0:06

Welcome to talking fans. A

0:09

round table that brings together prominent

0:11

figures from government law and journalism

0:13

for a dynamic discussion of the most important

0:16

topics of the day. I'm Harry

0:18

Littman. Over the weekend, we

0:20

traveled to the Texas Tribune Festival

0:23

in Austin, a huge and

0:25

very fun event featuring hundreds

0:28

of prominent commentators and we

0:30

were really happy to take part

0:32

in it. We recorded two panel

0:35

discussions there before live Austin

0:37

crowds, one about the Department

0:39

of Justice investigations into

0:41

the former president and the other

0:44

previewing the upcoming Supreme

0:46

Court term. We'll release the Supreme

0:48

Court episode next week, but today

0:50

we focus on the DOJ. You

0:53

might call a discussion, will they

0:55

or won't they? Because is

0:57

a detailed look at what's likely

0:59

happening within the department, which

1:02

case they might bring against the former president

1:04

and all the factors from nitty

1:06

gritty prosecutorial details

1:09

to sweeping questions of political

1:11

democratic theory that the

1:13

inquiry entails. It

1:15

was a great event and I hope

1:18

you enjoy.

1:20

Matt, how do you feel about falling Willie Nelson?

1:24

Not good.

1:27

Hello,

1:27

again, everyone. We

1:30

are back still live in

1:32

Austin at Texas interviews in festival.

1:34

I'm Harry Littman.

1:35

We aim in these

1:37

two episodes to kind of pull back

1:39

the curtain as best we can on two of the most

1:42

opaque institutions in government. One

1:44

was the supreme court, and now

1:47

we're gonna be talking about the Department

1:50

of Justice. for about an

1:52

hour. If we can, we'll we'll

1:54

take a question or two.

1:57

We have a fantastic panel

2:00

to discuss basically what

2:03

does the DOJ have in store for

2:06

Donald Trump?

2:09

And

2:10

let me just introduce them starting with.

2:13

Katie Binner covers the Department of

2:15

Justice for The New York Times. In two thousand

2:17

eighteen, she was part of a team

2:19

that want a pulitzer prize for reporting

2:21

on workplace sexual harassment issues.

2:24

Welcome. Thank you for having

2:26

me.

2:31

Matt Miller, a partner at Vianovo,

2:33

and a Texas

2:36

local. He previously served as director

2:38

of the office of public affairs for the Department

2:41

of Justice with Eric Holder.

2:43

Thanks for having me here.

2:47

and Charlie Sykes,

2:50

the editor in chief of the Bulwark and

2:52

the author of how the

2:54

Wright lost its mind

2:57

Thank you.

3:04

Alright. Let's start here. So the

3:06

DOJ has turned up the public

3:08

heat the public heat at least in there

3:11

one six investigation and the Mar

3:13

a Lago investigation in recent weeks.

3:16

Has the public and many

3:19

of us misunderstood the

3:21

department's work, underestimated Garland,

3:24

or have they been following a plan

3:26

all along? or did

3:28

something change anybody?

3:33

I'll

3:33

start. So I a

3:36

couple of questions. I think the public

3:38

and a lot of the legal commentators have

3:40

underestimated Garland. I think he is

3:42

very carefully kind of

3:45

protected his political capital,

3:47

protected his credibility at

3:50

great people thinking he needs speak

3:52

out more and be more public. And

3:55

I think that will serve him well. Should

3:57

the department bring charges because he's

3:59

you know, established a baseline

4:01

of not looking political. That

4:04

said, in terms of why

4:06

they suddenly turned up the heat and

4:08

started, you know, turn the January

4:10

sixth investigation to a very active focus

4:12

on Trump and the close people around him. I

4:14

think it's really hard to know what happened.

4:18

it is very strange that

4:20

if they thought there was a potential criminal

4:22

violation, if they thought there was

4:24

criminal liability that they waited this

4:26

long, to start subpoenaing those close

4:28

to Trump and bringing them to grand jury and looking

4:30

for documents. My theory all

4:32

all long, perhaps wrongly had been

4:36

they didn't think they could make a criminal

4:38

case at against the former

4:40

president. And so they weren't gonna go down that road

4:42

and build up public expectations

4:45

put a lot of pressure on themselves only to see

4:47

them dash. So I don't know

4:49

whether they were

4:51

just whether they had a change

4:53

in in their perception of

4:55

the case, or as

4:57

people there will tell you, without

4:59

saying specifically what's going on with the case, they will

5:01

tell you, you know, all of you on

5:03

the outside who used to work in, you should know

5:05

better, you know that there's things that we

5:07

know we're doing that you don't know about

5:09

and you're criticizing us saying we're

5:11

not doing enough. You remember how it was like when you were

5:13

in the department, people were saying that about you and you

5:15

knew they were wrong, but you couldn't say so.

5:18

So that's, of course, also what you

5:20

say when you're not doing anything. So

5:23

so it's very hard to know. But

5:26

that said, I think it's very clear now that they

5:28

are full steam ahead on the

5:30

January six piece and

5:33

looking to, you know, try and make a case.

5:35

What you were saying

5:35

about building

5:38

up public expectation? I think that we can't

5:40

underestimate how much the January sixth committee

5:42

has whether or not the department wanted

5:45

this, has helped the Justice Department

5:47

in its own investigative steps because

5:49

the committee by holding those hearings,

5:51

built up public expectation and

5:53

presented evidence to the public that seemed

5:56

very compelling, showing that the

5:58

former president was in some ways

5:59

culpable for the attack on the

6:02

capital and was

6:03

truly trying to cling to

6:05

power when

6:05

he shouldn't have been. And so having that

6:08

in the ether. I think it's helpful

6:10

if you are Mary garland and you are trying

6:12

to run an investigation that is

6:14

extremely controversial.

6:15

Never been done before. and

6:17

everybody knows is going to end

6:19

in tears for pretty

6:21

much the entire country. No matter what he

6:23

decides,

6:24

I think that you so I think that that

6:26

was really

6:26

helpful to the department in terms of

6:28

allowing an expectation to

6:31

be built without Garland

6:32

having to do it himself. So

6:34

I'd be interested in getting your

6:36

reaction to this. My sense is there was an

6:38

evolution in Merrick Garland's

6:40

thinking about this because when he came

6:42

into office, I think that, I mean,

6:44

there's two conflicting principles here, you know,

6:46

number one, you know, de politicizing the

6:48

Department of Justice and then upholding the rule

6:50

of law. And initially, I think

6:52

he seemed very, very focused on

6:55

rebuilding the department, undoing the damage to the

6:57

bill bar, etcetera, had done to the

6:59

Department of Justice. And as

7:01

part of that, to not have the

7:03

department perceived as being political in any

7:05

way whatsoever. But I agree with Katie that

7:08

as events have taken place, it's

7:11

become more and more obvious that,

7:13

you know, the the

7:15

duty of the Department of Justice is

7:17

now to uphold democracy. I mean, democracy

7:19

is too important to be left to lawyers,

7:21

but that's what we have.

7:23

here at this point. And

7:26

I and I do think it was ever

7:28

thus. But

7:30

III think his remarks about

7:32

a week ago at Ellis Island were

7:34

extremely interesting because he laid

7:36

out an understanding of this

7:38

moment in history and

7:40

what he has to do, and the principal at

7:43

stake, that

7:44

he might have come into the office thinking that he

7:47

like, post watergate that he was going to

7:49

just, you know, rebuild things. And

7:51

now I think he realizes that

7:53

that the the risk of not upholding

7:55

the law of not establishing these

7:57

constitutional precedences is is much

7:59

more important.

7:59

So ah I

8:01

I do think that there was an underestimation of

8:04

of him but perhaps, you know, he when

8:06

he came into office, he didn't perceive that

8:08

this was going to be what his tenure would be like.

8:10

No. I think that's really right. I think he came

8:12

in with an assumption that the past

8:14

is passed. because remember there was a clamor

8:17

for criminal prosecution based

8:19

on a lot of things that had preceded twenty

8:21

twenty. He

8:23

doesn't talk much, but when he

8:25

does, it's really portentous. And

8:28

he gave that that speech in January

8:30

twenty twenty one, was it where, you know

8:33

and if you know Garland, you

8:35

know that those words were chosen very

8:37

carefully and nobody above the law,

8:39

etcetera, I think. people took

8:41

as a telegraph that, no, they

8:43

were they were looking at this in earnest.

8:45

But as Matt says, you know, they're

8:47

they generally, and he's a stickler for

8:49

this. Can't speak outside the

8:51

public filings. In fact,

8:54

Trump has continually done

8:56

done them favor by leading

8:58

with his chin in ways that they respond

9:00

in court and we learn

9:02

more and more. let's

9:05

go to, I mean, I'd like

9:07

to pick up on what Katie said and talk a

9:09

little bit about both January

9:12

sixth but also Mar a

9:14

Lago. So, you know,

9:16

it Mar a Lago explodes

9:18

into view August eighth with the

9:20

search, and it's first this document retrieval

9:22

operation. Now we know

9:24

clearly, in fact, again, they've said it to the

9:26

court. They've had to we have a criminal

9:28

investigation to pursue.

9:31

if you're garland or just just

9:33

as you, what are the relative virtues

9:37

and downsides? of

9:39

January six as opposed to Mar a

9:41

Lago as Macy's for

9:44

prosecution and is there any

9:46

one thing we do know is January six would take

9:48

a lot longer to develop. Is there any

9:51

reasonable prospect that they

9:53

actually would do both? Well,

9:55

I

9:55

mean, I think that they're such incredibly

9:58

different investigations that

10:00

it's probably wrong

10:01

to think of them even in the same happens.

10:03

III try to keep him as separate as opposed to

10:05

all my questions. I I

10:08

can see Harry's paper, so I know that

10:10

he but

10:12

At the end of the day, the

10:14

the document search case was something

10:17

that the department was

10:18

probably taken by surprise. We

10:21

probably took the department by surprise. you

10:23

would think that at the end of the day when the

10:25

national archives asks for their objects

10:27

back, people do return

10:28

them. And we definitely have had people leave

10:31

office with things they shouldn't have and they they

10:33

do return them. This is not the first time in history

10:35

this ever happened, but it was not

10:37

only

10:37

the amount of

10:39

paper

10:39

or documents materials, it was the prolonged

10:42

period you know,

10:43

by which representatives of the former

10:46

president said they didn't have anything anymore

10:48

or that they weren't sure what's going

10:50

on. And then it leads to this

10:52

rate because now the justice department feels that

10:54

they have been lied

10:56

to. And so it feels like a very

10:58

straightforward case somebody takes something they

11:00

shouldn't have, they keep it when they say they aren't

11:02

going to, and then they lie to federal

11:04

authorities about it. And that's what we've seen in the

11:06

filings. Now that's something

11:08

that, you know, you

11:09

can you can see

11:10

how that

11:11

investigation will work and you

11:13

know that at some point in time, Garland is going to have

11:16

to say, yes or no

11:18

to

11:18

charging on one of those

11:20

statutes. That, again,

11:23

is so different from what we see with January

11:25

sixth. which is this sort of

11:27

complicated mess of investigations. You

11:29

had the huge investigation to the people

11:30

who attack the capital. We're trying

11:32

to figure out their

11:33

motives. do those motives lead

11:35

us somewhere? What about other people

11:38

involved with these plots to keep

11:40

Trump in power? Whether it was the

11:42

scheme to have fake electors? And several swing

11:44

states

11:44

ready to say that they had actually voted for

11:46

Donald Trump when they hadn't.

11:47

You know, these are all things that the department needs

11:49

to investigate on their

11:50

own. and then decide if

11:52

there's even any connection that

11:55

they can make in a court of law with evidence

11:57

that's so compelling that's beyond a

11:59

reasonable doubt

11:59

to a jury that

12:01

Donald Trump directed any

12:04

of those things. That is

12:06

such a hard much harder hurdle

12:08

and that is something that will take so

12:10

much longer. And I think that it's really

12:12

for people who are thinking about whether or not Trump

12:14

will be prosecuted, the documents

12:16

case is the one to watch. January

12:18

sixth is I

12:20

think very, very unclear and it's very

12:22

nascent. Howard Bauchner:

12:23

I agree with everything Katy said.

12:26

I also Charlie said something I think really

12:28

important a minute ago that democracy is too

12:30

important to be left to to prosecutors, no offense

12:32

to all the prosecutors. Another way to

12:34

say that is I think we as a

12:36

country during the Trump

12:38

years kept asking prosecutors

12:41

whether the justice department or others

12:43

to bail us out, to bail the country out,

12:45

and somehow take Trump out of the picture in

12:47

a way that voters hadn't been able to.

12:49

And that is

12:51

asking a lot of the criminal statutes.

12:53

It's asking a lot of prosecutors. It

12:56

wasn't necessarily a problem that they could solve. And

12:58

that's kind of how I felt January sixth

13:00

investigation. It's clear that Trump, you know,

13:02

violated oath of office and committed graybacks,

13:04

you know, against the

13:06

constitution. Whether it's

13:08

a violation of of the criminal

13:10

statutes, I mean, you can look at the criminal statutes

13:12

and make a case, but I challenge

13:14

you to show me anyone that's been prosecuted

13:16

in our history anything like what he is alleged

13:18

to have done. There is no real

13:22

precedent for bringing that type of case. So I

13:24

do think one of the things Garland was

13:26

feeling. If Trump was out of the picture and wasn't planning

13:28

to run again or had he been convicted in his

13:30

second impeachment and barred from running, maybe

13:33

he doesn't take the January six investigation

13:35

seriously, but I suspect he's

13:37

feeling this weight that

13:40

that because Trump is

13:42

an ongoing threat to democracy,

13:45

maybe we have to be the ones that do something about it.

13:47

And they would never admit that publicly. They would only

13:49

say, we only look at the facts in the law. But of

13:51

course, if you're the attorney general, you have to think of

13:53

the other consequences, But I think

13:55

be because it's such a hard

13:57

case much harder

14:00

than I think people people

14:02

believe I think the Mar a Lago case

14:04

has been it

14:07

almost bailed the justice department out

14:09

because unlike January six,

14:12

any this is if you just look at

14:14

the facts, there are people

14:16

with much better fact sets

14:18

who have gone to jail for

14:20

for what Trump did. And and

14:22

and nobody who hasn't as best I can

14:24

tell. Exactly. And that's the thing. So if at

14:26

the end of this investigation, you

14:28

have a former president who mishandled

14:30

classified information and then

14:32

obstructed. That's always important. It's always just

14:34

mishandling classified information. That has to be some

14:36

other thing. You disclosed it

14:38

or you obstructed, it's kind

14:40

of mishandling plus and he's done that. And

14:42

you don't bring the case it's

14:44

hard to justify then bringing other cases

14:47

against low level workers at the Pentagon, the

14:49

intelligence community that we see over and over

14:51

again. So I think it's made probably at

14:53

the end of this the

14:54

decision much easier for Garland. Howard

14:56

Bauchner:

14:56

So I agree with that, but a slightly

14:59

different point of view. So there strikes

15:01

me that there's two imperators or maybe

15:03

three that we're dealing with here.

15:05

Number one is preventing Donald Trump from

15:07

returning to power. Number two, holding

15:09

Donald Trump legally accountable for

15:12

his his conduct. And perhaps, and

15:14

number three, establishing the

15:16

precedent that no one is above the

15:18

law that that ex

15:20

presidents, and in fact, are not immune from

15:22

prosecution. Now the Department of Justice

15:24

cannot directly affect the

15:26

first, preventing him. the Department of Justice

15:28

has limited ability to do this.

15:30

It it it can only

15:32

really do number two and number three. You can

15:34

hold him accountable. Now,

15:36

while I completely agree with everything

15:38

you just said about, you know, go for the

15:40

airtight, you know, document

15:42

case. And this would, you know, I

15:45

think that realistically,

15:48

America Alain also has to understand

15:50

that going small will

15:52

generate the same political a

15:54

higher storm is going big. There's there's

15:56

not there's not going to be a a

15:58

moderated response, you

16:00

know, based on, you know, how much

16:02

they charge him for. So as much as I

16:04

would love Donald Trump to

16:06

be nailed on one of these airtight, you

16:08

know, sort of legal headshot issues,

16:11

you know, where tax issue,

16:13

El Capone. I also

16:15

think that it's important to

16:17

two for

16:18

for Garland to realize the historic

16:21

significance of his action

16:23

to explain that this is not

16:25

just a gotcha. that this is

16:27

and I apologize to William Nelson here.

16:29

This is a big fucking deal. This is the

16:31

president of the United States. Why does

16:33

it matter? We're not just dealing

16:35

with a common grifter

16:37

who broke the law. We're dealing with a

16:39

president of the United States who used

16:41

his power to overturn

16:43

an election, to incite an

16:45

insurrection, to put it in that

16:47

historic context, but also to explain

16:50

to people why we're doing something

16:52

so dramatically unprecedented.

16:54

The small charges may

16:57

serve the function And and again, I'm not

16:59

disagreeing with you. I just I'm just thinking this

17:01

sort of, you know, may sort of the function of

17:03

holding Trump accountable, but I

17:05

also

17:05

think that it's important to make it

17:07

clear

17:08

why, you

17:09

know, why they need to protect

17:12

the constitution? Because we're

17:14

now talking about precedence

17:17

that will affect, I think, the

17:19

constitutional order for the next

17:21

fifty, sixty, seventy years.

17:24

And and I and I think that has to weigh on their

17:26

minds as well. So I think that you're getting it. I mean,

17:28

where it's all sort of circling around something

17:30

that's really difficult. which is

17:32

it's it's almost impossible to separate the

17:35

political from the prosecutorial,

17:37

which is

17:37

what Garland came in to do. He said he wants

17:39

to depolitasize the Department of Justice.

17:41

But with what you're doing is thinking about

17:44

criminally charging the leader of a

17:46

political party in the United States

17:48

of America,

17:48

wildly popular leader of a

17:49

political party in the United States of America, a

17:52

leader whose

17:52

rank whose members will not deviate

17:55

from even when they've tried to, as we've read in all

17:57

sorts of books, including yours and including Mark

17:59

Libertages,

17:59

etcetera. That

18:02

is inherently then a political

18:04

act. And so what you want is for America

18:06

Garland to rise to that moment,

18:08

that political moment,

18:10

by going big because it's such a big

18:12

political question. But at the same time, he's

18:14

hemmed in by the rules of the justice department,

18:17

which say, No. No. No. No. We

18:19

can really only

18:19

charge on the crimes, we can truly

18:22

prove.

18:22

And so he cannot do the thing that you

18:24

want, even though his actions

18:26

and his task is political

18:29

in a way that he cannot separate himself

18:31

from. I mean, we were talking about this

18:33

earlier if there is a figure in Washington

18:35

DC right now who is a tragic figure,

18:37

like a classically tragic figure,

18:39

I think Shakespeare think,

18:41

you know, like, go go go

18:44

further back. Think,

18:46

you know, what, you know, at

18:48

oedipus, etcetera. Like, if you

18:50

think it's he is he is in this situation

18:52

where he must make a choice. He doesn't get to

18:54

not make the choice. We know he

18:56

has to. And the choice is going

18:58

to really

18:58

really

18:59

it's not going to resolve the

19:02

tensions in the country. It's going to inflame

19:04

them. And he he needs to do

19:06

it, and he has to say to himself, do

19:08

I try to protect this bigger

19:10

system and these bigger ideals?

19:12

Or do I follow the

19:14

rule book that I'm given that in no

19:16

way addresses those bigger ideals? this

19:18

is like Exactly. I mean, like, when when I

19:20

see Mary Garland, I don't see, you know,

19:22

Ed Levy.

19:23

I don't see, you know, Kennedy.

19:25

What I see is I see a group

19:27

of a classically

19:29

tragic

19:29

Greek figure. He wanted to be at Libbey. That's I

19:31

mean, that that that is that is that was the

19:33

hope and it and it has that is. But

19:36

I agree with all of that.

19:39

But in some ways, you

19:42

said rise to the what

19:44

drives you to the political

19:47

role. That's been thrust upon him. He

19:49

has he has no choice. He he he sort

19:51

of of stuck there. Whatever he whatever

19:53

he does. Yeah. And

19:55

I think there I mean, let's be honest

19:57

about their real risk here.

19:59

I

19:59

mean, their real risks that

20:02

Trump will be acquitted, that there will be

20:04

a hungary, that Trump will be indicted

20:06

and yet still nominated.

20:08

that that, in fact,

20:10

this will excel Invicted and still

20:13

nominated. This will excel this

20:15

will accelerate the skepticism

20:17

of the of the rule of law. I mean, all of

20:19

those risk against

20:21

the

20:21

risk of again

20:22

establishing the president of not

20:25

charging him letting him

20:26

get away with this, you know, the

20:28

seditious conspiracy, etcetera. But I I agree.

20:30

This is a This is like Henry the fourth

20:32

of the year beloved Sophie

20:35

choice. Exactly. But all all of this

20:37

is why the Mar a Lago case is the

20:39

wait now for garland. Look, I think

20:42

the because now

20:43

that they've launched this full scale investigation

20:45

on January sixth, I don't have any doubt. If

20:47

at the end of it, they think they

20:49

can bring charges win a

20:51

conviction sustain that conviction on appeal where you'll

20:54

have, you know, you will you will have brought some

20:56

really novel legal charges that will have to

20:58

withstand scrutiny by

21:00

Supreme Court that forget about the

21:02

the right leaning nature of it has been

21:04

skeptical about using the criminal

21:06

statutes to apply to political behavior, what

21:08

can be argued as political behavior in a lot

21:10

of previous cases. So if they can decide they can overcome

21:12

all those hurdles, I think they will bring

21:14

the January sixth case. But

21:16

I suspect the Mar a Lago case is gonna

21:18

be finished a lot sooner than

21:20

that, and they're gonna have an they're gonna have a

21:22

decision on Mar a Lago maybe in the next

21:24

six months. It's not really that is complicated. This

21:27

is a publication called The New York

21:29

Times. Yeah. Let

21:31

me let me add a couple of prosocatorial

21:34

points. First, I agree with everything every one second. I

21:36

think we really it it it

21:38

gets it it hits it on the target, which

21:40

is on the one hand. We do yes. It's

21:42

never happened before. but it's

21:44

the most grievous assault on

21:46

democracy ever in the legal

21:48

system be silent about it just

21:50

because of the political repercussions

21:53

all true. Yes, it's a clean case and But big enough to

21:55

be righteous, especially with all

21:57

the it it's something trivial

21:59

about all the concealing

22:02

behavior. for prosecutors that

22:04

they're they're gonna be thinking

22:06

of a couple things. Everything

22:08

involving January six has at least

22:10

the potential complications of first

22:12

amendment, defenses. Every time we

22:14

have tiptoed up to this

22:17

area, they and you could expect it here. This

22:19

is just political speech. I'll

22:21

be I'll be with you at the ellipse,

22:23

you know, etcetera. And then

22:25

second, we do have

22:27

this bombardment of

22:30

different kinds of plots and

22:32

schemes that the January sixth committee

22:34

has very effectively displayed

22:36

and that paint an overall

22:38

large tableau of

22:40

corruption, contempt for democracy,

22:43

etcetera. But for the DOJ, it has to

22:45

resolve into individual

22:48

charges and the and the

22:50

the particular ones and there are, I

22:52

think, seven or so in

22:54

play where you really have to, can we

22:56

prove each element beyond

22:58

a reasonable doubt, etcetera? I

23:00

wanna go from there and pick up though

23:03

what Charlie was saying, we it's we're it's become

23:05

kind of a bromine now that everyone's

23:07

saying, oh, no person can be

23:09

above the law if other people did

23:12

the same conduct that I

23:15

would be in prison by now. I

23:17

think several things that we've said just

23:19

in the last fifteen minutes suggest

23:22

otherwise. And I just want to put

23:24

that to you. For example, do

23:26

you need in the case of

23:29

Donald Trump to have even

23:31

beyond beyond a reasonable doubt. Must

23:33

it be bulletproof on the

23:35

concern that don't shoot at the king if

23:37

you can't hit him? What

23:39

about the prospect,

23:41

if you can't kill him? Sorry. What

23:43

about the prospect of the

23:46

getting him out of office something you

23:48

wouldn't normally think about. You

23:51

know, is there a final role for the

23:53

political system and the

23:55

president? So a, isn't

23:57

it true that it's just not

24:00

accurate to to

24:02

suggest this is like

24:04

any other violation. And

24:08

in particular, if

24:10

that is true, how does it play

24:12

out. How what's the extra layer

24:14

of consideration? Knowing

24:17

garland, it will come at

24:19

the end, not it won't, you

24:21

know, but but what part of the end

24:23

will change this from a normal

24:25

case of either documents

24:27

or, you know, whatever the charges

24:30

are.

24:31

Thoughts? Let me

24:33

just one question you asked.

24:35

The role of the president, the

24:38

current president, which I don't think

24:40

you'll have any there are, you know, there are

24:43

zero. He's zero. And I think that would be the

24:45

case in almost every previous

24:47

administration. the AGI worked

24:49

for aircolder. In a case

24:51

like this, we might tell the president,

24:53

either he might tell the president what he

24:55

had decided to do They had a very

24:57

close relationship where we might tell the White House right before

25:00

something was announced. I think in this

25:02

case, the president and the attorney general don't

25:04

really have personal relationship. There's no

25:06

reason they'd be talking about this. And

25:08

I think so they could say they've never talked

25:10

about it. They won't DOJ is gonna do what

25:12

it wants to do completely independent

25:14

of the White House despite all the claims that this

25:16

is political -- Strategy hero. Yeah.

25:19

Yeah. See, I mean, it's all on his

25:21

shoulders. That's the that's that's the

25:23

job. That's what you sign up for. But

25:25

no, I I think I

25:27

think you very much have

25:29

to to entertain all of those questions.

25:31

And those are questions that the line prosecutors

25:34

they're not they they can't really think about. They have to think about,

25:36

can you win the case or not? Merritt

25:39

Garland and Lisa Monaco, the

25:41

Deputy Attorney General, but that's but

25:43

mostly, Garland have to really weigh all

25:45

those other considerations. And I do

25:48

suspect they very much will see this

25:50

as a you for

25:52

legal reasons, you can only bring this case if

25:54

you're gonna win because you don't wanna set bad

25:56

precedents that will affect further cases

25:58

down the road. But really mainly for political

26:00

reasons, you ring this case. Even

26:02

a hung jury could be exact. A hung

26:04

jury. And and there are

26:06

practical ways when you you could

26:08

see this play out. I think it it does play out on whether it it plays out

26:10

most especially on how on whether to bring the

26:12

January sixth case or not. I think it

26:14

plays out in your decision on venue.

26:16

whether to bring these charges in

26:19

Florida or Everyone know it's in

26:21

Marlboro. They're they're going to have a

26:23

choice. And There are very good legal

26:25

reasons why you would argue to bring the case

26:27

in DC. The prosecutors

26:29

there, the court has more experience dealing with

26:31

these type of cases, national security cases than

26:33

than Florida does. But there are yeah.

26:35

I think they will look and see if they're more likely to

26:37

win a conviction in DC.

26:39

And there will be people that argue that's

26:41

an inappropriate consideration, but

26:43

the department does that all the time. In

26:45

other they bring national security cases in the eastern

26:47

district of Virginia because they think they get better juries

26:50

there. There's no reason it would be inappropriate

26:52

to do so here. And I think that's the

26:54

kind of sort of where you have

26:56

to to be a little more

26:58

political, not partisan political, but a

27:00

little more political thinking about

27:02

the the effect of your decisions

27:04

on the the

27:06

health of the of the country and

27:08

the health of democracy in making

27:10

these sorts of determinations.

27:13

Well, Harry, you sort of touched on

27:15

one of the elephants in the room,

27:17

and there are so many, including

27:22

the failure of the US Senate to

27:24

actually take the the action that would have

27:26

saved us from all of this. I I

27:28

find it interesting, you know, reading about, you know,

27:30

Mitch McConnell. you know, agonizing

27:32

about whether he was going to do the right thing.

27:34

And, of course, Mitch came back to his

27:36

default setting and didn't. But,

27:39

you know, you look back on all of the

27:41

other institutions, all of

27:43

the other guardrails that

27:45

did not hold. And that's

27:47

why I said democracy is too important to be left to the

27:50

lawyers of the prosecutors, but that's what we're left

27:52

with at this point. So

27:55

don't forget that that

27:57

that really extraordinary moment

28:00

when our Congress did

28:02

have the ability to hold him

28:04

accountable and chose not to. And let me answer

28:06

and answer a question you didn't ask.

28:09

Another factor that has to weigh on

28:11

everyone's mind, including Merrick

28:13

Rollins, is the fact that the the former

28:15

president is issuing not so veiled

28:17

threats of of violence if

28:19

if they hold him legally accountable. you

28:21

have the former acting attorney general going on, I think, a

28:23

news map show saying there would be chaos and

28:26

energy if Donald Trump was in indicted.

28:28

I mean, these are Maybe

28:30

at one level, you could say this is an incitement, but

28:32

there's no question about it. It is a threat. It

28:34

is intended to be a threat to

28:37

the Department of Justice. And

28:39

in some ways, I think that also forces their hand because

28:42

the Department of Justice cannot

28:45

allow itself to

28:47

be intimidated or bullied in this particular way.

28:49

The threat of violence cannot

28:52

trump the rule of law. So that

28:55

that's crucial part of the

28:57

dynamic at this point, I think, where it ought to

28:59

be. And as

28:59

an example, he so frequently

29:03

either on his own political instincts such

29:05

as they are, and I guess they're not terrible.

29:07

Right? He was president or just to

29:09

get past the next twenty four hours. But

29:12

as lawyers, It looks so

29:14

self defeating, so counterproductive.

29:16

When the crucible of

29:18

the legal system comes in, will

29:21

he be toast, but it's a good example. We might

29:23

have thought after, you

29:25

know,

29:25

he would sort of go away

29:27

and he redoubles,

29:28

redoubles, redoubles, redoubles, and you're right. I

29:30

mean, one of the things and this is a

29:32

typical thing for the department to consider.

29:34

You have a brazen,

29:37

unrepentant, defendant who was in

29:39

fact, if you think about

29:41

general deterrence, now this is not a general

29:43

event, but nevertheless, you think

29:45

about what message is

29:47

is given by by

29:49

inaction here, you know,

29:52

about equal justice, about

29:54

democracy and its it's

29:56

completely noxious for

29:59

the for the rule of

29:59

law in the country.

30:01

You know, No.

30:03

Please go

30:03

ahead. So, like, when we were talking

30:06

about no one being above the law, I

30:08

think everybody refers to water gates. I'm

30:10

listening to everyone speak and I'm thinking out

30:12

watergate again and that was

30:14

not a case of

30:16

nobody being above

30:18

the law because the justice department never

30:20

weighed in on Richard Nixon. And so

30:22

I think that we've also misread that

30:25

moment and saying

30:26

that we've never had a

30:28

president in Buffalo. We actually did.

30:30

The justice department did not need to

30:32

weigh in because it was the

30:35

Republican party vanquished Richard Nixon. Keep

30:37

in mind he was pardoned, so he

30:39

was never really investigated by the

30:41

justice department. They never had to decide

30:43

whether or not to bring

30:45

charges against Richard Nixon. They totally got off the hook.

30:47

Like, Evely, hero to the department,

30:49

wonderful person, I'm sure,

30:52

his job was to basically come in and be

30:55

a really inspiring bureaucrat

30:57

to come in and say,

30:59

what new rules do we need so this

31:01

can't happen again. I'd like to make

31:03

some new rules. He did not have to make this kind

31:05

of choice. In fact, Prosecutors lawyers did not

31:08

have to think about this

31:08

at all because Nixon was

31:11

pardoned. And so

31:11

this it remained a completely political

31:14

question. to Charlie's point earlier.

31:16

And because it remained a completely political

31:18

question, what both Republicans do,

31:20

it wasn't going to rip the country apart like

31:22

this is ripping the country apart.

31:24

And they got lucky because Nixon himself

31:27

decided to go away quietly. He was still

31:28

pretty popular during Watergate legal. He looked at the

31:31

polling, thirty percent popularity, forty percent

31:33

popularity

31:33

at times. He wasn't hated by

31:35

every American, but he

31:38

chose again not to use his

31:40

position in his microphone as the president

31:42

to say, I'm not going away. And if you

31:44

try to make me Republicans,

31:46

I'm gonna have all of my voters come out and

31:48

and attack

31:48

you. To totally agree, I wanna I

31:51

wanna slightly disagree with one thing you said it's some

31:53

of your law, which is that this decision will

31:55

rip the the country apart.

31:58

And in some ways. It's

32:00

not exactly what you said, but I I

32:02

the country is ripped apart. I

32:04

think the judge III hope that

32:07

in making this determination. He won't

32:09

weigh the political cause and that it's going

32:11

to be controversial and Republicans are going to

32:13

be mad and there might be -- Yeah. -- there might

32:16

be violence. that is a feature of

32:18

public life now. That is a feature

32:20

of our political system whether Donald

32:22

Trump is indicted or not. It's gonna be a feature of our

32:24

political system when he runs.

32:26

And and So the

32:28

decision that he makes is not gonna do is

32:30

not gonna gonna heighten

32:32

the divisions in our in our country anymore

32:35

than they already exist. And so

32:37

you one have to do the right

32:40

thing based on the facts and based on the

32:42

law and based on whether you can sustain

32:44

the the the case. But then I

32:46

also think there's a case to be

32:48

made that the the way you

32:50

start to put the country back together

32:53

is to isolate

32:53

and neutralize the

32:56

virus that has infected this. It doesn't make

32:58

the entire virus in the Republican

33:00

Party go away, but if you

33:02

can take the leading cause of

33:04

it out of the picture,

33:06

maybe it helps start down that path.

33:08

And I completely agree. And

33:11

I wanna go back

33:13

to Watergate for a second because remember

33:17

when Ford Pardon Nixon.

33:19

It was there there

33:21

were calls for Ford's impeachment.

33:24

Ford arguably lost the nineteen

33:26

eighty election as a result. And yet,

33:28

I think there has been a

33:31

historical verdict in his favor. I think by

33:33

and large, notwithstanding all the opposition people

33:36

think he acted for the best

33:38

interest of the country, and

33:40

it probably was. for the

33:42

best interests of the the

33:44

country. And that is about as much of

33:46

sort of common law

33:48

as we have here. So that's the sort

33:50

of lady and tiger terrible

33:52

position for for Garland. There may, in

33:54

fact, be a decision that

33:57

235 years down the

33:59

line will be understood, in

34:01

fact, to have begun a

34:03

reconciliation putting the country

34:05

back on some kind

34:07

of track. And,

34:09

you know,

34:10

it's not And and not.

34:12

And maybe not. Exactly.

34:14

Now I wonder let's

34:16

move to for a minute, even I'm

34:18

the prosecutor on the panel. I certainly have

34:21

opinions here. But I if others do too a little a

34:23

couple sort of nitty gritty

34:26

aspects. You've pointed out that

34:28

Mar a Lago is could be much

34:30

closer to bring to

34:32

actual charging January

34:34

six, so much to develop

34:37

do you see in

34:39

– who are the people that you

34:41

think the department either is

34:43

already or is planning to sort of

34:45

put pressure on and to potentially

34:48

cooperate against the former

34:50

president

34:50

and what are their prospects?

34:52

His lawyers. We we have

34:56

the department, I believe, this has been reported.

34:58

Fingers crossed. You

35:00

need to make a phone call. Hold on.

35:02

Yeah. Always my editor. Alright.

35:05

in the Washington Post. The oh,

35:08

sorry. Someone as long as it's already up.

35:10

Yeah. Called Dublin. Yeah.

35:12

But the, you know, the

35:14

Trump's lawyers, one wrote

35:16

an attestation saying, we think

35:18

we've given you everything you need, and then

35:22

another one still Evan Corcoran wrote the document, and Christina

35:24

Bob signed it. And so what they've

35:26

done is they have falsely they themselves

35:29

have falsely represented Christina Moore

35:32

because it's her name on the paper

35:34

to the federal government that everything was

35:36

handed over. And so I think that In

35:38

a case like this, prosecutors would see that and

35:40

say

35:41

that's an end. We can apply tremendous amounts of

35:43

pressure on those people because they are the

35:45

ones who did something wrong.

35:48

and we have we kind of have them dead to rights. But

35:50

Trump is always so tricky. Do

35:52

people and Trump world ever flip?

35:55

we have one

35:55

person who's done it. Didn't work out great for

35:58

him. Right? I mean, like

35:59

I mean, he's

35:59

he's on TV a lot, but, you know, other than

36:02

that, it didn't really and it also

36:04

did not affected things. It did not change

36:06

the outcome for Donald Trump because it was

36:08

not enough to have him

36:10

testifying against to have to

36:12

have Cohen testifying

36:14

against Donald Trump. So one, people in Trump world don't often flip. So applying

36:16

that pressure, who knows what you're going to

36:18

get? And two, when people in

36:21

Trump's or or brought in to speak

36:23

to investigators or to a grand jury. They

36:25

then walk out the door and tell everybody in

36:27

the world what just happen, which is really

36:29

devastating for the Department of investigation, it makes it really

36:32

complicated for them. So even though I think that

36:34

that's where they

36:36

would go, there are a lot more normal

36:38

case. I want to add just one thing to

36:40

serve up

36:40

to you guys as well. So

36:44

the lawyers, but also

36:46

what came up not just in

36:48

June, but we now know.

36:52

Pat Feldman, who's a definite truth teller and

36:54

a lawyer of great integrity testified in

36:56

the grand jury. And I think it's

36:58

been publicly

37:00

reported and even I can't talk

37:02

out of school. I'm not in school.

37:04

But he said that Mark Meadows

37:08

told him that all we have were a dozen boxes

37:10

with just newspaper clippings. You know,

37:12

that's screamingly false, right,

37:14

in before anybody even

37:17

knows it. Now Meadows

37:20

apparently is saying, well, I I just

37:22

took the word of

37:24

and I although

37:26

it's been cryptic. I think it has to be the the former

37:28

president. So there are ways in which the

37:30

legal lines also work

37:32

in inculpatory

37:36

possibilities and especially both

37:38

Cipollone and Phil been testified

37:40

in the grand jury and we've also,

37:42

you know, we've seen others of the sort of

37:44

grown up lawyers

37:46

sort of part company from

37:48

the clown

37:49

car that of lawyers

37:51

that have otherwise represented Sorry,

37:54

Don.

37:54

I I

37:58

think Kate is right. You would

38:00

they definitely want to talk to lawyers in the Marlago

38:02

case. The other people around

38:04

the Trump, like Tom Fitten, who

38:06

is not a lawyer, will have no privileged

38:08

claims, and apparently is the one that came

38:10

up with this Bozzo theory that he didn't

38:12

have to return any of the documents because he misinterpreted

38:14

a case that judicial watch

38:16

was a party to. And

38:19

then if it were

38:21

me, given everything we've discussed about the threats that Donald

38:23

Trump poses to the country,

38:26

I would think it

38:28

argues for giving

38:30

immunity

38:30

to everyone around him. Even people like

38:32

Mark Meadows who maybe have That's that's a

38:34

concrete question. Who give immunity to Meadows?

38:36

Anyone who who had if they

38:39

Even if they have their own

38:41

criminal liability, if they can help you make

38:43

the case against Donald Trump. If you need it, if you don't

38:45

need Meadows to make the case, then you don't.

38:47

You whether he's a target as well.

38:50

But if you need the evidence, I

38:52

would I would immunize basically

38:54

everyone around him. let me just make

38:56

another prosecutor's point. This Meadows

38:58

is the perfect example. He

39:00

knows everything, but he would the

39:02

the normal discussion in a normal case

39:05

in the Department of Justice would be

39:07

he's too high to give immunity to.

39:09

You've got to put charge him

39:11

and make him cooperate. That's

39:13

a normal case. because of what Matt says, I think

39:15

they could very seriously consider

39:18

giving him immunity, and he's, you

39:20

know, he's the keeper of the keys, I

39:22

think. Sorry.

39:24

Well, this is more of a question.

39:26

To Katie's point about that really people don't

39:28

flip. We've only had Michael Cohen

39:32

who flipped. And I guess the question is whether or

39:34

not they've really been tested yet.

39:36

We're now moving into the phase where

39:38

you're doing the federal grand juries.

39:42

and federal judges who are really holding

39:44

their feet to the fire. And, you know, anytime

39:46

you're you're dealing with trying to break up

39:48

an organized crime family, it's

39:51

only at the point where you really you know, the

39:53

configularies, really hard to get them

39:55

discrete. And it's only in the last it

39:57

feels like the last few

39:59

months and weeks that you

40:02

had people like Mark Meadows who are facing,

40:04

you know, not just a congressional subpoena,

40:06

which they can come to laugh off and blow off

40:08

because, you know, big deal.

40:10

But now the possibility of federal

40:12

grand jury is the possibility

40:14

of purging themselves to a federal grand

40:16

jury. The stakes are

40:18

much higher and

40:18

I know you're probably gonna get to it up, but I wanna wallow

40:20

in the just the the joy of the special master.

40:24

Okay. Here.

40:26

Donald Trump's choice to be special master. And

40:30

judge Derry is really

40:32

now, you know, telling the lawyers put up or

40:34

shut up

40:36

I mean, also just reminding us of something we've been saying

40:38

for years now, it's a very different

40:40

world be on Twitter or

40:43

on truth social. than in front of a federal judge. And so

40:45

he's basically saying, okay, you've been saying these

40:48

things on social media. I

40:50

want you to say, you know you know,

40:52

tell me

40:54

on the record in my court and tell me by Friday,

40:57

which strikes me is that,

40:59

okay, the rules are changing now. the

41:01

stakes are changing now. And so we haven't

41:03

had anybody flip. But is

41:05

it early days on

41:07

all of this? I did it,

41:09

but one thing to think about

41:11

is this is where the two separate

41:13

cases can interact with

41:15

each together because a lot of the people are And

41:17

potentially the committee. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. And the committee

41:20

they're they're, you know, both witnesses or subjects

41:22

in January. Mark Meadows is classic example in both

41:24

the January six investigation and the Mar a

41:26

Lago investigation. And so

41:28

if you have criminal liability in one,

41:30

you might trade away that criminal liability

41:33

for for cooperation on both. And so as the

41:36

as both cases proceed, I think

41:38

there is a chance that you see. And it's not

41:40

just for the think the things we think

41:42

about, but the one thing Trump's

41:44

orbit has shown is that when they're under

41:46

investigation, they obstruct justice. They

41:48

lie to investigators. That was ultimately the

41:51

story of the instigation. The charges they brought

41:53

were people that that tried to obstruct the investigation. It's all

41:55

it's always the story, and it's likely to be one

41:57

of the stories here that we

41:59

see develop over the

42:01

few months. So So you could have

42:03

witnesses in one case who are to unlocking secrets and

42:06

the others.

42:09

What about

42:09

-- so including -- when you talk

42:11

about the others, there's

42:14

many others. What -- we have

42:16

Fulton County. We have the New York AG case. We have

42:18

maybe the New York DA case. Do

42:20

you see these, again, sticking

42:22

within the mindset of Merrick Garland?

42:25

Are they things to try to

42:28

ignore and blinker out? Are

42:30

there are there things to

42:32

try to cooperate with? Is there risk of kind of getting

42:34

their feet crossed in the field?

42:36

What about all these other cases

42:37

out there that seem to be

42:39

coming to fruition

42:42

more quickly. And again, I guess I would also ask. So does

42:44

SDNY, will it make an

42:46

independent choice or is it

42:47

all, you

42:50

know, It's a great question. I'll just they will want to make an

42:52

independent choice. Okay. The sovereign district from

42:54

there. There will be different there will be different opinion

42:56

on that question. Yeah. The only parties they're

42:58

making is whether or not

43:00

take a referral. Right. You know, which is which generally, you just say yes.

43:02

Whether or not that becomes Well, and then whether

43:04

to bring the oh, oh, you think and

43:06

immediately, the investigation itself will

43:10

immediately be consolidated They're referral from Tish James. Yeah. Yeah.

43:12

I mean You you you you in

43:14

other words, you think that the case if they take

43:16

it will be worked in DC, I think they'll

43:18

work it. I think

43:19

it depends on what she refers. They will

43:22

examine it and they will determine whether or not this

43:24

is a stand alone thing. Keep in mind she's looking at

43:26

activity that happened many, many

43:28

years ago. She's not looking at activity that happened while he was the

43:30

president of the United States per se. You

43:32

know, she's she's looking at his

43:34

financial

43:35

transaction. And although -- True.

43:38

-- tutorial -- Yeah. -- but, like, not not necessarily

43:40

his

43:40

presidency.

43:41

So who it it's

43:44

unclear. I think if it's a valid

43:46

referral, they would take it. I think it's

43:48

hard to say no to a valid referral

43:50

because then what are you saying? Like, well, because

43:52

it is Donald Trump, can't take the referral because it's

43:54

too complicated, you have to. But then it's

43:56

just a matter of how who investigates. And frankly,

43:58

I mean, this is so

43:59

technical, but If you're looking at a

44:02

financial fraud case, you want it to be SDNY. Those prosecutors have much more

44:04

experience looking at Wall Street that we can all

44:06

fight about whether or not they did a good job during

44:09

the financial crisis. They have a

44:11

lot more experience looking at financial fraud than some of our friends in

44:14

Washington DC. Howard Bauchner: Jared, you were

44:16

going

44:16

to say something?

44:18

Well, I think so

44:21

my sense from this week when

44:23

you mentioned to James, I wonder if you guys

44:25

agree. We've been sort of

44:28

saying this. you know, since when access

44:30

Hollywood,

44:30

but it feels

44:32

it really does feel to a lot of people, and

44:34

I think I'm among them that

44:37

we are at the beginning of something new

44:40

there. It has been a turning of the

44:42

tide. There is a kind of

44:44

reckoning and, you

44:46

know, the escaped artist doesn't it is

44:48

looking really, really hard pressed

44:50

to escape. Do

44:52

you agree Or

44:54

is that sort of premature in

44:56

the sense that comeuppance is actually

45:00

beginning to unroll in

45:04

real

45:04

time? It feels like wish casting

45:06

at the moment. Main well, look, I

45:08

the confession, we all suffer

45:11

from the PTSD of you

45:13

know, all of those moments -- Right. -- we

45:15

access Hollywood. Remember what we thought was gonna happen

45:17

on January seventh? Remember what the

45:19

what the world was like, the complete

45:22

vindication of everyone who's said that Trump was a

45:24

danger in all the Republicans who are quitting the

45:26

cabinet and giving speeches on the

45:28

floor Kevin McCarthy that lasted about

45:30

five minutes. There are

45:32

also some some sort of viral loops

45:34

that have been put together of all the

45:36

people, the talking heads on cable

45:38

television, nobody here I

45:40

don't think. saying,

45:42

you know, the walls are closing in on Donald Trump, the

45:44

walls are closing in. I mean, this has been going on

45:46

for six years. So maybe

45:48

But the one thing that I can confidently say is that there's no

45:50

indication that the Republican Party is

45:53

breaking with him long all

45:55

a little bit. Yeah. So that we're not And this brings up

45:57

something so interesting to me because the,

45:59

you know, the idea

46:02

that it was once an

46:04

inquiry and questions

46:06

about Donald Trump because the Republicans

46:08

haven't broken away from him, because he's

46:10

in some ways only gained power.

46:12

In in many ways, It's

46:15

so hard to

46:16

separate the scrutiny of Donald

46:19

Trump from scrutiny of Republicans in general. And

46:21

the reason why I think that's important

46:23

is because one and I say this is somebody who has many Republicans

46:25

in my family -- Mhmm. -- as I think we

46:27

actually all do, of course,

46:30

is that once this this benefits Donald

46:32

Trump so much for

46:34

us as the public, us

46:37

in the media, prosecutors in the justice department to

46:40

for it to be tricky for us to separate

46:42

scrutiny of him from

46:43

scrutiny of the

46:45

party that really helps him

46:48

because nobody wants in the

46:50

United States of America to say one

46:52

of its own political parties is

46:56

rotten, needs to be vanquished, needs to be

46:58

routed, needs to be shut down, because that's

47:00

not that's not the way the country

47:02

was designed. That is another way of saying the Democratic

47:04

experiment has failed. And we don't want

47:06

to say that. So by

47:08

by twinning himself with the party, and

47:10

by the

47:12

party, not extrocating itself from him. It helps him so much because

47:14

who here in this room wants to sit and say,

47:16

democracy does not work anymore. We

47:18

have a completely failed party. You

47:22

do. Well, that

47:23

was your book. So I mean and yeah. Charlie

47:25

will be signing books after

47:28

that. So I do

47:30

think it's the beginning of the end of Trump,

47:32

not Trumpism. And I don't believe

47:34

that because of the New York case, the January sixth case,

47:36

or the Georgia case. I believe it only because of the Mar

47:38

a Lago case where I think he will be indicted.

47:41

I think he will be convicted. And

47:43

I know he's a seventy six

47:45

year old first time offender But

47:47

I think the convicted

47:50

offender, but I think if you look at other

47:52

cases where people have been

47:54

convicted of mishailing of classified information and obstruction, which

47:56

I think is likely to be in both they

47:58

go to jail. And

48:00

so you see him going to jail?

48:02

I I It's

48:04

just who knows how will play out, but if

48:06

you look at this through the lens of

48:08

previous cases with this fact set,

48:10

those defendants get jump unless

48:12

unless they plead guilty. And so if he wants

48:14

to plead guilty and bargain down to no jump

48:16

maybe. Patrice. That seems yeah. Like Patrice.

48:18

Exactly. But that seems unlikely that he's

48:20

ever gonna get She's just mad from from your lips to gods. Yeah. So

48:24

so, I mean, III

48:26

come back to the thing I started this with, which is I

48:28

think that

48:30

the Marlaug cases, a gift to the department

48:32

and a gift to the country. And the way to take him out of the picture,

48:35

but Trumpism will go

48:37

on for some time. can

48:39

I just pick up on something that Katie said? Because it sort of loops

48:41

around that we were talking about with Watergate in

48:43

the contrast with Watergate that that

48:45

in Watergate, the democratic

48:48

process worked out. it was it was

48:50

healthy. Right. That we no longer

48:52

have that kind of healthy process. We

48:54

also have a very, very different media

48:56

information ecosystem. And I strongly

48:58

believe that that if Richard Nixon

49:00

had the media ecosystem that we have

49:02

right now that he would have survived. Mhmm. If the

49:04

Republican party would have stuck with him, if he

49:06

would have had Fox News

49:08

and all of the all of the

49:10

accolades that that would have played out very, very

49:12

differently. So yes, that

49:14

we are in a very, very different world in

49:16

Watergate. And

49:17

I just want to say one thing about Katy, the

49:19

sort of moebious

49:20

strip of politics in

49:23

law that unavoidably, you

49:25

know, we're we're looking at, which is

49:27

it may be, this is sort of back

49:30

to Garland as tragic

49:32

figure in trying to protect.

49:35

It does seem to me, and I'm really out

49:37

of my depths here.

49:40

But Trump, it's interesting

49:42

and and, you know, also despicable,

49:44

but he he is going more

49:46

and more extreme where, you

49:48

know, the QAnon pins, the the

49:51

fomenting of violence, and it does strike

49:53

me that it, you know, that that's possible

49:56

the kind of move that makes

49:58

notwithstanding his

50:00

personal charisma makes

50:02

the sort of sent

50:04

– pretty big center of

50:07

the country be

50:09

able to say just

50:11

can't countenance this. He's he's really

50:14

it seems to be changing against all

50:16

that. And now and I just want one other

50:18

thing is This James Hood is no

50:22

walk in the park. I think he's gotta

50:24

settle. I just can't see his going to

50:26

trial. I can't see his testifying she's

50:28

got a lot of cars. She is, I think,

50:30

the charges that she's, you

50:32

know, really sort of almost

50:36

politically after him. I

50:38

understand those, but that's that's the

50:40

cards that he's now

50:42

been dealt And I think that she's gonna exact very serious

50:44

settlements. It's not doesn't put him in an

50:46

orange jumpsuit, but it it it

50:48

really potentially

50:50

annihilates the Trump brand

50:52

and that's that's pretty close. No,

50:54

you're

50:54

right. I'm I'm sorry. I'm I'm

50:57

a little bit obsessed

50:58

about thinking about what Katie said about America

51:00

Island being this Shakshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshapshap.

51:06

So which

51:08

one? Is he is he is he is he hamlet or is he or is he king Lear

51:10

or make make bath? Or is he because

51:13

because it it it ends badly

51:16

all of them. So I Henry Henry Henry Henry

51:18

Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry

51:20

Okay. I was thinking of him as kinda

51:23

Chromwell and, you know, the hiller man hilly

51:25

man's just passed away. Cat Cassie is. A

51:27

romance fan. Oh, my. Bruce.

51:30

Bruce. Okay.

51:32

Alright. It is

51:36

now

51:37

time for a

51:40

spirited debate. brought to you

51:42

by our sponsored total line

51:44

and more. Each episode

51:46

you'll be hearing an expert talk

51:48

about the pros and cons of a particular issue in

51:51

the world of wine, spirit,

51:54

and beverages. Thank you,

51:55

Harry. In today's spirited

51:58

debate, we'll tour

51:58

the five times of

51:59

tequila in under two minutes.

52:01

Time is also important when it

52:03

comes to tequila. because each type is

52:05

classified according to the length time it is aged. The longer

52:08

it's aged, the

52:08

deeper the flavors and smoother

52:12

the taste. The five

52:14

types of tequila from least aged

52:16

to most aged are

52:18

Blanco,

52:18

Holvin,

52:19

Repizado, Anayo,

52:21

and extra Anayo. Blanco

52:22

or silver is the youngest

52:24

and purest form of the tequila.

52:26

It has the most authentic taste of the Agave

52:30

It contains no flavoring agents and it can be

52:32

bottled immediately or it can be

52:34

aged up to two months. Blanco

52:36

tasting notes include a little bit of citrus

52:38

and a little bit of spice. Hovin,

52:40

which means young, is also

52:42

known as Gold tequila. Fittingly, it

52:44

derives its name from the color imparted

52:46

from extracts that are added to change

52:49

the flavor and the hue. Job and tasting

52:51

notes are also citrus and

52:53

spicy, but they're

52:54

a little sweeter than Wonka.

52:56

Reppizado, which means rested, is aged in

52:58

oat for two to twelve months, giving

53:00

it time to become a pale golden color

53:02

and pick up some flavors from the

53:06

oat. Reposado tasting notes are caramel and honey, but they can

53:08

also include hints of vanilla,

53:10

cinnamon, or chocolate depending

53:11

on how long it

53:13

has been aged. Anejo,

53:15

meaning aged, spends anywhere

53:18

from one to three years aging in

53:20

oak, giving it a smoother,

53:22

darker, and

53:24

sweeter taste. Anejo tasting notes are caramelized and sugary

53:26

smooth without the sharpness of a

53:27

blonde go. And last,

53:29

but certainly

53:30

not the least

53:32

aged. There is extra aero, which is aged than three

53:34

years, giving it a beautiful

53:36

dark amber color. Extra aero's

53:38

tasting notes are rich with nuts,

53:42

caramel, fruit, and spice. So

53:44

if you're aged twenty

53:45

one years or longer, stop in your

53:48

local total wine

53:50

and more. for a huge selection of tequilas that are aged and

53:52

priced to perfection. So

53:54

find what you love and love what you

53:56

find only at total wine

53:58

and more.

53:59

Cheers. Thanks to

54:01

our friends at Total Wine and

54:03

More for today's a

54:06

spirited debate. If anyone would like to ask a question,

54:07

please do their microphones. So please

54:10

Yes. Thank you. It's been fascinating.

54:11

Let's assume he does

54:14

get charged Are

54:16

you really that confident he'll be convicted? because I go back

54:18

to your comment that a hung jury would be

54:20

a disaster. That to me is such

54:22

a huge risk here. given that

54:24

maybe fifteen percent of this country would not convict

54:27

him, vote to convict him. I don't

54:29

care what the charges, how

54:31

clear they

54:32

were. how are you confident that one of those people won't

54:34

be on a jury? I think they'll bring the

54:36

case in DC.

54:39

And

54:39

I mean, I think it's just simple as that. I think if

54:41

you brought in Florida, you take the chance that you're

54:43

gonna get someone on the jury that's just a Trump dead ender that

54:45

will never vote to convict no

54:48

matter what. that chances

54:50

don't go disappear in DC,

54:52

but they go down dramatically. And

54:54

you do screen them out those people,

54:57

and it not the the the DOJ

54:59

has now come to the age

55:01

of sophisticated jury inquiry and

55:04

consultants in these

55:06

big cases. and it's unlikely that a, you know,

55:08

total died in the world. Trump Trump

55:10

might have no indications.

55:12

There will be challenges. And,

55:14

you know, We did have an

55:16

example. Is it Manafort

55:18

where, you know, a a total

55:20

trumpy jitter also just be jurors

55:21

who don't like Donald Trump, but think that it's

55:23

not worth telling your part of the country.

55:25

to convict this man. So it's not I mean, I don't think this is a I don't think this is a I

55:27

don't think this is a

55:29

He's just so risky. Geility. So

55:31

I think that would be

55:33

the number one. Let's see. I got it. I guess I that

55:35

was Harry's opinion. That was not my opinion.

55:38

I was a journalist at The New York Times.

55:40

Okay. Keep

55:42

going.

55:42

Hi. I was kinda

55:44

thinking so, like, in

55:47

dining, like, former

55:50

heads of say, like, in

55:52

other countries. Like, this is, like, a normal thing

55:54

in democracy. Like, we've seen it with, like,

55:56

the French,

55:56

like, the former French prime president

55:58

we've seen it with the Italian president, we've

56:00

seen it with the South Korean president. This is

56:02

new Israel. Like, Israel. This is new

56:05

for the United States. Like, this hasn't

56:07

happened before. So, like, what's gonna happen to democracy

56:09

if he isn't indicted and if we don't

56:11

follow the laws the way we're supposed to. You're right.

56:13

Yeah. You're right. And it

56:15

certainly takes the shine off of American

56:18

exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is built

56:20

on this idea that we don't have to do

56:22

what happened in Israel and France because our

56:24

democracy works. our founders

56:26

knew what they were doing and our system is

56:28

better. So suddenly we're not that. See

56:30

what?

56:30

And

56:31

so how then do we

56:33

say we should run the world? how

56:35

do we then say we should be making these

56:37

foreign policy decisions that we know better? I mean,

56:39

it really is not just a

56:42

matter of rule of law question.

56:44

There is there are so many bigger consequences

56:46

in terms of what it means to be an American that we will have to face.

56:50

That's a fantastic point, I just

56:51

want to say. I

56:54

just admired that as a host.

56:56

There you go. Hi there.

56:58

So whether Trump is

57:00

prosecuted or not or convicted

57:03

or not. I think the threat of violence is just

57:05

so

57:05

real. Mhmm. And on the one

57:08

hand, it just

57:08

scares it just scares the heck out

57:10

of me. On the other hand, I think,

57:13

what are we afraid of? Are we

57:15

afraid that law enforcement or a national

57:17

guard will not not back us, will

57:19

not stand up for us? I I just

57:21

wanna know what your opinions are because Let me take this one.

57:23

I as

57:24

a prosecutor, because we've got AAA

57:26

run of profanity in each the last thing.

57:29

lock them the fuck up. You can

57:31

do it. It's not that

57:34

hard. No. No. That's that's exactly

57:36

right. Charlie made the point early. You can't

57:38

be bullied. by threats of

57:40

violence. And if there are threats of violence, you treat them

57:42

the way we treated the people who storm the

57:44

capital and throw them all in jail. We've had

57:45

very violent periods before in the history

57:47

of the country well, and not that we want them to see

57:49

them happen again. But, I mean, I would say the first march

57:52

across the Perez bridge, what was

57:54

happening with protesters in

57:56

the south you know, who are desperate to end Jim Crow. terrible

57:58

terrible moments of

57:59

violent clashes as people tried to figure out

58:02

what it meant to have a function

58:04

American society. and

58:06

democracy

58:06

that included everyone. They've asked exactly the right question.

58:09

Is is at at some point, if

58:11

you stand up to it, if you don't blink,

58:13

you might find out that

58:16

it is it is it it might be it might be messy, but

58:18

it's not a civil war. That's correct.

58:20

Yeah.

58:21

Thank you. Alright. i'm

58:25

Barbara

58:25

McQuay made a comment

58:27

on panel. She said that when she went

58:29

to DOJ prosecutor's school --

58:32

Mhmm. -- they taught

58:34

her that federal prosecutors generally don't lose based on

58:36

the evidence they lose because the

58:38

cases are so complicated. The

58:40

jury dies,

58:42

glaze over. and they can't get the conviction even though they have

58:44

the evidence. So I

58:46

saw this thing with this guy, Jim

58:48

Warden, talked

58:50

about this Rico

58:52

Case for this whole

58:54

January sixth thing with the

58:56

insurrector and the money laundering and

58:59

the conspirator. it looks really good, but then I've based

59:01

on what you're saying, I'm like, yeah, and

59:03

the DOJ knows how to do

59:06

Rico. But, man,

59:08

that's really you

59:10

know. That's all in. Mhmm. And it

59:12

seems like it might not be But they got

59:13

all this video to be able to tell

59:16

the story to make it a dramatic narrative, but I'll I'll defer I

59:18

didn't have to call this Cheney and get that video.

59:20

No. Look, it's a it

59:22

is a a great point.

59:24

It's another reason

59:26

for mass position of Mar a

59:28

Lago. I'll just say that I'm going

59:30

back to the AG, the New

59:32

York AG's civil

59:34

case. In general, as paper cases

59:36

go and they go for months and your

59:38

eyes glaze over and you have experts,

59:41

the ability here to basically

59:44

take when you're trying to prove fraud on

59:46

paper, two valuations of

59:48

the same thing and put them in front of

59:51

a jury. he wants lower taxes, they're

59:53

worth ten thousand. He wants

59:56

for a paper case,

59:58

print, you know, pretty much of a gift.

1:00:00

And then there are the people from

1:00:02

SDNY who think they can prove

1:00:04

any paper case ever. Except for

1:00:06

Lehman Brothers. Except for Lehman. Last

1:00:08

question, healthy.

1:00:10

Thank you. We

1:00:10

generally talk or frequently talked about Trumpism being a

1:00:12

cult. We talk about autocracies. And when

1:00:15

you be head the autocracy

1:00:17

or you cut off the

1:00:19

head of the cult dies, but you're talking

1:00:21

about but even if we do that,

1:00:24

Trumpism is gonna last for a long

1:00:26

time. Why do you see it being different in

1:00:28

this case? It's a it's a great question. I I

1:00:30

called it Trumpism. The better way to to think

1:00:32

about it is the kind of problems in the

1:00:34

Republican party, the, you

1:00:36

know, the the

1:00:38

fact that they have come become

1:00:39

completely disconnected from the truth and have built a media

1:00:42

ecosystem that allows them to to

1:00:44

stay disconnected from the truth. That's

1:00:46

gonna continue. However,

1:00:48

there is no one else in the party

1:00:50

like Trump. There are a lot of wannabe trumps who

1:00:52

are Trump without the charisma. You know, Rhonda

1:00:54

Santos doesn't have

1:00:56

Trump's charisma. pumpay all of them. So they will be

1:00:58

there will be noxious politicians

1:01:00

who who demagogue in light

1:01:02

of voters, but

1:01:04

there aren't a lot of other

1:01:06

obvious candidates who have the

1:01:08

ability to bring twenty thousand people to a rally

1:01:10

and then turn them and send them to storm the

1:01:12

capital. That

1:01:14

hopefully I don't wanna I wanna naive say goes away,

1:01:16

but it certainly lessens without

1:01:18

him at the time. That

1:01:20

But it it's a problem of minority rule,

1:01:23

though, really. Isn't it? That's all true. I

1:01:25

see it as a

1:01:25

politics of abandonment too, though,

1:01:28

because I grew up

1:01:30

in Vermont's. All I see in Vermont are Trump flags and

1:01:32

Bernie flags in the year twenty twenty

1:01:34

two. I don't know that they I don't know that anybody

1:01:36

in that state knows that Joe Biden's

1:01:38

the president It's

1:01:40

but no. But but this but this was a pro

1:01:42

this is a problem that began, I think, in

1:01:44

the nineties where you saw a party

1:01:46

that had always represented labor and

1:01:48

it always represented working people and always

1:01:51

tried to anyway. But

1:01:53

the democrats abandoned huge swash of

1:01:55

the country as they became technocrats, as they wanted

1:01:58

to also become a party that

1:02:00

represented money interests, which the republic

1:02:02

has been much more

1:02:04

successful at. So now you have two parties that have essentially

1:02:06

abandoned. Huge parts of America that

1:02:08

I am part of, my dad worked in

1:02:10

a factory my entire life until that

1:02:12

factory shut down. And he found another one. Another one

1:02:14

because they kept shutting down.

1:02:16

Who is representing these people? because most

1:02:18

of the country does not look

1:02:20

like Mark Zuckerberg. Shail Sandberg,

1:02:22

Mike Bloomberg, most of the country looks

1:02:24

like my dad, and no one represents

1:02:26

him. So Trumpism is gonna stay.

1:02:28

as long as Trumpism claims to, whether or not it does,

1:02:31

claims to represent a huge number of

1:02:33

people in the United States of America

1:02:35

that I'm so sorry most

1:02:38

Democrats do not care about,

1:02:39

and most Republicans do not care about. III

1:02:41

know we're running out of time, but but this is

1:02:43

such an important question And, you know, two

1:02:45

things can be true at the same time. Trump, it's a unique

1:02:48

existential threat. I mean, he is a

1:02:50

unique personality. On

1:02:52

the other hand, he has exploited a preexisting dysfunction in

1:02:54

this country that Katie just described. All

1:02:57

of the incentive structures have changed.

1:02:59

The media ecosystem has You

1:03:02

have these one of these who are, you

1:03:04

know, pushing sort of the, you know, cruelty

1:03:06

is the point politics. You know, the that's

1:03:08

we don't actually solve problems. We just

1:03:11

simply troll and trigger the lids. That's going to continue

1:03:13

for a long time.

1:03:16

And of course, we do have these kinds

1:03:19

of divisions. So Yes. If Donald Trump disappeared tomorrow,

1:03:21

our democracy does not heal itself. The divisions

1:03:24

do not heal itself. It's it's going to be

1:03:26

a fight for a very very

1:03:28

long time. But you solve the

1:03:29

problems you can. Yeah. Exactly. Please join

1:03:31

me in thanking

1:03:33

this fantastic panel.

1:03:35

Thank

1:03:37

you, Austin. Thank

1:03:39

you, Texas

1:03:40

tribute. There you

1:03:42

have it, our

1:03:43

live Austin panel. into

1:03:46

the investigations swirling around Donald

1:03:49

Trump and his circle. Thank

1:03:51

you very much to Charlie,

1:03:53

Matt, and Katie, and

1:03:55

thank much listeners for tuning in to

1:03:58

talking fans. If you like what you've

1:04:00

heard, please tell a friend to

1:04:02

subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts

1:04:04

or wherever get their

1:04:06

podcasts and please take a moment to

1:04:08

rate and review this

1:04:10

podcast. You can also now

1:04:12

subscribe to us on

1:04:14

YouTube where we are posting full episodes, talking

1:04:16

books, and bonus video

1:04:18

content, or follow us on

1:04:20

Twitter at talking

1:04:22

Fed's pod. You can

1:04:24

also subscribe to us

1:04:26

and get a lot of

1:04:28

extra content on

1:04:30

the Patreon on-site patreon dot com slash

1:04:32

talking Fed. In an effort to

1:04:34

make Talking Fed a better listening

1:04:36

experience for everyone, we

1:04:38

don't follow a typical

1:04:40

advertising business and we

1:04:42

have very few commercials you may

1:04:44

have noticed. So if you'd like

1:04:46

to support the show, you can

1:04:48

subscribe there And there's

1:04:50

a lot that comes with it. You can go

1:04:52

to Patreon and see what we have

1:04:54

coming and decide if you might like

1:04:56

to sign up. Submit

1:04:58

your questions to talking feds

1:05:00

dot com slash contact. Whether

1:05:02

it's for talking five or general

1:05:04

questions about the inner workings of the legal

1:05:07

system for our sidebar segments. Thanks for

1:05:09

tuning in, and don't worry. As

1:05:11

long as you

1:05:14

need answers, the feds

1:05:16

will keep talking. And don't forget

1:05:18

to tune in next week for our

1:05:20

Supreme Court panel discussion also

1:05:23

recorded live at the Texas Tribune Festival.