← To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Harry Litman: The Comey Indictment and the Insurrection Act
00:44:21
Loading summary
Transcript107 lines
- [00:00]
Fin AI Representative
AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with Fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world. Complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when Fin goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which. Which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at Fin AI.
- [00:30]
Bolen Branch Advertiser
Imagine a world of extraordinary comfort where bowl and branch bedding wraps you in the softest. Embrace the coziest experience made from the world's finest 100% organic cotton, all so you can sleep better. Start building your fall sanctuary with Bolen Branch's iconic signature sheets, made with a buttery, breathable weave that gets softer with every wash. Enjoy 15% off your first set of sheets with free shipping and returns at B o l l branch.com with code buttery. See site for details and exclusions.
- [01:04]
Thumbtack Advertiser
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app download today.
- [01:37]
Charlie Sykes
Just can you just make it make sense? Hey, welcome to this episode of to the Country Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes and I am joined by the Hon. Harry Littman, who I'm hoping can explain things that are going on. First of all, welcome to the podcast, Harry. It's good to see you again, Charlie.
- [01:53]
Harry Littman
It's always so great to be with you. Thanks for having me.
- [01:57]
Charlie Sykes
So I want to spend a lot of time talking about the Comey indictment. You have been all over it and I want to walk through some of the stuff you have done. But I want to start with a couple of other things. First of all, you know, like just a few minutes before our recording, we get the story the US Military has blown up another vote, another boat off Venezuela, killing four men. Pete Hagazith accused the four dead men of having been smuggling narcotics without offering evidence. Pattern here also asserted that they were affiliated with one of the cartels and gangs the administration is designated as a terrorist organization, but did not specify which. So the total is now up to 21 people who have been killed in these raids. And I want to read you just this paragraph from the New York Times account. It is illegal for the military to deliberately kill civilians, even suspected criminals who are not directly participating in hostilities. The Trump administration apparently wants to get around that by telling Congress this week that Trump had determined the United States was engaged in an armed conflict with the cartels that his administration has designated as terrorist groups, and therefore the people crewing the vessels are unlawful combatants, not civilians. And as the Times points out, the legitimacy of the idea that Trump can treat trafficking as a kind of hostility or armed attack that can trigger know military action has been sharply contested. Just give me your sense about this because, you know, so we now have the President sitting on the golden throne and saying, I have determined that we're basically at war with these people. Does that give him legal cover, a legal fig leaf to keep blowing up these boats, Harry?
- [03:47]
Harry Littman
Not unless the courts wind up saying, which is sort of my prime fear, Charlie. That sure seems suspect, but we will defer to him. That's the biggest risk out there. Because the short answer is no. The longer answer, I would commend people to just security and Marty Lederman. But basically this is the same kind of fantasy that they've tried again and again, including Recall. And in the Alien Enemies act, they say, oh, we are really at war with these people. It's an armed conflict. The same thing they've just done in Chicago. I expect we'll get there where they say, oh, members of a gang frequent this building. Therefore, we can treat it as, you know, as we would a place in Pakistan. But as you say, the rules are really strict about when you can actually kill civilians. And their purpose that they're trying to make of this metaphor might be a nice way to put it, but really it's a fantasy, it's a cartoon version, is to say, see those fishermen out there plying their trade? You didn't know it, but they're actually unlawful combatants. Why is that? They're part of this big army. And you didn't know it, but we're at war with them. And wait, what's the evidence of that? Well, the main evidence, I think is going to turn out to be I, the President of the United States said so. And, you know, that's right. And we have. There are certain doctrines that generally do give the president deference. And one of the big challenges to the courts, it's a Nice way to put it is what do you do with sort of programs of deference when you have a president who wakes up lying and lies all day? There's just really no reason, it's farcical to say that this is some army we're at war with. We would know that. And by the way, even that is sort of a kind of analogy in the law. It's really supposed to be, you know, from some of these statutes, we're at war with France, we're at war with Germany. But you can, if you can construct the argument, this is the equivalent, you might look for instance, to 9, 11, where we had war with al Qaeda. I think that's a fair argument. But are we at war here with people who are either doing nothing and are totally innocent or at most are committing crimes of drug distribution, not war against the U.S. the U.S. military and the like? So it's all really bogus, could get nowhere, except the risk is some kind of doctrine of deference. And, you know, we're talking about killing of innocents. Pretty serious stuff.
- [06:46]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, the problem is with, you know, strict rules is they don't enforce themselves. They have to be enforced somehow. So it is going to be interesting to see what.
- [06:55]
Harry Littman
And often they have to be enforced by the DOJ coming in. And, you know, which has been kind of the problem in this president's world. That's right.
- [07:04]
Charlie Sykes
You made a really interesting point there, which was should the courts show deference to this administration? Now, there's a long tradition of that, the courts showing deference to things that the president did at the federal government. And this is one of those moments saying, are you paying attention to what this administration is doing? The way this administration is behaving, do they deserve that kind of deference? And I agree with you. I think no. So let's talk about Chicago because I'll tell you, I spent the last couple of hours watching the videos and reading about it, and I find it at the same time horrifying and puzzling. And, and there are some historical parallels here which we can get to in a moment. Let me just read you interesting article by Garrett Graff, who summarizes some of this. And again, I think probably a lot of our listeners are familiar, but the details are extraordinary. Chicago media this week has been ablaze with horrifying stories from Monday's ICE raid on a South Shore apartment building. DHS has bragged the raid ended with 37 arrests. But on the scene witnesses reporting. On the scene witness reporting describes a Level of scale and brutality we have never seen in ISIS raid so far. ICE blew indoors, handcuffed American citizens, rousted people from their beds in the middle of the night and zip tied children as they waited to figure out who was undocumented and who was a US Citizen. Some US citizens evidently were handcuffed and detained for between three and five hours. They were terrified. The kids were crying, people were screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I see, when I saw this little girl come around the corner because they were bringing the kids down too. Had them zip tied to each other. One resident recalled the local media. That's all I kept asking, you know, you know what? Where are the parents? One of them literally laughed. One of the agents literally left. He was standing right there. He said, them kids. Some residents of the building have reported apartments were gratuitously trashed, property missing. So here's my question. What judge would have issued this warrant? What kind of a, you know, Graff says this is a once unthinkable bright line that, you know, that's been crossed. There is no warrant any judge could give, at least in theory that any reasonable judge would ever sign that gives federal authorities the right to break down the doors of every apartment in a building in search of undocumented immigrants. What do you think?
- [09:34]
Harry Littman
Nor did one do it here. This is, it really is. You know, some of this just washes over us, Charlie. And you think that sounds bad. This is one that it's, it's making war on Americans. There's just no, no way around. This is boots on the ground, Tiananmen Square, first the law. Guess what? There's a difference here. And you hear it about it sometime between a so called judicial warrant where someone has said there's going to be evidence of a crime there you can go in. There's a whole nother point about what force you can use. But these are not those. This is just the executive has said we think maybe somebody around there may be unlawfully in the country. Go and do your worst. That's for starters. Point number two is even they say Homan on tv and this is the controversy about the green light that they got at the Supreme Court with the Justice Kavanaugh argument. Yeah, even they themselves say the most you can do. And the most we're doing, they say is go up to citizens and ask a question or two. A so called Terry stop. And if that ripens into probable cause, then you can arrest them. Nothing remotely like this. Just a complete orgy of fourth Amendment violation. They didn't ask anyone any questions. They didn't have any information. They came in, you know, rappelling down, banging indoors. Kind of like when we went after Osama bin Laden. Right. Really treating everyone in that building. And what's the pretext for it? Again, the same fantasy. They say, well, we think that members of Trana Ragua don't even live there, but they frequent it. But it doesn't matter. As the first point, I mean, the thing that is so horrifying and reflexively kind of nauseating to make you think, is this the United States of America?
- [11:34]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, exactly.
- [11:37]
Harry Littman
Is that they actually. They made war on these things, folks. No, no. Even attempt to comply with the basics of the fourth Amendment. There's an argument. You need particularized suspicion. Right. You need some reason to think. The guy in 3A.
- [11:52]
Charlie Sykes
I would have thought so.
- [11:53]
Harry Littman
Actually, staying there. Not even a question of that. Not just like battering rams, bang down the door, bring them out. So both improper arrest and unlawful and unreasonable use of force. Honestly, this is the sort of thing you would do against enemies at wartime, not. Not U.S. citizens.
- [12:13]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [12:14]
Harry Littman
What's the whole of it is grotesque. Yeah, go ahead.
- [12:17]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. I mean, what's with the Blackhawk helicopters and the rappelling down? How was that necessary? It felt like they were, you know, doing this. This cosplaying this, or, you know, cinematic, you know, strutting. That seems to be the. The signature of, you know, you know, whether it's, you know, Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump or Cash Patel.
- [12:35]
Harry Littman
By the way, this is basically saying, we're making. They say, the. The soldiers there and say, dear, go practice your. Your trade on the people of Chicago. And I just.
- [12:47]
Charlie Sykes
Right. I mean, that's what they said at Quantify this.
- [12:49]
Harry Littman
It's a little Tony. But I just want to say, in terms of use of force by a government, there really are two completely separate models. Somebody in the country did something wrong and they have their. They are insiders still. They're part of us. You give them rights, you have a whole bit. That's one. Then the other is you bring the military in. People who we don't even done. They've done wrong or not, but you can shoot them and kill them because it's that kind of force. They absolutely were taking US Citizens and treating them the way you would treat, you know, possible Al Qaeda people in Afghanistan. This is in America in one building. It is really foul.
- [13:31]
Charlie Sykes
You know, I mean, the transformation of ice into this sort of lawless brute squad, you know, is really disturbing. You know, and speaking of Chicago, we have these, these incidents where they've actually shot and killed people. And, and unlike most police officers, they're not wearing body cams. It almost feels as if they are this, this supralegal organization where they come in with a completely different set of rules. The Chicago. In order to intimidate never would have been able to. Yes, obviously fear. You know, and one more.
- [14:07]
Harry Littman
Well, just a quick point on that, Charlie. I don't mean to be in a runner, but we now know there are a lot of ICE imposters out there looking to make trouble. So, I mean, citizens really have a right to need to know, who are you? What brings you here? May I see your id? There are strangers out there, you know, that are literally mugging people with by they putting ice on the back of their cars.
- [14:29]
Charlie Sykes
So I agree. I think the people need to look at these pictures and go, is this America? Does this look like America? Does this look like the America you want it to be? On the other hand, there is American precedents for this. And I would urge people to Google Palmer Raids. There's a great book called American Midnight which describes what happened in the first Red Scare, which took place in 1919 under Woodrow Wilson, of all people.
- [14:57]
Harry Littman
Yes.
- [14:57]
Charlie Sykes
And the Palmer Raids are named after.
- [14:59]
Harry Littman
Wrong. And it was wrong. We now think they thought this, it was a true foreign invasion. This is bullshit. They're using the, the kind of premise bullshit, too. Oh, we're at war with these guys. Yeah, it's a lot.
- [15:16]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, look, okay, so the Palmer Raids are named after Mitchell Palmer, who was Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General. Was the Red Scare they went after. They went after Communists, apparently. By some estimates, they arrested as many as over 40 cities, often without warrants. And sometimes radicals were arrested simply for being members of perfectly legal organization. So it was one of our first big witch hunts and it happened. And weirdly enough, some people still think that Woodrow Wilson is a progressive icon, but it is terrifying. And I guess the real question, Harry, is are they going to get away with this? Okay, I mean, I agree. I mean, obviously there's, you know, real questions about the legality about it, but. So who's going to stop them?
- [16:00]
Harry Littman
And let's go to the Palmer Raid. It's a really good example. You know, there was a surfeit of patriotism at the time. You're probably a student of it, but you weren't supposed to say frankfurters because that. And you weren't supposed to say French fries. I mean, people were nuts. But the verdict of history, I think has been very clear. Certain said, wow, did we lose our way? Now you and I and everybody are kind of looking with terror at what's. What will history be? And in a year or two, will we be past this or will we somehow have been at the, you know, end of the American experiment? Not to get too dramatic, but I think those are the stakes. If we're past it, my strong suspicion is that this will go down like the Palmer Rays as a time of terrible excess, driven from the top. And, you know, it'll be a moment of calumny, but we're living it, Charles.
- [17:00]
Charlie Sykes
You know, Right, that was my question.
- [17:02]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [17:03]
Charlie Sykes
So for history is fine.
- [17:05]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [17:05]
Charlie Sykes
But in the short term, so what. I mean, I agree. Who stops it? I mean, people have, I noticed people are going like, what can I do as a citizen here? You know, what should the governors be doing? What should the mayors be doing? Because look, what happened in Chicago is just dry run for what's gonna happen in all of these other cities. Trump made it very clear when he was talking to the generals earlier in the week that he was going to use the invasion of American cities as a training ground for the US Military, as if Posse Comitatus did not exist at all.
- [17:39]
Harry Littman
That's right, that's right.
- [17:40]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, so it is, you know.
- [17:42]
Harry Littman
And by the way, always against the few instances we have of legitimate exercise of these sorts of emergency powers, the local authorities said, please come in for a couple of days beds and things are kind of crazy. Help us get it right. Each and every one of these, you know, starting here with, with Pritzker, but also Newsom and where they're doing it, it's. The locals are saying, keep the hell out, please. You're just grandstanding and making people terrified here and you know, they're right.
- [18:12]
Charlie Sykes
Well, the visuals are not subtle. I'm sure you've seen the video. I'm sure people who listening to this have seen the visuals of, of these guys in full tactical gear. I mean, they, they look like, I mean, I don't even know how to describe, you know, the, their masks, there's helmets, you know, the full tackle, as if you were going into a combat situation. So the intimidation and the fear are very much part of it now. Slight digression.
- [18:35]
Harry Littman
Purposeful. It really is.
- [18:36]
Charlie Sykes
Have you seen it? Have you seen this challenge coin that Kash Patel is handing out? It's of the, the Punisher. I mean, these guys are all like 12 year old boys, but also that.
- [18:49]
Harry Littman
Is part of it. Right there. You know, they are like Heg Seth and his tattoos of the whole thing. You know, it's the least grave part of the problem, but they're like, you know, junior high twerks in addition to everything else. And they're, you know, they're, they're low class and it's in there. But yeah, I could, I couldn't agree. I couldn't agree more.
- [19:13]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I mean, of course they do this to trigger the libs. Okay. So, you know, I think people should be triggered by the repelling into people's homes because that is, that is a red line. On the other hand, you know, watching them, you know, play these juvenile games, you know, handing out cartoon character challenge coins, that doesn't trigger anybody. It just makes you look like a complete asshat. So segue here because you have been doing yeoman service in walking through the Comey indictment. Now, that was a week ago, more than a week ago. We have learned a great deal since. So I don't know where you want to start on this, Harry, but a week ago, that felt like a turning point. That felt like a red line, both for the politics of retaliation and revenge, but also about the incredibly shitty way they went about doing it. So give me.
- [20:14]
Harry Littman
That's where. If you don't mind, where I'd like to start. So I, I went through many aspects of it, but I always keep putting in because my concern from day one, the day when it happened, I was on one of the TV shows and people said, are you okay? You look so sober. But I'm really at pains to say, as a, as a former doj, or. This isn't like a pretty bad thing. This is rock bottom. If we live in a society where someone can be prosecuted without evidence, the worst thing any DOJ person can do, it's. It's not just the Constitution, but everything you swear to. It's the worst thing you can do. Any, anybody of any stripe would say it. And moreover, it's done because it's ordered from on highest and simply as a political reprisal, with no argument that the things that, you know, Trump himself said, I haven't paid attention to it, but they look guilty. It's clearly done for simply political reprisal. I'm just here to say that is rock bottom. DOJ is completely. There's nothing worse than that. Next to, you know, ultra verus, like just taking somebody and kidnapping them or, or giving them a shot of poison on the bench. In terms of the pseudo legal thing, the DOJ is screwed up in a million ways. But this millionth and first Trump up charges because the President insists on it when they're not there. And again, and for political reprisal, my main message has been to try to say everybody out there, don't just lump that in. This is absolute zero, ninth circle of hell. So that is where I've also, even today I had like, could he be impeached for different stuff? But I just keep wanting to really push that. I'm scared that people see it as a kind of legal. Oh, that's another kind of pushing of the envelope. There's no pushing of the envelope.
- [22:24]
Charlie Sykes
Okay.
- [22:25]
Harry Littman
The worst thing a Department of justice can do.
- [22:28]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. Okay, let's drill down on that. Because what is it that distinguishes this case from other cases of egregious overreach? What is the heart of your critique here? They say that he lied under oath to Congress. That's illegal. Right. So I'm playing devil's advocate. So what makes this different?
- [22:49]
Harry Littman
It's the knowledge that's right. I mean it's the fact that that's a lie and they have all that analysis going forward. It's the knowledge that they actually, as is required, don't have a crime to prove, don't have something that they think they can show by probable cause. They're asserting this, but it's a lie. And it's just the worst kind of, you know, it's Kafkaesque. Right. This is an innocent bird. Then all the other reasons go to it as well. But I'm, you know, within the culture of doj, if anyone of any stripe ever suggested like, you know, you know, well, it's not quite there, but he'll probably plead guilty or something. You just couldn't.
- [23:33]
Charlie Sykes
So what's going to happen with this case? Yeah, so what's going to happen?
- [23:37]
Harry Littman
He's going to win six different ways. It'll be up to him. You know, it's interesting in his statement, he seemed to be kind of spoiling for a court battle and thinking of that as the most, as the strongest kind of proof. And I think, look, even the indictment with the one sided and we haven't even seen it yet, presentation by Lindsey Halligan, who didn't know where the door is, was they got 14 votes, a bare majority of people to say there's probable cause and so guilt beyond the reason, I don't think they could ever prove it. And there's a lot of different problems. But the question is, will he want for his own vindication to have a Jury release it because he knows, everyone knows Pat Fitzgerald, his great lawyer, knows that if the judge, Judge Nakmanoff dismisses it for any of three or four really good reasons, including selective prosecution, at least Trump and MAGA will say crazy, etc. Etc. Nevertheless, his lawyer, who's great, has to be thinking, Jim, we can't get cute here. We got, we got some really good pre trial opposite we got to take him. So he's going to be arraigned next week and I think some very powerful pre trial motions to dismiss are going to, you know, fly within a day or two after.
- [25:08]
Charlie Sykes
Well, let's just go back to the backstory. I think everybody knows what the, what the story is. You know, Trump essentially orders, you know, I want the head of James Comey. And the acting U.S. attorney says, no, there's no crime, there's no evidence. I'm, I'm just not going to do it.
- [25:24]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [25:24]
Charlie Sykes
And he's fired.
- [25:25]
Harry Littman
You want me to throw my license in the Potomac? Yeah. And so basic, I, I, you know, I just can't. I, I, Yeah.
- [25:33]
Charlie Sykes
And then, and then this again, you won't do it.
- [25:35]
Harry Littman
I will fire you. That's already, you know, 80% toward absolute abomination. Right.
- [25:42]
Charlie Sykes
No. Is this something that the judge, the judge reads the papers. I mean the judge knows what, what happens here. You know, he knows what DOJ says.
- [25:50]
Harry Littman
And then by the way, he's got a, he's got a sort of defense background. Everybody. Yeah, there's no doubt about it. Of course he reads the paper.
- [26:00]
Charlie Sykes
So then they appoint this 36 year old Trump loyalist, Lindsey Halligan, who had never prosecuted a case as far as I can tell, has made very minimal court appearances. And it sounds like an insurance lawyer in Florida. Yeah, even Pam Bonney's Attorney general kind of sounds like they threw in the deep end here. And I mean, talk about somebody who is out of their depth, you know.
- [26:24]
Harry Littman
That is, yeah, it's a really interesting point. I mean it's malpractice. Right. Before you would actually go to a grand jury first you'd have been in the office and learned all these things and gone to baby prosecutor school. And it's something that's going to be pretty interesting. I mean she knew that she had to deliver the, this, the, the scalp of Comey, who we're going to get the transcript of her and the grand jury and I think it's going to be riddled with elementary errors, some of which may give them, give rise to dismissal themselves. But the really interesting thing, and we Just don't know yet. There's the, the facts are consistent. What the hell is she doing there alone? I was a U.S. attorney, I would never go to the grand jury alone. It's really possible that the office and I used to work in that office. It's a button down, very professional office. And I'm sure the people who published that paper the day before were the leaders of the office. It's quite possible that they, that right now there's a sort of full on revolt and they're not going to be able to get people to try the case. Maybe they bring them in from another place. But if that happens, and we ought to get a real good hint of that on the ninth, you know, next Thursday, that, you know, in terms of a vote of, no, not just no confidence, but the lawlessness in what Bondi and Trump were doing. Like, I don't want to have my fingerprints anywhere near this. And I think for Halligan, it was one of the pieces I wrote this week. You know, she reminds me of the Janet Ellis and John Eastman and Ken Cheeseburg people.
- [28:04]
Charlie Sykes
Things haven't worked out well for them.
- [28:06]
Harry Littman
No, not all of them. You know, they vote million in sanctions, disbar, et cetera. They made this Faustian bargain to be, you know, near the president for a while. And they're, they're professional, you know, roadkill, all of them. I think that's, I think she's completely ruined her career. She. Okay, so you've asked. Well, the grand jury said it, you know, within the legal system, she put her signature on this thing asserting stuff that I, you know, I don't think they can prove a scandal.
- [28:43]
Charlie Sykes
So, so this is exactly where I wanted to go, which was the, the, you know, the problem they have is finding lawyers who are willing to do all of this. You know, we've seen this story where a lot of the career lawyers, and I think they're probably still quite a few of them who are like waiting, watching, keeping their heads down. And yet if push comes to shove, they do have to weigh this right. And you know, in Trump 1.0, if we were having a discussion norms in the Justice Department, you know, I could imagine having a conversation where, you know, the traditions and the norms are so powerful and the members of the Department of Justice would never go along with all of this. And now, and now we're really kind of, you know, everybody's going to be having this test. At what point do lawyers realize, okay, this Faustian bargain doesn't work? Yeah, I may get invited to Mar? A Lago, but my legal career, my legal reputation is absolutely destroyed. I will be toxic. What is the thinking among the lawyers going there? I mean, you're a career department or justice lawyer.
- [29:51]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [29:53]
Charlie Sykes
You might think, okay, I can't be part of this. Are you worried about trying to get a job with one of these big law firms that Trump has also been attacking? I mean, I'm trying to loop back to all of that. You know, you're not going to be able to walk into one of the, the law firms that has bent the knee to Donald Trump. Right. So what's happening? What's going on?
- [30:15]
Harry Littman
Let me start by saying there's not full transparency here, but it's one of my number one sort of obsessions is trying to figure out, we know that a third, a third of the leadership of the. Is already gone. And when those third 10among them are the people in any U.S. attorney's office, they're certain, you know, most respected assistance people go to for the judgment. So just from that, the, the DOJ is rudderless. That's point one. Point two, I do know for a fact the place is completely freaked out. Right.
- [30:50]
Charlie Sykes
You have, you know, legitimately.
- [30:52]
Harry Littman
So they are absolutely, you know, what do, if I say something in the hall, will it get back to Maximum Leader, 1984 Stalin? What do I do? Point three, the. You can, and you can find this out without even going to doj. There's a, there's, it's a very hard time to get a job. They are flooded with resumes. Everybody wants to go and, and, but, but firms aren't there to take it. And then point four, people are genuinely afraid of getting commands to do work that they don't feel they're going to be able to do ethically, that they can't get it. So my sense, Charlie, is it's really what, at what point? We passed that point already. It's already sort of a terrible like, you know, post Armageddon Zombieland. And if in the best case scenario, every, you know, Bondian company just sort of vaporize painlessly tomorrow you would encounter an absolute, you know, ravaged landscape and people walking around days and, you know, norms which ran the place, it would have been inconceivable for the president to have spoken to anyone about a pending actual case. Inconceivable. That's all. Everything has been blown to shit. And the restoration of norms is the work of a few generations. Right. So I think, I don't think that's an overstatement on this is really Bad and at a minimum it's great. But when just thinking about that one fact, a third of. And then there, you know, public integrity, the crown of the jewel. Two people left civil rights division, nobody left voting rights section. It's gone. So you know, even the remaining ones. And you'll hear some of them say, well, maybe I can temporize. Not so much anymore. They're just like, man, this is a nightmare.
- [32:54]
Charlie Sykes
Hey, maybe help me out on this one because I'm thinking about the story that broke today, speaking of this kind of this weird Stalinist Orwellian world that they live in where senior person in the national security division is fired after a single social media post accused him of being too close to Comey or defending him. And he put out a letter. And it's kind of an ominous letter. Right. You know who I'm talking about here? Yeah. You know, talking about his firing. That he can lose his job based on one inaccurate social media post.
- [33:31]
Harry Littman
Yeah. And by the way, they're canvassing it. What did I just see? Oh, one of the, I think it was a military person just got fired because he had a rainbow flag on his desk. But the combination of the vigilance. Right. They are absolutely fine. Tooth combing, all this sort of stuff. And the, you know, another thing we used to take for granted, there's such a thing as viewpoint discrimination and a government can't act in description of about a certain viewpoint. It could say things like in general political speech. Of course this, this government actually is encouraging. I don't know if you got, this is one of the mind bending facts of the last couple days. You log on to the Department of Education or DOJ and you get, yeah, right. You get some kind of political message touting the, you know, a current program. So yeah, it's, it's, it, you know, the, I talked, you know, a couple minutes ago about the paranoia and it's just true. And also there's another aspect of it that I, that I think is part and parcel of what is. And maybe this isn't so unusual for authoritarians. In addition to the nastiness and severity, there's a kind of a fecklessness about us. So often you have, you have Laura Loomer goes into the white, the Oval Office and says something bad or you have 22 year old kids for doge saying in other words, people, something like this just happened, he escaped. But the guy, the very competent head of the nsa, his, you know, head was on the chopping block for, you know, basically because children are Just told, if you see the word diversity, get rid. You know, it's so on top of everything else, there's such a lack of nuance or understanding about what. What government does, so all of that together. But, you know, the law is so clear. You can't single out people because of their views and sack them or whatever. You're absolutely right. They're saying, well, let's try to stop us. And so far, they've had these series of, to me, pretty outrageous victories of the Supreme Court, where the Court's just saying, well, for now, we'll let you do it. And for now is the whole deal. That'll be months and months. And by then, everyone's gone.
- [36:01]
Charlie Sykes
The damage is done. People have to go on with their lives. And again, this comes back to the point that you made earlier about the courts giving deference to this administration. And I'm guessing that this. Well, I'm certainly hoping that at least at the district and appellate levels that the judges are taking this into account. I mean, I just imagine how hard it must be to be a, you know, be a Department of justice lawyer appearing in an actual federal court where you have to swear to things and the judges, you know, ask you questions and, you know, that if you say, look, I don't know the answer to that, I don't know why we're bringing this charge, you're out. You're. You're going. You're going to be. You're going to be fired. So, believe it or not, I. I have one even scarier question to. To raise with you in my podcast the other day.
- [36:54]
Harry Littman
I'm ready.
- [36:55]
Charlie Sykes
I wish people could see the video of this. I mean, I know some of you are listening on podcast, but. But I'm. Yeah, I think we're like two minutes away from Harry actually tearing his hair out. I mean, honestly, I mean, I can tell that. That you're. I mean, yes, maybe I can just break it.
- [37:11]
Harry Littman
They'll hear that.
- [37:12]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, no, I appreciate that. You know, somebody accused you of being too sober, and it's like, man, you know, you are. Got the hands. God. I mean, it's, It's. It is going. It's hard to.
- [37:23]
Harry Littman
God, really, really, really bad. It's. You couldn't have imagined worse. And when you thought about it in January, anyway. Okay. But here you got the biggest nightmare of all. I'm ready.
- [37:35]
Charlie Sykes
The Insurrection Act.
- [37:37]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [37:38]
Charlie Sykes
I was talking to Olivia Troy, and we both agreed that there's no question about it, given his use of pretext and making stuff up as he goes along that, that Trump is going to invoke the Insurrection act, which David French has described as the most dangerous law in America. There was an opportunity at one time to maybe modify it or repeal it, but it's on the books and it gives Trump massive power. So just tell me about, you know, what, what it would mean because I think people are going to be shocked when it happens. They shouldn't be. I think it ought to be baked in right now. You know, that at some point he's going to invoke that act. And what power does. Harry's just hanging his.
- [38:19]
Harry Littman
That's right. And everybody focus on elections here for emergency power first. It's a little bit, I mean, how extreme it is, I think is illustrated by the fact that he hasn't done it so far on the sort of intermediate levels of authority that the courts rule he doesn't have. But I mean, take a step back in a well functioning republic where things are going pretty good, 99% of the time you're sitting down and trying to figure out a whole government plan, okay, guys, what are we going to do? When really for some reason there's an insurrection and you put in place certain powers. But what will be the case? I want to go back, I keep going back in my lawyerly way to the deference question. And by the way, you said courts of appeals. Stephen Breyer made a real. Chuck Breyer. Sorry, Steve. Chuck Breyer made a very strong opinion about why they were violating the section, but the court of appeals, two to one, reversed them. So it's not, you know, there are certain courts that are going to be different from others. But the basic. SO A you understand why it's there. Back to lock and everything. An executive sometimes needs special powers to quell an insurrection. Two, they're going to lie about it, sure as shit. And call it an insurrection when it doesn't exist. Three, the pivotal question, as it often is to maybe always is to me, is whether courts will say, and the Supreme Court will give some blather about how we have to defer to that determination, whether they'll do the right thing and say, is there an insurrection? And fourth, last point is will he be able to use whatever powers are greenlighted to totally mess with the election and basically do undercover bad law. That's the most important in 2020.
- [40:25]
Charlie Sykes
This is the scariest scenario. So just a review though. What are the powers that he has under the Insurrection act that he does not have right now? Because I remember talking about this with David French and one of the things that he was warning about was that under this law there is lim. Limited ability of the courts actually to intervene. So I mean this is, this takes us into a really dangerous. So what when he press when he.
- [40:49]
Harry Littman
Opens that the big thing Charlie men square boots on the street doing law enforcement. You know bringing them. Bringing the Miller. Yes. And you, you know, if there were any. You can imagine. Yeah but so boots on the streets doing law enforcement. And by the way we've tiptoed around this over this last. This last conversation which is always is great. Thanks again for inviting me. But ice, where are they going to be? They are shaping up as his own kind of gestapo that nevertheless he can call regular law enforcement and send out to bash heads. So the basic idea is.
- [41:27]
Charlie Sykes
And it's going to back the amendment.
- [41:28]
Harry Littman
Still exists for what it's worth. For what it's worth which is nothing with this gang look at Chicago. But you know the main thing to think of is that ultimate dystopia of boots on the ground.
- [41:43]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, that's the. And you make an interesting point that as an indication of how extreme it is the fact that he hasn't done it, you know that he's going to do it. But at some point and I think.
- [41:54]
Harry Littman
That I'm going to take the timing in terms of the election actually when to this is.
- [41:59]
Charlie Sykes
This is the. I was skeptical of the people who had like the most apocalyptic view of what he's going to do. I actually think that we, we need to exercise our imagination and to be prepared for it because I don't think there's any question he's going to invoke it. The question is will he do it with the elections? Will to affect the elections? Will the judges continue to defer to him? Because if the President says I have determined that there is an active insurrection and therefore I can do it. The question is will the courts second guess the executive? And based on a lot of things the Supreme Court has done, I am not completely in minority lawyerly way.
- [42:37]
Harry Littman
Thanks for having me on as a lawyer. This is the number one thing legal question that keeps me up at night. This is where the friggin American experiment may actually go up or down.
- [42:50]
Charlie Sykes
You know, it's interesting we have used this term. I probably used the term, you know, American experiment, you know, hundreds of times over the last 30 or 40 years. And it's after a while you can kind of get numb to it or becomes a cliche. The reality is it, it is an experiment. And the thing about experiments is they are not guaranteed to succeed. And I think that what we're seeing right now is that this is an experiment, and it is all coming together.
- [43:17]
Harry Littman
For 250 years of tyranny and absolute power in the hope that certain provisions like separation of powers can do it. And it's looking like maybe they can't against with this guy.
- [43:29]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, well, okay, so my plan to deal with this, having spent this time being utterly terrified by you, is. I mean, and everybody has to have a plan. I think that everybody is like, okay, so what do we do? How do we react to this? And my plan, Harry, and I would recommend that you follow my lead on all of this, is to go out. To go out for some excellent margaritas.
- [44:00]
Harry Littman
There is a margarita in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin. It's already 4:15, and as I recall, they eat dinner there at 5, so it's probably margarita hour. I meant I met myself.
- [44:12]
Charlie Sykes
No, no, See, it is. It. It is happy hour, and this is Wisconsin, so. And again, I'm not urging everyone to go out and get margaritas. You know, if beer is your drink of choice, cognac, I don't know.
- [44:28]
Harry Littman
But might not do it for the kind of serious. See, this is amazing, right?
- [44:35]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I've noticed that I drink less wine now because wine just is not. Is. It does not meet the moment. Do you know what I mean?
- [44:43]
Harry Littman
Right?
- [44:43]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, here it's 20. It is 20, 25. And we need to meet the moment.
- [44:47]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [44:49]
Charlie Sykes
So margaritas.
- [44:52]
Harry Littman
Margaritas. Well, you know, I'm in California. Atlanta. Great tequila near Mexico. So on our next time, I think we're gonna. I'd love to do this regularly. And I think we're gonna try. I think the bosses of us, our producers, say, yeah, let's do it. So I'll try to bring some pretty good tequila to the table.
- [45:08]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, that's. That's good. And I think it's what it's like. It's middle of the afternoon. California. Might as well.
- [45:15]
Harry Littman
It's Friday.
- [45:16]
Charlie Sykes
What can we say? People are gonna be listening to it over the weekend, but at least know that we have a plan. We do have a plan. Thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know why we do this? Because this and the couple of tequilas I'm about to have remind us that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you.
- [45:50]
Madupa Akinola
Hi, I'm Madupa Akinola from TED Business, and I'm here to talk about the Financial Times. Every day, the world bombards you with endless headlines and noise. What matters most. Facts and context. That's where the financial times comes in. With clarity, depth and truly independent reporting, the FT helps you cut through the noise and see what's real and why it matters. Stay informed with the trusted source leaders around the world rely on. Visit FT.comSourceFT to read more and save 40% on a digital FT subscription.
- [46:30]
Charlie Sykes
Monday Sidekick the AI agent that knows you and your business, thinks ahead and takes action task at anything seriously. Monday Sidekick AI you'll love to use Start a free trial today on Monday.com.
- [46:49]
Harry Littman
Knock knock. Ooh, who's there? A Boost Mobile expert here to deliver and set up your all new iPhone 17 Pro designed to be the most powerful iPhone ever. You call that a knock knock joke? This isn't a joke. Boost Mobile really sends experts to deliver and set up your phone at home or work. Okay, it's just that when people say knock knock, there's usually a joke to go with it. Like I said, this isn't a joke. So the knock knock was just you knocking? Yeah, that's how doors work. Get the new iPhone 17 Pro delivered and set up by an expert wherever you are. Delivery available for select devices purchased@boostmobile.com terms apply.
- [47:20]
Bolen Branch Advertiser
Imagine a world of extraordinary comfort where Bolen Branch bedding wraps you in the softest. Embrace the coziest experience made from the world's finest 100% organic cotton, all so you can sleep better. Start building your fall sanctuary with Bolen Branch's iconic signature sheets made with a buttery, breathable weave that gets softer with every wash. Enjoy 15% off your first set of sheets with free shipping and returns at B O L L& Branch.com with code BUTTERY. See site for details and exclusions.
- [47:53]
Thumbtack Advertiser
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.