Loading summary
Transcript97 lines
- [00:00]
Harry Littman
Mint is still $15 a month for.
- [00:02]
Premium wireless and if you haven't made.
- [00:04]
The switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month 2. Seriously, it's $15 a month 3.
- [00:13]
No big contracts 4.
- [00:15]
I use it. 5.
- [00:16]
My mom uses it. Are you.
- [00:17]
Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.
- [00:23]
Announcer/Commercial Voice
Payment of $45 per 3 month plan $15 per month equivalent required New customer offer first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.
- [00:32]
Jason Kander
About sharing their New York.
- [00:33]
Harry Littman
Times accounts My name is Dana.
- [00:35]
Jason Kander
I am a subscriber to the New.
- [00:37]
Harry Littman
York Times, but my husband isn't and.
- [00:39]
Jason Kander
It would be really nice to be.
- [00:40]
Harry Littman
Able to share a recipe or an.
- [00:42]
Announcer/Commercial Voice
Article or compete with him in wordle or connections.
- [00:47]
Jason Kander
Thank you Dana. We heard you introducing the New York Times Family Subscription one subscription up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out more@nytimes.com family are you feeling.
- [01:01]
Announcer/Commercial Voice
Stuck in your career or lacking employment at the moment? Experiencing symptoms of job dissatisfaction? You might be suffering from a common condition known as career stagnation, but don't worry, there's a solution. Monster.com Monster.com offers a comprehensive suite of career boosting tools designed just for you. Our free resume review and AI interview prep tool will help you stand out from the crowd. Need more guidance? Dive into our career advice articles for expert tips and insights. And don't forget to check out our salary tools to ensure your getting paid what you're worth. Side effects may include a new job, increased confidence and a brighter future. Consult monster.com today and take the first step towards your new career. Ready for your next job opportunity? Visit monster.com now.
- [01:45]
Harry Littman
Hey everyone, Harry here. Before we dive into today's episode, I have some exciting news to share about an upcoming event in our Talking San Diego series. On Tuesday, April 22, we will be welcoming the co creator and leader of the Lincoln Project, Rick Wilson, a former Republican consultant. Rick early saw the dangers of Donald Trump and for the last nine years has worked indefatigably to bring home those dangers to the American people, including with a withering and hilarious series of political commercials that cut Trump down to tiny size. No one analyzes the problem of Trump's popularity in a more clear eyed, sophisticated way, and no one thinks harder and more cleverly about effective political opposition. Expect a conversation of total candor, insight, mordant humor and real hope that our current dark days can and will pass if we play it smart. For tickets and more information on this and all talking San Diego events, including our just added conversation with Cory Booker next month, visit talkingsandiego.net 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. Hi, I'm Harry Littman. The week had the feel of a top spinning ever more wildly off its axis. Donald Trump's erratic, ill conceived terrorist scheme sent the market into a tailspin, while his continued reversals and re reversals raised the specter, now alarmingly real, of a Trump triggered recession, all brought on by his crazy lonesome. Elsewhere, Trump's week was a showcase of his unrelenting drives to amass and abuse power, often unconstitutionally, always vindictively. His administration continued to insist that nothing could or should be done to retrieve a man they mistakenly ripped from his family and delivered to a torture hell pit in El Salvador, presumably for life. He initiated criminal investigations into two former officials whose sole offense was refusing to parrot his twisted version of events, including, as he put it, falsely and baselessly denying that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. And he extended his grip over multiple law firms targeted for prior representations he found displeasing, dictating whom they can represent, what causes they must support with pro bono work, and how they must structure their hiring to work through a week that began with a Trump engineered economic nosedive and ended with a unanimous Supreme Court order compelling the administration to try to bring back the man they mistakenly consigned to a foreign gulag. We welcome back to Talking Feds, three of the strongest and clearest voices in the country right now. And they are Jason Kander, the President.
- [05:22]
Of National Expansion at Veterans Community Project after serving in the army and thank you for your service, Jason. In Afghanistan, he was elected to the Missouri State Legislature and later became Missouri Secretary of State in 2012. Jason hosts the podcast Majority 54 and we covered his book.
- [05:42]
Really great book.
- [05:43]
Invisible Storm, A Soldier's Memoir of Politics and PTSD and a Talking books episode.
- [05:50]
Great to see you back.
- [05:51]
Charlie Sykes
Good to be here.
- [05:52]
Harry Littman
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren has served in the house since 1995 and really before that, and staff in different positions. One of the people who know the House better than anyone in the country, she represents California's 18th district. She's currently the ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and serves on the Judiciary Committee. And as everyone knows, she served on the January 6th committee and played a prominent role in the committee's public hearings. Congresswoman, thank you for joining.
- [06:22]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Thanks for having me.
- [06:23]
Harry Littman
And Charlie Sykes, a founder and former editor at large of the Bulwark, an MSNBC contributor, the author of nine books, most recently how the Right Lost Its Mind and a substack newsletter called to the Contrary. And there's a lot of them out there. And I highly recommend Charlie's. It really cuts through a lot of the noise and has very trenchant observations. Charlie, thanks for being here.
- [06:47]
Jason Kander
Thank you. Thank you. It's always great.
- [06:49]
Harry Littman
So we had something of a national seminar on due process and government tyranny this week with the case of clarma Abrego Garcia, a lawful U.S. resident with no criminal record who was deported to a hellhole prison in El Salvador notwithstanding, having a court order explicitly forbidden his removal there. A lot to unpack and think about going forward, which I want to do. But let me just start with the headline, which is every judge, the district court, three court of appeals judges, and all nine justices of the U.S. supreme Court agreed that the administration action was lawless and that they had to remedy it or be ordered at least to take best efforts to facilitate its remedy. Were you guys surprised? And how important do you take the kind of unanimous statement from the courts, including the Supreme Court, to be?
- [07:44]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Well, I'll start. I think it was important that the decision was unanimous. The Trump administration is counting on their rhetoric about violent criminals, and believe me, who's for violent crime? Nobody on any side of the aisle that if somehow there's an allegation of misconduct of that nature, they can, without any evidence, it's okay to do whatever they want. If that is the case, no one is safe. If there's no due process, you can be walking down the street and masked men with guns can come and put you on a plane and fly you away, no matter who you are, no matter what your status. So due process is essential so that the rule of law can prevail. But unfortunately, the Trump administration has shown in these first few months a lack of passion for the rule of law or even interest.
- [08:39]
Harry Littman
Right. Not simply that they were callous, but their position literally was, you know, oops, he's gone now. Sorry about that. There's nothing we need to do. Do you think the administration actually overplayed its hand here?
- [08:52]
Jason Kander
Well, I mean, this is still playing out. I mean, we may have more information by the time people actually listen to this. Because the headlines Friday afternoon are that the administration is basically defying the District court's order to turn him over. So, I mean, this is a binary outcome. Either he comes back or he doesn't. Right. If he comes back, then we're going to look at this as a victory for the constitutional order, a real defeat for the Trump administration. On the other hand, we can get into the difference between the actual word that they use to facilitate and or evacuate. If the administration actually uses that to delay, to fudge, to obfuscate and not bring him back, then we have a real constitutional crisis. We'll see what the reaction is. But I agree with the congresswoman that nine nothing. It was a powerful message, and perhaps they crafted it in that way to get those nine votes. But this court is rarely unanimous on something this substantive. It would have been a win had it been 5, 4. But 90 has historical resonance here. And I think, just, again, we need to put it in context how awful this is. This guy is snatched off the streets, the judge said, based on a singular unsubstantiated allegation, and then he was thrown into this detention facility that by design deprives its detainees of adequate food, water and shelter, fosters routine violence, and places him around his own persecutors. And the appeals court, when it upheld this order, said that the government's argument, Trump's argument that there's really nothing they could do about it, they called it unconscionable. I mean, that's why this issue is so powerful. If it had gone the other way, it would have been such a disaster. One of my disappointments is I wish the court had used language like that. I wish the Supreme Court had said this is unconscionable. But I wait and see what the outcome is. Binary. Either comes back or he doesn't.
- [10:46]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I think that that's exactly right. The question is whether or not they choose to continue to defy this, because absolutely, the 90 ruling was like a half breath of relief. Like, oh, okay, there are going to be instances where this court, or at least the. I don't even say conservative members anymore, the Republican members of the court, there are going to be where they stand up and say, no, you can't do that. That's a big relief. But the real relief we're waiting on is does the Trump administration decide to abide by it or do the old you and what army routine? My guess is that ultimately they're going to abide by it, because the political capital that you stand to gain by defying on something that's already a political loser is Just not there. I mean, we're talking about a case where you've got Joe Rogan, you know, waxing philosophically on his podcast about how awful it is that they did this to this guy. I mean, I just don't see what there is to win for them to defy this. But if they don't defy it, they definitely lay down a marker that says, I can't believe I have to say this. They lay down a marker that says, we will abide by rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
- [11:54]
Harry Littman
Well, that's exactly right. Right. And I mean, it is a tight spot. And I do think, well, maybe follow up on the point you made in Joe Rogan. You know, when this whole thing started, they were happy for the fight. They were happy to say at each turn, the Democrats want to keep immigrant murderers here, blah, blah, blah. It feels as if the country's focus has kind of hit home a little to just how horrifying, nightmarish, kind of Kafkas this thing is. But, you know, maybe I'm being overly optimistic there, but what's your take on the sort of political posture of their intransigence now? Has a critical mass in the country recognize this as a horror that you don't want your government to just ignore?
- [12:38]
Charlie Sykes
I don't think so. Not a critical mass of the country. That would be great. I would love it if that happened, and I would love to live in the world where I could believe that that's happening. I think the much more likely scenario is that people who, whether they gave voice to it or not, who supported Trump because they wanted a hard line on immigration, probably turn away from news like this. Now, that said, they probably can't turn away from it forever. And there are, sadly, lots of these cases. And the. The analogy, though, I don't think it's directly analogous because it's not playing out in that way. But the analogy you would hope over time is that it would be maybe a little bit like the civil rights movement and that people turned away from that until they saw the footage of fire hoses, until they saw the dogs and people are filming these masked folks who are grabbing people on the street. And I do hope that there is a critical mass point, but I do not think we are near it.
- [13:33]
Harry Littman
Congresswoman, I saw you nodding. You're also skeptical that it's hit home and it's due process side to people.
- [13:39]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Yeah, I think the word due process is something that isn't in the ordinary lexicon of regular Americans. And I will say The House Republicans in the Judiciary Committee continue to rant and rave about criminal aliens, as if there's somebody in Congress who's in favor of that. So they think this is still working for them. And maybe it is. I do think, however, that as social media makes clear what is happening here, that people, including Mr. Rogan, who I don't listen to, but people who have the ear of Trump supporters, may wake some people up. Because if there's no need to provide any evidence or go to court or do anything else, anybody in America, I mean, anybody, you, me, anybody, could be put in handcuffs in Spirited Away.
- [14:34]
Harry Littman
And that's the point Sotomayor makes in her statement. I think, Charl, your point about it being binary is really important, but also pretty favorable because it's one thing for them to bob and weave and obfuscate in an overall issue, but this is, he's home or he's not home. Sotomayor, for the three, expresses the moral outrage notice. It's a statement, not a dissent. She's just saying, as part of this, we really should be bringing home how horrendous it is. You're right. They're jerking her around a little bit, but they haven't come out and said in this morning's hearing, we're just not going to do it. And I think the court has indicated it's going to back her somewhat. She's going to really hold their feet to the fire, I think, and say, who says so I want them here, et cetera. And then it'll really. Are they going to take it to the point of ridiculousness?
- [15:25]
Jason Kander
Yes. No. I mean, first of all, the analysis has been really, really good here about the politics. This is the issue that Trump wanted to talk about. He wanted the confrontation on this issue of violent alien criminals here. This is a winning issue for him. If he can say, I am aggressively taking on illegal immigrants who are raping and murdering and pillaging and getting rid of them, he wins. He knows that that's what he wants to focus on. That's what he would like this to be about. However, this is not that case. So I can imagine two different scenarios. One is they're sitting around the Oval Office, and keep in mind how narrow this is. And Stephen Miller is sitting in the room like, what do we do? Do we bring him back? And Stephen Miller says, absolutely not. You know, Mr. President, we are cleansing the country of all of this immigrant filth, and you need to stand firm. You can never back down. I can imagine that scenario, but I can also imagine the scenario of saying somebody saying, and I don't know who, maybe one of the more senior people saying, okay, what do we want to talk about? Do we want to talk about the actual Venezuelan gang members or do we want to talk about, you know, some guy who's a tattoo artist or a makeup guy? Let's get rid of this, bring him back. Change the subject from whether we're lawless or not and whether or not we're snatching people off the street. Let's change it back to let's actually talk about the gang members, you know, and then we get to the complicated thing. The congresswoman was mentioning that let's be honest about it, let's not get cocky that the majority of Americans are actually worried about something called due process when it comes to what is it, M13 gang members. We need to be honest. And that's the reality check. Sometimes those norms are paper thin in our culture, which is why all of this is very vulnerable and all of it's very, very scary. But if you listen to a lot of these Republican members of Congress, they think their constituents back home don't give a shit about whether or not illegal immigrants get due process or not. That seems to them to be very kind of wonky and abstract as opposed to concrete.
- [17:28]
Harry Littman
I think this is a great point. I think you may be read, I would say you read my substack, but it just got published. But I said Stephen Miller or a grownup in the room at the end. But I think the other way to put Jason's point is what are they going to say as they push back, push back, push back. They're the ones who have to get pointy handed by talking about Article 2. On the other hand, I don't want to be cocky about this. I really, you know, want to serve it up for your thoughts because they are so loathe to lose. But nevertheless, I think the calculus is pretty clear that they need to be cutting their losses here because it's binary and it won't go away. They'll say no, couldn't do it. I'll keep going back and forth with their different excuses and it'll dominate headlines for two months.
- [18:11]
Charlie Sykes
I think there are two potential political liabilities here. One is the basic long running tripwire that exists for Trump 1 or Trump 2 that the country has gotten a greater tolerance for over the years, but it still always has their antenna up about which is basic incompetence. Right? Like when you, when you send someone to a prison that was not supposed to go To a prison, it doesn't look like you're good at your job. That's the first thing. Okay. But then the second, I think, is an important point that we haven't arrived yet in the court of public opinion. But the congresswoman, for instance, is right to continue to. To hammer that this drives forward, which is people will care about this when they think it could happen to them. And it could. But not everybody understands that yet.
- [18:56]
Harry Littman
The scenario, it is as, you know, nightmarish as prime time, made for TV movie, horrifying, as you can think about, and you think about it for 30 seconds, and their indifference and callousness about it, the various excuses of, like, you know, I gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. I just think it's, you know, they're in the wrong place. Do you see somebody having any kind of good sense in the administration to make him back off?
- [19:25]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Jesus, I don't.
- [19:26]
Jason Kander
I always hate to bet on that. Again. The key thing is that he doesn't want to lose, so he has to figure out, can he figure out a way to make this look like a win? The problem is, is that none of this takes place in a vacuum because Trump's got a lot of other issues on the plate at the very, very same time. So in that room, they're also talking about, do you blink on tariffs? You know, what do we do with China? Do we escalate or do we back off? He can't be perceived to be losing or caving in on too many issues. But on the tariff issue, we at least got the indication that there are some people who are able to break through the circle of the Peter navarros and say, Mr. President, do you really want to tank the US dollar? Do you really want to destroy the bond market? You may be willing to go for a recession, but you don't want a Great Depression. And look, Jamie Dimon is on television saying, this is bad. Those people got Trump to back off. That couldn't have been easy. So it can happen. Now, is that like a pattern? So is that good news or is it like you only get a couple of shots at that? I don't know.
- [20:29]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
The other issue on tariffs, which is what he's doing is likely unlawful. I mean, he is relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers act, and that has never been used before to impose tariffs. And the ability to regulate commerce and to impose tariffs is firmly in the Congress, not in the executive branch. I mean, it's clear there is no emergency that can fit that statute. When he is saying this thing has been going on for decades. That's why he's doing what he's doing. And the question is, is there any way for this unlawful action to be curbed? I mean, he is tanking the American economy.
- [21:15]
Harry Littman
Yeah, well, and we're here now. Let's stay with it. I just wanted to hearken back for a heartbeat to what we were talking about before, because I do think if they're forced to blink and the other issue in the 9O Supreme Court actually has some resonance for kind of everything will embolden courts generally. But the follow up I wanted to ask you, Congresswoman, is, you know, you actually are having some whispers of discomfort among your colleagues and others in the Senate combined with the obvious, you know, madman aspect of this. Like, you know, he's like a guy, you know, flying a plane, doing nose dives. And all around, do you detect any kind of, you know, incipient pushback among the ranks of the Rs in either the House or Senate?
- [22:01]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Not among the House Republicans. I'm not seeing that yet. You know, it could happen. But if you take a look at what's going on in the bond market, it's a real indication that the reliance on the United States as the most important economy and stable democracy has been eroded. And certainly the decline of the dollar, we're the reserve currency, doesn't have to stay that way. Right. So I think some of these signs are ominous. And many of my Republican colleagues are still saying, well, he's just got this plan. And how you can think this is a plan when it changes minute by minute is a mystery to me.
- [22:47]
Harry Littman
I had a great conversation with Paul Krugman when this guy who noted that's the real problem here, it's not even the terrorists per se. And that's the counterpoint to what Charlie mentioned, is he's just all over the map and so erratic. And that's what freezes manufacturers and freezes the economy and brings on recession. Jason, I want to go back to you. I, you know, I've long since given up in general trying to psychoanalyze Trump. But this one really cries out for, you know, what the hell is he thinking? So you wrote, purposely wrecking the economy and expecting people to be happy about it is the definition of of out of touch. And that seems persuasive to me. I don't know if you saw Senator Murphy's critique. I think he's been really good these last couple months, but he's basically saying they're designed to create economic Hardships, so that Trump, as he does in other areas like universities and stuff, can dole out who's the winner, who's the loser. And by his grace, he can increase his power over individual countries. I mean, presidents always talk good game, and they really don't have all that much to do with the economy. This one he did, it's really him. What's he hoping for, thinking for without having to go too deep into the recesses of that Donald Trump mind that we tend to avoid?
- [24:07]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, it's hard to psychoanalyze him, but it is. On the other hand, it is generally pretty easy to understand politicians as soon as you understand their incentives. And so, with regard to Trump, let's start with what he doesn't care about anymore. In my opinion, I don't think he cares about politics anymore. You know, for all the trolling or the distraction that he does about a third term, Donald Trump cares about Donald Trump. And if Donald Trump can't run again, then he don't care about the politics of it. And honestly, I think increasingly every day, and this is very dangerous, he cares less and less about the popularity of things. What he does care about, to Charlie's point, is he cares about losing. And the reason he cares about losing is because one of his greater fears in the world, other than apparently sharks and some other stuff, is being embarrassed. And he is a person who is deeply fearful of being embarrassed in front of other people. And if you collapse the bond market and then the global economy, even Donald Trump has a hard time explaining to himself how that's a win, and it's embarrassing. So he doesn't care about politics. He does not care about his own party. He does not care because he never has. He doesn't care about how this affects the Republicans in the midterms. And he's only as good as his incentives. And what are his incentives? His incentives have always been to have people treat him like he's a big deal, which is why every story he tells, everybody calls him sir to an amount that would be strange in regular conversation, even when you're talking to the president. And he's infected this sort of culture of only caring about these things into his White House, which is why the moment that they folded their cards on the tariffs, the immediate spin was 75 countries have called the White House in the last week. So this is the art of the deal, as if the President of the United States usually has a hard time getting people on the phone. But that's how he sees this, is that if People are calling from other countries that they want to be carved out of this thing. I would potentially carve them out of. It must be working. And I just don't think he's. I don't think he really cares whether it's popular in the country anymore. And that's. If you're a Republican, that should. Well, if you're an American, it scares the hell out of you. And politically, that should be the thing that finally scares you if you're a member of the, you know, Republican Congress, that it basically acted like furniture thus far.
- [26:20]
Jason Kander
Yeah, no kidding. No kidding. No, I think that that analysis is really, really good about his. His psychology. You know, the night before he came, he was giving a speech to some Republicans, and he said, all of these people are calling me up and they're kissing my ass. Yeah, because that's the way he views it. Look, the reality is he's not a very good negotiator. He's a bully. And people haven't figured this out. But this is what's so dangerous because, and I wrote this the other day, we now have an economy that is at the mercy of the whim of one man, which is, to the Congresswoman's point, this is exactly the way the Constitution was designed to prevent, you know, these decisions being made by the capricious, arbitrary whim of a single individual who, with a single social media post, now can move trillions of dollars in the world markets. I mean, what we saw the other day, you realize this new normal where he puts out on his own social media platform, this is a good time to buy stocks. The President of the United States giving out stock tips, and then his fat cat buddies go, and they buy, and a few minutes later, he announces the suspension of the tariffs, which moves the market. I mean, this is tremendous power in the hands of one man. The founding fathers believed that Congress would be so jealous of its power that it would never allow the President to have this kind of power. And frankly, this is why free traders have opposed tariff regimes for centuries, because of the incredible opportunity and temptations for corruption that we're seeing playing out in plain sight, and which Donald Trump does love.
- [27:57]
Harry Littman
Yeah, I mean, the general dynamic here, I'll take away, and then you come begging to me, and maybe I will dole out a little bit of my kingly charity. And he said the same thing, by the way, about the law firms. I think a lot follows from it, if true. Do you take this point that, like, he doesn't really care anymore about politics or popularity or anything except self aggrandizement, which he's doing weekly. I mean, we've got on top of all his other weaknesses, the structural feature built in that the normal political pressures.
- [28:34]
He will just disregard.
- [28:35]
Just what do you make of that thesis?
- [28:37]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Well, I'm a lawyer, not a psychologist, so I don't know. I don't know what's motivating him. I do wonder, however, when he tells a sir story, you know it's a lie. And so the question is whether any of this stuff actually happened or whether he's just saying it happened so that he can avoid a more embarrassing explanation.
- [29:00]
Harry Littman
Your committee, the January 6th committee, there's his normal sort of trope is people are saying or you know, that kind of assertion as if it's all out there. Okay, well that I think I'm going to be chewing on that candor nugget for a while.
- [29:14]
Host of Spirited Debate
Foreign.
- [29:18]
Harry Littman
It'S now time to take a moment for our sidebar feature, which explains some of the issues and topics that are prominent in the news. Today's feature is about certification of state Law, the legal procedure by which a federal court can ask a state's highest court to answer unsettled questions of state law that are crucial to the case before the federal court. And to explain this topic, we welcome Sky P. Marshall. Sky P. Marshall is an actress currently starring opposite Kathy Bates on CBS's Matlock. You may also recognize her as Mumbo Marie in the hit Netflix series Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, or as Cara Faldi on the CW's Black Lightning. And with that, I give you Sky P. Marshall on the Certification of State Law.
- [30:13]
Sky P. Marshall
Just as the United States Supreme Court is the final authority on federal law, state supreme courts play the same role for state law. Sometimes, however, a federal court must decide a question of state law. This can happen when a state law issue is part of a federal case or when federal courts use their diversity jurisdiction to decide cases involving parties who from different states. Federal courts aren't the ultimate experts on state law. So how do they make sure they get it right? Usually, they look at the text of law and pass state court decisions to figure out how to get the right answer or, more precisely, the answer they think the state court would provide. But what if the federal court is unsure? Perhaps because there's no clear precedent in that case, it has the option to certify the question to a state court to get a definitive answer. The certification will either go to the state's highest court or to the court designated by the state to handle these questions. Certification typically happens when the resolution of a federal case hinges on an unresolved or ambiguous question of state law. After the federal court issues a certification order, it's up to the state court to decide whether to respond. If it does, the federal court must apply the state court's guidance, while federal courts can't force the state to respond. Most states except North Carolina have adopted this process, as has the District of Columbia. A notable example of the certification process happened in a defamation case E. John Carroll brought against Donald Trump. The key issue was whether Trump was acting within the scope of his official duties, which hinged on District of Columbia law. Carroll argued that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment under D.C. law, while Trump argued the opposite. The federal appellate court in the Second Circuit asked the D.C. court of Appeals to answer the question. The D.C. court provided guidance on the legal test under D.C. law, but left the final decision on this question to the jury. The certification process helps federal courts resolve cases efficiently while respecting state courts authority over their laws. It also prevents federal courts from misapplying state law, which could cause inconsistencies and confusion in our legal system. For talking feds, I'm Sky P. Marshall.
- [32:50]
Harry Littman
Thank you, sky, for explaining that. Pretty legally arcane topic for us, but it comes up a fair bit in a lot of the more complicated litigation that Trump has spawned. You can see sky on Thursdays on Paramount plus, which is the day that new episodes of the hit series Matlock Stream 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.
- [33:33]
Wine, spirit and beverages.
- [33:36]
Host of Spirited Debate
Thanks, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we start with two of our absolute, absolute favorite things, dessert and wine, and combine them into one. Delicious dessert wines. What are they exactly and how are they made? Grab a fork in a glass and let's dig into the sweet subject matter. Dessert wines are just as you'd hope they'd be sweet wines that are typically served after a meal. Sometimes they're served with a dessert, and sometimes they're served as dessert. And then there are those times in between. The smoothness and lack of acidity make for a pleasant and easygoing taste that pairs perfectly with relaxation. I reach for dessert wines when I'm craving something sweet to enjoy while unwinding in the evening or after a big meal to make a sweet dessert wine. The fermentation process is halted just prior to the yeast converting all the sugar to alcohol interrupting the fermentation ensures that there is sugar remaining in the wine, which gives us that sweetness we crave. But the amount of sweetness varies from wine to wine, and there's no shortage of options. Just pop into Total Wine and more and you'll see many, many varieties, from ports to ice wines to so turn into Hungarian Tokai. Dessert wines come in both still and sparkling, too. They're also made from both red and white grapes, and they can be served chilled in a small glass or room temperature, proving that really, when it comes to dessert wines, anything goes. Hungry? Thirsty? Maybe a little of both. Stop into your local Total Wine to check out our large selection of dessert wines, and feel free to chat with a helpful guide for a recommendation. Cheers.
- [35:00]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine.
- [35:02]
And More for today's a spirited debate.
- [35:06]
You know, it's a funny situation. Now, in some ways you would rather you just do nothing and leave the tariffs in place than lurch from one to the other. I think it was yesterday that China re redoubled the tariffs against us and a normal good from over there is going to be really out of the reach of many Americans. And sort of Jason's point again, but is the pain of this really now coming home within red America, blue America, you know, are you learning or hearing from people More and more? I was going to buy a car, but shit, it's out of the question.
- [35:42]
Jason Kander
Well, actually, I'm hearing the exact opposite, that people are actually running out and buying cars before they get hit with the tariffs. But so the answer is no. The downstream effects of this are still downstream, but they're going to be dramatic. The uncertainty tax that he's imposed on the economy is truly extraordinary. How can a manufacturer make a decision to make an investment, hire people, without knowing what Donald Trump's mood is going to be a month from now, much less a couple of years from now.
- [36:10]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
The whole idea that you would put billions of dollars into manufacturing building plants and you don't know, I mean, that takes years to do and a lot of capital that's no longer as available as it once was on something that could change on a whim, who's going to do that? I think it's true. I mean, the true effects have not yet been felt, but I'm hearing from some constituents who are anticipating very serious adverse impacts. Certainly the parts of my district that are an agricultural economy, I mean, what they export in terms of fresh vegetables to Canada is huge and those tariffs are going to cause a problem. And then Canada is Understandably retaliating. And certainly the wine industry is already feeling it. And then the other half of my district is the tech economy. It's not just China. I mean, the Europeans are, are going to pull together in a united way. Their economy is almost as big as ours if they stick together. So the rearranging of economic ties could very well leave us out in the cold, wishing for better times.
- [37:28]
Charlie Sykes
I do think that down the line, I agree that right now it is not yet penetrated politically and into public opinion in a major way. Although when you look at the polls, with the polls, people are saying we don't think this makes any sense. But I don't think that the intensity of that opinion has yet reached like a voting motivation place. However, I do think we're going to get there. I mean, to the congresswoman's point about agriculture, when I was Missouri Secretary of State, I remember going on a trade mission to China with all sorts of different agricultural interests from Missouri. And we literally sold rice to China because I don't know if you know this, the average farm in China is a quarter acre. So there's all sorts of things that we actually do sell to that very large economy over there. So it will affect some of those quote, unquote red areas in a lot of ways. But then the other thing is, this is one of those issues, tariffs, that begins very obscure, very difficult for people to understand until it affects their life, much like inflation, much like epidemiology. And the other night, my best example of it is my son and I, my son's 11 years old and we're driving back the other night from his baseball game and it was a late game and he'd been cold and he'd been playing several days in a row and he was exhausted. And NPR came on the radio and they're talking about tariffs and they're talking about China and things from China becoming more expensive. And my 11 year old son has started a business a month ago, you know, not the biggest business, but he started a business because he wants to buy a computer and he knows his parents have agreed to go half Zs on this computer with him. And my son, who was basically asleep and does not pay a lot of attention to politics, wakes up and is like, dad, computer parts come from China. Did my computer just get more expensive? And I was like, yeah, buddy, it probably got a lot more expensive. And he was like, damn it. And he was like, so mad. And he was like, why didn't more people vote for Kamala?
- [39:24]
Harry Littman
And this is another one by the way, Trump generally is very sort of simplistic and demagogic, but again, it's some kind of argument about tariffs that economists don't even buy, but that he has to make implicitly as against the parts from China that are just more expensive. Here's another one where the Democrats actually, you know, maybe have the draw, as.
- [39:46]
Jason Kander
It were, this point about whether it's going to have an effect. By the way, see, that story is why I think it's going to have a big effect. The story that Jason just told about his son, when people begin to actually experience this, because the reality is, is that tariffs may be abstract, but they're pretty easy to explain when it comes to something like that. You can explain it to 11 year old. Yeah, that iPhone you wanted is not going to cost $30,000. But here, here's actual some tangible data and it came out this morning. Consumer confidence is now at the lowest level since 1952, an 11 point drop just in April. That's a huge movement and frankly, I'm surprised that it would take place that early, that big. But that's an indication again, downstream consumers are feeling, if consumer confidence is dropping like that, then it's going to ripple through the economy really dramatically even before the tariffs kick in. So, yeah, I think this is going to make a big difference.
- [40:41]
Charlie Sykes
My son said, and again, doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics. He's 11 years old, pays attention to Fortnite baseball, that kind of thing. And he said, he said, I thought Trump said he was going to make prices go down. And that right there is right there.
- [40:57]
Jason Kander
That's the heart of it.
- [40:58]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, because people for the Republicans, people who are persuadable voters are going to be like, I voted for him because prices were high. If he literally, if the biggest thing he does is make prices go up, they are hosed in 26.
- [41:14]
Harry Littman
And you know, you very properly add persuadable voters because we have these kinds of discussions and you know, There's a cohort 30, 35, whatever it is, that it just doesn't matter. But there's plenty left over so that it really does matter. Congresswoman, you tweeted that I'm ready to vote for legislation to halt the golfer in chiefs tariffs. Republicans in the House and Senate are complicit until they act. Is there any, you know, inkling or early legislative efforts to try to take back the authority where it belongs in Congress?
- [41:48]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Nope. In fact, the opposite. When in this disastrous cr, we cemented the delegation to the President actually I think we didn't legally do that because he's relying on a statute that cannot be relied on, but the procedures that we could use to challenge it were severely undercut. So that's kind of where the Republican leadership is on the House. And it's interesting because, you know, the people who voted for Trump and there's some in my district, they really like him and they will make excuses for him and, you know, you have to wait. It's really a remarkable phenomena of people's goodwill trying to give him every opportunity. And the question is, when does that run out? Or does it run out?
- [42:38]
Harry Littman
I guess that is a big question. I kind of hear a consensus here that not yet, but, you know, at real risk of soon. And by the way, we could talk more about both these things, but I detect a theme this week of just flat out lunacy. And we can add a couple things to it. He does an executive order targeting two people targeting for criminal investigation into criminal prosecution, who basically did nothing other than criticize him the first time around. So that is really kind of down the middle, checklist, authoritarianism move.
- [43:14]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
And the question is, with the Supreme Court's immunity decision, where does that leave us? But the interesting thing is he is immune when he is acting in his official capacity. When he overtly says, I'm mad at them because of what they said about me, is that his official capacity? He undercuts his own defenses there.
- [43:36]
Jason Kander
I mean, didn't they specifically carve out that he, he could never be held accountable for his conversation with the Department of Justice?
- [43:43]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Yes.
- [43:44]
Harry Littman
Held accountable. Yeah. He can't be. It wouldn't be a crime. And by the way, that's him. It's not Pam Bondi, it's not Beauvais, not Blanche, but there's a whole nother kind of bramble Bush here, which is, if it's an official act, not only can he not be held criminally accountable, but it could well be that there's no liability for the. It would go to the United States as opposed to Trump personally. And that, that whole dance with the Westfall act, they take it over and they don't. They, they haven't waived immunity as to intentional torts. Nevertheless, I'm just, I'm saying not less on the legal level than the, you know, just sort of savage, primitive, drumbeating. I think this will play out if they go far enough, because there's nothing there. There's nothing they've done at the same kind of censorious legal rulings in early proceedings brought by either Miles Taylor or Christopher Krebs, you know, the former head of cybersecurity infrastructure. That is real lunacy.
- [44:48]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
One of the things that's sort of seeping through to the public, even those who support the president still, is that we want change, but not chaotic change. And the chaos is part and parcel of this whole thing, coming up with an individual who hasn't done anything saying prosecute them. I mean, to the extent that all of this wild and weird stuff is seeping into the consciousness, it just feeds the chaos feeling. And I think that has something to do with the consumer confidence level. If we're in chaotic times, you can't be certain of what's going to happen next.
- [45:28]
Harry Littman
I mean, I do feel that. I don't know if this is a journalist to concede as I'm preparing this podcast, but there is an overlap. They're very different fields, but the overall kind of sense of just, this guy's frigging crazy.
- [45:42]
Jason Kander
Can I give a contrarian take on all of this? Because, I mean, it's really difficult to come up with what's the worst thing that's happened? I mean, what is the worst thing he's done? But clearly, you know, Philip Bump wrote this in the Washington Post. This is like the rawest example of his willingness to use the. The august majesty of his office, the cudgel of the government, to go after somebody because he just doesn't like him. So we're all thinking that it's crazy and it will backfire against him. But so far, the strategy has been working, because what is the point? The point is fear. The point that every tyrant wants people to obey in advance because they think that if they don't, the tyrant will destroy them. Why are these law firms caving in? Why are so many other people in the business community afraid to even, you know, offer any sort of a dissent? Because they think that Donald Trump is serious, is malevolent enough, but also now powerful enough and empowered to destroy them, that he can destroy their reputation, that he can wreck their business. What he is doing may be unlawful or unconstitutional, but he wins just simply by making them pay a lawyer or the disruption that he will cause. People are basically saying, let's keep our heads down. We just don't need it. We don't want to poke the bear. The phrase don't poke the bear. You watch Republicans in Congress right now, and you know, the congresswoman can comment on this, but a lot of them know that this is crazy, this is nutty, but they're not going to cross him in any way, because it's not worth it, because they know the incredible avalanche of shit that will come down on them if they venture even the slightest criticism. So Donald Trump, up until this point, has used fear as an incredible weapon and has been successful. And the more successful he is, the more emboldened he's going to be to say, okay, I want them all kissing my ass or kissing my feet or. Or trembling in the corner.
- [47:42]
Harry Littman
And conversely, maybe like in the Abrego Garcia case, if it's a real loss, it functions as a tripwire. But there's never any acquiescing of, you know, he always wants to, you know, go more and more and more. The law firms are really a good example.
- [47:59]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
That's why it's so important when people do stand up and you can see nothing happened to them. You know, I called somebody I know at Wilmer Hale as soon as I heard they were fighting back, just to say thank you, because what they're doing is unlawful, and other people need to have courage as well and step forward. I mean, this is really what can be more damaging than you can't go to court to secure your rights or the immigration lawyer that was detained at the border coming back from vacation. I mean, we are in a situation here that really is challenging in terms of our understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. And all of us need to stand up and be vocal. You're right. My colleagues, many of them know this is ridiculous, but none of them are standing up.
- [48:57]
Harry Littman
It's such a shame, and it's going to be shameful one day. But I do want to make one additional point. It's really what Charlie was saying, because Trump knows and the firms know it's totally unconstitutional. Wilmer Hale's going to win. But on the other side of that, clients might still be skittish that the firm that beat them is going to, you know, be Persona non grata in the white. There are a number of things he's done that if and when, and it really should be when courts stand up and say that's completely unconstitutional, he'll have been able, nevertheless, to dispense such consequences and chaos on the workers in the federal government.
- [49:37]
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
You're right. But if your law firm is a lobbying firm, that's something that's of concern. If you're actually litigators, who wants to hire a lawyer that won't stand up for you?
- [49:48]
Harry Littman
I'm with you, Congresswoman. It's feeling to me like it's maybe coming around.
- [49:53]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I Just think it's from the moment that Trump came out of prep school and into his dad's business, a big part of his approach to life has been litigation harassment. I mean, because like, how many frivolous, never going to win, never going to get anywhere lawsuits as the dude filed. And the only thing that ever limited it is that not every lawyer was willing to take those crap cases on contingency. And sometimes he had to pay hourly. And now the way he sees it, he's got an entire infrastructure around him of lawyers that are paid for by taxpayers. And there's no limiting factor on how much of this litigation harassment, and now it's not civil, now it's criminal. And so I 100% agree that the only limiting factor is gonna be when people stand up and show that you can survive it.
- [50:38]
Jason Kander
So, Harry, can I ask you a question? Jason makes a great point. He's now got the taxpayer funded lawyers, but he's also got all these big law firms, these white shoe law firms in receivership where they committed. What is the fund up to now? $700 million in pro bono work. Has anybody actually like, tried to figure out like, so what are you guys going to have to defend? Are you now going to have to provide pro bono service to what, the proud boys? To Dinesh d'? Souza? To my pillow guy?
- [51:08]
Harry Littman
That's part of it.
- [51:09]
Jason Kander
Are you going to be now providing pro bono to the next right wing media outlet that is sued for defamation? These guys signed up with a blank check. And I don't think they've really thought through the kinds of causes that Donald Trump is going to require them to take now.
- [51:26]
Harry Littman
And even if they hadn't and they'd clarified it, Trump will change anyway and be just as ruthless. So you're right. I think those are some of the people. And you can imagine there are these like, foundations on the right that are for certain pro religion causes or against certain LGBTQ causes. And can you imagine some, some associates are already peeling out the one, one of the, the pro bono head of one of the big firms just resigned. But yeah, on top of everything else, it's almost like part of his triumph is that he's going to grind at what he sees as these liberal firms, you know, heads in the dust, buying you. Now you say it, Donald Trump is great saying, you know, it's, it's. They're going to have to do those sorts of, of things. I think that's right. Imagine how they, what happens to their DEI programs. So, you know, you make a deal with the devil. And even if you think you know the terms, the terms will change on you. And I agree they wanted to buy peace at any price anyway, but the ambiguity is just going to, you know, harm them. Look, the day will come, we must hope and pray, when in the whole legal industry, these ferns will stand as objects of total infamy.
- [52:44]
Charlie Sykes
One of my favorite expressions is when you wrestle a bear, the bear decides when it's over.
- [52:52]
Harry Littman
Maybe with a little assist from us voters in the midterms. Okay, there is an end of a harrowing week. Thank you so much Congresswoman Lofgren, as always, Charlie Jason, for being here and you know, hope to see you soon.
- [53:09]
Thank you so much, Congresswoman Lofgren, Jason and Charlie. 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 this show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes, talking books and bonus video content. Check us out on Substack now at Talking Fed Substack, where I am posting two or three bulletins a week, going live and sharing other exclusive content that breaks down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. You can follow us on Twitter Aking Feds Pod.
- [53:58]
Talking Feds remains a completely independent production.
- [54:01]
So it's your support and nothing else that funds all of our franchises. We just couldn't do it without you. And as you may know, Talking Feds has now joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture, which is committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare and today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we are still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust, but now linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourses. Find out more 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 Kathryn Devine. Our associate producer is Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsama Hadrenasan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshay Turbailu and Sebastian Navarro. Thanks again to Sky P. Marshall for explaining the certification of state law. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo, llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.
- [55:40]
SA.