think there are signs of political weakness here. And it started with, it started with, you know, the big, beautiful bill being passed and Americans kind of realizing, wait, what was actually in that? Like, who's that benefiting? It's not me. Followed by, I was, at least in Washington, the Republican defiance on the Epstein files. And that broke through. And that's the first time that Trump really was told no. He, he ordered Republicans, he ordered, ordered MAGA to stop. And they didn't. At least not all of them. Some of his most loyal foot soldiers persisted. And then the events of the last six weeks were almost dizzying. It's been defeat after defeat after defeat, most importantly at the ballot box. The November elections and the handful we've had, we've had since. But just withering criticism of, you know, focusing on a presidential ballroom to, to be unable to come to grips with the affordability crisis. And what was meant as a reset the other night in Pennsylvania was anything but. So, yeah, we're seeing Republicans look at each other and go like, our jobs are on the line. This guy's not running again. He's got three more years in the White House. He's not running again, we think, and that they're like, well, if he's gonna go down like this, he's gonna bring the rest of us with him. It might be time to try to try again. This is David's caveat, you know, try take a few steps away.
- [13:26]
Alison Camerota
But also, Harry, I just wanna say that I think I find him optically very diminished of late. And it's striking to me because I'm not in the news cycle every day, so I'm not sort of looking at his sound bites and the B roll every day anymore. So when I turn on the news, which frankly is not every day, I'm shocked to hear myself saying this, but it's not. And so I get to see something with a little bit more, you know, stark relief than I used to. What got my attention was all of the insults, the rapid fire insults lately of journalists where he's unhinged, he's saying, quiet piggy, he's saying, you, you're bad, you're so disgusting, you're the worst. And it's so vitriolic and poisonous that I started to just see him in, in this light of this very limited. I mean, I've seen him this way for a long time, but suddenly it kind of crystallized for me this week. He's so limited vocabulary wise and intellectually and physically and morally that I just saw somehow this week. Oh, when they wake up, when the MAGA Republicans wake up, when Fox wakes up five years from now, or whenever they're going to be embarrassed for this moment. Like, this is not, this is not the picture, a paragon of like strength and health right now that we're seeing.
- [14:44]
David French
I'm reminded, you know, growing up Republican in the, you know, I came of age politically in the early mid-80s, which was not that far removed from Richard Nixon. And you know, what was really hard to find in 1984, a Nixon supporter in the GOP. Like, somebody's like, that's what we need to do is go back to Richard Nixon. We need more Richard Nixon. And this is the way these things tend to work is people don't necessarily say, I'm so sorry, I never should supported Trump in the first place. What they do is they just move on, they memory hole it. And I think that you're going to be seeing a lot of memory holing going forward. And Allison's right. You know, the one thing, and we learned this in the Biden era, you don't tend to peak at 80 and 81 and 82, right? These are not peak years. And, and we could and should expect just further decline. And it's not like he's in a restful position either, you know, so in three years, what are things going to be like? And I have A feeling if he actually does deteriorate, we'll actually look back at the deception around the Biden team as a model of transparency by comparison to what the Trump team will do. But it is quite striking and I think there should not be taboos on raising this as an issue.
- [16:04]
John Lemire
And a quick point just to piggyback on that, if I could just real quick, who is someone who is in this every day and has been there with him? I mean, there's no doubt he has aged, he slowed down. He and his aides protest vociferously at the idea that he's not a man of superhuman stamina and energy and strength anymore, but that we it's been well chronicled by the New York Times about how they've adjusted his schedule. It starts later, it ends earlier. It's part of the reason why to some of the reporting I've done about the bubble that he's been in, it's the extraordinary lack of travel. Yes, he's done some couple high profile foreign trips. We should, we should note that. But like he has done, until he went to Pennsylvania this week, he hadn't done a domestic trip outside of Mar A Lago in nearly three months. And that's depriving him of contact with local officials and voters that would help him penetrate that bubble. But it's also because it's for a variety of reasons, but one of them being simply he doesn't want to do it as much anymore, I am told, as you'd understand for someone who's approaching 80.
- [17:01]
Harry Littman
Yeah. And look you, I mean your article in the Atlantic, John, about the president in bubble wrap really brings this home. He seems to be working a few hours a day just to put a point on your poll numbers. Not only is he at his lowest EB about 36, but more than 2/3 of the public disapprove of his handling of the economy. So there's maybe, I don't know, a rust factor. But you covered it well because he did come out to try to do a good old fashioned Trump rally on affordability and he got panned, including by his own party as having a 10 year. And on this most important issue, coming back into the ring, it was like a too long retired prize fighter. In fact, I try to shy away from sports metaphors generally as an ex sports writer, but to Allison's point, I think it's subtle but really important. There's a way when you see a fighter get defeated that just physically they do diminish in front of you. I was at the trial, and he's got this power and he looks kind of gross, but there's some way now in which you see him almost in a waxen way, kind of fading. And it's very subtle, obviously, but I think it matters a lot to voters. I just wanted to follow up with you, John, on your Atlantic article and speak to the notion that even when he tried to capture some of that old Trump magic and abandon his somewhat indolent ways, he flubbed it.
- [18:30]
John Lemire
Yeah, no question. This was, you know, as noted, his first time doing a trip like this in a long time. And the president, look has always had a pretty good feel, a pretty good finger on the pulse of what the rallies, what his base likes and wants. Right. And he'd use the rallies to sort of test out lines. He would. He'd be able to see what works, what doesn't. He also would have valuable interactions with local officials or even people in the photo lines and the like. And look, every president's in a bubble. There are security concerns. That kind of stuff is hard. But presidents find a way to do it, including Trump in his first term. And this one, he simply hasn't. And the biggest issue, particularly since the November elections, was the idea of affordability. And Republicans have told the White House, you need to start talking about this differently. West Wing aides have told me and others reporters, like, hey, we get it. Like, this is partially why we won last year. We need to start addressing it. And they've tried. They just have one person who's not willing to go along with it because Trump can't acknowledge that things aren't perfect and that hyperbolic of greatest economy ever, inflation is gone, even as most diehard supporters recognize, well, that's simply not true. And the other night, you know, after he belittled the idea of affordability crisis for weeks, he gets up there and says, well, my aides are making me do this. My aides want me to say affordability is an issue. He still couldn't deliver with any real sincerity. I mean, he's never been, and I feel your pain, President, but, you know.
- [19:53]
Harry Littman
But he's this, I am your pain more.
- [19:56]
John Lemire
Well, for some. But he, you know, he just showed no ability to grasp this was going on, and he just seemed disconnected from reality.
- [20:06]
Harry Littman
Okay, there's an end, maybe. And again, all caveats understood and put in there. But I do think as a general matter, and Trump's been free from many of the general axioms of politics, but as a general matter, you can think about Nixon wants decline of this Sort of happens. It tends to accelerate. We'll have to see, but I'll just report as a lawyer. Man, oh man, did the administration take it on the chin this week in a series of decisions that not only went against them, but they were called out for astonishing kind of behavior in front of federal courts.
- [20:44]
Alison Camerota
Like what, what was your favorite, Harry?
- [20:46]
Harry Littman
My favorite I think might have been Judge Zinnis, who's playing a kind of a weak hand. She's got a Brago Garcia and we'll talk a little bit more about it. Knowing that the administration when it wants can deport him, but basically saying you've been coming here, it's so logical to send him to Costa Rica where he'll go be done with this. And they came forward and said Costa Rica doesn't want him anymore. And she said, well, the reports are that they've always wanted him. They'll take them tomorrow. You know, I talked about it. I had a couple substack lies with former feds and we were all of a like mind. They're like, if you heard this kind of critique from a federal judge, you were practicing, you didn't tell me the truth. The kind of crisis, practical, moral, everything that it would engender would be, you know, the equivalent of five alarm fire. That's been happening including and here's the other thing I've liked right now, Jeb Boasberg, the bone that he won't let go of. He's still going on whether they, including the honorable Emile beauvais, lied on March 15, 2025 and saying we're complying with judicial orders. And he's got a whistleblower set to testify Monday. This just in a couple minutes before we started taping. They've now moved has the administration for mandamus to get him off the case.
- [22:07]
David French
Well, and also we have two refusals of two grand juries to indict Letitia James. I mean, amazing prosecutor is supposed to be able to to indict a ham sandwich and they can't indict Letitia James.
- [22:19]
Harry Littman
I mean, this is unfucking heard of. If I could just say. All right, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, yeah.
- [22:24]
David French
Well, we haven't even gotten into the Lindsay Halligan incredible nonsense that. Look, I mean as a recovering litigator myself, if I had done one tenth of the things that she did, I would have been walked out of my office by security at my law firm. I mean, just some of this stuff, if you're not a practicing lawyer, you just have no clue how egregiously incompetent it all was.
- [22:50]
Harry Littman
And that's why I've shied away from it in this episode. But Allison asked, and I always answer, but this has been way, way beyond the pale. Halligan. You may have noticed they yesterday, quietly, they're doing all this quietly now nominated her. They don't have a chance of it succeeding. And I think, in fact they're assuming that neither Democratic Senate from Virginia will submit a blue slip. And maybe they want to try to make that the battle. But with Haba and she, they are, I think, feeling the pain a little as they never have.
- [23:23]
Alison Camerota
Do we think it's all part and parcel of the same bubble wrapped concept that Jonathan was talking about, which is they're so far into their own echo chamber down in the well of their own echo chamber that everybody in the, I mean Trump, Trump hasn't bought groceries in decades. I don't know if he ever bought groceries, okay? So he has no idea about anything about affordability. And as we know, he is not empathetic, so he can't talk about this. But because he's surrounded by yes men and he's only populated his administration with complete bootlicking toadies, they're all in an echo chamber. And so these defeats are to be expected when they go out to the real world. When you have to sometimes confront people who are still operating in the reality based world, sometimes it doesn't go so well.
- [24:14]
Harry Littman
You had at least one vigorous nod from David French. So David, what were you thinking?
- [24:20]
David French
Well, just sort of reflecting back on the whole arc of this conversation, just sort of thinking about what we are witnessing is the American people are beginning to realize something that they are not getting what the vast majority of them actually voted for. So what they're getting is actually more of what they voted against and worse. And, and let me explain that in the sense now not everybody, huge chunks were voting for about inflation in the border. That's top of mind. But a lot of people were voting for things like against, bullying, against cancel culture. There had been this perception that was really and I think rooted in a lot of real events and real things that the left in the Democratic Party had been too captured by a very intolerant wing that didn't permit dissent, especially on cultural issues, and that if you wanted to have the ability to breathe and talk and debate, you had to go somewhere else. And so MAGA built this big anti woke tent that was enough to get it barely over the top on popular vote in 2024. But then now we're Finding out that what we ended up with is something like imagine you take all of the worst characteristics of the most intolerant elements of the left and the bullying left, turn it to 11, compress it into one person and sit them in the Oval Office.
- [25:40]
Harry Littman
And so that's just an incandescent sentence. I just want to say, I want to write it down and copy it, but go ahead.
- [25:47]
David French
But yeah, so now people are beginning to wake up and realize, oh, no, we actually ended up with a bunch of bullies. We ended up with a bunch of really intolerant, pardon my language, assholes. And yeah, there's a core of people that are like, yeah, heck yeah, we did. But they're my assholes and I love them. But there is a larger percentage of Americans who don't want that at all. And I really am begging the Democrats, I'm begging you guys, please do not think that you're going to beat Trumpism in 2028 by just being left wing Trumpism. We got to get past this moment. That means you've got to be a part of actually healing us from this moment rather than doubling down on it. And that's why, you know, I think it's very, it's going to be very interesting, not just politically, but culturally, how the Democratic primary plays out.
- [26:35]
Harry Littman
I mean, we're so getting ahead of ourselves, but it's too good. Let's. Let me just serve up for final thoughts. You know, I do see in a future, knock on wood, a real internal Democratic debate about what? You know, they go low, we go low, or, you know, what kind of stomach there will be in the Democrats for, you know, a sort of pushback and a, at least examination of what's occurred. We should have such problems for sure, but, but, you know, we'll see how that plays out. I want to go abroad a little to Venezuela, which is part and parcel of the same thing where I think they're taking their lumps and it's maybe going to get worse, although that's part of the question. So we seized the US a Venezuelan tanker for smuggling oil to Iran. One quick legal point, that's got nothing to do with the war sorties or what they're trying to justify the war sorties. They've been under sanction for a long time because of the oil. That's why we seize them. Nevertheless, why are they doing this? As in other words, areas seemingly throwing good money after bad, taking on incredible controversies. Is the idea to try to, you know, a wag the dog war moment and what Are we trying to provoke from Venezuela?
- [27:52]
John Lemire
I mean, I think the, the goal is, and Trump has sort of been, I want to say pushed into this, but he's gone along with it is the idea of trying to force Maduro out. This has long been a hope of Secretary of State slash National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. And Trump has, as we have reported, grown fond of, you know, this sort of at a distance drone strike or a rocket, you know, from what we saw in Iran when they blew up the facility there. And in this case, there's a couple different interests in the administration that sort of pushed him here from different angles. But he thinks this is a way to look tough. They have definitely have a Western hemisphere focus now. Their national security plan indicates that has promised to crack down on drugs. Of course he mostly talks about fentanyl and we know fentanyl doesn't really come from Venezuela and it makes them look tough on migrants too. Even though again, most of these ships likely aren't bound for the United States. So at this point he's pot committed. I mean, this is an extraordinary amount of American military buildup there in the region. He talks nearly on a day to day basis of whether there might be ground strikes there onto land. I think ground forces being deployed is still a little hard to imagine. He does, I think, have a queasiness about doing that. But the clock is ticking here in terms of like what happens if Maduro simply won't go. And that's been the, the White House has never fully explained, not just to us in the media, but frankly to Congress as to why they're actually doing this. The rationale for this has never really made a lot of sense. But if, if it is at the end of the day for to force Maduro out, if Maduro simply refuses, then what is it? Simply you bomb a couple landing strips to put new sanctions on it and declare a win or do you feel like you get pushed into something far bigger?
- [29:35]
David French
You know, Trump loves to drop bombs and declare victory. That's kind of a pattern with him. Sometimes the strikes can be very effective. You know, killing Kassim Soleimani was a very effective military move. We don't know quite really how much damage was done to Iranian nuclear facilities, but it's quite possible that that was a very effective strike. I don't think anyone says that it ended the Iranian nuclear program in the way that Trump is trumpet it, but it's very clear this is what he likes to do. Bombs, victory, go, move on. But that's not how regime Change works. That's not how you stifle drug trafficking. I mean, he's acting as if military force against drug traffickers is some sort of new thing. My goodness. For 40 years there's been military efforts against drug traffickers and including efforts where our own military worked with foreign militaries to plan and execute lethal strikes. There's a program where the CIA worked for years with South American governments to coordinate shoot downs of suspected drug planes. And you know what that resulted in, in one horrible, terrible day? A shoot down of an American missionary. So that's how ineffective these things can be. That's how mistaken some of these strikes can be. And so this sort of idea that he's doing something that finally, at long last, I'm like, do we know nothing about the 40, 50 year history of the war on drugs? Military force, even extreme military force, the way that many South American countries used it, has not stopped drug trafficking. And so we're looking at a dramatic action that he's doing that's trying to make him look tough, that is happening to also violate the Constitution, happen to also violate the international laws of war and is violating in its execution the actual law of war manual in the Department of Defense. For what end? For what purpose? And look, I. I would like to see the Maduro regime gone as well, but there is no grounds for armed conflict against Venezuela. There is no grounds for war against Venezuela. And yet I honestly don't think enough people have focused in on how dangerous it is to turn criminal gangs into the equivalent of military combatants. And then unilaterally declaring war through the President on that basis. When you think through the implications of that, that is absolutely staggering. The implications of granting the President the ability to unilaterally declare criminals to be military combatants and wage war without Congress against them in a merciless fashion. We are crossing a threshold here that is that it's easy to imagine the Parade of Horribles. And for the first time in my lifetime, the Parade of Horribles might actually happen.
- [32:25]
Harry Littman
The parade has started. I mean, it is staggering. You're now in my legal roundhouse. But the idea these are criminals, just as you say, what do you do with criminals? Look at the ex President of you extradite them, you give them due process, you put them through trial, and you did compare the righteous strike that they'd made. But that at least is under the authorization to use military force. This seems to be either flat out extrajudicial killing. And that's if OLC is right, that there's some kind of equivalent of war going on. We haven't seen the memo and man, I don't think it's going to hold up or just flat out murder. And among other things, I interviewed Senator Kelly. You know, he said, look, you're putting troops in danger. The US has relied on for years on being somewhat upright in this overall international situations. And now if we're just bombing the shit out of people who are supplying drugs and no more, you know, what does it do for service members? But I just peering around the corner, assuming that the investigation, especially into the double tap strike doesn't ebb completely, what sort of practical and political crisis would the administration be looking at?
- [33:45]
John Lemire
It's a few things. It's another issue, first of all, where Republicans at least some find space to create some distance from the White House. Right. We've on Morning Joe this week, we had Mike Turner, congressman from Ohio, Chairman, Service Committee, talk about how he would feel that he real questions about the legality of these strikes. And he also went on to say he would very much oppose any efforts to strike on Venezuela soil. The House does seem, though inclined to sort of wrap this up. Nothing to see here. The Senate less so. Chairman Wicker is the voice that we're all kind of waiting for. So it's reported, you know, is very troubled by what's happening. It is doing his due diligence, is doing a real investigation behind the scenes. The Republican chair, but he's been very quiet publicly as to, as to what he thinks. So that will be a moment to watch. The White House has always gambled when we, when this campaign first started that like, well, as one person put it very flippantly to me, like who's going to shed a tear for a drug dealer who's going to poison the United States? Paraphrasing administration official, but just barely. And that's the gamble. They paid. They're, they're betting that they say these people are, you know, endangering lives. We need to stand up to them. We're going to look tough. It's part of our tough border policy, it's part of our crackdown on drugs, et cetera. But as you could dive into the legal concerns and there are many. Yeah, but I, even politically it doesn't seem like a winner. We've seen polls that suggest that Americans have real concerns about this, that like wait a minute, we do believe in things like due process. We're seeing that with the deportations as well. You know, we do think this should be carried out in a certain way. And especially if this were escalated beyond the boats, I think there'd be real Republican pushback, and a lot of voters across the country, both sides of the aisle, would have real problems with it.
- [35:22]
Alison Camerota
And just on the flip side of that, in terms of who's going to shed a tear for drug dealers, first of all, they haven't really proven that these are drug dealers.
- [35:27]
John Lemire
Not at all.
- [35:28]
Alison Camerota
Any evidence that that's really what's happening. And unfortunately, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has proven not trustworthy. His word doesn't matter for much. So we can't just take it at face value what they say. I interviewed Congressman Jim Himes of the Intelligence Committee on the sanity podcast this week, and he has seen the video, and he said that it's nauseating. I mean, it's appalling. And he said that if Americans were to see. Really shakes you to the core. And so I understand, like, in the abstract, who's gonna shed a tear for a drug dealer, for sure. And Jonathan's right, and that's a general conventional wisdom. But when you're face, you know, when you have to see it, if this video's ever released, that might change people's minds. And, you know, back to David's great piece about how the laws of war need to be followed, because it's a moral price that we all pay. If the United States is doing this, it takes a toll on all of our souls that we're wantonly shooting shipwrecked survivors out of the sea. For what? For what? We think they were an imminent threat to Americans. I think that's a hard pill to swallow. So, yeah, I mean, I think that Jonathan's right. Like, there are even Republicans who are already saying that this doesn't sit well with them. But if Americans saw more, it might become a turning point of some kind.
- [36:53]
David French
You know, I have authorized airstrikes in my time in Iraq. Many. I'm very familiar with the rules around this. Very familiar. I'm also very familiar with weaknesses and intelligence. Rand Paul said something very interesting a few days ago, and I've had my issues with Rand Paul, but, man, when the dude's right, he's right. And he's been absolutely out front on this issue. And he raised a great point, which was, you know, we've been doing drug interdictions for a long time. So the. The idea that it's either blow these guys up or let the drugs go wherever they need to go or want to go is just completely false. You can stop the boat. You can Search the boat. You can arrest the crew of the boat, you can interrogate them, find out where they get their supply, who they're distributing it to. There's a lot of value in interdiction and interrogation. But he said that 21% of all boats stopped in interdiction programs have no drugs. Okay, 21%. That's an unacceptable. Like, even if you grant, and which I do not, even if you grant that you can use airstrikes against drug smuggling, that is way too high a margin for error. A 21% chance that you're just blowing up completely innocent people. That's absurd. No way. And just to illustrate how much this violates the laws of war. And like, how, how when we're talking about this, it's not a debatable point. You know, like a lot of arguments about the law of war are kind of wonky and hard, very context specific. But all you have to do is go to, I believe it's page 1088 of the law of War manual in the United States, and it's Department of Defense document. The Department of Defense document. And it says, and it talks about disobeying illegal orders. And it has one example of an illegal order that it's saying. It's so obvious that this is illegal. It should be disobeyed. And what is that? Shooting shipwrecks or survivors? And so this isn't a close call. And that's one thing I've tried to impress on friends and MAGA supporting neighbors is, guys, it's just right here in black and white. This isn't an argument. It's not a matter of an argument. It's a matter of reading comprehension. It's just right there.
- [39:04]
Harry Littman
And did you see who came out with that very point in Politico a couple days ago? John Yoo, the author of the Torture Memos. I just want to speak quickly as a trial lawyer, not a prosecutor. Not legal, but who's going to have sympathy for drug dealers. There's just nothing like a video. We've got 40 minutes. We haven't seen it yet. And they're setting up some kind of Rorschach test, but it looks like two completely desperate people clinging to the debris. A small part of the boat.
- [39:35]
Alison Camerota
I think they're waving. I think they're even signaling for help.
- [39:46]
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.
- [40:04]
Total Wine and More Expert
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we look at three different techniques for making wine to see if there's truly a best way to first is a type of wine that's actually produced quite similarly to reds, but the fermentation time of the grape is reduced, giving its signature pink color. The first technique for making is the skin contact method, in which black skinned grapes such as pulse Pinot Noir are crushed but allowed to remain in contact with the juice for a short period of time. After about six to 48 hours, as opposed to weeks or months for the reds, the skins are separated. This method is most frequently used in the top region of the world, Provence, and throughout the south of France. The second method is called Saunier, which is the French word for bleeding. This method creates both A and a red wine. Early in the maceration process, some of the pink juice created from the grape must is removed to make the while the remaining juice becomes a more concentrated red. A made from this method tends to be richer and darker in both color and fruit flavor. This method is more rarely used, but it can be found more often in roses from Spain, Napa and Chile. The third method is blending. Contrary to what some people think, blending is not just a 5050 pour of red and white wine. Instead, blending is where a white grape such as Chardonnay is blended with a red grape and it's the most popular way to make a champagne. Although popular in Champagne, this method is used in still roses as well. In fact, some winemakers in Provence choose to blend small percentages of white grape varieties into their it's not always obvious or easy to know which method was used to make a particular, but the expert guides at Total Wine and More can help you navigate our wondrous selection to find a that makes your day. So find what you love and love what you find only at Total Wine and More. Cheers.
- [42:30]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. All right, you know we don't have much time, but he's come up again.
- [42:40]
David French
Again.
- [42:40]
Harry Littman
I just want to close out this topic for this week anyway with a mention of our Secretary of War. Call him what he wants to be known as. Pete Hegseth. Do you see him as escaping accountability here and then just more generally? What the hell is he doing hanging around? It would seem like such a such a political liability. He fucks up again and again, starting with the confirmation itself and he's still around. Does he stay that way because he's Trump's Kind of cowboy guy. Do you have thoughts about his vulnerability in this particular, particular scenario?
- [43:20]
Alison Camerota
I mean, it's just, it's purely about loyalty to Trump. Abject loyalty will get you well, you can hang around. But Trump also doesn't like to be embarrassed. I did read something and maybe Jonathan can, can put a finer point on this that some of his advisors are suggesting at the one year mark that's a normal place to do a little house cleaning. But Pete Hegseth, as we all know, I mean, how can anybody be surprised at this? It turns out that, I don't know, installing somebody as Secretary of Defense with horrible judgment, horrible instincts, a horrible track record of lying, horrible infidelity, a drinking problem, I don't know, I guess it doesn't work that well, but everybody knew that. And so he's just kept on the same track that he had been on. I mean, you know, I, I too was a Fox and Friends weekend co host. Okay. So I could have been Secretary of Defense if I'd stayed there.
- [44:08]
John Lemire
So you sail through confirmation.
- [44:11]
David French
Oh, Allison, why aren't you, why aren't you?
- [44:13]
Alison Camerota
Well, I would be just as qualified but have better judgment. Okay, so I mean, shocker, it has blown up. It has blown up horribly and he is an embarrassment. But we'll see what's more important to President Trump, loyalty or being embarrassed.
- [44:29]
John Lemire
So a couple things he, I mean, Hegseth made few friends in Trump's orbit even during the transition because he wasn't truthful about some of the personal scandals that later emerged in the hearings. So there were already people who were letting wondering if this guy really had the qualifications and character for the job. The president though, likes him at the time. This guy's going to fight for me. You know, he's going to be great on tv, he's going to take on the woke issues that I care about, things like that. You know, we have seen and we've reported steadily, you know, Hegseth's power, it seems to be somewhat removed from a lot of the actual decision making at the Pentagon. You know, it was the Secretary of the Army, Driscoll, who went to Europe to negotiate with the Ukrainians. It wasn't Tagseth. We have reported indeed at the Atlantic that Trump, you know, still likes Hegseth but is weary of some of the scandals. Remember, it was just last week also the Signalgate report came out.
- [45:17]
Harry Littman
Right, right, right.
- [45:18]
John Lemire
Obviously not, not very good for Hegseth. And in fact there has been speculation Trump has really prided himself this time around that they have not had the staff turnover they did in the first term, 2017, the first year of his first term. It was a revolving door. It felt like really now there's only been one super high profile departure. National Security Advisor Walls and even he didn't go far. He stayed in the administration. He got a soft landing spot as ambassador to the UN but, but aids, indeed to Allison's point, have told us and others that there's at least Trump hasn't committed to it. But there's a speculation that around the one year mark he might make a several changes. And if that does indeed happen, I would not be surprised if Hegseth is one of the names to go.
- [45:59]
David French
Yeah, you know, I think we've got a situation where Trump refuses to give the media a win a scalp like that. That's sort of part of the ethos here is there's just if you want me to do this, I will not do it. And this is kind of part of the ethos of maga. I mean rather famously recently Megyn Kelly made a big show that you want me to critique Candace Owens for her wild conspiracy theories. Well, guess what? I'm not because. Why not? Because you're telling me to. That's kind of a child's way of dealing with the world. But we're absolutely in that arena now. And so I think one of the biggest barriers to any kind of change is if the attack on Hexith is coming from. If you know, it's the Atlantic that broke the story about Signal Gate. It was the Atlantic's editor in chief.
- [46:52]
Harry Littman
On the chat on the call.
- [46:54]
David French
Yeah, yeah, you had the Washington Post breaks the story about these boats. You know, I almost feel like if there is Newsmax breaks a story that's 1/100th as impactful as war crimes or, or spillage of classified information, but it comes from Newsmax or oan, then that would be. Then he'd feel okay about doing it. But, but we are dealing with an enormous amount of just sort of brute force reactionary stubbornness.
- [47:24]
Harry Littman
Well put. And I think there is more to come and it won't ebb out. But I just want to add a quick shout out. Today is the day that the retirement of Admiral Alan Halsey becomes official. And this guy was the hero who quietly stood up to Hegseth and just said I have, I have legal hesitations here. And Hegseth said, you know, my way or the highway? And he took the highway. A 60 year old man with a tremendous record and another decade or so of service that he Just quietly abandoned. So Godspeed, Admiral Halsey. All right. It's a through line, even though we jump in different subject matters. And I want to go to the, the other point on the line from this week, which is the immigration stuff and Abrego Garcia. And as it has to do with an overall pushback from the courts, but I think also public opinion and a kind of long delayed accountability. But Judge Boasberg, who is the chief judge of the district court, he's not letting go this possibility that he was lied to in March 15. And it's a little bit of a piece with what's going on in Venezuela now, this notion that the drug stuff is really trendy, our Ragua somehow making war on us. I just genuinely wonder about your view as you know, whether the country's moved on. He's going to try to get maybe Beauvais and we're going to have Rouveni unless the administration's able to get him knocked off. Is this something that is on the list of three or four things making White House officials lose sleep or is it a, you know, kind of satellite legal golden oldie at this point?
- [49:05]
David French
I think it's kind of satellite legal golden oldie, to be honest. It's kind of removed from the, well, removed from the day to day. However, I will say this, the cumulative effect, you can't look at the Gobrago Garcia case without also looking at some of the cases around the National Guard in Chicago, the cases around National Guard in Portland, the habeas cases around the people sent to the seacot prison. There is a consistent pattern of lying and dissembling and exaggerating in court filings by the Trump administration. In court filings. Not just tweets, not just truth. Social posts, court filings. And you and I both know, Harry, federal judges have little patience. Little patience.
- [49:46]
Harry Littman
I mean, that's the thing is, are the chickens coming home to roost or whatever's the right expression. I'll just note there's current news here, which is Abrego Garcia. They've been doing everything they can to make him miserable. As of today, he's a free man. Because a judge is like, you know, not taking crap from the Trump administration on this.
- [50:04]
Alison Camerota
Well, I mean, you guys know much more about the legality of it and what passes muster. But I would just say that politically speaking or the public sentiment, this is falls into the same category as drinking from a fire hose and flood the zone. I mean, this is just so. That was weeks ago. Sorry. We've moved on to you know, the striking of fishing boats and Pete Hegseth's latest F up. And, you know, Trump not understanding affordability. I mean, it's just every day there's some new. And Epstein and Marjorie Taylor Greene. So I don't, I mean, I think that it's a golden oldie, as you guys both said, just because the public can't. Our content level is too saturated.
- [50:40]
John Lemire
But I do think it's reflective very quickly, though, of how another issue that's supposed to be a strength for Trump has suddenly become a weakness. Like the economy was number one. And that's. He's not going well for him right now. And now and immigration, too. And yes, he. A lot of Americans wanted the border to be closed. He's largely done that. And they gave him high marks for that. They, however, have given him very poor marks for this mass deportation plan. And like the massed ICE agents and, you know, Mr. Bray, Garcia was like a big name early on. Golden oldie. But there have been other flashpoints that we've seen recently that have more broken through, like a Babson College student being taken away as she was trying to go home for Thanksgiving. You know, moms going in school lines to pick up their kids at the end of the day, you know, cowering in fear because of the ICE agents there. So I, I think that it adds to this idea of like, whoa, he's just gone a little too far here. This is not exactly what I had in mind when I voted for, which.
- [51:31]
Harry Littman
Is my basic point in Basic question is this part and parcel of the problem we've been exploring, and I hope we will continue to. But not today. We are out of time. Thank you so much, John, David and Allison. We just have a minute for our final feature of Five Words or fewer, where we take a question that each of us has to answer in five words or fewer. And today's question. First lady Melania Trump has gotten some flack in the past for some of the. The White House Christmas decor, which she's in charge of. What's going to be the theme this year? Five words or fewer, ladies and gentlemen?
- [52:12]
Alison Camerota
Well, I don't know what the theme will be, but I know that her motto, her message for Christmas. It's hard to build on her message during the first Trump administration, when her friend and assistant, Stephanie Wins, Winston Wyckoff wrote that her message was Fuck Christmas. So I.
- [52:31]
Harry Littman
That is rather a door slammer, isn't it?
- [52:33]
Alison Camerota
I mean, well, I mean, I just think it's hard to, you know, brevity is, you know, one of the wonders of language. And so I think that that is important. And so, I mean, I guess she could only say, who gives a fuck about Christmas? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sorry, that's six. Screw the Christmas spirit. Sorry, that's four. Something like that.
- [52:51]
Harry Littman
Cut in half.
- [52:52]
Alison Camerota
Yeah, exactly.
- [52:53]
Harry Littman
And divide.
- [52:54]
David French
Exactly.
- [52:54]
Harry Littman
All right, excellent.
- [52:56]
John Lemire
I think for that was a nice stroll down memory lane of Christmas's past Christmas present, though, the 2025 Christmas message from the first name liar Trump. I would say in my five words, no East Wing to decorate.
- [53:12]
Harry Littman
Very good.
- [53:13]
David French
So mine is related to Trump's rally where he was talking about the higher costs due to tariffs and he says, you know, you can't have so many dolls. So mine is two dolls more than enough.
- [53:29]
Harry Littman
And I got a slightly low blow. But it's so American being Irving Berlin. And it is dreaming of a white Christmas. Thank you so much, Alison, David and John. 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 substack@harrylittman.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. 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 newsland scale, 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 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 Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie, Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsa Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers. Production assistance by Morgan Chisholm and Akshaysh Turbailu. Our editorial interns are Bridget Ryan and Troy Neville. 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.
- [56:07]
David French
Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. And Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means half day. Give it a try at mintmobile.
- [56:29]
Alison Camerota
Com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of network busy taxes and fees extra. Cmnobile.com.