1 00:00:15,356 --> 00:00:22,916 Speaker 1: Pushkin No I hear before we get into this week's episode, 2 00:00:22,956 --> 00:00:24,756 Speaker 1: I wanted to tell you about something new from the 3 00:00:24,796 --> 00:00:28,956 Speaker 1: Deep Background team. Our Deep Bench miniseries explored how the 4 00:00:29,036 --> 00:00:32,756 Speaker 1: Federalist Society became the most powerful legal organization in the country. 5 00:00:33,196 --> 00:00:36,076 Speaker 1: My producer, Lydia Jeancott and I have now authored an 6 00:00:36,076 --> 00:00:39,036 Speaker 1: audiobook about the rise of the Federalist Society and the 7 00:00:39,116 --> 00:00:43,316 Speaker 1: forces that could fracture it. Takeover How a Conservative Student 8 00:00:43,316 --> 00:00:46,996 Speaker 1: Club Captured the Supreme Court includes additional interviews and a 9 00:00:47,036 --> 00:00:49,756 Speaker 1: new preface and afterward. The book will be published on 10 00:00:49,796 --> 00:00:53,756 Speaker 1: February twenty third, but until then Deep Background listeners can 11 00:00:53,756 --> 00:00:59,276 Speaker 1: purchase Takeover only at Pushkin dot fm slash Takeover. Take 12 00:00:59,316 --> 00:01:02,236 Speaker 1: advantage of this exclusive sale for Deep Background listeners and 13 00:01:02,356 --> 00:01:09,276 Speaker 1: download Takeover now at Pushkin dot fm, slash Takeover from 14 00:01:09,276 --> 00:01:12,676 Speaker 1: Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show where we 15 00:01:12,716 --> 00:01:16,556 Speaker 1: explore the stories behind the stories in the news. I'm 16 00:01:16,716 --> 00:01:22,156 Speaker 1: Noah Feldman. An impeachment trial in the Senate is supposed 17 00:01:22,156 --> 00:01:25,676 Speaker 1: to be one of the most rare revelatory events in 18 00:01:25,756 --> 00:01:31,236 Speaker 1: American politics, but we've had two in the last year alone. 19 00:01:32,356 --> 00:01:36,236 Speaker 1: What are the takeaways of this second Senate impeachment trial, 20 00:01:36,556 --> 00:01:40,516 Speaker 1: and indeed of the whole phenomenon of impeachment, one that 21 00:01:40,636 --> 00:01:46,676 Speaker 1: is speeding up with remarkable velocity. Here to discuss impeachment 22 00:01:46,716 --> 00:01:49,836 Speaker 1: with me the details of this trial, the comparison to 23 00:01:49,876 --> 00:01:53,636 Speaker 1: the first one, and the long historical trajectory of impeachment 24 00:01:53,876 --> 00:01:58,596 Speaker 1: from the founding into the future is Jacob Weisberg. Listeners 25 00:01:58,596 --> 00:02:01,356 Speaker 1: will know Jacob as the CEO and co founder of 26 00:02:01,396 --> 00:02:06,236 Speaker 1: Pushkin Industries, the company that produces this show. What you 27 00:02:06,316 --> 00:02:08,756 Speaker 1: might not know is that the way I ended up 28 00:02:08,796 --> 00:02:11,436 Speaker 1: having a podcast of any kind at all, not to 29 00:02:11,476 --> 00:02:15,356 Speaker 1: mention one on Pushkin, goes back to conversations that Jacob 30 00:02:15,356 --> 00:02:17,996 Speaker 1: and I began to have in the early days of 31 00:02:18,036 --> 00:02:20,956 Speaker 1: the Trump presidency. Back as early as the fall of 32 00:02:20,996 --> 00:02:24,676 Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, Jacob and I co authored an article in 33 00:02:24,716 --> 00:02:27,716 Speaker 1: The New York Review of Books which laid out the 34 00:02:27,836 --> 00:02:31,476 Speaker 1: case for impeachment against Trump based on the conduct that 35 00:02:31,556 --> 00:02:35,276 Speaker 1: he had already committed at that point, and based on 36 00:02:35,316 --> 00:02:39,116 Speaker 1: the underlying constitutional principles of what count as high crimes 37 00:02:39,156 --> 00:02:43,196 Speaker 1: and misdemeanors under the Constitution. That article was the beginning 38 00:02:43,236 --> 00:02:46,676 Speaker 1: for me of delving very deeply into the question of 39 00:02:46,716 --> 00:02:51,476 Speaker 1: the constitutional status of impeachment. That and subsequent research and 40 00:02:51,516 --> 00:02:53,916 Speaker 1: writing were the reasons that I ended up getting called 41 00:02:53,956 --> 00:02:59,356 Speaker 1: to testify before the House in the first impeachment process 42 00:02:59,396 --> 00:03:07,916 Speaker 1: against Donald Trump. Jacob, Welcome back to Deep Background, Jacob. 43 00:03:07,996 --> 00:03:10,796 Speaker 1: Let me ask you some specific concrete questions about what 44 00:03:10,876 --> 00:03:14,356 Speaker 1: you expected in this second impeachment trial and what happened. 45 00:03:15,356 --> 00:03:17,436 Speaker 1: First of all, did you have any different expectations the 46 00:03:17,476 --> 00:03:19,196 Speaker 1: second time from the first time, or did you figure 47 00:03:19,316 --> 00:03:20,796 Speaker 1: the fix was in the second time just as it 48 00:03:20,836 --> 00:03:26,156 Speaker 1: had been the first time. I think people overestimate the inevitability. 49 00:03:25,996 --> 00:03:27,916 Speaker 1: If you told me at the beginning there will be 50 00:03:28,156 --> 00:03:33,236 Speaker 1: seven Senate Republicans who will make an independent decision and 51 00:03:33,516 --> 00:03:36,316 Speaker 1: vote for impeachment, I would have been surprised that there 52 00:03:36,316 --> 00:03:38,636 Speaker 1: would be that many. But I don't think that was 53 00:03:38,676 --> 00:03:43,156 Speaker 1: completely inevitable. I think a slightly different dynamic, including possibly 54 00:03:44,116 --> 00:03:49,796 Speaker 1: more evidence about Trump's knowledge on January six, could have 55 00:03:50,316 --> 00:03:52,556 Speaker 1: provoked a different outcome. I don't know what do you think. 56 00:03:52,596 --> 00:03:55,036 Speaker 1: Do you think this was one hundred percent foreground conclusion. 57 00:03:56,596 --> 00:03:58,756 Speaker 1: I sort of think that it was. I mean, for me, 58 00:03:58,836 --> 00:04:02,276 Speaker 1: the alternative scenario is more like what if a congressman 59 00:04:02,516 --> 00:04:05,916 Speaker 1: had been killed or congresswoman had been killed on January six, 60 00:04:06,556 --> 00:04:08,876 Speaker 1: You know, would that have changed the result? Had it 61 00:04:08,876 --> 00:04:12,436 Speaker 1: been a Democratic congressman or congresswoman, would that have brought 62 00:04:12,476 --> 00:04:14,236 Speaker 1: to a different result? If it had been a Republican 63 00:04:14,276 --> 00:04:16,236 Speaker 1: would have been a different result. What if Mike Pence 64 00:04:16,436 --> 00:04:19,916 Speaker 1: had been badly beaten by the crowd but managed somehow 65 00:04:19,956 --> 00:04:22,716 Speaker 1: to escape. Would that have produced a different result? Based 66 00:04:22,756 --> 00:04:24,876 Speaker 1: on the fact that we saw going in, I didn't 67 00:04:24,876 --> 00:04:27,236 Speaker 1: see a way that McConnell could take a different stance 68 00:04:27,276 --> 00:04:29,516 Speaker 1: than he did, mostly because you know, as we all, 69 00:04:30,556 --> 00:04:33,996 Speaker 1: lest we be confused about the fact that McConnell despises Trump, 70 00:04:34,076 --> 00:04:36,716 Speaker 1: which is clear from his speech about Trump, McConnell is 71 00:04:36,716 --> 00:04:39,036 Speaker 1: also a facilitated Trump in a serious way for the 72 00:04:39,116 --> 00:04:42,956 Speaker 1: last four years. So you know that the accommodationism, to me, 73 00:04:43,156 --> 00:04:46,116 Speaker 1: indicated that there was no real way for McConnell to 74 00:04:46,276 --> 00:04:49,316 Speaker 1: realign where he would where he would choose to to realign. 75 00:04:49,356 --> 00:04:51,956 Speaker 1: So I was not surprised by the outcome. I do 76 00:04:52,076 --> 00:04:54,356 Speaker 1: think it could have been different if the violence had 77 00:04:54,356 --> 00:04:57,236 Speaker 1: come out in some different way. By the way, similarly, 78 00:04:57,316 --> 00:05:00,316 Speaker 1: if the Capitol Police or the Washington DC Police or 79 00:05:00,396 --> 00:05:03,716 Speaker 1: some combination had defended the capital in such a way 80 00:05:03,716 --> 00:05:05,836 Speaker 1: that no one had breached the perimeter of the capital 81 00:05:06,556 --> 00:05:08,956 Speaker 1: even if they had tried. I don't think Trump would 82 00:05:08,956 --> 00:05:12,116 Speaker 1: have been impeached. Even if the crowd had made the 83 00:05:12,156 --> 00:05:13,996 Speaker 1: state he had made the identical speech, and the crowd 84 00:05:13,996 --> 00:05:17,076 Speaker 1: had made the same efforts but hadn't been held off, 85 00:05:17,396 --> 00:05:18,876 Speaker 1: I don't think we would have seen an impeachment. I 86 00:05:18,916 --> 00:05:22,116 Speaker 1: think the impeachment happened because of the penetration of the Capitol. 87 00:05:22,276 --> 00:05:24,156 Speaker 1: And that actually leads me to ask you a question, Jacob, 88 00:05:24,156 --> 00:05:26,516 Speaker 1: which is do you think the case was stronger in 89 00:05:26,556 --> 00:05:28,756 Speaker 1: the second impeachment than in the first impeachment. I mean, 90 00:05:28,836 --> 00:05:30,636 Speaker 1: they got more Republicans in both in the House and 91 00:05:30,676 --> 00:05:32,396 Speaker 1: the Senate than the first time. Do you think that's 92 00:05:32,396 --> 00:05:33,756 Speaker 1: because the case was stronger or do you think it 93 00:05:33,796 --> 00:05:35,556 Speaker 1: was because Trump was less powerful because he was out 94 00:05:35,596 --> 00:05:38,356 Speaker 1: of office and had lost the election. It's funny I 95 00:05:38,396 --> 00:05:41,076 Speaker 1: think that both impeachments it could have been one impeachment 96 00:05:41,116 --> 00:05:42,956 Speaker 1: because both of them were about the same thing. They 97 00:05:42,956 --> 00:05:46,236 Speaker 1: were about trying to steal an election. The first one 98 00:05:46,276 --> 00:05:49,196 Speaker 1: was about trying to cheat before the election, and the 99 00:05:49,236 --> 00:05:52,996 Speaker 1: second one was about trying to reverse the results. Of 100 00:05:53,036 --> 00:05:59,276 Speaker 1: the election. They reflected Trump's democratic dishonesty and his politically 101 00:05:59,276 --> 00:06:02,716 Speaker 1: corrupt ambitions, and in that sense they were utterly valid. 102 00:06:02,876 --> 00:06:05,876 Speaker 1: I mean, if there is anything that impeachment is about, 103 00:06:07,036 --> 00:06:10,596 Speaker 1: it's trying to deal in an election. I mean, it's 104 00:06:10,636 --> 00:06:13,436 Speaker 1: hard to imagine something that a crime that it's more 105 00:06:13,476 --> 00:06:18,356 Speaker 1: political in nature. Something to me that more explicitly meets 106 00:06:18,396 --> 00:06:22,916 Speaker 1: the constitutional understanding of a high crime. Look, I totally 107 00:06:22,916 --> 00:06:24,476 Speaker 1: agree with what you said. I think they were about 108 00:06:24,516 --> 00:06:27,036 Speaker 1: the same thing. I have to say, I don't think 109 00:06:27,076 --> 00:06:31,476 Speaker 1: that that was made clear by the managers in the 110 00:06:31,756 --> 00:06:35,316 Speaker 1: second impeachment at all. I think the first impeachment focused 111 00:06:35,396 --> 00:06:38,436 Speaker 1: on something that Trump had done but had failed to do, 112 00:06:38,876 --> 00:06:40,636 Speaker 1: and the weakness of the case there was that the 113 00:06:40,636 --> 00:06:44,476 Speaker 1: allegation was that he tried to do something, namely, get 114 00:06:44,516 --> 00:06:47,196 Speaker 1: the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, 115 00:06:47,356 --> 00:06:49,916 Speaker 1: and he had failed. So his strongest defense in the 116 00:06:49,956 --> 00:06:53,676 Speaker 1: real world was something like, oh, come on, nothing happened. 117 00:06:54,236 --> 00:06:56,156 Speaker 1: And the second time it was something that Trump had 118 00:06:56,196 --> 00:06:57,596 Speaker 1: done in the sense that he gave the speech and 119 00:06:57,636 --> 00:06:59,836 Speaker 1: then the capital was breached, but the problem was that 120 00:06:59,916 --> 00:07:03,076 Speaker 1: he didn't do it, and so therefore he had to 121 00:07:03,076 --> 00:07:07,796 Speaker 1: be accused of incitement, which is by its just structural nature. 122 00:07:08,076 --> 00:07:10,796 Speaker 1: Incitement is the idea that I suggested that you do something, 123 00:07:10,796 --> 00:07:13,916 Speaker 1: and then you did it. So there's always some intervening cause, 124 00:07:14,196 --> 00:07:16,836 Speaker 1: namely what you've done in an incitement trial, and that 125 00:07:16,996 --> 00:07:19,316 Speaker 1: enabled Trump to back away and say hey, or through 126 00:07:19,316 --> 00:07:21,996 Speaker 1: his lawyers, I didn't actually do this, So in each 127 00:07:22,036 --> 00:07:25,596 Speaker 1: case he had some defense available to him. So I 128 00:07:25,636 --> 00:07:26,996 Speaker 1: agree they were about the same thing, but I don't 129 00:07:27,036 --> 00:07:29,276 Speaker 1: think they played out that way in the mind of 130 00:07:29,316 --> 00:07:33,596 Speaker 1: the public. I mean, I'm thinking with this impeachment, particularly 131 00:07:33,596 --> 00:07:36,276 Speaker 1: about the context of his call to the Georgia Secretary 132 00:07:36,316 --> 00:07:40,276 Speaker 1: of State and saying find me eleven thousand votes. I mean, 133 00:07:40,276 --> 00:07:46,036 Speaker 1: there is a context beginning on election night of Trump 134 00:07:46,676 --> 00:07:49,556 Speaker 1: rejecting the results and trying to find a way to 135 00:07:49,596 --> 00:07:53,716 Speaker 1: reverse them, and in that context, the January sixth speech 136 00:07:53,996 --> 00:07:56,436 Speaker 1: sounds totally different. I agree with you. If there hadn't 137 00:07:56,476 --> 00:07:58,636 Speaker 1: been violence the capital, you know, if they had enbreached 138 00:07:58,636 --> 00:08:00,956 Speaker 1: the Capitol, it would have just read like another incendiary 139 00:08:00,996 --> 00:08:04,716 Speaker 1: Trump speech and it would have been dismissable. But it 140 00:08:04,836 --> 00:08:09,956 Speaker 1: was in context the last effort that began on election 141 00:08:10,036 --> 00:08:13,956 Speaker 1: day to find a way to reverse the result. I 142 00:08:13,996 --> 00:08:16,836 Speaker 1: actually really wish that the articles of impeachment had not 143 00:08:17,036 --> 00:08:20,156 Speaker 1: been for incitement to violence, but had been articles of 144 00:08:20,196 --> 00:08:24,876 Speaker 1: impeachment specifically saying, you know, Donald J. Trump tried to 145 00:08:24,916 --> 00:08:29,356 Speaker 1: subvert democracy itself, first by denying the legitimacy of the 146 00:08:29,356 --> 00:08:32,636 Speaker 1: election in the run up, then by falsely claiming after 147 00:08:32,676 --> 00:08:35,036 Speaker 1: the fact that the election results were rigged when that 148 00:08:35,156 --> 00:08:38,236 Speaker 1: was not true and it was clearly false, and then 149 00:08:38,396 --> 00:08:40,916 Speaker 1: ultimately by you know, call it a second or a 150 00:08:40,956 --> 00:08:45,796 Speaker 1: third article of impeachment, by inciting the violence. My guess 151 00:08:45,836 --> 00:08:47,996 Speaker 1: about why the Democrats didn't do that, and it's just 152 00:08:48,036 --> 00:08:51,076 Speaker 1: a guess, is that they were worried that if they 153 00:08:51,636 --> 00:08:53,956 Speaker 1: made the denial of the legitimacy of the elections into 154 00:08:53,996 --> 00:08:57,836 Speaker 1: an impeachable offense, they wouldn't get any Republican votes, because 155 00:08:57,836 --> 00:09:01,196 Speaker 1: so many Republicans were publicly on the record as saying 156 00:09:01,316 --> 00:09:06,436 Speaker 1: that the election results were rigged, and on the contrary, 157 00:09:06,516 --> 00:09:09,236 Speaker 1: no one in Congress was willing to say openly that 158 00:09:09,236 --> 00:09:12,276 Speaker 1: it was a good thing to invade the capital. And 159 00:09:12,316 --> 00:09:14,476 Speaker 1: so I think they guess, this is just you know, 160 00:09:14,596 --> 00:09:17,716 Speaker 1: reconstructing that they would do better in terms of the 161 00:09:17,796 --> 00:09:21,156 Speaker 1: votes if they just restricted the charge to incitement and 162 00:09:21,196 --> 00:09:23,556 Speaker 1: then added that other stuff in the course of the 163 00:09:23,596 --> 00:09:27,796 Speaker 1: background section. And you know, they were probably right about that. 164 00:09:27,796 --> 00:09:29,876 Speaker 1: I'm not disputing their political judge their politicians. They do 165 00:09:29,916 --> 00:09:32,116 Speaker 1: there for a living. I just really wish that the 166 00:09:32,116 --> 00:09:36,556 Speaker 1: impeachment hadn't been only about incitement in some formal sense, 167 00:09:36,596 --> 00:09:38,476 Speaker 1: but had formerly been about the idea that it is 168 00:09:38,516 --> 00:09:41,436 Speaker 1: impeachable offense to lose the election and then walk around 169 00:09:41,516 --> 00:09:44,556 Speaker 1: saying that there was massive fraud and you didn't lose 170 00:09:44,556 --> 00:09:47,316 Speaker 1: the election when there is no evidence for that and 171 00:09:47,356 --> 00:09:50,996 Speaker 1: you're lying. Yeah. I mean, they went with the visceral charge, 172 00:09:51,116 --> 00:09:54,356 Speaker 1: they went with the he sent a mob here to 173 00:09:54,476 --> 00:09:57,676 Speaker 1: kill us. You would think looking around the Senate chamber 174 00:09:57,996 --> 00:10:03,716 Speaker 1: that the people who escaped that attempt escaped that riot 175 00:10:03,956 --> 00:10:08,116 Speaker 1: with their lives, but many cases were you know, really 176 00:10:08,196 --> 00:10:11,516 Speaker 1: threatened and really in jeopardy. Would say, yeah, we do 177 00:10:11,556 --> 00:10:13,116 Speaker 1: have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm going to 178 00:10:13,196 --> 00:10:15,636 Speaker 1: draw the line at the head of the executive branch 179 00:10:16,076 --> 00:10:19,316 Speaker 1: trying to have members of the legislative branch and his 180 00:10:19,436 --> 00:10:23,596 Speaker 1: own vice president murdered or han and that doesn't do it. 181 00:10:23,836 --> 00:10:26,196 Speaker 1: Nothing really is going to I mean, if that doesn't 182 00:10:26,236 --> 00:10:30,276 Speaker 1: if that's not a convincing enough charge even if legally, 183 00:10:30,996 --> 00:10:33,836 Speaker 1: I mean, I take your point, and I agree, and 184 00:10:33,876 --> 00:10:37,356 Speaker 1: I would have certainly had a charge related to his 185 00:10:37,476 --> 00:10:41,476 Speaker 1: overall effort to subvert democracy, subvert the election. But honestly, 186 00:10:41,516 --> 00:10:44,316 Speaker 1: if trying to kill us isn't going to do it, 187 00:10:44,396 --> 00:10:47,916 Speaker 1: nothing else is. So I think it could be argued 188 00:10:47,956 --> 00:10:52,596 Speaker 1: that actually the impeachments weren't feutal, even though the fix 189 00:10:52,716 --> 00:10:55,476 Speaker 1: was in, and neither was going to result in either 190 00:10:55,516 --> 00:10:58,756 Speaker 1: removing the president or banning him from office in the future, 191 00:10:59,636 --> 00:11:04,916 Speaker 1: because impeachment remains the strongest tool that Congress has to 192 00:11:05,036 --> 00:11:08,156 Speaker 1: take a stand and to condemn the president, and it 193 00:11:08,156 --> 00:11:10,116 Speaker 1: goes in the history book insofar as it hasn't been 194 00:11:10,196 --> 00:11:12,436 Speaker 1: used all that frequently. That might change if it gets 195 00:11:12,436 --> 00:11:13,876 Speaker 1: to be used all the time, which may people talk 196 00:11:13,916 --> 00:11:16,836 Speaker 1: about later, but for now it remains an outlying thing. 197 00:11:17,876 --> 00:11:22,076 Speaker 1: And so if the point of impeachment was not ultimately 198 00:11:22,076 --> 00:11:26,276 Speaker 1: in practice to remove Trump, it was probably then to 199 00:11:26,356 --> 00:11:30,356 Speaker 1: send a message to the world that we the House 200 00:11:30,396 --> 00:11:34,916 Speaker 1: Democrats are drawing a red line in the basic practice 201 00:11:34,956 --> 00:11:38,476 Speaker 1: of democratic government, and we're saying in our constitutional government, 202 00:11:38,476 --> 00:11:42,796 Speaker 1: there's certain things you cannot do without consequence. I fully 203 00:11:42,836 --> 00:11:44,516 Speaker 1: agree with that. No, I mean I think it still 204 00:11:44,676 --> 00:11:49,236 Speaker 1: was a semi successful exercise and accountability. For that reason, 205 00:11:49,636 --> 00:11:53,876 Speaker 1: Trump's offenses were aired, the public learned more about them, 206 00:11:54,316 --> 00:11:57,436 Speaker 1: some views of the Trump changed at the margin among 207 00:11:57,996 --> 00:12:00,996 Speaker 1: persuadable Republicans and the electorate. You know, the answer to 208 00:12:01,036 --> 00:12:06,316 Speaker 1: the question should Trump run for office again, the number 209 00:12:06,356 --> 00:12:09,636 Speaker 1: of Republicans who say yes to that actually did minished 210 00:12:09,956 --> 00:12:14,196 Speaker 1: in a statistically meaningful way pre and post impeachment, So 211 00:12:14,196 --> 00:12:17,996 Speaker 1: in all those ways it was valuable. And also the 212 00:12:18,076 --> 00:12:20,876 Speaker 1: fear that it would be a distraction for the new 213 00:12:20,956 --> 00:12:24,036 Speaker 1: president and would get him off his game in relation 214 00:12:24,116 --> 00:12:26,596 Speaker 1: to his agenda, I don't think that's born out. So 215 00:12:26,636 --> 00:12:31,276 Speaker 1: I don't see negative consequences, except to the extent that 216 00:12:31,436 --> 00:12:36,596 Speaker 1: impeachment is becoming common. I think the fact that we 217 00:12:36,676 --> 00:12:42,076 Speaker 1: have had three in the past twenty five years, we 218 00:12:42,156 --> 00:12:45,876 Speaker 1: had one in the nineteenth century, and we've had four 219 00:12:46,436 --> 00:12:50,356 Speaker 1: in my lifetime, the likely scenario is we have more. 220 00:12:50,596 --> 00:12:54,836 Speaker 1: It's a more available political tool, and because it's been 221 00:12:55,596 --> 00:13:00,276 Speaker 1: carried through without ultimate consequence, I think this very strong 222 00:13:00,396 --> 00:13:03,956 Speaker 1: temptation for Republicans is going to be if they regain 223 00:13:04,876 --> 00:13:08,956 Speaker 1: power in the House to figure out somebody to impeach 224 00:13:09,236 --> 00:13:12,756 Speaker 1: kind of because they can. I don't think it's too 225 00:13:12,796 --> 00:13:17,036 Speaker 1: soon to start asking ourselves. One of the big aftermath questions, 226 00:13:17,276 --> 00:13:20,596 Speaker 1: which was all that talk about impeachment in which you 227 00:13:20,676 --> 00:13:24,516 Speaker 1: and I were implicated, was it a good idea? I mean, 228 00:13:24,596 --> 00:13:28,916 Speaker 1: did we cheapen the idea of impeachment in such a 229 00:13:28,916 --> 00:13:30,956 Speaker 1: way that it made it harder to get these impeachments through. 230 00:13:31,076 --> 00:13:36,476 Speaker 1: Did we acclimate people to the idea, or was there, 231 00:13:36,516 --> 00:13:39,036 Speaker 1: in fact something good about starting to talk about impeachment 232 00:13:39,116 --> 00:13:43,396 Speaker 1: as soon as we did. Well. It is a good 233 00:13:43,476 --> 00:13:47,516 Speaker 1: question in a way. Both impeachments, the combined impeachments were 234 00:13:47,716 --> 00:13:50,276 Speaker 1: kind of study and futility, So you know, it's hard 235 00:13:50,316 --> 00:13:53,356 Speaker 1: to say it's hard to feel good about how they 236 00:13:53,436 --> 00:13:56,836 Speaker 1: came out. The other thing I just reread, sort of 237 00:13:56,836 --> 00:14:00,476 Speaker 1: briefly today in preparation for talking to you, was Federal 238 00:14:00,636 --> 00:14:04,996 Speaker 1: sixty five, which is the key federalist piece by Hamilton 239 00:14:05,116 --> 00:14:08,996 Speaker 1: on impeachment and what's amazing about that and I really 240 00:14:09,236 --> 00:14:11,476 Speaker 1: kind of urge people to read it. I feel like 241 00:14:11,556 --> 00:14:15,876 Speaker 1: it anticipates exactly what went wrong with impeachment. In it, 242 00:14:16,036 --> 00:14:22,236 Speaker 1: Hamilton basically says, here's the problem the tendency. Politicians are 243 00:14:22,276 --> 00:14:28,836 Speaker 1: going to have to take ideological positions, side with parties, 244 00:14:29,276 --> 00:14:35,116 Speaker 1: exercise their relative power, and not use their individual judgment 245 00:14:35,796 --> 00:14:40,236 Speaker 1: as people about whether an offense is impeachable. And it's like, 246 00:14:40,276 --> 00:14:43,596 Speaker 1: if you read that right now, it's a precise description 247 00:14:44,436 --> 00:14:47,156 Speaker 1: of what happened in the Senate. I mean, I think 248 00:14:47,196 --> 00:14:50,596 Speaker 1: of what the all but seven Republican senators did, But 249 00:14:50,676 --> 00:14:53,476 Speaker 1: in a way you could argue what Democrats did too. 250 00:14:53,516 --> 00:14:55,516 Speaker 1: I mean, I think the Democrats were right, of course 251 00:14:55,796 --> 00:14:59,476 Speaker 1: in voting to convict, but I don't know that there 252 00:14:59,516 --> 00:15:02,796 Speaker 1: was a lot of independent individual judgment there as opposed 253 00:15:02,796 --> 00:15:08,356 Speaker 1: to following party discipline. Hamilton does right there about how 254 00:15:09,156 --> 00:15:12,076 Speaker 1: the senators ought to exercise independent judgment, and he's pretty 255 00:15:12,076 --> 00:15:15,236 Speaker 1: optimistic about how they will do so, And obviously, in 256 00:15:15,316 --> 00:15:20,396 Speaker 1: part that reflects the framer's naivete about what political parties 257 00:15:20,396 --> 00:15:23,476 Speaker 1: would actually do in real life. Hamilton himself went on 258 00:15:23,516 --> 00:15:26,636 Speaker 1: to found a political party, the Federalists. His collaborator on 259 00:15:26,676 --> 00:15:30,756 Speaker 1: the Federalist Papers, Madison, went on to found the other 260 00:15:30,836 --> 00:15:35,036 Speaker 1: political party on the other side, the Republicans, the Democratic Republicans. 261 00:15:35,436 --> 00:15:38,476 Speaker 1: So they went from being close collaborators and friends in 262 00:15:38,476 --> 00:15:41,236 Speaker 1: producing the Federalist Papers to being brutal political enemies. And 263 00:15:41,276 --> 00:15:44,396 Speaker 1: because they didn't anticipate the rise of political parties, they 264 00:15:44,476 --> 00:15:49,116 Speaker 1: underestimated how partisan the impeachment process would be. That said 265 00:15:50,156 --> 00:15:52,596 Speaker 1: Hamilton himself, you know, in the Federalist Papers was trying 266 00:15:52,636 --> 00:15:54,476 Speaker 1: to be a propagandist. He was trying to get people 267 00:15:54,516 --> 00:15:58,876 Speaker 1: to make the Constitution be ratified, and so he depicted 268 00:15:58,996 --> 00:16:05,556 Speaker 1: the probabilities that people would act selflessly in ways that 269 00:16:05,636 --> 00:16:10,476 Speaker 1: seemed to me knowingly on his part overstated. Given how 270 00:16:10,516 --> 00:16:14,116 Speaker 1: deeply Hamilton was worried about the danger of demagogues, a 271 00:16:14,236 --> 00:16:17,436 Speaker 1: danger he speaks about in the Federalist Papers, he must 272 00:16:17,476 --> 00:16:20,916 Speaker 1: have known that there was a real, real possibility of 273 00:16:21,196 --> 00:16:26,156 Speaker 1: politicians demagoguing an impeachment. So when he makes those arguments 274 00:16:26,596 --> 00:16:29,196 Speaker 1: and acknowledges the counter arguments, it may be this is 275 00:16:29,196 --> 00:16:31,636 Speaker 1: reading him against the grain. It may be that he's 276 00:16:31,796 --> 00:16:35,436 Speaker 1: actually aware that impeachment may not be that effective a 277 00:16:35,436 --> 00:16:38,036 Speaker 1: tool in the long run, but for the purposes of 278 00:16:38,076 --> 00:16:40,596 Speaker 1: his polemical purpose is saying, oh, this is going to work. Great, 279 00:16:41,756 --> 00:16:43,676 Speaker 1: that's very interesting. No, I mean, I think the place 280 00:16:43,716 --> 00:16:47,956 Speaker 1: where i'd be a little skeptical of that defense of 281 00:16:48,316 --> 00:16:53,076 Speaker 1: Hamilton's full foresight of the problem is around political parties. 282 00:16:53,116 --> 00:16:56,956 Speaker 1: The founders, including Hamilton Madison. I mean, I feel funny 283 00:16:57,316 --> 00:17:00,316 Speaker 1: talking to the biographer of Madison about this, because you know, 284 00:17:00,316 --> 00:17:03,196 Speaker 1: you've forgot more about this today than I'll ever know. 285 00:17:03,636 --> 00:17:06,236 Speaker 1: But you know, they're always talking about faction, by which 286 00:17:06,276 --> 00:17:08,996 Speaker 1: they mean political parties, which they think are this kind 287 00:17:08,996 --> 00:17:15,436 Speaker 1: of corrupting factor in democratic government, and they were just wrong. 288 00:17:15,476 --> 00:17:18,476 Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think you know, their democracies all 289 00:17:18,516 --> 00:17:22,196 Speaker 1: seemed to develop political parties the fundamental feature, and they 290 00:17:22,236 --> 00:17:24,556 Speaker 1: felt we could do without them, and not only could 291 00:17:24,556 --> 00:17:26,396 Speaker 1: we do without them, that we wouldn't have a healthy 292 00:17:26,396 --> 00:17:28,756 Speaker 1: democracy unless we did without them. As you say, they 293 00:17:28,796 --> 00:17:32,316 Speaker 1: both immediately founded political parties themselves. It was just a 294 00:17:32,476 --> 00:17:34,916 Speaker 1: kind of fundamental misreading. But I think if you read 295 00:17:35,196 --> 00:17:39,836 Speaker 1: something like The Federalist sixty five, it's shot through with 296 00:17:39,916 --> 00:17:46,276 Speaker 1: this idea of individuals making decisions without fundamental reference to 297 00:17:46,356 --> 00:17:50,116 Speaker 1: being part of political parties. You're totally right. And I 298 00:17:50,116 --> 00:17:51,916 Speaker 1: guess what I'm saying, and I'm making this up as 299 00:17:51,956 --> 00:17:56,036 Speaker 1: I go, so you know, take it for what it's worth. Madison, 300 00:17:56,196 --> 00:17:58,676 Speaker 1: I know, did believe those things. It was totally sincere 301 00:17:58,676 --> 00:18:01,876 Speaker 1: on his part, and the failure to anticipate political parties 302 00:18:01,876 --> 00:18:05,636 Speaker 1: was based on his intellectual I would even say hubrist 303 00:18:05,636 --> 00:18:07,436 Speaker 1: at that moment, which is that he thought he'd designed 304 00:18:07,476 --> 00:18:11,916 Speaker 1: a constitution that would fix the problem political parties. Hamilton, however, 305 00:18:12,076 --> 00:18:14,756 Speaker 1: was not a naive person. Ever, there was nothing naive 306 00:18:14,796 --> 00:18:18,236 Speaker 1: about Hamilton. And although he's talking the Madisonian language and 307 00:18:18,236 --> 00:18:21,316 Speaker 1: the Federalist papers, including in sixty five, what I'm spec 308 00:18:21,356 --> 00:18:24,196 Speaker 1: thinking about is that maybe Hamilton didn't believe it as 309 00:18:24,236 --> 00:18:27,116 Speaker 1: much as Madison definitely did believe it even when Hamilton 310 00:18:27,516 --> 00:18:30,396 Speaker 1: was saying it. So I wonder if he wasn't already 311 00:18:30,436 --> 00:18:33,716 Speaker 1: anticipating something like that and already thinking that there probably 312 00:18:33,756 --> 00:18:37,756 Speaker 1: would be political parties, even as he joined these documents 313 00:18:37,796 --> 00:18:39,876 Speaker 1: declaring that they designed a constitution that would fix the 314 00:18:39,916 --> 00:18:43,436 Speaker 1: problem with political parties. Yeah, that's interesting. Well, let me 315 00:18:43,436 --> 00:18:45,556 Speaker 1: ask you about something else I've been thinking about, which 316 00:18:45,636 --> 00:18:49,196 Speaker 1: is whether there was a fundamental failure on the part 317 00:18:49,236 --> 00:18:55,156 Speaker 1: of the founders in thinking about transitions presidential leadership transitions, 318 00:18:55,676 --> 00:18:59,036 Speaker 1: because two things that they did not include in the 319 00:18:59,076 --> 00:19:03,796 Speaker 1: constitution were any kind of term limits for the head 320 00:19:03,796 --> 00:19:08,596 Speaker 1: of government and I think in the impeachment trial, what 321 00:19:08,796 --> 00:19:12,916 Speaker 1: Jamie you're asking characterized so effectively as this January problem, 322 00:19:13,316 --> 00:19:17,076 Speaker 1: which Mitch McConnell ended up taking advantage of by saying, no, 323 00:19:17,276 --> 00:19:20,276 Speaker 1: we won't impeach him while he's still in office, and 324 00:19:20,316 --> 00:19:22,436 Speaker 1: then it once he wakes he's out of office. He 325 00:19:22,516 --> 00:19:24,796 Speaker 1: believes that there's this loophole, which I don't think is 326 00:19:25,276 --> 00:19:31,676 Speaker 1: supported by constitutional history. However, there is a lack of 327 00:19:31,916 --> 00:19:37,196 Speaker 1: clear procedure and lack of anticipation about this really particular 328 00:19:37,236 --> 00:19:40,436 Speaker 1: problem that seems to arise almost everywhere in the world 329 00:19:40,476 --> 00:19:44,316 Speaker 1: all the time, which is leaders not wanting to leave office, 330 00:19:44,396 --> 00:19:48,316 Speaker 1: including when they lose free and fair elections. You know, 331 00:19:48,396 --> 00:19:50,356 Speaker 1: it may be that those things are related to each other. 332 00:19:50,396 --> 00:19:53,156 Speaker 1: I mean, the Framers didn't have term limits because they 333 00:19:53,156 --> 00:19:55,156 Speaker 1: didn't think that the president was going to step down 334 00:19:55,276 --> 00:19:59,716 Speaker 1: after only a few terms. Hamilton basically wanted an elected monarchy, 335 00:19:59,756 --> 00:20:02,196 Speaker 1: and he wanted Washington to be the first elected monarch. 336 00:20:02,956 --> 00:20:05,756 Speaker 1: And it was only when Washington did step down after 337 00:20:05,836 --> 00:20:09,476 Speaker 1: two terms that this tradition emerged, only subsequently broke by 338 00:20:09,516 --> 00:20:13,356 Speaker 1: FDR and then subsequently put into a constitutional amendment. So 339 00:20:13,476 --> 00:20:15,356 Speaker 1: the fact that they didn't have trem limits. Wasn't a 340 00:20:15,796 --> 00:20:17,316 Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't a bug for them. It was 341 00:20:17,356 --> 00:20:20,596 Speaker 1: a feature. They wanted a strong executive and those of 342 00:20:20,636 --> 00:20:23,116 Speaker 1: them who, including Hamilton, who really wanted something that looked 343 00:20:23,156 --> 00:20:27,836 Speaker 1: more like a monarchic presidency, appreciated that fact. And they 344 00:20:27,916 --> 00:20:31,396 Speaker 1: weren't that worried about the transitions problem. I think insofar 345 00:20:31,436 --> 00:20:33,636 Speaker 1: as they were had Washington in mind. They figured he'd 346 00:20:33,636 --> 00:20:36,156 Speaker 1: always be reelected, and they figured that people who were 347 00:20:36,196 --> 00:20:39,716 Speaker 1: not elected would step down, and that did happen right Adams, 348 00:20:39,796 --> 00:20:41,756 Speaker 1: right out of the box. You know, the second president 349 00:20:42,436 --> 00:20:44,916 Speaker 1: loses an election to Jefferson, and he does step down. 350 00:20:45,996 --> 00:20:47,956 Speaker 1: Another part of it, I think was that they had 351 00:20:47,996 --> 00:20:51,356 Speaker 1: an image of what a gentleman of the late eighteenth 352 00:20:51,396 --> 00:20:55,436 Speaker 1: century cared most about, and that was his reputation. And 353 00:20:55,516 --> 00:20:59,356 Speaker 1: they knew that loss of reputation could be ruinous, and 354 00:20:59,436 --> 00:21:01,876 Speaker 1: doing the kinds of things that Donald Trump did would 355 00:21:01,876 --> 00:21:04,236 Speaker 1: have been reputation destroying. I mean, these were people who 356 00:21:04,276 --> 00:21:07,716 Speaker 1: fought and in Hamilton's case, died for their reputation. I mean, 357 00:21:07,756 --> 00:21:10,516 Speaker 1: people who will fight a duel are people who really 358 00:21:10,596 --> 00:21:14,196 Speaker 1: value reputation above everything else, including possibly you know, life 359 00:21:14,196 --> 00:21:16,156 Speaker 1: and limb so I think that might be why they 360 00:21:16,156 --> 00:21:19,036 Speaker 1: were not as worried about people refusing to step down. Well, 361 00:21:19,116 --> 00:21:22,916 Speaker 1: is it fair to say that while they were obsessed 362 00:21:23,036 --> 00:21:26,676 Speaker 1: fully focused on the problem of demagogues and politics, they 363 00:21:26,756 --> 00:21:31,156 Speaker 1: didn't anticipate the narrower problem of what do you do 364 00:21:31,236 --> 00:21:34,596 Speaker 1: when you've got the demagogue in office and you're trying 365 00:21:34,636 --> 00:21:38,476 Speaker 1: to transition away you trying to get the demagogue to yield. 366 00:21:38,636 --> 00:21:40,596 Speaker 1: I mean, that is the problem we ran into with 367 00:21:40,876 --> 00:21:44,156 Speaker 1: Donald Trump. The fox was in the Henhouse. The demagogue 368 00:21:44,196 --> 00:21:49,276 Speaker 1: was elected president in a flukish way, but legitimately and 369 00:21:49,556 --> 00:21:53,196 Speaker 1: like a demagogue, tried as hard as he possibly could 370 00:21:53,276 --> 00:21:55,916 Speaker 1: not to yield power. And I think historians may look 371 00:21:55,956 --> 00:21:59,596 Speaker 1: back on this period and think we came a lot 372 00:21:59,676 --> 00:22:04,796 Speaker 1: closer than we ever anticipated coming to not having a 373 00:22:04,836 --> 00:22:09,756 Speaker 1: successful democratic transition. In the twenty twenty election, we'll be 374 00:22:09,836 --> 00:22:22,156 Speaker 1: right back. I think your point, Jacob about the Framers 375 00:22:22,196 --> 00:22:24,316 Speaker 1: not really thinking about what to do if a demagogue 376 00:22:24,356 --> 00:22:27,476 Speaker 1: did get elected is profound and I think pretty original, 377 00:22:28,036 --> 00:22:29,476 Speaker 1: because they thought a lot about how to keep him 378 00:22:29,476 --> 00:22:30,836 Speaker 1: out office, but not a lot about what to do 379 00:22:30,876 --> 00:22:33,956 Speaker 1: once he was in office. I think there's a separate 380 00:22:33,996 --> 00:22:37,316 Speaker 1: question of how close we were, and it's one worth exploring. 381 00:22:37,356 --> 00:22:40,916 Speaker 1: I think had the Defense Department had officials who were 382 00:22:40,956 --> 00:22:45,436 Speaker 1: prepared to listen to Trump and deploy troops in his 383 00:22:45,876 --> 00:22:48,396 Speaker 1: defense of his attempt to gain power, that would have 384 00:22:48,396 --> 00:22:52,756 Speaker 1: been an actual coup deeta, not a rag tag mob 385 00:22:52,956 --> 00:22:55,676 Speaker 1: invading the capitol, which was a kind of a fantasy 386 00:22:55,676 --> 00:22:57,596 Speaker 1: of a coup deta rather than the reality of it. 387 00:22:57,956 --> 00:22:59,996 Speaker 1: And I think it's an interesting question of how close 388 00:23:00,036 --> 00:23:02,556 Speaker 1: we came to that, you know, the fact that it 389 00:23:02,556 --> 00:23:04,756 Speaker 1: turns out that there was someone in the Department of Justice, 390 00:23:04,756 --> 00:23:07,596 Speaker 1: a mid level official, but nevertheless an official Department of 391 00:23:07,596 --> 00:23:11,236 Speaker 1: Justice who went to Trump said make me attorney general 392 00:23:11,396 --> 00:23:15,396 Speaker 1: and I will order Georgia to retract its electoral College votes. 393 00:23:15,436 --> 00:23:18,756 Speaker 1: It's pretty astonishing. And if something like that had happened 394 00:23:19,276 --> 00:23:21,916 Speaker 1: in the Defense Department, that really could have led you 395 00:23:21,996 --> 00:23:23,556 Speaker 1: in a coup like direction. So in that sense, I 396 00:23:23,596 --> 00:23:25,436 Speaker 1: think history will bear out your point that it could 397 00:23:25,476 --> 00:23:27,836 Speaker 1: have gone worse. At the same time, it didn't happen 398 00:23:27,876 --> 00:23:30,196 Speaker 1: in those ways, despite the fact that we had Donald Trump, 399 00:23:30,676 --> 00:23:33,756 Speaker 1: and so that could be a potential potential argument on 400 00:23:33,796 --> 00:23:37,396 Speaker 1: the other On the other side, yeah, I think it's 401 00:23:37,636 --> 00:23:43,836 Speaker 1: it's sort of like talking about nuclear war, the minuscule 402 00:23:43,996 --> 00:23:48,276 Speaker 1: chance becomes an intolerable chance. And you know, I don't 403 00:23:48,316 --> 00:23:50,756 Speaker 1: know when I say how close we came. Was it 404 00:23:50,876 --> 00:23:53,836 Speaker 1: a five percent chance? Was it a one percent chance? 405 00:23:53,996 --> 00:23:57,116 Speaker 1: A one percent chance of the collapse of constitutional democracy 406 00:23:57,236 --> 00:24:00,236 Speaker 1: is way too high a chance, as you're saying, I mean, 407 00:24:01,556 --> 00:24:04,036 Speaker 1: maybe what stood between Trump and trying a real coup 408 00:24:04,076 --> 00:24:07,076 Speaker 1: data was that he wouldn't have had support from the markets, 409 00:24:07,076 --> 00:24:08,996 Speaker 1: and he wouldn't have had support from the business community. 410 00:24:09,316 --> 00:24:11,956 Speaker 1: The markets don't seem to have thought at any point 411 00:24:11,996 --> 00:24:14,196 Speaker 1: that there was a meaningful risk of a kudata or 412 00:24:14,196 --> 00:24:17,236 Speaker 1: the breakdown of constitutional democracy, and to me, that has 413 00:24:17,276 --> 00:24:19,476 Speaker 1: to reflect I mean, it's always hard to say what 414 00:24:19,556 --> 00:24:21,756 Speaker 1: the markets you mean when they do something, But when 415 00:24:21,756 --> 00:24:24,236 Speaker 1: the markets don't do anything out of the ordinary, you 416 00:24:24,236 --> 00:24:26,556 Speaker 1: can at least say that they're not desperately panic that 417 00:24:26,596 --> 00:24:28,196 Speaker 1: we're about to have a civil war or war in 418 00:24:28,196 --> 00:24:31,316 Speaker 1: the streets. So I don't know, I mean, I think 419 00:24:31,316 --> 00:24:35,396 Speaker 1: it'd be really interesting to see in retrospect. I wanted 420 00:24:35,436 --> 00:24:38,036 Speaker 1: to go back, Jacob to the point you raised about 421 00:24:38,156 --> 00:24:42,316 Speaker 1: impeachments getting more common, and I'm wondering why you think 422 00:24:42,356 --> 00:24:45,716 Speaker 1: that is. Is it that we have more partisanship. Is 423 00:24:45,716 --> 00:24:48,916 Speaker 1: it that we have more transparency about what government does 424 00:24:48,956 --> 00:24:51,676 Speaker 1: than we used to have. What's your view? Why do 425 00:24:51,716 --> 00:24:54,676 Speaker 1: you think these are more frequent now? I mean, I 426 00:24:54,716 --> 00:24:57,676 Speaker 1: think you know, polarization is a bit of a tautology, right, 427 00:24:57,716 --> 00:25:00,556 Speaker 1: In a more polarized political environment, you get more impeachments, 428 00:25:00,556 --> 00:25:03,436 Speaker 1: and you get more impeachments because you have more polarization. 429 00:25:03,996 --> 00:25:08,316 Speaker 1: One thing I might focus on is norms. Political norms 430 00:25:08,316 --> 00:25:11,836 Speaker 1: starting to fall way earlier than we're focused on. We're 431 00:25:11,916 --> 00:25:15,236 Speaker 1: very focused on Donald Trump's attack on all sorts of 432 00:25:15,236 --> 00:25:18,396 Speaker 1: political norms, which is very true. But I think in 433 00:25:18,436 --> 00:25:22,076 Speaker 1: the nineties there were a lot of things that had 434 00:25:22,116 --> 00:25:26,636 Speaker 1: been norms in politics, including around the justification for impeachment, 435 00:25:27,236 --> 00:25:30,876 Speaker 1: that kind of melted away without a ton of notice. 436 00:25:31,316 --> 00:25:35,076 Speaker 1: And if you want to figure out when things really 437 00:25:35,116 --> 00:25:39,156 Speaker 1: started to break down in Congress, I think it was 438 00:25:39,796 --> 00:25:44,556 Speaker 1: the Gingrich election of nineteen ninety four. Republicans retook the 439 00:25:44,636 --> 00:25:47,876 Speaker 1: House by a very big margin two years after Bill 440 00:25:47,916 --> 00:25:52,556 Speaker 1: Clinton was elected, and new Gingrich was committed to leading 441 00:25:52,596 --> 00:25:57,316 Speaker 1: the Republicans in a very different style than they'd been 442 00:25:57,516 --> 00:26:02,396 Speaker 1: led for many many decades, and essentially he declared an 443 00:26:02,476 --> 00:26:06,836 Speaker 1: end to any cooperation, an idea that politics really was 444 00:26:06,956 --> 00:26:10,756 Speaker 1: war in the sense that anything that passed was going 445 00:26:10,756 --> 00:26:14,916 Speaker 1: to be a political benefit to the Democrats because they 446 00:26:14,956 --> 00:26:18,796 Speaker 1: controlled the White House, and essentially that the goal of 447 00:26:18,836 --> 00:26:23,156 Speaker 1: the party that wasn't in the White House was obstruction. 448 00:26:23,676 --> 00:26:27,876 Speaker 1: That provoked a certain amount of Democratic retaliation. But I 449 00:26:27,916 --> 00:26:32,236 Speaker 1: think impeaching Bill Clinton for you know, what might have 450 00:26:32,356 --> 00:26:36,956 Speaker 1: been abhorrent personal behavior, but was I think still by 451 00:26:36,996 --> 00:26:43,436 Speaker 1: any constitutional definition, not political crime, not high crimes and misdemeanors, 452 00:26:43,996 --> 00:26:46,636 Speaker 1: started to break down those norms. Can I ask a 453 00:26:46,676 --> 00:26:48,996 Speaker 1: further follow up question about that Gingridge moment in nineteen 454 00:26:49,076 --> 00:26:53,156 Speaker 1: ninety four. Do you think that partly what you're describing 455 00:26:53,476 --> 00:26:56,596 Speaker 1: is the first time in modern American history that the 456 00:26:56,676 --> 00:27:01,636 Speaker 1: Republican Party had people in its senior leadership positions who 457 00:27:01,636 --> 00:27:05,036 Speaker 1: were overtly populist. I mean, there, you know, there was 458 00:27:05,036 --> 00:27:08,636 Speaker 1: George Wallace, but he was an insurgent candidate who didn't 459 00:27:08,796 --> 00:27:13,036 Speaker 1: ultimately make it nationally. You know, there had been Pat Buchanan, 460 00:27:13,796 --> 00:27:16,236 Speaker 1: but also had not made it to the very senior 461 00:27:16,276 --> 00:27:20,916 Speaker 1: most ranks of Republican leadership. Nixon didn't have the personality 462 00:27:20,996 --> 00:27:26,956 Speaker 1: to be a populist. I wonder if the Gingrich model 463 00:27:27,596 --> 00:27:31,476 Speaker 1: of Republican populism contributed to the emergence of the breakdown 464 00:27:31,516 --> 00:27:34,796 Speaker 1: of norms precisely because it was populist. And you know, 465 00:27:34,836 --> 00:27:38,076 Speaker 1: there have been democratic populist for many, many years. But 466 00:27:38,236 --> 00:27:40,356 Speaker 1: you know, most political systems have one side that's the 467 00:27:40,356 --> 00:27:42,316 Speaker 1: populist party, and the other side it's not necessarily the 468 00:27:42,316 --> 00:27:45,756 Speaker 1: populist party. Here you suddenly had both sides importing some 469 00:27:45,876 --> 00:27:48,916 Speaker 1: degree of populism. And populists like to break the rules, right. 470 00:27:48,956 --> 00:27:53,116 Speaker 1: Populists always say the rules of normal politics are rules 471 00:27:53,156 --> 00:27:56,836 Speaker 1: designed to serve the interests of the rich and the powerful. 472 00:27:56,916 --> 00:27:59,396 Speaker 1: So let's, you know, burn it all down. Yeah, I 473 00:27:59,436 --> 00:28:02,636 Speaker 1: think that's I think that's very insightful. I mean, Republicans 474 00:28:02,676 --> 00:28:06,196 Speaker 1: hadn't had a real populist moment since McCarthyism. I mean, 475 00:28:06,236 --> 00:28:09,236 Speaker 1: I think McCarthyism was a form of rightland populism, but 476 00:28:09,316 --> 00:28:13,596 Speaker 1: in the long period between the early fifties and the nineties, 477 00:28:13,756 --> 00:28:18,956 Speaker 1: populism was more associated with southern segregationists. I do think 478 00:28:19,036 --> 00:28:23,796 Speaker 1: what Gingrich was trying to do certainly had the tonality 479 00:28:24,076 --> 00:28:28,796 Speaker 1: of populism, but it's sort of populism combined with obstruction 480 00:28:29,516 --> 00:28:33,476 Speaker 1: as an alternative to compromise and legislation. I mean, there's 481 00:28:33,476 --> 00:28:37,036 Speaker 1: a fundamental question about whether the job of a member 482 00:28:37,036 --> 00:28:43,196 Speaker 1: of Congress is to pass legislation. Gingrich came in and said, nope, 483 00:28:43,476 --> 00:28:46,396 Speaker 1: our job is to stop all of it. There is 484 00:28:46,476 --> 00:28:50,036 Speaker 1: no version of a healthcare bill that Republicans could ever 485 00:28:50,676 --> 00:28:53,156 Speaker 1: support that would just be good for Democrats. It's more 486 00:28:53,316 --> 00:28:57,876 Speaker 1: government block everything. And that's what they did. And I 487 00:28:57,916 --> 00:29:01,596 Speaker 1: think that that was the kind of change in the 488 00:29:01,716 --> 00:29:06,316 Speaker 1: rules of the game that probably led to the Clinton impeachment. 489 00:29:06,876 --> 00:29:09,916 Speaker 1: And I speak of someone who thinks both impeachments of 490 00:29:09,956 --> 00:29:13,556 Speaker 1: Trump were justified. So I don't take the position that 491 00:29:13,556 --> 00:29:20,076 Speaker 1: that was illegitimate democratic retaliation. But if Republicans hadn't impeached 492 00:29:20,116 --> 00:29:22,876 Speaker 1: Bill Clinton, do I think that there would have been 493 00:29:22,916 --> 00:29:27,316 Speaker 1: two impeachments against Donald Trump? Maybe not. I think emerging 494 00:29:27,356 --> 00:29:30,676 Speaker 1: from what you're saying is maybe the beginnings of a 495 00:29:30,716 --> 00:29:33,996 Speaker 1: collaborative hypothesis here about the rise of impeachments. And it 496 00:29:34,076 --> 00:29:37,876 Speaker 1: might run something like this, if you have populist parties 497 00:29:37,916 --> 00:29:41,196 Speaker 1: on both sides and they do the obstruction, which is 498 00:29:41,236 --> 00:29:44,116 Speaker 1: one of the things that populists are prepared to do. 499 00:29:44,236 --> 00:29:47,316 Speaker 1: Because the populace doesn't just want to pass legislation it's popular, 500 00:29:47,356 --> 00:29:50,716 Speaker 1: but wants to block the other side from usurping the 501 00:29:51,116 --> 00:29:55,796 Speaker 1: people's will. Then you get a higher probability of impeachment 502 00:29:56,036 --> 00:29:59,516 Speaker 1: because impeachment itself, in some way is the ultimate form 503 00:29:59,516 --> 00:30:03,116 Speaker 1: of obstruction. Right. So, you know, Bill Clinton's supporters said 504 00:30:03,156 --> 00:30:06,196 Speaker 1: when he was impeached, listen, the Republicans are just doing 505 00:30:06,236 --> 00:30:08,596 Speaker 1: this to block him from being president, from doing what 506 00:30:08,636 --> 00:30:12,156 Speaker 1: he wants to. It's just an obstructionist technique. And similarly, 507 00:30:12,436 --> 00:30:14,436 Speaker 1: Donald Trump supporters said that they said, you know, these 508 00:30:14,476 --> 00:30:18,236 Speaker 1: impeachment efforts, especially the first one, we're just intended to 509 00:30:18,596 --> 00:30:22,156 Speaker 1: interfere with his agenda as president. And I think what 510 00:30:22,196 --> 00:30:24,356 Speaker 1: you're saying is maybe there is something to that, in 511 00:30:24,396 --> 00:30:31,556 Speaker 1: the sense that obstruction is connected to polarization, and impeachment 512 00:30:31,636 --> 00:30:35,076 Speaker 1: is a form of obstruction, sort of the ultimate form 513 00:30:35,116 --> 00:30:37,276 Speaker 1: of obstruction. And then also explains by the way, why 514 00:30:37,876 --> 00:30:40,236 Speaker 1: Joe Biden seemed so eager to get the current the 515 00:30:40,276 --> 00:30:43,196 Speaker 1: third impeachment over quickly because he doesn't want the idea 516 00:30:43,196 --> 00:30:45,476 Speaker 1: of impeachment anywhere in this story. He just wants to 517 00:30:45,476 --> 00:30:48,956 Speaker 1: get on with his legislative agenda. I mean, this is 518 00:30:48,996 --> 00:30:54,076 Speaker 1: a very interesting hypothesis. It would explain why we have 519 00:30:54,116 --> 00:30:56,076 Speaker 1: more impeachments, but also it would explain why that's not 520 00:30:56,076 --> 00:30:58,676 Speaker 1: the end of the world. You know. It would explain 521 00:30:58,756 --> 00:31:01,916 Speaker 1: that politics evolves and in a moment where you have 522 00:31:01,956 --> 00:31:06,876 Speaker 1: a lot of partisan populism, you need tools to express that, 523 00:31:07,476 --> 00:31:09,756 Speaker 1: and maybe one of those tools is and maybe we 524 00:31:09,796 --> 00:31:12,836 Speaker 1: get more impeachment efforts going forward as a consequence, and 525 00:31:12,916 --> 00:31:15,876 Speaker 1: maybe that's fine. I think we probably will. And it 526 00:31:16,636 --> 00:31:19,156 Speaker 1: does mean some extent that the currency is devalued. The 527 00:31:19,236 --> 00:31:23,636 Speaker 1: more common it is, the less you know, historically aberrant 528 00:31:23,716 --> 00:31:26,036 Speaker 1: it is. I mean, I remember I was ten years 529 00:31:26,036 --> 00:31:29,436 Speaker 1: old when Nixon was impeached, and I was really into it. 530 00:31:29,516 --> 00:31:32,116 Speaker 1: I was riveted. But part of the excitement was, this 531 00:31:32,156 --> 00:31:36,236 Speaker 1: is something that's never happened before in anybody's lifetime. It 532 00:31:36,236 --> 00:31:38,596 Speaker 1: had been eighteen sixty eight. There was no living person 533 00:31:38,636 --> 00:31:40,836 Speaker 1: who could tell you how impeachment worked. And they are 534 00:31:40,836 --> 00:31:43,276 Speaker 1: all these books, you know that came out and all 535 00:31:43,276 --> 00:31:46,116 Speaker 1: these scholars had to kind of figure out impeachment for 536 00:31:46,196 --> 00:31:50,436 Speaker 1: a new century. It's becoming a lot more familiar. People 537 00:31:50,476 --> 00:31:52,676 Speaker 1: who in nineteen seventy four had no idea how an 538 00:31:52,676 --> 00:31:56,716 Speaker 1: impeachment actually happened. Now know exactly how it goes because 539 00:31:56,756 --> 00:32:02,676 Speaker 1: we've been doing it a lot. I wonder if impeachments, though, 540 00:32:03,876 --> 00:32:06,476 Speaker 1: could actually be less upsetting to all of us if 541 00:32:06,476 --> 00:32:10,596 Speaker 1: we come to see them as base basically the strongest 542 00:32:10,676 --> 00:32:15,636 Speaker 1: thing that Congress can do to condemn a president, rather 543 00:32:15,756 --> 00:32:20,956 Speaker 1: than as a process of a quasi judicial nature with 544 00:32:20,996 --> 00:32:23,916 Speaker 1: a verdict that might actually lead to an outcome, you know. 545 00:32:23,956 --> 00:32:26,836 Speaker 1: I mean, we have a tendency and the media as 546 00:32:26,876 --> 00:32:32,636 Speaker 1: a tendency too, to think about stories as legal dramas. 547 00:32:33,156 --> 00:32:34,516 Speaker 1: And it's hard to have a legal drama if you 548 00:32:34,516 --> 00:32:36,356 Speaker 1: know already what the outcome is going to be. And 549 00:32:36,396 --> 00:32:39,116 Speaker 1: so in some sense, these impeachments weren't that dramatic because 550 00:32:39,156 --> 00:32:40,676 Speaker 1: we knew what was going to happen at the end 551 00:32:40,676 --> 00:32:43,756 Speaker 1: of them. But if we get outside of that framework 552 00:32:43,796 --> 00:32:46,396 Speaker 1: and say, okay, we are going to have more impeachments, 553 00:32:46,556 --> 00:32:50,276 Speaker 1: but it's going to be reserved for situations where Congress 554 00:32:50,316 --> 00:32:52,996 Speaker 1: what wants to express its highest form of sanction for 555 00:32:53,036 --> 00:32:55,756 Speaker 1: a president, that might be good enough. And it might 556 00:32:55,796 --> 00:32:58,276 Speaker 1: even take us retrospectively back to the Clinton situation, when 557 00:32:58,356 --> 00:33:01,316 Speaker 1: we both agree that what Clinton did wasn't a high 558 00:33:01,316 --> 00:33:04,916 Speaker 1: crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution. But on the other hand, 559 00:33:05,116 --> 00:33:08,436 Speaker 1: he did lie under oath having had an affair with 560 00:33:08,516 --> 00:33:11,676 Speaker 1: the twenties thing year old secretary in the White House. 561 00:33:11,996 --> 00:33:15,276 Speaker 1: You know, two very very bad things, and you know, 562 00:33:15,356 --> 00:33:18,116 Speaker 1: bad in different ways from one another. And I think 563 00:33:18,236 --> 00:33:20,436 Speaker 1: in that sense, the idea that Congress felt it had 564 00:33:20,476 --> 00:33:23,476 Speaker 1: to say something to say that this conduct is not okay, 565 00:33:24,036 --> 00:33:28,556 Speaker 1: doesn't actually seem so outrageous in retrospect. Yeah, but fundamentally, 566 00:33:28,796 --> 00:33:32,436 Speaker 1: in a democracy, you make decisions in an election and 567 00:33:32,476 --> 00:33:35,196 Speaker 1: you have to live with those decisions until the next election. 568 00:33:35,676 --> 00:33:40,316 Speaker 1: And at the state level, many states have what I 569 00:33:40,316 --> 00:33:42,676 Speaker 1: think was originally a kind of progressive or a reform 570 00:33:42,676 --> 00:33:46,116 Speaker 1: of recall, and so as soon as the governors elected 571 00:33:46,556 --> 00:33:50,476 Speaker 1: in some states, including often in California, people are trying 572 00:33:50,516 --> 00:33:54,156 Speaker 1: to get petitioning to get recall on the ballot, and 573 00:33:54,276 --> 00:33:59,156 Speaker 1: so you're in a constant state of argument basically about 574 00:33:59,276 --> 00:34:03,476 Speaker 1: the legitimacy of an elected official and the question of 575 00:34:03,516 --> 00:34:06,636 Speaker 1: whether it elected official is going to serve out his term. 576 00:34:06,756 --> 00:34:09,876 Speaker 1: I think that basically not productive most of the time. 577 00:34:09,956 --> 00:34:14,956 Speaker 1: There are obviously situations where there are corrupt officials, officials 578 00:34:14,996 --> 00:34:19,196 Speaker 1: who abuse power, officials who deserve to be recalled before 579 00:34:19,276 --> 00:34:22,676 Speaker 1: their term is over. But you can't be having a 580 00:34:22,836 --> 00:34:25,716 Speaker 1: version of the election all the time. And I think 581 00:34:25,756 --> 00:34:29,556 Speaker 1: you've got to reserve these removal tools, impeachment being the 582 00:34:29,636 --> 00:34:34,436 Speaker 1: ultimate one for the rare cases, because otherwise, you know, 583 00:34:34,476 --> 00:34:38,756 Speaker 1: again it's it's politics as warfare all of the time. 584 00:34:39,756 --> 00:34:41,876 Speaker 1: But you're not saying that impeachment has to be reserved 585 00:34:41,876 --> 00:34:45,756 Speaker 1: for situations where it will work. No, I'm saying it 586 00:34:45,796 --> 00:34:50,156 Speaker 1: has to be reserved for situations in which it's justified, 587 00:34:50,316 --> 00:34:53,276 Speaker 1: in which what we're talking about is a high crime 588 00:34:53,316 --> 00:34:56,316 Speaker 1: in the political sense that it is something like what 589 00:34:56,396 --> 00:34:59,196 Speaker 1: we've just been through with Donald Trump, and not like 590 00:34:59,356 --> 00:35:02,596 Speaker 1: what we went through with Bill Clinton, where objection to 591 00:35:02,756 --> 00:35:08,316 Speaker 1: politics and some personal misbehavior or scandal is kind of 592 00:35:08,356 --> 00:35:14,076 Speaker 1: cobbled together as an argument for removal from office. Just 593 00:35:14,076 --> 00:35:16,436 Speaker 1: to close on a personal note, I think the first 594 00:35:16,436 --> 00:35:18,356 Speaker 1: time I was ever on a podcast was when I 595 00:35:18,396 --> 00:35:23,596 Speaker 1: was on your Trump cast talking about impeachment and related issues. 596 00:35:23,636 --> 00:35:27,236 Speaker 1: And at the time you hadn't started Pushkin and I 597 00:35:27,276 --> 00:35:29,036 Speaker 1: hadn't dreamt of being on the other side of the 598 00:35:29,116 --> 00:35:33,076 Speaker 1: microphone for a podcast. So this show definitely would not 599 00:35:33,116 --> 00:35:35,396 Speaker 1: exist or not for the question of the impeachment of 600 00:35:35,436 --> 00:35:37,996 Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I can't exactly thank Donald Trump for that, 601 00:35:38,356 --> 00:35:41,316 Speaker 1: but I want to thank you for this conversation and 602 00:35:41,396 --> 00:35:43,796 Speaker 1: for the previous conversations that we had. They have had 603 00:35:43,796 --> 00:35:47,196 Speaker 1: a transformative effect on my life, very literally. Well, Noah, 604 00:35:47,236 --> 00:35:50,516 Speaker 1: the one part of impeachment I can really endorse is 605 00:35:50,836 --> 00:35:52,716 Speaker 1: talking to you about it. It was the part of 606 00:35:52,716 --> 00:35:55,796 Speaker 1: impeachment I really enjoyed. So I'm sorry that conversation is 607 00:35:55,836 --> 00:35:57,956 Speaker 1: going to end now, at least for a while, but 608 00:35:58,476 --> 00:36:00,436 Speaker 1: I'm sure we'll find some other things to talk about. 609 00:36:00,756 --> 00:36:09,916 Speaker 1: Thanks Jacob, Thank you, Noah. It was a huge pleasure 610 00:36:09,996 --> 00:36:12,396 Speaker 1: to talk to Jacob, as it always is for me. 611 00:36:12,476 --> 00:36:15,876 Speaker 1: The key takeaways have to do with Jacob's central insight 612 00:36:16,036 --> 00:36:20,756 Speaker 1: into the idea that impeachments are getting more and more frequent. 613 00:36:21,716 --> 00:36:24,516 Speaker 1: None until the middle of the nineteenth century, from the 614 00:36:24,556 --> 00:36:28,076 Speaker 1: time of the founding than a possible impeachment of Richard 615 00:36:28,196 --> 00:36:31,716 Speaker 1: Nixon so bad from Nixon's perspective that he resigned before 616 00:36:31,716 --> 00:36:35,156 Speaker 1: he could actually be impeached, and then in rapid succession, 617 00:36:35,596 --> 00:36:38,636 Speaker 1: Bill Clinton's impeachment at the end of his presidency and 618 00:36:38,756 --> 00:36:43,396 Speaker 1: not one but two impeachments of Donald Trump. Jacob thinks 619 00:36:43,556 --> 00:36:46,276 Speaker 1: this means we're going to have a lot more impeachment 620 00:36:46,316 --> 00:36:49,236 Speaker 1: going forward. And what's more, he sees this as intimately 621 00:36:49,316 --> 00:36:54,716 Speaker 1: connected to the rise of partisanship and polarization in our politics. 622 00:36:54,916 --> 00:36:58,556 Speaker 1: If Jacob's right, we're going to have more, not less impeachment. 623 00:36:59,236 --> 00:37:02,196 Speaker 1: A second important takeaway is to ask ourselves, is that 624 00:37:02,356 --> 00:37:06,716 Speaker 1: necessarily a bad thing? My own view of impeachment trials 625 00:37:07,076 --> 00:37:09,556 Speaker 1: after the experience of these two, is it We would 626 00:37:09,556 --> 00:37:13,276 Speaker 1: be making a mistake if we conceptualize those trials primarily 627 00:37:13,316 --> 00:37:16,356 Speaker 1: in terms of their success or failure in punishing the 628 00:37:16,436 --> 00:37:19,236 Speaker 1: president by removing him from office or by banning him 629 00:37:19,276 --> 00:37:23,076 Speaker 1: from running again. The process is simply too tied up 630 00:37:23,436 --> 00:37:27,516 Speaker 1: in politics for that to be the necessary outcome to 631 00:37:27,796 --> 00:37:32,756 Speaker 1: justify the means. To me, impeachment today stands for the 632 00:37:32,796 --> 00:37:36,516 Speaker 1: opportunity that Congress has to insist that it will state 633 00:37:36,596 --> 00:37:39,236 Speaker 1: once and for the record that certain conduct by the 634 00:37:39,276 --> 00:37:43,076 Speaker 1: president is entirely unacceptable, and that if he does so, 635 00:37:43,356 --> 00:37:47,596 Speaker 1: Congress must take action of impeachment or else send the 636 00:37:47,676 --> 00:37:50,756 Speaker 1: message to the ages that the president's conduct was normal 637 00:37:50,996 --> 00:37:55,636 Speaker 1: or acceptable. To me, Donald Trump's conduct both the first 638 00:37:55,636 --> 00:37:58,756 Speaker 1: time he was impeached and the second time clearly passed 639 00:37:58,876 --> 00:38:03,196 Speaker 1: that bar. As Jacob mentioned in our conversation, Trump's impeachments 640 00:38:03,356 --> 00:38:06,236 Speaker 1: both followed from the same course of conduct he was 641 00:38:06,316 --> 00:38:10,316 Speaker 1: trying to break the twenty twenty Democratic election. Will Donald 642 00:38:10,316 --> 00:38:14,156 Speaker 1: Trump ultimately be criminally prosecuted for this or other conduct. 643 00:38:14,676 --> 00:38:20,996 Speaker 1: It remains possible, but relatively unlikely. Already, Georgia law enforcement 644 00:38:21,076 --> 00:38:24,076 Speaker 1: is investigating Trump's call to the Secretary of State, where 645 00:38:24,116 --> 00:38:26,316 Speaker 1: he asked him to find or directed him to find 646 00:38:26,356 --> 00:38:29,876 Speaker 1: eleven thousand more votes, potentially threatening him with criminal prosecution 647 00:38:30,076 --> 00:38:33,116 Speaker 1: if he did not. That might lead to a prosecution, 648 00:38:33,196 --> 00:38:35,196 Speaker 1: but my guess is that the legal issues will be 649 00:38:35,236 --> 00:38:37,636 Speaker 1: too close for the case to be brought to a jury. 650 00:38:38,156 --> 00:38:40,756 Speaker 1: In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would have to prove 651 00:38:40,796 --> 00:38:44,356 Speaker 1: to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt two different things. First, 652 00:38:44,356 --> 00:38:48,796 Speaker 1: that Donald Trump's words were directed to the incitement of violence, 653 00:38:49,356 --> 00:38:51,916 Speaker 1: which probably means in practice that it would have to 654 00:38:51,956 --> 00:38:56,556 Speaker 1: be shown that he intended to incite violence and or 655 00:38:57,116 --> 00:39:01,356 Speaker 1: that his words literally were an incitement to violence. The 656 00:39:01,436 --> 00:39:04,316 Speaker 1: second component would be to prove that Trump's words were 657 00:39:04,356 --> 00:39:09,636 Speaker 1: actually likely to incite political violence. The latter would be 658 00:39:09,716 --> 00:39:12,436 Speaker 1: quite easy to prove, because, after all, after Donald Trump spoke, 659 00:39:12,636 --> 00:39:16,756 Speaker 1: there was indeed a violent riot, But the former would 660 00:39:16,796 --> 00:39:21,316 Speaker 1: be very difficult to prove because Donald Trump was characteristically canny. 661 00:39:21,636 --> 00:39:24,996 Speaker 1: He did not use words that literally called for the 662 00:39:25,116 --> 00:39:27,556 Speaker 1: use of violence, and it would not be simple to 663 00:39:27,596 --> 00:39:32,156 Speaker 1: prove that he intended for that violence to occur. Ultimately, 664 00:39:32,196 --> 00:39:35,236 Speaker 1: then it seems most probable to me that the jury 665 00:39:35,396 --> 00:39:38,996 Speaker 1: for determining Donald Trump's culpability for the events of January 666 00:39:39,036 --> 00:39:44,116 Speaker 1: sixth will be that most evanescent and yet most significant 667 00:39:44,156 --> 00:39:48,956 Speaker 1: of juries the jury of history. Until the next time 668 00:39:48,996 --> 00:39:52,796 Speaker 1: I speak to you, be careful, be safe, and be well. 669 00:39:54,756 --> 00:39:57,836 Speaker 1: Deep background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. Our 670 00:39:57,876 --> 00:40:01,676 Speaker 1: producer is Mo laboord our engineer is Martin Gonzales, and 671 00:40:01,716 --> 00:40:06,436 Speaker 1: our shorerunner is Sophie Crane mckibbon. Editorial support from noahm Osband. 672 00:40:06,916 --> 00:40:11,556 Speaker 1: Theme music by Luis Gara. Thanks to Mia Lobell, Julia Barton, 673 00:40:11,796 --> 00:40:16,756 Speaker 1: Lydia Jean Cott, Heather Faine, Carl mcniori, Maggie Taylor, Eric Sandler, 674 00:40:16,796 --> 00:40:19,516 Speaker 1: and Jacob Weisberg. You can find me on Twitter at 675 00:40:19,516 --> 00:40:22,916 Speaker 1: Noah R. Feldman. I also write a column for Bloomberg Opinion, 676 00:40:23,036 --> 00:40:26,076 Speaker 1: which you can find at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman. 677 00:40:26,596 --> 00:40:29,876 Speaker 1: To discover Bloomberg's original slate of podcasts, go to bloomberg 678 00:40:29,956 --> 00:40:32,756 Speaker 1: dot com slash podcasts, and if you liked what you 679 00:40:32,796 --> 00:40:35,556 Speaker 1: heard today, please write a review or tell a friend. 680 00:40:35,956 --> 00:40:37,356 Speaker 1: This is deep background