Natasha Korecki (3:23)

Oh, thanks so much for having me.

Harry Littman (3:25)

Not her first time on Talking Feds. Ali Vitale, the host of msNow's Way Too early in chat before we started, she said what time she wakes up. And I don't even wanna tell you, but she covered Capitol Hill for NBC News for nearly a decade, including every major election from the campaign trail since 2016. Always great to welcome a somewhat sleep deprived Ali Vitale. Thanks for being here.

Ali Vitale (3:54)

Always good to be here, sleep deprived or not.

Harry Littman (3:57)

Just let it all go. And another talking Fed stalwart, Jacob Weisberg, the executive chair and co founder of Pushkin Industries, previously CEO of the Slate Group, co founder of Panoply, and editor in chief of Slate magazine. He's the author of several books and he serves as chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Jacob, thanks for being here. As always.

Jacob Weisberg (4:21)

Thanks for having me back.

Harry Littman (4:23)

All right, so let's start with the war in Iran. Still the major story pushing three weeks, it feels like we're settling into this conflict. Granted that nobody seems to know why we started in the first place. Trump, it seems, could just declare victory at any time, as he's wont to do, even with not much more to show for it than the devastation of the bombing. Why does he seem hesitant or so unwilling to just get out at this point?

Ali Vitale (4:53)

You know, I've been grappling with this, right, because Republican strategists that I talked to, including as recently as on my show this morning, say that no one wants a shorter conflict on the ground than the Trump administration. And for a lot of reasons that's probably true. But getting out is difficult when A, you've done a pretty poor job of being specific about why you got in when you did. Secondly, they've not done a great job of selling why this conflict matters to a very skeptical American public. And finally, they've not really detailed what goals or metrics they need to hit on the ground to declare success and then find an exit ramp. And so I think that's where a lot of the concern and frustration comes from. Yes, from an American public that's been polled on this question, but then also from a D.C. chattering class, both in the foreign policy apparatuses and then also on Capitol Hill where I spend a lot of my time. There's just A lot of consternation around those unanswered questions. And I think the White House has been keen to say, well, this is just Democrats with Trump derangement syndrome wanting to cheer against the president. And in fact, no, Democrats are threading a really interesting needle on this where they're saying they actually supported the killing of the Ayatollah. They're not mourning the fact that a dangerous regime is being taken off the map or debilitated, but they are very concerned about the way that the administration is doing it. And so it's an easy talking point for the White House, but it's not actually reflective of the truth of what the substantive concerns actually are here.

Harry Littman (6:22)

And it seems to me, Jacob and Natasha, that these three points, I don't see how they're gonna get better. Is he gonna, you know, now reverse field and give the actual. Of the seven reasons he's proffered, or are we going to define an exit strategy? So that seems to be part of what frames my question to Ali. How are those really fundamental flaws going to be shored up before some kind of exit?

Jacob Weisberg (6:47)

It's hard, Harry, to declare victory and go home when nobody has the slightest idea why you went to war in the first place. And also, what he started doesn't end because he withdraws. Iran will presumably continue to retaliate against U.S. targets and the targets of allies. And that could draw Trump back in in a second, even if he declares it over. You know, I think it does come back to this question of why on earth did Trump do this? And I'm a subscriber to the theory of Trump's razor, which is always go with the dumbest possible explanation and you won't be wrong. I really think what happened is that attacking Venezuela went well from his point of view, and he thought, great, let's do it again. You know, without the slightest comprehension of the Pandora's box he was opening. And the thing about the consequences, like the shutting or the semi shutting of the Strait of Hormuz, hundred predictable and 100% predicted. You know, there has been absolutely no surprise in terms of what has happened in this war. It's gone. If you had to try to game it out, that's what's happened. And to go in without the slightest expectation that things could go wrong, it's just a level of callousness and naivete and blundering that even if Trump hadn't run against the idea of ever doing anything like this, it would be shocking.

Natasha Korecki (8:16)

It's so perplexing on so many levels. But, yes, I mean, looking at it through a political lens, this is exactly what he campaigned against. The entire campaign was about. You know, this war wouldn't have started if I were president. They would not have dared to do this or that I would have been able to negotiate. Biden's unable to negotiate, and here we are. I mean, it goes against everything that MAGA stands for with America First. And just looking at, again, his favorability, this is dragging him down significantly. I mean, he already had very low approval ratings. But just looking quickly at how the war is hurting Trump's approval, only 37% approve of the war. Overall, people have a perception of safety declining. There's incredibly weak support among independents, among young voters. So, you know, we're going into the midterms here, and. And you're alienating the precise people. You need to come to your side if you want any hope of holding some seats in the House and, you know, fending off attacks in the Senate. So it is very perplexing. And I. You know, it feels like he thought, I can take these guys out. I'm gonna get in, I'm gonna get out. They're gonna capitulate. They're not gonna hit back. Because that's so far what had happened. Right. It happened the last time he sent the mission in to supposedly destroy their nuclear capabilities. And it happened in Venezuela very quickly, in and out. And, you know, there was some reporting this week that he believed that they were going to capitulate right away. And that is not what happened. And here we are.

Harry Littman (10:03)

I mean, it does really seem to me, as Jacob says, 100% predictable, all that's happening and 100% predicted. And now that the sun is in charge, you know, it really is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And you gotta wonder if FIFA wants its peace prize back. Okay, let's stick with this MAGA point, because we had news this week that the director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, who is a MAGA faithful, resigned and disputed Trump's claim. Really, one of seven Trump's claims. I'm on the very beautifully coined Trump's razor point. I go with the seventh of it, which is. I had a feeling. But anyway, he said, well, Iran didn't pose an imminent threat. This is one of the first instances I can recall of a real sharp dispute between Trump and an undisputed MAGA loyalist. And as you say, he ran against this. His reflex has always been, just go back to the base and try to keep that narrow advantage that it gives overall. But does this augur real erosion of support among his most ardent supporters?

Jacob Weisberg (11:15)

What I think we're starting to see is a split between MAGA as cult of personality and MAGA as ideology. And it's more a cult of personality than it is an ideology. But there is ideology, and a key piece of it is isolationist, is that the United States should not go looking for expensive fights around the world that are going to tie us down and end in quagmires. And I think you're seeing on the part of the Tucker Carlson's, the Begyn Kellys, the Jocanns, you know, some sense of content around their beliefs. But at the same time, these people are more MAGA than maga. In some ways, they remind me of the kind of John Birch Society in relation to the old Republican Party. They're conspiratorial to the point of irrationality. They think Israel and the Jews are,

Harry Littman (12:09)

at the same time, the American Jewish lobby.

Jacob Weisberg (12:11)

Yeah, yeah. Are responsible for everything. And, you know, it's sort of ironic that Trump doesn't kind of have a way of corralling these people or, you know, or really knowing what to do with them. So they can be both right and wrong at the same time. They can be right about Trump and that what he's doing is reckless and a bad idea, but they can be very wrong about the reasons why it's happening and what it all means.

Ali Vitale (12:38)

It also feels to me like a good reminder of why MAGA will be a complete and utter mess at the end of the Trump term, even before then, because they're gonna have to get into the primary for 2028, and that's gonna be a mess. You saw some of these early fissures on, you know, I would call them niche issues simply because it's not the thing that voters wake up thinking about every day. But we saw it on H1B visas between the Elon Musk and Wing and then the so called, you know, Tucker Carlson's MAGA loyalists, Right? Like that was one example. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the Epstein files, that was another iteration of this. And I think for those of us who are steeped in this every day, we're forced to question, okay, is this a moment or is this a larger movement that is happening? Is it a tiny paper cut or is it a larger break that's going to manifest here? And I think what we're starting to see is that because it's been a cult of personality for so long, Trump is pretty agnostic. When it comes to policy, he. He can be swayed either way based on who's talked to him most recently. And I actually think that what we're seeing here might be an example of that, because what MAGA is gonna have to grapple with is really the push and pull that Republicans lost to the MAGA wing for the last few years, but seem to be, at least from a foreign policy perspective, coming back to something a little bit more neoconservative. And I always think about this as the Trump ology, Trump world ology of it, and it's because Marco Rubio is ascendant right now. If I think back to 2015, I was an embed. I was assigned the Trump campaign, but the real campaign I was assigned to cover was the Marco Rubio presidential campaign. I went to, like, three rallies and obviously ended up following the Trump campaign all the way into the first White House. But the Marco Rubio worldview then is very much what we're seeing now. When it's Venezuela, when it's the way he talks about Cuba, when it's the way he talks about Iran. Rubio still offers a clarity on Russia that Trump does not yet share. But if we look at the most recent conflicts and actions, this is really a Rubio ascendant moment. And I think that's something that I'm thinking closely about, because that will then manifest in 2027 as Rubio versus Vance. Isolationist in Vance, not quite so in Rubio. So there's a long tail to this that I think all of us are seeing the early part of.

Harry Littman (14:51)

Let's focus a little bit now on on Congress. And first, to Natasha's point, other wars, even that we've come to see in a poor light at this point in them, tended to have a patriotic surge. This 37% is unprecedented for war, since they've been taking polls about them. But now we have a effort from the Pentagon. They're going to ask for $200 billion to cover the war. And normally military funding just sails through with bipartisan support, but even Capitol Hill Republicans seem to be on edge about it this time. You know, why is there such nervousness? If I could start with you, Natasha, and is it actually in peril?

Natasha Korecki (15:38)

Well, you're right. This kind of thing would sail through, and certainly Republicans have been rubber stamps for Trump all along. But this is very tricky. I mean, they're going into the midterms. There's a lot of politics at stake, particularly for battleground Republicans. And we just talked about how unpopular this war is. So now you're talking dollars. And if you think about the messaging that was coming from a lot of Republicans, especially mega Republicans, who were railing against the spending in Ukraine and why are we spending this money? This is, let's focus here. And this, that's sort of where Trump started off. And now we're circling back to, okay, this is a specific dollar figure and it's getting well publicized and everyone's gonna remember this $200 billion. And he cannot articulate why we're in Iran right now and he's talking about ground troops. And, you know, there's all this unrest going on. So this is very tricky. And this is gonna be really a key moment here for Republicans.

Harry Littman (16:50)

And let me just follow up on that because, you know, the longer we stay and what happens after the 200 billion, it's really true. Pete Hegseth, who is, his whole other story on this war and his brassy daily briefings, is talking about ground troops. I mean, at some point, if we have to commit to some strategy, at least a couple of them, anything involving regime change would be ground troops. That, that's always seemed to be the red line. Or let me ask you, Jacob, slightly differently. Can this just continue on where we pummel the crap out of them every day and not graduate? Can we just keep bombing, bombing, bombing without some kind of torquing up to, for example, troops on the ground?

Jacob Weisberg (17:38)

Seems unlikely. I mean, first on Congress, I think Trump is really pushing his luck. I mean, he's like, he's the, he's the teenager who doesn't care what his parents think, but wants the credit card, you know, and at some point the parents say, hey, wait a second, don't I get something to say about this? And I think that's, I think there are obviously Republicans who feel that way. The idea that Trump can kind of control the proportions of this, that, you know, the war will not take out the main oil processing facilities. He's trying to limit and hem in Iran's response. And I don't see why he would have any power to do that. I mean, they're going to act to some extent in their own self interest because the regime wants to survive and it doesn't want him to send in ground troops. I don't think that's a reaction it's trying to provoke. But I think that could very easily unfold not because Trump or anyone else wants it to happen, but because it becomes necessary, you know, either to control runaway nuclear material or to maintain the flow of oil or, you know, there are a dozen ways that troops could get kind of pulled into the situation. I mean, a lot of wars start that way. Right. They start as air wars with no intention of ground wars. And lo and behold, you end up with a ground war.

Harry Littman (19:04)

They want to deter after their fashion. It's an asymmetric war. But they want to impose a lesson of don't try this again. We have ways of hunkering down that will make you sorry. Another really interesting sign of the fraying of what's always been Trump's very solid kind of coalition. Kent's resignation made things a little uncomfortable for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Right. She goes to Congress and basically said it's up to Trump to decide what is a threat and what's not. Kind of a Sergeant Schultz, don't look my way. How did that go over? And does it seem as if she is the next person to be shown the exit?

Jacob Weisberg (19:51)

Well, don't ask me. I only work here. I mean, that's for the Director of National Intelligence. That's a new one, right?

Harry Littman (19:57)

What's a threat?

Ali Vitale (19:59)

Head of the intelligence apparatus and yet answered almost every question about intelligence by saying it is the belief of the intelligence agency. I mean, she was Heismaning away her role as the head of the intelligence agency.

Harry Littman (20:15)

Oh, what a great image. Oh, that's so good, Ali. Just like, I wish people could see it, but we're seeing the Heisman Trophy. Stiff arm there. Okay, go ahead.

Ali Vitale (20:25)

Correct. Correct. I'm keeping you guys at arm's length, too. No, but I think for Tulsi, and a great colleague of mine reminded me of this, who covered her 2020 campaign, that so much of Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign before she switched parties was about opposing any future war conflict with Iran. And so Tulsi Gabbard, as a politician in her own right, is opposed to this action. She has joined in an administration that put forward the campaign promise that Natasha was talking about, about being anti intervention. And much like JD Vance bought into that and now is watching an administration go a completely opposite direction. And so for Tulsi Gabbard, it's awkward because the fastest way to lose your job is being disloyal to the president publicly. So she tried to toe a line by saying the intelligence agencies, but not herself. And it was a do no harm approach. But I'm not sure it did no harm, because even Republicans like Elise Stefanik, who's technically still a member of congressional leadership, even though kind of not obviously retiring, has had her own issues within the Trump orbit, but is a Trump loyalist. And she is the one who's the first person who asked Tulsi Gabbard directly what about the Joe Kent resignation. And by the way, he says there was not an imminent threat, was there? What do you make of this? And it was Stefanik, a Republican, who pressed Gabbard on that point. And I think it speaks to the fact that a there are valid questions to ask that don't mean you are cheering against the country, doesn't mean you're even cheering against the president. It just means that you're trying to understand what, why this conflict had to start when it did. And the idea of an imminent threat only being decided by the president, according to CIA, former CIA sources that I've spoken to, is actually not the way that this works. It is the intelligence agency who come into the room and present, sir, this is a threat. This is not. Here is the timeline. Make a decision based on this. And I think that is such an essential point in Tulsi's testimony that was lost.

Harry Littman (22:21)

All right. I'd like to end this on sort of a broad level. I had a really good conversation with Bob Kagan about his article in the Atlantic. It's going to drop in a couple days for listeners. But he saw this war as a kind of affirmation of his general thesis that the grand bargain of the last 80 years that so protected both the security and overall peace and prosperity of the world, where the United States is sort of the guarantor of safety and other countries rely on it, has come undone definitively. And the combination of Trump acting alone and the sort of brazenness of just taking down a president is a sign that we are in definitively a different world. And of course, nobody will be surprised if he just moves on Cuba next week. What do you take to be the longer term consequences of this war? And when, you know, future classes who study 1989 and 1945, will 2026 be an important signpost of a very strong changing role for America and the world?

Natasha Korecki (23:38)

Well, look, I mean, Iranians, some Iranians before this war chanted death to America every day. So, I mean, that much is true. But if you want to take a step back and think about the generational impact of this bombing, a school, a girls school, and no acknowledgement of it, what do you think that that is doing to these people and to the children who are seeing this? To the mothers and the fathers and the next generations, we're creating all of this resentment and hatred toward the USA that, you know, we did not have before this war started. I mean, you can imagine and look at the whole region. You know, it's not even getting that much attention. But Lebanon, a million people have been displaced, hundreds of people killed. I think we are just creating more of a powder keg in that area. To the extent that we were able to drive that hatred down in the years after September 11th, it's like we're going in reverse right now.

Jacob Weisberg (24:48)

I mean, I think, Harry, to pick up on kind of Bob Kagan's perspective on this, Trump has, with incredible speed, undone longstanding global security framework that aspects of which have been in place since the Second World War. But he hasn't built or proposed anything plausible to replace it. And I think that leaves a big question mark hanging over the post Trump world, which is to what extent? I mean, you can't fully go back to what you had before, partly because American allies can't rely on the United States not to elect another Trump like figure, whether it's Vance or someone else, even if the next president is a Democrat. But there is a lot that can be undone and potentially repaired, and I think ultimately has to be, because I think a world governed by a chaotic superpower that has no consistent approach to global security from one day to the next, one that simply reflects Trump's personality, his petulance, his inconsistency, his not caring. Don't think you're going to get another president who is like that, at least to the same extent. But it also, it doesn't work for anybody, anything. You know, what we're seeing in the oil price, what we're seeing in the kind of instability all over the world. It's not a world that America or most other countries will choose to live in. So, you know, I think that. I don't know exactly what Bob Kagan told you. I'd love to hear that interview, but my instinct is that there will be some reversal, regardless of who the next president is, of the degree of chaos Trump is now bringing to the world.

Ali Vitale (26:35)

I do think that unpredictability has been the most consistent theme throughout this second Trump term, at least for the first year. We've watched markets start to bake it in. Not yet with the price of oil, but certainly in relation to tariffs. We've seen the Congress start to bake it in. We've seen cultural institutions start to bake in the unpredictability. Everyone else has caught up to that, to bake it into the system, except for our alliances on the world stage. They're not meant to be drawn all over the map, scribbled up and down with and yet that's kind of what we have. And I think you see it with something like the Strait of Hormuz, the President giving no heads ups, certainly not selling it to the American people, but also not giving any heads up to allies and then coming back around two weeks later and saying, hey, you weren't there for us when we asked you to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And not that we need you, but we want you. But it felt honestly like he was saying, I don't want you to do the dishes, I want you to want to do the dishes.

Harry Littman (27:31)

I mean, how Trumpian an effort to build a coalition was that you better or you're going to be in trouble. That was the basic pitch to NATO. Hey everyone, Harry here. As you may know, I'm extremely picky about advertisers and sponsors and do very few ads. But I'm making an exception because I've been really impressed by Quint's clothing. I am not what anyone would call a clothes horse, but I do really care about comfort and their clothes are super comfortable. I took the Traveler 5 pocket pants with me on a recent trip and I basically wore them every day. They were totally comfortable and my family said they looked good as well. Refresh your winter wardrobe with quince Go to quince.com talkingfeds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com talkingfeds free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com talkingfeds all right, let's talk about another somewhat frayed relationship with the Trump Cabinet and Congress. Pam Bondi, who I dearly hope is fated to have her portrait gather dust in the basement of the Department of Justice. But she visited the House Oversight Committee for a closed door briefing. Of course, bringing along Todd Blanche, who actually is the spokesperson for everything that's happened with Epstein. Anybody sort of what went down? And what did the Dems do? And do you think they overplayed their hand?

Ali Vitale (29:31)

Look, they put this hastily announced briefing on the books 24 hours before. The word briefing is important because it is not a deposition. And yet when members walked into the room, it was in their normal hearing room. It was a structure where each person was allowed to ask three minutes worth of questions. Sounds a lot like a deposition. Except. But wait. Pam Bondi is currently under subpoena from this committee to come in for a deposition, theoretically, on April 14th. And one of the first things that I start getting text messages about as this began from sources was she's not committing to come in for her deposition. It only got worse from there. And the things that Democrats actually walked out because of is because one of their members, Congresswoman Summer Lee, was asking Chairman James Comer, will you compel the subpoena, your own subpoena that your own Republican members in part, voted for. And Comer was waffling on that and at one point said to Summer Lee, stop bitching. He then told me he stands by his comments, but the next day said, well, we in the majority are going to have to figure out a way to make this different because he's embarrassed, he said, by the Democrats on the committee. What that means for the future of this subpoena, I don't know. But it was pretty clear to people in that room that they were going to try to use a sleight of hand to say a briefing is a deposition. Check the box she came in. We don't need to hear from her again.

Jacob Weisberg (30:53)

You know, I think what's going on here is that Democrats and a few Republicans are trying to make it a little harder for Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche to lie for the president. And probably there will be no consequences, because even if it were under oath, who's going to prosecute it? And even if they did, you know, there's a pardon at the end of the rainbow. But at the same time, testifying under oath adds a degree of seriousness. People, it matters in a different way. And she's trying to kind of slip that noose. And it seemed that at least a few of the few Republicans that supported the subpoena aren't going to maybe let her off the hook that easily. But ultimately, this is skirmishing. I mean, the thing that, you know, we can be pretty confident about is that if there is damaging information about Donald Trump and the Epstein files, we're not going to see it via this Justice Department.

Natasha Korecki (31:49)

To your question of whether the Democrats overplay their hand, I don't think they did. I think it was really effective if they hadn't walked out and made a big deal, it made all these headlines, it got people's attention. I think more of the average person caught on and tuned in to what was happening because of that. The other thing is this is yet again, through the political lens, sending a signal to the base. The base has been clamoring for Democrats to fight, to show their fighting, and Every chance they have to do that these days, they're doing. And Epstein is just a great issue for them, up and down because it fractures his base. It's a lot of questions on the left as well, you know, so that's one thing. The other is, you know, getting Bondi under oath. I mean, they just saw what happened with Noam and being able to hold her feet to the fire and perhaps try to trip her up. Now, you know, in the past, she actually just gives it right back. And I don't know that they have really landed something on her. But this is when Trump really tunes in. You know, when one of his top people is, you know, getting grilled. And if she performs poorly, if she answers a question the wrong way, it's so obvious that she's lying, or if she contradicts Trump, that could be a problem for her. Now, she's not on the kind of shaky ground that Noem was going into this, but those are things to look for going forward.

Harry Littman (33:29)

And still, isn't she on somewhat shaky ground? I mean, that performance at that hearing really actually made it into the water of the general public. And she had the charm and savvy of an armadillo there. So she's got detractors among Republicans in Congress. She's often reported to be on Trump's bad side, even though it seems to me she does everything she can to effectuate his unconstitutional views of what DOJ should be doing. I think he's so results oriented, and not all the reprisal prosecutions are happening. She's often seems to be trying to curry favor to patch up problems. So, you know, I think she starts not at no one's level, I agree, but with somewhat eroded political capital that make it hard, especially after that last hearing, for her to just come out of the box and insult people and not be responsive, especially since it's an Epstein issue. So she's got real political reason, it seems to me, to try to avoid raising her right hand. On the other hand, it's not straightforward. And as you say, Natasha, however it plays out, it keeps the Epstein issue and the DOJ's mismanagement of it front and center.

Ali Vitale (34:49)

But, Harry, if the Attorney General of the United States doesn't comply with a congressional subpoena, I mean, people have gone to jail for that. Steve Bannon just went to jail for that in recent memory. Like, what kind of crisis does that set up between two branches of government, let alone what the laws in our country are?

Harry Littman (35:09)

Yeah, let me speak to that as a Prosecutor. Because Jacob said, oh, well, you're in trouble. We're going to refer you to the Department of Justice. Uh, oh, but there's another scenario. Assuming, and it's true, the regulations for special counsel are still in play, if they refer it out, it would be so brazen to try to just smother it that she, she refers it to Blanche, who says, no problem here. They really need to appoint a special counsel. And once you appoint a special counsel, and when she is so blatantly, this really would be her in contempt of Congress, there's a subpoena, and she says, screw you, I'm not going to honor it. So unlike the normal dynamic, you know, with Bannon, they referred it to the department four times. And an honest, upstanding department greenlighted two of them and not the other two here, if it's anyone other than a high DOJ official, we know they'll just ignore it. But I think there's a special counsel scenario. And man, oh, man, even before the midterms, having something like that play out and be weekly kind of coverage, including Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. That's a bad look, right?

Natasha Korecki (36:20)

Yeah, that's a really good point. The timing of that, can I just

Ali Vitale (36:23)

add, the committee is also grappling with something that's really, like, heavy. There are multiple members who have been pressing these key members of the Epstein orbit, Darren Indyk and Richard Kahn, about whether or not there was a settlement to what they're calling Jane Doe for. But the assumption there is that they're talking about a woman and an allegation of sexual assault by the President. And there's one of those instances. And then there's also the concern, and Congresswoman Melanie Stanberry said this this week that there is a second potential settlement as well against a Trump accuser. And so I just think to ground it in what they're actually trying to do here, there were some really valid questions about who has gotten settlements and if any of those settlements are related to the current President of the United States. I mean, just the potential size and impact of that is something that I don't know that we spend enough time on.

Harry Littman (37:16)

And I always keep in mind how vehement he was about not passing the Epstein transparency. He would shedded his erstwhile allies who support it, then of course, he had to. So something was obviously of concern at the time. And the other point I'll make on this is Bondi, as she did in her meeting in Congress, makes a big point of, oh, we did so many documents in so Many hours. But as Jacob says, it's not a numbers, it's not by the pound, it's by the ounce or the gram. We knew from the first production, when it was 100 pages, all about Bill Clinton, that they can be selective. And so if there are these nuggets, where are they? And it just doesn't answer that to say, oh, we've worked so many hours and produced so many documents. And on the so many documents point, by some accounts, like Ro Khanna's, two and a half million have not been produced. Now, the DOJ says they're mainly duplicates, but mainly, you know, that still leaves quite a bit.

Jacob Weisberg (38:18)

And this thing about the making available in a special room to members of Congress, you know, it's so impractical. I mean, members of Congress, first of all, rely on staff for this kind of work. It's a massive quantity of stuff. And the idea that you find hours in your day to do deep research on the Epstein files, it's marginally better than not making the unredacted documents available at all to anyone, but not that much better.

Harry Littman (38:45)

And I'll just say, by the way, you mentioned the R word redactions. They haven't begun to comply with the legal requirements that they should have complied with in December of explaining any of them. Just given a few bromides of sometimes it's this, sometimes it's that. So there's certainly fodder for the Democrats to, you know, if you take, as Natasha says, just the political vantage point of it, even if they now have given a hand to the Republicans to play and tiptoe away from their tough stance toward Bondi, every time it's come back, it does seem to be the one kryptonite issue that always hurts him. And of course, I've been on, I think you have also with victims who have very powerful voices and, and I think really resonate with the American people.

Ali Vitale (39:37)

These women are amazing.

Natasha Korecki (39:38)

Yeah.

Harry Littman (39:41)

Foreign. It is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode, you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.

Total Wine and More Host (40:05)

Thanks, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we start with two of our absolute favorite things, dessert and wine, and combine them into one delicious dessert wines. What are they exactly and how are they made? Grab a fork and a glass and let's dig into the sweet subject matter. Dessert wines are just as you'd hope they'd be, sweet wines that are typically Served after a meal. Sometimes they're served with a dessert, and sometimes they're served as dessert. And then there are those times in between. The smoothness and lack of acidity make for a pleasant and easygoing taste that pairs perfectly with relaxation. I reach for dessert wines when I'm craving something sweet to enjoy while unwinding in the evening or after a big meal to make a sweet dessert wine. The fermentation process is halted just prior to the yeast converting all the sugar to alcohol. Interrupting the fermentation ensures that there is sugar remaining in the wine, which gives us that sweetness we crave. But the amount of sweetness varies from wine to wine, and there's no shortage of options. Just pop into Total Wine and more and you'll see many, many varieties, from ports to ice wines to so turn into Hungarian Tokai. Dessert wines come in both still and sparkling, too. They're also made from both red and white grapes, and they can be served chilled in a small glass or room temperature, proving that, really, when it comes to dessert wines, anything goes. Hungry? Thirsty? Maybe a little of both. Stop into your local Total Wine to check out our large selection of dessert wines, and feel free to chat with a helpful guide for a recommendation. Cheers.

Harry Littman (41:29)

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's a spirited debate. Any final thoughts about, I guess at the political level, are the Dems doing everything they should to be holding Bondi's feet to the fire? You've said, Jacob, no way she coughs up what really damages Trump if there are things at the end of the day. So that being the case, is the goal, basically, to keep it in the public eye and are they doing everything they should or could?

Ali Vitale (42:00)

Yeah.

Natasha Korecki (42:01)

I mean, just one thing I was gonna say earlier is Bondi, one of her issues is her past statement about, I've got this client list on my desk, and it's that kind of thing. She said it. They're gonna play it. And it's that kind of thing that bugs Trump when he sees that, that it's like an. Such an obvious. He would see it as an error that she said it in the first place and then contradicting themselves. So that's the kind of thing that elevates it and puts her neck out for him to, you know, get rid of her. But I do think that Democrats are. They're trying to find their. Their spots. You know, I don't think the base will, like, some of the base will ever be happy, but, you know, to the extent that they. They have not let go of this and they're making it as public as possible that that only does good things with the base.

Jacob Weisberg (42:55)

I was going to add, you know, to what Natasha said. I think it's a sign of the, the lack of resonance of Democratic talking points that this is the only issue that works for them. This issue, you know, fell in their laps. I think they've handled it fine, well even. But the real test is whether they can parlay it into a broader critique of the Trump administration because maybe the midterms are going to be about Epstein, but eventually this does kind of run out of gas and it's a reason to maybe to vote against Republicans, but it's not really a reason to vote for Democrats. So it's a mixed blessing as an issue for them.

Ali Vitale (43:39)

In some ways the closest they've come to marrying Epstein to a broader umbrella political theme is this idea of an Epstein class, to borrow an Elizabeth Warren campaign phrase, a system that works for the wealthy and well connected, but not for average Americans. And I think that's their opportunity point that some of them are trying to drive toward. Jon Ossoff in Georgia got a lot of attention for doing that. But it's unclear that it'll be resonant, especially like we are in when are we marching? Like it's an eternity until election day. Just so much can happen. We don't even know yet.

Harry Littman (44:14)

All right, and let's move in that direction with a few comments. Natasha, you spent your week on the ground in Illinois. The sort of marquee race was the three way race for the Democratic Senate nomination. But there were very crowded Dem House races, some with like half a dozen serious candidates. Why were the races so messy? And what does it say about the state of the party that you had challengers sort of from every side and you know, how does that speak to the point all three of you were making about the Dems not quite having their shit together? I can say that on talking Feds, I'm the host.

Natasha Korecki (44:57)

Yeah, I mean, you know, the party is still I think finding itself and we're going to see. I mean what's so wonderful as an Illinois resident is that usually Illinois is like eh, no one cares about it because it's blue. So we'll move on. But it was so important this time because there were so many test cases for what's what I think we're going to start seeing in other states. Yes, one major one was this involvement of these super PACs.

Harry Littman (45:27)

Talk about that a little please. That's news to many of us.

Natasha Korecki (45:30)

Okay. So one thing we started seeing in Illinois was a pac, you know, pro Israel group pouring tons of money into these different congressional races and not doing it under their own name. So they would say PAC to elect women, or they were renaming it in recognition that their popularity is not great among the left right now. So they were doing that under that, guys. And so that became. So the Israel question mean, to your point of where are the Democrats? The Israel question is such a huge question right now. And for the first time, I think we started seeing these polls that are Israel's unpopular. There are more Americans who were thinking negatively about it, you know, because of Netanyahu.

Harry Littman (46:22)

But on the left, right, on the left.

Natasha Korecki (46:24)

On the left, correct. So what AIPAC was doing was, you know, in the 9th congressional district, which got a ton of, you know, because Abu Gazella became this national figure, they were trying to prop up other candidates who were in no way gonna win, but to continue splitting the vote so she would not win because she was very, very anti aipac. But you know what we learned? Well, it was a mixed bag. AIPAC was actually very vocal after the fact, running around saying that they won all these races or that they prevented something. But it was really a mixed bag in the end. I mean, in that 9th congressional district, they spent a ton of money trying to prop up Laura Fine, and she lost, and Daniel Biss won, and he has been outstanding. Spoken against aipac. Then they had some winners like Melissa bean in the 8th congressional district. And then there was this anti. Just quickly, this. This cryptocurrency PAC that was. Was targeting certain candidates toward. They kind of came in kind of late, but it was really interesting just to see that swoop in. So they were. They poured some money in against Juliana Stratton, who ended up winning the race. They did not do well in the end, I think, in part because I think Democrats have successfully been able to say cryptocurrency bad. And people have understood that in the most simple of terms, I could go on forever. So let me know what you would like me to.

Jacob Weisberg (48:02)

Well, Natasha, you mentioned the 9th congressional district, where I grew up on the north side of Chicago and I was active in politics, the kid. And I remember those races, which had a lot to do with, like, constituent services and what was happening in Illinois and Chicago. And it's just amazing the extent to which this Illinois primary was a proxy war over Israel, over cryptocurrency, over AI. And you have these, you know, and over the future Pritzker presidential candidacy and ice. But everything is being interpreted in terms of what it means nationally, internationally, fueled by these enormous sums of money. And I don't want to overuse the term corruption because it's not a conventional form of corruption, but it is a corruption in the sense of it's not how a democratic process should work. These are distortions around these races and people feel better about some of the outcomes. The total picture was very mixed in terms of, you know, you can't read this primary as you know, it was a sweep for the progressives or a sweep for the center or a sweep for the pro Israel candidates or anti Israel candidates. So it's a little bit of everything. But I think what it says is we're now reading elections in terms of not what they mean for the place where the election is taking place, but what they mean for our politics writ large.

Harry Littman (49:28)

Ali, you were shaking your head on that.

Ali Vitale (49:30)

Yeah, because it used to be, you know, the old Tip o' Neill adage that all politics is local and all polit politics is so nationalized. I mean, yes, you talk about Illinois. Even when I was down in Texas a few weeks ago covering that primary, the number of voters who were bringing up issues to me that looked ripped from the New York Times or Ms. Now or CNN or any other national platform, it was stunning to me. And I said to several of the candidates, is it odd to you how national this race feels? And they were both surprised and unsurprised. But I do think that, that it's pretty jarring to those of us who have covered politics for a long time to see the ways that these national trends just have legs in all of these elections, amplified by the fact that so much dark money is coming in and so many outside players are on the airwaves and confusing voters. And that is the intention to confuse them, to make it harder for them to make informed decisions about who these candidates actually are. It's why they're using different names. It's why there's need for more regulation, most likely. And so the other thing that I will point to out of this is because I'm always looking with an eye on the Senate in that Senate race, the fact that Juliana Stratton wins and the next day I believe comes out and says, yeah, when I get to Congress, cuz she's most likely to win. It's a blue states. Why? Unfortunately, it doesn't get the respect it deserves. Like Natasha said, she's likely to be in the Senate. And there is an open question of if Schumer stays leader and the first thing she says in the interview is, people want change. I'm not gonna vote for Schumer. And so it sets up some 20, 27 problems in the Senate. And then, of course, the Pritzker power flex for the presidential, which is a nice tongue twister, is also notable and something for us to look ahead to, too, for reading tea leaves.

Harry Littman (51:11)

Let's stick with that for a second. I'll see if I can land it on my first try. The Pritzker power flex. So Stratton took home the big prize. She was his lieutenant governor, and he went in big for her, both in money, which she has plenty of, and campaigning. So, Natasha, you wrote about this, but in general, does this mean a strength in Pritzker? And were there questions about his clout? And how does in the overall jockeying between him and, what, three, four, five other likely candidates, how big a night was it for Governor Pritzker?

Natasha Korecki (51:49)

Well, you know, I think it was. It was a huge night for him. It. Without question. And part of that is because of expectations. Raja Krishnamurthy, who was. He was leading the entire time he got. He got up on the air last summer and was just bombarding December. It was nonstop ads. You know, just call me Raja. Ads.

Harry Littman (52:12)

Ton of money.

Natasha Korecki (52:12)

Yeah, a ton of money. He actually outspent Juliana Stratton, you know, with. Combined with all of Pritzker's money in the super bowl pack. So, you know, there were so many naysayers, so they were, you know, oh, my gosh, is Pritzker going to be embarrassed by this? And, oh, this is. He shouldn't get so involved because this is going to hurt his clout, because people were just assuming that it was a cakewalk for Raja. Well, then Stratton started coming in with the ads. They were pretty strategic in that they didn't spend money until late. Much later. She. She didn't go up with her first ad until February. And that ad dropping F bombs directed at Trump, whatever you think of that, it got people's attention. One, two. You know, what she would argue is, is that's what. What Democrats want to see. They want to see a fighter and somebody who's going to fight really hard. So she was saying things like, $25 minimum wage, you know, Chuck Schumer out and abolish ICE, whereas some of her competitors were saying, okay, abolish Trump's ice or trying to be more moderate. No, she's like, get rid of it. And that's super important to talk about. Local. It was so enormous here, and the ICE and border patrol presence went on for months and it was nonstop in local news and all of the social media feeds. If you lived here, it was a really difficult thing to, to live through. So that's why we saw that across the board in all the ads. But, but what was interesting is that those who kind of were trying to, you know, let's not. Some of the consultants are saying not to say abolish House. No, the ones who were really going all in on it, like Daniel Biss as well, they ended up being successful. So those were some of the things that, you know, I took away with. And then as far as Pritzker, yes, this sets it up very well for him. He's now showing he has the clout. Like all, you know, all these people doubting, can he really pull this off? Yes, he can. What I found so interesting was I, you know, I did a follow up so story and I'm talking to all these allies for him and you know, they weren't even bothering to play the game of, oh, no, he's just running for a governor. They were like, this is great for his presidential run. Just, you know, I talked to the former, you know, Senator Carol Mosley Braun. She's like, oh, it's so great to have a senator on your side when you're running for president. So, yeah, I found that, that very amusing. So, yes, I think he is feeling great right now and his team's feeling really good. How that translates nationally is another question, though.

Jacob Weisberg (55:05)

Just a very quick comment, but that ad, if anybody hasn't seen it, they should watch it. But Juliana Stratton's campaign slogan was Fuck Trump. She said it so I can say it. You know, and, and Pritzker's in the ad. And in a, you know, in a way, I think it was, it was a, it was test messaging for him. And I think that message messaging worked incredibly well. And so I think it points him in the direction of both more kind of stridency, but actually more crudity. I mean, voters respond to this, they like hearing it. And I think, you know, we're going to be in his incipient presidential campaign. We're going to see maybe not quite the same word in the ads, but the same kind of in your face framing.

Ali Vitale (55:47)

But it speaks to the larger question of like every Democrat asks themselves when we talk about a prospective contender. And I'm sure you guys hear this from sources a lot too. They all say to me, okay, but is that person angry enough? Because that is the metric. I mean, so Much of the frustration from the groups, from the base is Democrats aren't doing enough. They're not breaking the glass. This is a break glass moment. You need to be outside the box. You need to be angry. And I do think that that's actually a central feature that all of these candidates will have to show. Yeah, I'm angry enough to say F Trump. I will also point out that there is going to be a gender undertone. The fact that Juliana Stratton was able to say that successfully shows us that we are making some progress. But not all candidates who are non white and non male get to go out there and just stand on a table like Beto o' Rourke and say fuck whenever they want. So that is something to watch out for as candidates try to stretch their use of the full range of the English language on the campaign trail.

Harry Littman (56:44)

Very true. And look, it is an emerging divide in the party. Josh Shapiro was here last weekend. He's a guy who is staking out a position more of not being reflexively against him. And Gavin Newsom here in California seems to be on the aggressive plan. I just want to add that, Natasha, all your points were great, but especially, I forgot about this, the whole resonance of the mess in Chicago, which, remember, was the case that the Supreme Court actually took when it struck down. So that the sort of overtones and resonance from the immigration stuff, I think shows itself to have legs. Okay, we're out of time on what's been a really great wide ranging discussion from politics to world events and history. Thank you very much, all three of you. We just have a minute for our final feature of five words or fewer where we take a question and each of us has to answer in five words or fewer. The focus of today's question. Greg Bevino, the border patrol agent who was the face of the federal surge in Minnesota. He's retiring at the ripe age of 55 or something at the end of the month. What's his next move?

Natasha Korecki (57:59)

Hiring a pricey defense attorney.

Harry Littman (58:04)

Man, she nailed it. Five words exactly on her first visit. You gotta come back, Natasha.

Jacob Weisberg (58:10)

Okay, Harry, mine's a little subtle. I hope you get it. One battle after another Sequel.

Natasha Korecki (58:16)

Ooh, that's good.

Harry Littman (58:19)

A little Oscar reference to the great Paul Thomas Anderson.

Ali Vitale (58:23)

Okay, White House cage match fighter.

Harry Littman (58:26)

Very good. And I'm going the other direction with meditation teacher, Immigrants advocate podcaster. Thank you so much, Natasha, Ali and Jacob. And thank you very much, listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts, and please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on Substack at Harry Lytton, 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 for 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, Hansamahadrenathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistance by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Delito llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.

Ali Vitale (60:51)

This episode is brought to you by Nespresso Introducing Vertuo up, the latest in a long line of innovation from Nespresso. It's innovation you can touch, sense and taste in every single cup. With a three second start, easy open lever and dedicated brew over ice button, it's even easier to enjoy your coffee your way. Sip for yourself. Shop Vertuo up exclusively@nespresso.com.