Harry Littman (3:20)

Yeah, no kidding. It feels like impossible. And then the pace picks up and redoubles and redoubles. And it does seem as if not just the pace, but the kinds of transgressions they break new norms and legal boundaries. Most recently, the Don Lemon indictment. It just keeps coming.

Charlie Sykes (3:43)

And I see this morning CNN is reporting Justice Department expected to ramp up efforts to deliver on Trump's weaponization priorities. So whatever you think is happening, it is not de escalating. But can we just take a step back? Because I want to talk about something you wrote last week that turned out to be, I think, remarkably timely. As you know, over the weekend, Donald Trump, brave Sir Donald ran away. He renames the Kennedy center the Trump Kennedy Center. And then so on brand he insidifies it and then shuts it down. Completely shuts it down, turns the lights off for the next two years. Because the explanation renovations. I don't know about you, I'm not buying that. I think the serial humiliations, all the artisan acts that were canceling on him. But you had a piece last week, and I think it was a turning point. I want to get your take on this. Philip Glass, the legendary composer, announced that he was not performing Lincoln at the Trump Center. Talk to me a little bit about that because it was a very pointed and very eloquent statement.

Harry Littman (4:50)

I really appreciate that. Well, it was a pointed and eloquent statement by Philip Glass who said the values of this symphony are not, are completely antithetical to the, the now values of the center. And that, you know, he is, he's a great guy. I know him a little, but it's real. He, he has supplied the music for Talking Feds from the start, has Philip Glass. And really as a sort of part of being kind of civically engaged. But it took me back. The values are different. So I went back to the Lyceum, a speech that I think people who are interested in Lincoln have a sense.

Charlie Sykes (5:27)

Of Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum.

Harry Littman (5:29)

Yeah. Yes. Excuse me. Right. So the Tiffany, which was going to be a major cultural event, almost certainly Philip Glass is his last was entitled, you know Lincoln and it was the libretto or the, it had a whole big spoken component that was taken from Lincoln's words. Mostly the Lyceum, which is a speech you study when you think about Lincoln as his first sort of announcement. 28 year old young man, as I say in the piece, an age when Trump was still shining his father's shoes. But I, you think of it as sort of a stirring call to civic participation to these young men. He's speaking to all men at the time in Springfield. But I went back to it, Charlie, and I was so struck with how it really is much more than that, a real blueprint for how America by then consolidated from sea to shining sea and really very strong. And Lincoln takes as his subject, how could the country in fact ever go down? And what would, what would it be? And he says it's not foreign threats, it would have to be from within. And then he basically begins to, to lay out a blueprint for what to be really concerned with. And it's stunning, but it's just like Trump 1 to Trump 2. It's about disrespect, the rule of law, impunity for that, for not respecting it. The kind of demoralizing impact that has on everyone else who begins to just think of it as indifferent, the way it kind of gets into the cultural roots. That is the recipe for America's demise. If anything else. This is 1830s where, where the, you know, certainly after the French Indian War, we are really, we're really astride the beginning to be astride the world. But, and he is, is issuing a, not a prediction, but a blueprint for what to avoid. And man, oh man, you can't help but read it and see Donald Trump all over it. And that's what struck me and what I, what I tried to put in the piece, you know what.

Charlie Sykes (7:57)

And you did quote from Philip Glass, who's 89 years old, towering figure in modern composition. I mean, his place in history is secure. And he talked about the symphony that he did not want to have performed at the Trump Kennedy center. Symphony number 15 is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, Glass wrote, and the values of the Kennedy center today are in direct conflict with the message of the symphony. For that reason, he said he felt an obligation to withdraw it under the center's current leadership. And you know, look, you know, who knows what's going on in Donald Trump's mind, but you've had one cancellation after another. Pretty high profile. Stephen Schwartz, writer of the box office juggernaut Wicked Tony Award winning box office Smash hit Hamilton. Renee Fleming bailed out on this. Jazz player Chuck Red, two time Grammy winner Rhiannon Giddens. One after another. And Trump said, you know, I'm gay. Was, was embarrassed, was embarrassed. And Rick Grinnell couldn't talk. I mean, it's like for three years, it's going to be, you know, one big name after another humiliating us about, you know, how Ivan shittified the Kennedy Center. So he just shut it down.

Harry Littman (9:06)

And I think that's really the point. As you said serial back then, he looked ahead and it was going to be Glass was a, was a big event, but it was going to be one after the other, each one a news story, each one embarrassing. I mean, look, he's done this in many different respects. He's doing it in completely with the Xanadu construction of the White House. He's embarrassing the country and making us think this is not the America we live in. But the killer aspect here, as I think the steady that brought on the taco point, is what was going to be the steady drip, drip, drip. He had sort of nothing to win here. And you know, you always read that he's a guy, obviously I've long since given up psychoanalyzing him, but there's some incredibly deep rooted insecurities. And you always heard in New York, you know, he could never make it with the elites and they always, you know, almost disparaged and made fun of him. And this is his trying to appropriate the. One of the biggest elite institutions in America and just failing miserably and having that level of culture completely, you know, reject him. I think that's a, that's a, maybe an old wound, but your point that nowhere to go. And then did you notice the little. We're going to close it down and make it the biggest, best east wing ever by rebuilding, etc.

Charlie Sykes (10:44)

They can have monster truck rallies too, I think, you know, and ultimate fighting contest.

Harry Littman (10:50)

Yes.

Commercial Narrator (10:53)

There are a million reasons people start therapy. A breakup, burnout, a new job. Whatever your reason, there is one place to start. Grow. Therapy meets you where you are with support that actually sticks. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. There are no subscriptions, no long term commitments. You just pay per session. GROW helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0, depending on their plan. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans, including Medicaid in some states. Visit growtherapy.com startnow today to get started. That's growtherapy.com startnow growtherapy.com startnow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

Charlie Sykes (12:15)

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

Harry Littman (12:46)

We had on Talking Feds. I know you're going to be on next week and looking forward to it, but the five words or fewer once we had what will there be? Now everyone's withdrawing five words or fewer. And I went with Ice Capades, Guns on Ice. So there you go.

Charlie Sykes (13:00)

Oh, okay. Don't give them any ideas now. Did you happen to catch the Melania movie this weekend? I want to get into the important stuff, but did you catch this? Because.

Harry Littman (13:09)

No, I missed it. I just assumed it'd be such a sellout that I'd never be able to get a ticket. Yeah, we had. That was also. I'll stop with Talking Feds in a moment. But that was the five words or fewer on this one. And what's the subtitle? Five words or fewer. And mine was See it or get indicted. But I miss the. I missed the actual. How long is it?

Charlie Sykes (13:36)

I don't know how long is the actual documentary? Like the vast majority of Americans, I did not watch it. I think the thing about it is it's such a naked payoff by Jeff Bezos. They called it a docubribe. And just the, the, the on every single level. The optics are horrible. Now I don't always quote Maureen Dowd here on this, but her review, I don't know whether you saw it in the New York Times. She said, it turns out there's no riddle, no enigma, no mystery, no dark anguish. You know, in Melania, you know, who is. Is she Melania is not Rapunzel in the tower pining to be saved from the ogre imprisoning her. Melania is where she wants to be, in the bosom of a corrupt family that is prostituting the people's house. Ooh.

Harry Littman (14:19)

And then, of course, that P word, you know. Yeah.

Charlie Sykes (14:24)

You have tens of millions of dollars that were paid out for this shitty movie. And she points out, this is particularly gross given that Amazon is engaged in mass layoffs and Bezos seems intent on starving his Washington Post of money and talent. The split screen of Bezos and his spendthrift wife, Lauren Sanchez frolicking everywhere, including Paris Fashion Week, while the tech mogul defiles the crown jewel nurtured by Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham, is sickening. Yeah, there's a lot of split screens there.

Harry Littman (14:56)

That really is a Marine dialed bullseye, isn't it? Yeah, but that juxtaposition, you know, and it's a theme everywhere, right? What's happening to the country and the middle class while there's a steady procession of elites kind of showing up, kissing the ring and getting dispensed special favors, that. That aspect of things, we cover less. But, you know, the Tale of Two Cities has never been more stark than with Trump.

Charlie Sykes (15:25)

Well, you know what I mean. You want to talk about the. The showrunners working overtime. It's been a bad week for the global billionaire elites who, if they're not doing something like this, they're showing up in the Epstein files. And again, I don't want to get too deeply into all this. I want to find out what's more into those files. But the number of names that are in those files, I mean, the breadth of this, the number of people that Jeffrey Epstein had in his web. And I guess sort of pulling back, if you wanted a measurement of the Trump effect on our culture, how many of those men who are now exposed as being associated with a sexual predator, sexual trafficker are gonna lose their place in some society? How many of them will become pariahs? How many of them will lose their jobs as a result of this? And my guess is probably few. None. I don't know. And again, this is the Trump effect, right? Is that, you know, that. That behavior that would have been utterly disqualifying and eternally disgraceful 5 minutes ago is now like, well, this is, you know, everybody does it. It's. That's the age of Trump. No shame, no guilt.

Harry Littman (16:39)

I mean, that really does seem to be true. I don't have much trouble pillaring the things he does. And the legal transgressions. This, I gotta say has always been a mystery to me that historians will wrestle with. But starting from like Access Hollywood. What the hell? You know, I mean, this is so clear. One, one more example. But of so many. But I'm often, you know, Trump is the perfect ant antithesis to everything I learned in I need to know I learned in kindergarten. They indict Don Lemon and from the White House publish a little like fun emoji when life gives you lemons. Just the, the incredible crassness and bad taste. But you're, but you're right. The past that at least big sectors of society, there's all, you know, you, you I'm sure, know some people. I know a few who support the President. I'm always curious to know what it is. And you bring up things like this and, and there's just a cognitive dissonance maybe like, oh, that's just Donald. Or you know, but, but you're. It. It is a, you know, fluorescent display of the most boorish, nasty predator and criminal behavior. And it's like, yeah, there's that too. Not that there's much on the other other side, but it really is. What the, what the Hel. How does this happen? But if you're, if you wanna be consort with a sexual predator, now's the. You're. You're better off in the, in the Trump years for sure. Go for it.

Charlie Sykes (18:16)

Yeah, well, we're gonna live through the actual simulation what we thought was a simulation of like, well, what if Donald Trump was caught doing this? Would that make a difference? What about this? What about this? And I think we're gonna run through the whole game. Okay, so you mentioned a lot of things I wanna talk about today, but let's do, let's talk about the Don Lemon case because this is obviously something that has sent a tingle up Donald Trump's legs. You know, keeps, you know, INS says he knows nothing about the arrest of Don Lemon, which of course is complete bullshit. I mean, I think the one thing that is, you know, absolutely transparent is the way the DOJ has been weaponized. It's being weaponized for his big lie down in Georgia. It's being weaponized against his political opponents. But let's talk about this because there's some layers of complexity involving the First Amendment involving the protests involving. And of course this stems from his involvement as an independent journalist recording what I regard as a somewhat ill advised protest, invading a church as part of the anti ice protest. But you're doing a much Deeper dive into the legalities of all this. So talk to me about the us versus Don Lemon.

Harry Littman (19:25)

Yeah. And thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity. I do think the tingle up the leg is the entire point. This Pam Bondi supposedly little bit in Trump's doghouse. And this is all performative in this very kind of chest thumping way. Just today, this morning, we tape on Monday, she tweets out, if you do a ride in a church, we will find you. You know, it's not hard to find public protesters.

Charlie Sykes (19:54)

They're recording themselves.

Harry Littman (19:55)

But it's. So there's a move here that they're doing and I think it makes it first for her. It's this great trifecta. She, she go. It's the. She went to Minnesota for a couple days last week. Was it to check what's happening with Pretty and Good or to shore up the morale in the more and more abandoned now Minnesota? No, it was this very episode which I, you know, there is a tradition of demonstrations in church. It seems like it maybe got a little raucous. It seems like a few people were put off and said no. Others cheered, but others, you know, you're interrupting my service. All true, but the thing that really I think made Bondi jump for joy is the use of a statute that was designed to prevent what had been a wave of real blockades of reproductive health clinics. And as a political sort of way to pass, they added religious service or religious. All good. But it's so clear, even leaving aside that Don Lemon's a journalist, this is not about, and the Congress actually puts it in the statute, not about anything having to do with political expression. This is the instances in which this statute is used is people like locking arms and blockading, trying literally with violence and intimidation to keep patients from going in and to shut down clinics. Way more concerted, violent, aggressive conduct. Had they done that to the church, it would have been a perfect charge or perfectly appropriate. But it's nothing like that. And that's the reason that all the professionals told Bondi, don't bring this case. We can't bring this case. Especially against a journalist. She didn't care more than she didn't care. It's so performative, Charlie. Her name at the top of an indictment. Never, ever, ever, ever Attorney General at the, you know, even signing or being in an indictment, the, the, the tawdry arrest of Lemon, you know, Don Trump, like Donald Trump, like any other prominent defendant would, who's not going to run away, has the opportunity surrender, right? Self surrender. They went after they. They call her Le. 11 o' clock at night. So he has to serve the night in jail. It's. It's all designed to, you know, be a complete Bondi performance play. And, you know, there's statements out there that I think the department will be invoking of. Well, nothing special for journalists in the First Amendment. That's not really true. Those are cases in which you're recognizing the rights of private citizens. But, you know, press is alone, is mentioned in the Constitution and the value of a free press. And, and so the, The. The really sort of tendentious or dishonest step here is they take. I wasn't there, but there's a video. It seems like it got a little raucous, but they want it to be a. A conspiracy that from the start, everyone, including Don Lemon, who. You know, when you cover an event like this, you figure out what's going on. You don't tell others, you embargo it. That's standard journalistic practice. And they want to convert it into this insidious. Okay, guys, how are we going to shut this down? Because it's a religious practice. That's another really big point. When the people are blockading reproductive health clinics, the health clinics themselves are the enemy that they want to shut down. The church is a convenient place to protest, and it will make waves, et cetera. But the comparison here, which they're gonna need to get anywhere, I think falls flat from the start. And I think, and I'll just finish with this one last point. It sort of doesn't matter. She's taking a page out of Trump's book, even including with that sheriff in town. We will find you in all caps. It puts, you know, it makes him spend money, it humiliates him in prison. He's going to have to go through pretrial stuff. This case is never going to. He'll never be convicted and doubtful he'll even see a jury.

Charlie Sykes (24:46)

But mission accomplished.

Harry Littman (24:48)

That's it exactly. Mission accomplished. And a lawless mission and an unprecedented mission. And boring down. I have a subsec on this today, on what face is and what it isn't. Really brings that home.

Charlie Sykes (25:01)

This is the name of the law. So let me break it down and have you push back. I mean, there's a number of different ways of evaluating this. Number one is whether it was prudent to go into the church and disrupt the church service. I would say, no, it was not. It has given a great talking point to the maga. Right? Plus, that is private property. You do not have a First Amendment right to have a protest in a private venue. Once they've told you to leave, you have to leave. You have no right to stay. That. That's number one. So again, politically imprudent. Not all protected, especially under this law. But I think the reason everybody was shocked by the Don Lemon arrest is that it does seem to be an escalation of the attack on acts of journalism. Now, I guess the threshold question, Don Lemon, as an independent fellow substacker, is he a journalist covered by the First Amendment? Because if he is, then this is a really egregious thing. If he was there to film it. So what was his role? Was he there? Is he a journalist? That's number one. Number two, if he was a journalist, was he there as a journalist or as an instigator? I mean, how do you unpackage all of those layers?

Harry Littman (26:18)

Yeah, boy, those layers. To me, Char seem so easy and straightforward. Of course he's there as a journalist. He says repeatedly that he is. And by the way, everything you say, if something were an over aggressive, we could take a step back and look at the annals of public protests, including raucous ones, including things that get a little out of hand. And some of them, you know, because they make waves, come to be seen as legit. I don't doubt your point. They should not. It's a wrong thing to interrupt anyone's religious service. Although there really seems to be quite a mixture of reactions there. And I think they did leave when asked St. Paul police were coming to investigate what, a disturbance of the peace? A misdemeanor? That's the way you would treat it. But is Lemon a journalist? Of course he is. He's got his producer there and he's doing so there. There's no doubt. And, and, and what does that mean? That means the basic premise of the indictment that so seems to thrill Bondi, that he is does it with the purpose of intimidating churchgoers. You know that that's just a mischaracterization. It's. It seems to me this is, I.

Charlie Sykes (27:36)

Think, has been an underappreciated aspect of the story, is the incredible hypocrisy because you want to talk about intimidating churchgoers. Many of the ICE raids and ICE tactics have directly been targeted at churches, including Catholic churches around the country. Catholic churches who have had, in minority communities who've had to actually shut down their services because of the fear that ICE has created. And the. From the Pope on down, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States have issued warnings and complaints about the way in which churchgoers, church services have been menaced or have been threatened or have been disrupted in some way or another. So again, hypocrisy with hair on it if we're really concerned about freedom of worship. So I just wanted to throw that particular line.

Harry Littman (28:28)

No 100%, look, it's the Willie Sutton line. That's where the money is. They go there to do a harvest of immigrants. And so but now when, when First Amendment protest, and it is a protest, want to make waves. Oh, now it's all a frontal attack on, on religious practice in this country. It's just a mischaracterization. And it's not, if you read the indictment carefully, it's all, when it gets to those sorts of points, it's just statements from the United States. There's no quotes. And every. I, maybe, maybe not a few times when you're there, there's some jostling or a close questioning of the pastor that is not blockading clinics or church.

Charlie Sykes (29:13)

Okay, so on a slight still on Minneapolis, one of the bright spots, I suppose, although it comes with an asterisk, is the return of that five year old little boy, Liam Ramos, who had been held as bait by ice. And I think this became viral. This is one of those images that had shocked the conscience of the nation. ICE went ahead, they detained him, they shipped him to a detention camp down in Dallas. A judge issued, and I reprinted the entire decision because it's so amazing. This guy, I don't know whether you agree with me, he's been reading J. Michael Ludig's stuff about the Declaration of Independence. But this is an amazing order from Judge Beery, who I'm not really familiar with, where he says, look, these folks seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law. This case has its genesis in the ill conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. And then he says, apparent also is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence, where they go through the grievances against the King George and saying that a lot of that stuff is happening now under Donald Trump. And then there's this sentence, observing human behavior concerns. I'm sorry, start over again. Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned. And then he basically said with a judicial finger in the constitutional dyke, it is so ordered that he be returned. I mean, first of all, that decision, pure freaking fire. Just absolute humiliation of the government. So give me your sense about the judiciary because there's certainly been an indication that many of these local federal judges have just, they're out of patience. They are all out of bleeps to give about all of this. And yet the judge who was hearing the case that would have ordered ICE to back off. Judge, was it Menendez? Did not grant the, did not grant the motion. So what's going on in terms of the federal courts being a guardrail against the worst abuses? Give me your sense of state of play.

Harry Littman (31:39)

Yeah, no, it's a great, it's a great point. And let me just spend a minute on it with Judge Barry. It's a three page opinion that's just all the grievances and also quotes Benjamin Franklin, a republic if you can keep it. And you know, look, it's a rhetorical, it's a rhetorical tour de force. It is fire and brimstone. I think there's, you know, it's not the kind of opinion I would write if I were on the bench, but that perfidious sentence is the one that jumped out at me as well. People are missing that largely for, for the first sentence you read. But it's the fact that Judge Barry would write, you know, in a normal world, when administration undertook some action, we've seen it before. I don't remember the opinions, but remember Elian Gonzalez had the same kind of focus on the country. And you would say maybe the administration is being too aggressive. That would have been harsh criticism once upon a time. And we're now at a juncture where there, there was a point where they became emboldened to say a stunning and to me kind of tragic position for federal judges. We don't trust you anymore, doj. You're not complying. And then this. So, Charlie, this is the very ruling the judges, the Supreme Court has said, you get some due process and even if it looks like they have a good case against someone, they can bring a habeas corpus and attendant to that, they make a motion to be at liberty until the hearing. And the DOJ fought it tooth and nail, but having lost repeatedly, they're just ignoring it. This is like what happened way back in March with a Brig Garcia, but in space. So you had an opinion last week by a judge in Minnesota, the chief judge saying in January 2026, ICE violated more orders than many agencies have in their entire existence. And a similar thing in la, it's exactly, this is what happened. And they've been taking sometimes these people and hailing them down to Texas. Oh, we have to release them. Okay, goodbye. No way to get back anything like that. So just really wanting cruelty. And the, the, the same thing here that, that they, he ordered them, he gets to be free pending this hearing that, that I'm going to give him. Now that's a fairly small measure of relief just to notice this is about, you know, they can still, it sounds like they maybe think they have a good case against the dad. Although even there, Charlie, the dad has applied for asylum and that means typically all hands off until it's done. But it's the right ruling to say no, they get to be, there's no reason that they can't be free. And while, while we're waiting for the hearing. But the rhetoric, you know, heard round the country certainly and in the courts and to me, just the bare fact of it, let's say in a typical world, Barry might have been a little bit bolder. And so but now we're two face shifts over and all the normal judges are saying, we don't trust you anymore, doj. I mean, this will have cultural impact. You know, the credibility was built up over generations of honest integrity from doj. Now it's all been squandered and you have folks like Barry who will just completely, I mean, you know that, that is the most, as you say, incendiary, on fire opinion. Can I give you a minute on Menendez?

Charlie Sykes (35:42)

Yes, please. Yes. Okay.

Harry Littman (35:44)

All right. So Menendez has two cases. She had one brought by plaintiffs of the ACLU who were all peaceful protesters that ICE totally roughed up. And then there was another, there is another, the case you're talking about brought by the officials of Minnesota saying, you know, don't tread on me, get the hell out of our backyard. That case was brought under an important theory, but one that is new in the Trump wars and is going to be playing out over the next several months. It's the 10th amendment of the Constitution, which basically as interpreted by the Supreme Court really tells the feds you can't make the states your partners in any Fed stuff you want to do and even fairly small things like requiring dealers to do a background check, you can't do it. That line of law really interpreted in a full bodied way might say that. And you know, all kinds of stuff that are occasioned by the Invasion of ice in to Minnesota and other places, you gotta do it forces the state to be involved in some way. That's what they're challenging. But what Menendez said was that's a new, that's a cutting edge theory. I just can't say that it's. She actually did what courts have not been doing, especially Supreme Court, took seriously the high bar for granting a preliminary injunction, freezing off everything. I can't say she said that they're def. That they're likely to win. There's no doubt this is imposing heartbreaking damage and will continue to. But the legal theory here, I can't say it's likely to succeed. So I can't give the injunction that it's being asked for. But she also, she also was chastened because in the ACLU case, she did grant one. The ACE circuit reversed it personally. And this is the nerdiest thing I'll say in these 45 minutes. I think that's because they didn't tell us why, but a standing issue that made the plaintiff's case hard to bring in a way that the Minnesota officials still could. So all her PI did, all her injunction did there was say follow the damn law with peaceful protesters and it was reversed. So she actually says in her opinion, man, if that was reversed, how am I going to do this? That's more aggressive. But I think there's a sort of non. We that's, that's the kind of reason big point is this still plays out. It's just when it is playing out there, the linebackers are frozen, the ice operations continue.

Charlie Sykes (38:34)

Well, just a little footnote here. It's hard to overstate how conservatives have been enthusiastic about the 9th and the 10th Amendments for many, many years. And for many, many years, they were almost considered as dead letters because they were kind of the states rights. And I think a lot of people on the left figured they were almost inoperative, whereas it was kind of fundamental among conservatives saying, well, now wait, you know, this is a major limitation on the power of the federal government. And one of the interesting things is watching, watching the sides reverse on a number of things, whether it is the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment or the ninth and tenth Amendment. Okay, so sticking with Minneapolis, I recorded a podcast on Friday with Christy Greenberg, who used to be with sdny. And we were talking about the lack of a Justice Department investigation into the shooting of Alex Preddy and Renee Goode. And shortly after, after we clicked the stop button, Todd Blanche announced that, well, we are going to have a civil rights investigation into the killing of Alex Preddy. No word about Renee Goode. But I have to say that this does not make me think that the Department of Justice is going to be an honest broker considering that this is Pam Bondi's Justice Department. So talk to me about why you think the DOJ reversed itself and said yeah we actually will at least go through the kabuki dance motions of investigating the shooting of Alex Brady.

Harry Littman (40:03)

I'm following this really closely including the impact in Minnesota which is even greater than people understand. The office is at half staff now because everyone's resigned.

Charlie Sykes (40:14)

Which office?

Harry Littman (40:15)

Minnesota. The U.S. attorney's office. But that very much understates it because it's the criminal division that's down to a handful of prosecutors meaning all their basic bread and butter work doesn't get done. So look this is just exactly what I was talking about with Judge Barry a few minutes ago. Start here Charlie. 000 doubt for both the good and pretty shootings that in any Department of Justice Republican Democrat it's an immediate automatic full on FBI investigation automatic. And the. And the. I mean the. The telling the civil rights folks because it's. It's in partnership with U.S. attorney to stand down is what occasioned the resignations of the four top people at the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division. Huge culturally within doj. But in Minnesota Planche comes out and says this and you. Part of you says oh all right. They're forced to it at least will be a professional investigation. But no know 10 times burned 11 times shy. Right. And why would they do it? Why would what would be the Machiavellian calculus. The having an investigation open is a very convenient tool for shutting the state down. Pushing them around saying you can't come here. We are handling this. You can't. And and although there's a sort of assumption out there and Pam Bondi no no scholar of federal criminal practice seems to share it that just because the feds are involved or just if they say so they can make the state stand out. That's just not true. So in the Renee Good case if they go ahead and incredibly I Talked to a 24 year veteran of the department a career person who said it's never happened before but incredibly they are putting up obstacles not simply standing by in the good case but that's been closed. They say there's no investigation. So it's going to. They're going to be very hard pressed to justify but with an open investigation and that's going to be open For a long time. They can really create an obstacle course. An obstacle course that Minnesota should be able to get to the end of, but an obstacle course for Minnesota. And if you are indulging cynical thoughts about Todd Blanch, man, what a few weeks he has had, that would be the thing that most concerns you. They, they have a phony investigation, they don't bring charges, but they're able to really tie the feet of the Minnesota folks.

Charlie Sykes (43:02)

I think that's exactly right. And it becomes, as you point out, just another cudgel as part of their cover up. So, you know, rather than, oh, they're not covering this up, as you've explained, this is a blockage, you know, that's, you know that. So I, you know, the question I asked Christy Greenberg was, so just what are the prospects that Renee Goode and Alex Preddy will ever get justice? However you want to define that.

Harry Littman (43:27)

I thought also about this quite a bit. Pretty good. I think it's likely.

Charlie Sykes (43:33)

Oh, you think so?

Harry Littman (43:34)

I think it's likely. Minnesota brings a case, it behooves them to have all their ducks in a row. Because once you bring charges, things change, especially here. You will see this yanked into federal court. That's a whole other interesting thing that I won't take up the time to do now, but minutes. There are instances of well established precedent that a state can charge a federal official. And it comes down to a test, Charlie, that's pretty similar to the test that's bouncing about substance and substance, both under Minnesota homicide law or federal civil rights law, namely at the time Jonathan Ross shoots her, is he in reasonable. There's fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Fact question for the jury. But you see him saunter. I would, I would take that case in a heartbeat. You watch him saunter around the car, you watch him set up just to the right, and then the actual killing shot is when he's in no danger at all. I think Minnesota brings that case and I think what ensues then we saw it a little bit with Trump and the whole immunity is a whole trip through the federal courts. But under the question of is he doing something responsible and appropriate under federal law, and which is very congruent with the things we think about. And I think you and this will all be in state court. You'll have state judges and you'll have the feds jumping into federal court saying they can't do that to us, but they can. And the law is pretty clear. I had a pretty long conversation with Keith Ellison, attorney General and yeah, the Attorney General, and they're doing a thorough investigation, which they should do anyway. You know, I've had, I've taken some heat from people on the left saying, you know, what do you mean? It's of course, a prosecutors credo. You really gotta, gotta really thoroughly sift through all the evidence. But it, I think comes more and more clear that this, this was an unjustified killing. And even with the Fed's intervention, we're in a whole different day now. There's so much video test video, period. So much eyewitness testimony. You saw the New York really superlative frame by frame.

Charlie Sykes (46:09)

Amazing.

Harry Littman (46:10)

That's what you can do when you have multiple videos. So there will be some things the Feds are keeping evidence away, like the car, although the autopsy there, There will be ways in which it's a harder case. But they also may be instructions to the jury saying, the Feds didn't give them this, the Feds didn't give them that. And I think, think the basic notion for beyond a reasonable doubt will be at the time that he shoots, is he under reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm. That's something juries will have the evidence and wherewithal to judge. And I, I think in both these cases, there will be guilty verdicts under Minnesota state law. And all the kinds of, of tries to make him go away because of federal supremacy law will not ultimately prevail, but will be time consuming.

Charlie Sykes (47:09)

Well, okay, in the few minutes we have left, how alarmed should we be about the FBI raid of the Fulton county election office and the clear obsession that Donald Trump has not only with continuing to re litigate the 2020 election, but obviously his willingness to use the power of the federal government to interfere in local, state run elections. So on a scale of 1 to 10, how alarmed should we be? Because I'm kind of at an 11.5 at the moment. Where are you at?

Harry Littman (47:41)

Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, I thought right away, Rob Reiner, rest in peace, but this one goes till 11. And it's really true because his obsession, as I said, I don't. It's not worthwhile to try to psychoanalyze Trump, but this is a project and you're seeing it, Charlie, play out in different ways. I think he wants to be sitting, holding a hand come the midterms and especially 2028, where, oh, Maricopa county was close. Oh, we've got some data there. Oh, Fulton, you know, et cetera. So that's one thing it is preparatory to. And this I think is is part of the report you gave earlier to a launch Blue states only. Right. But sort of 14 states. It seems he's going into and wants to be sitting pretty in a way he wasn't in 2020 with henchmen and women who will bend and break the law as they wouldn't in 2020. That's point one. Point two is we don't know yet the story. To all accounts, it seems like this is perfectly Trump's storyline of what happened in 2020. Of course, we're out of the statute of limitations for that. The thing that really makes me uneasy in addition to this really does. It's the number one thing to try to keep your eye on distortion of the election. A federal magistrate signed off on this and we had. They have yet to reveal the affidavit, but a federal magistrate said, I see probable cause to find evidence of a crime there. And what the hell could that be? Could that have been. I don't think it's bona fide, but I very much don't want to believe that a federal magistrate would be in the tank. So I'm worried for that reason does the whole infection and capture of the whole justice apparatus even extend here. But the number one thing is the point you made that we have to be completely wary. This is the reason one last point that I was so worried about, the Trump v. Illinois case, the insurrection that was an insurrection or rebellion that wasn't a rebellion. Because if they grant him those kinds of outsize emergency powers, he can screw with elections in all kinds of ways.

Charlie Sykes (50:00)

Absolutely. Yeah. And the involvement of Tulsi Gabbard, whatever she's involved. There's a story out today about some whistleblower account about her. And so who knows. It's going to be messy, but I think it would be naive not to be at least focused, perhaps even alarmed about what's going on. Harry Lipman, it is so great talking with you. Harry Lippman. You can find his stuff over on Talking Feds Substack. If you don't subscribe, definitely do. We all rely upon the kindness of strangers and Harry has been a very good friend and it's one of those must read every single day podcasts and substack newsletters out there. So, Harry, thank you so much for coming on today.

Harry Littman (50:41)

Charlie Sykes, back at you. Indispensable. And few people know this, but he, he does it completely in French after. Well, he doesn't, but he could. Could. Thanks so much for having me on as always and thank you all for listening.

Charlie Sykes (50:55)

To this episode. As you know, we do this. We do this every single day because it is absolutely essential these days to remind ourselves that if you're watching all this and you think this is nuts, you are not the crazy ones.

Commercial Narrator (51:32)

If you're an H vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

Charlie Sykes (52:02)

Guys, it's no use putting it off. The best time for an underwear refresh is now. Tommy John underwear is designed for perfect fit that stays put all day. There's zero chafe, thanks to four times more stretch than competing brands and their innovative horizontal Quick Draw Fly is a game changer. With over 30 million pairs sold, there are thousands of men out there more comfortable than you. Don't settle for less. Go to tommyjohn.com today for 25% off your first order with code comfort. That's tommyjohn.comfort. tommy John comfort. Perfected with endless scroll algorithms and AI flooding feeds, podcasting stands out. They're so sought not served. Audiences actively choose to hear trusted voices on topics they care about. In fact, 72% of listeners say podcasts shape cultural conversations. For marketers, that means podcasts shift brand perception like no other channel. Acast's Podcast Pulse 2025 report has the proof. Get all the insights at podcastpulse2025com.