Podcast Summary: The Al Franken Podcast

Episode: Harry Litman on Important Legal Stuff
Date: October 26, 2025
Host: Al Franken
Guest: Harry Litman (Former US Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Host of "Talking Feds" podcast)

Overview

In this episode, Al Franken is joined by legal analyst Harry Litman for a deep dive into the tumultuous legal landscape unfolding under Donald Trump’s administration. The discussion focuses on high-profile “retribution prosecutions” against political adversaries, the fallout from Trump’s White House construction projects, the use of federal power in cities like Portland and Chicago, and Supreme Court cases with far-reaching implications on democracy. Bringing both sharp legal acumen and biting humor, the conversation underscores concerns about the rule of law, democratic norms, and the future of civil rights protections in the US.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Retribution Prosecutions: Comey, Letitia James, and John Bolton

Timestamps: 05:22–27:43

• Background: Trump has announced and undertaken legal actions against public figures he deems enemies, including James Comey, Letitia James, and John Bolton.

• Comey Case:

  • Litman describes this as "rock bottom, ninth circle of hell" for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
  • Charges revolve around "vindictive prosecution," with dubious claims of false statements to Congress.
  • The U.S. Attorney resigned after refusing to prosecute; replacement was wholly unqualified (Lindsey Halligan).
  • Immediate motions for dismissal filed (“I think these are two good ones”—[13:53], Harry Litman).
  • Franken: “Comey got him elected.” (15:02)
  • Litman: “He wanted to exact a pledge of loyalty from Comey, and Comey said no. This was like when we first were discovering March of 2017, what a madman he was.” (15:10)

• Letitia James Case:

  • Concerns a marginal mortgage technicality regarding a property purchased for a great-niece.
  • Loss totals just $18,000—far below DOJ prosecution thresholds.
  • Case is “just like pieces of trash. They are so poorly done… 18,000 is a joke. Frauds in the federal system are hundreds of thousands of dollars.” (19:53)
  • DOJ’s public integrity section has been hollowed out, reducing oversight (“30 lawyers is now two. It’s defunct now.” – 24:02).

• Bolton Case:

  • Distinct as it originated in a different district, with a “presumption of regularity.”
  • Charge: Mishandling classified information by emailing sensitive diary material to his wife and daughter—one of whom was hacked.
  • Not obviously a loser case, but still likely motivated by Trump’s animus.

2. Trump’s $230 Million Lawsuit Against DOJ

Timestamps: 27:43–31:52

• Trump seeks $230 million from the DOJ for perceived unjust prosecutions (Mar-a-Lago, Russia, January 6th).

• Trump claims he’s “suing himself” ("He says, I’m suing myself." – 27:59), since he controls the DOJ.

• Litman calls the claim “a total ethical disaster,” especially with key DOJ actors (e.g., Todd Blanche) occupying dual roles as Trump’s personal counsel and public official.

  “That’s such complete ethical violation. Whoever does it could lose their license.” (31:52, Harry Litman)

3. Destruction/Reconstruction of the White House—Legal and Political Issues

Timestamps: 31:52–33:59

• Trump is demolishing the East Wing to build a gilded ballroom, ostensibly funded by “charitable” donations from supporters seeking access.
• Legal precedent is unclear; no one has conceptualized such blatant alteration of the “people’s house.”
• Litman: “He’s kind of like godifying the White House… Where does a court even start?” (32:02)
• Franken: “That doesn’t seem like you want to get permission for that in some way, don’t you think?” (31:52)
• Multiple ethical and political implications, especially given simultaneous government shutdown and loss of social services.

4. Federal Deployment, Insurrection Act, and Use of National Guard

Timestamps: 33:59–39:38

• Trump has sent National Guard to Portland, OR and Chicago, IL, citing “rebellion” to justify the deployment under the Insurrection Act.
• Local officials have opposed the intervention, distinguishing it from historically justified uses (e.g., Rodney King riots).
• Key courts (e.g., Ninth Circuit) are split; Supreme Court intervention looms.
• Litman: “This is the single most, I think, worrisome and consequential thing happening in the country. Because…they take bullshit claims of emergency and use it to run roughshod over constitutional limits.” (36:37)
• If the courts accept Trump’s rationale, could set precedent for federal deployments based on factually dubious emergencies—“That’s how tyrants operate.” (38:07)

5. Louisiana v. Calais & the Future of the Voting Rights Act

Timestamps: 42:50–51:20

• Louisiana challenged over congressional map with only one Black-majority district, despite being a third Black state.
• District court ordered a second Black-majority district; Supreme Court now reviewing, with potential to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Section 2 enforces “effects” tests to prevent minority vote dilution; Section 5 (pre-clearance) already gutted in Shelby County v. Holder.
• Justice Thomas suggests Section 2 is unconstitutional: “It discriminates based on race.”
• Franken: “He’s basically saying racism is gone.” (48:10)
• Litman: “I think Section 2 is just going to be in the waste bin of history, meaning the Voting Rights Act…is probably dead or weakened at best.” (48:41)
• 15 House seats are directly impacted; outcome could upend the congressional balance for years to come.

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Selective Prosecutions:

  “I’m an ex-DOJ guy, and this is, to me, rock bottom, ninth circle of hell.”
  (07:41, Harry Litman)

• On Trump as a Prosecution Client:

  “He’s just a lying liar who gets up lying and lies all day.”
  (36:27, Harry Litman)

• On Rule of Law in the Trump Era:

  “Autocracies do it, not democracies.”
  (27:36, Harry Litman)

• On the Supreme Court and Voting Rights:

  “I think Section 2 is just going to be in the waste bin of history… the Voting Rights Act is probably dead or weakened at best.”
  (48:41, Harry Litman)

• On Democratic Resilience:

  “As crazy as this gets, I think maybe the popular opposition increases… I don’t see his going all the way to, you know, the end of the Democratic experiment as long as, A, he’s in the 40s and unpopular and B, there’s, you know, popular opposition just based on—it’s our Constitution, damn it. You know, get out of here.”
  (51:30, Harry Litman)

Segment Timestamps (Selected)

• 05:22 – Retribution Prosecutions: Comey
• 19:47 – Letitia James Case
• 24:16 – DOJ Integrity Degradation
• 27:43 – Trump’s Lawsuit Against DOJ
• 31:52 – Legal Issues with White House Construction
• 33:59 – National Guard Deployments & Insurrection Act
• 42:50 – Supreme Court: Louisiana v. Calais and Voting Rights Act
• 48:41 – Disintegration of Section 2, Voting Rights Act
• 51:30 – Closing Thoughts: American Democratic Resilience

Tone and Energy

The episode blends Al Franken’s sardonic, satirical humor with Litman’s earnest legal scholarship, producing a mix of gallows humor and alarm. The dialogue is frank, unsparing about the threats to legal norms, yet contains glimmers of hope rooted in popular resistance and constitutional spirit.

Final Thoughts

For listeners seeking a lucid—and often jaw-dropping—explanation of today’s legal and political crises, this episode delivers both expert insight and stinging wit. Franken and Litman sound the alarm on the death of prosecutorial integrity, the weaponization of government, and the ongoing assault on civil rights, yet ultimately find solace in the resilience and values of the American public. Will it be enough? As Litman says: “I remain somewhat sanguine, but, man, you’re right. What a rough road we’re in.” (52:29)