Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:02]
A
This episode is brought to you by Fox 1. Watch all 104 matches of the FIFA
- [00:07]
B
World cup live in 4K for just $19.99 a month with 3 days free.
- [00:13]
A
Build your own multi view, choose up to three streams and follow player spotlights.
- [00:18]
B
Stay on top of every moment with live stats, highlights and instant replays.
- [00:22]
A
The FIFA World cup, streaming live on
- [00:25]
B
Fox One, offers a subject to change.
- [00:27]
A
See fox.com for complete terms and conditions. And we're live on matchday as Doug reaches for a Buffalo wing. He's got it. Oh, and he's gone for a can of Pepsi too. What a finish.
- [00:39]
B
There's no doubt about it.
- [00:41]
A
It just tastes better. Matchdays deserve Pepsi.
- [00:52]
B
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and and special guests for dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. A quick reminder, Senator Adam Schiff is coming to San Diego this Friday, July 3rd. I'll be speaking with him at 10:30am that morning before a live audience. It's the latest event in our Talking San Diego series. Tickets are going fast, but you can still pick them up@talkingsandiego.net that's talkingsandiego.net I hope to see some of you there today. It's our periodic episode with colleagues drawn from the deep bench of the thriving pro democracy outlet, the Contrarian. Speeding toward the end of its term, the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump another round of wins, and this time in two important immigration cases. Immigrant advocates as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayor were quick to predict that the decisions would produce widespread suffering and even deaths. A closely watched set of primaries cemented Zoran Mamdani as a rising political force, at least in New York City. All three of the mayor's endorsed candidates bested establishment rivals in their congressional primaries, and the slush fund controversy continued to play out in courtrooms in Virginia and Florida. A judicial determination that, contrary to Todd Blanche's insistence, the fund is not moot could fuel the political controversy still smoldering on Capitol Hill. To dig into the Supreme Court's end of term decision, sprint, a possibly pivotal set of Democratic primaries, and more bad news for Trump in court. We welcome two contrarian mainstays, and they are Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist and a frequent political commentator for cnn. Maria has held a number of roles in federal government and later within the Democratic Party's infrastructure, where she's worked for years to improve the party's Latino outreach. It's her first time on Talking Feds, a sentence I always like to say welcome, Maria.
- [03:28]
C
Thank you so much, Harry. It is such an honor to be with you. And my dear friend Norm, I've been a huge fan of Talking Feds. So I am so thrilled to be with you today, my friend.
- [03:40]
B
You're very kind. My friend Norm Eisen, the publisher of the Contrarian, executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund. Among his many previous roles in and around government, he served as ambassador to the Czech Republic under Obama. As we all know, you can't say contrarian without Eisen or something like that. Norm, so good to see you as always.
- [04:06]
A
Thank you, Harry. And you can't say Talking Feds without Harry.
- [04:13]
B
Let's jump in on we tape Friday. So the pair of immigration rulings that we got from the Supreme Court yesterday, different aspects doctrinally, kind of personalities on the court. But let's just cut to the chase on there was a lot of worry that the rulings are going to have a very big impact on the ground. How will they change our immigration system and the lives of immigrants?
- [04:42]
C
You know, this has been yet another blow in an ongoing evisceration in a very deliberate effort by the Trump administration to destroy the legal immigration system in this country, which Harry, to me is, is so, so egregiously goes against everything we stand for as a country and frankly breaks Trump's promise. During the campaign, he talked about wanting to deport all of the criminal undocumented immigrants. We know, right, that that's something that he vowed to do from the very beginning. But two things have happened since then. The people he has deported, even the undocumented ones, the vast majority of them do not have a criminal record. But number two, he kept talking about, he and Republicans kept talking about how they love legal immigration. They want immigrants, but they want them to come here legally. They want them to be here legally. They welcome them with open arms. We know that's bs they don't want immigrants. They especially don't want immigrants of color. They don't want immigrants from what he has called the so called shithole countries. And what we are seeing from the Supreme Court saying, sadly, is the decisions that have come down are helping Trump do exactly that, get rid of immigrants that have been here legally, especially the ones that have come from those countries that he does not deem worthy of calling themselves Americans. And I think two things will be the outcome. Economically, it is going to hurt us and politically, it is going to hurt the Republican Party. And Democrats are going to make sure that the latter is certainly something that continues to be talked about, because I think what you're seeing more and more, Harry, is that Americans understand that immigration writ large has been a huge benefit to the country economically from a cultural standpoint, and that if we don't fix our immigration system, our legal immigration system, it's gonna be a huge detriment to our country as a whole.
- [07:01]
B
Let me pick this up briefly, taking each one in turn, the two decisions. So Maria makes a point about the shithole countries. This is the famous source of the Trump quote that, you know, all the people who are eating dogs and cats in Springfield, there was a whole series of really incendiary, just vile, and I think you'd have to say racist comments. And in dissent, Justice Kagan says there's an improper purpose here and we can reach it for that reason. And the majority doesn't even mention what they were. It's too polite or cow to even say those words that Kagan showcased. What do you think about that aspect of it? And we're sticking with the tpa, because that really is, to Maria's point, they're going to be industries. There are people who've been here for, you know, what is it, 15, 20 years, are the mainstays of individual industries that are going to be ravaged potentially overnight. Norm, your thoughts?
- [07:59]
D
Well,
- [08:01]
A
depending on how the Trump administration responds to this, the human devastation of these countless individuals, hundreds of thousands.
- [08:15]
B
Right.
- [08:15]
A
The communities. Nobody knows. Exactly, Harry, and I'm gonna tell you why. Because the ripple effect in families, in neighborhoods, in communities, the business effects that this will have are gonna be devastating, and it's gonna spread beyond, depending on how it's implemented. But you can never assume that Trump will do anything to buffer his decision making Stephen Miller and their apparatus with any humanity. So I think it's going to have a devastating effect. If they run with the cruelty of the court's majority, history will look kindly on the dissents. In some of these cases of the past 17 months, we've kind of seen a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, SCOTUS, where in some cases they will. Whether it's the tariffs case, the National Guard case, where we advised municipalities birthright citizenship. We're expecting a favorable decision there. We have other cases that will be resolved that we think they'll do the right thing. And then you get cases like this, or the elections cases that are so cruel and heinous.
- [09:42]
C
Yeah.
- [09:43]
A
I think future generals, generations, will look back and say, how could you harm those hundreds of thousands of people? And I think the Ripple effect will be millions. Now, business may go to Trump and say, hold on, you're about to destroy the economy even worse. That is a possibility. So we'll see. But you have to assume the worst with this administration. So I think it's going to be devastating.
- [10:12]
B
Okay. And can I come back then to you, Maria, on the let's go to the other opinion now. And that was the one where Sotomayor read from the bench and with real kind of prophecies of terrible human costs. That's the so called metering case. Can you explain what was at stake there and what, why Sotomayor was saying it's such a catastrophic result and whether you agree?
- [10:41]
C
Yeah, absolutely, Harry. So this is a case that has also been sort of at the forefront of what Donald Trump and his administration have been trying to frankly destroy in terms of our immigration system. There really is no other word for it, and that is our asylum system. Because in their minds, people come here not because they necessarily want to or deserve asylum, but they think that it's just something that a lot of people are taking advantage of. And, you know, let's be real, this is yet another part of our immigration system that does need to be fixed. But the way that they are looking at it is that they are just shutting down the system completely. So I'll give you an example. Before you were able to come to the United States through a port of entry in our southern border, get here, right? Get into the United States as people are trying to be processed into the country, you are in the country or in line and you can apply for asylum. That is the law, right? That is something that is allowed for people to come here to make their case. And then you start getting processed for your asylum claim. You make an application, you get into the process, you end up talking to a processor, an immigration judge, and then ultimately they make the decision as to whether you have a valid case. And the valid cases are those that if you are sent back to where you came from, that you will suffer egregious injury to yourself or to your family. And so that is a system that again, has been in place for for many, many years. When the surges of immigration have happened on the southwest border, there have been times when that has not eliminated, but at least tried to be a little bit more strict in terms of how people are deemed whether they have asylum cases or not.
- [12:43]
B
And so. And what's the actual technique here that they want at least the authority to do that they hadn't had?
- [12:50]
D
Right.
- [12:51]
C
So what is really Egregious here, Harry, is that they now are not even going to let people get to the United States to be able to make the claim. And Alito's majority decision said that if people are even in line, if they are a yard away from the border, you are not deemed to be in the United States and you can be sent back without even having the opportunity to present your claim for asylum. And that is disastrous for so many thousands of people who are coming here who have a legitimate claim, who are not even going to get the opportunity to present that claim, to make their case. They're not asking to let them stay automatically. They're not asking for anything that is not allowed to them under U.S. law. And this is why this is so egregious. So then Sotomayor's dissent, which she did from the bench, which, again, you guys are the legal eagles, you know that when that happens, that means that she feels very, very strongly about this. And she used really strong and visual imagery. She said more people will die because of this decision. And she is right. Harry, as you may know, I used to be the communications director under the former ins. And so I know very well, upfront and personal, what happens when people feel the need to come to the United States illegally with what we call coyotes, human traffickers, because they see no other way to try to get here in
- [14:32]
B
order just to file the asylum claim in the first place.
- [14:36]
C
Exactly. In order Just to get the opportunity to get in front of a judge to, to hear their claim. And so to me, this is devastating and again, another blow to our American values.
- [14:50]
B
And I'll just add, as a former clerk up there, we did have quite an exchange. Sotomayor went on for a long time and Alito, I've just never seen anything like this in a very testy way. He does.
- [15:02]
A
He has, yes.
- [15:03]
B
He has emerged as the dyspeptic justice said, well, if I had known you were going to read that long, I would have said more in my presentation. Stunning kind of display and opening on the absence of harmony on the court. Okay. As this comes out, we've, we have this morning, we're getting a sheaf of Supreme Court opinions. I just want a canvas for everyone listening. The big ticket items. You've heard them all before, but in brief. So we're going to hear the big birthright citizenship case, Trump versus Barbara. And that's whether this day one executive order from Trump trying to rewrite the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the US but to parents are here without authorization or on temporary visas can be squared with the 14th Amendment citizenship clause which just says you're born here, you're a citizen. I think, as I've said before, that the court is going to rule against the Trump administration. There two important cases in their overall run of cases involving independent agencies and whether the President can have her his hands tied a bit in terms of removing heads of agencies. They have said again and again that the President may not be so constrained and I think they're going to say it again with respect to the very case that they said before in a well known precedent, Congress could tie the President's hands. That case that you'll be hearing a lot about is Humphrey's executor. I believe the Trump vs Slaughter case will overrule Humphrey's executor and say that the for cause removal protections for FTC commissioners violate executive power. On the other hand, and for no apparent logical reason, I think they will separate out the Federal Reserve and hold in a related case that the President can be constrained in her his ability to remove a governor on the Fed for cause. And here based on allegations that were exceedingly weak and pretextual, really where the President went after a governor for so called mortgage fraud before she had even taken the post. Those are I'd say, the biggest ticket items in what's going to be a flurry of news coming from the Supreme Court in the next 24 hours or so. Hey everyone, Harry here. As the weather heats up, I wanted to give another shout out to Queen Quince Clothing. Their organic cotton crew neck, their Traveler 5 pocket pants and their Pima cotton T shirts have been great parts of my wardrobe and they're breathable enough to feel fantastic on mild or warm summer days. They look good, fit well, and are inexpensive to boot. And I'm looking forward to checking out their new European linen pants and shirts for even more summer comfort. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com talkingfeds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com talkingfeds for free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com,/ Talking Feds. All right, let's shift gears to the political scene in a series of closely watched primaries last week, especially in New York City, where the mayor seemed to emerge as really a kind of powerful kingmaker force, and where also though this has been less well carried, the actual socialist DSA posted quite something like 10 of 11 victories. Let me just Serve it up generally. Any immediate reactions to the New York primaries? And in particular, would you say they are as consequential and portentous for the future of the Democratic Party, or do you see them as pretty well cabined within the 100 zip code?
- [20:02]
C
I would love to jump in here, Harry. As you know, I'm a Democratic strategist, longtime Democratic operative, current member of the Democratic National Committee. So this has been top of mind for me. And I was informally involved in some of those races. And I'm going to split that baby, Harry, because I think that as a party, we have to embrace the energy that is on the left. We have to acknowledge the anger that these candidates were able to leverage and were able to mobilize on their behalf. At the same time, we can't make this mean that this is the be all and end on that the Democratic Party is all of a sudden going to become a socialist party as much as Republicans will try to smear us with that, and they will, and we cannot let them. And I know this is going to be a difficult line for some in the Democratic Party to walk. But I really believe that if we are able to continue to say, which I think we have up until now, that the Democratic Party is a big tent party, we have voices on the left, we have voices in the center. We have voices that are more moderate, we have voices that are more conservative, even within the Democratic Party, we have to embrace them all if we're going to beat Republicans in November, because we need all of the voices that make up this great country. Not everyone is going to respond the way that they did in New York, to these Democratic socialists, that their campaigns are not going to sway voters in Wisconsin or in the Midwest or in other more conservative places. And that's fine. We're going to have candidates that are going to speak to those voters. We're going to have candidates that are going to speak to the more progressive voters. And what we need on both sides, Harry, is the understanding that we have to aim our fire outside of the party to Republicans, to the corruption of Donald Trump, to the betrayal of the promises that they made to bring down the cost of groceries, gas and rent, which they haven't, to their grift, to the fact that they are completely inhumane, indecent, don't care about immigrants, as we have seen from these decisions, and that we are the party that are listening to the people who are clamoring for solutions, who are clamoring for fierce fighters on all sides of our ideological spectrum. We cannot aim our fire in a circular firing squad because if we do that, then we're gonna lose in November and we have a fantastic opportunity not just to take over the House, but to take over the Senate as well and show voters what it is that the Democratic Party can do for them.
- [23:03]
B
Norm, one of the many roles of yours that I didn't mention up front is your really central role in the initial impeachment of Donald Trump. And I bring that up now because Dan Goldman got shellacked and by a candidate in New York that had the mayor's endorsement. And you've heard some argue that a lot of mainstream Democrats are just thinking when in talking about the Goldman election, that, you know, we tried all that and Goldman again touted his very real credentials in impeaching Trump and that a lot of voters seem to think that was then. Moreover, Trump came back anyway and, you know, we don't want to be revisiting. What's your thought about that dynamic in particular, what now passes as sort of mainstream old style Democrats and just the people who brought us and represented the real sort of hope at a time for Democrats. And a lot of things didn't work out. Is there a general kind of rejection of that role and are they sort of, you know, yesterday's news or is that overstated?
- [24:21]
A
I do think it's overstated. Part of the reason that I have salience throughout the big tent, left, right and center, is because I have been such a principled opponent of Trump's authoritarian ways. His attacks on the rule of law, his rejection of elections, his corruption. If democracy doesn't stand for a government of laws, not of people, no kings, the rule of law won free and fair elections whose outcomes we respect, including peaceful transitions of power, no matter who may freely and fairly win or lose, and serving the public interests, the people that number three vote in those elections, give legitimacy to the entire body, not your personal interest in a corrupt way, then what is democracy? So the things that I have worked on consistently warning of their first seeds growing in the Trump one, and now of course, a full blown poisonous algae swamp in Trump too. The same people who, many of the same people who across the country have been frustrated with the status quo, have welcomed me not just on talking Fed's pod, where I do feel welcome, always welcome me because of that vision. And Dan, you know, Dan very much was a partner in that work. And I don't think that was the problem at all. Now, let's be honest, people are mad and they have seen this K shaped economy and at bottom, I think the issues that predominate for voters are not foreign policy questions, Middle East, Israel. It's can they afford to put groceries on the table, gas in the car and a roof over their heads and education for their children. It's the cost of the basic necessities of life. They don't like the twin crises that are driving those costs through the roof, the corruption crisis and the competence crisis. And I think what you saw in New York was a move towards a these are all those associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, current or former members. You saw a rejection of the status quo, of economic power. It's no fault on Dan. I don't think his some of his more traditional views helped him. In particular, he was caught up in this demand for change. I just want to say, apropos of Maria's point, finally we're going to need a big tent and everybody in that big tent is going to need to be tolerant of the others in the big tent. So now we, those of us who didn't and maybe a slightly different place in the political spectrum, more traditional Democrats, we are going to be, have to be tolerant and agree to disagree on some issues with the new people. But the same is also true as they come in and the same is true of our Republican partners. Look at what happened in Hungary where Magyar unified same three issues, corruption crisis, competence crisis, driving the cost crisis. He was able to unify a super majority of the country. We need to build that kind of big tent here and I hope people will be able to work together on what they can work together on and all sit at the same table.
- [28:32]
B
Maria, let me follow up on exactly that and the point you raised. Look, it's true what happened in New York and you in particular, you were very supportive of Adriano Espiet who got beat by a left wing congressperson to be Dariel Lisa Avila Chevalier. On the other hand, you can point to just 50 miles north of New York City. There was a choice of three possible candidates against swing seat Republican Mike Lawler and they picked by a pretty wide margin a moderate, Kate Connelly, thought to have the best shot in Utah. That has been gerrymandered completely. So there's only one overwhelming blue seat. They also picked a moderate. So I wonder if, in addition to the big tent possibilities around the country, if we really are talking about a very localized set of results that have a lot to do with the, by the way, extremely impressive emergence of the mayor as a powerful force.
- [29:43]
C
That's a really great question, Harry. Because I think right now we do have to kind of say that this is localized, though it is happening in other pockets across the country, but it is happening in places similar to New York in that they are urban, progressive and areas where these Democratic socialists have been able to really surge. And I live in one right in Washington, D.C. and I actually voted for Janice Lewis. George. I'm not a Democratic socialist, but I think that she spoke better to the needs and the anger and what we believe is going to be necessary to fight for a Washington D.C. for everyone. And so I think that's a really good example to that. We can't just brush with a broad stroke and use generalizations and believe that what happened in one place is automatically going to happen in another. But we do have to be very aware, Harry, of the things that are starting to happen within the party. If the people who are more on the center are worried about the rise of the more progressive, they need to organize better. I mean, kudos to the Democratic socialists of America. They organize the hell out of their communities.
- [31:04]
A
So true.
- [31:05]
C
And let's also keep in mind the turnout in these New York elections was minimal. And that also goes to the issue of organizing. If the more moderate Democrats, again, are really worried about this, they need to get their asses in gear and organize, organize, organize and make sure that they get their voters out, that they get their supporters out, that they energize and mobilize their voters the same way that the progressive left did for their supporters. And I think if we do that, Harry, then we will have an incredibly robust, strong Democratic Party that will be able to take over the House in a way that will have no question for Trump or anyone else in terms of what happened in these elections. And frankly, I think we would have a very good chance of taking over the Senate as well. But I will underscore this is a task for everyone within the Democratic Party. To Norm's point, we have to be tolerant and open minded about everyone who's coming in here. And we have to be of one mind to beat the Republicans in November and then to continue to organize our communities to be able to elect a nominee in 2028 that is going to be able to win back the White House in November of 28 as well.
- [32:35]
B
Norm, I saw some head nodding on your part. And it's one thing to be united, it is another the vigor and sort of on the ground results of being organized. So one of the socialist foes, I think you could say in New York, moderate Democrat Tom Suozzi, said after the result. People who do not support the Democratic Socialists of America wring their hands at cocktail parties while the DSA is organizing. So, you know, where is the mainstream's mojo, if you will, and what need it do to try to learn from some of DSA's winning tactics? You don't like the question? You're. You're grimacing the publisher, the contrarian.
- [33:29]
A
I love the question. I just can't wait to give you the answer.
- [33:34]
B
Bring it.
- [33:35]
A
The mojo. The mainstream mojo was on display with Abigail Spanberger's success in the last cycle or in New Jersey senatorial races around the country. Democrats have won or outperformed in about 300 races, well over 90% of the key races, since January 20, 2025. The majority of those are people who represent continuity with the Democratic brand. And it is healthy and good as long as people who come in are willing to agree on things. These core principles, agree on corruption, agree on the cost crisis, agree on the competence crisis, and then we'll have some big family debates on other issues within the party. So I think that, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom. Some very fresh new flowers came up in New York last week. You know, other parts of the country, the flora and fauna are different. And that's not a bad thing. This is a vast country, but we do all have to work together to oppose the threat of Trump and Trumpery, the authoritarianism that is afflicting our nation. And I think these individuals will do that.
- [35:15]
B
And let me just lob in an obvious point, which is these were intramural within the party primary contest, and the big advantage going forward, right, left or center, within the Democratic Party is they will be running against Trump's record, will be running against the Republicans. And that itself, I think, has been shown more and more to energize the voters. And with his plummeting ratings.
- [35:40]
C
Harry, can I bring up one other thing just to kind of put this into perspective? When AOC got elected, along with the three others from the squad, there were the same kinds of like, oh, my God, this is the end of the Democratic Party. They're gonna take over. And AOC even said this recently, right? There was such, like, doom and gloom about the future of the Democratic Party. And guess what? They came in and they got their sea legs. And yes, there were times and places when they went against the majority of the party and that was fine. But they all ended up working with Nancy Pelosi and understanding that the only way they were going to gain power was to coalesce with the rest of the Democratic Party on the key issues that they cared about, and they have been able to do that while they're there. I believe the same thing is going to happen with these new voices within the Democratic Party.
- [36:41]
B
All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode, you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine. Spirited.
- [37:00]
D
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 match your taste. After all, it's not just about what's on top of the bottle. It's what's inside that counts.
- [38:26]
B
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's a spirited debate. Okay, I want to move front and center to my sort of continuing obsession about what's going on within the Department of Justice. I want to ask about the slush fund. There's been a kind of interplay, I think, between the legal system and the political system. The political system, Republicans in the Senate in particular, first getting some steel in their spine at the prospect of the operation of the slush fund to enrich January 6th insurrectionists. Todd Blanche thought he had quieted that controversy with his kind of bellicose insistence. I won't put it into writing, but we're not going forward. But now there's a lawsuit Pending And Judge Lenie Brinkoma in the Eastern District of Virginia kind of called the bluff of the doj. They said it's moot, it's moot. We've said it before. That wasn't even true really. They just cited Blanche again and again. So she said, you know, let's have this in writing under oath what we have to do to really find it moot. They didn't do it. And she said, you didn't do it. We're going ahead with the case now. It's certainly not moot. And that means. Well, that's the question. What does it mean politically that we now have a judge who's made the legal finding contra Todd Blanche's insistence that this slush fund is far from dead and buried?
- [40:04]
A
Well, Harry, paid subscribers to the Contrarian have supported my and colleagues over 300 legal cases and matters and that includes appearing in all of the different courtrooms that we're talking about here to tell you how heinous the slush fund is in that Brinkama case. My client is Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, and Senator Cory Booker. We filed a brief in that case supporting our wonderful friends in the democracy movement, Common Cause, Democracy Forward and others, where the judge in ruling against DOJ cited the bipartisan arguments we made. And she's just been straight ahead, DOJ is not giving her answers, so she's proceeding with the case. And, and they're not giving her answers because they have no good answers, Harry. Now, in addition, we need to tackle not just the money, but these two terrible settlements that Trump agreed to, giving up the tax claims and then all claims that he may have. It's kind of a super pardon for him and his family and others. That's an abuse of power. Also over in Florida, we represent those 35 bipartisan federal judges were litigating whether was there a fraud on the court with this whole mess in Florida, cuz there's not actually two people fighting, there's it appears, two people in cahoots. Donald Trump versus Donald Trump in essence. So I think the end game here is one way or another, this deal is gonna get killed dead like so many other things Trump has has done is going to fall apart under court scrutiny. And until it does, the fight continues.
- [42:13]
B
Well, let me ask. So Maria, there's two. In fact, I actually want to come back to you Norman, a moment on some of the legal fine point or two. But to my mind it's needed that kind of political push and Republicans after initially having it, then got supine again. On these procedural votes during the vote around. I just wonder if you think Maria, that the interplay of the system really matters. That the federal court has pronounced that contra whatever they're saying this thing is, could rise again like a zombie. Is that something that hits home with the Corwins and Cassidy's of the world and reanimates the controversy that the administration obviously hopes doesn't rear its ugly head again in the Senate?
- [43:06]
C
I think where this becomes a huge political nightmare for Republicans is when Democrats or frankly, you know, Republicans who've had it with Trump talk about this in terms of how it affects voters. Right. Because let's be real, the minutiae and in and out of legal proceedings is not going to hit home with voters who are worried about how to put food on the table. But when you tell them, look at what Trump promised you during the election. He promised to bring down inflation, to fight, to bring down the prices of groceries, gas and rent. And look at everything that he has done from the moment he got into office is completely the opposite of that. From tariffs to the Iran war that no one wanted and no one needed to, to the grift and corruption of self dealing and making himself and his family rich by billions. Which then you can take that and say he's taking away health care because Republicans don't think they have enough money in the budget to give you the opportunity to buy prescription drugs and be able to have a doctor and not go bankrupt. Taking money away from that, taking money away from SNAP and school lunches for kids. Right. But at the same time they do have money to do all of these other things including the ballroom, the UFC fight and and money to put into this slush fund. That is where the connection becomes real for voters and that's where Democrats have to make sure to connect those dots in a very real and resonant way and not get bogged down in all the legal stuff. As brilliant as it is, Norm, we have to make the broader connections which you do very well all the time of why this matters to families. Bottom lines.
- [45:14]
B
I actually want very much to get bogged down in the legal nitty gritty for just a moment. Among the other many accomplishments of Norns we didn't mention up front. You know, you have been the resistances litigator, you really have. You're in courts all over the country and kudos and Godspeed. But I have two pretty fine grain legal questions but not too fine grain for fed heads. I think first standing cuz I thought the mistake of the administration was to fight Brinkama on mootness because it isn't moot. But now that they have to answer the complaint, I think they may have a strong claim on standing and your prosecutor's case may matter. That's question one on the cases that are against the fund itself. And question on two, because you cover the waterfront. So Judge Williams down in Florida, who's focusing on whether she was defrauded, did something unusual. A couple pretty significant briefs by officials and lawyers were submitted and she said, which courts rarely do. No thank you, I don't need them. And she literally denied the motions to file them. I wonder what you make of that. So two part question. But you field those all the time from judges around the country.
- [46:38]
A
Well, I think on the standing question that the harms. Let's just start with the prosecutors that I represent in DC Are the ones there's prosecutor, very distinguished former prosecutor who's one of the plaintiffs in Virginia.
- [46:57]
B
But that prosecutor has not pleaded reputational harm as you have in your case.
- [47:02]
A
Well, he did. He didn't go quite as the same length. But if you look closely in the complaint and in the filings does establish a basis for standing. And the argument is that by impugning the career and the life's work of these prosecutors and claiming that it was a democratic plot to prosecute J sex defendants. I mean, these are violent insurrectionists who attacked cops. And then you back that up with these massive settlements that Trump got that contain this libelous language. You back it up with the payment of money. But just the mere smear is does cause harm and of course injury. And that is this injury, causation, injury, in fact, causation, redressibility, those are the elements of standing. So I think there's good standing there. The judge was not tripped up with that. And I could make similar arguments for the other defendants in the Virginia case, in the Florida case. I think the more important thing is that the judge did accept the brief that we submitted from 35 former federal judges, many Republicans, and that's what really counts. She had distinguished Amiki who did make a submission to her. One outcome conceivably could be to reappoint those or other amici. So I think Judge Williams in Florida has been cautious and careful and trying to keep the focus where it is. We have on behalf of our 35 federal judges submitted a additional reply brief responding to the government. Now the ball is in her court, so we appreciate her undertaking the question at all. Not going to quibble with particular decisions that she makes and just look forward to seeing what she does with the arguments of these 35 judges. I'm hopeful that she's going to reopen the case and conduct this investigation that we've called for.
- [49:41]
B
Very good. We have to leave it here for now. Just a quick note that today and tomorrow, I think will be this final flurry of Supreme Court decisions. Talking Feds is going to be all over it, including taping a special episode. I'll be doing YouTubes and the like, so stay tuned for that. In the meantime, we're out of time except our final feature of five Words or fewer, where we take a question each of us has to answer in five words or fewer. Today's question the Reflecting Pool has a fundamental problem. Stagnant water is a difficult thing to control for the poor, besieged president. What should Trump fill the pool with instead? Anyone? Five words or fewer.
- [50:29]
A
Nuclear dust and empty makeup. I like it.
- [50:41]
C
Okay, here's mine. I have two. Can I have two?
- [50:46]
B
Sure. Oh, first time privilege. It's like a mulligan, right?
- [50:49]
C
Yeah, thank you. Exactly. The first one, Republican tears after November.
- [50:55]
B
Oh, excellent.
- [50:56]
C
And the second one, you can take
- [50:58]
B
six words on the second because you saved one.
- [51:00]
C
Okay.
- [51:01]
D
Okay.
- [51:01]
C
Actually, I think this is. This is forwards in honor of our dear friend Katie Fang and what she was able to accomplish. The unredacted Epstein files.
- [51:14]
B
I had two also, but I'm gonna go with your theme, Orange Jello and Classified Files. Thank you so much, Maria and Norm. 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@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. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Fed's episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinions 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 Lucas Cregan and Katie Upshaw. Associate producer, Becca Haveian. Sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Don Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsam Hadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Delito, llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.