0:06

Welcome to talking fans, a round

0:08

table that brings together prominent

0:11

figures in government law and journalism. For

0:13

a dynamic discussion of the most important

0:15

topics of the day, I'm Harry

0:17

Litman. We, this week,

0:19

begin divided government in the

0:21

post Trump era, in which the

0:24

principal challenge to our politics

0:26

and society generally is

0:28

that one political party remains committed

0:31

to the big lie and a nihilist

0:33

antipathy to the very concept

0:35

of federal rule. In the wake

0:38

of the spectacle that was Kevin McCarthy's

0:40

protracted struggle to become speaker,

0:42

McCarthy left no doubt of his

0:45

embrace of a bomb throwing

0:47

patriotic antagonism to the

0:49

White House and the Democratic Party.

0:52

With the Freedom caucus now clearly

0:54

operating as the power center

0:56

of the party, the house past

0:59

a rules package that guarantees

1:02

a bitter and wasteful program of

1:04

investigations of anyone

1:06

named Biden and pass

1:08

a topic such as the Origins of

1:10

COVID and the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

1:14

The Republican's fight and tantrum

1:16

agenda got a major shot in the

1:18

arm in the form of the revelation that

1:20

a few caches of classified documents

1:23

from his tenure as vice president

1:25

have turned up in Biden's residence

1:27

and a former office. The

1:30

Magna GOP was quick to assert

1:32

that Biden's conduct mirrored Trump's

1:34

obstruction in the Mar a Lago scandal

1:37

that has the former president at

1:39

the precipice of a federal indictment. Aided

1:42

by the administration's self inflicted

1:44

wounds in its handling of the revelations,

1:47

the episode took on the proportions

1:50

of a Washington style scandal

1:52

that by week's end seemed to

1:54

force Merrick Garland's hand to

1:57

appoint a special counsel to

1:59

investigate. As he has done

2:01

for the Trump documents investigation. Meanwhile,

2:05

revelations about the brazen and

2:07

seemingly endless stream

2:09

of lies from newly elected

2:11

Republican representative George

2:13

Santos led to calls from some

2:16

Republicans for his resignation. While

2:19

apologizing for, quote, embellishing

2:22

my resume, close quote, a

2:24

euphemism for his spectacular series

2:27

of complete falsehoods. Santos

2:29

dug in and vowed to remain in

2:31

office and aided by the

2:33

support of McCarthy who again

2:35

displayed his situational ethics

2:38

and tolerance of anything that brings

2:40

him and the party power. To

2:43

make sense of the congressional chaos,

2:45

and its potential ripple effects

2:47

throughout the federal government, we're

2:50

really pleased to welcome three of

2:52

the country's most prolific and

2:54

respected experts on the strange

2:56

ways of Capitol Hill, and

2:59

they are. Jackie

3:01

Alemani, congressional investigations

3:03

reported for the Washington Post where she

3:06

previously founded and co

3:08

authored the early 202

3:10

the post flagship morning newsletter.

3:13

Before that, Jackie covered the Trump

3:15

White House for CBS and

3:17

followed the two thousand sixteen campaign

3:19

trail as a day regional journalist. She

3:22

is an on air contributor to NBC

3:24

News and MSNBC and

3:26

has been working the new house

3:28

majority in the January six committee

3:31

stories like nobody's

3:33

business. Thanks very much for joining

3:35

Jackie. Thanks so much for having Harry.

3:37

I was gonna say like nobody else except

3:39

there is one other person who's covered it

3:41

with equal industry that would be.

3:44

Loop Broadwater, a congressional

3:46

reporter in the wash and Bureau of The New York Times,

3:48

he began his career at the Baltimore sun

3:51

covering the Maryland state house.

3:53

Must be a lot of good stories there.

3:55

And Baltimore City Hall where he won

3:57

the twenty twenty Pulitzer prize for

3:59

local reporting as well as a

4:01

George Polk Award for political

4:04

reporting

4:05

Loop. Thanks very much for being here.

4:06

Hey. Thanks for having me. And

4:08

the always estimable norm,

4:11

Orangestein, an American Scholar at

4:13

the American an Enterprise Institute, a

4:15

contributing editor at the Atlantic and

4:18

a prolific author. He co

4:20

wrote the bestseller one nation

4:22

after Trump a guide for

4:24

the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate,

4:26

and the not yet deported. Nora Warrenstein,

4:28

as always, thanks so much for joining

4:30

us. Thanks, Harry. I'm just disappointed you didn't

4:32

mention my Nobel Peace Prize Academy

4:35

Award and multiple Olympic gold medals.

4:37

It's it's true. Alright. Let's

4:39

start with the story that dominated

4:41

the week drowning out what otherwise

4:44

might have been. It was another sort of

4:46

solid stretch for the administration. So

4:49

the week starts with the report that some

4:51

classified documents turned

4:53

up at Biden's office

4:55

that he established at the University Pennsylvania

4:58

after his vice presidency and

5:00

the story built through the week, reaching

5:02

a crescendo with the appointment by

5:04

Merrick Garland of a special council

5:07

a hard nosed Trump US attorney

5:09

to investigate possible criminal

5:12

conduct. What do we know about

5:14

these dozen or so

5:16

documents where they turned up,

5:19

what kinds of questions or

5:21

concerns do their

5:24

discovery

5:25

serve up? I'm gonna take this

5:27

because I have the whole soapbox about this.

5:29

The only thing that these two stories have

5:32

in common the fact that both Biden

5:35

and Trump had to return materials to the

5:37

national archives that were marked classified

5:39

is the fact that the National Archives

5:42

has been under resourced and

5:44

underfunded for many years, and that the

5:46

Presidential Records Act

5:49

is a huge sweeping law

5:52

that allows a lot to,

5:54

I think, sort of slip through the cracks.

5:56

But otherwise, these two examples

5:58

and Biden example in particular are very

6:01

different. And as one source the archives

6:03

told me, Biden's way of

6:05

handling this returning the

6:07

classified materials as soon as they were discovered

6:10

was the textbook way of how to

6:12

handle finding classified information

6:15

that was accidentally taken versus

6:17

Trump's knowing and and willing

6:20

deliberate attempts, multiple

6:22

false assurances, and essentially

6:24

a year's long struggle between Trump and

6:26

the national archives to return these

6:28

classified materials. Howard Bauchner: Yeah, the only

6:30

even factual overlap is

6:33

the turning up of classified

6:35

documents where they shouldn't have been. Nobody

6:38

says otherwise, do we have any kind

6:40

of sense, including from your the

6:42

reporting you just referenced, Jackie, of

6:44

how frequent or infrequent this

6:47

is. I've talked to people over the

6:49

last week who say, you know what,

6:52

it really happens all the time. We've known of

6:54

different instances where it has. And

6:56

that would seem to be pretty important

6:59

and would make at least the Biden scenario

7:02

even more kind of plain

7:04

vanilla and unexceptional, uns

7:06

sinister. How odd

7:08

and rare is it that docs turn up

7:11

No. This does happen all the time. It usually

7:13

happens more often with senior level

7:15

officials. And the only time

7:18

this comes to a criminal level is again

7:20

when prosecutors can prove that there is

7:22

some knowing and willful

7:25

attempt to steal these documents

7:28

don't have an example off the top of my head, but all

7:30

of the people I've spoken with at the archives say that

7:32

this does inevitably happen. Most

7:34

transitions in general are chaotic

7:36

the Biden transition while not as chaotic as

7:38

the Obama transition where Biden was, the

7:40

vice president, was still chaotic in

7:43

the sense that they weren't anticipating

7:45

Trump would win. And then that month between

7:48

the two months basically between Trump's victory

7:50

and by the and Obama

7:52

leaving office were a little more chaotic than,

7:55

I think, previous presidencies.

7:57

But at the end of an administration, normally

8:00

what's supposed to happen is the top

8:02

aides working for Biden go through all

8:04

of his files. They separate the personnel

8:06

from the presidential. Because under

8:09

the PRA, there are personal items

8:11

and personal folders that can be taken home

8:14

with the vice president or the president. And

8:16

then once those are separated, the general

8:18

services administration takes everything

8:20

that's personal, takes them to wherever Biden

8:22

wants them to be, and then everything

8:24

else is transferred to the national archives.

8:26

And there are hundreds and thousands and

8:29

millions of pieces of paper that ultimately

8:31

circulate through an eight year

8:33

long presidency that it is

8:36

it's bound to happen that something accidentally

8:38

end up where it's not supposed to be. The question

8:40

is, how has it been handled? And

8:42

that's my sense too. I've been at the ends

8:44

of couple administrations on top of everything

8:47

else. People want the hell out of there, and

8:49

it's it's just not a time of great diligence

8:51

in the industry. So that

8:53

makes it seem all the more benign or

8:55

pedestrian. Nevertheless, Garland

8:58

appoints a special council. So

9:01

Why did he do it and was it the right

9:03

decision? Well, I'll

9:06

step in on that at least to start. Although,

9:08

I do have to say that if this had

9:10

just been with Biden, twelve

9:12

documents found at the UPenn Biden

9:15

center office I think it would have

9:17

faded much more quickly. The

9:19

fact that two months after this,

9:22

they find a couple more in his

9:24

house in Delaware and one in the garage

9:27

for which it seems to me you cannot

9:29

easily explain why the

9:31

White House didn't immediately step in and

9:33

search for everything. That just makes

9:35

it a much bigger PR problem. It

9:38

doesn't take away from what Jackie was saying

9:40

about the relatively benign

9:43

element of this for Biden.

9:45

But if you're sitting in Merrick Garland

9:48

shoes, First, this emerges

9:51

and you know you're gonna have

9:53

to have an absolutely pristine person

9:56

look into it to begin with. So he chooses

9:58

a US attorney from Chicago who

10:01

was a Trump appointee. And

10:03

then at least from what Garland said,

10:06

he recommended a special counsel.

10:08

Now there may be things about this we don't know

10:11

and that may be a part of it, but I think

10:13

here you hit on it, in a piece he wrote

10:15

in the LA Times. If you're

10:17

garland and you believe or

10:19

expect or know, that

10:22

an indictment of Donald Trump is forthcoming

10:24

for obstruction of justice and

10:26

perhaps other charges out of the

10:28

way they handle things at Mar a Lago.

10:31

And you decline and

10:34

you don't have behind you a Trump

10:36

US attorney who says there's nothing here

10:38

forget about it. You have very

10:40

little choice. The question that

10:42

I would have is why would you pick

10:45

somebody who is a pretty

10:47

hard line movement conservative not

10:50

a career justice department person

10:53

to do this. And obviously,

10:55

it's bending doubly or triply backwards

10:58

to try and show

11:00

that this is gonna be done without any

11:02

fear or favoritism, but

11:04

it's tricky business. Mean,

11:06

even if you believe and everybody

11:09

who knows Bob Hurrah is

11:11

certified that he is an absolutely

11:13

fair guy. I'm old enough to

11:15

remember when Ken Starr was viewed as an

11:18

absolutely fair guy. So,

11:20

you know, independent councils tend to

11:22

take on a life of their own and you never

11:24

know where an inspector Javera is

11:26

lurking underneath the surface. I

11:29

just wanna follow-up on a couple of

11:31

those points. That is really

11:34

true. And there's legions of stories

11:36

of well, there's certainly, you know, half

11:38

a dozen independent or special

11:40

councils just all of a sudden wandering

11:42

here and there and

11:45

whole different kinds of potential criminal

11:47

activities turn up. Now, this

11:49

is a guy who also has a

11:52

lot of DOJ experience and

11:54

maybe that was something that commended

11:56

him to Garland. But

11:58

it does seem to me that this distinction

12:00

of, like, oh, but he's a hard nosed movement

12:03

conservative rankless clerk versus

12:05

a regular prosecutor will likely

12:07

be lost on the general public

12:10

especially because as soon as this

12:12

guy is appointed and he really is a movement

12:14

conservative, he was already being

12:16

painted as raving

12:18

democrat because Chris Ray

12:21

hired him or whatever. So it's not I

12:23

think when you calculate these things

12:25

from either Biden or Garland point of view,

12:27

nothing's gonna quiet the sort of war

12:30

drums. There's not a question of sort of

12:32

merits or

12:32

facts. Yeah, I think one thing that's interesting

12:34

to watch is is the House Republicans reaction

12:37

to this. Yeah. Almost all of them

12:40

are saying something like this. We

12:42

didn't want a special counsel. It's going to

12:44

interfere with our invest litigation is gonna

12:46

make our work harder. And so what

12:48

is that really saying? If they believe

12:50

there was a crime to be prosecuted here,

12:52

they would be cheering on the special counsel. Right?

12:55

The fact that they're like,

12:57

this is not good for us, for our legislative

12:59

investigation, which can't bring crimes, but could,

13:01

you know, embarrass Biden and bring out

13:03

negative facts or something. To

13:06

me, that's that's very talented. They viewed this much

13:08

more as like a a tool to use

13:10

in a political fashion than they truly believe

13:12

there was like a very bad crime

13:14

here that needed to be investigated.

13:17

And the other thing, I I covered her in

13:19

Baltimore, and he

13:21

was known really as a a crime

13:24

fighter and very focused on public

13:26

corruption, but everybody he prosecuted

13:28

was a Every single one.

13:30

And some of them was for things that some

13:32

of the Democrats felt were kinda small ball.

13:34

Like, there was one guy who was, like, fifteen thousand

13:37

dollars not huge sums of money

13:39

sometimes. And they you know,

13:41

everyone agreed like he was I'll buy the book

13:43

prosecutor, but in terms of what they

13:45

chose to focus on that office, There

13:47

was not a single Republican prosecution

13:50

during his tenure. Now, of course, the bottom

13:52

was the biggest Litman, and it's all

13:54

Democrats elect there, but there was a state government

13:57

and there's lots of Republicans elected across the

13:59

state. So once these things get

14:01

going, who knows what people find?

14:03

Right? Yeah. They get a life of their own. Right? There

14:05

could be some small thing he finds

14:07

somewhere and, you know, who

14:09

knows? Ask web hub or

14:11

Michael Litman, that that's really interesting

14:14

that by and large, the house Republicans

14:16

are a bit deflated or Yeah. I think

14:18

we're not cheering this on yesterday. Yeah. Of

14:20

course today. Conversely, so

14:22

is the White House given the hand they

14:24

were dealt? Are they happy about this? Would

14:27

you say? They're deferring questions

14:29

now. They are saying it's

14:31

in the hands of the special council. We're cooperating.

14:34

This was just a mistake. And

14:36

we're cooperating. They're trying to be this very

14:38

above board in their public statements.

14:41

In some ways, he kinda had to do this. Right?

14:43

Like -- Mhmm. -- what's the ultimate conflict? Just

14:45

investigating your own boss. Right? So it

14:48

does make a lot of sense politically to

14:50

to assign this special counsel. Does

14:53

the decision as a practical matter

14:56

hamstring either Jack Smith

14:58

or Garland in any

15:00

way make less likely the

15:03

bringing of charges against Trump in

15:05

the Mar a Lago case? Or are they two, you

15:07

know, complete islands

15:08

here? I don't think they're islands

15:11

and I actually think it makes it more likely

15:13

that we're gonna see a prosecution of Trump.

15:15

Interesting. If you know

15:17

or believe that an indictment

15:20

is forthcoming. There is no

15:22

way you can avoid choosing

15:24

a special council and especially a

15:26

really tough minded special council

15:29

in the Biden matter. Even if there's

15:31

nothing there that would suggest the

15:33

necessity of doing so, if

15:36

you pick a special council in

15:38

this case, and then there's no indictment

15:41

brought against Trump or the people

15:43

around Trump. That it

15:45

looks really not

15:47

quite so good. So I

15:49

suspect that Jack Smith has been communicating

15:52

with the attorney general even though he's making

15:54

his own independent decisions. Which is

15:56

fine. He's supposed to. Right? Remember, Rosenstein

15:59

and Mueller. It's Absolutely appropriate.

16:01

And the ultimate decision

16:03

of indictment rests with the attorney general,

16:06

but he's already said that he would give

16:08

widely way to the views of

16:10

an independent counsel. I gotta believe he

16:12

knows something and that that's part

16:15

of the motivation for acting as quickly

16:17

as he acted. And a part

16:19

of that is It's not just

16:21

the broader politics of dealing with

16:23

Biden. Merrick Garland got

16:25

into this wanting to store

16:28

the reputation of his beloved

16:30

justice department -- Right. -- after

16:32

he believed accurately that

16:35

the previous two attorneys general

16:37

under Trump had devastated

16:39

the reputation of the justice department.

16:42

So this is a way of doing so. But

16:44

what now, what do you think? Do you

16:46

on this hams possible hamstringing quest?

16:48

I appreciate your point of view norm because what

16:50

I've been hearing all week at least from

16:53

some of the lawyers on Trump's legal team

16:55

is the opposite. And obviously, they

16:59

are biased and have an interest here

17:01

but they feel like at the end of the day, you

17:03

know, the Department of Justice does in

17:05

some respect if there is some sort of

17:07

indictment that ultimately lands, they do need

17:09

some support in the

17:12

part of public opinion and that

17:14

this completely erases

17:16

that because as you're seeing the

17:18

way that this, like, week has played out, it's

17:20

hard to communicate nuance to the American people. And

17:22

I think a lot of people were already confused

17:24

about why the Department

17:27

of Justice was pursuing these charges against

17:29

Trump. So seriously. And

17:31

it is incumbent on us to really, I think,

17:34

describe that in detail

17:36

even though it is sort of can

17:38

come across as, guess, pedantic and

17:41

and boring. But the

17:43

Trump lawyers are hoping that this

17:45

essentially you know, muddy

17:47

is the waters for the Department of Justice

17:50

and that they're going to push all the way

17:52

that and equate these things

17:54

and and say that they're essentially the same and

17:56

that there's a double standard and that the Department

17:58

of Justice has treated Trump unfairly,

18:01

and they're taking kitty gloves to Biden.

18:03

But in that vein, that that's just It's

18:05

not true. There are two completely different

18:08

scenarios. Again, there

18:10

was a whole entire year's worth

18:12

of the National Archives trying to get these

18:14

documents back from the former president. He

18:17

denied it, then Trump ultimately

18:20

returned some documents Then

18:22

there was a lot of back and forth. Trump's lawyers

18:24

provided false assurances that he had returned

18:26

everything. Then Trump sent someone to actually

18:29

move the classified documents that's

18:31

why there was ultimately a search warrant

18:33

that was executed. And in this case of Biden,

18:36

they found a very limited number of much

18:38

smaller volume of documents, returned them

18:40

right away, have been completely compliant.

18:42

I mean, now, the Trump legal team

18:45

is playing ball with the Department of Justice.

18:47

They had know, in recent

18:49

months completed additional searches

18:52

of other Trump

18:53

properties, but this is

18:55

a recent posture from the Trump people.

18:57

You

18:58

know, just to follow, I

19:00

did notice that Jack Smith is still

19:02

pushing to get the Trump lawyers to appear

19:05

before the ones who did

19:07

the other searches, which

19:09

to me would suggest there's some question

19:11

of credibility. Of course, before that, we

19:13

had the Trump lawyer certify that all the

19:15

documents have been returned when they hadn't.

19:18

Right. And nobody wants to be the guy to

19:20

certify anymore for Trump. Right.

19:22

But one other point, which is I've

19:25

expected an indictment, but I don't

19:27

expect a conviction because it

19:29

strikes me the venue will have to be in Florida.

19:31

Even before this, it would

19:34

be damn hard to find jury that doesn't

19:36

have at least one person who

19:38

would say, hey, the guy could shoot somebody

19:40

in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue when he still innocent

19:42

as far as I'm concerned. So

19:44

it's tougher to bring case in

19:46

with some of the charges on the insurrection.

19:49

Just because you have to have, you know,

19:51

at least some sense that he knew

19:53

that what he was saying was false. But

19:56

that's would be brought in Washington. Very

19:58

different jury pool. I'll just put

20:01

my lawyers hat on briefly and say, I think of

20:03

the four charges that were referred if those are

20:05

the ones DOJ is considering there are

20:07

some that would require Fortive Venue

20:09

and others that wouldn't.

20:12

But I do wanna echo what Jackie

20:15

said, it is night and day.

20:17

Any anybody recognizes that immediately.

20:19

And the press has done a decent job,

20:21

I think, of trying to say it, but

20:24

At the very first hour revelation, I

20:26

think it was Josh Holly comes out and says, see,

20:28

it's an astounding symmetry

20:30

and we have, you know, Makar said, where

20:33

is the search here? And of course,

20:35

as you laid out, Jack, the predicate for the search

20:37

was months and months of really

20:39

jerking them around and probable cause

20:42

to believe there was more stuff there, so the

20:44

complete opposite. So on the one hand,

20:46

there is this on the other, you know,

20:48

it's gonna be the talking point.

20:51

I wanna go back to what you were just talking about, Luke,

20:53

because, you know, apparently, some how SARS

20:55

are shit grand because they want

20:58

at it. What's their hope and plan?

21:00

And is it actually blunted by having

21:02

a criminal investigation? Or will they just

21:05

do it

21:05

simultaneously? Well, they believe

21:07

it's blunted. What what is interesting to watch

21:09

is there's all these different Republicans sort of

21:11

competing to be who's going to be the top

21:13

investigator on this subject. Like,

21:16

Jim Comer's committee oversight has

21:18

already been sending out letters. Then today,

21:20

you know, Jim Jordan's committee is now sending

21:22

out letters about it. There seems

21:24

to be some jockeying who gets to be the Biden

21:26

investigator on this. You know,

21:28

Comer told me and he's told others that

21:30

he thinks that this makes

21:33

his investigation harder that he believes

21:35

he will be denied documents that he otherwise

21:37

could have had access to because of the special

21:39

prosecutor investigation. I don't

21:41

know if that's right or not. I suspect probably

21:44

they weren't gonna give him very much any way

21:46

of an ongoing investigation whether it

21:48

was done by you know, main justice,

21:51

Merrick Garland himself or a special counsel.

21:53

I don't know how accurate that is, but they believe that

21:55

that stymies their efforts in some

21:57

way. The other thing he said was he

22:00

did not want this to

22:02

interfere with his investigation of the

22:04

Biden family businesses.

22:07

He has tried to tie a link between

22:10

address of Hunter Biden, I

22:12

guess, at Hunter Biden's house where these

22:14

some of these documents were by the Corvette

22:17

and saying that that might mean they're

22:19

connected in some way. And so he's

22:22

going to go down that road And when

22:24

you say he is, you mean there'll be a

22:26

committee that will cause to have subpoenas

22:29

and have hot lights and try

22:31

to get punter Biden before them, that kind of

22:33

What everyone tells me is Jim Comer is

22:36

really focused on Biden family. That's

22:38

his number one investigate and

22:40

goal. And so, yes, right now, they haven't

22:43

put out subpoenas yet. They've only sent letters,

22:45

but I would expect there to be subpoenas and

22:47

hearings They have two years

22:49

to do this, and they're still

22:51

staffing up, switching from minority to the

22:53

majority. You know, he's pledged dozens and

22:55

dozens of investigations time out comer.

22:57

At the same time, Jim Jordan's gonna have this whole

23:00

other committee, the weaponization of government

23:02

sub committee, McCarthy told him

23:04

that would have the same resources as

23:06

the January sixth committee. So that

23:08

is something like

23:09

seventy, eighty people if

23:12

you count consultants or contractors

23:14

too. So he can have, you know,

23:16

just tremendous resources to investigate

23:18

almost anything that he thinks is bias

23:20

or unfairness against

23:22

conservatives or Republicans. Or

23:24

play as well on on TV.

23:27

Yeah. I I wanna get into that a a fair

23:29

bit more. So what's just try to close

23:31

out then for now, the

23:33

document Ambrolio for both.

23:36

How do you see it playing out?

23:38

Do you think norm you were you were

23:40

kind of positive about this one I talked to you

23:42

previously. If you had to sort

23:44

of choreograph what happens

23:46

now, what would you predict?

23:48

Well, I've got to believe that it's going

23:50

to be a while before we get

23:52

anything from her or that investigation.

23:55

I also believe that it's extremely unlikely

23:58

that any of it will touch Joe Biden directly.

24:01

It's very unlikely that he was

24:04

in the offices going through documents.

24:06

This was staffers. And

24:08

as in with with all these cases,

24:11

the collateral damage comes to

24:13

often young poorly paid

24:15

staffers who are gonna have

24:17

to lawyer up and probably can't

24:19

afford it. And I can imagine

24:21

one or two of them, especially as

24:24

Luke said, a guy who constitutes

24:26

even small cases by the book

24:29

It's possible that some low level

24:31

staffer is gonna end up being hit with

24:33

illegal possession of classified

24:35

document or access buying

24:38

a person without classification to those documents,

24:41

but that'll take a while. I

24:43

would imagine, especially if we

24:45

see Smith again, continuing

24:47

to try and push the Trump lawyers

24:49

who are searching in other places.

24:52

That doesn't suggest to me that we're

24:54

going to see an indictment within the next week

24:56

or two. But I would bet we

24:58

will see one before very long. And don't

25:00

forget We're probably getting close

25:03

to a decision by the end of the month or

25:05

soon thereafter in Georgia. I

25:08

still think the first indictment is likely to

25:10

come in Fulton County. Yeah. I've always

25:12

thought Georgia was further ahead

25:14

of the justice department and their investigation,

25:16

and they would make decisions before anyone else.

25:19

Plus, We like to think that all

25:21

prosecutors are not affected by politics,

25:24

but Mary Garland has to be thinking

25:26

about how this looks too. You

25:28

know he's thinking about that. Like there he's still

25:30

a human being who has to make decisions. And

25:33

I think that the Georgia prosecutor is just

25:35

less less affected by, like,

25:37

the DC scene. Like, it's not as much as a

25:39

concern for her. I actually take

25:41

your point to be the take

25:43

home the sort of moral of what happened,

25:45

and that was the op ed that

25:48

Norm was referring to. The signal feature

25:50

here is what Norm just said. There's not

25:52

the slightest hint

25:55

of anything that could ripen into

25:57

criminal conduct on Biden's part unless

25:59

we know, you know, there's not even a sense that he had

26:02

knowledge much less intent.

26:04

And that, I think, suggests that

26:06

the even the appointment of the special

26:08

council kind of departed from the

26:11

letter of the law, which requires you to find that

26:13

a criminal investigation is warranted.

26:15

So I think it shows our you

26:17

know, choirboy judge Merrick Garland

26:19

to be a little bit more savvy in

26:21

Washingtonian, maybe than he's been

26:23

given credit for. But I

26:26

also think that his big point is

26:28

he's gonna be mister defer to

26:30

other folks. And he's kind of set

26:32

it up candidly, I think. I think he's

26:34

gonna get a recommendation to prosecute

26:37

Trump from Jack Smith, and

26:39

he'll say he's going along with it. I think gonna

26:41

get a recommendation from her

26:43

to say there's nothing here with

26:46

this big caveat of does

26:48

somebody get caught up and and norm your

26:51

point's very well taken about the time?

26:53

Does this hover for a while? He's gotta

26:55

choose a staff and get office, but

26:57

I think Garland will eventually

26:59

be in a position to say I accepted mister

27:02

Hur's recommendation. It's etcetera. And so

27:04

in that sense, I think he understands

27:08

that he's going to look like he's deferring

27:10

to professional folks and yet the result

27:13

is quite likely to be nothing in the Biden

27:15

matter. And there's differences

27:17

of opinions about Mar a Lago, but I

27:19

think Smith is gonna recommend it. There's

27:22

a lot of reasons to think so. And for

27:24

Garland to bucket

27:26

then, you know, strikes me as unlikely.

27:28

I have question for you, Harry, because I've wondered

27:31

at a norm as well. Is

27:33

there a world in which there's

27:36

some sort of, like, pre prosecution agreement that

27:39

results out of this just because Trump

27:42

is running for president and really at the end

27:44

of the day, the point of

27:47

pressing charges against Trump is not necessarily to

27:49

put in jail, but to keep him out of public life.

27:51

Yeah. Wanna start

27:53

there now. I don't think it's out of the question

27:55

that there could be some kind of a deal, but

27:58

I think that's an explosive thing

28:00

to do. First of all, I can't imagine

28:03

Trump striking a deal on

28:05

this one where he says, I'll agree

28:07

never again to run for office. Among

28:09

other things, he probably believes that

28:12

an indictment here now would help him

28:14

and that he's likely to avoid a conviction

28:17

with a Florida jury. If that's what we're talking

28:19

about. But I also think, again,

28:22

with an eye towards politics, the

28:24

pushback, if you've got something

28:27

that is criminal behavior and

28:29

you let the guy off the hook, you're

28:31

gonna get a lot of blowback on that

28:33

as well. So it could happen,

28:35

but I'm skeptical. I just can't see what kind

28:37

of deal they would cut with him that

28:39

would work. I mean, everything here

28:41

is unprecedented, but the deal wouldn't

28:43

be letting him off a hook, it would be a

28:46

conviction and with that the kind

28:48

of sensing. But first, it's

28:50

probably unconstitutional. Yeah. Second,

28:52

if he does it and he doesn't need to process fingers

28:55

behind his back, he just, you know, then says,

28:57

actually, I'm running anyway. And

28:59

unless they can and this is a whole

29:02

different can of legal worms, get

29:04

the fourteenth amendment provision that truly

29:06

does disqualify him legally. I think

29:08

it would be hard to do. And yet, It's

29:11

a really good question because just

29:13

as we thought about with Nixon, think

29:16

the judgment of history is maybe

29:18

was the right thing, It does seem

29:21

in some perfect Soleimonic world,

29:24

something like that. Yay. He doesn't have

29:26

to go to jail and, you know, mess

29:28

up his hair and etcetera, but

29:30

the pocks of Trump should be no

29:32

longer upon us. Makes overall

29:35

sense, but it's hard to see with the different

29:37

moving parts and especially as

29:40

Norm's saying Trump's kind of psyche

29:42

that actually happening and

29:45

and

29:45

sticking. Right. You see those imposed

29:47

on, like, mayors and city counties? Yeah.

29:49

That's right. Yeah. Sometimes you can't run again

29:51

or you're Right. Bard from holding all this

29:53

for ten years. In fact, didn't it happen to someone

29:55

in Maryland? I know I covered a mayor who

29:57

couldn't run for until she was done her probation

30:00

and it was like, right. Or eight

30:02

years later or something that she ran again.

30:04

For lower offices, that's often the case in

30:06

public corruption cases. You just never seen more than

30:08

a president before. Exactly. Alright.

30:18

It is now time for a spirited

30:21

debate brought to you by our

30:23

sponsored total line and more.

30:26

Each episode, you'll be hearing

30:28

an expert talk about the pros

30:30

and cons of a particular issue

30:32

in the world of

30:33

wine, spirit, and beverages.

30:36

Thank you, Harry. In today's spirit

30:38

of debate, we uncorked the notion of

30:40

drinking bottled wine versus canned

30:43

wine. Yeah. Wine?

30:45

In a can. Wine canisters

30:48

may stay true to the bottle, but

30:50

wine canisters have a opted

30:52

the untraditional packaging where it's

30:54

added convenience, ideal for picnics,

30:57

concerts, and outdoor events, really

30:59

anywhere quirk screws are scarce.

31:01

And since aluminum cools faster

31:03

than glass, it reduces the

31:06

time it takes to chill your favorite

31:08

Soviet block. But swirling your wine

31:10

in a glass does help it open up,

31:12

which gives it a lot more flavor. Of

31:14

course, you can always transfer your canned

31:17

wine to a glass But if you're looking

31:19

to experience the subtleties of

31:21

a nice bottle, drinking from a glass

31:23

adds a lot. There are wines

31:25

more suited to the bottle, and there

31:28

are those well suited for the canned

31:30

life. Crisp and sparkling whites

31:32

and rosales in particular tend to

31:34

fare best in cans. But bigger,

31:36

bolder wines will usually benefit from

31:38

a nice glass. It would seem

31:41

both have their place. Still

31:43

on the fence between bottles or cans?

31:46

There's always wine in a

31:48

box. Thanks to friends

31:50

add total line and more for today's

31:53

a spirited debate. Okay.

31:57

So we've talked about this a couple

31:59

times, especially you, Luke, I want to

32:01

get it in a more full bodied way.

32:04

So last week, Mcarthy by

32:06

many people's account gives

32:08

away the store to the Freedom caucus to

32:11

finally secure his life ambition of being

32:13

speaker, by the way, his first remarks after

32:15

it is we will hold the swamp accountable

32:18

from the withdrawal of Afghanistan to

32:20

the Origins of COVID. And

32:23

the weaponization of the FBI. So and then

32:25

sure enough, this week, he

32:27

pushes through by a a very narrow

32:29

march in this new rules package

32:32

that the Freedom caucus has basically

32:34

dictated as a cost of their support. You just

32:36

had a really good piece in

32:39

the Times Group kind of laying

32:41

out the main features of

32:43

the rules that have come through

32:45

and the changes that they

32:47

affectuate. Can you sort of give us

32:49

an overview of the new

32:51

way of doing business in the house. Sure.

32:53

There's two things to keep in mind. There's a written

32:56

rules package which we can

32:58

see and read and got voted on.

33:00

And then there's all these sort of handshake deals

33:03

that took place that are not

33:05

all in one place in writing that anyone

33:07

can view. It's very shadowy. But

33:10

the main change in the rules,

33:12

the written rules, is this

33:14

motion to vacate, which means basically

33:17

at any time if five members

33:19

of the Freedom caucus get angry at Kevin

33:21

McCarthy, and they wanna throw them out of

33:23

office. If the Democrats will vote for that

33:25

on the floor and I'm sure they would love to throw out

33:28

Kevin McCarthy, they can do it.

33:30

One person can call for the vote. And

33:32

then if he has four other Republicans

33:34

who will vote with they can kick the Kevin

33:36

McCarthy out. That functionally means

33:39

he has to keep them happy at all times. You

33:41

know, Matt Gates described it as

33:43

the House Freedom caucus chairman is more

33:45

powerful than the speaker, and

33:48

we have him in a straight jacket. So

33:50

it was a pretty pretty dramatic

33:52

language at the candid

33:53

moment. I

33:54

call it a choke collar with a very short

33:56

leash. Right? And a little electric

33:59

buzzer. Yes. And the other thing he

34:01

promised them, which is not in the rules,

34:03

was that they could set at least three

34:05

members on the rules committee, which is kind

34:07

of like a gatekeeper for legislation to

34:09

even get on the floor. So they can have tremendous

34:12

influence over over bills

34:14

right before they even get to

34:16

the floor. And there's there's a lot of other

34:18

stuff in there about like seventy two hour

34:20

waiting period before a vote, which think

34:23

most people think is a good idea. There's

34:25

some other less objectionable good

34:27

government stuff that even some Democrats

34:30

like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are good

34:32

ideas. But the fact

34:34

that there's gonna be so much power in

34:36

this sort of I actually call them hard

34:38

right because the conservatives get angry

34:41

when I call them conservatives because it's

34:43

really that they're it's their extreme

34:45

positions on things and their willingness

34:47

to fight to the death almost that distinguishes

34:50

them I call them nihilistically. I mean,

34:52

they're proud of -- Yeah. -- of wanting this teardown

34:54

the government

34:55

-- Right.

34:55

-- program. And so they're gonna be just so

34:57

influential. And where it's really going

34:59

to get ugly. Is when it's

35:02

time for things like the Defense

35:04

Authorization Act, the debt ceiling,

35:07

like the real must pass bills to,

35:09

like, fund the military, fund the government

35:11

so we don't default on our debts

35:13

and cause a world economic

35:15

meltdown. Like, those things are really

35:17

at riskier, and I don't think I'm not sure people

35:20

truly understand that yet because these

35:22

guys are probably not gonna vote for that stuff. And

35:25

they have a lot of power to just kill

35:27

the entire agenda and shut

35:29

down the government if they want to. And I don't

35:31

know how he's going to negotiate them

35:33

out of that. If he can, that

35:35

would be a true achievement for his

35:37

speakership, but he hasn't shown any

35:40

ability yet to do that. Or

35:42

strength or spine. Jackie, well, let

35:44

me zero in on this debt limit question, which

35:46

everyone was thinking about. I mean,

35:48

the last time they held sway, we

35:50

threatened United States full faith credit for the

35:52

first time in our history. How

35:54

do the rules interact with their ability

35:56

to hold that hostage and

35:59

what do they seem to be spoiling to

36:01

do with

36:02

it? Yeah. So this is one of the actually

36:04

unspoken rules

36:06

that these very

36:08

hard right defectors and

36:11

anti Mcarthy detractors agreed

36:13

to, which is that basically

36:16

Republicans and this

36:18

group of people agreed that there would be

36:20

dramatic cuts and domestic spending in

36:23

exchange to avoid such

36:25

a dramatic economic calamity

36:28

because commerce does need to increase the

36:30

debt limit this year. Otherwise, as Luke

36:32

said, it's gonna put the country at

36:34

risk of defaulting on its debt, which

36:36

could cripple markets around

36:38

the world. But I thought they were like

36:40

bringing on or is that overstated?

36:43

I think there is a desire to try to

36:45

avoid it since there is

36:47

an understanding that this will ultimately come

36:50

back and and hunt. Republicans.

36:52

But if these cuts can't be

36:55

reached in domestic spending and in defense

36:57

spending, then there are going to be issues

37:00

the Republicans are also coming out against

37:02

the omnibus and

37:04

the idea of passing

37:06

an appropriation bill

37:08

in one giant package. They've

37:11

said that they will outright reject

37:13

any single legislative vehicle

37:15

that appropriates trillions of dollars even

37:18

if the individual appropriations bills

37:20

all fail. And Congress hasn't been able

37:22

to pass these separate appropriations bills

37:24

in both chambers since the nineties.

37:27

Right. So there could be a a lot of

37:30

fiscal

37:31

calamities that these

37:34

house rules are setting Congress

37:36

up for in the coming year. Just to piggyback

37:38

off that, there's two things to focus

37:40

on. think one is these

37:43

guys know because they're willing to go

37:46

harder than the other side. They

37:48

can use that that debt

37:50

limit as leverage to get what

37:52

they want because it's so calamitous

37:55

for the country. And they're willing to

37:57

do the other side isn't. So they can extract

37:59

these cuts they think in this game

38:01

of chicken by being, like, tougher than the other

38:03

side. And the other thing is

38:06

it's been tried before to pass

38:08

all these spending bills individually to twelve

38:10

of them. And it actually sounds pretty good. We

38:12

should consider them all in the merits. Right?

38:14

But functionally, it becomes almost impossible.

38:17

There's a reason why we shouldn't have to do it in one big

38:19

chunk at the end of the year because that was, like, the only way

38:21

to pass it, which they hate. Yeah.

38:23

Well, it sounds like a good good government reform

38:26

to do them individually, consider them on the merits.

38:28

No one can do it. Like, no one has legislative skill

38:30

to do that. So, I mean, if they can,

38:33

that would be

38:34

amazing, but it just seems very unlikely.

38:37

And it's been tried and failed so

38:39

many times. Let me follow-up in

38:41

a couple of ways. Actually wrote a piece in October

38:43

before the election in the Atlantic saying

38:46

if these guys win the debt limit is

38:48

gonna be the biggest catastrophe. And

38:51

if you go back to two thousand eleven, there

38:53

was no freedom caucus back then, but you have

38:55

the tea party movement, and you have the

38:57

young guns, Kevin McCarthy, Paul

39:00

Ryan and Eric Kantor egging them

39:02

on to use the death limit as

39:04

a hostage and as a lever. And

39:07

we went right up to the edge of the abyss.

39:09

John Bainer brought it back, and that

39:11

was the beginning of the end of his speaker ship.

39:14

And the Freedom caucus actually formed in

39:16

two thousand fifteen because the right

39:18

wing caucus wasn't right wing enough.

39:21

When we came close but didn't go over,

39:23

our credit rating was actually cut

39:25

and it cost taxpayers at least

39:28

eighteen or nineteen billion dollars just

39:30

because we came close and people were upset.

39:33

The tea party people look like milk

39:35

toast compared to these guys. And

39:38

Kevin McCarthy is no John

39:40

Bainer, who was not exactly the

39:42

strongest speaker in the history of the house

39:44

either. But McCarthy

39:46

is powerless to stop it. Back

39:49

then, Jason Chaifetz, who was

39:51

one of the bomb throwers, said

39:53

we would have taken it right over the cliff. We were

39:55

serious about it. There are a hundred

39:58

Jason chafences now. And, of course, a part

40:00

of this agreement is that McCarthy's

40:02

pledge key will not bring up a straightforward debt

40:05

limit increase. We are according

40:07

to Janet Yellen, going to hit our

40:09

debt limit in four days. She

40:12

will be able to go with extraordinary

40:14

measures until June or July I

40:17

will tell you that I and others

40:19

tried very hard over the last

40:21

two years to take this issue off

40:23

the table by having probably

40:25

through reconciliation, a resolution

40:28

which is ironically called the McConnell

40:30

rule that the treasury secretary

40:33

acting on behalf of the president can unilaterally

40:35

raise the debt ceiling. Congress can

40:37

pass a joint resolution to block it,

40:39

but he can veto that. So effectively, you can

40:41

override the veto with one third plus one.

40:44

And what I am told is that

40:47

the usual suspects, Mansion

40:49

and Cinema, kept it from happening.

40:52

It can't happen now. And

40:54

this is a huge problem I

40:57

wanna add couple of other things from this rules

40:59

package. One is three fifth

41:01

vote required to raise

41:03

taxes. So they've

41:06

taken taxes completely off the table,

41:08

obviously. Right. And they're pledging

41:10

a balanced budget and which means dramatic

41:13

cuts in social security in Medicare, which is

41:15

what they're going to demand and they won't get them.

41:17

And I don't know how we

41:19

avoid something deadly

41:22

serious there. And we can't leave this

41:24

without noting that they've blown up the ethics

41:26

process to protect Jim Jordan

41:29

and his colleagues Andy Biggs

41:31

Paul Gossar, Scott Perry,

41:33

at all, from ethics charges by

41:36

-- And George Santos. -- and

41:37

yeah. Although, I think the others were more significant

41:40

in this case than than Santos.

41:42

I actually I do feel like this headline was a

41:44

little overblown this week because in the resolution

41:46

they technically can replace

41:48

them. But they only have a thirty day

41:50

window. Correct. Yeah. The

41:52

replacement of the members has to

41:54

be basically approved by both parties

41:57

The whole idea in the office of

41:59

congressional ethics is Democrats nominate

42:01

the speaker nominates the minority

42:04

leader nominates they both have to

42:06

accept the others. They're not gonna accept

42:08

any nominees for the next thirty days,

42:10

and they don't have a quorum so they won't be able

42:12

to do a staff. So it's effectively,

42:15

it kills it for a long time.

42:18

Alright. Close out question.

42:20

What if anything can

42:23

the Biden administration, the Democrats,

42:25

and the Senate, do to

42:28

counteract some of the

42:30

more, you know, extreme prospects

42:33

we've been discussing. Do you have any cards

42:35

to play here? Litman. Litigate?

42:38

mean, you know, there's some legal argument

42:40

that you can't under the fourteenth

42:42

amendment, you simply can't default

42:44

on the death this way. But

42:47

declareatory judgment action, it's

42:49

Freme Court. But is that

42:51

is that right? That's about all they've got in

42:53

their hand. Well, I was more actually referring

42:55

to the sub committee on

42:57

investigating the weaponization of the federal government

42:59

-- Mhmm. -- and the carve out that members

43:01

of this committee can now investigate ongoing

43:04

criminal investigations. And I think that probably

43:07

a nonstarter based on, you know, the lender

43:09

letter and other preexisting rules.

43:11

That will not happen. I'm here

43:13

to tell you. They'll they'll have to sue and

43:15

they'll lose. I don't though have a legislative

43:18

defense for the debt

43:19

limit, Luke, do. Well, I

43:22

do think with with the weaponization committee,

43:24

like, there is an opportunity for the minority

43:26

there to do something because they are

43:28

gonna be on and they have their their

43:30

five Right. Five Democrats and out of thirteen

43:33

members Yeah. And so and and that mandate

43:35

is pretty wide. It's like bias

43:38

anywhere in the world, essentially, anywhere

43:40

in the government. And so you could

43:42

see some world where they do some sort of

43:44

minority report or they offer,

43:46

like, cross examinations or bring

43:48

up their own lines of inquiry.

43:50

So it will be interesting to see exactly

43:52

who they put on that committee and choose to lead how

43:55

hard they go. Because, you know, obviously, unlike

43:57

the January sixth community, they'll have an opportunity

43:59

here to really do their own thing in

44:01

the minority.

44:02

Yeah. No way or democrats making the mistake

44:05

of of pulling a McCarthy and pulling their members

44:07

off of this. Although I suspect

44:09

that Lockheed Jeffries will pick Democrats

44:12

and McCarthy will try and block two or

44:14

three of them, So we we still have a fandango

44:16

to go there. I do think if Biden

44:18

in the end wants to and has to play

44:20

hardball, Larry tribe

44:22

has written something about the fourteenth

44:25

amendment. You can make the case that

44:27

it would be unconstitutional for

44:29

him as president, violating his oath

44:32

to let the country default, and

44:34

he's directing Janet yell in the

44:36

treasury secretary to create three

44:38

trillion dollar platinum coins which

44:40

is, you know, one of these things that seemed utterly

44:43

outlandish before but may not be

44:45

now. And of course, since

44:47

Jim Jordan basically defied a

44:50

a subpoena in the past, they

44:52

have some ample grounds and precedent

44:54

for basically going against all the subpoenas

44:57

or a lot of them that come forward, including

44:59

as we know, they're gonna issue subpoenas to Democrats

45:02

who are on the January sixth committee.

45:04

They're gonna investigate the committee that did the

45:06

investigation, and it's gonna be the ones who were

45:08

investigated doing that investigation. It's

45:11

just bizarre. The ones who were investigated but

45:13

refused to answer subpoenas.

45:15

I've said this is like a a congress allowing

45:18

Al Capone to investigate Elliott Nest.

45:21

Okay. Alright. On this

45:23

too, so much more to come. Let's take three minutes

45:26

to discuss the talented

45:28

mister George Santos. There

45:30

have been lies out there, but this guy is just

45:33

a breaks all record as best I can

45:35

tell one of the most flagrant and comprehensive

45:38

fabricators in US political history.

45:41

It says a lot, I think, that McCarthy stood

45:43

by him. Let me just serve up.

45:46

Can he survive to service

45:47

term? You know, there are a lot of daggers out for

45:50

him. How do you see this playing out? Anybody?

45:52

There's a divergence of

45:55

incentives here for the various Republicans.

45:57

In New York, they just had an election where

45:59

they had a lot of moderates win and swing

46:01

seats. And their incentive is

46:03

to look responsible like

46:06

a party that people could vote for in a swing

46:08

district. And so George Santos

46:10

is just anathema. McCarthy's

46:13

focus is on retaining

46:15

that super slim majority that

46:18

voted for him. And he cannot afford to

46:20

lose one vote And if they were to somehow

46:22

try to force Sanders out or vote

46:24

to expel him, that seat could

46:26

easily flip to the democrats. Right? I

46:28

mean, he Santos flipped it and by a narrow

46:30

march. Yeah. What he's decided is he's

46:33

okay with a fraud that votes for him.

46:35

How as simple as that. Exactly. The

46:37

the Republicans up in New York and Nassau County,

46:40

etcetera, are not okay with the fraud that votes

46:42

for McCarthy. They want someone who's a

46:44

real legitimate person, and

46:46

the leadership of the House Republicans is okay

46:48

with it. They could vote to expel him if they

46:50

wanted to, but they would have to have the political will to

46:52

do it. And it doesn't seem like they're going to

46:54

do that. Of course, he could get tagged

46:57

for something real. Jackie mentioned the possibility

46:59

of a second crime down in Brazil.

47:01

My proprietary Antenna

47:04

say, look seriously

47:07

at this seven hundred thousand dollars

47:09

that he supposedly loaned to he didn't

47:11

mess thousand dollars. So what

47:13

happened there? Does that get exposed?

47:15

And is he really looking at, you know, the

47:17

pokey as opposed to just

47:19

not being a

47:20

member? No, I was gonna say. I think indictments

47:22

are are likely to be forthcoming. A

47:25

couple of other points, following on what Luke

47:27

said, This majority is even

47:29

thinner than it appears on the surface. Vern

47:31

Buchanan, who is a Republican from Sarasota,

47:35

wealthy guy thought he was in line

47:37

to chair the Ways and Means Committee. And

47:39

McCarthy pushed him aside for a younger

47:41

McCarthy loyalist. He's not

47:44

happy. It's possible that he could resign

47:46

in the middle of the term, and

47:48

it would take a while to get

47:50

another person in place. Then you've

47:52

got Santos. And I

47:54

was amused a little bit to see a report

47:56

in the newsletter puck that there

47:58

were all kinds of people coughing and hacking

48:01

in the cloakrooms when they

48:03

were up for these four days of votes because everybody

48:05

had to be there. And you probably

48:08

had a bunch of them with COVID I'm sure

48:10

the Republicans didn't get tested. A

48:12

lot of them have never been vaxed. That's

48:14

for woke Liberals getting vaxed.

48:16

Yeah. Where they revoke the rule for proxy

48:18

voting. I just kinda laughed and I

48:20

tweeted out several times, just wait

48:22

till they have six or ten members out for

48:25

weeks with COVID or maybe in

48:27

some cases because they're unprotected, you

48:29

know, dying. And that

48:31

majority could go before the two

48:33

years is up. And it could go for weeks

48:36

if you have people who are incapacitated. So

48:39

McCarthy is gonna try and hang on

48:41

to Santos as long as he can. And

48:44

I think the only thing that pulls them out of there

48:46

is an indictment and maybe an extradition

48:48

to Brazil where they're pretty serious

48:51

about this. But I think you're absolutely

48:53

right, Harry. The money coming in, probably

48:55

some of it from foreign sources. We already know

48:57

there's at least one. But It

48:59

appears to be coming from companies that had

49:01

no business giving it and probably that's

49:04

illegal. I think he is

49:06

more likely than not to be indicted before

49:08

this term is up. If justice comes with George

49:10

Sanders, it'll be from law enforcement before it comes

49:12

from Congress. Yeah. Yeah. Law

49:14

enforcement writ large though, I mean, won't

49:16

be ethics committee, but the federal election commission

49:18

could have something to say about this dude.

49:20

Not if you know the FEC. Well,

49:23

alright. And all of this, of course, will combine with

49:25

politics. It doesn't immediately expel

49:27

him, but it makes the drumbeeds louder,

49:29

etcetera. Man, we're out of

49:31

time except for one minute for our

49:33

talking five feature and let's just dovetail

49:36

off what everyone's just been talking

49:38

about. So rules of the road

49:40

take five words or fewer to

49:43

answer the following. What's

49:45

the next slide to come that will learn

49:47

the next shoe in the

49:49

huge closet to come

49:51

out of George Santos. Well,

49:54

he already claimed to be a volleyball champion

49:56

-- Yeah. -- which he did not

49:59

attend. So I'll say he was

50:01

also a volleyball all American. I don't know.

50:03

NBA draft pick.

50:04

There we go. There we go. There we go.

50:06

There's no way he's thirty four. Why

50:08

haven't we talked about

50:11

that? It's a birth certificate. That

50:13

he's a Democrat. And I'll go

50:15

with the old Proskatorial bromide

50:19

Follow the money. We

50:23

are sadly out of time.

50:25

Thank you very much to Jackie

50:28

Alemani, Luke Broadwater, and Norm

50:30

Orenstein. And thank you very much

50:32

listeners for tuning in to talking fans.

50:35

If you like what you've heard, please tell

50:37

a friend to subscribe to us on Apple

50:39

Podcasts or wherever they get their

50:41

podcast and please take a moment

50:43

to rate and review this

50:45

podcast. You can also now

50:47

subscribe to us on YouTube

50:50

where we are posting daily video

50:52

content breaking down the legal

50:54

news. You can follow us on

50:56

Twitter at talkingfeed Pod,

50:58

and you can look to see our latest offerings

51:01

on Patreon, where we post bonus

51:03

discussions with national experts about

51:06

special topics exclusively for

51:08

supporters. This past week,

51:10

we posted a conversation with New

51:12

York Times reporter David Yaffe

51:14

Bellan about the Sam Bankman Fried

51:17

FTX case. Talking

51:19

fans is a completely independent production.

51:22

So if you like the work we do and the spirit

51:24

moves you to support port the show, joining

51:26

our Patreon is the best way to do

51:28

it. You'll also, by the way, be able

51:31

to attend monthly q and a

51:33

sessions live with me Our

51:35

next one I think is coming up in

51:37

about a week. Submit your questions

51:39

to questions at talking fans

51:42

dot com. Whether it's for talking

51:44

five or general questions about the

51:46

inner workings of the legal system for

51:48

our sidebar segments. Thanks

51:51

for tuning don't worry.

51:53

As long as you need answers, the

51:56

feds will keep talking. Talking

51:58

feds is produced by Olivia Henriksen

52:01

Sound engineering by Matt Mercado.

52:04

Rosie Don Griffin and David Lieberman

52:06

are our contributing riders. Production

52:09

assistance by Laurel Faulkner, David

52:11

Lidman, Emma Maynard, and Calenetano.

52:14

This episode sewed is dedicated to the

52:16

memory of Fran Cagle. Our

52:19

gratitude as always to

52:21

the amazing Phillip Class who

52:24

graciously lets us use his music.

52:26

Talking Fed is a production of Delito

52:29

LLC. I'm Litman.

52:32

Talk to you later.