Stuart Stevens (3:29)

Well, I would say we're in an autocracy when you have the vice president of the United States saying that it's perfectly legal for masked men to who have a baz to shoot anybody they want in the face and they're complete immunity. When you have an army of masked men chasing brown people across the country and no consequences. When Trump can decide that he just wants to remove a head of state without any discussion with Congress, it could go on and on and on. But, yes, I think we have an autocratic president and an autocratic party. I don't think it will stay that way.

Jonathan Alter (4:06)

Before we get to what might happen, there's been a lot of talk that he's violated the Constitution by not consulting with Congress when he went into Venezuela. But, you know, in 1989, we went down and snatched Noriega. Just one of many interventions in Central America. LBJ sent, I think, 20,000 troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965. And in the 1920s, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover sent troops to the region repeatedly without declaring war. So I'm not trying to rationalize what Trump's done, and we can talk about how stupid it was, but is it really unprecedented?

Barbara Boxer (4:47)

Well, I'll jump in here. I mean, the bottom line is every president thinks they have more power than the Congress. That's historic. But what's happening now is unprecedented. We are in a chaos presidency. And maybe I'm incorrect on the history, but even in everything you suggested, I never heard our president say, they're gonna run that country and they're gonna take their oil and they're gonna blockade that country. And all you have to do is understand that there's always been a tension between Congress and the president, but this is unprecedented. And I would just say this. This is an exhausting time for the American people, for all of us. And I usually try to use a dark sense of humor. And the day that Trump essentially took over Venezuela, it wasn't about getting the leader. I have no tear shed for that. It's about running this country and taking the oil. It's not about democracy. It's not about anything else. But that day, I happened to stay up very late the night before. My husband Stu was sleeping. He woke up. It's his birthday. So he wakes up and he says to me, honey, what'd you get me for my birthday? I said, venezuela. And he goes, what are you talking about? I Mean, if you don't have that kind of sense of humor, how do you get through this? But you know, what I love about what Stuart said is he said the truth about where we are. We have a Congress in a fetal position. The speaker of the House, the Leader of the Senate, who I am very disappointed in. You know, they have their thumb in their mouth. Yes, there was a little hope yesterday and a couple of things we'll get to, but for the most part, this is a very, very frightening time. But what I loved what Stuart said is it will not last. And I agree with him.

Jonathan Alter (6:45)

So we're going to get to the will not last part, I promise. Later in the conversation. But, Norm, you know so much about how Congress works. Is this supine position and their attitude toward Venezuela different than in the past? Is it worse? You know, what do you think explains the craven weakness of this article? One institution?

Norm Ornstein (7:14)

Jonathan, I would take only one small issue with Barbara. Their thumbs are actually in another orifice. But beyond that, I've never seen anything quite like this. Now, the historical analogies that you mentioned, John, we could find lots of examples for much of what Trump has done at different times in American history, even some of the predations that we're seeing against not just immigrants, but American citizens. Now, if you go back to Woodrow Wilson's attorney General, we had a period of absolute terror perpetrated against Americans who didn't tow the Wilson line. We've had racism of the worst possible type that existed even under Wilson compared to what we have now. We've seen corruption in presidents. But the combination of things, the open lying, the willingness to use violent force against Americans and threats, the attempt to overthrow an election, all of this is unprecedented. Now, to get to your question, we've had Congresses that have given in in the past, and that includes with military adventures. Even the War Powers act has been basically a pretty hollow instrument. Even when it's been implemented, it basically has been ignored. Once a president commits troops somewhere and Congress is supposed to take an action within 60 days or 90 days, they're not going to basically say, pull the troops out if they might be under some level of siege. But having said that, we have always had Congresses that applied oversight. When there were abuses by presidents, we. We've had Congresses that had some level of what we used to call institutional patriotism, a belief that their own institutions mattered to them and that they were gonna protect its powers. What we see now is not a political party running the House and Senate. It's a cult. And they cave to the cult and the degree to which they're caving to the cult. Another area we're gonna get to, we have seen in the most horrific way in the response to the murder of a 37 year old mother in Minneapolis. I have seen maybe one or two tepid responses by Republicans in the House and Senate with a whole lot of others basically either shrugging their shoulders or joining in with the lies about this woman after she's dead. This is unprecedented. And. And it's shocking.

Jonathan Alter (9:58)

So, Stuart, you said that to call this mere partisanship in a piece you wrote is like saying that Ebola is just the flu. So why is this a cult rather than longstanding Republican behavior that you argue kind of comes out of their corporate view of the world where you don't, you don't attack your boss, you don't attack the CEO. If you're working for the company, you follow him no matter what. So what makes this different? And what can explain just the cowardice of people falling in line when you have a situation like this one in Minnesota?

Stuart Stevens (10:42)

Well, look, you know, I've thought about this a lot because I helped elect a lot of these guys. It's just not a easy burden these days. I think we did something inside the Republican Party where we developed a system that rewarded compliance, that rewarded those who go along, that rewarded obedience and penalized any variation, which is true leadership. And we did this for decades now. I think one of the reasons it happened, if you go back to 1964, Goldwater got 7% of the African American vote. And after that, the Republican Party has been a predominantly white party. I mean, Eisenhower got 39% of the black vote. So if you really are only trying to appeal to a certain market share, you get good at that and you get bad at other stuff. I mean, it's sort of a truism that seems obvious, but I don't think any Republican, certainly our lifetime has been elected without a majority of the white vote. I mean, going down to like the school board level. Maybe that woman from Middlebury who got elected to the D.C. city Council, I don't know.

Jonathan Alter (11:51)

Barbara, you saw these senators in the cloakroom over many years.

Norm Ornstein (11:56)

Yes.

Jonathan Alter (11:57)

You eat with them sometimes. You work on legislation with them. I'm sure that you disagreed with them on most occasions, but they weren't like this. So what do you think changed? What do you think accounts for this cravenness?

Barbara Boxer (12:15)

Look, I pass so many things always with Republicans, because as you all know, in the Senate you have to. And I teamed up with John Ensign to Write the after school laws. I teamed up with John McCain on many things to protect women in the military. It could go on, but it gets boring. It's like, remember me and pat myself on the back. No, that's how things get done. I left in the nick of time. I left right before Trump took the oath of office. Nothing can get done right now. Now why has that happened? Look, Stewart knows the situation when he talks about the white voters. You'd be interested to know I won all my races for the Senate with pretty good margins and I never got the white vote. Never, Never. So proving Stu's point. So I think there's a certain amount of. And I find it disgusting, I'll say it, racism. It's running rampant through this. It's not really talked about. I also think that they are frightened of Trump in many, many different ways. This is not me talking. This is some of them talking. They're frightened in terms of losing their primary. And now he's going after. I'm sure we'll get to this. Some of the Republicans that actually had the nerve to vote to reaffirm the War Powers act and they're also afraid physically. I mean, this is a very ins time. So I would be miserable if I were there because this is wrong. You can't get anything done. I salute the few Republicans that are speaking up. I love them for that. But to look at John Thune, he is a shadow of his former self. The last thing I'll say is after Alex Padilla got beaten up by the I call it Trump's secret police force. I called John Thune. He didn't take my call. I had a long talk with his assistant. I said, please have him call me. One of our colleagues just got beaten to a pulp. He's a huge guy. What if it were a little woman like me or someone else would probably not live to tell the tale. Please have him call. Oh, he understands we'll do something. Really. So I'm sickened about it. I'm close to tears about it. Just I mourn what we used to have. But also tears of anger.

Jonathan Alter (14:35)

So do you think that the Renee Good case, and it feels like she's about to become almost as well known as George Floyd, even if it's bumped out of the headlines, which it will be. Do you think this is different? Is it possible that after the filing deadline for primaries closes in various states in the next few months that you'll see some of these guys grow a little bit of a spine? Or is that just wishful thinking.

Barbara Boxer (15:06)

I don't think they're gonna grow a spine at all. And as far as whether she becomes a dominant force in the election, which is key, it's very possible, certainly in those states right nearby who really feel this in their heart, this Midwest community. But it depends. And look, I'm focused like a laser beam on the midterms, as all of us I know are. And, yes, I think this will definitely an issue. There's. We're waiting to see what happened in Portland. We don't know that. But remember, Trump doesn't mind every day having something else happening, because we haven't talked about it yet. But there's Epstein. Epstein, he's involved, his best bud. That's all going to hit the fan. So I don't think he cares that all these different things are happening, because, again, it's a chaos presidency. We can't focus. Look, we just. In this few minutes, it's hard to even focus on one outrageous thing because there are so many.

Jonathan Alter (16:06)

This goes to the question of, what was the Venezuelan operation about? What did he really want to do? I mean, if they increase oil production from less than 1% to 1 1/2 percent, even 2%, it's not going to bring gas prices down in time for the midterms. So even the oil part, beyond the corruption, is not really the right answer as to why he did this. So is it just the spectacle, the distraction? Because, you know, decapitation without regime change is just bad theater. You know, you're not really doing anything if you have the same corrupt group of pretend Marxists in charge in Caracas. Stuart, what's your take on why Trump did this?

Stuart Stevens (16:59)

Oh, I think Trump did it because he could do it and he enjoyed it. He didn't like the fact that he was being mocked by him. I think that he's. You know, you gave Donald Trump the most elite army in the history of the world, an ability to go in and do something like this. It's irresistible. Of course he is. I mean, this makes him feel powerful, and he has a bunch of idiots around him and dangerous people, of which I'd include Marco Rubio, known forever amongst those. So, yeah, and I don't think that there's any need or purpose to ascribe any grand strategy to it.

Jonathan Alter (17:35)

Rubio wants on his tombstone that he liberated Cuba, right? Isn't that what it's about with him?

Norm Ornstein (17:40)

Yeah, but Rubio's tombstone is going to read, I was only following orders. But I want to add to what Stuart said, all of that Is true. But there are a couple of other points. One is an evergreen. It's about the grift. It's always about the grift. Remember that Trump sat down with the oil company executives and said, give me a billion dollars and boy, are you going to profit from it. Today he met with those oil company executives. We know that Paul Singer, a big contributor to him, bought Citgo, which is the Venezuelan oil company, soon before this happened, is going to benefit enormously from this. And you know that Trump is going to get a whole lot more from Paul Singer and others as a consequence. But if we're going to look at any, you know, I use the term loosely, strategic element, look at their national strategy, which is basically appalling in a whole host of ways. It is. I'm going to control the Western hemisphere and the Russians can control the European hemisphere and the Chinese can control Asia. And this was the first domino to fall in his attempt to control this hemisphere. Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, all of them. If he doesn't invade directly, he is going to try to find ways both to intimidate them and, and to make money out of it. And if you think about what the consequences are, not just for America's role in the world, but for the dynamics in the world, the 80 plus years that we had, in effect, a level of global stability because of the world order and our support for NATO, the fact that the German chancellor basically talked about how Trump has blown up the world order, the Danish prime minister saying, NATO's gone. If you follow through with Greenland. The person who is most happy with what Trump is doing, even if he had an alliance with Venezuela, is Vladimir Putin. The second most happy person in the world is Xi, because what we're doing is great for China in almost every respect. And that also makes this. I can't say it's unprecedented. We've had presidents who've screwed up the world order in the past, but this is unlike anything, and it is profoundly disturbing.

Jonathan Alter (20:12)

Let's just focus on China for a second, because there's been a lot of talk about whether it gives Xi a green light to go into Taiwan. And Senator, I know that as California senator, we focused a lot on issues in China, but does that bear scrutiny? Wouldn't Trump kind of apply a double standard and say, I have total power in the Western hemisphere, but that doesn't mean you have power in Asia. And if you go into Taiwan, you know, fuck around and find out, as Hegseth says, like, it might not be a green light to Xi and Xi might be a little bit deterred from doing that just because Trump is acting like such a cowboy. Does that make sense, Senator, at all? Or do you think it does give XI a kind of a green light?

Barbara Boxer (21:00)

I agree with norm 100%. I mean, this is crazy stuff. This takes us back to the spheres of influence, which we know happened before World War II. We can do whatever we want in our backyard. And you're right. If he doesn't invade, he's going to use the power and the threats to get what he wants. And what does he want? And you asked that question, Jonathan. He wants to be rewarded by the oil companies. Listen, as someone who stood up so strongly against the oil companies wrecking California's coastline, and it was a bipartisan effort, let me say we were able to do that. It was the hardest thing. They hated my guts. They tried to beat me every time. I'm sure Stu's campaigns got a lot of the money from the oil companies where they had to go against. Against me. But the bottom line is he has sent the signal he can do whatever he wants in this hemisphere, because he can. And he is a madman. He's drunk now. He doesn't drink, but he's drunk with power. And the people around him, they love the power. And we could go into it, the people who are his lieutenants. And Marco Rubio is a classic case in point. You go back to what he said about Trump and how he stood up to Trump, and we were proud of him. Now he's a complete little baby in the fetal position with the blankie and his teddy bear. Trump could say, oh, I didn't mean that for you, China. I just meant it for me. He'll be laughed out. That's what I think. He doesn't want to go to war with China.

Jonathan Alter (22:41)

Stuart, you really know Rubio. What happened to the guy? We all know that politicians are opportunists. We all know that they're motivated by getting reelected or getting a big cabinet position or whatever. But you're not the only one who is fooled by this guy. I've talked to a number of people who actually had a lot of respect for him. So if you were putting him on the couch, how would you analyze what happened to him?

Stuart Stevens (23:12)

Well, you know, the whole rise of Marco Rubio is very quixotic. He became a favorite of Jeb Bush when Jeb Bush was governor. And I wouldn't be the first to say that Jeb was quite impressed by the fact that Marco was married to a former Miami Dolphin cheerleader. You know, in Florida, you can be a lobbyist and a state senator and a state rep. It's perfectly legal. So as Marco rose under Jeb's patronage, you could watch his salary at the lobbying law firm and lobbying firm that he worked for go up. This goes back to Marco. Remember, he was on the COVID of Time magazine as a Republican savior. This image that Marco Rubio was going to be everything that the party needed in the sense of Hispanic could appeal to this. He was positive. This is the guy that ran against Trump in 16, and Trump broke him. And I think this is something Trump does to people when he goes and makes senators or someone like Roger Wicker. My senator I've known forever vote for Pete Hecsett. It's not because he thinks Pete Hetzek is good. He knows he's a moron. It's that he wants to prove that I can make you do this. It's Saddam making families pay for the bullet to kill their loved one. And he has that sort of feral sense of how to break people, and he did. So, you know, the irony of this is, had Marco Rubio stayed who Marco Rubio was, you could make a case that he could be positioned to be an alternative to Trump in the party. And now he's not. He can't be. The same with Chris Christie. Sadly, he endorsed Trump. Same with Nikki Haley. All of these people, had they stayed who they were, they might have some future. You know, I think Marco. There never was a lot to Marco.

Jonathan Alter (25:04)

Oh, so you don't you think he was overrated when he was on the COVID of all these magazines?

Stuart Stevens (25:08)

Yeah, he was a DEI candidate.

Jonathan Alter (25:12)

Barbara, you talked about physical safety. And this is something all three of you know something about. You know, when. When Mitt Romney spilled his guts to McKay Coppins for that very good book that McKay did, he talked about how he had enough money to hire bodyguards, but that Trump might have been convicted in his impeachment trial after January 6th if some of his colleagues had his independent resources to have 24, seven bodyguards. I mean, this is real dictatorship kind of conversation going back to 2021. How big a deal will this physical safety be when historians finally sort out exactly why this level of intimidation took place?

Barbara Boxer (26:03)

Well, this level of intimidation and everything that's happened and the secret police and all of that, I mean, this is the moment, and we are in a moment where if we don't change this in the next election and we don't have a free and fair election, which I believe we will, because thank God, we have A system. It's a state by state, county by county. I believe in it. I think we can do this. If he tries to declare martial law, I think that's a whole other story. But the bottom line is when history is written, this will be part of it. But I do want to say this. You said something that was quite insulting to politicians, Jonathan, which everybody believes is right, which is that all we care about is getting elected. We don't give a damn about anything else. And this is my opinion, having served so many years, half the politicians are that way. And they don't really care that much. They like their job, their hearts not so in it. And the gut's not so in it. They like it. It's enjoyable. It gives them certain status and so on and so forth. And some of them are more corrupt than that. But half of us, I think, are in it for the right reasons. So I wanted to just defend that because I think if we get to the point where we think that every single politician is crap, then we are totally lost.

Jonathan Alter (27:19)

I strongly agree with you. My mother, my late mother was a politician, first woman elected in Cook County.

Barbara Boxer (27:26)

Is that right?

Jonathan Alter (27:26)

And I agree with Obama said, he said, look, half of politicians are there for the money and half because they want to do something for the country and their constituents. So I've always felt that way. But the question before us now is, and this is getting the fighting back part of the conversation. Okay, so you did have some stand up on the War Powers Resolution this week. You had quite a number in the House who stood up on extending Obamacare. Where could that go? If one was trying to be hopeful, what are the best routes out of this? And I was thinking about something that all of us are old enough to remember. I was thinking this morning about the Cooper Church amendment to cut off funding for the war in Vietnam, which wasn't immediately following Kent State, but Kent State kind of changed the tone of the argument about the war in Southeast Asia. And it just became a different kind of debate after 1970. And it was possible to actually curb the president, which had not been possible under Johnson or early Nixon.

Norm Ornstein (28:45)

So, John, you're in a galaxy a long time ago and far, far away. And let's remember that John Sherman Cooper was the role model and mentor for Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell fell very, very far from that tree. Now, I'll go back to your original question. I'm going to rant a little bit. No question that some of the members of the House and Senate Republicans have faced physical threats. I do believe That a significant part of the reason that Bill Cassidy voted for RFK Jr. The deciding vote, despite being a physician who had said many times that the proudest accomplishment he had made was as a physician in Louisiana, getting all the kids vaccinated against deadly diseases. And he and his family were threatened. Okay, since that time, what has he done? He's become. He does an occasional tepid tweet saying, well, you know, these vaccines protect kids. Gee, it's too bad some are dying of measles, but then he falls right back in line. There are others who faced questions of public safety, and they stand up to it. And frankly, if what you're doing there is staying in office so that you can avoid being threatened by outsiders or the president, you'll pardon my language, get the fuck out of office. You don't belong there in the first place. And unfortunately, Barbara was there for the right reasons. A lot of her colleagues were there for the right reasons. A whole lot of Republicans that Stuart worked for were there for the right reasons. Even some of them who came in for the right reasons, who are there now are no longer doing that. It's a nihilistic group, and they will be craven. And the idea. It's not just about reelection. There are some examples of senators who went along with everything and then said, I'm going to retire. I've had enough of this. And they behave the same way in the months or years until they retired. Rob Portman. So Rob went back to Cincinnati where he had lived his entire life, and he's going out to the country club to play golf with a foursome of buddies and going to have lunch in the clubhouse and then going out to dinner with some of his friends at night. He was not going to be the one where everybody around him said, you're the apostate. So they go along to be a part of the cult. It's hard to break with the cult, and I don't see that changing. They've been radicalized in many cases, the level of moral cowardice. I think, you know, all three of us are probably in the same category where we've known and worked with a lot of these Republicans who are still in office and are shocked by the degree to which they have lost every bit of moral courage or spine. And I cannot forgive it. This is not just what Trump has done. It's what the broader fabric around the Republican Party has done. Stewart has written about this so eloquently and powerfully, but it's the sad reality that we face. And I'd like to put an optimistic note on it. I can't.

Jonathan Alter (32:04)

Well, I don't think anybody could be an optimist. But look, it's the character test of a generation. It's pass, fail, right? There's no great inflation. You either pass or you fail. The character test of your generation. We're talking about the people who have failed. I just want to try to introduce the possibility, not optimism, but the hope that after the Democrats take control of the House, that you then could see some kind of a shift. Maybe not what these Republicans were talking about, but with a small number of people. The question I have, and I think a lot of people have, is, is what would Democratic control of the House do?

Barbara Boxer (32:49)

I would like to answer that because I've been in that situation before. But I want to just go back for half a second to where we are today when we saw about 17 Republicans in the House say yes to extending the subsidies or the tax credits for health care. And whether that's on the level, I want to bring that up, because having been in these situations and seen what happened, do we think that that has a chance in the Senate? If it does have a chance, and they do act to. And I've talked to Angus King and he's working very hard on this, right? I mean, he thinks he can deliver it maybe for a year or two. That would be fantastic. If it's not on the level, it means that Johnson spoke to Thune. He said, look, I can't control this. Kill it over there. So keep your eye on that one. But I pray it's on the level, because as much as I know we want the issue, I know people who are suffering and struggling and losing their healthcare. This is just, you know, in a way, it's a death sentence to our own people. They're killing us here, this administration. They're killing us, you know, in the streets. They're killing us with the healthcare and these cuts and nutrition cuts. It's just. It's a horrible situation. But to get to your point of what would we do? How could we check this president? I think the best way to check him is through the budget. I mean, we can haul him and do all the. And haul his people in front of committees. That's all fine. I don't object to it. Impeach this one or that one. But it's never gonna happen in the Senate. If you really wanna do something, cut the hell out of the budget for ice. Get these people off the streets.

Jonathan Alter (34:31)

Okay? So, Norm, just to defend against your charge of me being in a galaxy far away and naive. That's why I brought up the Cooper Church amendment. So, to Barbara's point, is it possible that a year from now, this horrifying expansion of this police state through ICE can be stopped by the House and they just cut off funding? Or are there ways for Trump to move around, shift around funding, and make sure that Tom Homan has, you know, all the money that he needs to keep hiring these jackboot thugs to continue killing people? Or can this be stopped here?

Norm Ornstein (35:13)

We at least have to introduce the Supreme Court, which has not only given Trump this enormous level of power, but its bogus theory of the unitary executive basically has cut out Congress as well. They are carving out power from Congress and they're leaving a blank check for the president. So Trump will illegally shift money from other agencies. And of course, what he will try to do is to take money from programs that benefit blue states and Democrats and shuffle that money into ice. So there are things that Democrats in the House can do and they can have some ability to control the legislative process. And let us also note that they're precariously close the Republicans to losing the majority in the House right now. We've had one death and one more departure. I actually did a tweet today saying to Don Bacon and Tom Massie, who are the only two who have any cajones in the House Republicans, why don't you at least temporarily join the Democrats, bring in Hakeem Jeffries as speakers, and at least have a little bit of a check and balance against what's going on. Unlikely to happen, and it would be nice to have it happen. I would like to be as optimistic as Barbara about a fair election, but let me note, among other things, that the U.S. postal Service has quietly said that they're no longer going to postmark mail when it is put in the mailbox and they pick it up, but after it gets to the sorting stations and they go through it there. So you can imagine a whole lot of mail in ballots that just get stuck at the sorting station until after the election and therefore are considered invalid. And if that happened in California, and California said, we're going to count those ballots, we know they were mailed beforehand, they will challenge it and challenge those votes. And we know that we're going to have ICE agents in blue states where they're going to send them to the polls. In areas where there are citizens standing in line, they're going to pull a few citizens out of line, beat the crap out of them, haul them off for three days to try and keep people from voting. We have a Justice Department dedicated to undermining the vote. And the fact is, Jonathan, that if we had a John Sherman Cooper, which we do not, and we had an opportunity to curtail this, and it looked like Trump was completely underwater, even with a good portion of his own base, that's when he invokes the Insurrection act and declares martial law. And that's what he's been doing to try and get the military to have a significant part of its leadership who will go along with it. Just as we've seen these ICE agents perfectly happy to fire against American citizens. They see them as the enemy. And that's what tribalism has done. It's not just cultism, it's tribalism.

Jonathan Alter (38:13)

Stuart, what do you think on that? What do you think the midterms are going to be like? Will we have martial law? Will we have seizure of voting machines and that kind of thing?

Stuart Stevens (38:21)

Well, the answer is, I don't know. I wrote a piece that falls in the category of another piece I never thought I'd write. In 23 states, I think that's the right number. There are provisions to stand up a state version of the National Guard. You know, the National Guard was always a joint state federal thing. In World War II, it was completely nationalized to be part of the military. When that happened, states passed laws that put in process a state militia. In California, it's the California Guard. It's only about 1,000 people. There's provisions for this in Illinois. I think these governors should stand up these forces as significant military forces, because we do know that Trump will respond to strength, not weakness. So what would it mean to have 25,000 California Guard? Who knows? But I'd rather be governor of California with that than without it. So, look, I think this election should be more like the elections in November than not. And, you know, there was a great Myth that the 24 election was a realignment election for Republicans. This was always an absurdity. That coalition that existed for one day was the. That you were going to have, say you got over north to 40% with Hispanics. If you didn't have this army of masked men chasing those Hispanics, then the MAGA would go crazy. So it was always unsupportable. So what happened in the past November? It reverted to the mean 1964. Goldwater got 7% of the black vote. Last November, a Republican nominee for governor, who happened to be African American, got 7% of the black vote. The Hispanic vote dropped down to closer to 30%, I think. You know, Virginia and New Jersey are not wildly liberal states. I elected Republican governors in both of them. So I think that's probably what's going to happen.

Jonathan Alter (40:16)

What you're saying is if the margins are like the 20, 25 margins, that even if Trump declared martial law, he'd still lose the midterms terms?

Stuart Stevens (40:25)

Yes, I think so. Well, declared martial law. If he declares martial law, you're off to the races. I mean, who. Who knows what'll happen then?

Jonathan Alter (40:32)

See, I. I think the other possibility that, that I'd be interested in your thoughts on is the one that Ezra Levin raised in a interview in the New Republic this week. He's the guy with his organization, Indivisible, that kind of led the coalition that put 7 million people on the streets for no Kings, which was the second largest demonstration in American history after Earth Day 1970. When you're living through it, it's sometimes hard to see how big something was. But no Kings was a huge and underappreciated event. So he's now talking about the possibility of a general strike. There's many cases where autocratic regimes fall. They do so in the wake of a general strike, because when the people say, we're shutting down the whole society unless you relent, even the most hardline dictator often has to do so. I just raised that as a question is whether you think we could be headed for truly paralyzing street action by the end of this year.

Stuart Stevens (41:39)

Well, look, I'll just say if I had 10 hours a day to devote as a volunteer to politics, I would vote it to trying to elect Democrats in these races rather than a general strike.

Barbara Boxer (41:48)

Strike.

Stuart Stevens (41:48)

It's not to say that a general strike wouldn't be interesting. Productive, perhaps, but look, the reason why is Trump in power because he won elections? How do you get Trump out of power? You have to defeat him in elections, at least as long as our system exists as it is. And usually politics is a game of small numbers, and these margins are going to really count. My hope is that if Democrats do take the House, they will govern with the assumption and understanding that the Republican Party is not a governing partner. And you could have made an argument. I think I would have made this argument that after Trump, we'd elect a normal president. People would be so relieved to go back to normalcy and realize we don't have to have this craziness with Trump, that that would be rewarded. The only problem is that we tried that with Biden. It didn't work. So I think that, you know, Republicans, if I ran the House, that the first day that they're in power, I'd hold house open for 24 or 48 hours. I would cut off all funding for ice. I would cut off all funding for the executive branch. Do all of this stuff. You have to be confrontational. And I think that what's been really interesting, if you look at Governor Newsom, not a bad politician, what was his immediate reaction after the 24 elections? It was to move. Right. Gonna go interview Charlie Kirkinsbiel. And what did Democrats do? And the senator and Norfolk. More about this tonight. They kind of threw up on his shoes. And so what did he do? He changed. And now he's a leading antagonist of Trump, attacking him in a very Trump like way. And he's being rewarded for it. So I think this is an election in which courage and ability to fight back is going to be rewarded.

Jonathan Alter (43:31)

Berber, on that point, since you've known him for a long time, you know, a lot of people say that Gavin Newsom is the front runner for 28. Do you agree with that?

Barbara Boxer (43:40)

I do. I think he's been the one, you know, whose voice is out there, who is very strong. You know, Bill Clinton once told us, I will never forget it, it's better to be strong and wrong than right and weak. And what he is, he is just out there. And we need that from our side. But I do want to respond to this frightening picture of going down the rabbit hole of fear that we're not going to have a fair election. I think it's a waste of time. And I don't like talking about it either. Just like I don't like talking about Trump running for another term. You almost make it a reality when you talk about that crap.

Jonathan Alter (44:18)

I so agree with that.

Barbara Boxer (44:20)

Yeah. I mean, I think it's a mistake to talk about, oh, gloom and doom, and he's going to do this and he's going to do that. You only make it more likely. So here's the deal. We've got secretaries of state in every, I'll just say blue state and hopefully in red states who are fair and, you know, they're going to protect against this business with the post office. I hear you, and I've read about that, and it's awful. But there are ways to get around that, just as there are ways for black people to vote. Even though they thought they'd be killed, they went and did it. And so the bottom line is we're going to vote. I wanted to throw something out and see what other people think about it? Or am I off on a wrong path and you'll tell me if I am? But I remember the George Herbert Walker Bush election very well when Clinton beat him. I remember what we did is we printed up T shirts against Bush and it listed on the back of the T shirt every country he went to in the last year. And I could envision this kind of thing as, what does Trump care about Venezuela, Iran, China, tariffs on these different countries and just that kind of a thing. He doesn't care about us. We can't afford anything. We can't get health care right. We can't get housing right. Our kids are hungry, our education's impossible. I could see kind of that route because I do believe we have to stick to everyday issues. We could talk, of course, in certain districts about democracy and all of that and foreign policy, but bottom line is he doesn't care about us.

Jonathan Alter (45:59)

Norm, what are your thoughts on that? And do you think that Charlie Cook is right in saying they're really only a tiny handful of swing districts, or do you think there could be a blowout?

Norm Ornstein (46:10)

I doubt there'll be a blowout, but there are many more volatile and potentially changeable districts than Charlie thinks. We'll see some swings here. And my guess is I actually believe that we're going to have an economic disaster facing us next year. Trump is going to replace Jay Powell, the chairman of the Fed, most likely with Kevin Hassett, my former colleague. And there are times when I tweet, siri, show me a clown masquerading as an economist. About my former colleague. There will be a huge backlash. The Fed controls short term interest rates. Long term rates are set by the market, and the market is going to say, oh, no, this is terrible. So long term rates will go up, mortgages, car loans, all of that. And we're going to have a, I think a situation where some Senate seats that we wouldn't normally think of as in play may very well be in play. But that's where we'll see Trump double down. And I would just say the reason I talk about a potential disaster in the election is to mobilize forces to guard against it. I'm part of this big task force on election crises. We got a whole lot of people working to counter it. If you don't talk about it and basically say, don't worry, we're going to have a fair election, we're not going to get the level of mobilization, and that includes by local groups and a greater awareness by local election officials. I think there's a real possibility that we could have a big backlash here. But there's something else we didn't see a decision today by the Supreme Court in a pivotal case that could blow up what remains of the Voting Rights Act. And if that happens, if they take away Section two, then we are going to see an immediate mobilization across Southern states and some western states to erase every majority minority district and to do another redistricting that basically says we can do anything we want when it comes to race. We just have to say, hey, it's all about partisanship. And you potentially could see as many as 17 House seats that Democrats have disappearing, which makes it less likely that we will see a landslide. Still doesn't mean even if it happens in its worst case, that we won't see a Democratic majority in the House, but it's not likely to be as big as it would be otherwise.

Jonathan Alter (48:45)

Norm, let me just quickly ask you about this because I take your point that being vigilant helps. And by the way, for our listeners, what is the organization that you're involved in that they could contribute to for a safe election? What are the best ones?

Norm Ornstein (49:00)

Protect Democracy is the group that's behind the Task Force on Election Crises, which includes a lot of very admirable Republicans, by the way, and the Campaign Legal center, which I chaired for many years, but I'm no longer on the board. Those are good places to start when it comes to working to keep our elections fair and safe. I'm actually counting on Justices Sotomayor and Jackson to slow walk this process so that we don't get an announcement of the outcome of this case as quickly as we could otherwise. Absent that, of course, you're going to see a flurry of lawsuits. And that's where Mark Elias and his group Democracy Docket and the Campaign Legal center come in. They'll file the lawsuits, but, you know, we're still going to see attempts to even in states that have announced redistricting plans to re redistrict. So these are dangers we just have to be aware of. And if that stuff happens, it doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say we can't win. It means we double down on finding other districts. So the outcomes are not certain here, but we have to be aware of the dangers and then do whatever we can to fight against them.

Harry Littman (50:26)

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 winning wine, spirit and beverages.

Total Wine and More Host (50:44)

Thank you, Harry. Today's spirited debate comes with a bit of a twist as we look to the very top of the wine bottle and ask which is better, cork or screw top? At face value, people think screw top equals sheep wine, which, as it turns out, isn't exactly true. The reason for screw tops is to ensure the wine tastes as the winemaker intended. Cork, which has been used to seal wine bottles for over 100 years, is a proven way to age wine effectively by allowing minute amounts of air to come in contact with the wine. This slowly develops a softer texture and enhances flavor. Now, cork, traditional as it is, has a downside called tca, which causes something called cork taint. Now, cork taint, while affecting a very small percentage of wines, can be a big disappointment, causing a musty aroma similar to the smell of wet cardboard and contaminating a great bottle of wine. We turn back again to screw caps, which are cork taint proof, of course, not to mention much easier to open, especially in a kitchen surrounded by witnesses. How the aging process affects wines with a screw cap is yet to be known. As wineries continue to test whether it's a cork or screw top, at Total Wine and More, our guides will help you find the perfect wine to to match your tastes. After all, it's not just about what's on top of the bottle. It's what's inside that counts.

Harry Littman (52:11)

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate.

Jonathan Alter (52:17)

Okay, last very quick answer, and then we have to go. Just to bring it back to the horrible events in Minneapolis, is that just another story that everybody will forget about in the next couple of weeks, or does it mark some kind of change in the direction of the debate?

Stuart Stevens (52:38)

I think it will be very significant. I mean, it's hard to talk about it without getting emotional, but I think it will.

Norm Ornstein (52:47)

I don't think this is going away. I think this puts even more of a spotlight on what these thugs are doing out there. And we're going to get more videos. We're going to get more incidents of violence. And to me, one of the most important elements of this is this has gotten enough attention that it's penetrated a significant number of people who don't pay much attention to what's going on in politics. And for anybody who has even a modicum of decency, you can't look at this and say a they're doing what they're supposed to do. No reasonable person could say that a 37 year old mother in a Honda Pilot was intent on going after an ICE agent when she was surrounded by agents with guns. They violated every standard of conduct that's there for ICE and it's not going to go away. This is my hometown in Minneapolis and I'm heartsick about everything that's going on there. This I think could be, I hope, some kind of a turning point for people who have tolerated other stuff who aren't going to tolerate it anymore.

Barbara Boxer (54:04)

Yes, I would say thanks to the brave person who filmed this. So we have seen it with our own eyes and they can't tell us what we saw was wrong cause we look at it in slow motion over and over again. This is not going away and the most important thing about it is it shows the cruelty, the inhumanity, the secret police that are against our own people and it will not stop, unfortunately. So when it happens again and again, it becomes something that will, I think, motivate people to say we have had enough of this.

Jonathan Alter (54:45)

Senator Barbara Boxer, Stuart Stevens, Norm Ornstein, thanks so much for joining us today and we hope to see you on this podcast again quite soon.

Harry Littman (54:59)

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 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 contrary. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out 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 assistants by Morgan Chisholm and Akshaj 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.