Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:07]
A
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. A quick note about the schedule change after the positive feedback we got last time we tried a one day turnaround, we we wanted to try it again. Let us know what you make of it. And don't worry, we'll have a great one on one episode for you come Monday morning. Despite more encouragement from the Supreme Court, some Southern states are balking at redrawing their maps for the midterms as ugly reminders of Jim Crow come to the fore. Some pundits think any handful of new R seats will be a Pyrrhic victory given the ugly racial politics involved. That said, the whole sweep of the gerrymandering race is up in the air. You'll hear us talk about the South Carolina State Senate's Tuesday vote not to redistrict. But just hours after we taped on Wednesday, the state governor made moves to try to ram through the new map anyway. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is apparently considering trying to escape a judge's scrutiny of Trump's $10 billion suit against his own IRS. The department is talking of simply settling, handing Trump some unknown sum before a judge can weigh in on whether the case is as collusive as it seems. And Trump's Xanadu dreams to reconfigure DC As a monument to himself with a huge triumphal arch and a grossly transformed White House are creeping toward reality with assists from his Republican allies in Congress to discuss the strenuous efforts of the Trump administration and the Republican Party to transform the country's political, legal and physical landscapes. I am very pleased to be joined by three great commentators and they are Alison Camerota, an award winning journalist and author. She was the longtime anchor of CNN's morning show, earning two Emmy Awards in the process. She's now the host of Connected with Alison Camerata on the Scripps Network and my oldest friend in the business. Great to see you as always, Alison.
- [02:47]
B
You too, Harry. Thanks for having me.
- [02:49]
A
Adam Klassfeld, a leading courtroom reporter. As the editor in chief of All Rise News for more than a decade, Adam's covered the top stories in court cases from state, federal and military court. We frequently get together for substack lives in the wake of big moments out of the courts where Adam is frequently found right at the scene. Adam, great to see you.
- [03:15]
C
Great to see you again too, Harry.
- [03:17]
A
And Elliot Williams, a CNN Legal analyst and regular guest host on Sirius XM and wamu. Elliot served nearly eight years in the Obama administration in the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, he was Judiciary Counsel to Chuck Schumer. He's also the author of a riveting new book, Five Bullets, which we talked about on the show earlier this year. If you haven't checked it out yet. Highly recommended. And by the way, it showcases your New York City connection, which is a feature shared by all three of today's guests. Okay, let's start with redistricting, which is galloping ahead in the wake of the Calais decision and the Virginia Supreme Court's over overturning of the result in that state. So even as the rest of the Deep south races to scrap Democratic districts, replace them with our districts, South Carolina Republicans decided not to mess with the map and to keep their delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat, which sounds lopsided, but no less or more lopsided than Alabama or Tennessee, which are moving here. What do you make of their decision and its contrast with the others? What held them back?
- [04:41]
D
You know, I think they saw the writing on the wall, Harry, that it's politically risky to go down the road that many people didn't want to go. Now there are many, many Republicans that question Donald Trump's picking the fight over redistricting in the first place. And as you've seen certainly in the state of Indiana a little bit earlier this year, they knew that there would be political costs. And a lot of people in the public were just uneasy about this, what has now become a race to the bottom, or top, whatever you wanna call it, about redistriction. Bottom. And I think that you. Bottom. Yeah. I mean, however you look at it. But point being, I think they just saw political risk, number one. Number two, what it would have meant in practice is getting rid of Jim Clyburn's district. He's a very influential black member of Congress, a black member of the Democratic leadership, and the sole black member of Congress from South Carolina. Given the state's history, they just didn't wanna go down that road.
- [05:34]
A
Is that the distinction? Cuz notice Florida had a similar dynamic. They know the people are really against it. They rammed it through anyway.
- [05:43]
B
Well, I mean, I just need you guys to explain the math to me, because even if the people are against it, the fact that the GOP was going to possibly stand to gain 10 seats, I mean, that seems like a winning strategy. That seems like not a moral strategy, but a winning strategy. If you're gonna get 10 new seats. I think the Jim Clyburn thing is unique because. Because he is such an iconic figure, so beloved. I think South Carolina might have a different calculation than the rest, but otherwise, why not gobble up as many seats as you can with these fakacta districts that they're drawing? It reminds me of the definition. Gerrymandering's like the definition of pornography. Like, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. And when you see those districts drawn in those crazy, abstract ways, it's insane. But if you're winning 10 seats, then that's why it's happening.
- [06:35]
C
And it's the etymology of the word gerrymandering. I mean, if you look at how it was created, it was Jerry's salamander, because the district looked like an actual salamander. So that's how we get the word. You know, I wonder if they took a look at Florida and some of the analysis that I'm seeing. People say about it, that the new maps were designed based on Trump's over performance and that the whole thing could backfire.
- [07:00]
B
So.
- [07:01]
C
So maybe they took a look at what another map would look like, and that was a calculation that they didn't want to take.
- [07:10]
D
To add to that, just looking at the math now, South Carolina is an odd state in that the Republican districts are really, really Republican, and Jim Clyburn's district is really, really Democratic. But the math would work out that if you were to cut Jim Clyburn's district up, you end up putting a lot of Democrats in those Republican districts and you create more competitive districts. Now, South Carolina is not the best example of that. If you look at some of around the country, turnabout is fair play. And in a midterm election that, as history suggests, Democrats will do reasonably well, particularly given Donald Trump's unpopularity right now, making Republican districts potentially more competitive could be really bad in the short term for Republicans. And I think some of those folks might have seen that as an issue that gave them some caution as well
- [07:57]
A
and stayed their hand. Okay, Sort of careful what you wish for. And by the way, I think we do know it when we see it, but the US Supreme Court has said we don't know it. Even when we do see it, we're out of this game. I want to get back to the point both of you guys made about Clyburn and the general racial dynamics here. Some pundits are making a forceful case. Republicans ought to be more careful what they may win temporarily in the south they may lose elsewhere by permanently alienating black voters and by handing Democrats the civil rights sort of mantle again. You know, what do you think about that? Very hard kind of balance, to be sure. But even if the Dems fight back and win some of these closer districts than the Rs might think, it's going to eviscerate the minority population in Congress. Does just that fact itself carry a huge political price tag that Republicans are just overlooking?
- [08:57]
B
Well, I mean, that's the Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argument. So there's reporting. Jonathan Martin did a piece about how if they can't win the math, they're gonna try to win with the messaging. And so Hakeem Jeffries is telling members to hit this at every possible turn. Explain to black constituencies and Hispanic, they're coming for you, they're after you. They're trying to dilute your voting power and just say that over and over again. But I don't know if that. I mean, there's also reporting that there was this despondent phone call between Democrats and Democratic leadership after the Virginia, I guess, decision. So they are, you know, scared and feeling really anxious. And I don't know if messaging is going to trump the math. No pun intended here.
- [09:42]
D
Yeah, I would say, look, the math is far worse today for Democrats than it was a week ago. No question. However, I will note that. So Donald Trump took 21% of the Black male vote in 2024, which was pretty seismic. Now, it's a relatively shift. It's a, you know, it's a 5 or 6 or however many percent swing toward Republicans, but it's still, I think, the biggest ever for a Republican candidate. That said, if there's anything that sticks in black people's minds, it's the idea of they are trying to take your vote away, just like they took your mother's vote away and your grandmother's and so on. One of the most interesting statistics or even facts about the civil rights movement that occurred to me is that Ruby Bridges, who desegregated the New Orleans schools, we know the Norman Rockwell painting from back then, with the little girl being ushered by U.S. marshals and there's tomatoes being thrown at her. She's 71 years old. Right. She is still walking among us, with family among us. And there are people who remember the ugliest days of the civil rights era, certainly in the 1960s and 1970s. And I think, quite frankly, and I know personally, for many black families, that era still rings true and still is in the minds of even Younger black voters. Now, again, is it a silver bullet that turns the tide away from a major redistricting effort across the the country? No, of course not. But I do think with even remotely competent messaging from Democrats about, you know, this is a return to the thing that many people in this community do remember, I think could be potentially powerful given that black support for Donald Trump, even in 2024 was thin. It was there. But it's not a generational shift toward Republicans. Now, Republicans could successfully shift voting patterns in the country, but, you know, the black vote is not a Republican vote right now in perpetuity in the United States. And I think anybody who is telling you that ought to sell you a bridge. It's just not the case.
- [11:37]
A
And by the way, the R is really led with their chin there. It's not just in the past. In a conservative radio program, the host said Hakeem Jeffries needs to get his, I'm quoting, cotton picking hands off of Virginia. And his guest, Congresswoman Jen Kagan, said, ditto, yes to that. So, you know, it's just below the surface, if not on the surface, the whole kind of broader racial dynamics, to
- [12:04]
C
Elliot's point, I think it's already starting to bubble over. We're seeing in Tennessee, when they passed the gerrymandered maps, there were major protests in the Capitol of people chanting no Jim Crow. We're recording this days away from a major protest in Alabama that's going to take place in South Selma and Montgomery. And this is animated also by the Supreme Court's actions with the Alabama maps. And to make a point about that decision, one thing that hasn't gotten enough attention to my mind is Justice Sotomayor in her dissent, she pointed out that these were maps that would, you know, were supposed to be allowed by Calais because they were explicitly found to have been motivated that there was an intent of racial discrimination. And yet these racially discriminatory maps are back in play until a district court acts. So I think that the reaction that folks are talking about and recognizing what is going on is happening right now. It is snowballing. And it's very much something that people see quite clearly.
- [13:17]
A
I mean, a big national day coming up on Saturday, as Adam mentions, I think people are a little bit murky on how the law works. But just to cut to the chase here for Alabama or Tennessee, we're talking about already hugely disproportionate maps, which may have one majority minority district, even though the population breakdown is more like 60, 40. And now they just want to go Completely. I think that's a fair term to whitewash it in both. And Alabama, I think, is a really good point. You published a piece on this, Adam, and you pretty well summarized it. But on top of everything else, the Supreme Court wasn't scheduled to consider things for several weeks, and the conservative six hurried it up and immediately let Alabama take advantage of Calais with an argument that, among other things, contradicts what they've said in the past. Right.
- [14:12]
C
If I can make just one more quick point on that. Because one of the things, when Kagan noted that the Supreme Court in Calais had turned the Voting Rights act into a dead letter, what she had meant is that the majority had set the bar so high to prove racial discrimination by setting an intention that they had to prove intent. And it's very hard. People hide intent when you are creating a racially discriminatory map. But they did that in Alabama. There was a trial about it. There were dozens of witnesses, and there were hundreds of exhibits. And a federal judge, a panel of judges extensively documented it. So if the Supreme Court is saying that even that high bar is something that can't hold muster, and we'll see what happens, this is going to the lower court. It's probably going to go back up again. But if that happens, then it truly is a dead letter.
- [15:15]
A
I mean, Sotomayor says there's nothing about Calais that requires this, and yet you've done it anyway. And she also makes the point which is clearly right. It's playing out in front of our eyes. This is engendering huge chaos and frenzy into the process. Let me just sort of broaden the focus. You know, everyone agrees, I think, that the race to the bottom is ugly. It's anti Democratic, small d Democratic. But people, their next sentence tends to be throw, you know, the equivalent of throwing up their hands and saying there's nothing to be done. Like as. As Allison says, they're, you know, they're gobbling up what they can. Is that are we effectively checkmated as a society in terms of doing anything? Is this ugly, ugly feature in everybody says so just now integral to American politics going forward?
- [16:12]
D
I think so. I don't think it's checkmated, but I think it's a new era in American politics, starting around redistricting, whether, whether there's particular energy on the left in 2026 and 2028, or we just now are a nation that redistricts out moderates and has an extreme far right and far left, quite frankly, Congress, that may be where we go and we just make peace with that and figure out how to make it work. And I don't say that in resignation. No. When I say make it work, I mean the next generation of American politics is managing around and trying to fix that. But I do think, you know, we're back to the term race to the bottom. We have now unleashed war. I think on all sides, war has been unleashed with respect to redistricting. I don't know where it's going to go, but I think it has reshaped how America's gonna regard politics for the next generation.
- [17:07]
B
But here's my question, Harry, and I need all of you legal eagles to explain this. So one thing that regular humans thought they could do was in Virginia, the referendum.
- [17:16]
A
Right.
- [17:17]
B
So the referendum about redistricting. And it was gonna, as I understand it, give Democrats four additional House seats.
- [17:24]
A
Yes.
- [17:24]
B
And then that was overturned. That's my only question. So in other words, that's the one proactive thing people thought they could do at the ballot box. And then they were impotent.
- [17:33]
D
Ultimately, what I would say, and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next couple of years, treat Virginia as different than California or Texas, which regardless of however dirty or unfair folks thought Texas was, Texas's constitution does allow mid cycle redistricting and they were operating within the rules of the state, no matter how nasty it was. California the same thing. The state law allowed it. Virginia was, was playing a little clever with the law and it got struck down. There were Virginia to have done the same thing, whether it's two or however many years from now, it may not have gotten struck down by the courts. Right. But this is the thing, like I said, we're in a bit of a wild west right now where every state's going to be doing this. Every state according to the Constitution has its own rules for how its elections are going to be run. And some of them are going to be struck down. Some of them where people have already voted, these changes will be struck down, some will go through and it's not going to be consistent across the state. So I'll be curious to see back to the question of this new, like I said a minute ago, the new generation of American politics we're in. Does Virginia try to do the same thing in three or four years when it is in cycle and they can actually get away with it?
- [18:42]
C
And it's interesting if you look at Florida, I mean the Florida state constitution, the voters added an amendment to the constitution to eliminate partisan gerrymandering. And that's the source of some of the ongoing litigation trying to stop the gerrymander in that state. And it's interesting if you look at the map that was released by Governor Ron DeSantis in that state, it's a color coded map, and you see all the red in it. So I'm looking to see whether state courts enforce their own constitutions and what happens in that litigation in particular.
- [19:19]
A
I think it's a really good point. And let me generalize a bit to answer Alison's question, because, look, the Constitution says that states should be able to basically decide this. You have the Supreme Court having kind of put its foot in the door to Kibbets, but, you know, federal solutions are going to be hard, but it is really, really, really unpopular. DeSantis in Florida is a great illustration. They knew it was unpopular, but the only thing you know that is a superior principle to that is keep our jobs. So they rammed it through, but we'll see what the consequences are in Virginia. Just to echo Elliot, it's an extremely labyrinthine process set out in the Constitution that they arguably didn't, you know, dot their I's and cross their T's on. So it's very specific. But it does seem that there could be more effort. So I see some hope in a state by state popular kind of revolt. And remember, there had been all these states mainly, as it turns out, blue ones, where they were doing it. Right. Pennsylvania, where I'm from, is one of them, a neutral bipartisan commission. And if the voters insist on that, even if it means disempowering some of their own folks. But I do think this arcane what's gerrymandering and what's it about has now come to the surface. And people understand this is about ability to participate equally in the political process. This is pretty damn huge. And there's also a huge racial component given the Supreme Court. So I think it graduated to the front of the political stage in a way that will not go away.
- [21:05]
D
So just to add to my point about the Wild west in this new era we're in, you know, there was talk in that New York Times piece that somebody had mentioned. I think it was Alison, the piece about how the shock and terror in Virginia, and they're weighing all their options. And one option was literally for the state legislature to pass a new retirement age for judges and force them all out after age 55, which would have had the effect of basically getting rid of the Republican judges on the court. And I wonder if tactics like that are the future now, where in desperation to find the seats, legislators of both parties just start figuring out ways to use the rules to their advantage when it comes to changing the size of courts, getting judges off, getting legislators off in the way that the law allows them to do. I think that this year of fighting has opened that often, you know, to quote Star wars, and thus the Clone wars have begun. We are in Episode two right now.
- [22:01]
A
So I think, by the way, that new one, what a terrible title. But I digress. The brass knuckles are being passed out by the gross by both parties. It's true. All right. This is playing out really quick in real time. There's going to be more to say. I want to get to another. And this is. This is pretty hot off the presses. And, Adam, I think you can maybe help us with some heavy lifting here. But, but the report now is this Trump lawsuit, Trump v. US over the IRS for mere $10 billion. They're looking to settle it before they have to give a brief to the court, the first court to say, wait a second, this looks like you guys are on the same side, which the Constitution forbids. Can you just sort of flesh it out a little, you know, set up the issue and why it's important, even above and beyond the point of, is Trump just going to be able to help himself to, you know, a billion or so among friends from the federal treasury?
- [23:07]
C
I absolutely can do that, Harry. But I have to note, you have written the definitive post on this topic. So I would, with all humility, try to pass it to the expert, because I want to encourage people listening to this to read this post because it's really the.
- [23:26]
A
That's really kind of you. Okay, I accept. I've seen this issue for a few months. Michael Flynn's a very good example. People who have no business suing under. Under laws, for instance, in Flynn's case, that say you have to have been unfairly charged, there has to not have been probable cause. This guy pleaded guilty to righteous charges, but he brings this lawsuit saying, now you owe me money. Trump's trying to do the same thing. January, six offenders are going to be trying to do the same thing. And nobody had noticed this fundamental constitutional flaw, which is when the US Jumps the V, as I put it that way, and they're just basically on the same side as the former antagonist. That defeats the whole idea of a suit. It also, in very practical terms, makes you wonder, why would the DOJ ever settle this case? They're supposed to be who's protecting us? Who's protecting the federal treasury. And a judge for the first time noticed this, it's in Trump's $10 billion case and said I want some briefing from you. And by the way, to make sure there's solid briefing on the other side, I'm appointing like a murderer's row of three lawyers who are really going to come in and I've written at length. You know, they're between a rock and a hard place. Do they come in and say, yeah, we do whatever Trump says, meaning it's an unconstitutional suit, or do they come in and say, oh no, we're really fighting him hard and protecting the taxpayers, which it would be patent bullshit. So they have a day of reckoning coming on the 20th and this latest news is that they may do this settlement and then dismiss the suit and basically get away with it because in a sense, and it's happening in other cases too, the jig is up and people see this collusive lawsuit happening. So my hugest worry that I'm going to be watching close is whether they do some BS settlement before a week from today so we don't have to see what the hell are you going to say, Todd?
- [25:26]
B
Blanche, can I ruin the suspense, Harry? I mean can I just, can I just ruin the suspense for you? I love that you still have very quaint semblance. It's so quaint. You have some semblance of like proprietors propriety and that something this is incredible, Harry. It's really a testament to your hope over or in your spirit. But of course they're going to settle. They have no shame. Of course they're going to side with Donald Trump and at the taxpayer expense there'll be some sort of payment that taxpayers have to pay to Donald Trump or they will do what is apparently one of the offers which is make he and his businesses and his family immune from any IRS audit in the future. That's what's going to happen.
- [26:17]
C
Well, but let's, we can be comforted to know that Trump has said that he's going to donate it to charity, maybe The Trump Foundation 2.0, you know, after he had to shut down his prior charity for this kind of self defense dealing. But I do encourage folks to read Harry's article on this because it did seem to be the first time that someone went really deep into a judge actually having an option to intervene here. Because as you pointed out, Harry, and I think you pointed out, Allison, this isn't the first of its kind. We had the Michael Flynn settlement. We might see, and almost will inevitably see taxpayer money going toward the people who invaded and damaged the Capitol while assaulting police officers. Some of the assailants are parties to that litigation in a class action, and it's obscene. But this was the first time that I think a federal judge pointed to a roadmap for the courts being able to do something about it. And the kind of open question is, can they?
- [27:29]
D
Harry, just one important bit of context, both from your article, but just in general, for listeners who aren't former feds while listening to the talking feds. No, but it's an important point, which is that when the United States is named as a party, which is incredibly common, everything from a postal truck knocking over your mailbox to literally suing a President of the United States or suing an agency for wrongdoing, it is the government of the United States, regardless of the political party that's in power. And I only say that in that it is the case where somebody sues, say, the Postal Service under the Biden administration, litigation takes three or four years, and that lawsuit still remains in the next administration, and it behooves the government, whoever's in power, to continue protecting the rights of the government in that lawsuit. Now, occasionally, things get dropped or the government takes a different approach to lawsuits when it's a different administration. And that's okay, because people see the law differently from Republicans and Democrats or whatever else. But what's happened here is that there has been not just a shift in a presidential administration with a lot of these lawsuits. It's literally a shift in legal strategy about who's right and who's wrong. And to your point about. I think Adam had mentioned the January 6 guys. Yes, the United States is still the party, but our entire posture as a nation, at least with respect to the courts, has shifted here, where now the government is, in effect, protecting the rights of these individuals. You know, when Harry talks about jumping the V, literally, it's United States v. Someone, regardless of who the President is. But that has been upended quite a bit in this last few years.
- [29:09]
A
I mean, we'd seen it upended. Politically, they lionize the insurance. But literally to do this sort of maneuver of, yeah, so sorry, would 500,000 do? Maybe 750. Okay, Allison, educate me on my naivete a little more. This is an arcane legal issue, and thank you very much, Adam and Elliot. I've been. I've been trying to be on top of it for a while. Is this something that has now risen or will rise to the point of public attention or is it just too, you know, arcane and pointy headed for people to get hot and bothered about it?
- [29:49]
B
Harry, I think that Donald Trump's flood the zone strategy works really, really well. And so I think that if we were in normal times, if the laws of gravity still held and applied every day, news networks and newspapers would be doing stories on the self dealing, on the corruption, on how Trump is enriching himself and his family to the tune of billions of dollars while Americans are paying $5 a gallon for gas, while there inflation. Okay, but because of this flood the zone strategy and because of there's insults and there's the war with Iran and there's election interference and there's the feud with Tucker Carlson, like, you know, every single thing that comes in that takes up oxygen, takes away from the corruption. This is corruption straight up. I mean, Donald Trump oversees the irs. And so, I mean the fact that he has toadies in the DOJ and the IRS and that they'll do his bidding, this is not a democracy, this is not what Americans vote for. But I think it is hard for people to get their heads around the level of corruption, of self dealing, of profiteering, of the Trumps enriching themselves. Because here again, having worked at many networks, I know that on a three hour show you can only do that segment so many times before you have to take a breath and go to something else. And so I think it's really hard. And yes, it's arcane, but all you need to know is that once again, somehow Trump is cheating the system, he's skirting the law, and it's gonna redound to his pocketbook.
- [31:29]
C
And it's not the only legal action that he is trying to get a settlement from. There's still this other one where he's claiming some INJ over the Mueller investigation. And that one is even more, you know, it's a smaller amount of money that he's seeking, but as a cause of action, it's even more unfathomable.
- [31:53]
A
And just as with Flynn, he has to show that Jack Smith didn't have probable cause, that it was, you know, all trumped up the exact narrative he's trying to play. But that's been, you know, false as the day is long.
- [32:06]
D
Yeah, all I would say is it took you, Harry, a 600, 800 word written piece to explain the concept. It took me about 30 seconds of sort of legalistic explanation about the. And it's getting a little bit in the weeds. Alison hit it right on the head it's this individual is being enriched by the very government he oversees right now, right? In one sentence, he oversees the irs. And the question is he's suing them and going and going. That can't be right. Now, I would say the obvious solution is if, if he really is a litigant who has been wronged with his tax returns being released or whatever else, then pause the case until he's not President of the United States anymore, then as a private citizen, he's free to sue the government and eliminate all of these questions. But Alison, to Alison's point, you know, we are so inundated with all of the things that this just becomes yet another one of the many issues of, oh, you know, it's Donald Trump being Donald Trump again and it's just sort of bleeds into the background. But no, it's important. What's up? Boo hoo. But no, but I think it's just, this is, to Alison's point, it has just faded into the background among the many, many, many issues. But no, I think it's all of these things have to be distilled to one issue, which is, wait a second, you mean the President can sue the government and make millions of dollars in a lawsuit from the government he oversees? That doesn't seem right. And whether it's a moral issue of we have to fix this or a practical legal one of okay, let him do it, but just when he's not president, I don't know, there's gotta be a solution.
- [33:42]
C
Right? And I think this is one of the many instances where Trump benefits from his own shamelessness. He was confronted right on point with a question about this. And he, I think, noted as a matter of public record that, yes, it's almost like I'm negotiating with myself. And rather than inspiring five news cycles or questions about should he be impeached, it was not even a story that lasted more than a day.
- [34:11]
A
Yeah, it's a great point, Alison. There's just so much the speed of things coming over the transom. I just want to say it's even bigger than that. Yes, Trump is enriching himself, but really there are dozens, if not more, it seems, of people who are being enriched because they take they're Trump's political allies, including their views of January 6th. So there's a just yesterday, Jamie Raskin, did you guys see sends Todd Blanchell pretty hard hitting letter. The DOJ has apparently just been giving out money without lawsuits, millions of dollars to FBI agents who were disciplined for, you know, revealing confidential information Taping things illegally, refusing to work on cases, very solid. But there are people who are, have been returned to the fold and are actually being paid out without the settlement. So I, you know, I just want to say we don't know the extent of this conduct, but if some of it happens without even a lawsuit in the courts, man, oh, man, this could be a real free for all in the federal treasury.
- [35:20]
D
And I would just say just this is another one of those for the benefit of listeners things. Jamie Raskin writing a letter has no legal weight as a member of the minority, as the. It's not a subpoena or anything else. However, he is laying the groundwork for if and when Democrats take control of the House. This is the kind of thing you're gonna see subpoenas and hearings and all kinds of legal fights over where he as chair or he as ranking. You know, he as a senior member of the committee, will actually have the power to start bringing in members of the administration to testify and letters and seek documents and so on. And so you see this in election years a lot when the letters from the minority start coming in because they're envisioning that maybe they might take over. And this is the roadmap for what you might see in 2027 if, in fact, Democrats do take the House, which
- [36:09]
B
is why Trump will never let Democrats take the House and will use the.
- [36:13]
A
And this brings us back to the redistricting laws right in the means necessary.
- [36:17]
B
Any means necessary.
- [36:18]
A
Any means. And I just want to add, Elliot really knows wherever he speaks here because of his work with Schumer. Sorry, Adam, go ahead.
- [36:25]
C
No, I was about to say, though, I think it's worth reflecting on those means largely failing. And let's just to talk about one of those means. Harmeet Dhillon has been going around the country trying to obtain voter data. She's 0 for 6 right now. Every federal judge that has weighed in on it has rejected it. You know, they are getting some gains when it comes to redistricting, but by most of the calculations I've seen, it doesn't seem to be meaningfully shifting the composition of the House given the state of the current polling. So I don't think the die is cast.
- [37:07]
B
I hope you're right, Adam. I so hope you're right. I mean, as Harry can tell you on this podcast and in life, I'm an alarmist because I think we need to be an alarmist right now. So I appreciate that you think that these, as I said, laws of gravity will still hold, but I Just. I mean, all I know from having reported on and knowing Donald Trump for all these years, he cheats before he has to. He cheats before he loses. He cheats before the die is Cassidy's going to lose. I mean, he publicly cheats. He famously cheats at God. He famously cheats on his wives. He famously cheats by calling the Georgia Secretary of state. Like, he does all this. We've seen it with our own eyes. And so that's part of why I'm like, they're not gonna let the rules apply here. I mean, that's why I'm an alarmist at the moment.
- [37:54]
D
And this gets back to another call, back to something we talk. This is like a comedy show. We're calling back to the jokes from the top of the set. No, but back to the question of Virginia and this ages of. Of judges thing. I think it's fascinating. And they shot the idea down. We're not going to do that. But I just wonder if we have now entered the by any means necessary era of American politics. Where you're going in 2026, 27, 2020, you start seeing state governments doing things like voting, figuring out ways to write judges out or get them out of their jobs or whatever it is to avoid these kinds of things, or fight back against what many people saw as the lawlessness of the last, or amorality, if you want to call it that, of the last few years.
- [38:38]
C
Want to be clear about one particular thing? To your point, Alison, I don't think this is necessarily about the laws of gravity. And I think if we think back of the 2020 presidential election, there were any number of different schemes to cheat, whether it was the false electors scheme where the attack on the Capitol. And it didn't have to happen that Trump's efforts overturned the election would fail. It's that the vigilance and the. You know, that. My point isn't that the die is cast for the forces of rightness and democracy. My point is the die isn't cast. That there's an inevitability that if the White House decrees it, the midterms will be rigged. We're seeing that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the voting section of it, their schemes are falling apart one after another to try to get their hands on state voting records. And that I don't think it's, at this point, an inevitability.
- [39:47]
B
Adam, thank you for talking me off the ledge. Thank you. Somebody has to do it.
- [39:50]
A
Adam. Thank you. But here, don't close the window yet, though, Allison, Because I just want to say. Yes, but because. Well, that this goes back to the redistricting part and why it also matters because, you know, in 2020, he needed what, 11,780 votes from Georgia, but if it were 117, so so much depends. Their ability to basically steal things in broad daylight depend on a very close election or a very close Congress. So that is why so much of what's going on and the redistricting seems to serious, fundamental and the like.
- [40:29]
D
But Alison's catastrophizing comes directly from being a Gen Xer from the state of New Jersey. We lived through a lot. I mean, literally. Well, you know, in and around. But. But from New Jersey, I mean, we lived through a lot. You know, it's. Things were rough in the 1980s. We watched a space shuttle blow up. The president got shot. Just, you know, it's just. If bad things can happen, they will. They will.
- [40:54]
A
I read a book about that sometime. Oh, yeah, Five Bullets. Let's see. All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode, you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit, and beverages.
- [41:25]
E
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we uncorked the notion of drinking bottled wine versus canned wine. Yeah, wine in a can. Wine connoisseurs may stay true to the bottle, but wine canno have adopted the untraditional packaging for its added convenience. Ideal for picnics, concerts, and outdoor events. Really, anywhere? Corkscrews are scarce, and since aluminum cools faster than glass, it reduces the time it takes to chill your favorite Sauvignon Blanc. But swirling your wine in a glass does help it open up, which gives it a lot more flavor. Of course, you can always transfer your canned wine to a glass, but if you're looking to experience the subtleties of a nice bottle, drinking from a glass adds a lot. There are wines more suited to the bottle, and there are those well suited for the canned life. Crisp and sparkling whites and in particular tend to fare best in cans. But bigger, bolder wines will usually benefit from a nice glass. It would seem both have their place still on the fence between bottles or cans. There's always wine in a box.
- [42:39]
A
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine. And more for today's a spirited debate. Okay, back to Alison's point, though, of, like, the patterns playing out again and again. I want to talk about what seems to be maybe Trump's biggest Priority bigger than redistricting, bigger than the war that is leaving his permanent stamp on the town as a kind of tribute to his greatness. So all these renovations. And again, Ms. Conduct is not isolated, but sweeps in several different projects, right? The ballroom, the reflecting pool, the triumphal arch, which I think we have to see as a piece. But let's just start with the ballroom because some Republicans have taken the strange step of allocating a billion dollars in taxpayer money for it, even though Trump said donors would pay for the whole thing. But the R's seem to be roiled about it. Are they stuck now? Are they? Because if it's. It would be a game changer if the Congress is actually ready to allocate the money. And the number one argument overall in the case is you can't do this. Only Congress can do it.
- [43:58]
B
Harry, beyond Rand Paul, what makes you think that the Republicans are not going to allocate this? I mean, the $1 billion which is now the price tag somehow. You know, miraculously, Donald Trump's estimates for what anything is going to cost grow exponentially after he awards no bid contracts to his friends. Okay, so I want to be clear.
- [44:20]
A
And then, yes, that he did so. But.
- [44:22]
B
Yeah, but it's true. I mean, it's just everybody has the receipts, it's there in black and white. He is giving. Let's look at the reflecting pool. He said it was gonna cost 1.8 million. It's now at $13 million after a no bid contract is awarded to people that have done the pools for his golf clubs. Okay, So I don't know how much more evident it could be for us to see that. I don't know where the kickback is coming. I mean, obviously if he's giving a $13 million no bid contract to friends, there has to be a kickback somewhere. Donald Trump doesn't do anything out of the goodness of his heart at all. I don't know where that's happening, but journalists will figure it out. I mean, we know all of this, but because of investigative journalists who have been charting his profiteering and his self dealing throughout all of this. And so here again with the ballroom. It was supposed to be from donations. Taxpayers are gonna have to pay a billion dollars for the ballroom. I mean, I just want people to
- [45:19]
A
get their heads just for the security.
- [45:21]
D
Yeah. You know, it's interesting and Alison, you made this really important point about the no bid contracts. I can't remember who said it right at the top of the program, but about sort of Trump drama fatigue and this idea of the left or opponents of the President constantly chasing the problems to a point that it all sort of blurs together and it all, quite frankly, is counterproductive in many ways because it's, everybody's always up in arms about the thing. To some extent the President, a president has the right to renovate, even knock down portions of the White House or whatever else. To some extent. Right. There's a process for that. There's a procedure for it. And many people freaked out about, oh my God, how dare he do that to the West Wing. It's so important to us. That's not the issue. The issue to me is once again, like Allison said, it's awarding the contracts to buddies. It is the circumventing the very rules that are designed to protect all of us and protect, you know, it's, you know, I just think there's a lot of people who are getting very precious about whether it's the Rose Garden or the East Wing or whatever else. And I think it's a different issue than just, oh, how dare he have tried to, I mean, you know, President Nixon put a bowling alley in the White House. Right. You know, it's just, they all do it. It's the bigger problem here is the cronyism and the backroom dealing and not giving answers to Congress about how these things are happening and how they're playing out.
- [46:47]
A
Right.
- [46:47]
C
It seemed that also one of the big issues was in terms of the size of it, that he should have involved Congress. Right. And that that was the heart of the litigation. That's why it was blocked by a federal judge and that not to be too starry eyed about it, if Congress is forced to rubber stamp this scheme, that's a win for the rule of law because finally that's the system trying to play out the way the Constitution designed it. If he's trying to do a renovation of this size, however ill advised and terrible it is, if he does it in accordance with the Constitution, great. And let the self dealing come to light with investigative journalism and let us deal with that in small d Democratic channels.
- [47:38]
A
I'm going to push back, I think on both of you. Look, the cronyism is really bad. The no bid contracts are really bad. I sort of see the whole country in the position to go back to New Jersey, Atlantic city in the 70s and 80s. We're in this flim flam man comes in, everything will be great and it'll be cheap and fast and good and instead it's expensive, slow and terrible still and all We've seen him get away with things again and again. There's something to me this time. This is me, Starry eyed Alison, you're going to slap me up again. But like friggin, really, could it really happen when push comes to shove, that this monstrosity of an east wing that totally distorts the neoclassical serene skyline of the district, or this frigging arch bigger than the one in Paris, reflecting pools, a whole nother part. I just feel like, man, it's one thing to let him slip by with legal stuff, but are they really going to let him leave town having just blown it to bits like Stalin or something?
- [48:43]
D
Yeah, here's. But here's where I'll push back on your pushback, right? And I think to me. So let's use the Kennedy center as an example to push back on you a little bit. A lot of people got up in arms about, oh my God, the Kennedy center, the Kennedy Center. How could he do this to the Kennedy Center? It's the best theater, it's this, it's that. And most of these people had never thought of the Kennedy center once in the last year. But suddenly the thought of something happening to the Kennedy center was really traumatic for them. Right. I would say the issue is not the theater. The issue is not the renovations. It's not anything else. It is that the Kennedy center is a memorial to a slain president that Congress designated and dedicated and Donald Trump has chosen to put his name on it as if Barack Obama or George W. Bush put their name on the Lincoln. That is the issue. And I just think it's important for people to really think about what the issue is. What is the thing you're actually mad about? Is Donald Trump building a ballroom or is he circumventing the rule of law? And I think they're separate issues and I think one of them is far more significant and far more profound than the constant, oh gosh, he's putting gold glitter on everything and making it look bedazzled. Well, yeah, that's a problem. That's a matter of taste and a matter of style. But, you know, eye on the prize, folks. I think people have a tendency to sort of get wrapped up in freaking out about every little thing, but you should really focus on what the actual problem is.
- [50:05]
B
But isn't the problem the money grab? Isn't that the bottom line? Oh, all of that, the money grab, the ballroom. I mean, yes, it'll be gaudy, of course. Yes. He destroys things that have class and makes them gold, gilded and gaudy. However, the $1 billion line item in the Secret Service or whatever budget is what I'm talking about. That's a money grab. Yeah, that's a money grab of taxpayer money.
- [50:31]
C
Why?
- [50:31]
B
I don't know. What's he gonna do with it? I don't know. But shouldn't that be what we're gonna focus on?
- [50:35]
D
Yeah, yeah. And I think we're in agreement on that point. To me, the issue is not the ballroom. It's all the things behind the ballroom. And I think we're agreeing about that. For you, it's the money. For me, it's the contracting and permitting process. Right. And just sort of there's a process for renovating the White House anyway.
- [50:50]
C
I think these all tie together. I think these are big, ugly, corrupt symbols of the attack on the rule of law. That the Trump Kennedy Center. He didn't get anyone's permission to slap his name on it to. He just did the Department of Defense. He didn't have any permission to rename it. He just called it the Department of War for his ego. All of the repainting the reflecting pool to a color that can only be described as urinal cake blue. No one actually asked for this. Nobody wanted this. Anyone who has had the pleasure to go running or walking in that area knows what gives it its aesthetic value, knows the thrill of seeing the Lincoln Memorial in the background that isn't obscured by a monument to Trump's ego. So it's all wound up in the same thing, but it's a symbol of something deeply uglier.
- [51:46]
D
Yeah. You know what's really funny, Adam? It's funny that you mentioned the Triumphal Arch and the Lincoln. And when I graduated from college with an art history degree and told people I was going to law school, people would say, what an odd combination of things. What do you think? One day a pract of the United States is going to slap a triumphal arch in violation of law and obscuring an entire skyline as a testament to the country's values? That's silly. You're never gonna have to confront that issue. And fuck y'.
- [52:15]
C
All.
- [52:15]
D
Here I am. This is my moment. But no, it's really interesting. Cause you talk about the Arc de Triomphe, you talk about all these things, and yes, these arches are often symbols of military might and military power and so on. But this is another example of where a government. But here it's a government of, quite frankly, one person is choosing to put their values. And that's how. And this is where the Art history comes in. This is how societies put their imprint on the world around them. Right. This is the Roman Colosseum. It's the biggest thing because conquest and war was a big part of the Roman Empire. And this is the ultimate symbol of Donald Trump and his ego, obscuring not just Lincoln, but a cemetery of our nation's fallen heroes. Many, you know, some of them who have never been identified. That is, I mean, quite frankly, this is probably the greatest art historical moment for us. Cause it's a reminder of the shame that we ought to feel as a nation when this is the kind of triumphal architecture that is going up in the specific place that it's going up. And quite frankly, without total legal process happening around it. You know, I know that they're doing surveying now, but is Congress involved? Are lawyers involved?
- [53:32]
A
Come on, come on.
- [53:33]
B
I mean, first of all, number one, what happened to the Roman Empire?
- [53:36]
D
Number one, didn't end well.
- [53:39]
B
Number two, if I can just go back to the reflecting pool because I have a swimming pool. So I know a few things about what a money pit it is, okay? And here's what they're doing to it. They are fixing some leaks. They are waterproofing the bottom. They're painting it blue.
- [53:56]
D
That's all.
- [53:57]
B
That's not $13 million. The pools are a money pit. But those three things do not cost $13 million. So again, follow the money. That's what I would say.
- [54:06]
A
All true, all true, all true. But I'm going to take a moderator's prerogative. They'll leave it up to you guys. It's a symbol, it's terribly corrupt, et cetera. But the ballroom is different. Every seventh grader who takes the buses and goes to see the serene White House, it will all of a sudden be blown out of all proportion as a. And it's clearly, yeah, it's un American. It's like why we actually left England. It feels Stalin esque. But all the other problems, it's the White House itself. Some part of me, Alison, you'll be able to remind me and kick me in the teeth if I'm wrong. Says man, when push comes to shy, he either will or won't leave town with this grotesque self monument behind him. And to me it's so physical, it's so completely disruptive. I think the push will be harder.
- [55:03]
D
Yeah. The funny thing about this era, and this is so what's enjoyable about our disagreements between the four of us on this, is that everybody's got the thing that sticks in their craw and it's a different thing. Right. There's so many things to stick in your craw about all of this. What I would say is it's just. It's. And living here As a D.C. resident, I'm just not offended by the scope of the ballroom in that just on the other side of the White House is the Executive Office Building, which really dwarfs the White House, let's be clear. And it's roughly the same distance away,
- [55:36]
A
and it does have Russian kind of candy cake architecture. True.
- [55:39]
D
Yeah. And I just. It's everything else. And don't get. But I just want. Before the viewers sort of flame me in the comments here, I don't like this any more than any of you do. And I want to make that 100% clear. I just think.
- [55:53]
B
Here's what I. Yeah, everybody's got a
- [55:54]
D
thing that they focus on. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah, sorry.
- [55:56]
B
I want to make clear that I just wrote down the date and time of when Harry said that so I can stuff it in his face, which
- [56:01]
A
I will be doing if indeed she can. I think you're being a tad. You're letting your New Yorker personality.
- [56:08]
B
Shell Jersey, baby.
- [56:10]
A
Man, what a shame. Cause I'd like to keep this tango going for hours. But we're out of time. We have only time for our final friendly feature of Five words or fewer. How many F's was that, Elliot? The question is the Melania director, Brent Ratner is traveling with Trump to China this week. What new film is Brett Ratner working on? Anybody? Five words or fewer?
- [56:38]
D
Mine came in at six, Harry. And remember, Brett Ratner is a director of the Rush Hour series. So mine is Rush Hour five. Straight spelled, S T, R, A T, Straight Outta oil.
- [56:54]
A
Very good. Very good.
- [56:56]
C
I'll say. He does a sequel, and it's Melania 2. The Epstein denials.
- [57:02]
A
I like that.
- [57:03]
D
Oh, I was expecting Melania 2 electric boogaloo, but no, I think the Epstein Denials is pretty good.
- [57:09]
A
Okay. Allison.
- [57:11]
B
I don't know. I mean, I was just gonna say, you know, the tweet is mightier than the sword, but he doesn't really tweet. He's truth Socialist.
- [57:19]
A
It's excellent. And may I just say again, in New York, you don't want to start by saying this is no good, but wear it. Wear it. New York. New Jersey.
- [57:28]
B
Proud Jersey, Proud. Jersey strong.
- [57:31]
A
But I'm going with Crouching Rubio. Hidden Vance. Thank you so much, Allison, Adam, and Elliot. 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 litman sub substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@Contrarian substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsum Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assist assistance by Akshaj Turbailu. This episode is dedicated to the enormous heart and fabulous soul of Diane Renaud, a great friend to both Alison and me. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Doledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.