Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
Boland Branch Bedding Advertiser
Imagine a world of extraordinary comfort where Boland 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 Bolin 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 and Branch.com with code buttery. See site for exclusions.
- [00:33]
Trimble Technology Advertiser
Every day there's a new challenge to face. So meet Trimble, the technology company that connects your physical and digital worlds, allowing you to make decisions and take intelligent action to get the hard work done. And the best part? You can do it all faster than you've ever thought possible. Check them out@trimble.com you ready to turn data points into decision points? Or turn deadlines into finish lines? How about turning possibilities into profits? Then turn to Trimble.
- [01:00]
Boland Branch Bedding Advertiser
Hi, I'm Madupak Enola 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.
- [01:52]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome to the Contrary Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. If you are still hungover from this last weekend, you are not alone. We had the big rally, the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, who is now a MAGA martyr, but also the trigger to weaponize the government against critics. We have the President of the United States openly telling the Attorney General to go after his political opponents. This just a couple of days after the chairman of the FCC jawboned ABC Disney into canceling Jimmy Kimmel, which has created an interesting backlash. And of course, on the side there we have the story about Tom Homan. The public face of the Ice Brute squad was apparently under investigation for taking a $50,000 cash bribe, an investigation that was quashed by the Trump administration. So joining me to sort this out and take the long view, political scientist historian Julian Zelizer. First of all, welcome back Julian. Good to have you.
- [02:57]
Julian Zelizer
Thank you. Always a pleas talk to you.
- [03:00]
Charlie Sykes
So what do you make of this weekend? I mean, just, just give me your thoughts sorting through because I did a Canadian podcast earlier today and the host Said it feels like everything is accelerating and escalating down there in the states. And it does feel that way, doesn't it?
- [03:18]
Julian Zelizer
It feels that way so much. I mean, two things from the last week that feel exactly as you're saying. One is the erosion of the notion that the Department of Justice should be anything but a tool of the President. Since Watergate, that has been a norm that we've tried, not perfectly, but tried to uphold. It's broken. And the President's been very explicit and open. He will go after his opponents and opponents is not what DOJ is meant to focus on. It's meant to focus on upholding the line. Secondly, opposite politics of retribution, which is just, it's dangerous. I mean, the rhetoric has escalated. You have a tragic assassination, something just terrible happens. But what we've seen is, is it's an effort to exploit that, to go after a political agenda he's talked about for a while and it's ramping it up, using this as a crisis to exploit rather than a crisis to try to heal. And so both of those very accurate in terms of what's going on.
- [04:26]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I think it's important to point out that it's not that he is breaking the Department of Justice, he's broken the Department of Justice. I actually left out one of the most important things that happened over the weekend. The Saturday, I don't know what it was a Saturday Night massacre, Saturday day massacre. He fires the well respected U.S. attorney from Virginia for refusing to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with crimes after he determined that there's no evidence she committed any crime. So he looked at the law, he looked at the evidence that there's no case here. And Donald Trump says, not good enough, you're fired. And he brings in a, shall we say, questionably qualified loyalist, a woman who has never prosecuted a case in her life. And as a condition of her employment, obviously she has to charge Letitia James with felonies, otherwise she's going to be fired. So there's no subtlety about this. There's no secret, there's no mystery about all of this. And then we had this, I mean, let's just this weird episode where he puts out a truth social bleat that looks like a DM to Pam Bondi. Nobody's ever seen anything like it where he's basically telling her, you know, Pam, we're looking bad. Get off the stick, go after Adam Shipping, Jim Comey, go after Letitia James. You have to do it, by the way. I don't know how that's gonna play in federal court, but I don't know whether you saw Paul Rosenzweig had a really interesting piece in the Atlantic where he actually put this in some historical context. He said King Henry II is reported to have mused, will no one get rid of this turbulent priest? It was not an order, so to speak, but the king's subjects knew a royal command when they heard one. A short while later, four knights traveled from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the subject of King Henry's ire. There's been plays and movies about this. Attorney General Pam Bondi won't have to do any traveling, but like Henry's loyal knights, she has received a royal command. And like them, she will do her best to implement her ruler's direction. What do you make of Trump publicly posting a communication to his attorney general explicitly telling her to file criminal charges against his political opponents? I mean, even Nixon didn't. I mean, Nixon seems like a, seems like a choir boy. I'm sorry, I'll take that back.
- [06:59]
Julian Zelizer
But no, this is, it's stunning to watch what he's willing to do here. He's just saying that he's not being secretive. He's not hiding it. He truly believes, I think this is what the executive branch is for. It's for him and it's for him to use as he wishes. And he doesn't think 10 steps ahead of what's the implications for the country for the founding constitutional system. If this is happening, it doesn't matter to him. And so when he, whatever you said, bleats, whatever term you used, puts it out on truth social, he's showing a level of transparency about using presidential power that few others would ever have done. Nixon did it once. It was a scandal. He has done it repeatedly and without any connection to specific things other than protecting himself. And the second part is it's incredible. It's not a source of outrage. I mean, just from a long term perspective, any other president who had done this, any of these things you just mentioned, this would be the top of the news. It would be in the news for days and weeks.
- [08:14]
Charlie Sykes
It could be an impeachable offense.
- [08:17]
Julian Zelizer
Correct. That's really not on the table, let alone just paying attention to it for more than an hour, if anyone paid attention to it. So some of it is he just does all this in public. And I think the in broad daylight strategy of President Trump is if you just do it, then it's not a scandal. You know, it's like Nixon said, if the President does it, then it's legal. He says if the President does it, it's not a scandal, and that's where we are in 2025.
- [08:44]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it feels naive to say that maybe this is a bigger deal because it is so. It is so naked. It's not a matter of debate. And again, federal judges and Supreme Court judges read the papers, right? I mean, they, they follow this. They know that this is going on. They know that there are cases that are going to be coming into their court that are being brought that may not have any law or any evidence behind them, and that this is the agenda of the President. And I do wonder, and I do wonder. I see two different reactions here. And by the way, I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, the one reaction is this is incredibly scary and terrifying and an indication that authoritarianism has, you know, is. Is upon us. The other, and Daniel Dresner kind of makes this point. Some of these, these bleeds feel less like power than the attempt to look powerful. In other words, they, they may actually be an indication of desperation and weakness. And there is a strategy of doing everything in broad daylight. But I wonder what the strategy is behind basically hanging your own attorney general out to dry like this. I mean, Pam Bondi had a truly shitty week last week. And, you know, I don't know whether she's in deep Trumpian shit or not right now, but is this a sign of real strongman strength or is it potentially a sign of hubris, overreach, and of crackup?
- [10:12]
Julian Zelizer
I think the hard part is both are true. Meaning a really strong president doesn't have to do this. They can win over people. They can move the agenda in ways that, that don't involve breaking our law and order system.
- [10:27]
Charlie Sykes
And he can't.
- [10:28]
Julian Zelizer
And he sees the approval ratings. He does know that midterms don't go poorly. That's why he's doing all of this, that they do go poorly for the President. And I think all of that is true. And he's lived with that his whole political career. He's constantly struggling. That said, the mistake is then not to see the seriousness of what he's doing. People who are struggling, people who are in trouble, can often take the most dangerous steps because they feel if they don't do dramatic things, extraordinary things, then they will lose their power. And with him, it's even some ways more important than it was for Nixon. Power in his mind is everything. It isn't only to have power, it's to protect Himself, to protect himself from all the legal problems he faces. And so I think just because, and I think that's actually an accurate assessment, but he's doing things that are fundamentally dangerous. And oh, yeah, that in the end is probably the most important, regardless of his intentions.
- [11:31]
Charlie Sykes
Right? I think that's right. I mean, he's also throwing these lawsuits out there like Skittles, throwing them up against, you know, the New York Times. And the New York Times lawsuit, was it $15 billion. The New York Times, unlike some other media entities, is standing firm, pushed back, got a federal judge to throw out the entire, the entire complaint. It felt like it was within seconds. But, but there are going to be more. This is clearly a strategy. And part of me thinks Donald, even Donald Trump knows that there's no merit to these lawsuits. It is just too intimidated. It is just to make people fear. It's to put that little voice in the back of the heads of, of all the reporters and the editors and the producers, be careful what you say because Donald Trump is going to file the lawsuit. And for most people who are not the New York Times, the moment he files that lawsuit, you lose. You know, even if you win in court, you lose because the meter starts running and you have to pay and you have to pay. So I can't talk about this, but I am indirectly involved in a similar type thing that may play out. And my initial reaction was there's no way he's going to do anything about this because there's, it's laughably absurd. There's no legal basis to it. And now I'm thinking that's not, that's not his thinking at all. He doesn't care. So there's, there's, there's, there's more, there's more coming there.
- [12:57]
Julian Zelizer
No, I think that's right. I think it's, it's partly fear and he wants to scare institutions. He's used this with lawsuits throughout his career, before politics. And the second is it's money. You know, it costs money. The New York Times, even for them, it's not pleasant to have to spend enormous amounts to mount a defense, but they can do it. Whereas smaller publications, smaller shows, I mean, this has a real effect and he knows that. So I don't think the legal case is actually the issue at all. It's like all the things we've now discussed in the last few minutes. It's one more tool to lean on people, to make it scary to oppose him or to say no, because you're thinking through all the costs that this is going to amount to if he, if he decides to turn his gaze at you.
- [13:49]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I want to get to the FCC in just a moment. But over the weekend, of course, we had this really extraordinary mass rally for Charlie Kirk down in Arizona. Some notable commentary. You had the widow who said she forgave the shooter. And then in sharp, sharp, sharp contrast, Donald Trump gets up there and goes, yeah, I know we're supposed to love our enemies. I don't, I hate them. I don't want good things to happen to them. Well, you know, given all that Christian, you know, tapestry around all that, that, that was rather striking. Not like revealing, because that's who Donald Trump is. But to see a president of the United States talk about in a public state in that format, forum, talking about how he hates his enemies, he wants bad things to happen. You had a really interesting piece about, you know, presidential traditions and that presidents have in the past embraced being the comforter in chief. And there are some notable moments in American history and the contrast between that and Trump. Maybe it's just old, old news right now, but to have Donald Trump at this religiously oriented ceremony after the widow says, you know, we have to love our enemies. I don't love my enemies. I hate them. So much for the Christianity. Your thoughts there about the president as comforter in chief as opposed to inflamer in chief?
- [15:18]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah, I mean, you hear the juxtaposition of the widow's statement and his statement, it's jarring. He's actually, he says, I don't agree with. Sorry.
- [15:30]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [15:31]
Julian Zelizer
And it's, it's just, it's a dangerous moment. And yes, presidents, historically, even those who didn't like kind of groups associated with a crisis and have whatever private feelings, they either. I talked about Lincoln in his second inaugural, talking about reconciliation ultimately as being what has to happen once there's an unconditional surrender. Or Barack Obama in 2015 after the shooting at the church, who sings Amazing Grace and kind of has incredibly power, powerful words of healing. Or they. I also say some of them put forth legislation to try to deal with the issues that have surfaced because of either. I talk about Oklahoma City and a counterterrorism program Clinton worked on, and there's many examples. The one thing they don't do is fuel the flames right after. And, and not just once. It wasn't an off the cuff remark. He's doing it from the first video he put out through that rally. And that was a charged ral. I mean, feelings are very raw and Bitter. So the role of the President is to say, calm down, this is not where we're gonna go with this. And he did the opposite, and he's done it many times. So he is not fulfilling the role that we have seen from presidents, but.
- [16:57]
Charlie Sykes
He'S fulfilling the role that a lot of his MAGA supporters want him to, which is that he hates the right people and he's punishing them. By the way, did you see Stephen Miller's comments? Oh, my God. I mean, look, I've said this before, this guy, and I know we're not supposed to say this right now, but this guy is a fascist right down to the last follicle on his head. I mean, you take some of that speech about the legacy and we are the builders and you are nothing. You put that in rallies in different languages, shall we say, in the 1930s, and it would fit in perfectly. That was a chillingly bizarre moment. But again, Stephen Miller reminding us who.
- [17:40]
Julian Zelizer
Stephen Miller is, not a surprise. And yes, we keep seeing the same thing over and over. And look, there's a long tradition of political violence in this country. So it's very serious stuff we're talking about. These are not one offs. It's rooted in our history. And we go through these moments like the 60s of assassination and terror. And what we look for are voices who push against that. Not that say everyone has to agree. That's not the point. They're going to be fundamental and that's fine. It's actually healthy. But the point of the good leaders is direct that in the political process, direct that into the partisan battles on Capitol Hill. Do not go here. And the kind of rhetoric of inflaming by Miller, by Trump, will lead many people to think the opposite. And it's kind of a gloomy moment right now. I think many people feel that for.
- [18:39]
Charlie Sykes
The republic, well, it is dangerous and it's all wrapped up in what we're seeing is the creating of the enemies list, whether it is the anger or the hate or the direction. Attorney General Pam Bondi, I mentioned before, has had a terrible, terrible week. Earlier in the week, remember, she warned the administration will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. Speech. She walked back her comments later saying she was only speaking of it, but I mean, she made it very, very clear we are coming after you. And then of course, one of the big stories of last week was the, the chairman of the fcc, Brendan Carr, who did his, his goodfellas imitation by saying, hey, you know, nice network, you got There Disney. Be a shame if anything happened to it. By the way, even Ted Cruz saw the mafioso element of all of that. And then Disney caves in, fires Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, this was one of the flexes of government power that Donald Trump clearly has been pushing for. It's clearly a requirement of Brendan Carr's employment, but. Well, just give me your sense of that. But we'll get to the blowback from that in a moment. Whatever you think of Jimmy Kimmel, whether you like Jimmy Kimmel, whether you think he's funny, whether you think he's a jerk, whatever. Is the FCC in the business of enforcing certain ideological standards? Should they. Do they legally have the power to tell networks to shut someone up or fire someone because of something they said?
- [20:15]
Julian Zelizer
No. I mean, that's not what the FCC is for. The FCC did have what was called the Fairness Doctrine for many years, 1949 to 1987. And it was a rule that in exchange, this was an era of network television and radio where used landlines to get access to public space. You just couldn't be political one way or another. That went by the Wayside in 1987. President Reagan, many conservatives, opposed it as too much regulation, and we haven't had that. We're also in an era of cable and Internet where it actually doesn't fit. The government doesn't have the ability to regulate all those, et cetera, satellites and, and now other forms of communication. But going after, like watching specific entertainers, a comedian and, and leaning on a network, threatening a network. Leaning is the wrong word. You better take that person off. Is not what the FCC is, is about, and it's a misuse of the fcc. And once again, also incredible that the President seems, we don't, we don't know exactly what, how the order came about or the statement, but he seems to care about a comedian. It's an equally incredible part of the story that he cares what Jimmy Kimmel says.
- [21:35]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [21:36]
Julian Zelizer
As opposed to maybe finding the joke annoying or finding him annoying, but not like, focus on Europe or any of the crises that we face. But that's where he is looking, and that shows how far he'll go. But this is not what the FCC is meant to be doing.
- [21:53]
Charlie Sykes
Well, he kind of gave away the game also that, I mean, there's some people focusing on Jimmy Kimmel's specific words which weren't that bad, actually. I mean, you know, considering it was pretty. It was actually pretty mild. But Trump gives away the game when he then says that now we have to go after Seth Meyers and Fallon. So he's going down the list. Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and like, without any offering any specifics. It's just like, I now have the power to make the networks do exactly what we want. Now, I don't want to overplay this because we've been through this game before, Lucy and the football, but this was one of the very few times when you saw prominent conservatives who pushed back and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is an abuse of power. Ted Cruz, who knew Ted Cruz goes on his podcast and he basically says, you sound like a mafioso and says he sounds like the good fellas. Rand Paul went on to Meet the Press and said that it was absolutely outrageous what Brendan Carr had done. People like Ben Shapiro on Daily Wire said that, look, the FCC should not be threatening action against ABC or Disney based on Jimmy Kimmel being a jackass. And by the way, I mean, anybody in broadcast has to be looking at this. So it was extremely. Here's my question for you, though.
- [23:19]
Trimble Technology Advertiser
Only Boost Mobile. Boost Mobile will give you a free year of service. Free year when you buy a new 5G phone. New 5G phone. Enough. But I'm your hype man. When you purchase an eligible device, you get $25 off every month for 12 months with credits totaling one year of free service taxes extra for the device and service plan online only.
- [23:34]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
Raise your hand if you want your nails to look perfect all the time. Me too. I'm Sarah Gibson Tuttle, the founder of Olive and June. And this is exactly why we created the Gel Mani system. We wanted to make it possible for everyone everywhere to give themselves a beautiful manicure at home with our tools and our Gel polish that lasts up to 21 days. Each manicure with our system comes out to just $2. That's right, $2.
- [23:58]
Charlie Sykes
No more.
- [23:59]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
60, 70, $80 salon chips that take hours. Now you can paint your nails on your time and love them more than ever. And by the way, when people ask you where you got your nails done, you're going to proudly brag that you did them yourself. And here's a little something extra. Head over to OliveAndJune.com and get 20% off your first gel mani system with code DIYGEL20. That's code DIY GEL20 for 20% off your first mani system at OliveAndJune.com DIY GEL20.
- [24:30]
Charlie Sykes
What amazes me and alarms me a little bit is the lack of imagination on the part of the maga. Right? The lack of imagination saying that if we have the power to do this with the government. What happens if Democrats ever get in power and turn around and use the exact powers and precedents we have created? Why do they not seem to be worrying about that right now?
- [24:57]
Julian Zelizer
Well, let me say two things on the first, it's been remarkable, the blowback to Jimmy Kimmel. It has been not just, I mean, when Ted Cruz is against you, you know, there's an issue if the senator is stand in the way of what the Republicans want to do. But I do think, look, often it's entertainers or when things happen to popular figures. It's a way for the public to see and understand with clarity what's going on in a way that some of the other news is confusing or not necessarily of interest. And I do think this, I've had so many people ask me about this, even though there's been so many other moments of intimidation of the press. And I do think there's kind of blowback as he does more of this because he's touching on figures who even people who don't love the figure and many do love the figure, but they see like what? Like why is a network going to fire him? Because the FCC guy is, you know, making statements and they don't know Brendan Carr is, but they know enough to know it's wrong. And when it happens to a popular figure, that can be serious. I don't discount the actual blowback from this. And secondly, you're right. Look, that's the whole point of keeping these precedents. It's because you don't want the other side to do it to you. That is how these have worked in every institution of government. There's often a reluctance to go too far. Not because you're good always and not because everyone's so civil and noble minded. But you realize you will lose power. Power goes. And once you lose power, if you've broken a system of protection, of guardrails, they can come right after you. And boy, given the temperature right now, I wouldn't be surprised if that happens down the line. The parties are very different, but you could still imagine some they're not thinking that way. I think there is an imagination that power is permanent. There is a kind of sense that Trump, through all his different tricks and redistricting, go down the line, can somehow protect this as a permanent majority. We don't have permanent majorities. It won't be one. And what Republicans are doing is accepting tools that eventually can be used against them. Maybe that's why you're right. Ben Shapiro is sensitive to it because he's a broadcaster, and he could see 10 steps ahead without much difficulty that he will be under threat or colleagues would be under threat of the same regulatory pressure. So I don't know why they don't do it, but I do think it's a false logic of permanent power that they are operating on.
- [27:35]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it is. So I saw an exchange online that actually kind of was alarming. So among the people, and, you know, I'm just reporting it. So don't, you know, no blowback from the listeners on all of this. That I'm going to quote Barry Weiss. She actually, in the Free Press editorialized exactly along these lines, saying this is a really big mistake because, hey, you know what? If you pick up that weapon, that weapon is now in play, and the Democrats can use that against you. And I think she's completely right about that. Jonathan Chait from the Atlantic, though, then commented that they are acting in such a way as to make it impossible for them now to acquiesce in the peaceful transfer of power. They have been criming so aggressively, they have been abusing their positions so aggressively that the prospect of losing power now becomes really, really, really dangerous. So maybe they are under the delusion of permanent power, or maybe we're just seeing a series of events that ought to be giving us little signals like, you think these people are ever going to turn over power again? I'm not one of those that thinks the elections are going to be canceled, but it is worth remembering that the man who is president of the United States right now, literally, seriously, historically, did try to overturn an election and did prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So this is one of the things. It's like. It is their, their behavior is so outrageous, if you believe that they have to surrender power, maybe they're not going to. I don't know. What do you think? I don't want to go there, but I.
- [29:21]
Julian Zelizer
Well, the heart of the argument is fascinating that the more extreme you get and the. The more dangerous the things that you do with government are, the less more desperate you are to keep power, the more willing you are to do anything. In fact, you know, some would argue President Trump's second run was to protect himself from all the investigations and criminal prosecution that he faced. That's why he wanted power. And some say that with Netanyahu, I mean, it is a. It is a logic. The second part, I'm still with you. I'm still, and maybe I'm overly optimistic, but that there's still strength, not only in parts of our institutions and parts of our politics and part of our constitutional culture, that those are still formidable, too. And I don't think they'll give in so easily. They didn't in January 6th. I mean, the effort was stopped. And I get it's harder. I get he has more power and using it, but we shouldn't discount that. And again, we have a long history with many kind of bad moments in the history, for sure, of democracy being subverted, whether it's the Jim Crow south, whether different kind of abuse under Nixon. And people have fought back and overturned those. And so we need to hope and we need to participate, frankly, in being part of that happening again. But the argument points to a very astute and serious analysis of why this fight is going to be so tough. You know, one side does not want to give up power because they realize at this point they need it to protect themselves.
- [31:09]
Charlie Sykes
Well, they're riding the tiger, and you can't get off the tiger if the tiger is getting hungry. So I want to get to the, the Homan story in a moment. But, you know, you mentioned something about how, you know, the firing of Jimmy Kimmel or the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, I don't know whether he's going to come back or not, has gotten more attention than other attacks on the media. There was actually a tremendously important story over the last several days. It's gotten almost no attention. These new Pentagon reporting guidelines where apparently which they almost seem like, you can't be serious, telling reporters that they are not allowed to report anything that is not authorized by the Department of Defense, and if they do, they will lose their credentials. So basically saying that we have absolute prior restraint, censorship, power over anything you report out of the Pentagon, which is so I would think unconstitutional and so outrageous. And yet that has not gotten enough, enough attention. But again, their desire to control facts, to control the narrative is. I don't know, how do you distinguish it from authoritarianism?
- [32:23]
Julian Zelizer
It's difficult. It's very difficult. But we clearly move in that direction at a minimum. Again, people use different terms, but this is very strong armed government. And look, there is a huge inconsistency between an administration that argues you can't always trust the government. There's deep state happening, including in defense, and then say, but the press can't cover it without our. It's like, okay, which argument exactly do you want to make? But to do this, I mean it really. Gosh. To do this in the Pentagon in defense, which is one area where the press has been so vital over the decades in exposing and covering really controversial and illegal, all kinds of decisions from Vietnam, Vietnam forward, Iran Contra. To do this with the press should stir a lot of concern. But I fear, I mean, my great fear is apathy often that you're just not seeing much. I didn't even see many people write about this, but it's a bit bigger than Kimmel. I mean, it's bigger in some ways, but it's not getting covered.
- [33:31]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I agree with you, which is why I wanted to bring it up here. But in this particular case, this is one of those instances where I think that if it actually does go to court, I think I actually have confidence that the courts are going to say that you can't do this. You remember, I mean, there have been court cases, remember? I think when they. Remember when they took away Jim Acosta's media credentials, he actually went to court, eventually got them back when they kicked the AP out of the press conference where they stripped them of their credentials, they went to federal court. They found out they couldn't do that. This strikes me as much more fundamental. This almost strikes me as Pentagon Papers level, Supreme Court precedent type thing. No, you're not going to be able to do this. Okay, Tom Homan, this is the, this is the thuggish face of mass deportations. Turns out that he was caught on tape by undercover FBI agents accepting a $50,000 cash bribe, which he then put into a bag. And the allegation is that he was promising that when he got into power with Donald Trump that he would give them favors. We don't know whether or not that quid pro quo went through because it looks like the Trump administration shut down that investigation. And a name that some people remember, Emil Beauvais, who is the deeply deplorable deputy Attorney general. Now, tragically, an appeals court judge apparently put the kibosh on all of this. What do you make of, of this story? Because, I mean, again, this is a pretty easily understandable story. Guy's a bag man. And they covered it up.
- [35:15]
Trimble Technology Advertiser
Only Boost Mobile. Boost Mobile will give you a free year of service for a year when you buy a new 5G phone. New 5G phone. Enough. But I'm your hype man. When you purchase an eligible device, you get $25 off every month for 12 months, with credits totaling one year of free service, taxes extra for the device and service plan online only.
- [35:30]
Boland Branch Bedding 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 exclusive conclusions.
- [36:07]
Julian Zelizer
The story is very important. I mean, I know as much as anyone who read it, and that's the point of investigations, usually because you want to find out, is this true and did it happen? Because if it is, it's a pretty big implication of a person running an organization in government that is deporting people based on what most courts have agreed is very thin evidence, often of criminal wrongdoing. Here he would be taking bribes. And so again, it could be totally wrong and the story might be wrong, but there seems to be some substantial evidence to investigate. And the fact they shut it down is. This is quite scandalous. It's yet another Saturday Night Massacre. It just keeps happening. An extension of where we started. This is why you want a Department of justice to kind of focus on law and order. And frankly, if he's innocent of this, you want a good investigation to clear him. That's the point. But when you shut it down, you can only raise suspicion, you can only raise questions, and you can only leave a taste of real distrust about what actually happened here. But it's important to understand official of this level, potentially having done this, it reflects a culture in the administration, though, where these ethical issues have gone out the window. Look at the president himself involved in criminal.
- [37:34]
Charlie Sykes
I was gonna go there.
- [37:36]
Julian Zelizer
So this is how he set a tone. And this is the tone that I'm sure many leaders think at some level is okay, those who did it, those who don't do this. And it's the opposite of what we want in the executive branch.
- [37:49]
Charlie Sykes
This is the most important point. You'd like a DOJ that did its job, but you'd also like to have a president United States was not a conviction. Convicted felon who was openly, in broad daylight, accepting bribes from foreign countries, from, from, from businesses. And that's the reality. Again, we'll, we'll go back to the. What is, you know, the, if you commit the, if you commit the scandal in broad daylight, somehow you, you get away with it. You know, of all the things that are going on, Trump's grifting in the White House, using the White House to enrich himself Nakedly. I mean, you know, the Qatari jet, it's just, it's just. And the crypto deals and everything. There's, again, nothing subtle about them. Maybe there are some mysteries, maybe there are some secrets, but what we know is certainly that they've decided that they don't care. I did think it's also a sign of the degradation of standards. So Megyn Kelly, who used to be a journalist, you remember her? Remember when she used to actually, you know, have standards and stuff? Tweets out over the weekend. I don't care. I don't. Tom Homan is such a. I don't care.
- [39:01]
Julian Zelizer
You don't care.
- [39:02]
Charlie Sykes
The guy is a bag man. Well, actually, at this point, how could you care? If you're going along with Donald Trump, if you're watching what Donald Trump is doing, then why would you care about it? So you're exactly right. The key to the Homan story is this is the culture set from the top. And you know, that Donald Trump is not sitting there. This is, this is terrible. This is, you know, I imagine trying to enrich yourself. Screw that. So, yeah, I, I don't know where that story is going to go, but they all feel like they were in a bundle this weekend, didn't they? Just this naked abuse of power. And it's like for people who say, well, maybe it's not as bad. Look, people, you don't need to use your imagination. It's right there. Right there in front of you.
- [39:46]
Julian Zelizer
Yes. And he's, look, the more you do, the more you accelerate doing it and the fewer consequences he faces, the more stories you will see like this. And I don't see there's any reason they are going to calm down. And I think the cluster you feeling is now just, it's totally spinning out of control in terms of how far the president and many others are willing to go with their power. That is exactly what the Constitution attempted to stop. It did not want a system where an individual could go this far could be so unconstrained. But now, in 2025, that's what we have.
- [40:26]
Charlie Sykes
This is what we have. Okay, one last footnote. There apparently are some red lines, very thin red lines. There's this new. Is it the new New York Magazine story about Kristi Noem? That's out. You know, that she's the of the mass deportations were one of them, but her boyfriend, Corey Lewandowski is the real power behind it. And there's an anecdote that when Donald Trump was considering her to be his vice presidential nominee. He decided, kind of amazingly, that her puppy shooting was a bridge too far. That, and he's quoted as saying to his son, Don Jr. Man, not even you kill puppies. You kill everything, but even you don't kill puppies. So that disqualified her from vice president, but not in charge of the mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Okay, so we know that there are some lines. Julian Zelizer, thank you so much for all your time and joining me on the podcast after an amazing weekend. Again, thank you.
- [41:33]
Julian Zelizer
Thank you for having me.
- [41:35]
Charlie Sykes
Charlie and you and I will be talking later this week, so we'll see what happens between Monday and Friday. And thank you all for for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know why we do this, why we continue to do this? Because it is so important to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you.
- [42:06]
Derek Clason
Hi, I'm Derek Clason, host of the Athletic Football Show. Today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile offering reliable nationwide coverage backed by a 30 day money back issue guarantee. Love your service or get your money back. No questions asked. Boost Mobile offers the same nationwide coverage, network, speed and service consumers are used to, but at more affordable prices. Why would you pay more if you don't have to? Boost Mobile also understands that change can be scary, which is why they allow you to try their service risk free for 30 days. And if you're not happy, you can get your money back. So start saving on wireless today with Boost Mobile's unlimited plans starting at just $25 a month.
- [42:41]
Charlie Sykes
Month.
- [42:41]
Derek Clason
Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or find us online@boostmobile.com After 30GB, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan. Customers who cancel within 30 days of activation will have Boost service fees refunded, activation fees if applicable, and phone payments will not be refunded. The Boost Mobile network, together with their roaming partners, covers 98% of the US population. 5G speeds are not available in all.
- [43:06]
Mark Marin
Areas Areas hey folks, it's Mark Marin from wtf Today. I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile offering reliable nationwide coverage backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Love your service or get your money back. No questions asked. Boost Mobile offers the coverage, network, speed and service you're used to, but at more affordable prices. Why pay more if you don't have to? You can get an unlimited plan for $25 a month that will never increase in price, ever. No price hikes, no multi line requirements. No stress Visit your nearest Boost mobile store or find them online@boostmobile.com After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 per month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.
- [43:57]
Boland Branch Bedding 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 and branch.com with code buttery. See site for details and exclusions.