← To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Harry Litman: Trump, the Troops, and the Threat to Democracy
00:51:02
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
Warby Parker Ad
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [00:33]
Alltrails Ad
Out here we feel things the sore calves that lead to epic views, the cool waterfall mist during a hot hike, and the breeze that hits just right at the summit. But hey, don't just listen to us. Experience it for yourself. Alltrails makes it easy to discover the best of the outdoors with more than 450,000 trails around the world, points of interest along the trail and offline maps for always on navigation. Download the free app today and find your next outdoor adventure.
- [01:00]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a.
- [01:10]
Charlie Sykes
Thing Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless better to get 3030 better get 30 better get 202020 better get 2020 better get 15 15, 15 15. Just 15 bucks a month. Sold.
- [01:20]
Ryan Reynolds
Give it a try@mintmobile.com sold.
- [01:22]
Alltrails Ad
Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 GB of network busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.
- [01:43]
Charlie Sykes
I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome to the to the Contrary Podcast Boy. There is so much to talk about today. We're joined by my good friend Harry Litman, who is the host of the Talking Feds podcast and also the Talking Fed Substack newsletter. Good morning. First of all, Harry.
- [01:58]
Ryan Reynolds
Good morning, Charlie. Always good to be with you even on such a harrowing day as this.
- [02:04]
Charlie Sykes
Well, what are we not at a harrowing day? Okay, so I want to start off with something that I, that I don't fully. I don't fully understand. Okay. I'm going to put myself down as an extreme Gavin Newsom skeptic. However, he gave a hell of a speech the other night and I wanted to get your reaction because I'm not that I have not been paying that much attention. I'll be, I'll be honest with you, I think he's kind of flailed around. He obviously is running for president. So I guess the question is, has he really emerged as the anti Trump leader. Has he found his voice? Here's the New York Times report, which I'm sure people have seen already. Governor Gavin Newsom made the case in a televised address Tuesday evening that President Trump's decision to send military forces to immigration protests in Los Angeles has put the nation at the precipice of authoritarianism. The California governor urged Americans to stand up to Mr. Trump, calling it a perilous moment for democracy and the country's long held legal norms. California may be first, he said, but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we feared has arrived. So I just want to focus on that, Harry.
- [03:18]
Ryan Reynolds
Okay.
- [03:18]
Charlie Sykes
The moment we fear has arrived. Your thoughts?
- [03:23]
Ryan Reynolds
Okay. Well, so of course, it's in two parts. You know, you started out, Charlie, by saying, is he emerging as the anti Trump? And certainly he's the guy on the ground where, you know, he's in the big state where it happens. Though, as he and others have pointed out, there's nothing about Trump's orders that do not that prevent him from going to other states. I do think he's making that move. But, you know, in general, we're so far away from who will emerge and why that I think we can put that to the side. But let's say he is right. Let's say he is right, that this is going to be blessed by the courts and the U.S. supreme Court. Are we there? Because I had been thinking, and maybe you as well, that we dodged the big bullet in the immigration context, where the court said we've got to decide whether there's due process, we've got to decide if this is and insurrection and the like. But he is, I, I've spent most of the last 24 hours looking at the lot. There ain't a lot. And the concrete worry legally is that the supreme court or the 9th Circuit or Chuck Breyer will say something like this. Trump says there's a rebellion going on now. That's why he can federalize the, the National Guard or if he invokes Insurrection act because there's an insurrection. It doesn't seem, it's much less than other insurrections and rebellions have been in the past. Newsom says not. But it's the kind of power that we have to defer to Trump's judgment on, even though it's so on his part, if something like that happens and we have sort of even potentially boots on the street under the Insurrection act, which is what he permits to do. Man, oh, man. It feels like a kind of precipice. It feels like a kind of seminal crossover to authoritarianism. And it is, I think, to really scare all your listeners. And by the way, again, it's a pleasure to be on this substack. There's a lot out there. I don't listen to them all. This is one I listen to. It could be a precursor to trying to do similar mischief with elections. Oh, emergency. There, there's all this fraud afoot, etc. And that. That would be a true calamity.
- [05:42]
Charlie Sykes
So there are two schools of wishful thinking out there that I think we have to address. One was that, well, the troops are going to disregard. We'll disobey the orders. I don't think that's going to happen. We can set that aside for the moment. And the second is the courts will continue to serve as a guardrail. And you're making the case that, in fact, the way the law is written, it feels like there are so many loopholes, there are so many ways around this that, in fact, the court might bless this. Look, the reality is that this has been Trump's fantasy for years, the militarization of law enforcement. He's talked about this over and over and over again, sending troops into cities and states, even over the opposition of the local officials. And he's got a fetish for not just the cruelty, but the brutality of the use of force. It feels as if all of the stars are aligning, though, with Trump using all of these emergency powers of the presidency, militarizing his agenda on the weekend in which we're going to have this massive military birthday party parade for him. I mean, it's for people who had said, donald Trump, you know, will, you know, put boots on the ground in your city. We were accused of Trump derangement syndrome.
- [07:04]
Ryan Reynolds
But here, here we are, Harry, you know, 100%. I try also to be sober and really take stock of where the courts will be. I agree with you that the troops won't be defiant. And even if they were, that's not what we're worried about. There are legal tools for it. But you're 100% right. The stars are aligned in a. In a way that's been in his sort of fantasy life for years. And I'll just say one more thing. It's in this very issue that he has led with from the start, and the notion, yes, the false notion. Let's. Let's just be objective about it, that somehow immigrants are overrunning the country. And committing all these terrible crimes that's neither happening in, in fact, on the ground nor with the people they're arresting, who are overwhelmingly simply don't have their papers in order. So I do think that when you look at the other very, very rare instances like the Rodney King riots, where the governor said, please come help us, we're in trouble, or even in Little Rock, where presidents eventually said, I'm going to come in because you're not doing your job. Governor Wallace, they are much more acute risks of transgressions of federal power or just complete bedlam. You know, in Compton in 1992, we don't have that. So the concrete worry that I, as a lawy, is that the courts will give him a sort of free pass, thinking, well, you know, a president needs this power, and who are we to say whether it fits or not? You have Gavin Newsom in his brief, and they've ordered a very, very quick answer that government probably has already answered, and there'll be a hearing tomorrow saying, guys, this is not a rebellion. Here's what a rebellion means. This is a, you know, law enforcement disturbance. We're handling it fine. And you're just totally, you know, putting gas on the flames. I think that's right. But if he's permitted to do it legally because the courts take this stance of we're just worried about contradicting him, then I think we're in pretty. You know, I agree with Newsom. We're on the precipice of something. Then it goes, I'll say this and sort of turn it back to you. Then I think it does become a political issue, and the question is whether the, you know, protesters can push back on him. But it's kind of Tiananmen Square, right? I mean, he's ready to roll out the. The troops. He doesn't care. He seems to. To. To like the fact that he's in this. Really.
- [09:41]
Charlie Sykes
Remember. Remember how he. Remember. Yeah. Remember how he reacted Tiananmen Square? He thought that that was strong. He actually admired that. That was always in the back of my mind. Okay, let's. I want to get to the politics of this in a moment and the way the protests are actually playing out and see whether we have the. The same perspective on all of that. But let's talk a little bit about sort of the history and the norms of the use of troops. So no president has federalized the National Guard against the wishes of a governor since the mid-1960s. Almost every single time the National Guard is used, it's with the cooperation of the governor. But that was in a very different time. Right. I mean, that was when Lyndon Johnson was, was using that to protect civil rights workers. Just talk to me a little bit about the tradition of, and, and how rare it is to override a governor's position.
- [10:35]
Ryan Reynolds
So first, the tradition, this is really an absolute axiomatic kind of tenet of the where do military people go on their, you know, what, go on the ground and do domestic law enforcement, authoritarian societies. We don't do that here. And this is up there, you know, with other countries as well. It's almost a Magna Carta level, you know, understanding we don't do that. And you're right, the very few times, the handful of times it's happened has been because governor said, please, we need you. With the sole exception being when in the, you know, Governor of Alabama said, I don't care what you say, I'm not going to let these people in school. In other words, when federal rights were being transgressed, that is the only provision that Trump could use if he goes to the Insurrection Act. He could say somehow there is a violation of federal rights and it's kind of tenuous. But sticking with the politics for a moment, I do think, and I think the administration thinks that's the Rubicon 10 USC 12406, which he's using now is like a number to people. And what he's done is federalize the National Guard. Say you guys work for me insofar as you have to protect now and, but that's all you can do. You can't be general law enforcement types, just protect federal buildings, federal property. Insurrection act would be the big step over to the other side and the side that we in this country just do not countenance. Unless, you know, we're at Fort Sumter. The whole republic's on the line.
- [12:10]
Charlie Sykes
I have no doubt whatsoever that he intends to invoke the Insurrection act and will do so. Do you agree?
- [12:16]
Ryan Reynolds
I agree. And it's always been that notice, Charlie, when they do this, this step they've done so far that I think they see it as a bigger political move than a legal one. And you know, they're inviting, they're wanting California to up the ante. California's indulging them. Yes, I agree.
- [12:33]
Charlie Sykes
Okay.
- [12:33]
Ryan Reynolds
And the Marines are already there.
- [12:35]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, well, I mean we're talking about, we're talking about the, the, the, the history and the norms and everything. Well, there's, there's also the centriole law, more than century old law. Posse Comitatus, which. Which at least, at least on the surface, bars the use of, you know, active duty military for law enforcement purposes. Correct. But the Insurrection act basically wipes that out. Right? I mean, that just basically what it said. We can do anything we want.
- [13:00]
Ryan Reynolds
Basically, yeah. That's the very principle I'm talking about. That's the law that actually effectuated. And of course it says, right, you have to be, what if, I don't know, France invades tomorrow? Of course it says, except where Congress has authorized exceptions. And, you know, really, if I can be coarse, where the shit is truly hitting the fan, that's the only time it should be permissible. But, but if Trump really takes liberties with what that means, will the courts let him? That's the ultimate legal question I'm nervous about.
- [13:36]
Charlie Sykes
Well, what law is he citing to justify deploying the active duty Marines? We have 700 Marines who've been sent to Los Angeles. I have not seen that he's invoked the Insurrection Act. We have this memo from Kristi Noem saying that she's been authorized to use the military for law enforcement. So in effect, are they basically saying we're going to do it anyway with it without ever invoking? What are they doing?
- [14:05]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah, right now they're saying, you know, you 700 guys, be ready. There's an argument that even without the Insurrection act, they can do, like, certain logistical things to help, but they cannot be law enforcement officers. When the time comes where he says we're sending them in and banging heads, that will be because he's invoked the Insurrection Act. They're there, they're ready to go. But he has to invoke, as they did in 1992 at the Governor's request, as they've done a handful of times, in order for those military guys to be turned into police officers. And by the way, if they do, Charlie, these guys don't know. I mean, that's just, that's a real special training, how to handle a riot, et cetera, friction with the state, they don't know what's going on, danger. There's a hundred practical reasons that it's a terrible idea to have them and, and the country doesn't need them. But legally, you need to do that exception to the Posse Comitatus act, which is the Insurrection Act.
- [15:03]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so let's talk about the politics and I'm going to engage in some low red punditry here. I had the feeling, look, I mean, immigration and cracking down. Immigration has been Donald Trump's signature issue from even before he came down the golden escalator, but it has certainly been a core issue. So he's got two big. I mean, he's got. Well, he's got a fetish for tariffs, but he's also got a fetish for, you know, the military and for using them with. With. With. With immigrants. But how does this politically play out? My sense is that the public was not enthusiastic about some of the tactics that were being used. There was a certain desperation when Stephen Miller says, let's go to Home Depot, let's go to Seven Elevens to find this. We're not arresting enough. And. And people were hearing these stories. They were hearing the story was taken away. They heard the story of, you know, people who were wrongly. Who were wrongly deported. I'm hoping that Americans were troubled by the lack of due process. Polls would suggest they were the masked agents. Not a good look. So that was not a big winner. I do think that right now, Trump is looking at what's happening in Los Angeles and says, this is the show I want. They're spoiling for a fight they feel that they have. This is. This is the Trump show and the Trump show, what he wants is strong government against these radical rioters. And I think that right now, it's on the bubble. What do you think? I mean, you look at a lot of media, People are seeing burning cars, they're seeing people throwing rocks at police officers. They're seeing massed protesters waving Mexican flags in front of burning cars. And every single time we see one of those images, I have to tell you, it's like giving Donald Trump and MAGA free advertising. But what is your take on this?
- [16:57]
Ryan Reynolds
I basically totally agree, as I usually do, Charlie, with your political sense. But, look, we know it's the fight he wanted because it's the fight he picked. It's malarkey to think that Okie was forced into it. And I'll just say one more thing about his fetish. Not only power, not only immigration, but this is the quintessential blue state in the city within the blue state. So he loves shoving it down their throat. But I think that the battle of anecdotes and images is just exactly what everyone on the political side is watching. Second by second, the notion of military force coming into the cities, there's some hesitation about. But I was really surprised that, you know, when phrased in terms of his overall immigration program, and this is just, you know, within the last couple days, Americans that supported him for president are still basically with him 54 to 46 on the overall, you know, kind of is he doing what we want him to be doing? So it could well be that this seems abhorrent and triple abhorrent if you're a rule of law guy because of the legal steamrolling. But that's the kind of fight that he wants for the base that he has. So I would have. I do think, though, what you'll see on the other side, there's a fight Newsom saying, you know, it's basically peaceful with a few marauders and the administration is saying, you know, revolution in the streets and that's the battle for heart and minds. And part of that is anecdotes. And as you say, every time you have a masked marauder throwing a big rock at a federal officer, that plays into Trump's hands.
- [18:45]
Charlie Sykes
No. And again, it's hard to know exactly how this is going to play out. You know, there's a lot that is on the bubble here. I mean, things could turn sour very, very quickly if they're shooting on either side. I just think that if there are protests, it is so crucial that they be massive, but they be peaceful. And that every. And people need to understand. Also perceived as such. That's right. And look, I mean, the reality is, is that they'll pick any anecdote, as you point out, they'll pick, you know, one. One antifa guy with a rock becomes the story on Fox News. And I do understand that. On the other hand, if there is a large turnout of people, then I think that that might be more likely to be effective. I got him embroiled in an online controversy about my comment that I thought it was just politically unwise for protesters to be waving Mexican flags just for the symbolism and the politics. And people say, well, this is our heritage. Well, at this particular moment, I'm not sure that that is helping your cause. And I'm trying to imagine a mass demonstration against Trump's policy with lots and lots of American flags, because the imagery of the National Guard, of the police attacking a group of American flag waving Americans is very different than the imagery of rocks going back and forth with mass people carrying the flag of another country.
- [20:18]
Ryan Reynolds
You know, I got to say, I agree with you. You're just making a political pragmatic point. Of course, it shouldn't be the case that people should need to hide their identities and the like. But some of the most effective statements of I heard on TV were like from Joe America down the line saying, I don't see an emergency in immigration. I do see all these Feds coming in and cracking heads. But it's so hard to think about this. A whole different sort of media issue. But how do you cover this big kind of conflagration? You can go either way. What's the, what's the sexy kind of catnip for the cameras? And they have. So in that sense, the media plays an important role. But I do want to say it looks as if these demonstrations are expanding to other cities, including New York City. So you may have a repeat. Will the bulk of the country think the country is under siege? It certainly wasn't the case, Charlie, three, four days ago when they were doing these very aggressive immigration maneuvers that people objected to, but there wasn't blood in the streets. But it really serves Trump's purposes if there are. And I think, again, on the political side, he could have invoked the Insurrection act already. We could have thought from things that are said in the campaign or J.D. vance, that, yeah, they're spoiling to do it. But I think, on the contrary, they really want to think that this will be received, not by everyone, of course, but by the, you know, 50, 60% of the country with some approval. Notice they're going back repeatedly to the George Floyd protests and the ones that happened after. It's a similar Rorschach test for Americans. But if a basic critical mass, think, poor Donald Trump, he had to do this to protect us and protect the country, he's going to get away with it.
- [22:11]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so I completely agree with you, and I think that they're perhaps holding off for an incident that becomes so dramatic or so graphic that that becomes the incident. Let's go back to the George Floyd protests and some of the riots back in, back in 2000, because I want to engage in a little revisionist history for folks, because I know that there was a lot of talking points, I think, among progressives and Democrats that, well, law and order is not working for Donald Trump the way that, that he was hoping that he was, you know, it's, he was, you know, playing the 1968 playbook all over again. In retro, in retrospect, I do think that that issue, those riots, those images, almost elected Donald Trump. He was defeated, but it was much closer than people thought in the state of Wisconsin. I think that he would have lost, you know, by a much larger margin, except for what happened in Kenosha. And I think that there was a certain amount of denial about that. I mean, we had that famous picture of the CNN reporter standing in front of this massive burning, saying, yeah, largely peaceful Protests, people said, are you, are you, are you kidding me? So I do think there's a real danger here. Anyone who thinks that the law and order issue is still not incredibly potent is, Is really living in a bubble, because it is. And I do remember the 60s riots. In many ways, that was the end of the liberal era that, you know, for the, the, the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society era. And I think people need to be conscious of that.
- [23:40]
Ryan Reynolds
And the beginning of the Southern Strategy, right, The Republicans moving to the, to a sort of law and order that was, that was maybe what gave Richard Nixon the victory in 1968. Look, if to the extent the country thinks, wow, we are on fire and we need someone to put it out, that's Donald Trump, right? That's, that's the, the strong man role that he's nominated himself for since he came down the escalator. That's why these sort of contingencies of what plays on TV and what anecdote gets elevated and what gets diminished really matters. I don't think people will be looking so much to what Charles Breyer thinks in the courts, etc. And, you know, there will. What Trump ultimately needs, what we need to be able to evade the authoritarian prospect he presents, is popular will against it. And this is his really best shot. It's, I think it's always been to have the popular will with him. If they really think that somehow the country is on fire, which strikes me as radically counterfactual. But that doesn't matter these days, I think.
- [24:49]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you're absolutely right, and this is incredibly dangerous, because what would Donald Trump do with that emergency power? I think that we have, I think, suffered in the past from a lack of imagination about what he is capable of doing. I think that's becoming less and less the case. But Donald Trump wants the emergency. He wants the sense of crisis. He wants the country to turn to him as the strong man. And I think that he's very close to feeling that there are no restraints on him whatsoever. There are no guardrails. There are no legal limits to what he will do. And he is thrilled by the process. I mean, honestly, if you've listened to him over the last few years, he is thrilled by the prospect of violence. And so, you know, he's not necessarily, as you point out, he's not necessarily waiting for the fire. He's going to go set the fire and then declare that only he can put it out. Okay, I want to get your reaction on this, because among the very disturbing things that have happened over the last 72 hours. Or so. And maybe this is one of those blips, but I thought his performance at Fort Bragg where he is speaking in front of these soldiers and their families and he is giving basically a MAGA campaign speech, a campaign rally, encouraging the soldiers to boo and hiss at his political enemies, you know, to cheer the MAGA agenda. This was one of those breathtaking moments that he's not only desensitized us to the so many things, but there's a radicalization going on among the military. And this is why I said the, the wishful thinking, the people thinking that these soldiers are going to dis, you know, are going to disobey the orders. He is using them as a prop. And his willingness to politicize and radicalize the men and women in uniform, given everything that's happened, is deeply alarming. And I was already alarmed before that happened. What was your.
- [26:43]
Ryan Reynolds
And remember, he's now replaced the people in the military who wouldn't have wanted this job. No, it's bad for the country and the military with hand picked lackeys. So, you know, out from. Out to Mark Milley into to whoever trying. Yeah, what I thought of Charlie, when I saw that was the Red Guard, the people whom Putin or others look over so lovingly, you know, when they. And they're. Did you see, issued all these orders about how they have to look at the grand military parade for his birthday, which is just, you know, doesn't work that way in democracies. Can you imagine George Washington calling for such a parade at the cost of.
- [27:22]
Charlie Sykes
Over literally no one. But no. Yeah, literally no, no one.
- [27:27]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [27:28]
Charlie Sykes
No, no President, no, no president would have done that. But I do, I think that what he is doing with the military was so breathtaking that also I had the same reaction that Tom Nichols had his great piece yesterday in the Atlantic where he said, you know, the silence of the generals, because you can certainly imagine in a different time, different timeline that you would have, you know, people in the chain of command saying, you know, it was inappropriate that the, that the cadets reacted the way they, not the cadets. I mean, the troops reacted the way that they did or this was inappropriate for a military base. There are rules and regulations about the politicization of the military. Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about any of those. I mean, let's just remind ourselves that we, you know, there are consequences to having a convicted felon as president of the United States. But nobody in that chain of command, you know, has spoken up or will speak up. Because, you know, at this point, any dissent from Trump means the end of your career. They are all afraid. So, as you point out, you don't have a Mark Milley in the room with him. You don't have a Mark Esper in the room with him. You don't have, you don't have anybody in the chain of command that is willing to speak truth to this particular Orange Power. And so, and that is really alarming, really alarming.
- [28:43]
Ryan Reynolds
And he sort of, he has done this everywhere. This is one of the first steps of Project 2025. Nichols nailed it. I mean, he went all the way through. It was pretty riveting to see that kind of implicit fight in the 2020 build up and the insurrection. And you knew that the military would bulk. They don't want to be used this way. But just as you said, this is the same thing that's going on with the Marshal Service, the people who execute judicial orders. Trump now has the top dogs in. They are lackeys and they'll do as he says. So this would be career ending, I think, before there's a certain tradition of professionalism in the military that permits, if you really are prudent and limited and for that reason the statements fall with such volume to say, no, no, no, this is not a, this is not a good idea in the United States of America. And he has wired that part already. And you have people kind of throughout. This is also the case in the National Guards who, you know, they know they'll lose their jobs right away. They've laid the table very. If, if we're going to get paranoid and I, I think, you know, now's the time to at least indulge paranoid fantasies. You got to start with the point that they've set the table very well and carefully not to have the kind of pushback on behalf of democracy that Trump got in his first term.
- [30:15]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, I think that's, that's true. Okay, let's, let's go back to his first term when, when he was talking about, you know, how to deal forcefully with the protesters. And by the way, if you look at the rhetoric, I mean, they are just itching, I think, to, to, to, to escalate things. But do you remember that incident in the, in the first term where he talked about, well, why can't we just, you know, shoot the protesters in the legs or something? Shoot. And then, of course, there were people in the room who explained that, no, you cannot do that, Mr. President. You had Mark Esper, you had, you had Even Attorney General Bill Barr.
- [30:45]
Ryan Reynolds
You had Mark Milley, the White House counsel. There are laws in fact. Right, right.
- [30:51]
Charlie Sykes
None of them or anyone like that. Is there no one. Somebody in the Oval Office says, yeah, let's start shooting him in the leg. See how they feel about that. Is there a single person who's going to push back and say, Mr. President, you cannot do that. That would be wrong.
- [31:05]
Ryan Reynolds
I mean, they haven't shown up yet. Right. I mean that is the number one difference. And I really want to say this. I can speak with some authority as a lawyer whom they've curated and called out. We're talking about that thin a group of people from the far. Not even the far. It's not even a right wing, left wing. It's a total authoritarian constitutionalist kind of dimension. Almost every Republican wouldn't assert this kind of power, but he's very carefully put in. It's not even the smartest tights. It's just the most, the yes people that that's who is now there. So no one a, they would lose their job. But anyway, what they're there to do. You saw this with Bondi. Every time it comes up is to, you know, extol him and, and make him look like the great strong man he wants to be. So the short answer is I think that's right. There is nobody in the room. That's why so much falls to the courts. Now I do want to say his MO for taking over the country will, I think be if he tries to do it will be more legal. He won't have the military, you know, seize control of Springfield, Illinois. What he'll do is try to expand these emergency powers, apply them to elections, say we have an emergency here and said that's the thing I most fear. But at that point we had very strong reason to think that the military, among others would not go along with it. They would know what it was. And yeah, I do think he has wired it here. And those are the sorts of interactions that, that the people by and large don't really have a sense of it happens or it doesn't happen. It's not, it's not a matter of national protest. Sorry, go ahead.
- [32:44]
Charlie Sykes
I don't usually think of myself as naive, but, but I've always thought that the, the, the predictions that he would use his power, fear with the midterm elections was perhaps a little far fetched. But now I'm starting to think so. Do you think that he wouldn't? And how would that look? I mean he would declare an Emergency in certain areas. And then what would happen with the election?
- [33:04]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah, something like this. He would say there's an emergency. Why is there an emergency? We have an emergency here because immigrants are over turning our country and there's all these marauders. Why is there an emergency there?
- [33:17]
Charlie Sykes
Make shit up.
- [33:17]
Ryan Reynolds
Because there's terrible fraud in the land. We've got to come in and make sure everyone's civil right to vote is protected. And you can see then how it plays out now, Charlie, we, we saw him try to do this with the Alien Enemies act and we saw the courts push back. I'm quite concerned that when it comes to this sort of thing, emergency powers for conflict riots on the ground, they'll let him. I think elections is, you know, a middle ground now. He'll say there's emergencies and courts, at least lower court will first say, what emergencies? Everyone's. These elections ran smooth as could be. There's no emergencies. This is. You're trying to do a power grab. You just gotta hope that the courts perceive the stakes here. I mean, you, you know, we go back and forth on the Supreme Court justices and in the run of cases, but my God, they are each sophisticated enough, down to Alito and Thomas, who, by the way, may be retiring in the next few weeks, but just to know this democracy is on the line here and would they really be so lockstep with Trump as to countenance the end of the American experiment? Man, oh, man, oh, man, that's. I think what will really. That'll be the writing on the wall if we go to the elections piece of this.
- [34:41]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so this raises the question, I know you've written about this, one of the most interesting breaks in Trump world, besides the Elon Musk thing, which continues to be fascinating. And by the way, that Elon Musk is groveling his way back. Oh, I'm really sorry. I didn't do this soon.
- [34:56]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah. Jesus, I thought he's got cash. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
- [35:01]
Charlie Sykes
He's the world's richest man and he is on his knees saying, oh, please take me back. And you know what? Trump will. I don't know if it'll take him back, but he will exact, you know, the maximum amount of humiliation because the way to win your way back and then do it again, self gelding, humiliate yourself. And then do it again and again and again. But also it shows this climate we're in right now where, you know, if you, if you have the sort of the. Well, you have the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man who wins was not even a close contest. Trump can make Elon Musk substantially less rich. Elon Musk has no power to make Trump less powerful. But I want to talk about the Federalist Society because this goes to the question of the courts. I mean, the Federalist Society is the beating heart of conservative legal movement, which arguably has been fantastically successful in remaking the courts. Donald Trump basically outsourced all of his judicial appointments to the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, and, you know, has reshaped the federal judiciary along with, say, Mitch McConnell. But now there is a break. So give me your sense of what's happening, because on one level, all of these judges know the Federalist Society. They come from the Federalist Society. And I'm just getting the sense that there's more and more skepticism among conservative judges about what Trump is doing, including Trump appointees. So is there, is there. What is the downstream effect of this in terms of the courts, Harry?
- [36:33]
Ryan Reynolds
You know, I actually have a sense of this. I have some good friends, I clerked with them who are in the Federal Society. I always want to hear from them, how can you possibly support this guy? And there are different versions they try to give. But I think the Federalist Society is internally roiled. I think a lot of people in the Federalist Society, including, so Peter Kiesler, co founded the Federal Society. He's now left over just this issue because obviously they've abandoned their conservative principles. And I think the critics, including the critics from within, say, you know, you, you guys have just had your head turned by power. You know, that if you shut up, you have the power that you have not simply to choose judges, but to raise money. And I think there, you know, it started out first, it's been phenomenally successful, as you say, and it had a certain kind of idealism. And, and I think there's now a deep schism in the Federalist Society over exactly this. People are smart enough to understand this is really anti Democratic. They maybe disagree on how dangerous it is, I think, but I think the society right now has a, has a deep, you know, I've, I've spoken there. I have a fair number of friends that I, that I know there. And you know, it's. There are, there's Jacques going on within the ranks. But, you know, if it weren't that, one way they think about it is if it weren't them, it'd be somebody else. Like now, for instance, it looks like it may not be them. And Mike Davis, that's a name we may hear more and more former. It will be. So that's sort of what they're thinking. I actually had a reunion this, this weekend for Justice Kenny, whom I court for, and so did Justice Gorges and Justice Kavanaugh, whom I numbered among my friends, but it's been a few years. Anyway, I do think that, yes, people understand, not just as a personal matter, you know, how, what a disgusting person he is, but as a constitutional matter. And some of them have nevertheless said, you know, we're going to, they see instrumental value in going along. It's not, but others have not. So it's a funky time for the Federalist Society. But as I say, I don't think their bottom line is if they go away, someone else will replace them.
- [38:52]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, somebody worse. Okay, so let's talk about Pam Bondi. You, you wrote about, about her. I mean, in many ways. Yeah, exactly. You know, the, the, you know, Matt Gaetz was horrible, and people thought, well, you know, Pam Bondi can't be as bad. And Washington Post actually endorsed her, her confirmation. But let's just focus on the Abrego Garcia case. Just a quick update on that. It turns out they, the administration blinks, sort of. They, they brought him back from El Salvador, but they immediately indicted him. And then Pam Bondi comes out and gives this press conference which you wrote about. Give me, give me the short version of that, because that was, that was a shit show horror show all wrapped in one shit show.
- [39:34]
Ryan Reynolds
You know, wrapped. Yeah, I mean, you always say it better, but I, but I was a U.S. attorney. It is so elementary and second nature. You don't go like trashing a defendant and saying things that aren't in the indictment. And she did it again and again and again and again, as well as, you know, political points to, what's the difference here? Donald Trump is now president, so our borders are safe, you know, a total non sequitur. But as this is where my fuddy duddy side comes out. But it's not funny duddy when you're talking about the presumption of innocence. It was just foul. And I'm here to tell you, Charlie, I think she's been terrible, even watching from the outside, but people inside the department are just horror struck, you know, just passing her in the hall. She has been an absolute, you know, derelict rogue of an attorney general, including expressly converting their jobs into being there for Donald Trump. She fired someone who had the nerve to say, well, yeah, we made a mistake with Abraco Garcia that, that got him fired. It's, it's really so woeful there and it raises the question what's going to happen if, if she left tomorrow. But there's never been an Attorney General like this. She totally flouts the rules in a way that deeply matters. I'll tell you as I finish that piece my worry. They've done so much wrong here, starting from sending him down by mistake and the things she did. But I, it seems to me that they, they may well have him on this one small part of the indictment and they mel, well might really put pressure on him to plead in which case the whole thing sort of go way and we don't learn about what, you know, the bigger sort of Democratic issues of what they did and did wrong. But yeah, I'm just talking chapter and verse. Office of Professional Responsibility, if it were functioning, it always has been, would just totally take it. It's not a close call. You can't get up there and, and say, oh, it was his full time job and 100,000 a year and here's what the grand jury found. No, they didn't. It's not in the indictment. Grand juries don't make stray findings. It's all about the children. You know, it was really inflammatory, inaccurate outside the four corners, politicized. You know, I like just stomach turning for any DOJ veteran, Republican or Democrat.
- [41:54]
Charlie Sykes
It is breathtaking watching them march marching through the institutions and destroying the traditions and the norms without blinking. And the damage that they've done. I mean the, the, the years and years, decades if not centuries of experience that they are losing. They're being replaced by the loyalists. You mentioned the U.S. marshal Service. Just before you and I began this conversation, we got the story that the FBI wants to move from Quantico to Huntsville, Alabama. So it's, it's one law enforcement, one legal agency, one military after another where. Yeah, but this is a big one. So, so your, your, your, your take on what they're doing with the FBI, because the damage I think is going to be very difficult to repair. They're very clearly determined to destroy the FBI.
- [42:45]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah. Notice number one and two people, you have FBI antagonists. They promised after putting Cash Patel in, you'd put someone who you've always had in one of the two positions. Really in both, someone experienced, knows the FBI. They did not do it. It's be it, it's been the poster child for, for Trump's antipathy toward the federal government for, you know, such a bizarre turn of events that Republicans are so anti law Enforcement. But this is a way absolutely. Just like you storm into California, you show your domination, you, you take put them to Huntsville, Alabama. Meaning, you know, they're in the field office now. By the way, another thing, in the last 24 hours, it looks like they want to revive the Guantanamo. Oh yes, and all the illegal, you know, people whose papers aren't in order down there that what they've used before for 9, 11. But yes, they are just absolutely, you know, in public this kind of Trump from March 15, 2017, taking the stripes in public off. Jim Comey, the FBI, I'm, you know, here to tell you does so much. I understand they're a little starchy, it's tough to be up against them. But man, oh man, what they do to protect the country, to enforce laws, how much you need them when things go awry. And yeah, he's looking to basically completely disempower them down in Huntsville, Alabama with no even leaders to raise a stink about it. Because the leaders have been picked in advance not to raise a stink. Yeah, and they are also deep. And I just want to go back to the point you made in passing, Charlie. The doj, the FBI, so many of them work based on the received guidance and wisdom of like 10%, 5% of the people who stayed there forever know how it's done, how it should be done. Keep them on the straight and narrow because it's not clear what that should be. And those are the very people who are now being, you know, shown the door or given jobs in North Dakota. But yes, Huntsville, Alabama, I don't know what tuber bib, what Alabama senator profits from that, but I know who loses and that's the American people. You do not want. If the FBI screws up, there are plenty of legal means to go after them. You do not want them weaker. They're, they're really have big battles against some very bad guys out there that would do harm to the US Especially internationally. And you know, for, for weird like imagistic reasons it seems to me Charlie, you know, just he likes the sense of it that he's the guy who harm the FBI. And with zero, I mean zero, I mean less than zero sense of the actual impact on the ground to Americans lives. This also comes up in colleges and the like. Sorry, I got on my high.
- [45:36]
Charlie Sykes
No, no, no, I, I, I, you know, I mean these are all really important points. So I'm probably going to regret even bringing up this question because it seems like a digression but because, you know, for 10 years we've been asking, well, what is the breaking point for Republicans in Congress? And the answer is like, you know, trick questions for spoiler alert. There is no red line. They will never break with him. On the other hand, there are these specifics and I was thinking about the whole RFK Jr. Senator Cassidy story. Where would you confirm RFK Jr. To be the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Well, Senator Cassidy, who's a doctor, exacted this very explicit promise that you will not mess with this particular agency dealing with vaccine approval. I mean, the black letter promise accepted. Believe. And Kennedy just obviously lied to him about all of that. And you just kind of wonder whether, you know that at some point you go, okay, look, you know, we're, we're Republicans, but we don't want, you know, planes falling out of the sky. We don't want measles epidemics. We don't want these chodes doing all of this. But we're not there yet. And I, I will be interested to see what Cassidy does because at some point you would hope that a member of the US Senate would reclaim their manhood on when they've been lied to so egregiously.
- [46:56]
Ryan Reynolds
But not so let me just add a little bit to it. Again, politics being more your battle, but at the time with him with no errands, there was the, the tangible prospect that Musk would come in, drop half a billion dollars or whatever to try to defeat them. That's gone. And also the big beautiful bill is looking like you would know better, like a total stinker. And any vulnerable. There seem already to be two senators Soto voce who are against it. And if that goes down, I think that's a mini breaking point for some. You know, he's governing on a razor's edge margin and as you say with a, in a sort of terroristic way. So it wouldn't take much but man, this is. The historians will figure this out. But again and again and again by the narrowest of margins, he brings them back. And you know, what the courts can do, what the people can do, what any, what the state people in power can do when the, your old party, you know, the Republicans in both the Senate and House are in lockstep and permit themselves to be. I mean the real theme he's doing is completely usurping congressional power and they're just letting him. It's amazing, would never happen. And man, it so narrows the cards for democracy to play when that's the, the situation we keep waiting for a clean break. It does occur to me that Maybe we'll get like mini breaks. But, you know, if this bill goes down, for example, the continuing resolution, would that mean that Trump has been. I don't, you know, there's, I think we're still in the same dynamic.
- [48:36]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, no, I don't think he cares that much about it. He wants, he wants a win. And so the thing about Donald Trump is it doesn't matter what the content is, as long as he can claim there's a win and so something, he'll get something that he can call the big beautiful bill. Okay, so, so now he always got.
- [48:50]
Ryan Reynolds
Claim a win, even when he loses, right?
- [48:52]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, well, exactly, exactly. Okay, so here's my ultimate digression. This is my ultimate contrary intake. Do you know we were discussing, you know, the militarization, you know, the jackbooted, you know, troops moving into the cities and everything. You know, all of the, the questions about authoritarianism and, you know, tyranny and everything. You know, we're not hearing from at all these days at all. The Barack Obama, the second, who are constantly, for years and years and years, when I was on the radio and it was like, why, why do you need to have assault weapons? Why do you need it? Well, we need to have these weapons in order to fight off a tyrannical government. And I always ask the question, who would you shoot? I wanted to hear how this works out. Are you saying that your guns will be used? You'll shoot cops, you'll shoot agents, you'll shoot members of the active military? I mean, is that the whole point of it? I literally have not heard any of the second amendment people or anybody bringing up the fact, thank God we have the second Amendment because we can turn our guns on the government. I just, I'm sorry, I just have to throw that out because I had that conversation.
- [49:59]
Ryan Reynolds
No, no, no, it makes sense.
- [50:00]
Charlie Sykes
I called this my who would you shoot? Topic. Who. Really?
- [50:05]
Ryan Reynolds
Let's walk through all these, all these calls and it is really important because it's kind of like we have met the enemy and they are us. You know, all of a sudden they're embracing the, the people who would do what they've always been complaining about. I think Charlie and I would defer to you, but this gets to really the heart of the, of the matter that historians will be figuring out. Is it that, you know, is it the second Amendment? Is it taxes, is it immigrants, etc, or is it someh. More like emotional and psychological and a desire to really impose pain on these liberal elites, etc? I don't want you know, I'm not an expert here, but I, you can't help but notice that again and again, there doesn't seem to be consistency with the positions and there doesn't seem to be relatedly an inroad based on argument. It's just it, it feels more visceral than that. In a similar way, in Los Angeles, it's yeah, we got the, you know, troops in there and doing it similar way, we're getting rid of the immigrants. I just think that's a big part of it. But I, you know, I understand I'm treading on thin ice and I.
- [51:18]
Charlie Sykes
No, you're not. No, no, this is, this is important to understand. Otherwise you can't explain the policy shifts of Republicans that were.
- [51:25]
Ryan Reynolds
I know what and what won't work going forward. Right.
- [51:28]
Charlie Sykes
No, it's a lot of it is, it is attitude, it is, it is identity and it is, it is some strange lust for power that Donald Trump obviously has, but also that he's tapped into. Harry Lippman, it is always good to talk with you. I want to hear about your reunion afterwards. I want to hear what goes on.
- [51:45]
Ryan Reynolds
Okay. Yeah.
- [51:47]
Charlie Sykes
Sounds like it's going to be fun.
- [51:49]
Ryan Reynolds
That might be a little confidential, but I, I, yeah, it's great, Charlie. And next time, if you will, I'll invite you over to my house on and we'll do a different talking feds. We'll do a substack together. I always your take on what's happening on the ground as I, I more and more look to as things get more and more.
- [52:07]
Charlie Sykes
Thank you.
- [52:07]
Ryan Reynolds
Funky.
- [52:09]
Charlie Sykes
Well, we, we are and things are going to get more and more funky, which is why we continue to do this podcast as a reminder to all of you that we are not the crazy ones. But you knew I was going to say that, right?
- [52:37]
Warby Parker Ad
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate. And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
- [53:10]
Alltrails Ad
Out here, we feel things. The sore calves that lead to epic views, the cool waterfall mist during a hot hike, and the breeze that hits just right at the summit. But hey, don't just listen to us. Experience it for yourself. Alltrails makes it easy to discover the best of the outdoors with more than 450,000 trails around the world. Points of interest along the trail and offline maps for always on navigation. Download the free app today and find your next outdoor adventure.
- [53:42]
Warby Parker Ad
What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com USAA knows.
- [54:13]
Ryan Reynolds
Dynamic Duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With usaa, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply.
- [54:27]
Greenlight Ad
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.