0:06

Welcome to talking fans. A

0:08

round table that brings together prominent

0:11

figures in government law and journalism

0:13

for dynamic discussion of the most

0:15

important topics of the day. I'm

0:18

Harry Litman. the new

0:20

Republican majority in the House

0:22

unferrals its spite and hypocrisy

0:25

agenda, we are born back

0:27

ceaselessly into the past.

0:30

Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced a

0:32

slate of committee assignments empowering

0:34

the nuttiest nutwinds in the country

0:37

and followed that up by stripping

0:39

Democrat members Adam Schiff

0:42

and Eric Swalwell of their

0:44

intelligence committee assignments, proffering

0:47

threadbare reasons for what everybody

0:49

understood was naked payback

0:52

for their work on Trump impeachment.

0:55

More ominously, the new majority has

0:57

trained its sights on a possible

0:59

debt limit showdown that would have

1:02

catastrophic consequences for

1:04

the country. Classified documents

1:06

turned up at the residence of former vice

1:08

president Mike Pence. Who was quick

1:10

to join Biden saying he had been

1:13

totally unaware of them. To

1:15

many, the Pence revelations confirmed

1:18

The sharp divide between an apparently

1:20

common, if worrisome, practice

1:23

of documents leaving the White

1:25

House, and unique criminal behavior

1:28

on the part of Donald Trump for

1:30

knowingly taking hundreds of documents

1:32

and repeatedly obstructing government

1:35

efforts to retrieve them. That

1:37

did not stop the Republicans however,

1:39

from continuing to equate Biden's

1:42

and Trump's actions while claiming

1:44

Pence's conduct was benign.

1:47

The Pence revelations now put Attorney

1:49

General Marek Garland in a tight spot.

1:52

Having appointed a special council to

1:54

launch a criminal investigation of Biden,

1:56

is he forced to do the same with

1:58

Pence? Even though both men seem

2:01

to have done nothing to warrant it.

2:03

In New York Times toward a force

2:05

dissected the four year long,

2:08

relentless, but failed operation

2:10

by John Durham to find wrongdoing

2:13

in the DOJ investigation of Donald

2:15

Trump. It included god's

2:18

smacking details at least to this

2:20

DOJ alarm of overreaching

2:22

an improper conduct. And

2:25

yet, the very same discredited

2:27

allegations may soon be recycled

2:30

in investigations by the new

2:32

House select committee on

2:34

weaponization of the federal government.

2:37

To understand the political and policy

2:39

stakes of these backward looking Washington

2:42

desktops, I'm pleased to welcome

2:44

a superb panel of expert

2:46

commentators, and they

2:48

are. David From

2:51

a staff writer at The Atlantic, The Author

2:53

of Tenbooks, most

2:55

recently, Trumpocalypse restoring

2:58

American democracy. He's

3:00

been active in Republican politics

3:03

since the eighties, and he served

3:05

in government as speech writer for president

3:07

George w Bush from two thousand

3:09

one to two thousand two. He

3:11

also chaired the prominent center

3:13

right think tank policy exchange

3:16

from two thousand fourteen to two thousand

3:18

seventeen. Most importantly, he's

3:20

a regular guest on talking Fed. Thanks

3:22

so much for returning, David. Thank you.

3:25

Doctor Kavita Patel, a

3:27

primary care physician and leading

3:29

health policy researcher. She

3:32

currently serves as a health policy director

3:34

at Stanford University before

3:36

she worked in the Obama administration as

3:39

director of policy for the office

3:41

of intergovernmental affairs and public

3:44

engagement. And she's a contributor to

3:46

NBC News and MSNBC and

3:48

co host of the podcast, words

3:51

matter with Norm Ornstein. And

3:53

it's her first visit to talking

3:55

Fed, so I've been with her on her podcast

3:57

and It's always a delight to be with

3:59

you one way or another. Thanks so much for

4:01

joining

4:01

Kavina. Thank you. And I buried

4:04

in my bio. I'm a former committee

4:06

staff director, which might come into play for

4:08

some of our discussion. You think so? It's might

4:10

possibly that he'll experience and

4:13

Michael Schmidt, a Washington correspondent

4:16

for The New York Times, covering

4:18

National Security and Federal Investigations,

4:21

In two thousand eighteen, Michael was a

4:23

part of two teams that won Pulitzer

4:25

prizes. His bestselling book,

4:28

Donald Trump versus the United States,

4:30

inside the struggle to stop a

4:32

president, which we covered on talking books,

4:35

is just come out in paper

4:37

back and it's got a new

4:39

twelve thousand word biography of

4:42

John Kelly, the chief of

4:44

staff who tried hardest to reign

4:46

in Donald Trump. Michael, thanks

4:48

so much as always for being here and wanna

4:50

tell us a little bit about the conversations

4:53

with Kelly that are in the new paper back

4:55

version. Thanks for having me. I

4:57

wrote this book two years ago and

5:00

I realized that Kelly's story

5:02

was a really important story that hadn't been

5:05

told So I went back and

5:07

wrote this mini biography of

5:09

Kelly, this twelve thousand board thing that tells

5:12

the story of his experience with Trump.

5:14

And his efforts to contain an unbound

5:16

president, what that's like. And

5:19

a lot of it surcenters around Kelly trying

5:21

to contain Trump on North

5:23

Korea, and I found it pretty fascinating.

5:25

Yeah. I gotta say we've heard some more.

5:27

These are one of the details that have come out

5:29

since his departure from the presidency. And

5:32

Kelly does seem like a classic figure

5:35

doing his best to somehow hemming him

5:37

in. Alright. But flash forward

5:39

to January twenty twenty

5:41

three. Kevin McCarthy and

5:43

the narrow Republican majority in

5:45

the House wasted no time in

5:48

showing its colors. Earlier this

5:50

week, McCarthy stripped representatives

5:53

Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff

5:55

of their seats on the house intelligence committee.

5:59

Let's just start here. Why ship? Obviously,

6:02

it's payback. It's vindictive. It's

6:04

nasty

6:04

stuff. Why ship and swallow

6:06

in particular? I guess

6:09

I'll start. I think that shift in swaddlers

6:11

for the Republicans are

6:13

the face of the Russia investigation.

6:16

Certainly, Schiff was extremely

6:19

prominent in the first

6:21

impeachment of Trump. Schiff

6:24

and Suwala became sort of

6:26

at the tip of the spear for the democrats

6:28

on trying to make the case

6:30

to the public that Trump was compromised by

6:33

his ties to Russia. So

6:35

these two people sort of symbolized

6:38

to the Republicans everything that

6:40

they hated about congressional

6:42

oversight during Donald Trump's

6:44

presidency. And they've had

6:46

their eyes on these two for a long time, and

6:49

finally, they had the power to do something.

6:51

Do we think this is a specific promise

6:54

McArthur made in his efforts

6:56

to get the speakership

6:58

specifically? I'll give you shift and

7:00

small wells, you know, skulls

7:02

on a platter? I don't have a great

7:04

sense of all of the things that McCarthy

7:07

committed to. To me, this

7:09

doesn't seem to be the heaviest

7:11

lift for them. I mean, there seems to be

7:13

a big constituency in the Republican

7:15

Party for a move like this and several

7:18

members of his party, he

7:20

would argue lost positions

7:22

on their committees. When the Democrats were

7:24

in control, I

7:26

don't

7:26

think this is that big a deal for him to

7:29

do. So in that sense, I don't

7:31

think it it could be at the heart of

7:33

what he had to give up to get to where he is.

7:35

Probably more likely the kind of

7:37

compliment. We saw that with Marjorie Taylor

7:39

Green, who is kind of an ally to his,

7:41

and she got back precious

7:44

committee assignments that were stripped

7:46

and less of, like, taking

7:48

them off as the bargaining chip

7:50

and more of which ones what people get is

7:52

probably more likely just because of the way

7:55

kind of the packages and the rules changes

7:57

get put together. And just knowing

7:59

members of Congress, much more likely to act

8:01

in their own individual's self Litman

8:03

some statement about others.

8:05

But it wasn't surprising, but

8:07

it's still stung when it happened. I guess that's

8:10

how I read it.

8:11

And, you know, Michael pointed out payback,

8:13

although this is the party, false

8:16

equivalencies because the arguments

8:18

for stripping both Green and

8:20

Gosar of committee assignments were pretty

8:22

strong and remain that way. Schiff

8:24

and Schwab, these are really tissues, thin,

8:27

excuses. He can do that on

8:29

his own unilaterally for intelligence they're

8:32

certainly gonna talk about trying to

8:34

strip Omar, but that's

8:36

gonna be a bigger hurdle because it'll involve

8:38

a full house

8:39

vote. Are they going to make the effort? And can

8:41

they pull it off anybody? I

8:43

think they will. I mean, I think they will make

8:45

the effort.

8:46

Then take a step back. Talk with someone that

8:48

has I I've been thinking about in connection with the

8:50

new Republican majority in the house. So

8:53

this republic this is the first Republican majority since

8:55

the events of January since the attempt by

8:57

a mob incited by the serving

8:59

president to overthrow an election and

9:01

thus the constitution. And I said, what what what

9:03

have we ever seen anything like this before? And

9:06

the closest equivalent I can comment is it's more

9:08

extreme, but it's the same idea. It's the

9:10

election of eighteen seventy four. When

9:13

Democrats recaptured the majority

9:15

in the House of Representatives for the first time since

9:17

they walked out in eighteen sixty and sixty

9:19

one. And that House of Representatives had

9:21

a Republican majority through the civil war and

9:23

through the early part of reconstruction. The Republicans

9:25

had a disaster selection in eighteen seventy four and

9:28

the Democrats take over the house they don't take this

9:30

at home. And now the democrats have a problem,

9:32

which is they are a union of people who

9:34

had been union loyal, but questioned the

9:36

policies of the Lincoln administration, and people who had

9:38

been union disloyal. And what do

9:40

you do? Well, the democrats elected

9:42

as head of their congress, someone who'd been union disloyal,

9:45

Lucy as K Lamar, but they took care

9:47

on every committee to make sure that

9:49

their committee chairs were northerners who

9:51

have been union loyal, in some cases, veterans

9:54

of the union army. They allowed no

9:56

ex confederates and no think there's one

9:58

copperhead, copperhead being a northerner

10:01

who had opened an easy piece

10:03

with the South. I think there's one copperhead committee

10:05

chair Otherwise, it's all union loyal, all

10:07

northern, and in some cases veterans. They

10:09

were very cautious about the face they presented

10:12

to the

10:12

public. Look, our coalition includes dis

10:14

unionists and rebels, but our coalition is not

10:16

led by there. And

10:17

by the way, it's a midterm election. Yes. I

10:19

think Grant is still president.

10:22

He's a carryover from Lincoln in many ways,

10:24

but, yeah, go ahead. So it is it is

10:26

a sobering thing to me that Kevin McCarthy

10:28

could not have the same composure.

10:31

Say, you know what? Look, we do have these January

10:34

six people, and they are part of the majority. And

10:36

the people send them here, so there's nothing I can do

10:38

about that. But I'm gonna tried my best to make sure

10:41

that they are not the face of my party.

10:43

Instead, they are the face

10:45

of the party. And he is allowing that

10:48

same irresponsible, dangerous

10:51

group to push him into yet another

10:53

confrontation against the United States,

10:55

which is the public debt. It says in the

10:57

fourth amendment, public debts shall not be questioned.

10:59

And we're about to see the public debt be

11:02

questioned, pushed by the same people.

11:04

So it's not just that he's a a weak speaker.

11:07

There have been those before, but he he's a speaker

11:09

who is simultaneously weak

11:12

in his position with his party, but actually

11:14

extremely and dangerously strong

11:16

in his commitment to his own position and his own

11:18

survival. The driving question

11:21

of this Congress. I mean, the answer to every question

11:23

is what shameful

11:27

thing? Will Kevin McCarthy do

11:29

to keep this job just long

11:31

enough to qualify himself for a

11:33

lucrative career on

11:34

CaseGrid. And by the way, I don't

11:36

know enough about eighteen seventy four, but of

11:38

course, the worst of the worst

11:40

have been elevated to plumb positions.

11:43

It was, you know, Christmas and January for

11:45

the margery tailer greens, etcetera.

11:47

But we're talking about a caucus

11:50

that has almost a hundred forty

11:53

election deniers in it.

11:55

So it's both that he's elevated the

11:57

most sort of crazy and histrionic

11:59

but also that the whole crowd

12:02

is more or less committed

12:05

to crazy positions David

12:07

inspired me eighteen seventy

12:09

four. I can't help but build on to the

12:11

history lesson. This might be

12:14

the first time, and I think it was eighteen

12:16

seventy six or so

12:18

that they'll move forward with possibly impeaching

12:20

a cabinet member. Late in the nineteenth

12:22

century, they actually were able to impeach

12:25

a cabinet member, and I don't think they've ever

12:27

done it

12:27

again. That cabinet member who was impeached

12:29

by the Congress of eighteen seventy four was really,

12:31

really guilty. He had been up to his

12:33

eyeballs.

12:34

That's right.

12:34

Exactly. That was the point I was gonna And then

12:37

even he, I think, was acquitted or

12:39

hardened or whatever the equivalent was back

12:41

then, but they're gonna move forward potentially

12:43

to actually, you know, focus on this Silom

12:45

ish at the

12:46

border. And

12:47

impeach my York as another, in other words.

12:49

And maybe Garland. Yeah. Right. And maybe Garland.

12:51

And then other thing that I kind of thought about

12:53

is you probably noticed if you can and basically

12:56

telling Kevin McCarthy, like, he whipped me

12:58

to get the votes to have, like,

13:00

someone else leapfrog you can and, of

13:03

course, from Florida and talking about how

13:05

it was given to McCarthy

13:07

ally, Jason Smith. So

13:09

he got the spot on the more

13:11

senior chair of the Houseways and Means Committee,

13:13

very powerful Committee, which is also unusual

13:16

just to kind of build in what David was saying that

13:18

this is a man who would literally

13:21

and not just make a deal with the devil, but

13:23

this is someone who has nothing that he

13:25

stands for. And I'm glad you said that about Case Street

13:27

because it's reminded me of this

13:29

is exactly his audition for I don't

13:31

even know if it's case three. Maybe it's to actually

13:33

become the CEO of Twitter. I'm not sure which

13:35

one is more lucrative at this point

13:37

or could be lucrative in loans. But

13:39

anyway, it's just a very -- the eighteen seventy

13:41

four comment reminded me of that. We've got an

13:43

unfortunate number of parallels.

13:45

Litman, the reconstruction parallels

13:48

are very strong. But let me ask, and this isn't

13:50

where I was thinking of going, but is there any

13:52

thing we've said in the last ten

13:54

or fifteen minutes that

13:56

more than two percent of the

13:58

country is even aware of,

14:01

is this just all inside

14:03

gossip to them. We know that

14:05

whenever thirty, forty percent are are

14:07

with Trump. Does the rest of the country have

14:09

some sense of the concrete danger

14:12

in the particular moods we've been discussing

14:14

or basically can do it with

14:16

impunity because nobody is

14:18

even really aware of

14:20

it.

14:20

The country does not pay much attention to process

14:22

issues. Well, Litman,

14:23

I wanna more than process, but yeah. But what

14:25

it does pay attention to are all the things

14:27

that you don't do. When you're consumed with

14:29

impeaching my orcas. So one of the things

14:31

I think that probably tens of millions of

14:33

Americans are aware is the last Congress lowered

14:35

the cost of insulin for people on Medicare.

14:38

So everyone in this country who needs

14:40

insulin and is not on Medicare is

14:42

aware, I didn't get that benefit. Will

14:45

I ever get it? That would be nice. Maybe I'd

14:47

like it. And your model of how

14:49

politics works is, you know, politicians get elected

14:51

by giving people things. Okay. Well, they're not going to do anything

14:54

about that. They're not going to do anything about health care.

14:56

The economic situation does seem to be

14:58

passing through the valley of the shadow. We look

15:00

like we're not going to have the recession that was

15:02

feared. But there are still things that Republican

15:04

voters and marginal voters would probably

15:06

like Congress to do, and it's not going

15:08

to do them. So I keep thinking that the costume

15:11

is not that, you know, that I mean,

15:13

yeah, they're gonna make lot of huddle blue

15:15

and people pay close attention to politics

15:17

may or may not get upset, much of the country won't.

15:19

But meanwhile, they're gonna be violating

15:22

this rule of politics. My boss and the

15:24

Bush White House communications director Karen

15:26

Hughes used to tell the story. But walking

15:28

on a beach in some holiday, and

15:30

she sees one of those little advertising planes,

15:32

pulling a flyer behind the

15:35

flyer says something like Jill come

15:37

back, I'm miserable without

15:38

you, Jack. And she thinks bad

15:40

message Jack too much about you,

15:43

not that. That's

15:48

that's the problem. They're gonna talk about hunter, but

15:50

they're gonna talk about all the greatest Fox

15:52

News hits that are going to be incomprehensible

15:55

to anyone who doesn't spend four hours a day

15:57

watching Fox News never mind attractive. I'm completely

16:00

outdated too. Yeah. Meanwhile, everyone in

16:02

the country who is not on Medicare who takes

16:04

insulin is thinking, what about me?

16:06

Alright. Let's zero Litman the one thing that people

16:08

will be focused on, and you mentioned it

16:10

already. And that is the

16:13

deadly serious issue of the debt

16:15

ceiling. So it strikes me it's

16:17

kind of Republicans that they're

16:19

worse, combining a kind of destructive

16:22

zeal to bring down the government and the absence

16:25

of any real ideas for

16:28

governing. So we have a

16:30

potential stalemate. Now they've they're

16:32

insisting that any kind of

16:35

rise in the dead ceiling has to be combined

16:37

with spending cuts, but

16:39

I don't think you'll get those proposals from

16:42

Democrats. Do Republicans have

16:44

any coherent set

16:46

of proposals to reduce spending?

16:49

And if not,

16:51

what kind of weird, you know,

16:53

deadlock are we headed for?

16:55

Well, if you look at what Republicans have put forward

16:57

already, I mean, it's just this insane

17:00

Biden said basically so many

17:02

words. He's like, They're doing everything possible

17:04

to put forward the worst economic policy you've

17:06

ever seen and try to

17:08

take back what marginal progress

17:11

we've made in tax policies, etcetera,

17:13

all of it getting reversed, which absolutely

17:15

will hit Americans. The chances of that

17:17

happening, and then, of course, the senate are

17:20

very low, but I'm more struck

17:22

by how much they're talking about all

17:24

the cuts. And obviously, the Republicans

17:26

are gonna talk about raising an revenues, but

17:29

it's certainly not lost on me as a

17:31

Democrat that this is where I'm a

17:33

little disappointed in Hikim Jeffries that

17:35

I have only been hearing like a defensive posh

17:37

out of Litman that's right. And that's the way it should be

17:39

in the beginning. But we need to hear a little

17:41

bit more. And all we've got so far,

17:44

Janet Mellon, who's kind of signaling

17:46

these warning calls. And Joe Biden, I feel

17:48

like we're like, that's fine. We're past this.

17:50

Like, we've all agreed something has to happen

17:52

on the gut feeling. And other than the Republicans

17:55

was kind of this insanity on

17:56

taxes, I haven't heard anything from the Democrats

17:59

yet. I had actually thought let me just

18:01

quickly augment that question. That there

18:03

is genuine debate within the

18:05

the dams as to whether or not they

18:07

engage. So that might be part of

18:09

Jeffrey. It is part of Litman the finance

18:11

committee and the senate. I mean, look at the

18:13

dynamics of who you've got on these committees.

18:16

Maybe they're better off letting the

18:18

the Republicans drive off the cliff. Right.

18:20

I don't mean this is moral equivalence, but I

18:22

do mean this as an operational equivalence. The

18:24

Democrats have behaved, I

18:26

think, recklessly and irresponsibly on this

18:28

question. So in two thousand eleven

18:30

and two thousand thirteen, Republicans

18:33

twice

18:33

tried this trick. And I would

18:35

have thought if I were a democratic

18:37

decision maker. I would say, the next

18:39

time there is a Democratic House

18:41

Senate and President. The first thing we're gonna

18:43

do in the first five minutes is either abolish

18:45

thing or raise it to ninety quad billion dollars.

18:48

We are never going to allow them to put this

18:50

weapon to use again. Now, it's

18:52

their fault. They're putting the weapons to use. But,

18:54

you know, when that six year old shot that

18:56

teacher, obviously, the six year old is very

18:58

troubled child and did something pretty deplorable,

19:00

but you also ask who didn't lock up that pistol.

19:03

Why wasn't it in a vault somewhere safe?

19:05

Why wasn't that the first order of

19:07

business? Or

19:07

even the last, they could have done it in the lame duck

19:10

problem. They're done in the lame duck. So there there

19:12

are coalition reasons, but I think there

19:14

are people in the Biden White House

19:16

who thought that the this debt ceiling might

19:18

be useful for them. It's a very dramatic

19:21

moment. They count on the Republicans sooner later

19:23

to give in. It frames the debate for

19:25

twenty twenty four. And there are

19:27

people who incur a risk

19:29

that was preventable. Again, I don't want

19:31

to equate the people who failed to prevent the risk with

19:33

the people who are pushing us to this risk. Yeah.

19:35

But the fact is they did have an opportunity to

19:37

prevent it. They had two years to act they had

19:40

reason to know this was coming. It had been done twice

19:42

before. Take your moment.

19:44

Prevent it from ever happening again.

19:46

Look, it's true. There's this sort of raw political

19:48

cock list that's almost morally

19:50

equivalent to say, like, this is gonna

19:52

be good for us. But Michael,

19:55

I mean, do you see this actual

19:58

armageddon coming to

20:00

pass. Well, the whole, you

20:02

know, Republican caucus stick

20:05

with you know, do you see a sort

20:07

of dramatic final battle?

20:10

Or does it veer off before it

20:12

gets to such

20:13

crisis? I don't really think we know.

20:15

And I think it'll tell us a lot about

20:17

who this Republican caucus

20:20

is in the house because it

20:22

does appear from

20:24

sort of the outset here that it is different

20:27

than ones that we have seen in the past.

20:29

It's taken on people and

20:31

positions that are far advanced from the

20:33

earlier versions of just the House Freedom

20:35

Conference. And this will give

20:38

us some sense about how

20:40

far they are truly willing to go and how much control

20:42

McCarthy has over them or not.

20:46

And I think that this just will be a

20:48

great time to see who they

20:50

really are. And by how much control,

20:52

you mean, he might sensibly want

20:54

to avert this all by

20:57

margery Taylor Green and his

20:59

punitive bosses will

21:01

say, sorry, pal. Pencil to the metal.

21:03

Yeah. I don't know, but I guess this

21:05

will give us the first real sense of who

21:07

this caucus is, how far they're willing

21:09

to go, what lengths they're willing to go to,

21:12

and how responsive they will

21:14

be to the public pressure that will likely

21:16

come. With people saying you need to resolve

21:18

this right now. When you have anti pigs

21:20

walking around saying, you know, we can't raise the

21:22

debt ceiling, etcetera, etcetera, the

21:25

democrats have carelessly spent taxpayer

21:27

money, etcetera. That

21:29

really just burns me because you

21:32

saw this like incredible skyrocketing

21:34

jump in spending under Donald Trump. And

21:36

by the way, a lot of that was because

21:38

of what we had to do for the pandemic, which

21:41

just to say, we probably didn't

21:43

spend enough on what we needed to do for

21:45

not state relief, but for individuals. But

21:47

I will say that, like, when you ask the question

21:49

of, like, who's gonna care about committee assignments? Like,

21:52

outside of the Beltway, nobody even understands

21:55

who's in Congress. This is another

21:57

place where I hear that to David's point about

21:59

the Democrats almost using this

22:01

in some way back when they

22:03

had the majority for some political folly.

22:06

This is what's coming back to bite us because then you

22:08

have Andy Biggs out there and say, well, the Democrats,

22:10

Nancy Pelosi did all this careless spending.

22:12

And people aren't gonna understand or

22:15

look for their actual facts or listen for their record.

22:17

They're just gonna kind of blindly, like,

22:19

kinda not long and say, yeah, that

22:21

doesn't sound right. Yeah, we should cut a bunch

22:23

of spending. And it's it's only

22:25

gonna come back to why I'm so frustrated with

22:27

Democrats. It's just gonna come back to bite us.

22:30

It still does. It will. See how

22:32

many seats we have up in the Senate. We're

22:34

proud of the presidential elect, and that'll hopefully

22:36

give depending on who runs. That'll

22:38

give some power to the downstream ballot.

22:41

But I'm looking at those seats, Harry,

22:43

it's not pretty. And so, you know, if

22:45

I'm a candidate up and twenty

22:47

four. If I may be Club to drive any of these

22:49

people, I'm I'm like, yeah, we better freaking

22:51

figure this out. Yeah. Rafael actually

22:53

coming so much of it turns on

22:56

a distinction that's a little bit subtle,

22:58

but I think the democrats can get

23:00

across, which is this isn't raising spending.

23:02

This is making good on the debts we

23:04

already have. And this is,

23:06

you know, avoiding wellching, not

23:09

to mention all the catastrophes that

23:11

ensue. And that'll be the kind

23:13

of rhetorical battle anyway they'll

23:15

try to have. We've discussed this in the

23:17

last four minutes on on the implicit

23:20

assumption. Of course, there's going to be a solution

23:22

And when Michael says, we'll learn what's going. This

23:24

is a little bit like we're firing

23:26

a nuclear projectile into space. And

23:29

we will see what happens when the projector

23:31

went on here and out. Right? And

23:33

we we may or may not say because it may

23:35

obliterate us all. I I'm

23:38

haunted by a conversation I had

23:40

with a friend mine of passionate Republican

23:42

supporter during I forget now whether it was two thousand eleven

23:44

and two thousand and thirteen. One of those two Dead

23:46

Sea, I think, crises. And he was all for you

23:49

know, thought that there had to be a message, you

23:51

know, we're gonna walk. I said, you you ran a

23:53

small business. You're a government contractor.

23:56

You understand you're not going to get paid.

23:59

I wish that's ridiculous. You said I sold to the defense

24:01

department. They're not going to pay me. I said, no.

24:03

No. They'll pay some people, but it'll be quite

24:05

random because they're when you drive the

24:08

fifty thousand car a pile up into the

24:10

wall. You know, some of the cars may miss the wall. Others

24:12

will hit it, but there's there's no reciding intelligence

24:15

that can really run this thing. And it honestly

24:17

did not occur to this person. That

24:19

his invoices might number among the

24:21

unpaid invoices. And

24:25

I think the task of educating

24:27

and then coordinating this body

24:29

and then dealing with the incentive

24:32

where the right thing for so many Republican

24:34

members of the House, the best outcome is that Congress

24:36

somehow raised the debt ceiling, but they

24:39

number among the band voted against

24:41

the race. And the conflict

24:44

between the individual imperative and

24:46

the collective one can only be resolved

24:48

by firm leadership and we've already seen we

24:50

don't have that. We've got the we we can be

24:52

no leader

24:57

It's time now for our sidebar

25:00

feature. In which a well known

25:02

person from another field explains

25:04

for us a important legal

25:06

concept in the news. Today's

25:09

concept is how

25:11

do you copyright musical

25:13

compositions? And what

25:15

rights does copywriting them

25:18

affords you as the composer? And

25:20

to explain it to us, we welcome

25:22

Vieira Das. Vieira is an

25:25

actor, comedian, and musician He

25:27

began his career doing stand up

25:29

before moving on to Hindi cinema

25:32

where he starred in numerous films

25:34

including Bad Mash Company and

25:37

Deli Belly. In two thousand seventeen,

25:40

Viator released his first Netflix comedy

25:42

special a broad understanding,

25:45

which combines performances from

25:47

both New York and New Delhi.

25:50

He made his American television debut

25:52

in two thousand nineteen with series

25:54

whiskey cavalier. So

25:56

I give you Viardas on

25:59

copywriting musical compositions. The

26:02

copyright of music is governed by federal

26:04

law. The copyright act of nineteen

26:06

seventy six protects original works of

26:08

authorship fixed in any tangible

26:10

medium of expression, including songs,

26:13

cinematars, and any other musical works.

26:15

Copyright protection begins automatically as soon

26:18

as the song is written down or fixed

26:20

in a tangible medium such as digital

26:22

file and belongs to the songwriter

26:25

or to the composer who created the song.

26:27

It lasts until seventy years

26:29

after the songwriter's death. The

26:31

statute gives the songwriter exclusive

26:34

rights to copy, adapt, distribute

26:36

copies to the Litman perform the song

26:38

publicly. The idea is

26:40

to give composers and songwriters a financial

26:42

incentive to create music. By charging

26:45

money to people who want to record, perform

26:47

or sell copies of their songs, composers

26:49

can earn enough money to make creating music

26:52

worthwhile. The songwriter can

26:54

decide to keep a copyright or can assign

26:56

it to a music publisher who will handle

26:58

licensing the song and pay royalties

27:00

to the songwriter. People use

27:03

music in lots of different ways, and it would

27:05

be difficult to track down the owner of copyright

27:07

in every song you wanted to use. Whenever

27:09

you wanted to perform the song in public, or

27:11

record your own version of it. So

27:14

we have licensing mechanisms built

27:16

in the law to make licensing easier.

27:18

Songwriters and music publishers have created

27:20

organizations that sell licenses

27:23

to perform music publicly, like

27:25

ASCAP and BMI. To

27:27

large businesses like NBC, small

27:29

businesses like nightclubs, and schools,

27:31

and individuals. Online services

27:34

like YouTube have blanket licensing deals

27:36

with most music publishers, which allow

27:38

the services to stream videos containing

27:40

copyright songs. But what of musicians

27:43

who want to record cover versions of a

27:45

copyrighted song. There is

27:47

a statutory compulsory license

27:49

that allows them to do that in return for

27:51

paying the copyright owner a fixed royalty.

27:54

That license though doesn't cover

27:56

performing the cover version in public or

27:59

making a video of the performance. The

28:01

copyright statute also gives a different

28:03

separate copyright to recordings of the song.

28:06

Protection begins as soon as the recording is

28:08

made, and the copyright belongs to the

28:10

performers or other creators of

28:12

recording. Performers often decide

28:14

to sell their copyright rights to a record label.

28:16

Like the copyright in the song, a copyright

28:19

in a recording will last until seventy

28:21

years after the performers. Deaths.

28:23

Because it can be difficult to figure out on

28:26

what day a specific creator died,

28:28

Congress added a provision to the law that

28:30

ends the copyright in every work to December

28:32

thirty first of the year in which

28:35

it would otherwise have expired. Thus,

28:38

Every January first, there is the

28:40

release of new works into the public

28:42

domain. As occurred two weeks ago

28:44

with the Ice cream. You scream.

28:46

We all scream for ice cream. And

28:48

the movie's metropolis and the jazz

28:51

singer. Finally, Of course,

28:53

it's okay for a spectator at a concert to take

28:55

a video of the performers and share it with friends.

28:58

Actually, no. That's a violation

29:00

of the copyright law. Though, really

29:02

enforced. For talking fans,

29:05

unveiled us. Thank

29:07

you very much, Bear, for explaining

29:09

that important and tricky concept

29:12

You can see Vere in his new Netflix

29:14

special landing, which

29:16

premiered worldwide on Netflix

29:19

December twenty six. Veer

29:21

will be touring the US starting in

29:23

March to purchase tickets, go to WWW,

29:27

veer das, dot I n.

29:29

That's WWW dot veritas dot

29:31

I n for show and ticket

29:33

information.

29:39

Alright. It is now time for

29:41

a spirited debate brought

29:43

to you by our sponsor, Total

29:46

Wine, and More. Each episode,

29:48

you'll be hearing an expert talk

29:50

about the pros and cons of a particular

29:53

issue in the world of wine,

29:55

spirit, and beverages. Thank

29:57

you, Harry. In today's spirit of debate,

30:00

Bordeaux and Napa face

30:01

off, pitting the Bordeaux reds against

30:04

the California caps. From a number

30:06

standpoint, the Bordeaux region is the

30:08

clear winner with more wineries and

30:10

higher production of bottles producing nearly

30:12

six and a half times more wine than Neva.

30:15

But more doesn't necessarily mean

30:17

better. Bordeaux wines are blend

30:19

of five different grapes. The Bordeaux

30:21

region is actually divided by an estuary

30:24

and two rivers forming the left bank

30:26

and the right bank. Left bank wines

30:28

are predominantly cavernous solvignon based,

30:31

featuring more tenants and bigger overall

30:33

structure. Ripe bank wines are

30:35

predominantly merlot based, richer

30:37

in fruit with a softer mouthfeel and

30:39

less tannin and acidity. Now much

30:41

like the left bank, Napa wines are predominantly

30:44

cavernous solvignon and well known

30:46

for their rich bold style. Many

30:48

of these wines are also blends, but you

30:50

can also find one hundred percent varietal

30:53

wines from Napa. So whether your team

30:55

Bordeaux or team Napa, Your local

30:57

total wine and more has a huge selection, so

30:59

you can enjoy the best of both worlds. At

31:02

a price that won't break the left or

31:04

right

31:04

bank, So find what you love and

31:06

love what you find only at total wine

31:08

and more. Cheers. Thanks

31:11

to our friends at total wine and

31:13

more for today's spirited

31:15

debate. Mike Pence,

31:18

former vice president, and this might matter

31:20

future presidential candidate, thought,

31:22

you know, he better search through his residence

31:25

to see if, like, Trump and Biden had classified

31:27

documents Litman behold, he had about twelve.

31:30

Let me just start with this. What is the

31:32

significance of Pence's

31:34

being part of this now and of

31:36

of the discovery of stuff at his residence?

31:39

In the whole, like, mess of

31:41

special councils and Trump and Biden

31:43

and the political war

31:45

of words over the different

31:48

actors.

31:49

I think one thing that I learned

31:51

about when I was looking at the

31:53

issue of criminality, Trump,

31:55

and the Mar a Lago documents investigation, is

31:58

that if the justice department were

32:00

to ever bring a case

32:02

against someone like Trump for the Mar

32:05

a Lago documents, it

32:07

wouldn't just be that the the justice

32:09

department would have to feel that they could prove

32:11

it beyond reasonable doubt and survive

32:14

appeals and all that stuff that we usually

32:16

hear about a case. But that some former

32:18

prosecutors and and and legal

32:20

minds think that the justice department would

32:22

need to be able to explain it to the country.

32:25

Would need to be able to say to the country, look,

32:28

we are doing something extraordinary. We

32:30

know we're doing something extraordinary. And

32:33

it is so important that is why we're doing

32:36

that the public would be able to need to

32:38

understand and appreciate that.

32:41

And I think that every time

32:43

there's another example of

32:45

someone else who did this. And look, the

32:47

facts between Johnson Biden

32:50

and Trump are very, very different. But

32:52

I think that to the average person, every

32:55

time that something like this happens, making

32:58

the argument to the American people just becomes

33:00

more difficult. I think that it

33:02

becomes more difficult for the justice department

33:05

to bring charges against Trump because they would

33:07

have to say to the public, look, we are taking

33:09

this, and I think that a lot of people in the public

33:11

would say, hold on, Is this what Pence

33:13

and Biden did? Look, it's

33:15

not what Pence and Biden did, but

33:18

I think that there's that public aspect

33:20

to it that it's just a

33:22

hugely complicated factor that is just

33:24

another reason why bringing

33:27

charges against the former president who would

33:29

be running for president again It's just a

33:31

really really difficult thing that I think that

33:33

that not everyone

33:34

appreciates. That's funny because

33:36

I sort of saw it as the opposite.

33:38

That is there was this

33:40

very, I thought, specious idea

33:43

of the equivalency, but now

33:45

Pence is a random guy And

33:47

by the way, they've asked now have the archives

33:49

for former vice presidents and presidents

33:51

to check. There is no reason that

33:53

the prom doesn't extend to senators, former

33:56

senators, staffers, executive brand

33:58

staffers, etcetera. And I

34:00

thought what it drove home, you know, Pence

34:03

is just a random person for these

34:05

purposes is that this happens a

34:08

lot and it's completely kind of

34:10

inadvertent. They just happen to show

34:12

up at your house as night and day different

34:15

from what's being alleged

34:17

with Trump, and it puts the sort of

34:20

path to Trump charges. It

34:22

makes it more easy

34:24

for the department. But look, maybe you're right.

34:26

Do you think though that pants is gonna

34:28

get similar treatment, possibly

34:30

a special council because he's gonna run for president

34:33

or a criminal investigation. To

34:35

me, what it shows is there shouldn't have been

34:37

a criminal investigation of Biden.

34:39

There shouldn't be one of

34:40

patents. And Trump, it's just like

34:42

night and day. It demonstrates something that

34:44

I've warned about for a long time through

34:46

the Trump years, which is that one

34:49

of the distortions that we get because

34:51

so many people who talk about these issues are lawyers

34:53

by training or boy by career,

34:56

is that we tend to overemphasize

34:58

in the Trump world, the things that are illegal, to

35:00

the things that are wrong. And

35:03

again, again, again, we've discovered that some of things

35:06

that are Trump actors that are technically illegal

35:08

are not the wrongest things he's done, and

35:10

many of the wrongest things he's done are not technically

35:12

illegal. I mean, we will find out whether

35:14

it's illegal for the president to call the secretary

35:17

of state and say, I need you to move ten thousand

35:19

votes. I'm suspecting we discovered

35:21

that that conversation was not illegal. No

35:23

one ever thought to write down a law against

35:25

such an action because who would ever do

35:28

such a parable and goofy thing.

35:31

And again and again in the Trump years,

35:33

A lot of things that he did were abuses

35:35

of presidential power for selfish ends in

35:37

ways that are politically and ethically and morally

35:39

shocking, but are not technically legal. And then they'd

35:41

stumble over foreign agent registration things

35:44

and classification laws that

35:46

are yeah. Those are real laws. But

35:49

these laws are meant deal with. And the classification

35:51

laws are meant to deal with people around the cusp

35:53

between reasonably

35:56

careless and grossly careless. With

35:58

the idea of maybe also occasionally trapping

36:00

the compromised foreign agent. But

36:02

the idea that of deal dealing with a

36:04

presidential scofflaw The system

36:06

isn't written for that, and criminal law is

36:08

not really the tool. And once again,

36:10

we are confronting the criminal law is a

36:12

pretty weak tool against a

36:15

president who doesn't respect the

36:17

constitutional

36:17

system. Howard Bauchner: I think, Merrick Garland, look,

36:20

in a way he's a very predictable person.

36:22

He has always kind of had

36:24

no matter what the politics around the DOJ

36:26

and certainly there are many many people

36:28

in his ear. He's always kind of said

36:30

that, you know, he's gonna do everything to distance

36:33

kind of the department from them politics and

36:35

trying to keep the justice department

36:37

from being accused of basically everything

36:40

that we've accuse the Trump justice

36:42

department, so political bias, etcetera.

36:44

And he's probably, in my mind,

36:46

overcorrected with some of the kind of outsiders

36:49

that he's brought in, but I think he's in

36:51

between a rock and a hard place. In some ways,

36:53

he has to do something if he

36:55

wants to keep that consistent theme.

36:57

But, you know, I I think of this in terms area

36:59

of all of what's also happening in parallel.

37:02

We have, you know, John Durham who's

37:04

continuing to kind of handle the inquiry

37:06

into Russia's interference in the presidential election

37:09

and links to the Trump campaign. And then

37:11

he's got David Weiss, also Trump,

37:13

US attorney from Delaware thinking

37:15

about Hunter Biden and then Robert

37:18

Her. Right? You could imagine him adding

37:20

this to her's plate and saying,

37:22

this is kind of in addition to what you're doing.

37:25

Or Democrats calling for something

37:27

separate. He has always

37:29

weathered the storms of all these kind

37:31

of political fallout moments. And

37:33

he's kind of kept his base. And I

37:36

think that's what Garland has done.

37:38

Whether people like it or not, within the DOJ

37:40

and around it, that's likely what he'll do. And

37:42

I I hate to say this. What occurred to

37:44

me when they when they found Pence's documents is

37:46

exactly what you said. I was like, my god, how

37:48

many documents, the cabinet members,

37:50

how many times I was in the White House before

37:52

it kinda West Wing became a skiff.

37:55

I mean, Who knows? Like, what I had in that box,

37:57

you know, someplace? So I think David's right.

37:59

Like, there's, you know, literally criminal obstruction

38:02

in the Mar a Lago matter to Pence's

38:04

lawyer is basically like, yeah, he didn't know

38:07

he had them and there's you feel like the two

38:09

are very different on the surface to

38:11

Merrick

38:11

Garland. They're not, and I think that's how he'll

38:13

treat it. There's a British show

38:16

about politics. I strongly recommend called the thick

38:18

of it. It has made specific writing and one of its

38:20

central characters is up is based on Alistair

38:22

Campbell, is the adviser to Tony Blair,

38:24

this incredibly creatively foul mouth character.

38:26

And at one point, the Alistair Campbell

38:28

character says and think this applies

38:30

to Merrick Garland. He says contemptuously or someone

38:33

to them. It isn't that this person is inside

38:35

the box. It's like, get inside the box. And

38:37

then once in the box, they build another box

38:39

inside that one, and they get into the second box.

38:42

And that I think is Merck Marlon's

38:44

Epidioff. He's the guy who's inside the box, inside

38:46

the box. But it's not really his job.

38:48

All these federal prosecutors,

38:51

you know, they can't save you. And what we can also

38:53

see is that that they themselves are the

38:55

problem. That's the whole point about this Durham bar things.

38:57

You have when you have people who do not

39:00

respect the laws of the United States

39:02

and the laws of gravity. I'm just like are completely

39:05

deluded and have that there

39:07

are opportunities for them to abuse

39:09

power. And the answer to that is not ever more

39:11

criminal law. The answer that is is inescapably

39:14

political. And yet, it's being

39:16

criminalized. And, you know, maybe this is

39:18

my experience as a prosecutor, but

39:20

it's not a casual thing to

39:22

initiate a criminal investigation.

39:25

I mean, you know, Pence and

39:28

Biden have sort of asked for it, but imagine

39:30

if it were instead you know, Jill

39:32

Biden or Ron Klein. And

39:34

by the way, I do think more documents

39:36

are gonna write how many people are

39:38

are scouring their, you know, sock drawers

39:41

now and if they find it, they sure better

39:43

turn it over because if it comes out in a few

39:45

years, it'll be defensible. But

39:48

I personal, and I'm a big admire of Marek

39:50

Garland's from way back. But he's

39:52

down the wrong path. You know, what Pence

39:55

did, what Biden did, is not

39:57

a matter for the criminal

39:58

law. And that's not a casual point.

40:00

But Harry, you're you're the lawyer.

40:03

Yeah. Based on -- Prosecutor. --

40:05

prosecutor based on

40:07

the logic of appointing a special counsel

40:09

for Biden. Why is

40:11

they're not a special counsel for Pence?

40:13

That's exactly right. And I think what

40:16

it shows is you can cut that in either way.

40:18

One is, well, I guess we're in for

40:20

a painting, in for a pound, in for a hundred

40:22

pounds, or it can be this

40:24

was a mistaken path. And

40:27

her is now there, but he really

40:29

ought to be under DOJ policy

40:32

moving very swiftly to exonerated charge

40:34

anyone who's been publicly identified.

40:37

He ought to be moving swiftly. I think for a lot

40:39

of reasons, he may not. So you're

40:41

right. I mean, Michael, agree with you except

40:43

to me what it demonstrates

40:46

is the problem of

40:49

having done this for Biden and

40:51

just in general of treating what

40:54

obviously to me is a policy issue.

40:56

This it's a poorest system and

40:58

it's dangerous when when documents

41:00

get out, something need to be done, but it's just

41:02

not a criminal law thing. I'll just

41:04

put it this way. You're right that

41:06

if it's a matter of straight sort of

41:08

treatment of like cases alike, we're looking

41:11

at special council and yet

41:13

this is the time I think to, you

41:15

know, draw the line. The operating

41:17

theory of the Biden presidency and probably of

41:19

Joe Biden person is that he can defeat

41:22

crazy ideas tossed in bad faith

41:25

by demonstrations of good faith. And

41:28

I think he's going to find out that's

41:31

not going to

41:31

work. In

41:32

fact, they don't care.

41:33

They don't care. And to the extent they care, they think

41:35

you're ishmael. I

41:36

think you're weak. Yeah.

41:38

Any compassion or even

41:40

display of caring is is just

41:42

inherent weakness? Not

41:44

to get, like, two I'm on a newspaper

41:46

report. I'm not supposed to be philosophical, but

41:48

it'll be very interesting to see in history

41:51

how the asymmetry of this

41:53

moment is ultimately resolved. You

41:55

know, it's like you have real completely

41:58

different worlds. And I'm

42:01

just fascinated to know how this

42:03

eventually is going to resolve

42:05

itself because it could go in

42:07

so many different directions. And

42:10

it just seems so disconnected. And

42:12

I I don't see how how they could

42:14

ever get connected. But the the idea

42:16

of Biden and the idea of Biden sort of

42:18

approaching things in a way that the people

42:20

that he's dealing with are not gonna go along

42:23

with

42:23

her, listen to. It's just a fascinating thing to

42:25

watch play out. Have you been in the

42:27

White House? How do you think they are toward

42:29

now? Garland. Is it like,

42:31

okay. You're giving us cover so we don't have to worry.

42:34

Is it like you'd goddamn boy scout? Pretty

42:36

right out of one of the

42:37

box. You know the latter, you think. Pretty oh,

42:39

I know it's the latter. I think there's an incredible

42:41

amount of frustration within DOJ,

42:43

I think we've heard, like, kind of the furblings

42:45

of it. But within White House, the legal

42:47

counsel, and I think that people

42:50

have always felt It's

42:52

exactly like Merrick Garland's overly

42:55

correcting. That's exactly how I've described it.

42:57

Like, when you look at these outside counsel.

43:00

One thing I wish we would take away is Democrats

43:02

from any playbook. It it doesn't need to be a

43:04

Republican playbook. It's just the playbook

43:06

you would use to win a Notre Dame

43:09

football game, do

43:11

not, like, play to the weaknesses of

43:13

your own team and the strengths of the other. That's all

43:15

we

43:15

do. Stand up and tell the truth maybe.

43:17

This is Michael's original point, but

43:19

I think if he appoints a special counsel,

43:21

which I sorely hope he doesn't

43:23

But if he does and that seems

43:26

to be the consensus here, then I think

43:28

you're right. It's all, wow, everybody's getting

43:30

criminally investigated and why did you go

43:32

against

43:32

Trump, etcetera. Maybe it does muddy

43:34

the waters a lot. I can't go without

43:36

saying that, like, maybe we need to be

43:38

understanding, like, what becomes classified in

43:41

the first place. Like, I'm not I'm

43:43

not saying that these classified materials

43:45

aren't appropriately classified, but,

43:48

man, I I have a gut feeling that, like,

43:50

there's some things in there. This is exactly, like,

43:52

kind of, with the Mar a Lago who saw

43:54

some of those documents. So I'm, like, why is

43:56

nobody talking about the fact that maybe we actually

43:59

need to kind of look at the president actual records act

44:01

and think about whether it's --

44:03

Yeah. -- it's definitely

44:04

part of the issue. Although, you

44:06

know, I'm just I just don't say

44:07

that. This stuff. I think that's the thing. American

44:10

public doesn't understand there's different levels

44:12

of security thresholds. And then, what

44:14

are we talking about here? And which of

44:16

these materials constitute the

44:18

kind of motives. I'm talking to a group of

44:20

people who know much more about law than I

44:22

do, but it does seem like, what is the

44:24

systemic issue here? Well,

44:27

it's a yeah. No. And how do you tighten it up?

44:29

And why does it happen? Very good questions.

44:31

And you can lay blame on Biden.

44:34

And pants, Litman over

44:36

into criminal land, it really gives

44:38

me as a former DOJ type,

44:40

the Heebi Jeebies. But speaking

44:43

of former DOJ types, and this has already

44:45

come out. David, you mentioned that you've been tweeting

44:47

about it all week. Blockbuster

44:50

report from the

44:52

New York Times about Barr

44:54

and John Durham. Where

44:57

to start? I'll continue in my

45:00

DOJ you know, role in DOJ

45:02

culture and say that some of the things in

45:04

there were really stunning

45:06

and in particular the resignation of

45:09

number two person Nora Danahee who

45:11

was married to the then US attorney

45:13

close with Durham. She did it in an old

45:15

school way, didn't talk, but that

45:18

I found really

45:19

unsettling. What did you

45:21

guys take as the biggest revelations

45:25

from the report? One of the

45:27

most startling was the way

45:29

the Barundura were working together. The

45:31

whole point to a special council is they're not supposed

45:33

to do that. That Bob hoping Crosby,

45:36

Galvanting, is stunning. Right? What what

45:38

the hell? And that they were drawn together,

45:40

I think, because they started with

45:42

when there's some allegation against Donald Trump. If

45:44

you start with the theory that he probably did

45:46

it, you may be wrong. But

45:48

if you start with the theory, no way would he

45:50

do it. Then you're certainly going to be

45:53

wrong. Because in the universe of things, you

45:55

you could imagine he did. He didn't do all of them,

45:57

but he's done a lot of them. And so they

45:59

started with this defective assumption

46:01

that, well, g, he must be innocent.

46:03

And then as all their theories for why

46:05

he's innocent collapse, and as they discover

46:08

on their own, even more evidence. Of

46:10

things that are troubling. Some of this is not specified.

46:12

This apparently explosive allegation that

46:14

the Italian government forwarded, and maybe it's a

46:16

true allegation, and maybe it's not They they

46:19

know that intelligence things don't pan out. Maybe

46:21

they don't know. It's nothing that wasn't real.

46:23

But they went to work to

46:25

stifle. The things that they didn't want

46:27

to know and to incredibly

46:29

unethical ways magnify the things they

46:31

did want to know. And those things collapse. So

46:34

Ultimately, no harm was done, but it

46:36

was just a massive perversion of justice,

46:39

gone into by people who both of them had

46:42

Fair reasonable records up

46:44

to that point, but the need to defend Donald

46:46

Trump, turn them into parodies,

46:49

or worse of of everything you don't want

46:51

a law enforcement officer of the United States to

46:53

be. Let me ask you this. So we've

46:55

got Durham's report to come. It

46:57

makes it a lot harder for him to issue

47:00

some, you know, a report that presumably is

47:02

tendentious in how it treats all

47:04

the accusations that he couldn't actually

47:06

make stick.

47:08

I mean, the only motivation to

47:10

do that story is to tell the story. You know,

47:12

we're not playing three-dimensional chess. We're just

47:14

trying to go and find out

47:16

what happened by closed doors, bring that

47:18

to life, and tell it, let the public figure out

47:20

whatever they they wanna figure out about

47:23

and that's sort of it. I think that

47:25

the story for May highlights

47:28

an issue that I don't think gets

47:31

enough appreciation, although might be a

47:33

little too inside baseball for the

47:35

average sort of American to totally

47:37

grasp, but there's sort of two

47:39

buckets of behavior that that

47:41

justice department actions or stuff

47:44

related to the presidency and

47:46

the justice department falling into. One is

47:48

obstructive acts. Those are

47:50

Donald Trump was accused

47:53

of trying to throw a sand in the gears of the investigation

47:55

to block the investigations. Of

47:58

him or his allies. We certainly

48:00

know those incidents very well from

48:02

the Mueller investigation. But

48:04

there's a whole different bucket of behavior.

48:06

And that is proactive uses

48:09

of the government's powers against

48:12

individuals or to further

48:14

political ends or this

48:17

is an example of that. This is the

48:19

sacred powers of the federal

48:22

government. For the federal government, can

48:24

do extraordinary things into individuals' lives.

48:26

And it's those powers being used

48:29

for reasons that on the face of

48:31

them don't look like

48:33

they're, you know, you can't just accept

48:35

that face value that they're following

48:37

the facts and the law in good

48:39

faith. Now at the end of the day,

48:42

I'm sure we'll learn more and more about

48:44

this investigation. But that

48:46

is why when Donald Trump was trying

48:48

to get the justice department to investigate his

48:51

enemies, I thought that that type

48:53

of behavior was significant in

48:55

a way that was different than trying to obstruct

48:57

things. Not that obstruction is Litman

48:59

issue. They're just different types

49:02

of things. And I just think it's even rare

49:04

to see the proactive use

49:06

of the government's

49:07

power. Let's bring this back to where

49:09

we started. We're almost out of time anyway.

49:12

So, David, you tweeted, it's

49:14

now going to be Jim Jordan's job to run

49:16

the cover up for the failed bar,

49:18

Durham, cover up, Joker and Piffy

49:20

as always. But, you know, this is now the

49:22

set of accusations now

49:24

kind of go to

49:26

the new House Republicans who

49:28

are gonna be recycling them.

49:30

Is that what we see even and even to the extent

49:32

they've been

49:33

discredited? So the star of the Trump

49:35

yours is, you see a man

49:37

backing out of a bank, pointing a gun,

49:39

bag of swag over a shoulder mask on

49:41

his face, stubble on his chin, And you think

49:43

that guy looks a lot like a bank robber to me.

49:46

And I'm going to withhold judgment. There may be

49:48

an innocent explanation, but he it looks a lot

49:50

like he just robbed that bank. But the problem is

49:52

the the bank robber's fans then say, uh-huh.

49:54

Uh-huh. This is the bank robber hooks.

49:56

And what we need to do is investigate why

49:58

you thought the gun with the bag of swag, was

50:00

a bankrupt. And you think, okay. Well, so

50:02

they had their first investigation of why

50:05

the people who saw the bag of swag thought so.

50:07

And it turned out well because the bank said swag

50:09

and it was political and money. That's why they

50:11

thought he was a bank robber. Okay. Okay. Well, now

50:13

we need a second order investigation of

50:15

the people proved that the bank robber was the bank

50:17

robber. And and this whole that

50:19

the people who are weaponizing the government,

50:21

are the people who say we need to investigate how why

50:24

you guys are weaponizing the

50:25

government. When you call that poor man with

50:27

a bag of swag, a bank robber.

50:29

Any final thoughts now about where this leads

50:31

or what it's sort of revealed about

50:34

DOJ this whole bar Durham

50:36

mess.

50:37

The only thing it'll say to me is that,

50:40

honestly, it's great. It just reaffirms

50:42

that everything we thought that Barr knew

50:44

or thought he knew about Trump and Russia

50:46

turned out to be true exactly about

50:48

the investigation itself. So I

50:51

I am completely, like, it feels like,

50:53

yeah, this is completely validated that

50:55

they had to build, you know, Durham had to build his

50:57

case on, like, some mid level, you

50:59

know, Democrat in the Clinton

51:01

campaign. Who overheard some gossip,

51:03

you know, by a toilet. I mean, it's exactly

51:05

what you would have expected. And to the extent

51:07

Durham is the new poster child for everything

51:10

Trump touches dies, this point

51:12

that Mike made, you know,

51:14

he's going down to the AG's

51:16

office three days a week and they're sipping

51:19

Scotch and I mean, by the way, Barr

51:21

is a pretty charming guy.

51:23

I've worked with him and seen it and and also

51:26

he used the attorney, Jen, and I think

51:28

that just meant a lot for

51:30

Durham, but it just turned his head

51:32

somehow. Both he and Barr,

51:35

the Trump administration, has not

51:37

been kind to the public legacies of.

51:39

Alright. We leave that there, but you're right. There's

51:41

more to come as including maybe they are

51:43

Farfetch and I don't think it's crazy in and

51:45

of itself that Barr assigned it to Durham.

51:48

That's sort of part of the problem with special

51:50

councils. They just you know, stumble onto

51:52

something and they're told to pursue it.

51:54

But what was exactly the Trump

51:57

accusation of financial propriety

51:59

that the Italians gave over? And what

52:01

happens with it, etcetera. Alright.

52:04

We are out of time except

52:06

for a a minute or two. For

52:08

our final feature of talking

52:11

five, we take a question from a listener

52:13

and each of us has to answer in five

52:15

words or fewer. Today's

52:17

question whether we like it or not,

52:20

Donald Trump is coming back to Facebook

52:22

and Twitter. What will his

52:24

first tweet B.

52:27

Five words or fewer

52:28

contestants, please. I'm gonna give the

52:30

most immediate thing that came to mind. It is five words.

52:32

I'm back, but just Let's say that

52:35

when that is literally what came to my

52:36

mind. Hopefully, he'll use it. Yeah. I

52:39

had thought you had said it was going to be what

52:41

should his first death. Yeah.

52:43

And what should it be? What it should be is,

52:45

I'm so sorry for everything.

52:49

But what it will be is I

52:51

was right about everything. Yeah. Excellent.

52:54

David stole mine. I

52:57

was right about everything. It was just

52:59

a a good easy

53:00

answer. It's always

53:01

bad to be after David from on these things.

53:03

I don't know. III trying

53:06

to get inside the mind of Donald Trump. Like,

53:09

I

53:09

mean, come on. That's not fair.

53:11

Alright. Fair enough. And

53:14

I'm going with

53:16

George Santos stand

53:18

up guy. Alright.

53:23

We are out of time for this one.

53:25

Thank you so much to Kavita, David,

53:28

and Michael, and thank you very much

53:30

listeners for tuning in to talking

53:32

fans. If you like what you've

53:34

heard, Please tell a friend to subscribe

53:36

to us on Apple Podcasts or

53:39

wherever they get their podcasts, and

53:41

please take a moment to rate and review

53:43

this podcast. You can also

53:46

now subscribe to us on YouTube

53:48

where we post daily video content,

53:51

breaking down legal developments in

53:53

the news. You can follow us

53:55

on Twitter at talking fence

53:57

pod, and you can look to see our

53:59

latest offerings on Patreon. Where

54:02

we post bonus discussions with national

54:04

experts about special topics

54:06

exclusively for supporters. This

54:09

past week, we posted a conversation with

54:11

Bruce Schneider about the implications

54:14

of the brave new world and

54:16

very powerful AI tool,

54:19

ChatGPT. Talking

54:21

fans is a completely independent production.

54:24

So if you like the work we do and the spirit,

54:26

moves you to port the show, joining

54:29

our Patreon for five dollars

54:31

a month is the best way to do it.

54:34

Submit your questions to questions

54:36

at talking feds dot com. Whether

54:39

it's for talking five or general

54:41

questions, about the inner workings

54:43

of the legal system for our sidebar

54:45

segments. Thanks for tuning

54:47

in, and don't worry, as

54:50

long as you need answers, the

54:52

feds will keep talking. Talking

54:55

feds is produced by Olivia Henriksen,

54:58

sound engineering by Matt Mercado.

55:01

Rosie Don Griffin and David Lieberman

55:03

are our contributing riders. Production

55:06

assistance by Laurel Faulkner, David

55:09

Litman, Emma Maynard and

55:11

Colenitano. Thanks

55:13

very much to Verdas for explaining

55:16

the copyright law for musical

55:18

comp positions and performances. Our

55:21

gratitude as always

55:24

to the amazing Philip Glass

55:26

who graciously lets us use his music.

55:29

Talking fans is a production of Delito

55:31

LLC. I'm Harry Litman. Talk

55:35

to you later.