Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everyone. Harry here. I wanted to share some late breaking and perhaps surprising Sunday night news. Donald Trump is now telling Republicans they should support a measure to force the Department of Justice to release documents about Jeffrey Epstein. For months, Trump had strenuously opposed the measure. Opposition you'll hear us discuss in this episode whether this change of tune comes from staring down certain defeat on the measure in the House or or he has something else up his sleeve. Always a distinct possibility. It's too soon to say, but stay tuned generally for our in depth conversation about Trump and the Epstein emails. Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together her prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. It's our periodic episode with colleagues drawn from the deep bench of the thriving pro democracy outlet the Contrarian. The longest government shutdown in history ended last week when eight Democratic senators joined the Republican majority in a vote to reopen for business. The move angered many of the eight senators, colleagues and supporters, since it left their side with little to show for the pains of the past weeks, and it likely dashed any chance of an extension to the Obamacare subsidies. It was no coincidence that just as the shutdown was ending, Capitol Hill was again jolted by revelations about Jeffrey Epstein and the administration's efforts to keep buried some 300,000 pages of documents involving his crimes and connections. House Democrats released three emails from the Epstein estate that strongly suggested Trump was more involved with Epstein than he has let on. Beyond Washington, a federal judge in South Carolina seemed disposed to grant motions brought by James Comey and Letitia James to dismiss indictments against them signed by Lindsey Halligan on the ground that Halligan's appointment was unlawful. To chronicle a post shutdown return to normal that is anything but normal, including the return with a vengeance of the Epstein scandals and and a doubling down on reprisal investigations and prosecutions against Trump's political opponents. We have another redoubtable trio of contrarian mainstays and they are Neera Tanden, the President and CEO of the center for American Progress. Nira's a veteran of several Democratic presidential campaigns and administrations. She served as the domestic part policy advisor to President Joe Biden and director of the Domestic Policy Council. I can tell you from my perch at doj, that's a really important job. And while she's not perhaps a formal founding contributor to the Contrarian, she's been having such great conversations with Jen. So I think we can extend her honorary membership for Today. Neera Tanden, thanks so much for joining.
- [03:37]
B
Thanks for having me.
- [03:39]
A
Jennifer Rubin. Jen is the editor in chief, co founder and lifeblood of the Contrarian. Before launching the Contrarian with Norm, she for many years wrote an opinion column at the Washington Post and graduated in the famous 1986 bolthol school of Law class. Jen, always great to see you here.
- [04:01]
C
It is a pleasure to be here. And yes, Harry was a superb student.
- [04:06]
A
Even back then, nobody asked, but somebody was ahead of me. And Norm Eisen, a retired ambassador and the founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which is really doing monumental work in the legal battles against Trump's continual overreaches. And of course, the publisher of the Contrarian. Norm, always an honor and a pleasure to welcome you to Talking Feds.
- [04:36]
D
Good to be here. And as great a student as Harry was, Jen was top of her class. That did not factor into the contrarian that we wanted.
- [04:47]
A
The top, the choice for editor in chief and the masthead.
- [04:50]
D
Okay.
- [04:52]
A
Man, oh man, so much going on. But I think we can start with the Epstein revelations. We had the three emails strategically released by House Democrats the very day that the resolution was voted on, followed on its heels, 20,000 from the oversight Committee Republicans. Let's just put it in general terms. What did we learn about Epstein and Trump and what revelations about the Epstein scandals stand out most to you?
- [05:25]
D
I'll take the first shot. We got further corroboration that Donald Trump is lying when he says he was not aware of the scandal from the words the email of none less than Jeffrey Epstein himself saying that Trump was aware. Trump even met with an unnamed victim for hours at Epstein's house. Number two, we got episode evidence of the corruption of the Trump regime when it comes to this scandal. Why has Ghislaine Maxwell gotten a sweetheart deal to go to a country club prison for her serious crimes, sex crimes against children? The idea that she told the truth. DOJ has said she's a liar. These emails directly contradict her. On point after point, she told Todd Blanche that Trump was never in the house. Lo and behold, there's an email that he was in the House that she never recruited a masseuse from Mar a Lago. There's evidence that that is not true. And number three, we know that the scandal extends beyond Trump, beyond the treatment of Maxwell. Why have has the Trump administration not turned over the Trump Epstein files? There's likely more. That's damning. And we've gone to court to get that material and I think we will get that additional material. This is not going away.
- [07:02]
C
One of the things I think this also raises is what did these people think was going to happen? They knew eventually this was going to come out, and yet this has become the scandal of all scandals. For his own MAGA folks, I think they became obsessed that somehow Bill Clinton was going to be implicated in this. So they seem to have been engaged in some magical thinking that this was never going to come to light. And when looked at in that light, it's almost inexplicable that they said Todd Blanche in to talk to Maxwell. First of all, there's now a real controversy over whether he had these emails and if so, why did he cross examine her with them and if he didn't, why didn't he? And, and now that she is on record lying to him, what, if anything, the Justice Department is going to do about it? You can't lie to the Justice Department and not have ramifications if you're an ordinary person.
- [08:00]
A
Maybe for her, the rules and an ordinary Justice Department.
- [08:03]
C
Very, very true. So I think that raises just a what were they thinking? Kind of scheme. And I think it also highlights how really shortsighted the Republicans in the House and the Senate have been clinging to this guy, defending him, trying to put this off. They look just as complicit. I would just add one item. I don't think we should call this the Epstein scandal. First of all, it minimizes the underlying horror of these crimes. And secondly, this is the Trump scandal. Jeffrey Epstein is dead. He can't be prosecuted anymore. But what about Donald Trump? Why isn't his name front and center?
- [08:44]
B
Yeah, I guess the thing I would add, I think all those points are really excellent ones. I think I would zero in on really two of the emails. And of course we don't have all the emails. This is why we need much more transparency. But I think there are two emails here that raise just a lot more questions. And it's exactly why we need transparency. One is of course, the Jeffrey Epstein email saying that he could take Trump down. Of course. How could he take Trump down? What could he take Trump down? Seems like maybe child sex trafficking could be part of that, but good to know. And then the second thing that I thought was really interesting was the email in which he was saying, essentially, you know, let's notice the dog that didn't bark. And when you read that email in some detail, it does seem to indicate that he's surprised that a person in the middle of all of this is not getting pointed to at all. And I Think this raises a lot of questions. I mean, he does seem to think that there is a kind of conspiracy to keep Trump out of the story. And, like, let's just think back. Like, Jeffrey Epstein is getting prosecuted a second time from the Department of Justice for his role in a sex trafficking operation in which he's very close. And then there's a third email saying he knew Trump knew about all of this. So I think that raises a ton of questions and fundamentally raises, I think, a question of whether there was a conspiracy within the Department of Justice to protect Trump or elsewhere, you know, in other locations, other law enforcement mechanisms. Of course, this reminds us that the first prosecutor, you know, with the sweetheart deal did end up, miraculously enough, in Trump's first Cabinet. Like, this guy was not known to be an effective cabinet signature or cabinet material, but kind of ends up in the Cabinet. Another coincidence is the president makes his personal attorney, the deputy attorney General, that is the person who's actually doing the Ghislaine Maxwell interview one on one. So if you were to imagine a president actually conspiring to, understand, undermine an investigation, you would think that step one would be putting their personal attorney in this. So, you know, just to emphasize the points that Norm and Jen have made, which is that if you landed from another planet and just looked at this case, it would seem pretty obvious that the President of the United States is himself obstructing justice and the way he has organized and maneuvered this investigation. And I think that is why they sat Lauren Boebert in the Situation Room to intimidate her and to get her to not do a discharge petition that her name was already on. It's extraordinary, the steps they are taking. And it just points to, I think, his obvious guilt.
- [12:13]
A
I want to lob in a couple prosecutorial observations, but that last point really does reinforce what Jen's saying, for whatever reason. And this has been something that royals the White House every time it comes up first to nearest point, that email, which is, you know, what, two sentences. The other half of it, in some ways is even more probative. You have Epstein saying that. And what does Elaine Maxwell, who said she never saw anything wrong, say in response? Not like, what, what dog that didn't bark? What it. What end what I've been thinking about that she is not at all caught by surprise by the very inference you're raising. And then I just want to reinforce Norm's point, as, you know, a former doj, or it is so offensive, such an act of malfeasance, that the Deputy Attorney General in the United States went down to do this interview. And even if Jen referred to the possibility that they're now saying, I didn't have the emails, maybe, and maybe, in fact, they studiously avoided giving him those emails, but it doesn't matter any. I mean, any boy. And this is as a former prosecutor, which Blanche was bona fide investigator, gets the emails, goes down, and in talking to a witness, that's the scaffolding of the whole lines of inquiry. And he didn't ask her about a single document. For any former prosecutor, I think that really is a neon sign that he wasn't looking to get the goods.
- [13:52]
B
Yeah, I mean, that's. You're describing a prosecutor who's trying to obtain justice, not a prosecutor who's trying to obstruct justice. I think the truth of this is, I mean, it just seems obvious to me that this entire Justice Department operation to have Kash Patel in with Lauren Boebert, basically trying to get her not to do a discharge petition related to, like, essentially a series of crimes. Obviously, this is a mass obstruction of justice effort. So to ensure the president is protected from, you know, obviously bad information that's going to come out that probably describes criminal activity directed at the hands of.
- [14:41]
A
The president and on behalf of the president personally, not Blanche's client. Norm, I think we cut you off. Yeah. Both the editor and the publisher of the Contrarian want to speak. I leave it to you to fight this out after.
- [14:56]
D
After Jen. After Jen.
- [14:58]
C
Okay, Ms. Editor, two observations. One, this underscores what was Todd Blanche even doing in there? What was the entire purpose of this? And if they thought that she had some other information, what. Which is hard to believe. This was a woman who lied continuously throughout this. Why was the deputy Attorney general in there rather than a line prosecutor to find out real information. So that underscores that. And then secondly, Pam Bondi has lied again and again and again. What is she still doing in the chair of Attorney General? She began by saying, oh, I have it all ready here on my desk, ready to go. Then she decided there are no files. Then she. She decided, well, there's nothing to implicate anyone else. Well, what about people who knew about the crime? She has lost if she had any credibility at any point, any responsibility, any integrity for this. And this is why we need a special counsel. The Justice Department is dirty. The president is at the center of an investigation. This is when you have special counsel.
- [16:15]
D
Pam Bondi was also Trump's lawyer. So he stalked. It's like the Joke turtles all the way down. It's apologists and enablers all the way down. For Trump, he's removed anybody. My nickname near was one of my clients. My nickname in the Obama White House was Mr. No. He's removed anybody who will say no to him. That's point one. Point two. It's a terrible Trump Epstein file scandal in its own right. The COVID up, including the Maxwell treatment. But it exemplifies the larger abuse of power. That's part of the reason it has such legs, because people are seeing the corrupt pardons of his cronies. They're seeing that the crypto conflicts, the billions that are flowing in from countries where we have the most complex interests. Trump and his family and his circle are profiting. So this corruption, they saw the illegal tear down Neera. When we were in the Obama White House, we couldn't change a doorknob without the National Planning Committee approving. It's totally unlawful. This is as bad as it gets and it is not going away. That's the last point. We're litigating with support from our wonderful contrarians who make our coverage possible with their paid subscriptions. But also the litigation. We're litigating and the courts are not gonna let them get away with it. There's no open criminal investigation. They've said, Harry, they tried to get the Maxwell grand jury materials cause they thought it would also be favorable. They said this information must be released in the public interest. They wrote my brief for me. So we are going to get the files and they are going to be damning.
- [18:10]
B
I totally take Jen's point on Pam Bondi and what is she doing in her job and. But I guess my point here is, you know, she's in her job because she's protecting the President. Let's just like at a high level go back to where this all started. They said they were going to release the files. When you look at Trump's actual language, this came from MAGA to release the files. You know, he's not that committed to releasing the files. But it be Pam Bondi for maga says she's going to release the files. The files are on her desk. Then they discover it leaks later that Trump is in the files. That's when they decide not to release the files. MAGA goes after Pam Bondi because Pam Bondi said she was going to release the files. Everyone's looking for. Well, like let's just hand over a head to the MAGA base. Trump intervenes and says she's doing a great Job. He pushes back on maga. Now, why is he doing that? He's doing that because Pam Bondi is the thing between the files going public and not going public. So he's protecting Pam Bundy. And I guess my take on this.
- [19:23]
A
She'S his Roy Cohn, right?
- [19:25]
B
She's his Roy Cohn. And it's like, what I think is just amazing about this entire experience is when this scandal started, people were like, why are they not releasing the files? And I will say, I went on this week and said, maybe they're not releasing the files because he's in the files. And the truth of all this turned out later. He's in the files. The only thing that makes sense for all the behavior we have seen exhibited, the only rational explanation is the most obvious one. Now, I do not know what's in these files. I do. We all do know he was very close to a child sex trafficker. He sent him like a weird and perverse birthday note. And the last thing I'll say on this is we're going to have a House Republican vote. And what the White House is counting on is that this ends in the House of Representatives. And for anyone who cares about justice for sex traffickers, we have to ensure every Republican starting with John Thune in the Senate is asked, when are they voting on release of the Epstein files? Because we cannot just let the normal Senate doing nothing about an important topic happen. Every single person, including those that are up, Susan Collins, John Husteden in Ohio, they need to be accountable for when this vote is on the floor in.
- [20:50]
A
The Senate, I want to move to that which is the sort of next stage. First, I just want to make a factual clarification. You guys know, but for listeners, when we talk about the files, there are three different sources that it's important to keep in mind. Everything that's been released so far was gotten by subpoena of the epstein estate. The three that the Dems released, the 20,000 and more. Then what Norm was referring to is just the. It seemed to me as a former prosecutor, the not very informative materials that Jim Comey's daughter used to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell and that the White House really was using as a diversion tactic. And then finally, the mother lode is the 100,000 documents, 300,000 pages in the Department of Justice now. And that's what the fight's going to be over. And that's what the discharge petition, which is now set, it's done. It doesn't matter if Mikey Sherrill or others go away. That's now been passed. So let me just ask, do you see it making it to Trump's desk or not? What's the fate of the discharge petition?
- [22:00]
D
Once members of the House are required to vote, estimates are that as many as 100 members of Trump's own party will break with him. The vote will pass for the release of the files, I should say by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, as it should. What planet are we living on now? Yes, that's.
- [22:23]
B
That's the House vote. So we have to just make sure there's a Senate vote.
- [22:27]
D
I don't think it's going to make it from the Senate to Trump's desk because they are shamefully complicit. But there's other pressure points, and Neera talked about them. It should be a scandal that every senator is not voting for the release of those documents. And, you know, we do have the outside litigation and other vehicles to force this information out.
- [22:51]
C
I also think that this is a time for Democrats in the Senate, who have not all been on the side of the angels this week, to get serious and to hold the Senate floor and talk about this for a day or two at least. Let's have 24, 36 hours of discussion about the Jeffrey Epstein files. They can start by reading into the record every one of those 20,000 documents that they have. So let's turn up the heat on these people. Let's turn up the heat on the people, specifically who are on the ballot in 2026, and see how we can rattle their cages. Frankly, if a senator thinks that this is going to cost him or her reelection, this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where they have to decide, are they going to impale themselves on this, of all issues, a sex trafficking scandal for Donald Trump? Or do they decide, no, this is a bridge too far. We're going to save ourselves.
- [23:53]
B
I just want to walk through the next few weeks on this to build on Jen's point. And I just. I think this is a really crucial thing. We cannot let our general sense of how pathetic the Republican Party has been be an escape hatch for inaction. Okay? They totally rely on just presuming they're not going to do the right thing. Let's say there's a vote next week in which 75 House Republicans could be as much as 100, maybe as low as 50. But 75 House Republicans vote to release the Epstein files. Then I hope there's like, 4,000 reporters asking, when is the Senate going to actually take the Next step to give justice to these victims. And Jen is absolutely right. Democrats should take to the Senate floor and they should not just like, talk about this in general. But Senator Cassidy from Louisiana, you are up this year. Is it your position that these files should be released? If it is your position that they should be released. What have you done with John Thune to ensure that he's actually putting this on the floor? We have to create a campaign around this issue. That is what Republicans would do to Democrats. And for those of us who are sick of having the asymmetry, we really need to demand from Democrats and from the national media to actually hold Republicans accountable. And, and John Thune just saying, oh, we're not going to do it is not good enough. He has to explain why and he has to face those victims who are demanding justice and remember what we're talking about.
- [25:46]
A
They're just doing it to shield him and not have him have to exercise a veto and take the political heat. It is the kind of situation, it seems to me, where if it tilts and pivots, you could see, you know, a cascading effect. Okay, man, so much more to talk about this. But I think, as everyone has said, this ain't going away. But let's for today pivot to a little bit more focus on the shutdown deal and its fallout. I wanted, if I could, to come back to you on Anira because you've been very strong about the real life stakes of the shutdown fight. It's now over, but not without scars for sure. What does the deal that's been made mean? And especially what is the lack of healthcare subsidies that the Dems were fighting so strongly for before throwing in the towel? What's it mean for Americans as you see it?
- [26:47]
B
You know, there's a great Vox story today on people who are choosing to give up healthcare because these subsidies are expiring. And just to say there are millions upon millions of people who have health insurance today because a prior Congress made the tax credits more affordable for people to get health care that has been taken away essentially by Republican inaction. I thought it was an important fight and continues to be an important fight for Democrats to make the case around expanding the premium tax credits. I do not think Republicans have a plan to fix this. And you know, a lot of people are going to experience a lot of pain on a central affordability issue because of Republican inaction. There's a lot of back and forth, obviously, about the senators who decided to engage with, you know, Republicans and vote for the criminal. I do think that we should all recognize that this was a crucial fight to have. It is important to fight for the right things no matter what happens. In the end, it's important to fight rather than do nothing. Americans do see Democrats are really championing a healthcare fight. And you know, I don't think any of us could expect this at the beginning, but the intense cruelty of Trump to essentially try to stay, steal or stop food payments to the most vulnerable while he builds a gold ballroom for himself by smashing the existing East Wing, I think that actually did play a central role in the elections and should be something we talk about every day for the next year through the next midterms. Because Donald Trump is a charlatan for working class people. He is hurting them and helping his rich friends. And this was a great demonstration of that. And so I think it's important for all of us to recognize that even if it wasn't resolved the way we'd like, it was still an important fight to have.
- [28:57]
A
It's time now for our sidebar feature where we explain an important topic in the news touching on the federal law. Today's sidebar topic is the Privacy act, the federal statute that regulates how agencies collect, maintain and use citizens personal information. To explain the statute, I'm really pleased to welcome Marilyn Fu. Fu is a screenwriter whose work explores identity and culture. She's the writer of the film Rosemead starring Lucy Liu and based on a Los Angeles Times article by Frank Hion, which earned her a Golden Horse Award nomination for for Best Adapted Screenplay. Her past credits include the Honor List and the Sisterhood of Night. I give you Marilyn Fu on the.
- [29:51]
E
Privacy act the Privacy act of 1974 was created as essentially an American Bill of Rights on data. But what protection does it really offer civilians? The concept of a right to privacy developed in the 20th century. Methods of collecting personally identifiable information expanded greatly in this period, from photography and film to audio recording devices. At the same time, the US Government greatly expanded its administrative data collection on individuals, particularly with the advent of the Social Security number in 1936 as the de facto means of national identification. The 1950s and 60s saw additional public focus on the need for privacy in response to McCarthy's wiretap hearings, Orwell's publication of 1984, and the Watergate scandal. After studying the issue for several years, Congress put together the bill for the 1974 Privacy Act. The act expanded the concept of privacy from property based to include information of personal identity, especially that contained in government records. First, the act protects individuals from invasion of privacy through the unwarranted collection, use, or disclosure of personal information. Any disclosures of information are regulated and limited. However, information may be provided in particular circumstances, including law enforcement investigations, congressional investigations, archival projects, data compiled by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Second, the act allows individuals to request their own personal information from the government. This, in turn, allows an individual to know what information the government has collected on them. Finally, individuals can request corrections regarding their personal data in federal records. This helps prevent lingering mistakes in the federal administrative record. In general, the act has provided Americans with protections against wanton abuse of personal information by the federal government. It has been expanded upon with additional federal privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act of 1996, the Children's Online Privacy Protection act of 1998, in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions act of 2003. While the act provided a framework for the right to privacy in federal law, it has come under scrutiny for its lack of responsiveness to evolving technologies. For example, government surveillance of civilian phone records expanded with the Patriot act, backdoor searches of private digital communications without a Warrant under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And the second Trump administration has made significant moves to surveil social media accounts of Americans and immigrants. For Talking Feds, I'm Marilyn Fu.
- [32:37]
A
Thank you very much. Marilyn Fu. Fu's film Rosemead comes to theaters next month. 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.
- [33:08]
F
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we unbottle the truth about wine. Is there really a right or a wrong way to enjoy it? Wine drinkers near and far have lived by a certain set of written yet unofficial rules to follow, particularly when it comes to pairing wine and food. You've heard a couple of them before. White wine pairs with seafood. Red wine pairs with big old juicy steaks. And while we like to think of these more as guidelines than rules, some suggestions actually do serve a higher purpose to help your wine get the most from your dish, and vice versa. One pairing that's not quite as obvious involves tannins. Tannins are the dryness that you taste and feel in wine. They come from grape seeds, skin or oak barrels. Traditionally, high tannin wines and spicy foods don't pair well together. The dry components of the wine become more pronounced with spice, which makes the food itself taste even hotter than it actually is. From drinking red wine with fish to white wine with beef, we say you do you. But there is one no no that we wholeheartedly live by. Always. Yes, always hold your glass by the stem and not the bulb. And there are a few reasons why putting your warm hands on the bulb transfers unnecessary heat to the wine. As wine warms up, it will become off balance and you will taste the alcohol more and more. Not to mention you can easily avoid smudges to your beautiful glassware. To truly enjoy wine, you can never go wrong pairing the wonderful selection and helpful guides at Total Wine and more. Cheers.
- [34:36]
A
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's A Spirited Debate A little bit of, you might say, political jiu jitsu, but from a very esteemed source. So Ezra Klein, who, you know, when he talks, people largely listen. His take on the shutdown deal is pretty similar to Nera's. His view is that the Democrats were probably never going to be able to save the subsidies and their failure to do so is actually a good thing. And since the rising health care costs give them a political cudgel to use against the R's over the next year. So we live in the greatest of all possible worlds. Do you agree? And you know, was the cave sort of a win in disguise?
- [35:24]
C
It is never, never a good idea in politics to lose. Period. So it's no blessing in disguise. I do want to say that Neera is absolutely right. The polls even now show that Republicans were blamed for the shutdown. People understood it was the Republicans fault. People understood out there in the country, poll after poll after poll, and even now after the shutdown is over, that they hold the responsibility for this shutdown. They also hold the responsibility for health care. And the increase in both of those attributing blame for the shutdown and making Republicans responsible for rising health care rose throughout the shutdown. So they have made their point. Now I will say one thing. I spoke this week to the great Larry Levitt, who of course heads the Kaiser Family foundation, and Nero will appreciate this. It felt like we were back having the original fight over Obamacare because this is in essence the effort to repeal Obamacare. We're back to talking about millions of people no longer being insured. We're back talking about bankruptcies because people won't have insurance. We're back talking about cost shifting. We're back talking about the collapse of rural hospitals. We have had this argument ever since this began. And that's because the Republicans are inexorably opposed to giving people health care. And that's the bottom line on all of this. They want to destroy it. They've never stopped trying to destroy it. And that's what this is about. And the very issues which have won the fight, first originally and then in 2017, when they failed to repeal it, I think are going to carry the day. And it may take the 2026 election in order to pull that off. Americans do not think they should be thrown to the wolves and have to scramble up enough money to find health insurance. They know it's a bad idea to have people running to emergency rooms. They know it's a bad idea that. That billionaires are getting tax breaks, and therefore their health insurance is going to cost more. This is the fundamental mistake that Republicans make over and over again. They have a incredibly unpopular, untenable political position. And no matter how they dress it up, no matter how what incarnation, this comes, a shutdown, the extension of a subsidy, it comes back to this. They are on the wrong side of the issue. And Democrats just have to make this clear over and over and over again.
- [38:23]
D
The only other thing that needs to be said is that the consequences of backing out when you're winning the shameful eight people in the Senate are not only profound. For the shutdown battle, not only made a mockery of the federal workers who I represented got an injunction to stop some of the firings, the people on SNAP and others who were sacrificing for the sake of fighting for all of our health care. But it has democracy implications. It was the blank in the larger battle against authoritarianism. And they all have their different excuses and their rationalizations. But. And it pains me, I know some of them, their friends, it pains me to say that those eight, they're, you know, we're done with them.
- [39:20]
A
I'll just say I so agree.
- [39:22]
B
Can I just jump in rudely on this? Like, maybe, maybe there's some providence out there because, like, the story, all of these stories that Epstein hit right with the shutdown. And I mean, Donald Trump's, like, press conference where he wanted to talk about how great the shutdown, and he was like, actually couldn't answer questions. They had to shoo everyone out. So I really don't think that Donald Trump emerges from this actually believing he's in any way stronger. He's definitely weaker. He does stupid things like being unnecessarily cruel. And that, that I think is a great consequence of all of this. But, you know, I think this was a genuine mistake. Everyone knows I think it's a mistake. And we talked about it was a mistake. I just don't want Democrats to emerge from this with the lesson that it's better not to have fought at all than to fight and lose. And I definitely think losing is bad. But a lot of people could say in the future, well, if we don't have an answer on how we're going to win, then we shouldn't start the fight. And that would be the really worst lesson to take from this.
- [40:33]
A
Look, fair enough. And we're in a really odd, it seems to me, political situation where both parties and both sides can sort of lose. And for Trump himself, recall that Republicans were skittish because they thought he would jump in and pull a trick and take credit. He did nothing. And also to your point, Nir, I don't pretend to try to psychoanalyze Trump, but what the hell, fighting so hard to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to keep those snap threats funds from going to 42 million Americans who need it. I don't see the sense for no.
- [41:06]
B
Reason, just me to be mean.
- [41:08]
C
Yeah, he's a monster.
- [41:09]
A
Wanton cruelty, it seems.
- [41:10]
C
He's a monster.
- [41:11]
A
Speaking of which, because the monstrousness nowhere hits home to me, the host of this damn podcast then in the reprisal prosecutions. And I really wanted to leave some room to talk about what's going on just this week with James and and Comey. We had hearings this week where it certainly looked like the judge who's been appointed to oversee this issue was pretty disposed to the position of both Comey and James that Lindsey Haugen was just, you know, it could have been Mickey Mouse signing that indictment. She was just.
- [41:48]
D
Don't insult Mickey Mouse that way.
- [41:51]
A
Okay, Daffy Duck. Sorry. What do you guys think? And in particular, let's say it crashes and burns in this way. Does Trump care? Do the RS care? Does it have any implications for these new reprisal prosecutions of Swalwell and Brennan and Clapper and everything they're going forward on? Or is the whole point for Trump and therefore Bondi, just the pain and infamy of the investigation itself?
- [42:23]
D
Well, Harry, we, myself and brilliant Abby Lowell and our colleagues developed this theory in our litigation that did result in an order of disqualification against the Original TRUMP Illegitimate U.S. attorney Lena Haba. And that theory has been applied to other improperly appointed Trump cronies and U.S. attorneys offices all over the country. Most consequentially, the Lindsey Halligan appointment, which was made in order to exact revenge because career prosecutors rejected these ludicrously inadequate cases. I do think that the Halligan appointment is invalid. It's particularly devastating if there's a dismissal with prejudice, as there should be for Comey anyway. Right. James isn't looking for because the statute of limitations has run. And part of that unseemly rush to install Halligan was to get out in front of the statute of limitations. This is potentially fatal to the Comey case, as it should be. You know, the whole thing reeks to high heaven. And there's by my count, over a dozen of these unfounded, baseless prosecutions going on all over the country. In their own way, there is much of an epidemic of lawlessness as the National Guard and ICE assaults on an innocent population in city after city across the land. Finally, I'll say to the last part of your question, the inflicting the pain is the point. Ed Martin, who's been installed the doj, has said so that even if he can't get relief, he wants to shame them. Of course, that's actionable as an ethics matter and it's reprehensible as a rule of law and democracy matter to charge people to punish them when you know you can't get a conviction. That's actually the fundamental canon that guides prosecutors. You should never bring a case you know this ever, ever, unless you believe it can result in a guilty verdict in front of a jury.
- [44:37]
C
I actually think a loss on perhaps the case he cared most about because he's hated Comey for longer than he's hated the rest of them. So quickly on such an obvious point, is harmful not only for him, but for the entire doj. They are revealed to have been simply lackeys and unprecedented principled and thugs. And for them to be embarrassed, and they will be embarrassed by pursuing a case like this, to be thrown out on the Comey case, and frankly on the James case, they may well allow that to be re indicted and that will be a fight. But on Comey, to lose that, lose it in this way, having put in someone who is revealed to have been a stooge, put in for exactly this purpose, and I think will harm them, will harm their credibility. And we already have something going on in the federal courts and it gets overlooked because the Supreme Court, at least six of them, are so in the tank for Donald Trump, and that is the federal bench is onto these people. The federal bench no longer believes that. And this is sad, Harry, I know for people like yourself and that when a Justice Department lawyer shows up in their courtroom. Their assumption is something must be awry as opposed to the presumption of regularity, the presumption of good faith. This is one of a long list. And when you look, Norm mentioned Chicago, every single one of those cases before a federal court judge at or below the level of the Appellate 7th Circuit went against the government. Whether it was Bavino violating the tro, whether it was Broadview, whether it was the deployment of the National Guard. Over and over again, the federal courts, Trump appointees, Republican appointees, Democratic employees have had it with these people. And I think this is one more kind of nail in their coffin. And not all these cases reach the Supreme Court as Norm is, is often ready to say, this is not good for people who are trying to slip and slide and maneuver and weaponize the department. It's going to come back to haunt them, not only in the other vindictive prosecutions, but in a whole slew of other cases. And it might even turn up the heat just a little bit on these corrupt six justices who are doing his dirty work as they see the entire federal bench in an uproar over this president.
- [47:23]
A
You know, it might even get worse. So I just want. This is a little fine grained, but I think it's important. So in this week, in the hearing involving Halligan, Judge Curry had said, I want to see the grand jury proceedings so I can evaluate. First they didn't do it, but then they gave a partial response that's legally suspect, but nevertheless, similarly, in the selective prosecution stuff, you may well have the judge there, Judge Nachmanasse. I want some discovery of just what you're talking about, Norm. The social media and other other discussion that resulted in hall again having to go in there as an amateur and come out with the heads of James and Comey on the plate. Let me serve up one thing for Neera. It's my impression anyway. I mean, you can see, I guess, my dander up so much. As a former DOJ guy, a former prosecutor, it's my impression you're maybe closer to the ground that relatives say to some of the immigration abuses. It's just not really getting much purchase with the American people, as outrageous as this seems. Am I accurate, you think, on the facts and if so, why?
- [48:37]
B
Yeah, I mean, I guess I'd say that on all of these issues, you know, we're competing with a news environment filled with some, you know, I guess, atrocities. So a thing that would take a normal administration sort of down since there's a rich competition for sleaziness Self dealing corruption probably doesn't. But you know, look, I, I actually think that we tend to think about these things in terms of polls where people what's the most attention to things? And I actually think we should just think about this in right and wrong. And I do think people kind of think the administration is pretty corrupt and they do think justice is being weaponized by the Trump administration. And maybe they care about the price of beef more than like what's happening to James Comey. But I don't think what's happening to James Comey is irrelevant to how people see the corruption and self dealing. Trump's numbers on just dealing with the federal government are at historic lows. And I think his kind of corruption and abuse of power is part of the reason he's now at like in the low 30s on how he's running the government. Because when people think he's running the government, their services are bad. But I think they also think of it as a semi corrupt enterprise where he's just using it for his own interests. And so I do think that's part of an important narrative for all of us to emphasize. And we shouldn't, you know, in any fight with Trump, I don't think we should look at the polls. We should say what's right and what's wrong and then fight what's wrong.
- [50:13]
D
And Harry, your question about is it taking hold? I mean, each one, when the thing happens, it pops up, there's coverage and it drops. It's not covered as a phenomenon like the National Guard and ICE thing. The dots are not connected. That's our job to do. To Neera's point, though, don't only look at Trump and his cronies and his administration and their role in it. I like your question because you look at the democracy movement, as we call it, on the contrary, and all of us who are on this screen and at the American people and that coalition has been strong. It has outperformed across all of the metrics that you look at, the political scientists look at to see whether a democracy u turn as possible. That was what was so crushing about those in the Senate who flinched on the shutdown fight. They betrayed not only that policy issue, but the larger battle. So, you know, to me, that was a very educational moment. And I don't know where all this is going to land, but I'm very grateful, of course, to you for asking the question and doing your part to lift it up, because we, we must connect this thoughts. This is true totalitarian behavior. The National Guard and ice and the prosecutions. That's what various said to Stalin, you show me the man, I'll show you the crime. Now it's Eric Swalwell. I mean, give me a break. It's almost comical.
- [51:41]
A
But he's not laughing, though. I'm impressed with his song. Flawed about it all. Much, much, much, much, much more to come. And the contrarian will be there, as will we. For now, we're just about out of time. We got one minute for our final beloved feature, five Words or Fewer. You know, there was a smaller scandal this week. I'm actually going to be writing about this. It is vicious, but over a provision tucked into the shutdown deal that would let certain senators sue the government for half a million dollars of taxpayer money for having their phone records accessed in the Jack Smith investigation. So the question for five words or fewer is what other little secret provisions were smuggled into the deal at the last minute? And you can let your imagination fly here. We won't be checking against the Federal Register. Jan Five words or fewer, please.
- [52:38]
C
A ballroom for each Senator.
- [52:46]
D
Trump's corrupting. Why can't I?
- [52:52]
B
Handing cash to the rest of the Senate GOP caucus. Okay, I totally floundered in a Kava bag, right? Oh, it should be 50,000 for each.
- [53:05]
A
Where's the 50?
- [53:06]
D
Right?
- [53:07]
A
Right.
- [53:07]
D
Where's my Kava county cash back?
- [53:10]
A
Oh, that's really good.
- [53:12]
C
All right.
- [53:12]
A
Anyway, I'm going with California, formally annexed to Wyoming. Thank you so much, Norm, Jen and Neera. 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, Apple Podcasts, or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Check us out as well on substack@harrylittman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture, committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Ones rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds Will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsa Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers. Production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our editorial interns are Bridget Ryan and Troy Neville. Thanks very much to Marilyn Fu for explaining the Privacy Act. 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. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info.
- [55:58]
D
In more places that could expose you.
- [55:59]
A
More to identity theft.
- [56:00]
D
But Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second.
- [56:03]
A
If your identity is stolen, our US.
- [56:05]
D
Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back.
- [56:09]
A
Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock.
- [56:16]
D
Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply Kay Jeweler's.
- [56:23]
E
Early Black Friday sale is happening now. Get up to 50% off Black Friday deals and up to 40% off everything else. Don't miss this sale. Start your season with savings. Only A K exclusions apply ck.comexclusions for details.