2:00

long record of fraud

2:02

and dishonesty. This

2:04

week in Congress, we also learned details of

2:07

the deep involvement of Pennsylvania

2:09

member Scott Perry with the

2:11

Trump and company schemes to

2:13

steal the election. Yet

2:15

another reminder that to date, nobody

2:17

in Congress has faced repercussions for

2:20

their efforts in support of Trump's

2:22

attempted coup. And the

2:24

main focus in the country and

2:26

the world continued to be on

2:29

the Israel-Hamas war, where a seven-day

2:31

cessation of hostilities that produced the

2:33

return to Israel of

2:35

over 100 hostages ended. And

2:38

Israel resumed its military mission

2:40

to uproot Hamas from Gaza.

2:43

The resumption is certain to

2:46

increase the already substantial pressure

2:48

on Biden, posing the prospect

2:50

of straining to the breaking

2:52

point Israel's most important supporter

2:54

and arguably the most critical

2:57

figure in the war. To

3:00

analyze these blockbuster developments and

3:02

their implications for the angry

3:05

impassioned battles in the US

3:07

and around the world, we

3:10

welcome a terrific roundtable of

3:12

prominent guests. And they

3:14

are Senator Heidi Heitkamp,

3:17

the former Senator of North

3:19

Dakota, is now the Director

3:21

of the University of Chicago's

3:23

Institute of Politics, a CNBC

3:25

and ABC contributor, and the

3:27

co-founder of the One Country

3:30

Project, which helps Democrats reconnect

3:32

with rural voters. She held

3:34

a number of high-ranking positions

3:36

in North Dakota state government

3:38

before being elected in 2013

3:40

as North Dakota's first woman

3:43

senator. Thank you so much

3:45

for joining Talking Feds Today,

3:47

Senator Heitkamp. Thanks so much for having

3:49

me. Carol Lee, the

3:51

managing editor for Washington at

3:54

NBC News, where she has

3:56

worked since 2017. She

3:59

has covered the... White House for various

4:01

organizations since 2008. And

4:04

those organizations include the Wall Street

4:06

Journal and Politico. Carol also recently

4:09

served as the president of the

4:11

White House Correspondents Association. Carol, thanks

4:13

very much for returning to Talking

4:16

Fits. Thank you. Glad to be here. And

4:19

Charlie Sykes, the founder and

4:21

editor-in-large of The Bulwark,

4:23

where he hosts the Bulwark's

4:26

Daily Podcast, writes the daily

4:28

newsletter Morning Shot. And as

4:30

we were just discussing, fields,

4:32

multiple requests from people dying

4:35

to be on his show.

4:37

He is also the author of nine,

4:40

count of nine books, most recently,

4:43

How the Right Lost Its Mind.

4:45

Charlie, thanks as always for joining

4:47

us. Thank you. All

4:49

right. Some big news today, you

4:51

could say let's cover, you know, a

4:54

chunk of Trump. And then it's all,

4:56

I'm always happy to depart

4:58

from those topics and lots

5:01

happened in Congress. And so much has

5:03

happened around the world and in Israel

5:05

that I'd like to take that up

5:07

as well. So starting in

5:10

Trump land, the federal appeals

5:12

court in Washington, just this

5:14

morning, rejected Trump's motion to

5:16

dismiss the civil lawsuit against

5:19

him, linked to the January

5:22

6th, 2021 riot based

5:24

on his immunity argument. Okay.

5:27

It's a civil case brought by

5:29

a couple officers who were hurt

5:31

in the melee. But would

5:33

you expect it to have an

5:35

effect on Trump's efforts in the

5:37

criminal side where he's making immunity

5:40

arguments as well? I

5:43

thought about this, how overwhelming

5:45

it must be for

5:47

Trump and his lawyers to be

5:49

fighting a multi-front legal

5:52

war. And it

5:54

just got worse today in part

5:56

because the DC circuit

5:58

decision was unanimous. It's

6:00

not likely going to be reversed in

6:03

Bonk, although I think he will try.

6:05

And now the correlation between

6:08

this effort and the

6:10

criminal action that's being

6:12

pursued by Smith, I

6:14

think creates real hazard

6:17

for Donald Trump. And then think about

6:19

this, these plaintiffs led the effort, they

6:21

took it to court, but think of

6:24

all the people who were damaged on

6:26

January 6th, if there's culpability,

6:28

even a small amount

6:30

of culpability, the damages could be

6:33

overwhelming. And so this just adds

6:35

to the legal trouble. And I

6:37

think, you know, if I can

6:40

flip to the political aspect, I

6:42

just think that it's going to

6:44

reinforce Trump's absolute vision

6:47

that he needs to get reelected

6:49

for all of this to go

6:51

away. And what about this

6:53

on the political side? It's first and

6:55

foremost a legal ruling. He

6:57

can't hide behind his presidential

7:00

office because he was acting

7:02

as a candidate, not officially

7:04

as a president. But doesn't

7:06

that inform his

7:08

broader political argument about

7:11

the January 6th developments?

7:14

It seems like they may

7:16

not have made that determination about

7:19

whether he was acting in his

7:21

official capacity. They said it's

7:23

a factual discussion that needs

7:25

to be had in a

7:27

trier of fact and not in

7:30

a kind of summary fashion. Very

7:32

fair. In fact, let me put on my lawyer's head for

7:34

a moment and just say a couple of quick things about

7:36

it. As the senator says,

7:38

so three judges, one a George

7:41

W. Bush appointee, one a Trump

7:43

appointee, one an Obama appointee, the

7:45

chief judge, all three wrote opinions,

7:48

the Obama appointee for the court,

7:50

but they all endorsed a view

7:53

on the law. And Senator properly points

7:55

out they need more facts to see

7:57

how the standard applies, but they did

7:59

all. of view that stated a

8:01

kind of bright line between a

8:04

president acting as a political

8:07

candidate versus someone acting in

8:09

official capacity and they talked

8:11

about context mattering, a state

8:14

of the Union versus a

8:16

political rally. And while I agree, he'll

8:18

be able to develop the facts and

8:20

the civil suit really is now gonna

8:22

kind of go away from our view.

8:24

They'll work on this for maybe

8:27

years, but it does come home

8:29

to the criminal case because at least that

8:32

part of the criminal case that focuses on

8:34

January 6 itself, they'll have to decide on

8:37

the facts. But it does seem to me

8:39

that that distinction is very

8:41

much in play. Was he an

8:44

official president there or was he

8:46

acting to reelect himself? What

8:48

I was gonna say was to the Senator's

8:50

point is that this reinforces for former

8:52

President Trump the need to get reelected.

8:54

That that is the only way and

8:57

he said it as much himself that

8:59

all of this goes away. And what's

9:01

so interesting about that is he's

9:04

not only saying that out loud,

9:06

but he is it's motivating to

9:08

his supporters. So it's actually a

9:10

tactic that he and his campaign

9:12

can use to get people motivated

9:14

to go and vote for him.

9:16

Now there's this school of thought

9:18

that thinks, you know, as

9:20

this drags on and people pay closer attention, is

9:22

this gonna be too much chaos? That all remains

9:24

to be seen, but for now at least it's

9:27

a very motivating thing. It also makes him a

9:30

little just more, if it's possible, unpredictable

9:32

in the sense that it's really all

9:34

on the line here for him. And

9:36

so it's already expected to be a

9:38

very ugly race and there's been a

9:40

lot of things that are going to

9:42

be said and done. But

9:44

that hanging over all of this, the prospect

9:46

that if, you know, he

9:48

can't in another way get rid of

9:51

all these legal troubles, that winning reelection

9:53

is the past, then it just motivates

9:55

him to do more and really double

9:57

down on some of the things that

10:00

we've seen and however this plays into the

10:02

Jack Smith case, if he can delay that

10:04

even further because of these kinds of

10:06

developments, that's also plays in

10:08

his favor politically. Are

10:11

you saying that it actually could

10:13

serve as a motivating force

10:15

for his base on the argument of,

10:17

guys, look at me, I

10:19

and all of you now are really in

10:21

trouble here. You've got to come out and

10:24

make this go away. Absolutely. Look

10:26

what the Biden Justice Department has done to

10:28

me. Look at all of these people who

10:30

are out to get me. I mean, it's

10:32

all of the arguments that he's already made

10:34

and has been making for years now. But

10:36

it's adding that extra element of here's

10:39

how we stop them. You need to get

10:41

out, you need to vote, tell everybody to vote, get

10:43

your friends to vote. Like what all of that it

10:45

really stirs it up. It's I'm

10:47

your martyr. You need to protect me.

10:49

And I'll protect you as it were. I

10:51

agree with all of that. But also it makes

10:54

him even more dangerous than he was before because

10:56

it makes him desperate. Someone who has

10:58

his personal freedom on the line is

11:00

going to do and say things and

11:02

foment things that a normal presidential candidate

11:04

wouldn't. And this is, again, a reminder

11:06

that he's not a normal presidential campaign

11:08

and the stakes are not normal. I

11:10

am not a lawyer here, but I

11:12

was really fascinated by this ruling because

11:15

I do think that it has real

11:17

significant implications both for the Jack Smith

11:19

case, but also for the politics because

11:21

of the scheduling issue. And let me

11:23

just explain, I mean, and Harry, you

11:25

know more about this than I do,

11:27

but Judge Chutkin seems committed to go

11:30

ahead with an early trial. I mean,

11:32

this is the one that might actually

11:34

go to trial in March. The big

11:36

question mark hanging over that case, as

11:39

I understand, is when she rules on

11:41

this immunity question, there'll be an immediate

11:43

appeal on that question to

11:45

the circuit court and maybe all the way

11:48

up to the Supreme Court. And then the

11:50

question becomes, will they

11:52

stay the actual trial

11:54

while they litigate the immunity issue?

11:57

If the immunity issue is resolved,

12:00

or seems this clear to

12:03

the appeals court, I think that makes it less

12:05

likely. So I'm kind of throwing these things out

12:07

here. I'm number one, I mean, just in terms

12:09

of the politics and what it means for the

12:11

future of the country, the desperation level of Trump

12:13

world has just notched up a little bit. This

12:16

may have significant implications, and Harry, you tell

12:18

me what you think, for the scheduling on

12:20

all this, because we're seeing this kabuki dance.

12:23

Who's gonna go first? You

12:25

know, what trial dates are open? You can

12:27

tell that Fulton County is watching Eileen Cannon.

12:29

They're all watching what's going on up in

12:32

DC. And I

12:34

think that obviously one of the big, most

12:36

relevant questions of 2024 is, will

12:39

these trials take place before the election?

12:42

Will there be convictions before the election?

12:44

What happens to these cases, in fact,

12:46

if they are not resolved until after

12:48

the election? All kinds of these questions.

12:50

So this does seem like a BFD

12:52

to me. It's a really,

12:55

really important and trenchant point. Let

12:57

me talk about on the legal

12:59

frame. First, I totally agree with

13:01

all three of you. He's now

13:03

like a wounded bull in the

13:05

arena, with, you know, fumed

13:08

from the nostrils, all the more desperate.

13:10

On the timing, which is everything,

13:13

you're right. So there are all

13:15

these pretrial motions he's filing everywhere.

13:17

Immunity is special, because immunity is

13:19

a right not to stand trial.

13:21

So if it's decided against you,

13:24

you can normally appeal it immediately,

13:26

whereas everything else, you have to

13:28

wait for a conviction. Now

13:30

here, Judge Chutkin, he's made his

13:33

big immunity motion, and unlike most

13:35

of his trash,

13:37

throw against the wall, see what sticks.

13:39

It's a decent motion. And

13:41

it's been pending with Judge Chutkin,

13:43

whom I think has been awaiting

13:46

just this decision, and we can

13:48

expect her to issue an opinion

13:50

denying immunity quickly. Then

13:52

he will appeal. But I actually think

13:54

this is a sign that the court,

13:57

again, George W. Bush appointee,

13:59

Trump, appointee, Obama appointee.

14:02

Overall, the law has been laid down

14:04

here. The lines have been drawn. And

14:07

I think they'll make quick work of

14:09

it and actually decide it on the

14:11

merits. So the question of a stay

14:13

will then be, what does the Supreme

14:15

Court do? Do they take

14:18

up the motion? And while they do

14:20

stay things, that would be logical

14:22

if they're taking up the motion because you

14:24

don't want to go through everything only to

14:26

find out he had a right not to

14:28

stand trial. This is fresh off

14:30

the presses. And my speculation,

14:32

I have thought about this before, is they

14:34

don't do that. But if they do, and

14:36

I think we are talking about a couple

14:39

months from now, it is

14:41

equivalent to totally inserting themselves into

14:43

the middle of the presidential election.

14:45

I think the fact that, as

14:48

you mentioned, Senator, a

14:50

Trump appointee joins, has his own

14:52

opinion, makes it less likely. But

14:55

that will be the big wild card.

14:57

But not just the merits,

14:59

but on timing and delay, it's

15:01

a really bad day for Trump

15:04

because it augurs at least the

15:06

distinct possibility that this one trial

15:08

will not only start because

15:11

Fulton County might start, but start

15:13

and be finished. And there be

15:15

a judgment before the election. Yeah,

15:18

I want to add something to this

15:20

because I recently chaired a panel with

15:23

Ty Cobb and a number of legal

15:25

scholars on, where is Trump's head and

15:27

what is he most afraid of? And

15:30

their argument was he's most afraid

15:32

of civil liability. He really

15:34

thinks he can beat the reasonable doubt

15:37

standard, the standard of proof is different

15:39

in civil cases than it is in

15:41

criminal cases. And he also

15:43

is really protective of his money. And

15:46

think about the extent of the

15:48

damages that would result

15:50

from a determination of

15:53

culpability here by Trump civil

15:55

responsibility. And so I just

15:57

think that this has an...

16:00

extra kind of punch

16:02

for him because he's always thought

16:04

he's going to beat the criminal

16:06

cases. He's more worried about

16:08

the civil cases because the standard of

16:10

proof is different. And to

16:12

that point, the fraud case brought by

16:15

the New York AG is going to

16:17

complete within a couple of weeks

16:19

and he may have chances on appeal, but he's

16:21

going to get shellacked at

16:24

the trial level for a lot

16:26

of money. Alright, huge development, but

16:28

I do want to canvas others.

16:30

So a couple of big evidentiary

16:33

points. And I want to start

16:35

with Mike Pence, which I think

16:37

is both big and very interesting.

16:40

We learn of these details that

16:42

Pence actually decided not to preside at

16:44

the January 6 certification as apparently Trump

16:47

had been urging him to do until

16:49

his son, you know, put steel back

16:51

in his spine by saying, dad, you

16:54

took an oath. And

16:56

then there's just a lot of

16:58

revelations about his telling Trump actually

17:00

to cite the famous comma. You know, I

17:03

don't, I don't think you've got any play

17:05

here, which the, in his book was, you

17:07

know, I don't think you have

17:09

any play here. The importance of a comma. Anyway,

17:11

your thoughts about Pence's

17:14

testimony, you know, what

17:16

it'll feel like at trial, but

17:19

also politically, the vice president, loyal

17:21

servant, making clear that

17:23

some of Trump's defenses really

17:25

are all wet. Well,

17:28

I mean, one thing is Christmas day.

17:30

I can't believe, I mean, what a Christmas

17:32

day. Defense household, right? You know, they

17:34

were, that was like, no one had

17:37

anything else to do, I guess. So

17:39

fun times on Christmas 2020, that

17:42

phone call, but politically, it's just

17:44

not going to change anything for,

17:46

in terms of Trump supporters. I

17:48

mean, you saw Pence, he didn't

17:50

even make it past the

17:53

third debate. I mean, he's clearly making

17:55

a play for history and putting

17:57

this out there. The leaks are incredible.

18:00

now that more people have their hands on

18:02

some of this information. And he

18:04

has a very compelling story to tell.

18:06

So I think there's a political arena

18:09

where this isn't going to change the

18:11

minds of people who support former president

18:13

Trump. And then there's a legal arena,

18:16

which I'm not fully equipped to analyze,

18:18

but you guys are, where maybe it'll

18:20

carry more weight. So I'm

18:22

absolutely fascinated by the whole Mike Pence

18:25

story, you know, on so many different

18:27

levels. He was such a slavish loyalist

18:29

throughout the presidency and then did find

18:31

his backbone. Also this story

18:33

of deciding not to show up on

18:35

January 6th and then having his mind

18:37

change, which is the one new new

18:40

element this week. You know,

18:42

just a reminder how contingent history often is,

18:44

how it really comes down to these things.

18:46

And, you know, I was thinking back to

18:48

that Christmas thing, what was I doing that

18:50

Christmas day? What did I think was going

18:53

to happen? And I think some of

18:55

us were somewhat alarmed at the possibility

18:57

that the things could go sideways. In

18:59

retrospect, it was a much closer thing

19:01

than any of us imagined at the

19:03

time. I, of course, agree with Carol

19:05

that this is not going to change

19:07

the minds of the Trump base, but

19:09

it once again raises the question, what

19:11

will Republicans like Mike Pence do

19:13

and say in 2024? What

19:15

role will they play? Because we

19:18

have this extraordinary moment where

19:20

we have hyper partisanship. But

19:23

has there ever been a campaign in

19:25

which there have been so many people

19:27

from within the president's own inner circle

19:30

who are saying this

19:32

guy is unfit for office. He is a danger

19:35

to the country. You can have Liz

19:37

Cheney out there. You're going to have

19:39

his former attorney generally, his former chief

19:41

of staff, his former national security adviser.

19:44

I mean, you just keep running it

19:46

down. There's no historical parallel. So

19:48

far that hasn't broken through so far

19:50

that hasn't changed the dynamic. But it

19:53

is going to be interesting. Are they

19:55

going to be making more

19:57

public statements? Is Mike Pence now going to take

19:59

a higher? Profile and saying I'm

20:01

not running for president. I have no political

20:03

future whatsoever. This is what I owe my

20:05

country I'm gonna say this I don't know whether they're going to

20:07

do it It would be compelling

20:10

to do a montage of all the

20:12

people who sat in the Oval Office

20:14

With Donald Trump who then look in the camera

20:16

and say people do not do this You do

20:19

not want this man back in power again, right?

20:21

So my colleagues at NBC actually did that

20:23

story a few I mean maybe a couple

20:25

of months ago and went and talked to

20:27

the entire cabinet and obviously there was a lot of

20:29

turnover So there was it was not just one

20:31

set of cabinet officials and none of them Endorsed

20:34

him. Yeah, isn't that amazing and supposedly it

20:36

was always like that behind the scenes But

20:38

can we Terry for just a moment and

20:40

I was gonna ask you about this senator

20:42

on Charlie's contingency

20:44

point my take home was

20:48

Holy cow, we came close because

20:50

Trump's basic play here It wasn't

20:52

necessary for violence it but it

20:54

was first and foremost for chaos

20:57

and talk about chaos It comes January

20:59

6th the guy who the Constitution of

21:01

the United States 12th Amendment says shows

21:03

up and does the vote. Oh He's

21:07

not here now. It looks as

21:09

if senator Grassley is now stepping

21:11

up We've got like a few

21:13

hours until the vote is just

21:15

scut on how easy at that

21:18

point It might have been for

21:20

Grassley or member to say there's real doubt

21:22

here We better send it back to the

21:24

states and as Donald Trump had said already

21:28

Just just get it back to the

21:30

states and my Congress members will do

21:32

the rest, you know 25 states for

21:34

Republicans at that point so it really

21:36

seems to me, you know a parallel

21:38

universe not very far from ours where

21:41

Man, it could have been Otherwise,

21:44

you know, we really kind of came

21:47

closer than we knew in a way What

21:49

would have happened if Pence just hadn't showed

21:51

up on the six Grassley presides, etc So

21:53

if you have thoughts about that, I

21:55

wasn't surprised by it because I know Chuck

21:58

Grassley and remember Chuck actually

22:00

tweeted that I'll be presiding because

22:03

chances are showing up. So

22:05

I don't think anyone should be surprised. I don't

22:07

think it makes my pants look very

22:09

good because he had to be talked

22:11

off the wall because obviously he said,

22:13

my friend, what he really was

22:15

saying is my political future because

22:17

I know I can't infuriate the

22:20

mega crowd. And so proof

22:22

of and courage, sometimes it takes a while for

22:24

people to get there, but apparently

22:26

he did. But I think for a lot

22:28

of us who lived that time, the

22:31

20 early years, and you saw him

22:33

go to chiefs of staff and you

22:35

saw him go through secretaries of defense,

22:37

you saw him go through secretaries of

22:40

state, this is not a surprise. What

22:42

I would say is all those people that

22:45

Carol was talking about who may line up,

22:47

the John Kelly's and I could list some

22:49

other folks that haven't been mentioned yet who

22:51

may come to the front. Trump's

22:54

answer is, well, if you thought I was

22:56

so bad, why did you work for me? And

22:58

so he's got an answer for all of this.

23:01

And I don't think it's particularly persuasive

23:03

to the magic crowd. It may be

23:05

persuasive to moderates who

23:08

will decide the election in states

23:10

like Missouri or Michigan and Wisconsin,

23:12

but for a lot of people,

23:14

it's too little too late. Close

23:17

out question. Carol, you said twice

23:19

we're in this jujitsu

23:21

dynamic where literally every piece

23:23

of bad news for Trump

23:25

in your view, or it

23:28

can be seen as

23:30

good news in the sense that

23:32

it just reinforces the high stakes

23:34

of 2024, maybe

23:36

more motivates the Trump

23:38

base to see what's on

23:40

the line, etc. Is that

23:42

basically everybody's view here

23:44

that good news is bad news,

23:47

as it were? I think that there

23:49

is a theory that is staffed by a thousand

23:51

cuts. Eventually, the folks

23:53

who just don't want chaos,

23:55

but the polls don't bear that out. And

23:58

I think about this. court

24:00

in New York basically said there was

24:02

evidence that he raped someone. And

24:05

it hasn't had any effect. So you

24:07

can take all of the other stuff,

24:09

immunity and should he take his papers

24:11

home. And you know that's not personal to

24:14

people. But accusing someone

24:16

and having it proven in a court of

24:18

law that you are and have someone

24:20

who sexually assaulted someone, then

24:23

hasn't had any impact. So it's hard

24:25

to see how any of these

24:28

things are much less approachable

24:30

by the average voter. Certainly the

24:32

mega voter will have an effect.

24:35

It occurs to me, Harry, that I'm

24:37

about to say something that is that

24:39

is weirdly contrarian, because I think we've

24:41

been so beaten down by this that

24:43

it's like nothing matters. Everything terrible makes

24:45

him stronger. And I certainly understand

24:47

that. And that's what the polls would say. So to

24:50

say, I still think that there's

24:52

a political downside to being a convicted

24:54

felon feels like it's contrarian

24:56

this moment, that somebody who is

24:59

led out of a courtroom in

25:01

ankle bracelets is probably not a

25:03

good look for a presidential candidate,

25:05

that there might be some negative

25:08

consequences to being convicted in a federal

25:10

court by a jury of his peers.

25:12

And this has now become, oh, you're

25:14

so naive. And they can wait, wait,

25:16

wait. I mean, I know that things

25:18

are weird that we are on Earth

25:21

2.0. But is it possible that we

25:23

haven't completely passed the reality veil that

25:25

a trial for sedition

25:27

and racketeering and rape might

25:29

actually be a

25:32

bad thing? So there was something

25:34

in the NBC's most recent poll

25:36

that showed head to head of

25:39

former president and president Biden. Biden

25:41

was trailing and all that.

25:43

But the only place

25:46

where it shifted was if the

25:48

former president Trump was convicted

25:50

and that there was a shift

25:52

in how voters viewed and

25:55

the numbers changed. That's our poll. It's

25:57

obviously like very early and all of

25:59

that. But there was an attitude

26:01

shift in voters based on, you know,

26:03

he's facing all this stuff But then

26:05

once he's convicted they feel a little

26:07

differently Remember is

26:09

the guy who's never been above 50%

26:12

and there are really two kinds of

26:14

Trump supporters there's the Absolute

26:16

hardcore Maguides whom we're all positing the worse

26:19

it gets for him the stronger their appeal

26:21

But there is 10% of his 46% or

26:23

whatever That

26:27

might be persuadable if only on

26:29

the theory of can we just

26:32

get past this and it wouldn't

26:34

take that many to peel off

26:36

But what a remarkable sort of

26:38

political dynamic we're in that I mean,

26:40

it seems to me starting from what access

26:42

Hollywood people on the other side have seen

26:45

oh, well now he's done Oh, well now

26:47

he's done and you know, he has

26:49

more than nine lives Charlie the

26:51

other point about this your point

26:53

about timing of all this litigation You

26:56

have to look at the primary timing and

26:59

momentum that comes the conditions

27:01

if they do have an effect Will come

27:03

too late for him to

27:05

not secure the Republican nomination

27:08

No, I mean I keep trying to think about what's

27:10

gonna happen here in my hometown of Milwaukee next fall

27:13

Will Donald Trump actually show up wearing an ankle

27:15

bracelet and I have this dark Fantasy

27:18

of it's not a fantasy. I think it's

27:20

just dystopian of Donald Trump stepping out from

27:22

behind the podium pulling up his pants leg

27:25

Showing the ankle bracelet and saying I

27:28

wear this as a badge of honor I wear this for

27:30

you and the crowd goes nuts But

27:32

again this election will be decided

27:34

and we all know how it's going to be

27:37

decided It'll be decided in what you know,

27:39

seven to nine swing states by suburban voters

27:41

And there's nothing about this that strikes

27:43

me as being particularly helpful for him

27:46

to get back the voters that did

27:48

not support him in 2020

27:50

how many voters I want to I want to see that focus group

27:53

where the voters who voted Against Donald

27:55

Trump in 2020 and for Joe Biden

27:57

say yes, but you know Having

28:00

seen all of these trials now, I'm

28:02

more inclined to vote for Donald Trump.

28:04

I just don't see that dynamic. Although

28:07

the counter dynamic is always

28:10

willing to vote for Joe Biden and give

28:12

him a chance, I don't like his leadership.

28:15

There's a different dynamic now because Joe

28:17

Biden's been president and you have

28:19

a comparison factor. Yeah. And

28:22

one of the interesting things is that

28:24

you have former President Trump who benefits

28:26

by who his opponent is, right? President

28:29

Biden and President Biden, whose whole entire

28:31

theory of his getting reelected is that

28:34

he benefits based on who his opponent

28:36

is. And people, you know, we all know

28:38

don't like either of them. And so it's

28:41

not like if people are looking

28:43

at the choice, you see it in focus

28:45

groups, they think, well, the economy is not

28:47

as good and well, they're, yeah, is that

28:49

but and they don't necessarily want to vote for

28:51

President Biden either. Got very 2016 vibes there. And

28:55

I have to say that enter the

28:57

dynamic of reproductive rights, because

29:00

if you're going to keep suburban women who

29:02

may have gone to Biden, aren't

29:05

satisfied with the leadership, but

29:08

our choice voters. And

29:10

so I don't think you can

29:12

take choice out of or reproductive rights

29:14

out of this dynamic politically. Although

29:17

possibly also add in Israel,

29:19

which we'll be talking about

29:21

shortly, what a complicated brew.

29:24

Right. There's so much else

29:26

happening, including Senator in

29:28

Congress, which have a totally

29:31

historic day, the House

29:33

votes by a three to one margin

29:35

with 100 Republicans supporting

29:38

to expel George

29:41

Santos. But let me

29:43

just ask you, Senator,

29:45

for starters, because one of the

29:47

defenses of Santos was

29:50

this is a bad precedent.

29:52

There's only been five before him, and

29:54

he's the first who wasn't either convicted

29:57

of a crime or a member of

29:59

the Confederacy. Do you fear

30:01

this as a precedent

30:04

or given the ethics report

30:06

and the mind boggling breadth

30:08

and depth of fraudulent conduct?

30:10

Do you think it's sui

30:12

generis and it's just fine?

30:15

I would tell you honestly, I would not have voted

30:17

to excel. I think it is

30:19

a bad precedent. I think just like,

30:21

I know, I mean, we're impeaching Biden

30:23

because Trump was impeached. Now, I happen

30:26

to think there was legitimate grounds for

30:28

impeachment of Trump both times, but now

30:30

it's kind of like we lowered the

30:33

bar. So this is going to become

30:35

a political tactic. He had already

30:37

said he's not running for reelection. And

30:39

I think this was driven more by

30:41

Republican moderates needing to have a stake

30:44

in the ground. I'm not, you know,

30:46

a partisan. I'm going to pull the

30:48

risks out of corruption. And I just

30:50

think it's a bad precedent. I wouldn't

30:52

have voted to re-rule them. I

30:54

mean, once the vote was stewarded, it is

30:56

true. These hundred Republicans, were they going to

30:59

want to defend George Santos? You know, it's

31:01

the kind of dynamic that once it looks

31:03

like it's going to pass, a lot more

31:06

people vote for. Carol or Charlie, what do

31:08

you think about that? Well, the thing

31:10

that I was struck by is that there's no

31:13

guide for what behavior rises

31:15

to the level. And so

31:18

I agree with the senator. We've

31:20

already seen things that are, you know,

31:22

very rare and historic and don't happen

31:24

very often in our government get turned

31:26

into these like, Oh, it's Wednesday. Let's

31:28

just like, teach somebody or something. I

31:30

don't know. Let's like do an impeachment

31:32

inquiry, whatever. It's you can see this

31:34

taking on a life of its own.

31:36

And I haven't checked my phone since

31:39

we've been talking, but, you

31:41

know, you can envision for President

31:43

Trump saying, well, so and so said this

31:45

about me. And so they should be expelled.

31:47

And then the Republicans have to go through

31:49

the exercise that we've seen them go through

31:52

to try to please

31:54

the former president because he said something. And

31:56

so it just feels

31:58

very like it's. territory.

32:01

Whatever the standard is, sort of like you

32:03

know recognizing pornography when you see it, I

32:05

mean George Santos, you look at him and

32:07

go okay yeah that's the kind of person

32:09

that we ought to throw out of here.

32:12

I mean it's hard to get past the

32:14

squalid details here. It does take two-thirds vote

32:16

to expel so it's not something that can

32:18

be done on a strictly partisan basis, but

32:20

what I'm fascinated by is a point that

32:22

Adam Kinzinger made. He wrote on his sub-stack,

32:24

he said, a liar fraud,

32:26

money launderer, indicted hanger-honor is

32:28

expelled from Congress. Well

32:30

a liar fraud, money launderer, indicted

32:32

hanger-honor is reading the GOP

32:35

race for president. This is not a conundrum

32:37

at all, in fact the feature of today's

32:39

GOP. So here you have Republicans saying okay

32:41

yeah we know we can't have a total

32:43

crook and a liar like George Santos you

32:45

know in our in our midst and yet

32:47

each and every one of them is gonna

32:49

turn around and support Donald Trump for the

32:51

presidency. I mean it's one of those interesting

32:53

moments. So you compare yeah George Santos is

32:55

thrown out of Congress you know facing 23

32:59

indictments, is that right 23 indictments?

33:01

23 counts yeah which may not

33:03

increase the FS Committee was yet

33:05

new stuff. Yeah well and there's

33:08

Donald Trump with 91 felony counts

33:10

and the same people are saying

33:12

yeah this is completely disqualifying are

33:14

like yeah we can't hold Donald

33:16

Trump to that. So that was

33:18

an interesting moment, was also an

33:20

interesting moment watching the entire Republican

33:22

House leadership vote to keep George

33:24

Santos in office. I figured they

33:26

were triangulating all of this but

33:28

it was an ugly moment. It

33:30

narrows the Republican majority. This is like a

33:33

side note but we keep thinking like well

33:35

are they going to get their act together

33:37

the Republicans are they going to become thus

33:39

dysfunctional. I mean what if Kevin McCarthy

33:41

now chooses at this moment to say I am

33:44

so bitter, f all you guys,

33:46

I'm also quitting Congress before Christmas. I

33:49

don't know what the math is

33:51

right now but suddenly Mike Johnson's

33:54

majority becomes really really narrow

33:56

here. I suppose they dodge a bullet

33:58

by taking a little bit of that. the clown show

34:00

out, but they are nowhere close to closing

34:02

the circus that we're going to see over

34:04

the next year and a half. Can

34:07

I ask you guys to take this up just

34:09

from the raw politics of Mike Johnson?

34:12

You know, he faked his claim. He lost this one.

34:14

He's already inspired

34:16

the ire of the

34:19

apparently all-powerful MAGA right.

34:22

And as Charlie says, just the numbers,

34:24

it's one fewer for him. How

34:26

are things looking for him after today? Well,

34:29

one of the things that he did was he

34:31

said he wasn't going to vote to expel, but

34:33

he told his members that they should vote however

34:36

they felt their conscience should let them

34:38

vote. This was a big deal, obviously,

34:40

but this really significant test are going to

34:42

be in January and

34:44

in February when he has to

34:46

thread these needles that none of

34:48

his predecessors have easily thread when

34:51

it comes to spending, keeping the government open

34:53

and all of those things. The other thing

34:55

we're going to see politically is a

34:57

very expensive, very hard fought

35:00

special election that could give some

35:02

preview of what the dynamics

35:04

and battle lines are going to be in

35:06

2024 in New York for his seat. And

35:09

people are going to spend a lot of money. There's going to

35:11

be a lot of candidates. And that's something that we will

35:14

see. The governor has 10 days to set

35:16

a date or and then it's like 78 to 80 days. So

35:19

after that, the election has to be held. And

35:22

so that's going to happen in the middle of

35:24

all of that. And so there's a lot here

35:26

politically. And for the speaker, you've

35:28

had this honeymoon and that

35:31

seems to be eroding a little

35:33

bit day by day. And it's

35:35

really going to be once everybody gets through

35:37

the holiday cheer, it's going to be

35:40

really hard for him. I

35:42

envisioned that he has like the

35:44

scales in his office and he

35:46

puts one on the side of the

35:49

right and then says, oh, no, I need

35:51

to keep the moderates happy. So we're going

35:53

to hold the boat on expulsion of Santos.

35:56

But now I need to put something over

35:58

here. So we're going to. allow

36:00

the impeachment inquiry into Biden to

36:02

go forward. And so I think,

36:05

I think he understands

36:07

intuitively this balancing act,

36:10

but I think it's a house of cards. I

36:12

mean, I think this is going to crumble and

36:14

it's going to crumble as Carol said, when

36:16

the rubber meets the road, which is on budget

36:18

decisions. Yeah. At least he

36:20

does seem to be wanting to calibrate

36:23

in a way McCarthy often shied away

36:25

from. Let's keep it in the house.

36:27

So representative Scott Perry. We had a

36:29

bizarre legally speaking look at

36:31

texts on his phone that he's been

36:34

trying to protect on the ground of

36:36

speech and debate where it was unsealed.

36:38

And then for four hours later, it

36:40

was resealed, but you know, that's very

36:42

late that's dinosaur time in today's social

36:44

media world. So we saw it and

36:47

he is completely

36:51

in the sick of it in

36:53

one aspect of the alleged criminal

36:55

conduct, the one involving Jeff Clark

36:57

and the DOJ, I just

37:00

want to get your

37:02

thoughts picking up on what you would

37:04

say, Charlie and everyone. There's this whole

37:07

big fraternity of members of

37:09

Congress who were really deeply

37:11

involved in the machinations

37:14

leading up to January six, who

37:16

so far have kind of

37:18

gotten away Scott free. Do you see

37:20

the day of reckoning coming

37:22

for them or just too much there? And

37:24

it'll just be, you know, eventually just swept

37:27

under the carpet of history. I'm thinking it

37:29

probably is going to get it swept under

37:31

the rug because I mean, the pattern is

37:33

full. My darker suspicion is that

37:35

Scott Perry is going to end up being

37:38

deputy attorney general in the next Trump presidency.

37:40

I mean, this is one thing that keeps striking me as you, as

37:42

you look at some of these people,

37:44

how many of your contrarian views, Charlie? I'm

37:48

writing it down. Scott Perry, deputy attorney. I

37:50

mean, he could end up as secretary of

37:52

state. I don't know. Oh, the deputy, huh?

37:55

Yeah. I was going to say, he's at

37:57

least earned the top job. You

38:00

know, like Jim Jordan. All right, anyway,

38:02

go ahead. Jim Jordan didn't pass the bar

38:04

exam, so. Yeah, but I mean, you know, you

38:07

read Robert Kagan's piece in the

38:09

Washington Post. Yes, everyone's talking about

38:11

that, by the way. But also,

38:13

the Axios report, they have the

38:15

vetting materials that they're already using

38:17

for the next Trump term. And

38:19

it's very clear that actual qualifications

38:21

or expertise or experience are not

38:23

particularly valuable. What they're looking

38:25

for is people who have been thoroughly

38:28

red-pilled, who watch and listen to Tucker

38:30

Carlson and are true believers. And

38:32

this is the other thing, kind of an

38:35

underappreciated thing, because we keep focusing on Donald

38:37

Trump. But a lot of these

38:39

characters, these fringe nutty characters, you know,

38:42

that pop up in January 6th, were

38:45

kept on the fringes. But they're

38:47

going to be in the center, they're gonna

38:49

be in the room if there's another Trump

38:51

presidency. These are the kinds of people who

38:53

are not gonna tell the president what he

38:55

cannot do. They're not gonna tell the president

38:57

no. And I think

38:59

this is something that people really ought

39:01

to understand that don't ignore the people

39:03

who are there, the people that you

39:05

would normally think of as the residents

39:07

of the fever swamp that we used

39:09

to in the before times, kind of

39:11

roll our eyes and decide not to

39:13

pay too much attention to. Those

39:16

guys are coming. Well, look, I

39:18

mean, this is obviously part and parcel. I

39:21

said we were done with him, gosh darn it.

39:23

But look what he said he will

39:25

do to the DOJ. But I do wanna

39:27

contradict Charlie, maybe just a little

39:29

bit. I think that if the

39:31

special counsel saw

39:34

that a crime was committed, he

39:37

may not limit himself to

39:39

the current indicted. And so

39:41

I think it just depends

39:43

on where the evidence leads.

39:45

If it is hand gentle to the

39:48

broader claim, I think it's not something

39:50

he's gonna touch. But if there's a

39:52

smoking gun there, and I don't think

39:55

we know what Smith knows.

39:58

And so I believe that. open

40:00

for potential indictments of

40:02

sitting members of Congress. Well, I hope

40:05

you're right. Let me make

40:07

a prosecutor's point. In the summer

40:09

of 2022, they served a

40:11

subpoena on his phone. That is

40:13

not a move the DOJ takes

40:15

lightly. It involves a

40:18

lot of procedural sign offs. And

40:20

now once this evidence comes to

40:22

them, if it's smoking, they

40:24

won't ignore it. And subject to

40:27

the proviso of which

40:29

Charlie Sykes shows up next

40:31

November, because we can imagine

40:34

that he would just fire

40:36

Jack Smith to General Hazaz

40:38

from his supporters. I'll

40:41

just say again from my vantage point

40:43

of DOJ, this is a long, long

40:45

investigation. They are still looking for some

40:47

of the thousand plus folks from January

40:49

6 themselves, the actual marauders

40:51

and assuming that Biden wins, even if

40:54

Trump is convicted to me, they're not

40:56

closing up shop. It might not be

40:58

with Smith, but there's a lot to

41:01

play out here. It's

41:08

now time to take a moment for

41:10

our sidebar feature, which explains some of

41:12

the issues and relationships that are prominent

41:14

in the news. Today's

41:16

sidebar answers the question, what

41:18

exactly does it mean to

41:21

file for bankruptcy? And

41:23

to explain it to us, we welcome Blair

41:27

Saki. Blair was named

41:29

to Variety's prestigious list, 10 comics

41:32

to watch in 2022 and was listed as

41:36

one of Vulture's comedians you should

41:38

and will follow in 2020. She's

41:42

the co-creator and star of

41:44

the acclaimed digital series, Blair's

41:47

Lair, which follows a millennial

41:49

agoraphobe with questionable morals. In

41:52

addition to stand up and

41:54

acting, Blair can currently be

41:56

heard voicing characters in several

41:58

animations, including the Aqua

42:00

Teen Hunger Force movie,

42:03

Adult Swim's Hot Future,

42:05

Netflix's Q-Force, Comedy Central's

42:08

Fairview, and FXX's Good

42:10

Morning Pickles. And with

42:13

that, I give you Blair

42:15

Socky on bankruptcy. Bankruptcy

42:18

is a legal process in which

42:20

individuals or businesses seeking relief from

42:22

excessive debt can start their financial

42:24

lives over. Okay, sounding very

42:26

good so far. Ending

42:29

the process of creditors demanding to be

42:31

paid. Love that. Filing

42:33

for bankruptcy starts a process through

42:35

which a debtor's assets are liquidated.

42:38

Ooh, okay, sounding less good. That

42:40

is, converted to cash to pay

42:42

debts. Or alternatively,

42:45

one where a debtor may seek

42:47

to keep assets through a plan

42:49

of reorganization through which some portion

42:51

of the debts are repaid over

42:53

time. Okay, it sounds like layaway,

42:55

kind of. You know, chippaway.

42:58

Layaway, chipaway. Article 1,

43:00

Section 8 of the

43:02

Constitution, authorized Congress to enact

43:04

uniform laws on the subject

43:06

of bankruptcies. This

43:08

uniform federal law provides a common set

43:11

of rules that govern all bankruptcy cases

43:13

throughout the country. Bankruptcy

43:16

proceedings take place in federal

43:18

bankruptcy courts and are overseen

43:20

by bankruptcy judges appointed by

43:22

federal courts of appeal rather

43:24

than the president. There

43:27

are a number of different types

43:29

of bankruptcy proceedings, each of which

43:31

serves a different purpose. They

43:33

generally are identified by the chapter

43:35

in which they are found in

43:37

the bankruptcy code. For

43:39

example, Chapter 7 liquidation

43:42

bankruptcy is the most

43:44

common type of bankruptcy.

43:47

Legal to both individuals and

43:49

businesses. Love that,

43:51

all-inclusive. It involves the

43:54

appointment of a trustee to take

43:56

charge of and liquidate a debtor's

43:58

property and turn the property on. proceeds

44:00

over to creditors. Individuals

44:02

are allowed to exempt

44:04

small amounts of property from

44:07

being sold. For example, an

44:10

individual debtor might be able to

44:12

keep an inexpensive car or tools they

44:14

need to run their business. Chapter

44:17

11 Reorganization is more typically used

44:19

by businesses and it allows a

44:22

debtor to defer and alter how

44:24

long it will take to repay

44:26

debt and how much will be

44:29

repaid. The reorganization

44:31

allows a business to

44:33

continue functioning rather than

44:35

be shut down with

44:37

its assets sold off

44:39

for the benefit of

44:41

creditors. Okay that one

44:44

sounds more abstract, more

44:46

creative. I like that

44:48

about Chapter 11. Reorganization.

44:50

Okay, Chapter 13 is

44:53

the wage earner bankruptcy which

44:56

allows individuals with regular incomes

44:58

to retain some of their

45:00

property and develop a plan

45:02

to repay some or all

45:04

of their debts. It

45:06

is simpler than Chapter 11, available

45:08

only to individuals and

45:10

at present only available

45:13

to individuals who have less than

45:15

$2,750,000 in debt. Okay

45:21

so unless you're super rich you

45:23

can do this one. This sounds

45:25

nice. Love that they are providing

45:27

so many different options. It's

45:30

great, it's like a menu for bankruptcy.

45:32

Who knew? Although bankruptcy

45:34

can provide a fresh start,

45:36

there are long lasting negative

45:38

consequences to filing. For example,

45:41

credit agencies may report

45:43

a bankruptcy for as long

45:45

as 10 years and credit

45:47

scores will be impacted as a

45:50

result. And bankruptcy does

45:52

not necessarily wipe the slate

45:54

clean. Certain debts cannot

45:57

be discharged through the process

45:59

including child support, alimony,

46:02

most taxes, most

46:04

student loans, and court

46:06

fines. For Talking

46:08

Feds, I'm Blair Sockey.

46:12

Thank you very much to Blair

46:14

Sockey for explaining bankruptcy. Blair's

46:16

first hour special, Live from

46:18

the Big Dog, is out

46:21

now on Live Nation's live

46:23

entertainment streamer, Veeps. And

46:31

now, a word from our sponsor,

46:33

the American Civil Liberties Union. Hi,

46:36

I'm Maribel Hernandez Rivera, a

46:38

Deputy National Political Director at

46:40

the ACLU. The promise

46:42

of America is to serve as a

46:45

beacon of hope and freedom for people

46:47

fleeing persecution, violence, war,

46:49

and human rights violations around

46:51

the world. Yet,

46:53

the Biden administration has chosen

46:55

to replicate harmful and illegal

46:57

Trump-era policies that ban people

47:00

from seeking asylum at the

47:02

southern border, betraying the ideals

47:04

that represent the best of our

47:06

country. Biden's asylum ban is

47:08

causing needless suffering and placing

47:10

people at grave risk. The

47:12

ACLU successfully sued the Trump

47:14

administration when it implemented asylum

47:16

bans, and now we're suing

47:19

the Biden administration over their own ban.

47:22

For more on how the ACLU is fighting

47:24

for the rights of asylum seekers, go

47:27

to aclu.org. All

47:37

right, it is now time for

47:39

a spirited debate, brought to you

47:41

by our sponsor, Total Wine and

47:43

More. Each episode, you'll

47:46

be hearing an expert talk about

47:48

the pros and cons of a

47:50

particular issue in the world of

47:52

wine, spirit, and beverages. Thank

47:55

you, Harry. In today's spirited

47:57

debate, we look at three different

47:59

techniques. for making rose wine to

48:01

see if there's truly a best way

48:04

to rose. First, rose

48:06

is a type of wine

48:08

that's actually produced quite similarly

48:10

to red, but the

48:12

fermentation time of the grape is reduced,

48:15

giving rose its signature pink

48:17

color. The first

48:19

technique for making rose is the

48:21

skin contact method in which

48:24

black skinned grapes such as Pinot

48:26

Noir are crushed but allowed to

48:28

remain in contact with the juice

48:30

for a short period of time. After

48:33

about 6 to 48 hours

48:36

as opposed to weeks or months for the

48:38

reds, the skins are

48:40

separated. This method is

48:42

most frequently used in the top

48:45

rosé-producing region of the world, Provence,

48:47

and throughout the south of France. The

48:50

second method is called sagné, which

48:52

is the French word for bleeding. This

48:55

method creates both a rosé and a

48:57

red wine. Early in

48:59

the maceration process, some of the pink

49:01

juice created from the grape must is

49:04

removed to make the rosé, while

49:07

the remaining juice becomes a more

49:09

concentrated red. A rosé

49:11

made from this method tends to

49:13

be richer and darker in both

49:15

color and fruit flavor. This

49:18

method is more rarely used, but

49:20

it can be found more often

49:22

in rosés from Spain, Napa, and

49:24

Chile. The third method

49:26

is blending. Contrary to what

49:29

some people think, blending is not just

49:31

a 50-50 pour of red and white

49:33

wine. Instead, blending

49:35

is where a white grape, such

49:38

as chardonnay, is blended with a

49:40

red grape, and it's the most

49:42

popular way to make a rosé champagne. Although

49:46

popular in champagne, this method is

49:48

used in steel rosés as well.

49:51

In fact, some winemakers in

49:53

Provence choose to blend small

49:55

percentages of white grape varieties

49:57

into their rosés. It's

49:59

not always obvious. or easy to know which

50:01

method was used to make a

50:03

particular rosé. But the expert guides

50:06

at Total Wine & More can help

50:08

you navigate our wondrous selection to find

50:10

a rosé that makes your day. So

50:13

find what you love and love what

50:15

you find, only at Total

50:18

Wine & More. Cheers! Thanks

50:20

to our friends at Total Wine &

50:22

More for today's a spirited

50:24

debate. One more

50:26

huge headline this morning comes from the

50:29

Middle East with the cessation of hostilities

50:31

having ended and Israel resuming the attack.

50:33

We haven't generally, it's a little bit

50:36

out of the talking fed strike zone,

50:38

but it's just been the biggest story

50:40

for several weeks and especially because you're

50:42

here Carol and you've done some really

50:45

valuable reporting. I did want to canvas

50:47

the crowd on this for a few

50:49

minutes and I want to focus in

50:51

on a really good story you did

50:54

that has to do with Biden

50:57

and just whether now

50:59

that there will be

51:01

presumably a redoubling of

51:03

opposition to Israel's

51:05

military action or louder voices

51:08

saying there should be a ceasefire. Obviously

51:10

that's not what Israel wants and

51:13

so far Biden, I think you

51:15

put it really well, has you

51:17

know the argument that failed for

51:19

him when he was vice president,

51:21

he's now the president, of keeping

51:23

Israel, in this case Netanyahu, not

51:25

an unblemished character, close now falls

51:27

under tremendous pressure. So I wonder

51:30

if you could just speak to

51:32

what you see as

51:34

the overall situation involving

51:36

Biden and Israel and

51:38

the now resumption of

51:40

hostilities. Well the resumption of hostilities

51:42

is a real big disappointment to the

51:44

White House. They worked really hard to

51:46

try to get this pause extended, that

51:48

obviously didn't work. But what we've seen

51:50

and what we wrote about this week

51:53

is this is a

51:55

policy, what you're seeing coming out of the

51:57

Biden administration that is run by one person

51:59

and that's is Joe Biden and it

52:01

is based on beliefs that he has had

52:03

for decades. And one

52:06

of the things that my colleague, Courtney

52:08

Cubie and I were, we were asking

52:10

people about what's been going on behind

52:12

the scenes with the president saying this and that

52:15

is that we were told in those early

52:17

weeks, this is when everybody was praising his

52:19

hug, Israel clothes strategy,

52:21

they loved his speeches before it

52:23

really turned. And everyone was

52:26

calling on him and sending members of his

52:28

own party to the ceasefire. He was saying

52:30

privately, like, Oh, look, President Obama only called

52:32

him Barack, Barack and his staff. They said

52:34

I was wrong in 2014. When I said

52:36

the way to deal with Israel, because 2014,

52:38

that was another instance where Israel and Gaza

52:40

were at war. I said,

52:42

hug Israel clothes. The president

52:44

Obama didn't do that. So he had no influence.

52:47

And I was right then. And I was right

52:49

now. And he also brought

52:51

up in private this quote from

52:53

former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, where

52:55

he said Joe Biden had been wrong on every

52:57

foreign policy issue, or going back four decades or

53:00

something like that. And one scene

53:02

in our story is how the

53:04

president is talking with aides about Israel.

53:06

And he turns to one and he

53:08

slapped him on the arm and says,

53:10

like, who's wrong now? And, you know,

53:12

he really just believed that this is

53:14

what to do. And that was early

53:16

days. Now he's tempered that a little

53:18

bit. He's not saying those kinds of

53:20

things privately now we're told, but he

53:22

still very much believes that this is

53:24

the approach. The pause was reinforcing

53:27

of that, getting out hostages was reinforcing of

53:29

his views. And he's out there on a

53:31

limb. He's out on a limb, a little

53:34

bit more than some of his staff, and

53:36

certainly with a lot of members

53:38

of his party. And it's one instance in

53:40

talking to progressive Democrats, they're like,

53:43

he's bent on a lot of stuff that we

53:46

pressured him on, you know, and when it comes

53:48

to things that he's dug in on in this,

53:51

he will not. He's not bending

53:53

so far. I saw nodding heads.

53:55

I want to get to you in a second, but just

53:57

I wanted to point out I had a one on one

53:59

with Michael. Orrin, former ambassador to

54:01

the US from Israel. And

54:03

he put it, I think maybe we

54:06

should drop it right here. It's 30

54:08

seconds. It was, I thought, very memorable

54:10

and newsworthy. He said, Biden is crucifying

54:12

himself on a very large cross and

54:14

we are that cross. Joe Biden,

54:16

what he used to tell me, because I spent a significant amount

54:18

of time with him, he used to always quote his father. And

54:21

his father used to say to him, never crucify yourself

54:23

on a small cross. He is

54:25

crucifying himself on a very large cross and

54:28

that crosses us. And we have to be,

54:30

we have to be appreciative of that. We have to try to help him

54:32

to help us as much as we can. We

54:34

can't always, we can't agree to open it as a ceasefire.

54:36

I don't know if he even wants that, but

54:39

he's really crucifying himself here.

54:42

And it's something that historians will write about. I'll write

54:44

about it. I have never seen anything, I've been

54:46

in the US's relationship. I don't know how to tell you

54:48

long, you know, as a practitioner, as an historian for

54:51

50 years. And I've

54:53

never seen anything like this. This

54:56

very strong instinctive you will support

54:58

from way back for Israel. Knowing

55:00

Biden as people do, what

55:03

do you think underlies it? Is it

55:05

just a true independent moral sense of

55:08

right and wrong? I think

55:10

he definitely believes that Israel is

55:12

a critical ally in the Nite

55:14

East. That is the world

55:16

he grew up in. He grew up

55:18

in a world where the Democratic Party

55:21

was fighting for the state of Israel

55:23

and the Republican Party was sitting off

55:25

to the side that's changed with the

55:27

evangelical quota here. But now

55:29

the Democratic Party has this

55:31

interesting dynamic between AIPAC and

55:34

J Street. And young voters,

55:36

right? Right. Set aside

55:38

young voters, even within the

55:40

Jewish community, which is a huge

55:42

giving block to the Democratic Party.

55:45

I mean, take a look at

55:47

the percentage of large donations to

55:49

the Democratic Party that comes from

55:52

Jewish people. Americans. And

55:54

you will see an interesting

55:56

dynamic and certainly J Street

55:58

believes that AIPAC was. to

56:00

pro-Netanau who has been the dividing

56:02

feature. At Netanau who has

56:04

been the entity, the

56:07

person who has divided the American

56:09

Jewish community, in my opinion, and

56:11

now you have the emergence of

56:13

J Street who has been much more

56:15

pro-two state solution. But

56:18

what has unified the community

56:20

has really been Hamas, the

56:23

brutality. So when

56:25

Biden feels comfortable,

56:28

it's because Hamas was

56:30

so brutal in their attack.

56:33

And it is hard to see

56:35

supporting the people of Gaza who

56:40

have in fact selected Hamas as

56:42

their leader, their leadership entity. And

56:44

so I think it really is

56:46

a generational change for the Democratic

56:48

Party. And Biden represents the

56:51

old school kind of stand by

56:53

Israel, right or wrong. There

56:55

are significant allies. There are people

56:58

with a more nuanced

57:01

younger perspective, even

57:03

going to what's happening on college campuses

57:06

with students for

57:08

Palestinian justice. Two

57:10

part question for everyone, but let me

57:12

start with you, Charlie, and this will

57:14

be our close up. What are the

57:16

current politics for Biden, including the apparent

57:19

strong opposition to his policies from

57:21

young people? And do

57:23

you foresee a situation? I

57:25

mean, Carol basically suggested, if

57:27

I understood it rightly, that

57:29

he expects this. They might've

57:31

liked a somewhat longer cessation,

57:33

but the fact that they're

57:35

going back and continuing this

57:37

military objective of dismantling Hamas,

57:39

Biden's not gonna oppose. So that's

57:42

the question. Besides the political analysis,

57:44

do you see a tangible

57:46

prospect for Biden holding

57:48

Israel not

57:51

so close as he has to

57:53

date? I wish I could see

57:55

a best case scenario for Joe Biden. I think

57:57

there's a couple of problems that are,

58:00

Let's talk about the domestic politics. I

58:02

think the fracturing of the democratic coalition

58:04

is real. I think it's very, very

58:06

dangerous. It's very, very emotional. And I

58:08

think it's going to last for a

58:10

long time. I think that you, you

58:12

see this among many liberal Jews who

58:14

are looking at their former progressive allies

58:16

and going really seriously. I mean, you

58:18

know, you are willing to make these

58:20

kinds of rationalizations or what sounds like

58:23

a defense of Hamas. That is

58:25

a real division. And there are some

58:27

real anger at Joe Biden for being

58:29

a staunch supporter of Israel. You've also

58:31

pointed out the dilemma of being a

58:33

staunch supporter of Israel when it's being

58:35

led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is in

58:37

so many ways such as a little

58:39

horrible figure and has failed so miserably

58:41

in doing the one job

58:43

that he had, which was to protect

58:46

the Israeli people. And you go

58:48

back before October 7th and don't

58:51

forget how bitterly divided Israeli society

58:53

was by the radical policies of

58:55

Benjamin Netanyahu. And that you had

58:58

people in the military and the

59:00

defense forces and security forces who

59:02

were warning at that time, this

59:05

is making Israel more vulnerable. This

59:07

is making the situation more dangerous.

59:10

Now we learn from the New York Times that

59:13

Israeli officials actually had the memo,

59:15

the detailed battle plans, and

59:17

they failed to do anything about it. They thought,

59:19

no way Hamas pulls that off. Right. Amazing. So

59:22

it is one thing for Joe Biden to be

59:24

a staunch supporter of Israel. It

59:26

is something very different to hug

59:28

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a dangerous

59:30

and divisive figure. So I

59:32

think those are the two things that I'm going

59:34

to be watching here. Look, I mean, this is

59:36

a massive human tragedy on so many different levels.

59:39

I hope that the Biden administration does

59:41

not go squishy on this particular issue

59:44

because there are some issues you

59:46

can finesse and there's some issues you can't

59:48

finesse. You cannot finesse the continued existence

59:50

of Hamas. There is no

59:52

compromise with Hamas. There is no coexistence

59:55

with Hamas. Hamas is ISIS or perhaps

59:57

even worse than ISIS. And,

59:59

you know, We made the decision with

1:00:01

our Iraqi allies that ISIS needed to

1:00:04

be eliminated at horrendous cost and there

1:00:06

wasn't this kind of political division Surrounding

1:00:09

the destruction of of ISIS, but

1:00:11

it's hard to see how

1:00:13

this ends in any positive way

1:00:15

without the destruction of Hamas

1:00:18

the one thing I would add is When

1:00:21

it comes to Prime Minister Netanyahu According

1:00:24

to my own reporting is that the

1:00:26

president is not sold on him. He's

1:00:29

very frustrated with him privately and

1:00:31

just feels like now is not the time

1:00:33

to deal with such Problems,

1:00:35

but we're things and

1:00:37

where the president could start, you

1:00:40

know Loosening his hug around Israel

1:00:42

where that may happen is in

1:00:44

when you get to the post-war

1:00:46

Gaza That's where the disagreements are

1:00:48

just so big between the Israeli

1:00:50

government and and the zyeden administration

1:00:54

And so how they figure that out that it

1:00:56

remains to be seen I mean we've already and

1:00:58

we've seen the White House and

1:01:00

the president and Secretary of State sort of moderate

1:01:02

the way they talk about Israel

1:01:05

and and we heard the Secretary of State saying

1:01:07

he publicly he got commitments that they weren't going

1:01:09

to go in Really hard in

1:01:11

the south and Gaza that's a little different than

1:01:13

where they were in the beginning But policy wise

1:01:15

there's not a change when he gets to that

1:01:18

post-war Gaza Discussion it's really good. You're

1:01:20

really going to see a big divide Well,

1:01:22

and you have to say when

1:01:24

do you declare victory against Hamas?

1:01:27

What is victory against Hamas look like

1:01:30

is it so entrenched and embedded in

1:01:32

Gaza? Where are you going to draw the line?

1:01:35

And I think that as the

1:01:37

story progresses that charlie was talking

1:01:39

about what did they know when? And

1:01:42

clearly a story like this should weaken

1:01:45

Netanyahu domestically That

1:01:47

he did not do the one thing he

1:01:49

promised he is literally people that he would do

1:01:51

which is keep them safe What does

1:01:53

that mean? Well, America have more

1:01:55

influence in a weakened domestic

1:01:58

Netanyahu that we do right now.

1:02:00

And so these are all the moving

1:02:03

parts. And in the meantime, you have

1:02:06

generational perspective

1:02:08

on this, that as

1:02:11

we look at the need to,

1:02:13

as Democrats, to drive young

1:02:15

voters out to vote, well,

1:02:18

this basically puts a

1:02:20

cold blanket on enthusiasm of

1:02:23

young voters. And so it

1:02:25

has domestic implications for us,

1:02:27

domestic implications for Israel, but

1:02:30

no one, absolutely no one,

1:02:33

should say that Hamas was freedom

1:02:35

fighting or doing anything other

1:02:37

than raining down terror on

1:02:40

innocent people. Great questions and

1:02:42

points all and there are dozens more where

1:02:44

they came from, but we are out of

1:02:46

time. Just have a minute or

1:02:49

two for our final feature, kind of

1:02:51

odd to even move to levity if

1:02:53

you consider it. But we take a

1:02:55

question from a listener and

1:02:57

we all have to answer it

1:02:59

in five words or fewer. Today's

1:03:01

question is, as Stephen Colbert and

1:03:03

others have been saying, who

1:03:05

is Mike Johnson, the speaker

1:03:07

third in line for the presidency in five

1:03:10

words or fewer? Can I ask you to

1:03:12

start Carol? I will start, it's

1:03:14

going to be lame, Speaker of the House. With

1:03:18

a word left over. All

1:03:20

right. There's an official NBC

1:03:22

bold journalistic view. Well,

1:03:26

I'm tempted to say Jim Jordan in drag, but

1:03:28

I think it's turning out to be worse. I

1:03:30

think it's it is Alex Jones in sheep's clothing.

1:03:33

Wow. So good, old Senator, I

1:03:35

don't envy you. Well,

1:03:38

I'm not going to be nearly as clever. I

1:03:40

think he's an unknown political leader. Very

1:03:42

good. I think all that's

1:03:44

true. But man, the more you learn

1:03:46

about his religious views, they're really kind

1:03:49

of astonishing even in today's Republican

1:03:51

Party. So I'm going to go

1:03:53

religious absolutist dressed as

1:03:56

accountant. And

1:04:00

that's all the time we have

1:04:02

for this episode. Thank you so

1:04:05

much to Senator Heitkamp, Carol, and

1:04:07

Charlie. And thank you so much,

1:04:09

listeners, for tuning in to Talking

1:04:12

Feds. If you like what

1:04:14

you've heard, please tell a friend to

1:04:16

subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or

1:04:18

wherever they get their podcasts. And please

1:04:20

take a moment to rate and review

1:04:22

this podcast. You can also

1:04:24

subscribe to us on YouTube,

1:04:27

where we are posting full

1:04:29

episodes, talking books, and bonus

1:04:31

video content, as well as

1:04:34

daily explanations by me of

1:04:36

important developments in the news.

1:04:39

You can follow us on Twitter,

1:04:41

at TalkingFedsPod. And you can

1:04:43

look to see our latest offerings on

1:04:45

Patreon. Talking Feds is a completely independent

1:04:47

production. So if you like the work

1:04:49

we do and are inclined to support

1:04:51

the show, joining our Patreon is the

1:04:53

best way to do it. Submit

1:04:56

your questions to questions

1:04:59

at talkingfeds.com, whether they're

1:05:01

for Talking Five or general questions

1:05:03

about the inner workings of the

1:05:05

legal system for our sidebar segment.

1:05:08

Rest in peace, Sandra Day O'Connor,

1:05:10

the 102nd Justice and

1:05:14

first woman justice to serve on

1:05:16

the United States Supreme Court. Thanks

1:05:19

for tuning in. And don't worry, as

1:05:22

long as you need answers, the

1:05:24

feds will keep talking. Talking

1:05:26

Feds is produced by Mal Melies,

1:05:29

associate producer Catherine Devine.

1:05:31

Sound engineering by Matt McCardle.

1:05:34

Our research producer is Zeke Reed.

1:05:37

Rosie Dawn Griffin and David

1:05:39

Lieberman are our contributing writers.

1:05:42

And production assistance by

1:05:44

Meredith McCabe, Akshaj Turbailu,

1:05:46

and Emma Maynard. Special

1:05:48

thanks to my dear friend,

1:05:50

Tom Kegel, our

1:05:52

endless gratitude, as always, to

1:05:55

the amazing Philip Glass, who

1:05:57

graciously lets us use his

1:05:59

music. Talking Fizz

1:06:01

is a production of Delito LLC.

1:06:03

I'm Harry Littman. Talk

1:06:06

to you later.