James Carville and Dan Pfeiffer Analyze the Dems' Shutdown Strategy Plus Liz Oyer Busts Trump's Pardons

Summary

---

The Jim Acosta Show

Episode: James Carville and Dan Pfeiffer Analyze the Dems' Shutdown Strategy Plus Liz Oyer Busts Trump's Pardons
Date: November 11, 2025
Host: Jim Acosta
Guests: James Carville, Dan Pfeiffer, Liz Oyer

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a frank, high-energy analysis of the recent government shutdown, the Democratic Party’s internal dynamics, and Donald Trump’s controversial use of presidential pardons. Jim Acosta invites veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, Pod Save America’s Dan Pfeiffer, and former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer to break down the political fallout of the shutdown, Trump’s increasingly erratic behavior, and the implications of his sweeping pardons—including those for figures involved in the 2020 election subversion. The conversation combines humor, sharp critique, and deep concern for American institutions.

---

Major Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Government Shutdown and Democratic Strategy

With James Carville (00:06–22:07)

• Democratic Fractures and the Lack of a Unified Endgame

  • Carville describes the shutdown as driven by legislative maneuvering with “no real endgame plan,” and recognizes deep coalition tensions within the Democratic Party.
    • “There was not a real in game plan here. ... Pick your favorite truth.” – James Carville (00:55)
    • “I'm not mad at anybody on the Democratic side and no one's on a Democratic side should be mad at anybody else...vent all you want and then shut up. Okay. And let's move on.” (01:33)
  • Democrats are portrayed as less hierarchical than Republicans, making party discipline more difficult.
    • “We don't value orthodoxy and adherence to the leader in the same way that Republicans do... You're not the boss of any kind of attitude.” (02:26)

• Hostage-Taking Rewarded

  • Acosta and Carville agree that by caving, Democrats may have set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future hostage tactics from Trump and the GOP.
    • “If you reward hostage taking, you're going to get more hostage taking.” – Jim Acosta (24:20)

• Emotional Fallout but Limited Political Consequence

  • Carville predicts the issue will quickly fade and have minimal impact on upcoming elections: “When this is looked back on six months from now… It'll be a fort in the win.” (06:10)
  • Emphasizes the inherent difficulties for Schumer as a coalition leader versus Trump's command of GOP loyalty.

• Trump’s Motivations and Detachment from Reality

  • Carville and Acosta mock Trump’s ignorance and egotism, referencing his obsession with gold décor and nonsensical comments on American institutions.
    • “You gotta understand that the man is just massively ignorant.” – James Carville (09:22)
    • “He loves turmoil. He doesn’t care about the Republican Party. ... He doesn’t care, he’s manifestly...when it comes to anything about culture or modern America or anything, he’s just massively ignorant.” (09:30)
  • Acosta: “He is becoming more and more detached from reality in a way that is striking to me.” (10:06)

---

2. Democratic Future and Electoral Outlook

With Dan Pfeiffer (22:27–39:40)

• Assessing the Shutdown Aftermath

  • Pfeiffer criticizes Democrats who struck the shutdown reopening deal for bad messaging and a lack of strategic discipline.
    • “The eight Democrats that cut the deal should stop talking. ... They don’t have a very good message here. And it’s really just inflated claiming matters. And I’m not sure who it’s helping, but I’m pretty sure it’s hurting a lot of people.” – Dan Pfeiffer (23:41)
  • Pfeiffer notes this was Democrats’ “point of maximum leverage” and believes they should have held out for a better deal. (24:25–25:13)

• Party Leadership Comparisons

  • Acosta and Pfeiffer lament the absence of figures like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, noting Schumer’s loss of caucus control:
    • “It’s hard to see that ever happening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell when he was the Republican leader.” – Dan Pfeiffer (25:55)

• Midterm Election Dynamics

  • Pfeiffer is bullish about Democratic prospects, emphasizing high turnout, base enthusiasm, and notably, the conversion of some Trump voters in recent special elections.
    • “We won these huge margins … because we were able to persuade Trump voters to vote for Democrats.” (29:11)
    • Example: “In California, 12% of Trump voters voted for Gavin Newsom's redistricting initiative.” (29:11)

• Trump’s Weakening Grip

  • Observes “shakiness” in the MAGA coalition, with even some right-wing voices critiquing Trump.
    • “Trump is fully entering his lame duck era.” (33:19)
    • “It is...Trump is becoming a lame duck and because he's going to look weaker, he's going to be weaker and that is going to have some real…political implications.” (33:52)

• Democratic Nominee “X-Factor”

  • Pfeiffer reflects on the unpredictability of presidential primaries and the elusive “quality” needed in the next candidate, citing Obama’s authenticity and risk tolerance.
    • “Comfort in his own skin. ... The second thing was he...was willing to lose the election.” (38:08–39:40)

---

3. Trump’s Pardons: Process, Corruption, and Consequences

With Liz Oyer (43:27–55:28)

• Ghislaine Maxwell’s Commutation Request

  • Oyer voices outrage at the possibility Trump would commute Maxwell’s sentence, underscoring the unprecedented nature of such a move for a sex crimes convict.
    • “The idea that somebody who has committed the types of crimes that she's committed is even in the discussion for a possible commutation of sentence is truly stunning...Only in Trump's universe could this be a serious topic of discussion.” – Liz Oyer (44:37)

• Trump’s Pattern of Self-Serving Pardons

  • She describes the pardon power’s constitutional intention (“for the public good”) versus Trump’s use of it for personal or political favors.
    • “Donald Trump views it as a tool that he can use freely to solve problems for himself.” (46:18)
    • “He is using it as a way to get out from under the Epstein scandal…” (46:18)

• Sweeping Election-Related Pardons

  • Oyer denounces Trump’s blanket pardons of 2020 election co-conspirators, even for state law crimes beyond federal reach.
    • “He believes that he can pardon...any crimes he wants in any jurisdiction in the country. That is very alarming in this climate of political violence…” (48:22)
  • The announcement by Ed Martin (pardon attorney), himself connected to “Stop the Steal,” is called out as an abuse for personal protection.
    • “Ed Martin made his name as the organizer of the Stop the Steal movement...The pardon likely applies to any crimes that Martin may have committed himself.” (50:22)

• Risks of Recidivism

  • Oyer warns of repeated offenses by pardoned individuals, giving recent examples and criticizing the complete lack of vetting.
    • “He doesn't vet the people. He doesn't care about merits of these cases. He cares about loyalty and he cares about what you can do for him...” (52:50)

• Damage to Democratic Institutions

  • She voices concern that the corruption of the pardon process erodes public faith in the system and leaves deserving applicants ignored.
    • “Right now There are over 15,000 people whose applications are stacked up with Ed Martin's office...they're just being ignored.” (54:26)

---

4. Trump’s Odd Proposals and Growing Detachment

Parody and Critique, Closing Segments (55:41–End)

• 50-Year Mortgages and Economic Policy Parody

  • Acosta lampoons Trump’s “50-year mortgage” idea as “batshit crazy”—a gimmick benefiting banks, not homebuyers.
    • “Why not a 75 year mortgage? ... pay that off when you're 140. ... It’s a giveaway to the banks.” – Jim Acosta (57:18)

• Obsession with Gold, American Taste, and 'Magnets'

  • Panelists repeatedly mock Trump’s fixation on gold décor and bizarre claims about the White House.
    • “Of course that crap comes from Home Depot. ... I'm just picturing ... some poor staffers...with the gold spray can.” – Jim Acosta (58:31)
    • “We have a President of the United States who is off his goddamn rocker.” (59:50)

• The “Magnets” Rant as a Symbol

  • Trump’s confusion over “magnets,” insisting “nobody knows what a magnet is,” becomes a running joke.
    • “The magnets, they go, they stick together. That’s what a magnet is.” – Jim Acosta (60:23)
    • “President of the United States talking about 50 year mortgages, not fully understanding what a magnet is or does.” (60:30)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• James Carville:
  • “It's just one of those things where pick your favorite truth.” (00:55)
  • “We don't value orthodoxy and adherence to the leader in the same way that Republicans do... You're not the boss of any kind of attitude.” (02:26)
  • “You gotta understand that the man is just massively ignorant.” (09:22)
  • “When this is looked back on six months from now… It'll be a fort in the win.” (06:10)
• Dan Pfeiffer:
  • “The eight Democrats that cut the deal should stop talking.” (23:41)
  • “This was the point of maximum leverage for Democrats.” (24:25)
  • “Trump is fully entering his lame duck era.” (33:19)
  • “You have to be tough, you have to be strong... My friend Sarah Longwell calls it, we need a tough unifier.” (37:34)
• Liz Oyer:
  • “Only in Trump's universe could this be a serious topic of discussion.” (44:37)
  • “The pardon power is intended to be for the public good. ... Donald Trump views it as a tool that he can use freely to solve problems for himself.” (46:18)
  • “He is effectively messaging to everyone in his MAGA base, do what you need to do... Don’t worry about the consequences.” (48:22)

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 00:06–22:07: Opening and James Carville on Democratic shutdown strategy, Trump analysis
• 22:27–39:40: Dan Pfeiffer on Democratic messaging, elections, party divisions, Trump’s vulnerabilities
• 43:27–55:28: Liz Oyer on Trump’s pardons, the Maxwell case, constitutional limits, recidivism risks
• 55:41–End: Acosta and panel on Trump’s bizarre proposals (50-year mortgages, gold décor, “magnets”), closing reflections

---

Tone and Style

The episode is energetic, irreverent, and unapologetically critical of Trump—mixing gallows humor with serious warnings about growing threats to democratic processes. Guests embrace Acosta’s wry, impatient style, engaging in organic back-and-forths and unscripted moments (“vent all you want and then shut up”) that reflect both deep frustration and flashes of optimism about Democratic prospects.

---

For New Listeners:

This summary captures the main thrust: a party defeat stoked by intra-coalition friction, a Republican “hostage-taker” emboldened, and an increasingly isolated/extravagant president misusing the powers of his office. Carville’s colorful storytelling, Pfeiffer’s strategic candor, and Oyer’s legal expertise offer real insights for political junkies and concerned citizens alike. If you’re seeking both pointed critique and dark comedic relief, this episode delivers in spades.

Transcript

[James Carville]

Foreign.

[Jim Acosta]

Welcome to the Jim Acosta Show. It's another day that ends and why. And Donald Trump's continued detachment from the real world. He's now rambling about magnets, if you can believe that. Meanwhile, Democrats are still furious that some in the party broke ranks with Republicans to end the government shutdown. Let's discuss with my first big guest this hour, James Carville. A little later, I'll have POD save America's Dan Pfeiffer and the great Liz Oyer. But James, let me go to you on all of this. I mean, you know, it seems to me Trump learned a lesson on how this shutdown ended. He seems to have gotten the message that it's okay to take hostages. And he was telling Fox, you know, of, of Chuck Schumer, he thought he could break the Republicans and the Republicans broke him. What did you think about how this played out? What's the lesson learned here?

[James Carville]

Well, first of all, the lesson is everything that everybody says is true. There was not a real in game plan here. It was a simple legislative maneuvering that we didn't do that well on. There were a couple of points. And also the eight senators who decided to reopen the government, everything they say is true. It's just one of these things where pick your favorite truth. You know, it says old line Jim, with a guy being sworn in in the courtroom in somewhere in rural north Louisiana said, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth, so help your God. And he looks up, he says, which one you want, Judge?

[Jim Acosta]

Okay, that's true. That's a good point.

[James Carville]

And this is just one of those things that I'm not mad at anybody on the Democratic side and no one's on a Democratic side should be mad at anybody else on the Democratic side. And I did or I melba last night and I said, you got to 1900 hours, winds it at 7 o' clock eastern to vent all you want and then shut up. Okay. And let's move on.

[Jim Acosta]

Well, but I got you on here anyway. So we get, we can't shut up just yet.

[James Carville]

I'm not, but I'm not. Just I got, I got till 7:00 clock tomorrow night.

[Jim Acosta]

Oh, okay. So we got some time. All right, we got some time. So was this even, I mean, should they have just passed a CR to begin with and not done this from the get go? Was it, I mean, to me you had to know that Trump was going to hold snap hostage, that he was going to try to hold federal workers hostage and that if you give this thing up now, you just tell them, okay, you can just do it over and over again. That's my question.

[James Carville]

So in my answer to this, and It'll take me 90 seconds, but bear with me. No problem. If you're a Democrat, you're in a coalition. Okay, in other words. But Maggie Hassan is in the same coalition. Well, Mondami is not a Democrat. But let's say, just for purposes of. When you're in a coalition, you have different tensions within the coalition. And when you negotiate with a cult and understand that is what the Republican Party is today, it's a cult. It's not. Had nothing to do with Reagan or any of that other crap that I grew up with. You're at a severe disadvantage. And you know, when people are Democrats, and I'm one, since early age, I was more moved by civil rights. But there's a little bit of, you're not the boss of me, God damn it. Okay? And we don't. We don't value orthodoxy and adherence to the leader in the same way that Republicans do, because that's why we call it the reasons that we're not Republicans. You're not the boss of any kind of attitude.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, they're going to be a little all over the place. And, and Tim Kaine said that he, Tim Kaine said, hey, I, I'm. I'm from Virginia. I represent Virginia. I got a lot of federal workers in Virginia. So he's going to do what's best for those federal workers in Virginia. But, but if you're going to hold out for health care subsidies and Obamacare, it seems to me, and, and then you give that up on the promise of a vote that, of course it's going to be Lucy in the football. They're not going to have that vote. Or, I mean, what's the point?

[James Carville]

You know, I'll tell you the point. You really have the issue. It's like a 73% issue, and you have a clear distinction. And if I thought this is how. I don't say I'm naive. I thought if I were Republican, I take this, because if you don't have it, it's going to really hurt a lot of people. I need to vote for me in a fundamental way, and I can just say the Democrats held me hostage. The Democrat, you know, I wouldn't. I, I think they had an exit ramp here, and now they've just shut the exit ramp down. And. Yeah, there's no. It's in a state that goes into infinity. So I, I Actually thought politically the best decision they could have made was claim that the Democrats are political terrorists, but we got to vote for this, and it would have been out of the trap. But they hate, they hate. They hate it so much, it's irrational. And I thought, yeah, I guess Schuma thought, you know, Hakeem or somebody thought this was too good a deal for him to pass up. I mean, this was an offer they couldn't refuse, but, yeah, they refused it.

[Jim Acosta]

And what about. I mean, you're hearing from a lot of Democrats saying, you know, I mean, they were ready for Chuck Schumer to go a while ago. And what. What's your sense of that?

[James Carville]

You know, and I, I was asked yesterday about it. I'll say the same thing. I've never had much of an opinion on internal congressional politics. And 24 Democratic senators conclude everything. You know, they decide everything. So I'll just leave it at that. And whatever decision they make, I'll do. But I, I just, just. I have enough fights. I don't need a fight with.

[Jim Acosta]

I hear what you say, but what about, you know, James, what about the notion that Democrats are looking pretty damn good coming out last week, and you had Trump saying the, the shutdown was hurting us. Right. And then all of a sudden, you. You let him out of that, that bear trap that he stepped in. No.

[James Carville]

Yeah. Remember what Ward Norton said when. And in the frame, like Escape, he said, it's gone. Just like a fort in the win. That's in, in the whole thing. When this is looked back on six months from now.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

It'll be a fort in the win. All right. And it gives everybody a chance. And you're right, but I don't think could be wrong. It's going to change very much. You're going to have a lot. You're going to have a lot of. I don't know what I'd have done if I was sent to gain or if I was sent to Hassan. Okay. Clearly, Senator Durbin was not running for reelection. Yeah. I don't know of a better Democrat that I've ever known than Senator Durbin. And what these guys would say is, man, we were hurting people. This was not. We didn't need it. And that was a conclusion that they reached. I can't say that the people who oppose that don't have a point, but I don't think it's gonna matter.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

I just don't. I don't think anybody's gonna. None of these people are up for reelection. And again, I go Back to Schumer is a hard job. He, he's leading a coalition. Thumb just has to sit there or Johnson just have to sit there and do what Trump tells him. They don't have a choice. So I, we had certain disadvantages, but I think the disadvantages are things that I like about being a Democrat.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

Well.

[Jim Acosta]

And if there's one silver lining in all of this, it's that Adelita Grialva gets sworn in. She's apparently been told she gets sworn in. She got a decisive. That's right.

[James Carville]

They couldn't. Mikey Bar's got to bring them back. And when they bring them back, because when they cross the Potomac, you know, you've done this a billion times. You've landed at National Airport. And when they look at the Potomac, it's going to be the corpse of Jeffrey Epstein rising and floating down the river just, just like Rasputin. Okay. Yes. That is a very true. And that is an important ancillary benefit of this.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

The cops will be. It will be floating in the Potomac and they'll all see it, know what they're face with.

[Jim Acosta]

And how much of this shutdown do you think had to do with Jeffrey Epstein? Because I think there was some. It may not have been the whole thing, but I think that this. Do you, do you get any sense that. I mean, I, maybe it's just me. I think Donald Trump wanted this shutdown. He needed the shutdown. They were on the. I mean, remember how much Momentum there was? 218 votes for this.

[James Carville]

When it comes to Trump, I, I always am willing to give him the stupidity benefit. Like even on the Great Gatsby Party. I. Do you really think he knows who the Great Gatsby was or anything about the Great Gatsby? Of course. He goes, he goes to the Washington commander's football game. He actually thinks he's popular and he didn't look at the election.

[Jim Acosta]

That's wild. It's true.

[James Carville]

He lost a district by what, 89 to 11. He actually thought he was going to be a party.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. He was sending those federal workers to food lines not far from, from that stadium.

[James Carville]

He doesn't know. Okay, you gotta understand that the man is just massively ignorant.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

And he just, and what he loves is, he loves turmoil. He, he, he, he doesn't care about the Republican Party. These people are giving their allegiance. You think he cares one iota about Mike Johnson? Of course not. Of course not.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

But that they're trapped. But he doesn't know. He doesn't care he's manifestly. Okay, say stupid, but he. When it comes to anything about culture or modern America or anything, he's just massively ignorant.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, just. I do think that there is something wrong with him. There's. I mean, he's, It's. And I said this at the top, he's becoming more and more detached from reality in a way that is. Is striking to me. And there was an interview that he did just recently where he was. He was, you know, talking about the gold in the. In the White House, and I guess Laura Ingram was asking about all the gold everywhere inside the Oval Office. Let's play a little bit of that. Just because I think it, you know, a couple of things kind of highlight what I'm talking about here.

[Laura Ingram]

If we can play that imitation.

[Liz Oyer]

So these aren't like from Home Depot or something?

[Laura Ingram]

No, this is not Home Depot stuff.

[Jim Acosta]

No, not so stuff you buy.

[Laura Ingram]

This is not Home Depot. The one thing with gold.

[Liz Oyer]

Why not?

[Laura Ingram]

You can't. You can't imitate gold.

[James Carville]

There's no paint.

[Jim Acosta]

James. He really wants people to believe that that is real gold on the walls of the Oval Office there. I mean, we. We all know that that is not the case.

[James Carville]

Well, you know, first of all, I. Where I grew up, and I suspect you probably grew up under some kind of similar things. It was thought that people should be dignified. Certain people had taste. You. But it was. My daughter is an interior designer. My wife is. Would be very good if that's what she chose to do. I mean.

[Jim Acosta]

Absolutely.

[James Carville]

And they, you know, I want to speak. I never speak for my wife, but my daughter would literally. I. She probably, you know, barf at the sight of that. I mean, in the whole thing about particularly America, when you look at our. What they did to the East Wing, Washington is justifiably a city of Republican architecture. I mean, small r. Okay. We don't do Buckingham Palace. Okay.

[Jim Acosta]

Right.

[James Carville]

We don't do things that they do in. In wherever they had monarchs. We do our arch Versailles or whatever. Yeah, yeah. There's a reason he doesn't even understand that. He doesn't understand why there's not gold trim and. And, you know, massive columns in front of the White House. Why is this just kind of elegant, you know, semi Renaissance art. That's on purpose. Right.

[Jim Acosta]

The founders didn't want it.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Palaces.

[James Carville]

We don't even have tall buildings. Yeah. And that's what. I kind of like that. I lived in Washington for a long time. Every time I go there, I fly into, you know, do the approach from the north to National Airport, I always try to sit on the port side of the airplane. And every time I see the city, it excites me because it's a beautiful place. He doesn't know any of that. He has no idea.

[Liz Oyer]

No.

[James Carville]

Of any of that. And that he actually thinks gold commodes or, or something glamorous.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

And I, I think people are starting to. To realize that. How ghosty is. I mean, it just is. So I don't even sound like. Because I'm not a particularly educated or cultured person. But it's. What's, Is it pedestrian, the word I'm looking at? No, it's not even pedestrian. Yeah, but I think it's way worse than that.

[Jim Acosta]

It's way worse.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's way worse.

[James Carville]

I'll think of a word here if I go long enough.

[Jim Acosta]

But I mean, you worked in the White House and we're. Were around the White. I mean, just the thought of the East Wing being demolished like that, I mean, it is, it's. It, it, it tells you what we're dealing with, what we're up against.

[James Carville]

And everybody that's worked in the White House have been there always has the same impression. It's very small and I think that's on purpose. Yeah, it. It's not, but it's tasteful. But not much more. I mean, I've been in a lot of offices or a lot of houses that are more magnificent than you would see in the West Wing or even East Wing for that matter. And that's. That, that's the whole point. But he will never understand that. He just can't understand it.

[Jim Acosta]

And I mean, because he has no respect and has no regard for our republic. I mean, you've had, you've been talking about some ideas lately as to what Democrats should do when they get back in power. You've seen the Supreme Court go rogue. You've seen the Republican Party take control of the Congress and just go along with Trump doing every outrageous thing under the sun. What your thoughts on how Democrat. I mean, yep, this didn't work out the way they wanted with the shutdown, but midterms 2028 again, go back to Warden Orton.

[James Carville]

The fought Norman. I'll tell you what was not was Bush v. Gore. And that told them that you can steal an election and there's not going to be any consequences. The entire establishment of the United States folded like a cheap suit. Well, the Supreme Court's broken and. Well, then we don't have any other choice. And from that camera, Shelby County. From that came all of the other things that you see now that we, particularly when it comes to redistricting, we're going to do it just because we can and you can't do anything about it.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

And the truth of the matter is, is 18% of the United States elects 52 senators. Shove it. That's just the way it is at my point is there are two things that you can do legislatively and you can do them quickly. Is nowhere that is chiseled in marble that the Supreme Court shall have nine members. I think at one time it actually had seven. But I don't want to be not that good a historian. And there's nothing or reason you can't say it goes to 13. It don't cost that much. You can do that. And there's nothing that says that Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia can't become states that they're part of, you know, under the jurisdiction of the United States. Why not make them states? If you do, then you at least address the problem of Senate imbalance, which you're not going to ever be able to address constitutionally because they're not going to, you know, three quarters of the states. Well, people, Wyoming is not going to vote itself out of power over California. It is not going to happen. But there are legislative remedies in all of the constitutional amendments about popular vote. They're all great guys alone. You, you're literally pissing up a rope if you're trying to change the Constitution to disadvantage smaller states.

[Jim Acosta]

But that means, James, you're optimistic about 26 and you're optimistic about 28.

[James Carville]

You're optimistic very, very. And you can't look at the recent election returns or you can't look at the polling and not be one of the things in the spring of 2023. If I looked at the polling with Biden and I said, this is a disaster. We're going to lose. We're going to do something. I was very. I remember.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

This is a bigger disaster for Trump than The spring of 2023 was for President Biden. If, if you look at it in little tricks that you do is you see if there's differential. So agree, approve or disagree on immigration. He might be getting a 54% approval on immigration. The economy is getting 38%. Well, that tells you that they got a good sample and people are answering questions selectively. And when you look at him, he doesn't know it. No one will tell him. He's massively unpopular. The margin in these races was Just utterly breathtaking. And you know, I was at. As you were at the Barnett memorial service, which was the day my lawyer. And it was everybody in Washington, it was widely assumed. And everybody said, well, sure, Spanberger's gonna win, but New Jersey, I'm not sure exactly.

[Jim Acosta]

That's right.

[James Carville]

Campaign has a better campaign. It was the same. It didn't matter. They said, well, it was a possibility. In California, they got 64%. This was. And I always believe that I've done quite well on reminding people that elections, first and foremost, always about economic conditions. I think that cruelty and corruption played a role in this. I really do. And I think the evidence is on my side. I think.

[Jim Acosta]

How so?

[James Carville]

Yeah, well, you look at the California results. I mean, affordability was not on the ballot. And most impressively was Pennsylvania, where the Supreme Court retention. We got 62%. We got 25% in Erie county, which is literally impossible. It defies gravity. No candidate in Erie county for president has gotten even 52 in this century. It's so swing. It's the swingiest place in the swingiest state.

[Jim Acosta]

And Abigail Spanberg, I saw, won Loudoun county, Virginia by 29. I mean, that's, that's.

[James Carville]

Loudoun County. That's Dulles Airport. Just so to give people a reference.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

Yeah.

[Jim Acosta]

It's pretty close to D.C. but not that. Right.

[James Carville]

Yeah, not that close. It's very ex. Urban, rural areas of Loud and too. It was always a blowout. Big Republican. Yeah. Not just a win. A breathtaking blowout.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[James Carville]

I think she got 89. Alexandria City.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And the, and the Republican for Attorney General, Jason Miars, who we thought he was going to win because of the other guy.

[James Carville]

I want to find a twice convicted child molester and running for Congress against a Republican, I think we could win.

[Jim Acosta]

You got better candidates than that, James.

[James Carville]

I think I'm just, I'm being provocative here.

[Jim Acosta]

I know you're being provocative, but we did let the other side deal with that, James.

[James Carville]

They ran a million spots on it and they won. By anyone even close?

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, it's. It's unreal. It's unreal. And is it. And I, I thought I saw some polls that showed people cared about democracy. I mean, we were all, all told nobody cares about that anymore. Stop talking about that. I think people do care about that and they're freaked out about that. And this no Kings thing is evidence that they care about that or is it pure Trump hatred? What do you.

[James Carville]

You know, again, two things are possible and true at the same time. Okay. But I Think what people, like, care about is democracy. I'm not sure exactly what it means to people, and I don't. No one knows an oligarch is. So let's. Let's just get that behind. I said.

[Jim Acosta]

Put it on all the signs.

[James Carville]

I understand. And, And Bernie, you know, bless his soul, is. Is into the language of the proletariat. But the. The rest of us who don't know what the proletariat is, don't know what an oligarch is. Right.

[Jim Acosta]

We don't know what that is.

[James Carville]

People are just out there trying to make it who don't view themselves as a, you know, potential rising class in America. But. But I. I think if people have heard it. But what they don't like is the way that he doesn't pay attention to laws. And I think the best way is, you know, the other day, I got a speeding ticket. You know what I got to do? I got to go down. I got to pay it. It's got to go. My insurance company's got to be notified. I get a point against it. That's the way that most people live. He does not live like that. He does not feel constrained or answerable to the law. By the way, I did get a speeding ticket. Chicken. I was doing like 37 and 25.

[Jim Acosta]

You gotta see if. James, are you going to get a ticket, man? Go for the gold, you know, break some records out there or something.

[James Carville]

There you go.

[Jim Acosta]

James, thanks for joining us on this Veterans Day. Great to talk to you, as always.

[James Carville]

You're back.

[Jim Acosta]

All right, good to see you.

[James Carville]

All right, thanks, James.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You, too.

[Jim Acosta]

All right, bye. Bye. The great James Carvo. And we did run into each other at a memorial service recently, and people were basically saying they. They didn't feel so good about those elections last week, and then you saw what took place. I want to bring in somebody who also just has his pulse on a lot of things is Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, I'm sorry to make you go after James.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That's tough. That. It's a tough, colorful.

[Jim Acosta]

You're not going to say things that might get my show canceled on multiple platforms.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I'll try not to.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. But it's great to see you again. And I, you know, I. I wanted to have you on Dan, because, I mean, first of all, I mean, you and I have known each other a long time, and I just haven't had. And I. And I thought, oh, yeah, I need to have Dan on. But I. I read your substack on the shutdown thing. And I thought, this is very important. I just want to read it to folks at home. What I read from Dan, and it makes a lot of sense, which is the gist is, yes, everybody's pissed, everybody's upset, but you have to move on. And the number one thing that you wrote in your substack on this was that, and it's called the message box. For folks who don't have it, they should subscribe to it. It says, number one, the eight Democrats that cut the deal should stop talking. Several of the Democrats who voted to open the government have been on a media tour. They held a press conference on Sunday night and then made the rounds on cable trying to sell the deal. They're doing a terrible job. I think that's exactly right. And in particular, was it, it was Angus King who said standing up to Trump didn't work. I mean, I just like, please don't say things like that. You know, as somebody who has tried to do that, I just wish people wouldn't say that.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, it's really. I watched the press conference on Sunday night. I watched a lot of cable appearances. And it's just they're not the best messengers to begin with. They don't have a very good message here. And it's really just inflated claiming matters. And I'm not sure who it's helping, but I'm pretty sure it's hurting a lot of people.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And so what was your main takeaway from all of this? Because to me, my overarching thing is, and I know everybody has a hot take and they're not, none of them are very good or some of them are good, mine probably aren't, but. But that you reward hot. If you reward hostage taking, you're going to get more hostage taking. And it seems to me if you're going to go down this road with them and demand things and hang in there, and so you can't just fold on a Sunday evening when nobody's expecting it. But that's just. What do you think?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

No, I agree with that. Look, it's possible that Trump and, and the Republicans, Congress would have just hurt as many people as they possibly could for as long as they possibly could to avoid extending these Obamacare tax credits. But if you're going to be willing to shut down the government and have a fight, you have to be willing to endure pain. And it may be a week from now, two weeks from now, three weeks from now would have been the time to decide that this can't go on any further. But this was the point of maximum leverage for Democrats.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, we had.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Trump himself was the one who believed that the shutdown cost the Republicans these elections.

[Jim Acosta]

Right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

The polling was beginning to show that because of the flight cancellations, because the snap payments, that people who had not been paying a lot of attention were now tuning in. The political pressure was ratcheting up on Republicans, and we should have played this out longer to see if we could have gotten a better deal because essentially they shut it down for nothing.

[Jim Acosta]

Right? Exactly. And it was sort of like, well, why? He was just getting booed at the commander's game, and then they backed down. I didn't understand that, but I think you're absolutely right about that, Dan, that the politics were sort of shifting in their direction. And it's making me think back to when you were there with the Obama days and so on. You guys had Harry Reid, if I'm not mistaken, and you had Nancy Pelosi, if I'm not mistaken. And mean, talk about you, you kind of had. You were your cup runneth over, I suppose, in terms of Democratic strategists up on Capitol Hill, is it that you don't. The Democrats don't have that this time around, that maybe Schumer's just not the same kind of poker player that Harry Reid was? What do you think?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think it's a couple things. One, I think the Democrats were never truly united on what this shutdown was about. Right. I think they were more interested in shutting it down. And there were people who wanted to shut it down for these Obamacare tax credits. Others wanted to shut it down because of the ICE raids or Trump's authoritarianism or things like that. And, and so there wasn't ever this unanimity around one specific thing that could hold people together. And, you know, Schumer was not in an easy position here by any stretch of the imagination. But to. To lose eight members of your caucus, to have them negotiate directly with John Thune, the Republican leader, and the Trump White House is a sign of one of two things to me. Either Schumer was tacitly okay with it with the government reopening, or he has lost total control of his caucus. Because that is, you know, it's. Nearly 20 of his caucus abandoned him here. And it's hard to see that ever happening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell when he was the Republican leader.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, no, and I mean, to me, this idea that they were holding out for the Obamacare subsidies, I thought, hey, that's. That's a That's a noble policy goal. That's fine. And it's sort of emphasizes the affordability message and so on. But there could be a whole hell of a lot more things that could be thrown into that basket other than the Affordable Care act at that moment. And the other thing that I just didn't quite understand in terms of how it ended was there's a promise of a vote on these Obamacare subsidies. And I'm just reading this in Politico this afternoon, Dan, that, I mean, already Republicans in the Senate are talking about their own plans for what they want to do. Republicans appear to be quickly pivoting from the debate around the Affordable Care act tax credits, developing their own health policy agenda. That's in Politico today. So Lucy's already pulled the football away.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, I mean, basically they, I think even these eight Democrats who, who really wanted to get the government open for the sake of opening the government and I think ultimately protect the appropriations process because I think they were starting to get worried that Trump was going to convince enough Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and they would lose all influence and on the appropriations process if it became a 50 vote process. And this, this vote is, I mean, there is no guarantee for the House we even hold a vote, let alone pass it. There's no guarantee that it will pass. There's no guarantee that you would get to a simple majority vote even. And so this, it's always, this is a fig leaf at best.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, no, that's true. And it's sort of a tale as old as time. Republicans wanting to get rid of the Affordable Care act and Trump in particular, even though he says I'll have a plan in two weeks or concepts of a plan and he never really has one. I wanted to ask you a little bit, Dan, about what you're thinking about in terms of last week's elections. What were your main takeaways from that? And then what does 26 look like to you? Because I haven't talked to you in ages and I love the Pod Save America stuff and you guys are amazing and do a great job with all of that. But, I mean, there's a part of me that is, I'm very worried about what's going to take place next year. And I think that he's already making moves to subvert what, you know, the, the will of the people. We're already seeing these redistricting efforts and so on. What do you take away from last week? And do you think that that terrifies him enough to Want to double down and really screw with next year's midterms.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah. So let's start, let's start with last Tuesday. Last Tuesday was a huge, incredible night for Democrats for two reasons. Democratic turnout was a up. So people, Democrats are excited even as they are disenchanted with our leadership or they're down on the party or thinks maybe the members of Congress aren't fighting hard enough. They turned out to vote everywhere, New Jersey, Virginia, California, Georgia, Pennsylvania, everywhere there's election people turned out. I think most interestingly, we've won a lot of special elections in the Biden era just simply by turning out more than Republicans. Our party, the Democratic Party, now has a higher percentage of our base, our high turnout, you know, college educated suburban voters. We kind of look like the Republican Party of the Romney era. But what was interesting here is that this wasn't just turnout. We won these huge margins across the country because we were able to persuade Trump voters to vote for Democrats. So in New Jersey and Virginia, 7% of the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 voted for either Abigail Spamberger or Mikey Sheryl. In New York City, 12% of people who voted for Donald Trump one year ago voted for a Democratic socialist named Zoran Mamdani. That's right, for mayor. And then this is, to me, the craziest one. I'm sorry, that's 9% in New York. This is the craziest one to me. In California, 12% of Trump voters voted for Gavin Newsom's redistricting initiative. 12%. And so there is clearly a set of voters who pull the lever for Trump, probably with some measure of reluctance, because they thought he would lower their costs. And he is raised their cost and done a whole bunch of other things they did not sign up for and they voted for Democrats. And so that bodes very well for the midterms. Obviously, we have a long time to go to get there, but it bodes well. And, but yes, of course, I think Donald Trump's going to do everything in his power to make it as hard for Democrats. That's why he's done the redistricting stuff. It's why his administration is in the, is pushing and this and his allies are pushing in the Supreme Court to try to get Section 2 of the Voting Rights Amendment struck down before the election. I'm not going to be surprised to see ICE agents and polling places or in communities that are Democratic turnout communities where we see National Guard places. Absolutely. So I think he's going to do lots of things to try to make it very hard. And it's going to be Democrats job to do everything we can to win by as much as we can. That makes it a big, do you use a Trump, a Trump phrase too big to rig?

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, no, I, and, and by the way, he just pardoned a bunch of people who are involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election who now can go back on the battlefield and over again for him and probably will get pardons if they, if something were to happen to them again. The other thing, you know, you mentioned something about these Trump voters who voted Democrat and it reminds me of this phenomenon and I'm curious if you have any thoughts on it, of Obama voters who then voted for Trump and could Trump voters come back and support Obama? What is that in your view? What, what is going on there? Are those working class Democrats or those Reagan Democrats? What are the, who are they?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think it's going to differ from state to state in this election. It seems to have been just more traditional swing voters. These are people who pay less attention to politics generally more likely to be working class than not and particularly in New Jersey, more likely to be Latino than not. These are the people that Trump has brought into his coalition over the last primarily four years here. Working class voters of color and young voters primarily.

[Jim Acosta]

And are they. So they're gettable?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, they're absolutely gettable. Yeah, absolutely.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

We're not going to get every, we don't, you know, some people to take their MAGA hats off and become Democrats. But there is a segment of voters who are very available to Democrats in this midterm for sure.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. Yeah. I saw this guy's, his name Sean Davis, I can't remember. He's like, he's one of these right wing. Oh, he's come after me. He's probably come after you. Oh, yeah, he's, he's, he's kind of a nutty guy. And I say that in a colloquial way. I don't mean that in a clinical way. But who he's, he's even gone off on Trump, on missing this affordability thing and just being wrong on a lot of issues. And it just, there's, there's, and Margie Taylor Greene and so on. There's, there's a little bit of, there's an undercurrent there inside MAGA where it's just a little shaky.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah. I think, I think this is in part because Trump is fully entering his lame duck era.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You know, he's he, even Trump has said he's not going to be on the ballot again. The, his approval like think about it. His approval rating is about where Joe Biden's was at this time. He's actually less popular on the economy than where Joe Biden was at this time. I think a lot of us, myself included, have been thinking about this because Trump was just elected after not being in office. We try to treat this like his first term, like is 2026 going to be his 1994 or his 2010 or his 2022 or whatever that is.

[Jim Acosta]

But it's really a shit show for him.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Right, Exactly. That's a better one. Yeah, but this is his 6 year of his presidency and presidents often recover from their bad midterm early on because there's the reelection campaign to bring the coalition back together again. That is not going to be there for Trump and it's already splintering. Right. It's the Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Mass. It's Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's Sean Davis, it's Steve Bannon doing other things. There's just, it is, you know, Trump is becoming a lame duck and because he's, he's going to look weaker, he's going to be weaker and that is going to have some real, you know, short, medium and long term political implications.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And, and which takes me to the cocktail party question that I'm sure you get asked, which is who do you see moving forward? Dan, I'm sure you get this all the time. Dan, Dan, Dan, tell us who's going to be the nominee, who's going to what are, do you, do you want to play that game? Would you rather not?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I, the truth is I have truly no idea. And the example I always give is, and you'll remember this because you've been around as long as I have, but.

[Jim Acosta]

You know, in 2000, but anyway.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, exactly, exactly. At this point in 2005, everyone thought that the next Democratic nominee had to be a governor from a purple or red state, you know, or someone with red state credibility. The toast of the town. This is seem crazy now, but the person that everyone thought was going to be the favorite in Washington to be the 2008 Democratic nominee was Governor Mark Warner. I was working for Senator Evan by a red state senator. People are very interested in someone like that. And then four years later we nominate Barack Hussein Obama who goes on to win an electoral landslide. So we just don't really know. I look, you know, I watch all the people who are on the SO list of potential Candidates, a lot of them were at CrookedCon are convening in D.C. this past week. We saw Andy Bashir and Chris Murphy and Ruben Gallego and a bunch of others. And, and you know, they're all interesting and you know, the, the. But none of them have shown me that they have like what, you know, it is right now right to do it. And that's kind of what the process is going to play itself out. So I'm trying to bring a lot of humility to what it's going to take to win, who has what it's going to take to win and what the voters are actually going to want when the time comes.

[Jim Acosta]

And there's, it's because there's just something, a little something, I don't want to call it magical because that sounds weird, but there's something strange that happens when these candidates go out to these states and then just stuff starts happening with Obama. And I just want to play this clip of Obama. He went on to a plane full of veterans heading into Veterans Day and we play that clip. He was going in there and all of these veterans were just awestruck and couldn't believe he was there. Let's play a little bit of that.

[James Carville]

As we approach Veterans Day. I wanted to stop by and just say thank you for your extraordinary service to you, your family, the sacrifices that all of you made to protect our country is something that will always be honored and we are very grateful.

[Jim Acosta]

And we also happen to welcome you.

[James Carville]

With a 70 degree day in D.C. which doesn't always happen around here.

[Jim Acosta]

I got to see a president. It was Gerald Ford.

[James Carville]

How about that everybody?

[Jim Acosta]

It's good to see Obama's smile. I guess I should say that too. And yes, you can see my heart at the bottom of the screen. I did like that video and I think I reposted it or something. But Dan, how do we get back to that?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

We got to elect a Democrat in 2028. That's what we got to do. There's, there has what the next president states cannot be a MAGA Trump accolade. We need, we need someone who is, and I think this is going to be a very important test for our Democratic nominees. I think there's real political appetite here for someone who can bring us together.

[James Carville]

Right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You know, you have to be, if you have to be tough, you have to be strong if you able to communicate. But if you can be, you know, my friend Sarah Longwell calls it, we need a tough unifier. We need someone with strength but who will try to Appeal to what, what we have in common. Because I think people are going to be pretty sick of all the division by the time 2028 comes around.

[Jim Acosta]

And what is there a quality in Obama that you say, okay, that it's this quality that you need, or was it just, it was him in that moment and it was coming out of Bush and the Iraq war and it just worked out for him, or is there quality that he brings to the table? You're like, it's that.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

So I'd say there are a couple things there. Like, absolutely. We, you know, the David Axelrod, Obama's advisor, always used to say voters want the replacement, not the replica. They want sort of the opposite of what they had. And, and Obama was the opposite of Bush and Trump was the opposite of Obama and Biden was the opposite of Trump. And you know, so it goes like that.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But what I think, and Obama certainly benefited from that as being a sort of thoughtful, smart person and, you know, coming after Bush and sort of the rash decisions that go to Iraq, etc. But what I think he, there are two qualities about him that I think are sort of Rep. That you would look for in another candidate because you can't just say, like, be as good a communicator, be a good a speaker. And the two things are comfort in his own skin. He was just very comfortable his own skin. He didn't have the sort of ingrained insecurities that so many politicians have. He, he knew who he was, he knew what he stood for. He knew what he believed. And the second thing was he, and this was he was willing to lose the election. Right. So many people are so afraid, so many politicians, Democrats in particular, are so afraid of losing that they never bother, bother to get around to winning. And Obama was, he always say, if I lose this election, he was this in the primary to me all the time. If I lose this election, I'm just going to go back to my life. I'm going to take my kids to this, take my kids to school in the morning. I'm going to be in the Senate, have a normal life. That's okay with me. Right. So I'm going to give it all I have and I'm not going to change who I am because, because I need to win so bad or I'm so afraid of losing or being a failure. And I think you're going to want a candidate who has those two qualities.

[Jim Acosta]

Interesting. Hey, Dan, great to see you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it and hope I can reach out to you and grab you like we did today. It just worked out perfectly. Thanks so much.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Anytime you want. Bye.

[Jim Acosta]

All right, Good to see you, Dan. Thanks so much. You know, and, and the other thing that, that Obama had going for him is he knew what magnets were. Have you seen this video? Let's play this. We should play this video. We should play this video.

[Laura Ingram]

So President Xi was willing to do the rarer thing. That's magnets. Now nobody knows what a magnet is. If you don't have a magnet, you don't make a car, you don't make a computer, you don't make televisions and radios and all the other things. You don't make anything thing. It's a 30 year effort to monopolize a very important thing. Now within two years we'll have magnets, all the magnets we want, but we don't because of tariffs. I called, I said, listen, here's the story. You're going to play the magnet, I'm going to play the tariff on you. And for national security purposes, I raise the tariff by 100% over and above what they were paying, which was 55. So he was at 155%. Within 10 minutes I got a call, we'd like to meet.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah.

[Laura Ingram]

And we settled it out.

[Jim Acosta]

I don't know what he's saying there. I, I don't think he understands that. We all know what magnets are. Magnets. I mean, I used to play with magnets as a kid and so. But anyway, the point of the moral of the story here, the point of the story, the reason why I bring it up is that that man who is the President of the United States right now is, is doing things that just don't make a lot of sense these days. Maybe they make sense to him, but he's, he is not making sense right now. And yet he continues to do things that are dangerous for our country, dangerous for our democracy. Just as I was talking about on yesterday's show. I'll talk about it again. He pardoned all of these election 2020 deniers who are part of an alleged scheme, I guess I should say, to overturn the 2020 election. Pardon Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, you name it. And now he is facing the decision of whether or not to commute the sentence of Ghisain Maxwell, the co conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein, the sex trafficker who was moved to a minimum security prison. Ghisaine Maxwell was and apparently is now because Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee revealed this has been making the case to have her sentence community. I spoke with former part attorney over at the Justice Department, Liz Oyer about this. We had a great conversation about this earlier in the day. Take a look, take a listen to this. And joining me now is Liz Oyer, the former pardon attorney over at the Justice Department. Liz, great to see you as always. Really appreciate it. There's a lot to get into. I mean you have a very busy, you know, beat these days, I guess if you want to call it that. I, I do want to talk about these elections Denier pardons that that Trump put out, I guess was over the weekend. But I, I have to ask you about this. GHISLAINE maxwell NEWS apparently the House Judiciary Committee Democrats have heard from whistleblower and this is according to NBC News and they are saying that Ghislaine Maxwell and this is not a huge surprise, the co conspirator of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is in the process of seeking a commutation of her 20 year prison sentence from Trump. This is according to a whistleblower who has talked to House Democrats and apparently as part of this whistleblower information, she's getting all of this cushy treatment at this minimum security prison she was transferred to. I guess. What's your reaction to that and how does it fit in with like this pattern of sleazy and corrupt pardons that we've seen from Donald Trump since he got back into office?

[Liz Oyer]

Yeah. The fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is seeking a commutation at this point is not a surprise. Her lawyer has put it out there that she is angling for any advantage that she can get. Having spent two days sitting down with the number two official in the Department of Justice, Todd Blanche, and answering all of his questions, she has put herself in a position where she's trying to get out from under this 20 year sentence that she's facing. What's really extraordinary about this is the fact that there's serious discussion about this happening. This is something that it sounds like could possibly happen. The president has not ruled it out. He's been asked about it numerous times and he has not said that he won't do it or that he's not considering it. The idea that somebody who has committed the types of crimes that she's committed is even in the discussion for a possible commutation of sentence is truly stunning. I am not aware of any case in history in which someone who has committed committed a crime involving the sexual abuse of minors has been seriously considered for a presidential pardon. Only in Trump's universe. Could this be a serious topic of discussion?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Right.

[Jim Acosta]

Because, I mean, these are crimes that typically, I would assume, just they don't get pardoned. I mean, they don't, you know, don't.

[Liz Oyer]

Jim. I mean, one of the things that the Justice Department does in every single case in which there's. There's serious discussion of a pardon is consult the victims. If there are victims, they are entitled under law to an opportunity to weigh in. And in this case, it doesn't appear that anybody in the administration has contacted the victims at any stage of these proceedings to see how they feel about this cozying up to Ghislaine Maxwell and the discussions of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. The victims have spoken publicly and indicated, rightly and not surprisingly, that they're horrified by this possibility. They are being re. Traumatized constantly by the discussion, Discussion of this and by the fact that the president won't rule it out. In ordinary times, under any other president, we would not even be having this discussion. There would be zero possibility that the president would even give one second of thought to granting a commutation of sentence to someone like Glenn Maxwell.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And not to belabor it, but I mean, there's also the element to this that, that Trump benefits. And so many of these pardons that we've seen, there's a benefit for him. You know, I mean, I remember covering the Obama administration when Joe Biden did this, too. There were pardons for nonviolent drug offenders. There's, there's sometimes a public good in issuing pardons, that there's a policy statement being made by an administration and doing pardons. This, this is just another part of these quid pro quo type pardons that he's doing. It's just, it's really. It's just very unnerving and troubling.

[Liz Oyer]

Yeah, yeah. The pardon power is not, in the Constitution, intended to be a personal privilege of the president. In the Constitution, the pardon power is intended to be for the public good. And that is the one anchoring principle of the pardon power throughout history is that presidents are expected to use it, to use it in the interests of the public, not in their own personal interests. But Donald Trump views it as a tool that he can use freely to solve problems for himself. And in the case of Glenn Maxwell, he is using it as a way to get out from under the Epstein scandal that will not go away. He is dangling the possibility of a pardon to keep her on the hook to continue helping him. She has every incentive at this point to Say whatever she needs to say, untethered to the truth to help Donald Trump, because he is the one person in this country that can get her out from under this 20 year prison sentence that she's serving. So she's not credible at this point. There's no reason that we should believe anything that she is saying to exonerate Donald Trump or to implicate other people. But he's got this incredible power over her with the possibility of a pardon and he is using that to maximum advantage in a way that is very self serving, corrupt and against the spirit of the constitutional pardon power.

[Jim Acosta]

And let's talk about, I mean, you know, this is a, an interesting segue, I guess you could say, to the Rudy Giuliani pardon and these other pardons. I mean, the sheer number of these pardons, this kind of got, I don't want to say the story got buried, but it was overshadowed somewhat by the, the shutdown deal over in the Senate and so on. But the sheer number of people who are being pardoned along with Rudy Giuliani, these alleged coconspirators, and the scheme to overturn the 2020 election results, it's pretty staggering. Having, I mean, having covered that whole thing, I mean, that was, that was such a scandal, that was such a scheme that Trump was involved in and all these other people were involved in and to see them just get, I mean, all of these pardons and their, their records wiped clean, it's disturbing.

[Liz Oyer]

The common thread running throughout all of Trump's pardons is that if you commit crimes in the name of Donald Trump, he's got your back, he will bail you out. He's letting his supporters know that he has the power to pardon and, and he intends to use it broadly for those who are loyal to him. So he is effectively messaging to everyone in his MAGA base, do what you need to do, do what you have to do. I've got your back. Don't worry about the consequences. These recent pardons of Giuliani and others involved in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election are really unusual because those are state law crimes. Everybody in that mix who has been charged with a crime has been charged with a crime under the laws of a different state. So state laws about election security. The president has no power to pardon state law crimes. The one clearly established limitation on the pardon power in the Constitution is that it applies only to offenses against the United States, which means federal crimes. But Donald Trump does not feel bound by that limitation and he is letting his supporters know that he believes that he can pardon his. Any crimes he wants in any jurisdiction in the country. That is very alarming in this climate of political violence, with another cycle of midterm elections coming up a year from now. The idea that he is essentially encouraging his supporters through the use of the pardon power to commit crimes in their names if necessary, is really dangerous, frankly. Jim.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And what about the involvement of this Ed Martin character? Yeah, this is the guy that they tried to make the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. yeah. He even. He could not get through. Even the Republicans were like, no, not him. You can just about make any. Anybody else one of your appointees, but not him. And now he has. He's over at the Justice Department carrying out Trump's campaign of revenge and retribution, it seems, and he's the one who announced this thing. What did you make of that? That was so wild.

[Liz Oyer]

It's incredibly surprising and unusual that the pardon attorney would announce pardons on Twitter, no less, on X. I believe that these pardons were announced by Ed Martin on X. Pardons are a presidential prerogative. So the pardon attorney is not the one who generally announces them. Those announcements come from the White House. But this has been Ed Martin's baby. He has. Has tweeted throughout his tenure as pardon attorney. No MAGA left behind. That's his mantra as pardon attorney. He has made it known that he intends to bail out all MAGA supporters, the use of the president's pardon power, and he is delivering on that promise here. And one of the things that's so interesting about this particular pardon is it names 77 people, but it's actually written very broadly to encompass anybody who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And one of those people was Ed Martin. Ed Martin made his name as the organizer of the Stop the Steal movement. He was there on January 6th. He called January 6th an experience like Mardi Gras in Washington, D.C. so he is very deeply connected with all of these folks who were pardoned. And the pardon likely applies to any crimes that Martin may have committed himself. He is a really extreme fringe character who has been given a lot of power by Donald Trump and is behind the scenes really paving the way for crimes committed by MAGA loyalists.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah. And the scary thing in all of this, Liz, is that when you. When you grant pardons, I mean, I would have to assume there's some assessment made as to whether there would be some recidivism going on, whether these people might reoffend, that you would at least analyze that. And what We've seen, I mean, since with the January 6th pardons, many of those criminals reoffended. They've been accused of new crimes and so on. And I was talking about this on my show yesterday, Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, I don't know if you saw this, but he announced, I think on some right wing talk show that he's reconstituting the Oath Keepers. And these people were involved in the insurrection attempt at the Capitol. And so it's exactly what folks like you have been saying since the beginning of all of this, that if you pardon these people, you let them off the hook. There. They, there, there is a massive risk of recidivism, that they'll do this again.

[Liz Oyer]

Yeah, we have seen a large number of these pardoned individuals go back to prison for new crimes. Just yesterday, I believe, a man named Jonathan Braun, who was given a commutation of sentence during Trump's first term, was sent back to prison for 27 months. And he committed all manner of new crimes. A judge found that he engaged in domestic violence type conduct, that he assaulted a nurse, a hospital with an IV pole, that he was a serial toll violator blowing through tolls in his Ferrari like all sorts of wild things. Because Donald Trump doesn't vet these people. He doesn't look into who they are before he grants them pardons. And then they go out and they do things that are truly depraved and, you know, not the type of conduct you'd expect from somebody who got a presidential pardon. But he doesn't vet the people. He doesn't care about merits of these cases. He, he cares about loyalty and he cares about what you can do for him. Maybe it's write a check, maybe it's do him a favor. Maybe it's get him out from under the Epstein crisis. That's what Donald Trump is looking for in pardon candidates. It's really disgusting, frankly, Jim.

[Jim Acosta]

And just finally, Liz, I mean, what damage does this do to our democracy? I saw that you posted something about that. You were saying that this does damage to our democracy. This, I mean, this damages what people think of the pardon power. That it is just like this tool for a president to use to do corrupt things. And it eats away at the public's confidence in our Constitution and how it's supposed to work here in Washington.

[Liz Oyer]

Yeah, the pardon power is unfortunately the subject of legitimate criticism by the public now because it has been so misused and corrupted by this president. It's a power that was intended to be able to bestow mercy on people who really have earned and deserved it. It was used to do a lot of good by some previous presidents. President Obama commuted the sentences of nearly 2,000 nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were serving life sentences, life in prison for low level drug crimes. And there are a lot of people who owe their lives literally today to those kinds of commutations. Right now There are over 15,000 people whose applications are stacked up with Ed Martin's office. Legitimate applications in that pile from ordinary Americans who don't have political connections and who can't pay a million dollars to go to dinner at Mar a Lago. And they're just being ignored. The people who really deserve this type of relief are being ignored in favor of those who can do the president a favor or cut him a fat check.

[Jim Acosta]

Yeah, and they're cutting a lot of those these days, no question about it. Liz Oyer, great to have you on. Really appreciate it. Thanks so much. It's, it's just amazing to have your expertise. And good to see you again.

[Liz Oyer]

Thanks so much, Jim. Good talking with you.

[Jim Acosta]

All right, thanks a lot. It's, you know, with all of these talk conversations, with all this talk of pardons, it's got me wondering, pardon me, pardon me. When Donald Trump is out there, I guess this is his latest idea for tackling the affordability crisis in this country. Did you see this? He's now talking about 50 year mortgages. Not 15, not 30. 50 year mortgages. Let's listen to this and we'll talk about it.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

They're still out of reach.

[Liz Oyer]

And another thing that your administration is trying to tackle, many Americans, the average of first time homebuyers are now up to age 40, which is sad. The country, you and I inherited that.

[Laura Ingram]

Look, you have to understand.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But let me get to the question.

[Liz Oyer]

Though, because your housing director has proposed something that has enraged your MAGA friends, which is this 50 year mortgage idea. So a significant MAGA backlash, calling it a giveaway to the banks and simply prolonging the time it would take for Americans to own a home outright.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Is that really a good idea?

[Laura Ingram]

It's not even a big deal. I mean, you know, you go from 40 to 50 years and what you pay, you pay something less from 30 that some people had a 40 and then now they have a 50. All it means is you pay less per month. You pay it over a longer period of time. It's not like a big factor. It might help a little bit. But the problem was that Biden did this. He increased the interest Rates and I have a of lot lousy Fed person who's going to be gone in a.

[Jim Acosta]

Few months, a 50 year mortgage. Why not a 75 year mortgage? Why not 100 year mortgage? Just pay off that. If the average age of a person getting a home now is 40, you can just pay that mortgage off when you're 90. That sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Or why don't we go for a 75 year mortgage and you just pay that when you're 115 years old or the 100 year mortgage and pay that off when you're 140. You're damn right. It's a giveaway to the banks. Kudos. I, I can't believe I'm saying this, but kudos to Laura Ingram who was pressing him a little bit on an absolute batshit Crazy idea. 50 year mortgages. This is, these are the kinds of economic schemes that they come up with in failing countries, in countries with economies that are going down the tubes. But again, but again, this is from somebody who, as he was telling Laura Ingram during this interview, all of that gold in the Oval Office is real gold. Did you see this? We were playing this.

[Liz Oyer]

So these aren't like from Home Depot?

[Laura Ingram]

No, this is not Home Depot stuff.

[Jim Acosta]

No, not stuff you buy.

[Laura Ingram]

This is not Home Depot. You can't, you can't imitate gold.

[Jim Acosta]

You can't, you can't imitate gold. But apparently you can imitate a competent President of the United States, which is what Donald Trump is doing these days. Of course that crap comes from Home Depot. And of course, I mean, I just, I'm just picturing in my mind some poor staffers out in the driveway outside the Oval Office with the gold spray can. And they're just, you know, they're just, just spraying the, out of those, those things that you buy at Home Depot. You know, you go into the hardware store, you go into the giant hardware store, Home Depot, and they, they've got the shelves of like all of those things that you can glue to your wall or you stick them to the wall or you drill them into. If you're really committed, you drill them into the wall. And, and, but you got to get that intern, the poor White House intern out there in the driveway just spraying the, out of those things. He, you have to understand, Johnny, he wants two coats, he wants two coats of the, of the gold on that, on that leaf thing that he's put over the, the fireplace in the Oval Office. Pardon me, I, I beg your pardon.

[James Carville]

What is happening?

[Jim Acosta]

What is happening over at the Oval Office these days. He, he doesn't know what magnets are. And we were playing this, play that, let's play the magnets thing. We don't have to play the whole thing. But I, I just. Can we play the magnets thing one more time?

[Laura Ingram]

It's so President Xi was willing to do the rarer thing. That's magnets. Now nobody knows what a magnet is. If you don't have a magnet, you don't make a car, you don't make a computer, you don't make televisions and radios and all the other things. You don't make anything. It's.

[Jim Acosta]

I can't stop.

[Liz Oyer]

Sorry. I'm sorry.

[Jim Acosta]

You have to stop. Oh my gosh, you have to stop.

[James Carville]

I have.

[Jim Acosta]

I mean, I'm sorry. I know it's a Tuesday, but the ma, the magnets, they go, they, they stick together. That's, that's, that's what, that's what a magnet is. That's what a magnet is. He knows this, right? And we realize that this is the President of the United states talking about 50 year mortgages, not fully understanding what a magnet is or does. I thought he went to an Ivy League school. I guess he, he is the Og Nepo baby, isn't he? He's the Og Nepo baby. But, and he, and he's, and he's insisting that all of that gold in the Oval Office is real. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a. President of the United States is off his goddamn rocker. He's off his goddamn rocker. And I know all these politicians are coming back to town to talk about reopening the government, but, you know, somebody ought to be talking about maybe a bigger priority right now, which is getting Donald Trump some help. The President of the United States needs help. He, he thinks that people don't know what magnets are. He thinks that we, we don't understand that, that the gold in the Oval Office is just that, just, it's just gold. It's just gold. And I, you know, for, for the life of me, I, I'm waiting for it to dawn on somebody, you know, somebody inside maga, you know, one of these sycophants maybe that they have in, in the Oval Office asking questions these days, and could somebody ask him about the, about these 50 year mortgages and have him explain how that is a, of any benefit to anybody? I mean, I mean, really, that, that one boggles them, that one doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When are you supposed to pay off the mortgage? When you're 112. That one. I don't understand. I mean, I just, you know, somebody. We got to get a grip, folks. We got to get a grip on this guy because something. Something ain't right. And so I just. I just want to. We need the. The Louvre heister to steal those gold pieces. Exactly. And so I just end this show by saying. I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I beg your pardon. My thanks to James Carville. My thanks to Dan Pfeiffer. My thanks to Liz Oyer. Thanks to all of you for watching. Still reporting from Washington. I'm gonna go play with some magnets now. I'm Jim Acosta. Have a good evening. I'll see you next time.