Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:01]
Harry Littman
By the time I hit my 50s,
- [00:02]
I'd learned a few things, like how family is precious, work can always wait, and 99% of people over 50 already
- [00:12]
Norm Ornstein
have the virus that causes shingles.
- [00:14]
Harry Littman
Not everyone at risk will develop it, but I did. The painful, blistering rash disrupted my life for weeks. Don't learn about your shingles risk the hard way. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist today.
- [00:28]
Sponsored by gsk the grill is shot, the chairs are held together by optimism, and what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season.
- [00:39]
Total Wine and More Host
Fix it all with Wayfair.
- [00:40]
Harry Littman
Shop Wayfair for grills, rugs, furniture, and more. With 20 million 5 star reviews, Room of choice delivery, and expert setup on qualifying orders, it's never been easier to do more for less. Get 10% off your first eligible purchase. Hurry to Wayfair.com or download the app now. Wayfair Every style, Every home.
- [01:07]
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. Even after an angry Congress forced Todd Blanche to disavow the Trump slush fund, the administration is looking for ways to enrich January 6ers and other loyalists, which Trump has made clear he remains eager to do. Congress, already restive about the fund, forced Trump to back down, at least in part, on his plan to make the spectacularly unqualified Bill Pulte the director of national Intelligence. Trump is now nominating golf buddy and US Attorney Jay Clayton for the post. Meanwhile, a detailed expose from the New York Times revealed the administration's frenzied machinations to try to get ahead of the Epstein scandal last summer, complete with bitterness, backbiting and blame mongering. The details are sure to haunt Blanche in his upcoming confirmation hearing. We taped before the big news of a preliminary peace deal with Iran, but we'll have more on that coming this week. To discuss another week in which Trump had to reckon with sporadic pushback from the Hill and sharp rebukes from the federal courts, we welcome a stellar trio of political savants. And they are Norm Orenstein, a political scientist, a contributing editor for the Atlantic and co host of the podcast Words Matter. He's also a prolific author, most recently of the great book One Nation After Trump. Very good to see you as always, Norm Ornstein.
- [03:07]
Norm Ornstein
Always a pleasure, Harry.
- [03:09]
Harry Littman
Tara Settmeier, the Co founder and CEO of the Seneca Project. She appears regularly on MSNow and CNN formerly, Tara was a Republican communications director on Capitol Hill. She's a resident scholar at the UVA center for Politics. And she's sporting her Nick colors in a and the orange and blue hat. And she was in New York on Wednesday, as was I. Welcome. I didn't see you there, though. Well, it was a little crowded.
- [03:40]
It's a big place.
- [03:43]
And finally, another Nick fan with his son, Jacob Weisberg, the executive chair and co founder of Pushkin Industries. Previously, Jacob was CEO of the Slate Group and editor in chief of Slate magazine. He serves as chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Jacob, great to see you. And it was a banner week.
- [04:03]
Norm Ornstein
Well, how.
- [04:04]
Jacob Weisberg
You make it sound like he's five years old. But yes, my Knicks fandom is tied to going to games and watching games with him. And he, when I'd given up on, on the game the other night, he, he texted me to turn it back on when the Knicks came back from the apparent dead.
- [04:20]
Harry Littman
All right, say no more. Let's get to less fun matters and starting with the slush fun. So just this morning we're taping on Friday, a federal judge, Leonie Brinkama, declined the administration's request to dismiss the slush fund as moot based on Blanche's statements in Congress, she said, and said, maybe I'll consider it if Blanche and Woodward give sworn statements. But as for now, I'm extending the injunction. So where does this whole mess stand now between administration, Congress, courts?
- [05:02]
Well, as with anything with Donald Trump, when he is obsessed with it, which he clearly has been, he's been talking about this anti weaponization fund or the weaponization of the Justice Department. You know, he's been whining about this for years, believing that he's somehow the victim. So every person that he is appointed in positions to make decisions about this are people who are loyal to him to do what he wants. And Pam Bondi got fired because apparently he, even Pam Bondi had a line, and this was apparently one of those lines. So he, we now are stuck with Todd Blanche. And Todd Blanche, as we know, was Trump's former personal attorney, I would argue still operating in that capacity, except he has the power of the federal government now behind him as the acting attorney general, which is disgraceful and very dangerous. And Todd Blanche is clearly the type of person who knows how to mince words and be very frustrating. He's very lawyerly when it comes to what he says on Capitol Hill, like when he testified about whether this slush fund was dead or not. And he was very, very careful in the types of words that he chose because we all know, and according to really good reporting in the Atlantic and other places, that this thing is far from dead. Trump always says the quiet part out loud. So that makes doing things covertly very difficult. When you have a principal that has diarrhea of the mouth like Trump and they are working behind the scenes to try to make sure that these people, including violent January 6th insurrectionists, receive taxpayer funded money. The only reason why anyone said anything about it being, quote, dead, the slush fund being dead, very specific. They're talking about this anti weaponization fund is because the PR was terrible and they knew it. There was rightfully bipartisan criticism of this and very, very formidable criticism of this for all the reasons that any sane, normal person would have a problem with this. So they said, o, this is now a PR nightmare has nothing to do with the principle behind the idea of actually giving taxpayer money to any of these people. It's the PR problem. And the Atlantic article points that out, that they're like, okay, listen, we're just waiting for this to quiet down a little bit, but we're still working behind the scenes to make sure people get compensated. And Trump keeps saying that that's what he wants. So I hope that people continue to shine a light on this because one red cent of taxpayer money going toward any kind of compensation for violent insurrectionists on January 6th or Trump's corrupt cronies is an absolute travesty. And the American people should know about it and know where they're, how they're using their money, because this is outrageous.
- [07:41]
Norm Ornstein
We know that they have the Tort Claims act as a legitimate, illegitimate way to do this. It's a little surprising they didn't do that in the first place. The Tort Claims act basically allows private citizens to bypass the courts and sue the federal government for injury of any sort. We know that they use this in the Trump administration for Michael Flynn, among others. Now, why didn't they do it in the first place? I think there are two reasons. The first is they want to go in your face and have the corruption as naked and obvious as possible because they think that cleanses them and they want to see how far they can get. But the second and even more important reason is if you have a weaponization fund or anti weaponization fund, call it what you want. And private people decide who gets money and how much, that money's going to go right into Donald Trump's pocket and his family's pockets, a significant share of it. They can't do that with the Tort Claims Act. So they're still going to try and do this through the back door, as Tara said. But if they don't, they have a legitimate way. And I would just say if and when we get sane, decent, moral people running our federal government, we have to look at this act and others that presume that there are honest people making decisions, an honorable president who believes in his oath. And when that doesn't work, we have to rethink how we do this and so many other acts, including emergency powers, that are astonishingly robust for a president.
- [09:25]
Harry Littman
I gotta make the lawyer's point that the Federal Tort Claims act, which is what they did with Flynn, is not legitimate because a lawsuit where both parties are on the same side, and that's really what Flynn was. They were so called jumping the V actually is unconstitutional under the power of federal courts. So, you know, I don't know how they put lipstick on the. But these different ways of just colluding, it's inherently weak. I also just want to say, if Trump is so forward to Tara's point in Todd Blanche's doj, what Trump says goes. He could say tomorrow, let's do this. But I think legally, they're in a really tough corner.
- [10:11]
Jacob Weisberg
The corruption here is so many levels and so pervasive, and it's, it's kind of affecting us all. You know, even in this conversation where we're picking up the Trump terminology of the anti weaponization fund, and you have to call it something I, you know, I understand, but that's quite literally the opposite of what it is. It is, it is literally a weaponization fund in that it is a fund for the people Trump weaponized on January 6th. Yep. Even a slush fund is a little lieu of a mystic. He has a specific purpose in mind, which is, you know, paying off vigilantes who, who were on his side who were, you know, duly tried and convicted. The other thing is, you know, because this is where the, the ball is moved. We've forgotten about the other side of this deal, which is the IRS settlement, which he hasn't called off at all. And that is, to me, moving to a new stage in Trump corruption. And the stage is expropriation directly from the federal government. Previous forms of corruption have been kind of classical corruption in that they're insider deals and conflicts of interest and payoff. This IRS deal is $100 million in relief from a tax bill Trump owes as a result of an audit. It's sort of permission to cheat on your taxes and we're so inured to this. I mean, these things are so, you know, beyond the kinds of things which we would ordinarily identify, corruption, I mean, corruption got, you know, in the 20th and 21st century got a little more subtle. It was, generally speaking, no longer like cash and bags trading hands. And we're kind of moving back towards the cash and bags, except there's too much cash to actually fit in a bag. I don't know.
- [11:56]
Norm Ornstein
These $250 Trump bills may make it a little easier to put it in the banks.
- [12:01]
Jacob Weisberg
Yes, exactly. You can get more cash per volume. And then the Todd Blanche thing, and this is picking up on the point Norm was making, but he, of course, doesn't need to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General. Todd Blanche is Deputy Attorney General and can serve, as I understand it, as acting Attorney General for the rest of Trump's term. That would be legitimate. So why is he so intent on getting him confirmed? It's another loyalty test for potentially wavering Republican senators as Trump's popularity fades. And he's essentially saying to the Senate, look at Thom Tillis, look at John Cornyn, look at Bill Cassidy, and you want to end up like those guys? And he's putting, you know, he aims to put Collins and Murkowski, you know, in a tough spot where essentially the warning is, if you don't prove your loyalty to me by endorsing my corruption, giving a legal coverage to my corruption, you know, good luck to you. I'm coming after you.
- [13:05]
Harry Littman
Can I follow up, please, on this point about the IRS fund? He's trying to sort of tether it, as they did the fund, to a settlement agreement. But if the settlement agreement doesn't fly and it's collusive as it is, and the case is flawed as it was. It really is just as Jacob says, just as kind of, I love you, Mr. President. Here's 100 million plus of taxpayer funded money. It seems so raw. I mean, really, it would be, I think, the most corrupt act by an Attorney General in our history. Why is it that it hasn't had a similar purchase among the senators who are pushing back on him as the fund? And will they wake up to it? It does strike me as even worse in a lot of ways.
- [13:55]
I'll tell you why. Because it's not as politically bumper sticker.
- [13:59]
Jacob Weisberg
Ish.
- [14:00]
Harry Littman
Right. A January 6th slush fund paid for by the taxpayers is easy for people to understand. The IRS part of this requires multi layers of critical thinking to get to why this is a problem. So it's just not as marketable politically. Now, it is outrageous. I mean, this is where this was the genesis of this whole thing is that Trump to Jacobs point. Trump, you know, wants compensation for his perceived ills. And the IRS leaking of his tax returns, who has been something that has been a thorn in his ass for a long time. He's really been pissed off about that because it exposed him for the terrible businessman that he is and also for the fact that he's been cheating on his taxes for quite some time. And he didn't like that when he talks about how, how victimized he was by this. It was an IRS contractor. Now the guy pled guilty and he's serving five years in prison for it. So. And the statute of limitations ran out.
- [14:58]
Another quick lawyer's point. As Tara says, it was a contractor. The statute only permits to sue IRS employees, not a contractor, for that very reason. IRS had won other cases involving this guy Little John, and they said, of course you should defend it against Trump here. And Blanche just overruled it. So it was a whole nother reason. It was bogus.
- [15:21]
Norm Ornstein
Yeah, no, remember that. That was during Trump's first term.
- [15:25]
Harry Littman
That's right.
- [15:25]
Norm Ornstein
It was not a Democratic appointee to the IRS who picked the contractor.
- [15:31]
Harry Littman
Right.
- [15:31]
Norm Ornstein
But there are a couple of other points to make. Tara is right, and we're all right. That this was toxic politically. So a bunch of Republican senators stepped up and said it's toxic politically. When they had the chance with an amendment in the Senate to really put the kibosh on this, they didn't. Yeah, they wanted to talk about it, make it look like they were against it, but didn't. Which is the same thing with the irs. But let's point out an even more outrageous element of this Blanche edict, which is that saying that Trump or his family can never be sued to recover tax cheated money, which we know amounts to over $100 million, that he openly, blatantly cheated on his taxes. Now, I'd like to hear what you have to say about this, Harry. I cannot believe that if an acting Attorney General says, no, you can never be prosecuted for this, that the next attorney general, God willing, an honest one, can't say, oh, yes, you can, and come back and claw that money out and claw back whatever illicit funds he gets from any of these settlements.
- [16:46]
Harry Littman
100%. It's the same thing. I'm saying if it was a bona fide Blanchard. It's typical. It's typical in cases where you have a real case and a bona fide settlement that's the only time you can take those funds here. It's a phony case. It's a meritless case, and there's never been anything like it. So he's got two choices. Rely on this settlement agreement, which I think the courts are going to. It's today that Judge Williams is supposed to get the briefs about. Was this collusive or not? And I think you'll see the department try to do fancy dancing and say it's all moot now, forget about it. That will not placate her. She wants to know if she was defrauded before. But if it is a phony baloney, and it obviously is lawsuit, then yes, the next administration says that's a fraud and we don't have to. If it were real, if they made a bad deal, a real deal, then future administrations would need to respect it, but not this. And the alternative of them is for them to try to reposition it as I'm just doing it based on, I don't know what, you know, the I'm the AG and here you go. And that it would seem to me, you know, I take your point, Tara. It's a little subtle and people don't understand understand he really does have tax liability. The one glimpse we had of his taxes really shows it. But, boy, it seems to me pretty damn incendiary to put in those terms and pretty unsettling that they seem basically unconcerned about it.
- [18:25]
Well, this is another reason why for the people who actually pay attention to this, people understand that Todd Blanche in this position is an affront to any legitimacy whatsoever. The main justice may have any shred of legitimacy, and they're concerned about what he's going to do, not only to the reputation of the Justice Department long term, the damage is extraordinary already, but also just the political fallout from that. I mean, even the National Review, the editors came out with an op ed recently, this week, I believe, saying that Todd Blanch should not be the attorney general. That's pretty extraordinary considering that the National Review has been pretty, you know, they've been pretty friendly to Trump despite being the first publication on the right to come out against him in 2015 and 16. They've gone back and forth here, and it's interesting to see that they're pushing back a little bit more now. But this is just one of many issues that the true conservatives, the ideological ones, who are now allegedly growing spines again because of how unconstitutional this president has behaved in every way that they're starting to push back. I mean, the next thing now is Trump trying to clear his record of the impeachments. That's not a thing. Like, that's not a thing. What. Like, what are we doing here? You don't get to do that.
- [19:46]
Jacob Weisberg
So the Blanche, the vote, Tara, I mean, I think, you know, that's why this, this vote is, you know, is. Has this symbolic importance for Trump, because he doesn't want the Senate to do anything. He'd rather operate without the House and Senate unilaterally as an authoritarian. In this case, he's asking the Senate to vote for something he doesn't need them to vote for, that is to keep Todd Blanche in the position he's already in. So why is it. It is a senatorial endorsement of his weaponization of the Justice Department. And if they vote for Blanche, what they're Saying is, yes, Mr. President, we approve of the way you are using the Justice Department to go after political enemies. James Comey, Letitia James, essentially, Todd Blanche. Confirmation stands in for all of that, which is why I think it's symbolic on the other side too. Right? I mean, he. It might. It might not matter, but we need it to not happen for that reason.
- [20:46]
Harry Littman
Jacob's right. He could have just left him as acting, and now instead he's got a confirmation proceeding that the guy's fingerprints are on everything in the last 15 months. Right. All the reprisal prosecutions, Epstein, all the slush fund, etc. What's the precedent for. And in your view, political viability of Blanche is going down, and yet returning to the acting position, can he actually credibly perform the job if he's been rejected, even though he could have if he hadn't been nominated?
- [21:25]
Norm Ornstein
In a normal universe, no, he couldn't do that. Rejected for this, he'd have to resign. But we're not in normal times. And I have little doubt that if he's rejected, and I'm, despite everything, I'm a little skeptical, you know, they rebelled against this outrageous choice of Pulte for the Director of National Intelligence. Enough that Trump quickly tried to get beyond it by picking Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District. And he will likely sail through now. And part of the reason he'll sail through is that even some Democrats are going to vote for him because they don't want to have Pulte in there as an acting person for any length of time to take all kinds of sensitive, top secret information, to use it to blow up our elections. That's another story. Even the ones who vote against Trump or who speak up against Trump will only do it a finite number of times. They do not want to be known as anti Trumpers. So the pressure is going to be great on this one.
- [22:33]
Harry Littman
So you mean even the lame ducks, even the three he's brought down are going to be partially in the fold.
- [22:39]
Norm Ornstein
Now, I do think it is possible Blanche wanted this, and Trump went as long as he could to keep Blanche on the hook, knowing that he would have to every time he wanted Blanche to do something even more outrageous, Blanche would do it so that he would get this nomination. I think it's possible that if Blanche goes down and somebody else comes in as Agee, that Blanche leaves being the deputy may not work for him after tasting the power at the top. But I'm still a little skeptical. And it's why I think actually that what Democrats and their allies need to do now is an enormous public relations campaign that would put pressure on Republican senators, the ones who were up this time. There's still some nervousness out there, and that nervousness extends even to somebody like Roger Marshall in Kansas, who is dumb as a post in a state that's elected Democratic governor with what now appears to be a reasonably credible opponent. The likely winner of the Democratic primary there runs the largest Methodist church in the country with I think 30,000 members in Kansas and a larger following. Former Republican. A little dicey in some ways, but when you get people like that who get a little bit nervous and the fear of a wave and a Fox poll now in Ohio that shows Republicans tanking, then John Hoosted of Ohio, you start to put the pressure on that you're going to vote to confirm this guy who put the slush fund in place, who deep six the Epstein files, who now we know is in even more deep shit because of the Epstein files. You know, maybe he goes down as he should. What a contemptible human being is. Todd.
- [24:39]
Jacob Weisberg
Blanche.
- [24:40]
Harry Littman
Yeah, Norm, you are right on the money. And as many people know, I run a super PAC called the Seneca Project. And we are right now actually beginning to launch our midterm strategy with a campaign called America is Watching on this very subject that we, the American people, will never forget. Who protected predators and who is protecting these people behind the corruption, which is the added step. It started off with the Epstein issue. You know, we are watching and we will never forget, and that any Republican who is part of this needs to be held to account. And people need to know that and decide if these are the people you want to entrust with your vote in those positions. So the now, since the Epstein issue, it extends to corruption, because you see what's happening, how Donald Trump is enriching himself. He's enriching his cronies at the expense of the American taxpayer. People are suffering, and Donald Trump doesn't give a damn. And that is a salient point, which is why he's tanking in Ohio and other places, because a lot of his own supporters are waking up and realizing he doesn't give a damn about them and he's betrayed them. Between the economic side and now the war in Iran, people are starting to wake up. And Republican senators know this, which is why the Senate's in play.
- [25:49]
Jacob Weisberg
But the dynamic is very volatile there. And I say, if you want to know how this is going to come out, the number to watch is Trump's approval rating, you know, at closer to 40%. Republicans don't stand up to him. Closer to 30%, they do. They're just thinking about the greater risk to their own survival. Is the greater risk Donald Trump coming after them, or is it the voters throwing them out for being too close to Donald Trump? And, and you know, they're, they're exquisitely calibrated calculating machines around this. They have. They're very good judges of their own self interest, and they have great fear on both sides. And, you know, when his number goes down, the fear goes up. And the number of Republicans who will be willing to challenge him in discreet ways, as Norm says, not out and out overall, but on specific things that are unpopular increases.
- [26:33]
Harry Littman
Yeah, I mean, specific things that they'll have to answer for. The slush fund really jumps to the fore, but I would think so does the amnesty. He did all kinds of things with Epstein and the like. Norm, you put. I mean, we have a similar. Let's move to Bill Pulte. And you said Democrats, you know, will actually go for Clayton, who has been, you know, going out saying there's fraud in California and the like. How much as an acting does Pulte need to be to do all the damage? I agree with you for whenever he's there. This guy does not even have a security clearance. Now, you put him atop the dni, he's got it all. And I think his record of using it for corrupt, raw political advantage is pretty strong. So I'm wondering if Trump has kind of put it over on them in advancing Clayton, because he'll still have his time to sort of forage.
- [27:30]
Norm Ornstein
It doesn't take very long, Harry. You know, all he needs, all Pulte needs is a couple of people who know inside to give him material that can be distorted into a claim of foreign interference in the elections. And of course there was foreign interference. It was Russia. And you know, the Russia hoax is not a hoax at all. We know that and the evidence is overwhelming. And we know that Russia and China are interfering even as we speak, partly because Meta and X and all of the other entities are basically opening their arms to them. But they want to use it in a different way and they want to have traction so that they can send the FBI into polling places and seize ballots before they've been counted. Then maybe they'll return them, maybe they'll return some of them. And I will just tell you one other thing. People should keep an eye on what happens to Maduro. We captured Maduro and his wife. They are on trial. If they're convicted. I'm expecting Todd Blanche to go down and say to Mr. Maduro, you know, I can put you and your wife in maximum security prisons or I could get you cells adjacent to Ghislaine Maxwell. You'll have people you can talk to. You'll choose between lobster and steak. At night, you can wander off, maybe even take a part time job if you want. All you have to do is sign this affidavit saying Venezuela tilted the 2020 elections to Joe Biden. And there's your, you know, your traction for doing this. So if Pulte's there for more than a day, it's a danger. Norm's not wrong and he is awful.
- [29:21]
Harry Littman
And remember, this is the guy. His last job was to be the head of the mortgage FA and use it to concoct these charges of mortgage fraud specifically against Trump's enemies like Letitia James, right?
- [29:35]
Yeah, and Lisa Cook and Adam Schiff. And also he's, it's not his former job. He's allegedly keeping them.
- [29:42]
Keeping that.
- [29:43]
He's keeping that job. And he's also the head of Fannie and Freddie, which was also. That's a really big job that's normally given to someone. Not. This is not something that you can just, you know, I'll do this and I'll do that. Like it's insane the way the government is being run. I think that's an underreported story, say, to Norm's point, about how vulnerable we are to foreign interference. We don't have a lot of people in our counterintelligence departments. They got rid of the people in the Department of Justice who were Iran experts. I, I mean, it's been hollowed out our Intelligence community has been hollowed out and replaced with these people who have no qualifications whatsoever other than being henchmen for Donald Trump. And norm is 100 right. This is all about going after the midterms in November because they know that they're. It's going to be, if things continue this way, it's going to be a shellacking. They know that. Which is why you saw Tulsi Gabbard slinking around back in Fulton county when they sent the feds in there. That was a precursor to what their plans are. These people always telegraph it. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone. We just can't suffer from a lack of imagination. And I'm glad Norm hasn't. I gotta tell you, I didn't think about the Maduro side of this.
- [30:57]
Jacob Weisberg
I didn't think of that one either. But the, you know, the Gabbard thing was the giveaway. I think people, you know, sometimes my initial reaction to this is, why are Democrats looking at this DNI job fundamentally in terms of election interference? And it's because of. It's the way Trump thinks about it.
- [31:14]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [31:14]
Jacob Weisberg
He sees this as, you know, one of the units of government he can weaponize to support his claims to, you know, do whatever mischief he's going to get up to they're conniving at. And it ties into this issue we've been dealing with the last couple weeks about the renewal of Section 702, the Wireless Wiretapping authorization, which the Senate held up because of the threat of bringing in Pulte, because the fear there, again, kind of entertaining a little bit of dark fantasy a la Norm and Maduro. The government doesn't need a warrant to get this information on the metadata. And if the metadata to them reveals something, they can actually tap into people's phone calls, communications, and would they do that? I mean, I think even in the, you know, in the, in the Bush administration, when this issue first surfaced, you sort of said, well, you can't really imagine them ever doing that. And now you almost can't imagine them not doing that.
- [32:16]
Harry Littman
And Trump will justify it because he think, because of what they said to what happened during January 6, that they tapped the phones of senators about January 6, which was not accurate. And also he said that his campaign was wiretapped, which was not completely true either. And I do believe that Carter Page was another one of those people who has been compensated over a million dollars now under Donald Trump. So, I mean, and Ashley Babbitt's family as well, which is insane. Which is the woman who tried to climb through the window to the speaker's lobby and was unfortunately shot as a result, but justifiably so.
- [32:54]
And each of them were really collusive lawsuits. A lawyer point, they just don't count. But I want to go back to the failure to pass the 702. That was a pretty big move. And then they left town. So that's a distinct cost to Trump and that caused him to withdraw on Pulte. But so Cornyn, who's one of the Republicans, Trump is humiliated, told the New York Times he thinks Trump's going to have a pretty bumpy next seven months. You spoke about the approval ratings, Jacob, the well known economist poll of difference in job approvals at the lowest ever since they started doing the poll. And you know, his big secret weapon, as it were, of cutting people off and primaries is kind of finished. So is Trump a lame duck already?
- [33:46]
Jacob Weisberg
I would say far from it. I mean, just look at the behavior of these people who are not running for reelection of, you know, of Mitch McConnell, of Cornyn now, of Tillis, of Cassidy. It's a little better, it's a little better than it was. But they have by no means moved into the opposition. They've by no means become voices for their institution against Donald Trump's encroachments. So no, I think, you know, every time it looks like that, I mean, this is the most I'd say over predicted phenomenon in American politics is the, the idea that, you know, the Republicans and the House and the Senate have had enough and they're done. This is a bridge too far and they're not gonna support him anymore. They will on a thing if it's, if it looks bad enough for them, but they won't abandon them. And why are the reasons we've talked about some of them primarily there's the fear of what happens to the rest of their careers. But there's also, there's a whole range of things having to do with the physical violence that's threatened against them. The kind of threats they get every day from people who say you're traitors to our president. There's the kind of ostracism, you know, these people live in cultures that are Republican. You know, the people they play golf with, the people they see at the country club, just to take two examples. There's a fear that goes even beyond the end of their political career when they're out of office and they're really only a few. I mean, I think Liz Cheney is the rare example of Someone who was really willing to take the personal, the professional, the career, all the consequences that come with really saying, donald Trump is so dangerous that I'm gonna vote for Democrats, even though I don't agree with them.
- [35:33]
Norm Ornstein
You know, I think Jacob has a powerful point, which is this is a cult. And in a cult, the fear of being shunned by your fellow cultists is extraordinarily powerful.
- [35:45]
Harry Littman
It's true.
- [35:46]
Norm Ornstein
And you look at a Rob Portman who announces his retirement, is not going to, you know, get a lobbyist job. Independently wealthy, goes back to Cincinnati. But during his final months after he said he was leaving, he behaved just as he had before, a total loyalist, because you don't want your friends at the country club or when you're out with a few couples for dinner to look at you as a traitor and an apostate. And that also is where that approval rating can make a difference, but so far, not.
- [36:17]
Harry Littman
And financial and financial norm. Because I can tell you just really quick as an anecdote, there was a Republican former member of Congress who was interested in my work as a former Republican, you know, speaking out against Trump and in 2024 and starting the Seneca Project. And I approached this person about being on our board, and they were like, we think what you're doing is great. Would love to, but I have Republican clients, and if I'm associated with anything that is like this, I'll lose my livelihood.
- [36:47]
Norm Ornstein
For people who are still looking for work or, you know, are part of this infrastructure. Absolutely the case. But there are a couple of other points about the lame duck status. One is he has a Supreme Court, and he will have it no matter what his approval rating is, and he knows it. And the second is we're now getting these stories of bitter infighting in the White House. Trump is a malignant narcissist, and things are not going well for him beyond the, you know, what happened with the fund, which is, you know, not anything like what it's been reported. As we know, the war is a catastrophe for him, and he's lashing out at people around him. As inflation goes up and it becomes clear that the Fed is not likely to do what he wants them to do, people are not reacting in the same way. So he's relying increasingly on a small group of utter loyalists. And what I fear, as much as anything, is there's no question that we are seeing mental deterioration before our very eyes. You have a narcissist and a psychopath who is angry and lashing out, who can do things as president that are beyond the pale. And there's nobody who will say no, you can't do this. Or even who's likely with the people he's relying on to say, as happened sometime in his first term, yes, sir, and then ignore it, hope that he forgets and it goes away. So we could face some really troubling actions by him, including military actions. And you know, is Pete Hegseth going to say no to anything? No. And the generals that Hegseth has put in and the ones who've been removed who might say no. So we're in a very difficult place right now. Even as his standing declines, there is a downside to it for potentially all of us.
- [38:53]
Harry Littman
Yeah, like a cornered boxer or something or a cornered.
- [38:56]
Or cornered authoritarian. I mean, you know, plenty of historians can give examples of what happens when you have authoritarians and dictators that are back into a corner or feel like they're losing power in what they do.
- [39:08]
I think your guys analysis is really trenchant and thinking in those terms of what's their sort of social circle and their life. I think about this a fair bit with the Supreme Court where the new appointees, they live in a certain silo, social silo dinner party of Washington. And it really does matter. And I'll just add to the point you made about the Supreme Court. You know, it may be in less than a month that we hear about a retirement or two and Donald Trump might have the nomination, try to force it through. So that becomes a possibly even bigger or longer disaster. 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.
- [40:16]
Total Wine and More Host
Thanks, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we start with two of our 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 and 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 unwining 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 Sauternes and to Hungarian Tokaj. 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.
- [41:39]
Harry Littman
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more. For today's a spirited debate. I want to move to the point you made about all the sort of frenzy and backbiting in the White House, which I think traces to him. But a really interesting piece in the Times documenting the White House's panicked early response last summer when the outrage on Epstein first really bubbled up. What stood out to you about the story? What were your kind of takeaways?
- [42:16]
Jacob Weisberg
I would say a couple things. So this is an excerpt from a forthcoming book from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. So it's a kind of TikTok of the inside story, and it's much more like the reporting we got on Trump's first term. So the second term that the Trump White House has been less of a life raft with not enough seats for everybody. It's actually has had, I mean, I wouldn't call it discipline by any means, but there's been kind of less leaking of this kind of stuff. And it's a kind of classic TikTok of this, you know, clown show where they're, you know, they're meeting in the Situation Room, you know, we can't even bring your cell phone, you know, to plot their strategy on Epstein, as if
- [43:00]
Harry Littman
this were like, it's where you go to kill Osama bin Laden.
- [43:03]
Jacob Weisberg
Political for the Cuban missile crisis, you know, And Dan Bongino thinks it's all Pam Bondi's fault. Everybody else thinks it's Bongino's fault. It's just, it's moronic, you know, and they're, they're their wrong estimation of the situation and how big a deal it was politically and how much effect it would have on Trump. So they kind of got it all wrong. But they were sort of treating it in the first instance like they were covering something up. But doing this in this kind of massively sort of incompetent way with all of this infighting. And it's just. It's sort of pleasurable to read, but I honestly don't know that there's any greater significance to it. There are no revelations about actually anything Epstein did or any connection Trump had to them in the story that I
- [43:50]
Norm Ornstein
saw, what I took out of this or sussed out of it. And I agree with you, Jacob, that there's no smoking gun of any sort here. Why be panicked if you don't have something you don't want to see revealed?
- [44:03]
Harry Littman
Exactly.
- [44:05]
Norm Ornstein
And when you have Blanche saying there's no evidence that there were any cameras or videos done, which is a flat lie, we don't know what happened to the videotapes. What we do know is that Epstein had cameras everywhere. There's a lot of stuff there. And I think you had during the campaign, Trump and his campaign, trying to exploit this and get on the side of release these files. Let's get all the Epstein stuff out there. We're not going to protect pedophiles. And then were just gobsmacked when it turned out that the worm had turned on them. And we know that there are more than 3 million pages that have not been released. We know that they worked diligently using half the people in the Justice Department to try and go through these files and cleanse them from anything that would be deeply damaging. There's a. Just has to be a lot more there, and it's not explicit in this piece, but, boy, it sure seemed that way to me.
- [45:15]
Harry Littman
And do you think it comes back again when Blanche is nominated?
- [45:19]
Yes, Harry, it has to. Todd Blanche personally interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, who was Jeffrey Epstein's right hand in all of this, and also engaged in the abusive acts against women as well. He went. Which was, as has been discussed as highly unusual for a deputy Attorney general to go and personally interview someone like her, and then gave her a transfer into Club Fed, where she has all these privileges and all of this. Now, of course, it's going to come back up. And so this little snippet, as entertaining as it was, you know, salacious the way it was written, it confirms everything that we suspected last year based on their reactions. What we did know, that there was way more to this and there was a reason why Elon Musk in, when they had their little Twitter fight about a Year ago. Remember when that breakup happened, very publicly, it was about exactly a year ago, Elon Musk, in the middle of their back and forth, threw out the, and you're in the Epstein files. And that's really what blew this whole thing up. Pam Bondi did this very performative bullshit, you know, handing off the files to these right wing influencers to say, oh, see, we're releasing them. The files are on my desk. I mean, they had all that charade going on, but it wasn't until Elon Musk, of all people, for goodness sakes, put that tweet out and it sent Washington ablaze. And from that point forward is where you started to see the crisis management happening, the Situation Room, you know, gathering that they report.
- [46:51]
Right.
- [46:51]
Which is just absurd. Remember, they also brought Lauren Boebert into the Situation Room to try to threaten her and pressure her to, to vote against the Epstein Transparency Act. So they just use these, these things as their own political toys. And it's so embarrassing. But this, this story is not going away. And, and I think the other part about this too is that in the, all of the drama of this, I don't want it to get lost that there are thousands of girls and women who were sexually abused terribly and trafficked and went through incredible trauma that are at the center of this and the accountability and justice for them, that should be the priority and it shouldn't be. And the fact that that wasn't it. The whole reason why they put all of these resources in the Situation Room, for God's sakes, was to protect the President, not to get to the bottom of what happened here and how big this goes and making sure justice is served, especially for these survivors who have been incredibly brave and, you know, it's not easy. And for them to put themselves out there like this. I give credit to the handful of Republicans, even though they might be terrible in other areas, but Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene of all people, and Lauren Boebert, these people, them standing with Democrats to do the right thing is the only reason why we know what we know now about those files getting released. And there's still two and a half million to three million, according to Congressman Garcia, that have not been released. What are they hiding?
- [48:17]
Yeah, and let me just tie this back to Blanche. So first of all, in Maxwell, we have Bondi saying, I read about it in the paper and it wasn't just unusual, it was totally derelict. And on the survivors, he's the guy who, who has such a terrible handicap. They stand up and say I was never asked to go to doj. That's on him. Finally, he is the guy who completely vis a vis Epstein has been running the show from the start. And so, yeah, I also don't see how it doesn't really come back. And the final point that the missing documents Mr. Blanche, can you assure us that there's not a single mention of Donald Trump in any of those? It's the kind of questions you can ask in confirmation that they could allude otherwise.
- [49:04]
America is watching so much more.
- [49:07]
America's watching, hopefully listening. But we're out of time here. So I just want to quickly move to our our five words or fewer question, which is Donald Trump as sportsman. He he goes to New York for the Game three. He is having the big UFC cage fight. Now the biggest news in the sporting world. I think the World cup has started. How will Trump put his stamp on the World Cup? Anyone?
- [49:37]
Five words or fewer announcement. It's the Trump World Cup.
- [49:44]
Norm Ornstein
Expel every player of color.
- [49:49]
Jacob Weisberg
Wait, they told me it was football.
- [49:53]
Harry Littman
And I have something similar soccer losers, suckers and commies. Thank you so much, Norm, Tara and Jacob. And thank you very much, listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylitman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie, Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsum Mahadrenathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants. By Akshaj Turbailu Our music, as ever, is by the Amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo, llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.