WEBVTT - The Impeachment Era 

0:00:15.356 --> 0:00:22.916
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin No I hear before we get into this week's episode,

0:00:22.956 --> 0:00:24.756
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to tell you about something new from the

0:00:24.796 --> 0:00:28.956
<v Speaker 1>Deep Background team. Our Deep Bench miniseries explored how the

0:00:29.036 --> 0:00:32.756
<v Speaker 1>Federalist Society became the most powerful legal organization in the country.

0:00:33.196 --> 0:00:36.076
<v Speaker 1>My producer, Lydia Jeancott and I have now authored an

0:00:36.076 --> 0:00:39.036
<v Speaker 1>audiobook about the rise of the Federalist Society and the

0:00:39.116 --> 0:00:43.316
<v Speaker 1>forces that could fracture it. Takeover How a Conservative Student

0:00:43.316 --> 0:00:46.996
<v Speaker 1>Club Captured the Supreme Court includes additional interviews and a

0:00:47.036 --> 0:00:49.756
<v Speaker 1>new preface and afterward. The book will be published on

0:00:49.796 --> 0:00:53.756
<v Speaker 1>February twenty third, but until then Deep Background listeners can

0:00:53.756 --> 0:00:59.276
<v Speaker 1>purchase Takeover only at Pushkin dot fm slash Takeover. Take

0:00:59.316 --> 0:01:02.236
<v Speaker 1>advantage of this exclusive sale for Deep Background listeners and

0:01:02.356 --> 0:01:09.276
<v Speaker 1>download Takeover now at Pushkin dot fm, slash Takeover from

0:01:09.276 --> 0:01:12.676
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show where we

0:01:12.716 --> 0:01:16.556
<v Speaker 1>explore the stories behind the stories in the news. I'm

0:01:16.716 --> 0:01:22.156
<v Speaker 1>Noah Feldman. An impeachment trial in the Senate is supposed

0:01:22.156 --> 0:01:25.676
<v Speaker 1>to be one of the most rare revelatory events in

0:01:25.756 --> 0:01:31.236
<v Speaker 1>American politics, but we've had two in the last year alone.

0:01:32.356 --> 0:01:36.236
<v Speaker 1>What are the takeaways of this second Senate impeachment trial,

0:01:36.556 --> 0:01:40.516
<v Speaker 1>and indeed of the whole phenomenon of impeachment, one that

0:01:40.636 --> 0:01:46.676
<v Speaker 1>is speeding up with remarkable velocity. Here to discuss impeachment

0:01:46.716 --> 0:01:49.836
<v Speaker 1>with me the details of this trial, the comparison to

0:01:49.876 --> 0:01:53.636
<v Speaker 1>the first one, and the long historical trajectory of impeachment

0:01:53.876 --> 0:01:58.596
<v Speaker 1>from the founding into the future is Jacob Weisberg. Listeners

0:01:58.596 --> 0:02:01.356
<v Speaker 1>will know Jacob as the CEO and co founder of

0:02:01.396 --> 0:02:06.236
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin Industries, the company that produces this show. What you

0:02:06.316 --> 0:02:08.756
<v Speaker 1>might not know is that the way I ended up

0:02:08.796 --> 0:02:11.436
<v Speaker 1>having a podcast of any kind at all, not to

0:02:11.476 --> 0:02:15.356
<v Speaker 1>mention one on Pushkin, goes back to conversations that Jacob

0:02:15.356 --> 0:02:17.996
<v Speaker 1>and I began to have in the early days of

0:02:18.036 --> 0:02:20.956
<v Speaker 1>the Trump presidency. Back as early as the fall of

0:02:20.996 --> 0:02:24.676
<v Speaker 1>twenty seventeen, Jacob and I co authored an article in

0:02:24.716 --> 0:02:27.716
<v Speaker 1>The New York Review of Books which laid out the

0:02:27.836 --> 0:02:31.476
<v Speaker 1>case for impeachment against Trump based on the conduct that

0:02:31.556 --> 0:02:35.276
<v Speaker 1>he had already committed at that point, and based on

0:02:35.316 --> 0:02:39.116
<v Speaker 1>the underlying constitutional principles of what count as high crimes

0:02:39.156 --> 0:02:43.196
<v Speaker 1>and misdemeanors under the Constitution. That article was the beginning

0:02:43.236 --> 0:02:46.676
<v Speaker 1>for me of delving very deeply into the question of

0:02:46.716 --> 0:02:51.476
<v Speaker 1>the constitutional status of impeachment. That and subsequent research and

0:02:51.516 --> 0:02:53.916
<v Speaker 1>writing were the reasons that I ended up getting called

0:02:53.956 --> 0:02:59.356
<v Speaker 1>to testify before the House in the first impeachment process

0:02:59.396 --> 0:03:07.916
<v Speaker 1>against Donald Trump. Jacob, Welcome back to Deep Background, Jacob.

0:03:07.996 --> 0:03:10.796
<v Speaker 1>Let me ask you some specific concrete questions about what

0:03:10.876 --> 0:03:14.356
<v Speaker 1>you expected in this second impeachment trial and what happened.

0:03:15.356 --> 0:03:17.436
<v Speaker 1>First of all, did you have any different expectations the

0:03:17.476 --> 0:03:19.196
<v Speaker 1>second time from the first time, or did you figure

0:03:19.316 --> 0:03:20.796
<v Speaker 1>the fix was in the second time just as it

0:03:20.836 --> 0:03:26.156
<v Speaker 1>had been the first time. I think people overestimate the inevitability.

0:03:25.996 --> 0:03:27.916
<v Speaker 1>If you told me at the beginning there will be

0:03:28.156 --> 0:03:33.236
<v Speaker 1>seven Senate Republicans who will make an independent decision and

0:03:33.516 --> 0:03:36.316
<v Speaker 1>vote for impeachment, I would have been surprised that there

0:03:36.316 --> 0:03:38.636
<v Speaker 1>would be that many. But I don't think that was

0:03:38.676 --> 0:03:43.156
<v Speaker 1>completely inevitable. I think a slightly different dynamic, including possibly

0:03:44.116 --> 0:03:49.796
<v Speaker 1>more evidence about Trump's knowledge on January six, could have

0:03:50.316 --> 0:03:52.556
<v Speaker 1>provoked a different outcome. I don't know what do you think.

0:03:52.596 --> 0:03:55.036
<v Speaker 1>Do you think this was one hundred percent foreground conclusion.

0:03:56.596 --> 0:03:58.756
<v Speaker 1>I sort of think that it was. I mean, for me,

0:03:58.836 --> 0:04:02.276
<v Speaker 1>the alternative scenario is more like what if a congressman

0:04:02.516 --> 0:04:05.916
<v Speaker 1>had been killed or congresswoman had been killed on January six,

0:04:06.556 --> 0:04:08.876
<v Speaker 1>You know, would that have changed the result? Had it

0:04:08.876 --> 0:04:12.436
<v Speaker 1>been a Democratic congressman or congresswoman, would that have brought

0:04:12.476 --> 0:04:14.236
<v Speaker 1>to a different result? If it had been a Republican

0:04:14.276 --> 0:04:16.236
<v Speaker 1>would have been a different result. What if Mike Pence

0:04:16.436 --> 0:04:19.916
<v Speaker 1>had been badly beaten by the crowd but managed somehow

0:04:19.956 --> 0:04:22.716
<v Speaker 1>to escape. Would that have produced a different result? Based

0:04:22.756 --> 0:04:24.876
<v Speaker 1>on the fact that we saw going in, I didn't

0:04:24.876 --> 0:04:27.236
<v Speaker 1>see a way that McConnell could take a different stance

0:04:27.276 --> 0:04:29.516
<v Speaker 1>than he did, mostly because you know, as we all,

0:04:30.556 --> 0:04:33.996
<v Speaker 1>lest we be confused about the fact that McConnell despises Trump,

0:04:34.076 --> 0:04:36.716
<v Speaker 1>which is clear from his speech about Trump, McConnell is

0:04:36.716 --> 0:04:39.036
<v Speaker 1>also a facilitated Trump in a serious way for the

0:04:39.116 --> 0:04:42.956
<v Speaker 1>last four years. So you know that the accommodationism, to me,

0:04:43.156 --> 0:04:46.116
<v Speaker 1>indicated that there was no real way for McConnell to

0:04:46.276 --> 0:04:49.316
<v Speaker 1>realign where he would where he would choose to to realign.

0:04:49.356 --> 0:04:51.956
<v Speaker 1>So I was not surprised by the outcome. I do

0:04:52.076 --> 0:04:54.356
<v Speaker 1>think it could have been different if the violence had

0:04:54.356 --> 0:04:57.236
<v Speaker 1>come out in some different way. By the way, similarly,

0:04:57.316 --> 0:05:00.316
<v Speaker 1>if the Capitol Police or the Washington DC Police or

0:05:00.396 --> 0:05:03.716
<v Speaker 1>some combination had defended the capital in such a way

0:05:03.716 --> 0:05:05.836
<v Speaker 1>that no one had breached the perimeter of the capital

0:05:06.556 --> 0:05:08.956
<v Speaker 1>even if they had tried. I don't think Trump would

0:05:08.956 --> 0:05:12.116
<v Speaker 1>have been impeached. Even if the crowd had made the

0:05:12.156 --> 0:05:13.996
<v Speaker 1>state he had made the identical speech, and the crowd

0:05:13.996 --> 0:05:17.076
<v Speaker 1>had made the same efforts but hadn't been held off,

0:05:17.396 --> 0:05:18.876
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we would have seen an impeachment. I

0:05:18.916 --> 0:05:22.116
<v Speaker 1>think the impeachment happened because of the penetration of the Capitol.

0:05:22.276 --> 0:05:24.156
<v Speaker 1>And that actually leads me to ask you a question, Jacob,

0:05:24.156 --> 0:05:26.516
<v Speaker 1>which is do you think the case was stronger in

0:05:26.556 --> 0:05:28.756
<v Speaker 1>the second impeachment than in the first impeachment. I mean,

0:05:28.836 --> 0:05:30.636
<v Speaker 1>they got more Republicans in both in the House and

0:05:30.676 --> 0:05:32.396
<v Speaker 1>the Senate than the first time. Do you think that's

0:05:32.396 --> 0:05:33.756
<v Speaker 1>because the case was stronger or do you think it

0:05:33.796 --> 0:05:35.556
<v Speaker 1>was because Trump was less powerful because he was out

0:05:35.596 --> 0:05:38.356
<v Speaker 1>of office and had lost the election. It's funny I

0:05:38.396 --> 0:05:41.076
<v Speaker 1>think that both impeachments it could have been one impeachment

0:05:41.116 --> 0:05:42.956
<v Speaker 1>because both of them were about the same thing. They

0:05:42.956 --> 0:05:46.236
<v Speaker 1>were about trying to steal an election. The first one

0:05:46.276 --> 0:05:49.196
<v Speaker 1>was about trying to cheat before the election, and the

0:05:49.236 --> 0:05:52.996
<v Speaker 1>second one was about trying to reverse the results. Of

0:05:53.036 --> 0:05:59.276
<v Speaker 1>the election. They reflected Trump's democratic dishonesty and his politically

0:05:59.276 --> 0:06:02.716
<v Speaker 1>corrupt ambitions, and in that sense they were utterly valid.

0:06:02.876 --> 0:06:05.876
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if there is anything that impeachment is about,

0:06:07.036 --> 0:06:10.596
<v Speaker 1>it's trying to deal in an election. I mean, it's

0:06:10.636 --> 0:06:13.436
<v Speaker 1>hard to imagine something that a crime that it's more

0:06:13.476 --> 0:06:18.356
<v Speaker 1>political in nature. Something to me that more explicitly meets

0:06:18.396 --> 0:06:22.916
<v Speaker 1>the constitutional understanding of a high crime. Look, I totally

0:06:22.916 --> 0:06:24.476
<v Speaker 1>agree with what you said. I think they were about

0:06:24.516 --> 0:06:27.036
<v Speaker 1>the same thing. I have to say, I don't think

0:06:27.076 --> 0:06:31.476
<v Speaker 1>that that was made clear by the managers in the

0:06:31.756 --> 0:06:35.316
<v Speaker 1>second impeachment at all. I think the first impeachment focused

0:06:35.396 --> 0:06:38.436
<v Speaker 1>on something that Trump had done but had failed to do,

0:06:38.876 --> 0:06:40.636
<v Speaker 1>and the weakness of the case there was that the

0:06:40.636 --> 0:06:44.476
<v Speaker 1>allegation was that he tried to do something, namely, get

0:06:44.516 --> 0:06:47.196
<v Speaker 1>the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden,

0:06:47.356 --> 0:06:49.916
<v Speaker 1>and he had failed. So his strongest defense in the

0:06:49.956 --> 0:06:53.676
<v Speaker 1>real world was something like, oh, come on, nothing happened.

0:06:54.236 --> 0:06:56.156
<v Speaker 1>And the second time it was something that Trump had

0:06:56.196 --> 0:06:57.596
<v Speaker 1>done in the sense that he gave the speech and

0:06:57.636 --> 0:06:59.836
<v Speaker 1>then the capital was breached, but the problem was that

0:06:59.916 --> 0:07:03.076
<v Speaker 1>he didn't do it, and so therefore he had to

0:07:03.076 --> 0:07:07.796
<v Speaker 1>be accused of incitement, which is by its just structural nature.

0:07:08.076 --> 0:07:10.796
<v Speaker 1>Incitement is the idea that I suggested that you do something,

0:07:10.796 --> 0:07:13.916
<v Speaker 1>and then you did it. So there's always some intervening cause,

0:07:14.196 --> 0:07:16.836
<v Speaker 1>namely what you've done in an incitement trial, and that

0:07:16.996 --> 0:07:19.316
<v Speaker 1>enabled Trump to back away and say hey, or through

0:07:19.316 --> 0:07:21.996
<v Speaker 1>his lawyers, I didn't actually do this, So in each

0:07:22.036 --> 0:07:25.596
<v Speaker 1>case he had some defense available to him. So I

0:07:25.636 --> 0:07:26.996
<v Speaker 1>agree they were about the same thing, but I don't

0:07:27.036 --> 0:07:29.276
<v Speaker 1>think they played out that way in the mind of

0:07:29.316 --> 0:07:33.596
<v Speaker 1>the public. I mean, I'm thinking with this impeachment, particularly

0:07:33.596 --> 0:07:36.276
<v Speaker 1>about the context of his call to the Georgia Secretary

0:07:36.316 --> 0:07:40.276
<v Speaker 1>of State and saying find me eleven thousand votes. I mean,

0:07:40.276 --> 0:07:46.036
<v Speaker 1>there is a context beginning on election night of Trump

0:07:46.676 --> 0:07:49.556
<v Speaker 1>rejecting the results and trying to find a way to

0:07:49.596 --> 0:07:53.716
<v Speaker 1>reverse them, and in that context, the January sixth speech

0:07:53.996 --> 0:07:56.436
<v Speaker 1>sounds totally different. I agree with you. If there hadn't

0:07:56.476 --> 0:07:58.636
<v Speaker 1>been violence the capital, you know, if they had enbreached

0:07:58.636 --> 0:08:00.956
<v Speaker 1>the Capitol, it would have just read like another incendiary

0:08:00.996 --> 0:08:04.716
<v Speaker 1>Trump speech and it would have been dismissable. But it

0:08:04.836 --> 0:08:09.956
<v Speaker 1>was in context the last effort that began on election

0:08:10.036 --> 0:08:13.956
<v Speaker 1>day to find a way to reverse the result. I

0:08:13.996 --> 0:08:16.836
<v Speaker 1>actually really wish that the articles of impeachment had not

0:08:17.036 --> 0:08:20.156
<v Speaker 1>been for incitement to violence, but had been articles of

0:08:20.196 --> 0:08:24.876
<v Speaker 1>impeachment specifically saying, you know, Donald J. Trump tried to

0:08:24.916 --> 0:08:29.356
<v Speaker 1>subvert democracy itself, first by denying the legitimacy of the

0:08:29.356 --> 0:08:32.636
<v Speaker 1>election in the run up, then by falsely claiming after

0:08:32.676 --> 0:08:35.036
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the election results were rigged when that

0:08:35.156 --> 0:08:38.236
<v Speaker 1>was not true and it was clearly false, and then

0:08:38.396 --> 0:08:40.916
<v Speaker 1>ultimately by you know, call it a second or a

0:08:40.956 --> 0:08:45.796
<v Speaker 1>third article of impeachment, by inciting the violence. My guess

0:08:45.836 --> 0:08:47.996
<v Speaker 1>about why the Democrats didn't do that, and it's just

0:08:48.036 --> 0:08:51.076
<v Speaker 1>a guess, is that they were worried that if they

0:08:51.636 --> 0:08:53.956
<v Speaker 1>made the denial of the legitimacy of the elections into

0:08:53.996 --> 0:08:57.836
<v Speaker 1>an impeachable offense, they wouldn't get any Republican votes, because

0:08:57.836 --> 0:09:01.196
<v Speaker 1>so many Republicans were publicly on the record as saying

0:09:01.316 --> 0:09:06.436
<v Speaker 1>that the election results were rigged, and on the contrary,

0:09:06.516 --> 0:09:09.236
<v Speaker 1>no one in Congress was willing to say openly that

0:09:09.236 --> 0:09:12.276
<v Speaker 1>it was a good thing to invade the capital. And

0:09:12.316 --> 0:09:14.476
<v Speaker 1>so I think they guess, this is just you know,

0:09:14.596 --> 0:09:17.716
<v Speaker 1>reconstructing that they would do better in terms of the

0:09:17.796 --> 0:09:21.156
<v Speaker 1>votes if they just restricted the charge to incitement and

0:09:21.196 --> 0:09:23.556
<v Speaker 1>then added that other stuff in the course of the

0:09:23.596 --> 0:09:27.796
<v Speaker 1>background section. And you know, they were probably right about that.

0:09:27.796 --> 0:09:29.876
<v Speaker 1>I'm not disputing their political judge their politicians. They do

0:09:29.916 --> 0:09:32.116
<v Speaker 1>there for a living. I just really wish that the

0:09:32.116 --> 0:09:36.556
<v Speaker 1>impeachment hadn't been only about incitement in some formal sense,

0:09:36.596 --> 0:09:38.476
<v Speaker 1>but had formerly been about the idea that it is

0:09:38.516 --> 0:09:41.436
<v Speaker 1>impeachable offense to lose the election and then walk around

0:09:41.516 --> 0:09:44.556
<v Speaker 1>saying that there was massive fraud and you didn't lose

0:09:44.556 --> 0:09:47.316
<v Speaker 1>the election when there is no evidence for that and

0:09:47.356 --> 0:09:50.996
<v Speaker 1>you're lying. Yeah. I mean, they went with the visceral charge,

0:09:51.116 --> 0:09:54.356
<v Speaker 1>they went with the he sent a mob here to

0:09:54.476 --> 0:09:57.676
<v Speaker 1>kill us. You would think looking around the Senate chamber

0:09:57.996 --> 0:10:03.716
<v Speaker 1>that the people who escaped that attempt escaped that riot

0:10:03.956 --> 0:10:08.116
<v Speaker 1>with their lives, but many cases were you know, really

0:10:08.196 --> 0:10:11.516
<v Speaker 1>threatened and really in jeopardy. Would say, yeah, we do

0:10:11.556 --> 0:10:13.116
<v Speaker 1>have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm going to

0:10:13.196 --> 0:10:15.636
<v Speaker 1>draw the line at the head of the executive branch

0:10:16.076 --> 0:10:19.316
<v Speaker 1>trying to have members of the legislative branch and his

0:10:19.436 --> 0:10:23.596
<v Speaker 1>own vice president murdered or han and that doesn't do it.

0:10:23.836 --> 0:10:26.196
<v Speaker 1>Nothing really is going to I mean, if that doesn't

0:10:26.236 --> 0:10:30.276
<v Speaker 1>if that's not a convincing enough charge even if legally,

0:10:30.996 --> 0:10:33.836
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I take your point, and I agree, and

0:10:33.876 --> 0:10:37.356
<v Speaker 1>I would have certainly had a charge related to his

0:10:37.476 --> 0:10:41.476
<v Speaker 1>overall effort to subvert democracy, subvert the election. But honestly,

0:10:41.516 --> 0:10:44.316
<v Speaker 1>if trying to kill us isn't going to do it,

0:10:44.396 --> 0:10:47.916
<v Speaker 1>nothing else is. So I think it could be argued

0:10:47.956 --> 0:10:52.596
<v Speaker 1>that actually the impeachments weren't feutal, even though the fix

0:10:52.716 --> 0:10:55.476
<v Speaker 1>was in, and neither was going to result in either

0:10:55.516 --> 0:10:58.756
<v Speaker 1>removing the president or banning him from office in the future,

0:10:59.636 --> 0:11:04.916
<v Speaker 1>because impeachment remains the strongest tool that Congress has to

0:11:05.036 --> 0:11:08.156
<v Speaker 1>take a stand and to condemn the president, and it

0:11:08.156 --> 0:11:10.116
<v Speaker 1>goes in the history book insofar as it hasn't been

0:11:10.196 --> 0:11:12.436
<v Speaker 1>used all that frequently. That might change if it gets

0:11:12.436 --> 0:11:13.876
<v Speaker 1>to be used all the time, which may people talk

0:11:13.916 --> 0:11:16.836
<v Speaker 1>about later, but for now it remains an outlying thing.

0:11:17.876 --> 0:11:22.076
<v Speaker 1>And so if the point of impeachment was not ultimately

0:11:22.076 --> 0:11:26.276
<v Speaker 1>in practice to remove Trump, it was probably then to

0:11:26.356 --> 0:11:30.356
<v Speaker 1>send a message to the world that we the House

0:11:30.396 --> 0:11:34.916
<v Speaker 1>Democrats are drawing a red line in the basic practice

0:11:34.956 --> 0:11:38.476
<v Speaker 1>of democratic government, and we're saying in our constitutional government,

0:11:38.476 --> 0:11:42.796
<v Speaker 1>there's certain things you cannot do without consequence. I fully

0:11:42.836 --> 0:11:44.516
<v Speaker 1>agree with that. No, I mean I think it still

0:11:44.676 --> 0:11:49.236
<v Speaker 1>was a semi successful exercise and accountability. For that reason,

0:11:49.636 --> 0:11:53.876
<v Speaker 1>Trump's offenses were aired, the public learned more about them,

0:11:54.316 --> 0:11:57.436
<v Speaker 1>some views of the Trump changed at the margin among

0:11:57.996 --> 0:12:00.996
<v Speaker 1>persuadable Republicans and the electorate. You know, the answer to

0:12:01.036 --> 0:12:06.316
<v Speaker 1>the question should Trump run for office again, the number

0:12:06.356 --> 0:12:09.636
<v Speaker 1>of Republicans who say yes to that actually did minished

0:12:09.956 --> 0:12:14.196
<v Speaker 1>in a statistically meaningful way pre and post impeachment, So

0:12:14.196 --> 0:12:17.996
<v Speaker 1>in all those ways it was valuable. And also the

0:12:18.076 --> 0:12:20.876
<v Speaker 1>fear that it would be a distraction for the new

0:12:20.956 --> 0:12:24.036
<v Speaker 1>president and would get him off his game in relation

0:12:24.116 --> 0:12:26.596
<v Speaker 1>to his agenda, I don't think that's born out. So

0:12:26.636 --> 0:12:31.276
<v Speaker 1>I don't see negative consequences, except to the extent that

0:12:31.436 --> 0:12:36.596
<v Speaker 1>impeachment is becoming common. I think the fact that we

0:12:36.676 --> 0:12:42.076
<v Speaker 1>have had three in the past twenty five years, we

0:12:42.156 --> 0:12:45.876
<v Speaker 1>had one in the nineteenth century, and we've had four

0:12:46.436 --> 0:12:50.356
<v Speaker 1>in my lifetime, the likely scenario is we have more.

0:12:50.596 --> 0:12:54.836
<v Speaker 1>It's a more available political tool, and because it's been

0:12:55.596 --> 0:13:00.276
<v Speaker 1>carried through without ultimate consequence, I think this very strong

0:13:00.396 --> 0:13:03.956
<v Speaker 1>temptation for Republicans is going to be if they regain

0:13:04.876 --> 0:13:08.956
<v Speaker 1>power in the House to figure out somebody to impeach

0:13:09.236 --> 0:13:12.756
<v Speaker 1>kind of because they can. I don't think it's too

0:13:12.796 --> 0:13:17.036
<v Speaker 1>soon to start asking ourselves. One of the big aftermath questions,

0:13:17.276 --> 0:13:20.596
<v Speaker 1>which was all that talk about impeachment in which you

0:13:20.676 --> 0:13:24.516
<v Speaker 1>and I were implicated, was it a good idea? I mean,

0:13:24.596 --> 0:13:28.916
<v Speaker 1>did we cheapen the idea of impeachment in such a

0:13:28.916 --> 0:13:30.956
<v Speaker 1>way that it made it harder to get these impeachments through.

0:13:31.076 --> 0:13:36.476
<v Speaker 1>Did we acclimate people to the idea, or was there,

0:13:36.516 --> 0:13:39.036
<v Speaker 1>in fact something good about starting to talk about impeachment

0:13:39.116 --> 0:13:43.396
<v Speaker 1>as soon as we did. Well. It is a good

0:13:43.476 --> 0:13:47.516
<v Speaker 1>question in a way. Both impeachments, the combined impeachments were

0:13:47.716 --> 0:13:50.276
<v Speaker 1>kind of study and futility, So you know, it's hard

0:13:50.316 --> 0:13:53.356
<v Speaker 1>to say it's hard to feel good about how they

0:13:53.436 --> 0:13:56.836
<v Speaker 1>came out. The other thing I just reread, sort of

0:13:56.836 --> 0:14:00.476
<v Speaker 1>briefly today in preparation for talking to you, was Federal

0:14:00.636 --> 0:14:04.996
<v Speaker 1>sixty five, which is the key federalist piece by Hamilton

0:14:05.116 --> 0:14:08.996
<v Speaker 1>on impeachment and what's amazing about that and I really

0:14:09.236 --> 0:14:11.476
<v Speaker 1>kind of urge people to read it. I feel like

0:14:11.556 --> 0:14:15.876
<v Speaker 1>it anticipates exactly what went wrong with impeachment. In it,

0:14:16.036 --> 0:14:22.236
<v Speaker 1>Hamilton basically says, here's the problem the tendency. Politicians are

0:14:22.276 --> 0:14:28.836
<v Speaker 1>going to have to take ideological positions, side with parties,

0:14:29.276 --> 0:14:35.116
<v Speaker 1>exercise their relative power, and not use their individual judgment

0:14:35.796 --> 0:14:40.236
<v Speaker 1>as people about whether an offense is impeachable. And it's like,

0:14:40.276 --> 0:14:43.596
<v Speaker 1>if you read that right now, it's a precise description

0:14:44.436 --> 0:14:47.156
<v Speaker 1>of what happened in the Senate. I mean, I think

0:14:47.196 --> 0:14:50.596
<v Speaker 1>of what the all but seven Republican senators did, But

0:14:50.676 --> 0:14:53.476
<v Speaker 1>in a way you could argue what Democrats did too.

0:14:53.516 --> 0:14:55.516
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think the Democrats were right, of course

0:14:55.796 --> 0:14:59.476
<v Speaker 1>in voting to convict, but I don't know that there

0:14:59.516 --> 0:15:02.796
<v Speaker 1>was a lot of independent individual judgment there as opposed

0:15:02.796 --> 0:15:08.356
<v Speaker 1>to following party discipline. Hamilton does right there about how

0:15:09.156 --> 0:15:12.076
<v Speaker 1>the senators ought to exercise independent judgment, and he's pretty

0:15:12.076 --> 0:15:15.236
<v Speaker 1>optimistic about how they will do so, And obviously, in

0:15:15.316 --> 0:15:20.396
<v Speaker 1>part that reflects the framer's naivete about what political parties

0:15:20.396 --> 0:15:23.476
<v Speaker 1>would actually do in real life. Hamilton himself went on

0:15:23.516 --> 0:15:26.636
<v Speaker 1>to found a political party, the Federalists. His collaborator on

0:15:26.676 --> 0:15:30.756
<v Speaker 1>the Federalist Papers, Madison, went on to found the other

0:15:30.836 --> 0:15:35.036
<v Speaker 1>political party on the other side, the Republicans, the Democratic Republicans.

0:15:35.436 --> 0:15:38.476
<v Speaker 1>So they went from being close collaborators and friends in

0:15:38.476 --> 0:15:41.236
<v Speaker 1>producing the Federalist Papers to being brutal political enemies. And

0:15:41.276 --> 0:15:44.396
<v Speaker 1>because they didn't anticipate the rise of political parties, they

0:15:44.476 --> 0:15:49.116
<v Speaker 1>underestimated how partisan the impeachment process would be. That said

0:15:50.156 --> 0:15:52.596
<v Speaker 1>Hamilton himself, you know, in the Federalist Papers was trying

0:15:52.636 --> 0:15:54.476
<v Speaker 1>to be a propagandist. He was trying to get people

0:15:54.516 --> 0:15:58.876
<v Speaker 1>to make the Constitution be ratified, and so he depicted

0:15:58.996 --> 0:16:05.556
<v Speaker 1>the probabilities that people would act selflessly in ways that

0:16:05.636 --> 0:16:10.476
<v Speaker 1>seemed to me knowingly on his part overstated. Given how

0:16:10.516 --> 0:16:14.116
<v Speaker 1>deeply Hamilton was worried about the danger of demagogues, a

0:16:14.236 --> 0:16:17.436
<v Speaker 1>danger he speaks about in the Federalist Papers, he must

0:16:17.476 --> 0:16:20.916
<v Speaker 1>have known that there was a real, real possibility of

0:16:21.196 --> 0:16:26.156
<v Speaker 1>politicians demagoguing an impeachment. So when he makes those arguments

0:16:26.596 --> 0:16:29.196
<v Speaker 1>and acknowledges the counter arguments, it may be this is

0:16:29.196 --> 0:16:31.636
<v Speaker 1>reading him against the grain. It may be that he's

0:16:31.796 --> 0:16:35.436
<v Speaker 1>actually aware that impeachment may not be that effective a

0:16:35.436 --> 0:16:38.036
<v Speaker 1>tool in the long run, but for the purposes of

0:16:38.076 --> 0:16:40.596
<v Speaker 1>his polemical purpose is saying, oh, this is going to work. Great,

0:16:41.756 --> 0:16:43.676
<v Speaker 1>that's very interesting. No, I mean, I think the place

0:16:43.716 --> 0:16:47.956
<v Speaker 1>where i'd be a little skeptical of that defense of

0:16:48.316 --> 0:16:53.076
<v Speaker 1>Hamilton's full foresight of the problem is around political parties.

0:16:53.116 --> 0:16:56.956
<v Speaker 1>The founders, including Hamilton Madison. I mean, I feel funny

0:16:57.316 --> 0:17:00.316
<v Speaker 1>talking to the biographer of Madison about this, because you know,

0:17:00.316 --> 0:17:03.196
<v Speaker 1>you've forgot more about this today than I'll ever know.

0:17:03.636 --> 0:17:06.236
<v Speaker 1>But you know, they're always talking about faction, by which

0:17:06.276 --> 0:17:08.996
<v Speaker 1>they mean political parties, which they think are this kind

0:17:08.996 --> 0:17:15.436
<v Speaker 1>of corrupting factor in democratic government, and they were just wrong.

0:17:15.476 --> 0:17:18.476
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I don't think you know, their democracies all

0:17:18.516 --> 0:17:22.196
<v Speaker 1>seemed to develop political parties the fundamental feature, and they

0:17:22.236 --> 0:17:24.556
<v Speaker 1>felt we could do without them, and not only could

0:17:24.556 --> 0:17:26.396
<v Speaker 1>we do without them, that we wouldn't have a healthy

0:17:26.396 --> 0:17:28.756
<v Speaker 1>democracy unless we did without them. As you say, they

0:17:28.796 --> 0:17:32.316
<v Speaker 1>both immediately founded political parties themselves. It was just a

0:17:32.476 --> 0:17:34.916
<v Speaker 1>kind of fundamental misreading. But I think if you read

0:17:35.196 --> 0:17:39.836
<v Speaker 1>something like The Federalist sixty five, it's shot through with

0:17:39.916 --> 0:17:46.276
<v Speaker 1>this idea of individuals making decisions without fundamental reference to

0:17:46.356 --> 0:17:50.116
<v Speaker 1>being part of political parties. You're totally right. And I

0:17:50.116 --> 0:17:51.916
<v Speaker 1>guess what I'm saying, and I'm making this up as

0:17:51.956 --> 0:17:56.036
<v Speaker 1>I go, so you know, take it for what it's worth. Madison,

0:17:56.196 --> 0:17:58.676
<v Speaker 1>I know, did believe those things. It was totally sincere

0:17:58.676 --> 0:18:01.876
<v Speaker 1>on his part, and the failure to anticipate political parties

0:18:01.876 --> 0:18:05.636
<v Speaker 1>was based on his intellectual I would even say hubrist

0:18:05.636 --> 0:18:07.436
<v Speaker 1>at that moment, which is that he thought he'd designed

0:18:07.476 --> 0:18:11.916
<v Speaker 1>a constitution that would fix the problem political parties. Hamilton, however,

0:18:12.076 --> 0:18:14.756
<v Speaker 1>was not a naive person. Ever, there was nothing naive

0:18:14.796 --> 0:18:18.236
<v Speaker 1>about Hamilton. And although he's talking the Madisonian language and

0:18:18.236 --> 0:18:21.316
<v Speaker 1>the Federalist papers, including in sixty five, what I'm spec

0:18:21.356 --> 0:18:24.196
<v Speaker 1>thinking about is that maybe Hamilton didn't believe it as

0:18:24.236 --> 0:18:27.116
<v Speaker 1>much as Madison definitely did believe it even when Hamilton

0:18:27.516 --> 0:18:30.396
<v Speaker 1>was saying it. So I wonder if he wasn't already

0:18:30.436 --> 0:18:33.716
<v Speaker 1>anticipating something like that and already thinking that there probably

0:18:33.756 --> 0:18:37.756
<v Speaker 1>would be political parties, even as he joined these documents

0:18:37.796 --> 0:18:39.876
<v Speaker 1>declaring that they designed a constitution that would fix the

0:18:39.916 --> 0:18:43.436
<v Speaker 1>problem with political parties. Yeah, that's interesting. Well, let me

0:18:43.436 --> 0:18:45.556
<v Speaker 1>ask you about something else I've been thinking about, which

0:18:45.636 --> 0:18:49.196
<v Speaker 1>is whether there was a fundamental failure on the part

0:18:49.236 --> 0:18:55.156
<v Speaker 1>of the founders in thinking about transitions presidential leadership transitions,

0:18:55.676 --> 0:18:59.036
<v Speaker 1>because two things that they did not include in the

0:18:59.076 --> 0:19:03.796
<v Speaker 1>constitution were any kind of term limits for the head

0:19:03.796 --> 0:19:08.596
<v Speaker 1>of government and I think in the impeachment trial, what

0:19:08.796 --> 0:19:12.916
<v Speaker 1>Jamie you're asking characterized so effectively as this January problem,

0:19:13.316 --> 0:19:17.076
<v Speaker 1>which Mitch McConnell ended up taking advantage of by saying, no,

0:19:17.276 --> 0:19:20.276
<v Speaker 1>we won't impeach him while he's still in office, and

0:19:20.316 --> 0:19:22.436
<v Speaker 1>then it once he wakes he's out of office. He

0:19:22.516 --> 0:19:24.796
<v Speaker 1>believes that there's this loophole, which I don't think is

0:19:25.276 --> 0:19:31.676
<v Speaker 1>supported by constitutional history. However, there is a lack of

0:19:31.916 --> 0:19:37.196
<v Speaker 1>clear procedure and lack of anticipation about this really particular

0:19:37.236 --> 0:19:40.436
<v Speaker 1>problem that seems to arise almost everywhere in the world

0:19:40.476 --> 0:19:44.316
<v Speaker 1>all the time, which is leaders not wanting to leave office,

0:19:44.396 --> 0:19:48.316
<v Speaker 1>including when they lose free and fair elections. You know,

0:19:48.396 --> 0:19:50.356
<v Speaker 1>it may be that those things are related to each other.

0:19:50.396 --> 0:19:53.156
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the Framers didn't have term limits because they

0:19:53.156 --> 0:19:55.156
<v Speaker 1>didn't think that the president was going to step down

0:19:55.276 --> 0:19:59.716
<v Speaker 1>after only a few terms. Hamilton basically wanted an elected monarchy,

0:19:59.756 --> 0:20:02.196
<v Speaker 1>and he wanted Washington to be the first elected monarch.

0:20:02.956 --> 0:20:05.756
<v Speaker 1>And it was only when Washington did step down after

0:20:05.836 --> 0:20:09.476
<v Speaker 1>two terms that this tradition emerged, only subsequently broke by

0:20:09.516 --> 0:20:13.356
<v Speaker 1>FDR and then subsequently put into a constitutional amendment. So

0:20:13.476 --> 0:20:15.356
<v Speaker 1>the fact that they didn't have trem limits. Wasn't a

0:20:15.796 --> 0:20:17.316
<v Speaker 1>you know, it wasn't a bug for them. It was

0:20:17.356 --> 0:20:20.596
<v Speaker 1>a feature. They wanted a strong executive and those of

0:20:20.636 --> 0:20:23.116
<v Speaker 1>them who, including Hamilton, who really wanted something that looked

0:20:23.156 --> 0:20:27.836
<v Speaker 1>more like a monarchic presidency, appreciated that fact. And they

0:20:27.916 --> 0:20:31.396
<v Speaker 1>weren't that worried about the transitions problem. I think insofar

0:20:31.436 --> 0:20:33.636
<v Speaker 1>as they were had Washington in mind. They figured he'd

0:20:33.636 --> 0:20:36.156
<v Speaker 1>always be reelected, and they figured that people who were

0:20:36.196 --> 0:20:39.716
<v Speaker 1>not elected would step down, and that did happen right Adams,

0:20:39.796 --> 0:20:41.756
<v Speaker 1>right out of the box. You know, the second president

0:20:42.436 --> 0:20:44.916
<v Speaker 1>loses an election to Jefferson, and he does step down.

0:20:45.996 --> 0:20:47.956
<v Speaker 1>Another part of it, I think was that they had

0:20:47.996 --> 0:20:51.356
<v Speaker 1>an image of what a gentleman of the late eighteenth

0:20:51.396 --> 0:20:55.436
<v Speaker 1>century cared most about, and that was his reputation. And

0:20:55.516 --> 0:20:59.356
<v Speaker 1>they knew that loss of reputation could be ruinous, and

0:20:59.436 --> 0:21:01.876
<v Speaker 1>doing the kinds of things that Donald Trump did would

0:21:01.876 --> 0:21:04.236
<v Speaker 1>have been reputation destroying. I mean, these were people who

0:21:04.276 --> 0:21:07.716
<v Speaker 1>fought and in Hamilton's case, died for their reputation. I mean,

0:21:07.756 --> 0:21:10.516
<v Speaker 1>people who will fight a duel are people who really

0:21:10.596 --> 0:21:14.196
<v Speaker 1>value reputation above everything else, including possibly you know, life

0:21:14.196 --> 0:21:16.156
<v Speaker 1>and limb so I think that might be why they

0:21:16.156 --> 0:21:19.036
<v Speaker 1>were not as worried about people refusing to step down. Well,

0:21:19.116 --> 0:21:22.916
<v Speaker 1>is it fair to say that while they were obsessed

0:21:23.036 --> 0:21:26.676
<v Speaker 1>fully focused on the problem of demagogues and politics, they

0:21:26.756 --> 0:21:31.156
<v Speaker 1>didn't anticipate the narrower problem of what do you do

0:21:31.236 --> 0:21:34.596
<v Speaker 1>when you've got the demagogue in office and you're trying

0:21:34.636 --> 0:21:38.476
<v Speaker 1>to transition away you trying to get the demagogue to yield.

0:21:38.636 --> 0:21:40.596
<v Speaker 1>I mean, that is the problem we ran into with

0:21:40.876 --> 0:21:44.156
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump. The fox was in the Henhouse. The demagogue

0:21:44.196 --> 0:21:49.276
<v Speaker 1>was elected president in a flukish way, but legitimately and

0:21:49.556 --> 0:21:53.196
<v Speaker 1>like a demagogue, tried as hard as he possibly could

0:21:53.276 --> 0:21:55.916
<v Speaker 1>not to yield power. And I think historians may look

0:21:55.956 --> 0:21:59.596
<v Speaker 1>back on this period and think we came a lot

0:21:59.676 --> 0:22:04.796
<v Speaker 1>closer than we ever anticipated coming to not having a

0:22:04.836 --> 0:22:09.756
<v Speaker 1>successful democratic transition. In the twenty twenty election, we'll be

0:22:09.836 --> 0:22:22.156
<v Speaker 1>right back. I think your point, Jacob about the Framers

0:22:22.196 --> 0:22:24.316
<v Speaker 1>not really thinking about what to do if a demagogue

0:22:24.356 --> 0:22:27.476
<v Speaker 1>did get elected is profound and I think pretty original,

0:22:28.036 --> 0:22:29.476
<v Speaker 1>because they thought a lot about how to keep him

0:22:29.476 --> 0:22:30.836
<v Speaker 1>out office, but not a lot about what to do

0:22:30.876 --> 0:22:33.956
<v Speaker 1>once he was in office. I think there's a separate

0:22:33.996 --> 0:22:37.316
<v Speaker 1>question of how close we were, and it's one worth exploring.

0:22:37.356 --> 0:22:40.916
<v Speaker 1>I think had the Defense Department had officials who were

0:22:40.956 --> 0:22:45.436
<v Speaker 1>prepared to listen to Trump and deploy troops in his

0:22:45.876 --> 0:22:48.396
<v Speaker 1>defense of his attempt to gain power, that would have

0:22:48.396 --> 0:22:52.756
<v Speaker 1>been an actual coup deeta, not a rag tag mob

0:22:52.956 --> 0:22:55.676
<v Speaker 1>invading the capitol, which was a kind of a fantasy

0:22:55.676 --> 0:22:57.596
<v Speaker 1>of a coup deta rather than the reality of it.

0:22:57.956 --> 0:22:59.996
<v Speaker 1>And I think it's an interesting question of how close

0:23:00.036 --> 0:23:02.556
<v Speaker 1>we came to that, you know, the fact that it

0:23:02.556 --> 0:23:04.756
<v Speaker 1>turns out that there was someone in the Department of Justice,

0:23:04.756 --> 0:23:07.596
<v Speaker 1>a mid level official, but nevertheless an official Department of

0:23:07.596 --> 0:23:11.236
<v Speaker 1>Justice who went to Trump said make me attorney general

0:23:11.396 --> 0:23:15.396
<v Speaker 1>and I will order Georgia to retract its electoral College votes.

0:23:15.436 --> 0:23:18.756
<v Speaker 1>It's pretty astonishing. And if something like that had happened

0:23:19.276 --> 0:23:21.916
<v Speaker 1>in the Defense Department, that really could have led you

0:23:21.996 --> 0:23:23.556
<v Speaker 1>in a coup like direction. So in that sense, I

0:23:23.596 --> 0:23:25.436
<v Speaker 1>think history will bear out your point that it could

0:23:25.476 --> 0:23:27.836
<v Speaker 1>have gone worse. At the same time, it didn't happen

0:23:27.876 --> 0:23:30.196
<v Speaker 1>in those ways, despite the fact that we had Donald Trump,

0:23:30.676 --> 0:23:33.756
<v Speaker 1>and so that could be a potential potential argument on

0:23:33.796 --> 0:23:37.396
<v Speaker 1>the other On the other side, yeah, I think it's

0:23:37.636 --> 0:23:43.836
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of like talking about nuclear war, the minuscule

0:23:43.996 --> 0:23:48.276
<v Speaker 1>chance becomes an intolerable chance. And you know, I don't

0:23:48.316 --> 0:23:50.756
<v Speaker 1>know when I say how close we came. Was it

0:23:50.876 --> 0:23:53.836
<v Speaker 1>a five percent chance? Was it a one percent chance?

0:23:53.996 --> 0:23:57.116
<v Speaker 1>A one percent chance of the collapse of constitutional democracy

0:23:57.236 --> 0:24:00.236
<v Speaker 1>is way too high a chance, as you're saying, I mean,

0:24:01.556 --> 0:24:04.036
<v Speaker 1>maybe what stood between Trump and trying a real coup

0:24:04.076 --> 0:24:07.076
<v Speaker 1>data was that he wouldn't have had support from the markets,

0:24:07.076 --> 0:24:08.996
<v Speaker 1>and he wouldn't have had support from the business community.

0:24:09.316 --> 0:24:11.956
<v Speaker 1>The markets don't seem to have thought at any point

0:24:11.996 --> 0:24:14.196
<v Speaker 1>that there was a meaningful risk of a kudata or

0:24:14.196 --> 0:24:17.236
<v Speaker 1>the breakdown of constitutional democracy, and to me, that has

0:24:17.276 --> 0:24:19.476
<v Speaker 1>to reflect I mean, it's always hard to say what

0:24:19.556 --> 0:24:21.756
<v Speaker 1>the markets you mean when they do something, But when

0:24:21.756 --> 0:24:24.236
<v Speaker 1>the markets don't do anything out of the ordinary, you

0:24:24.236 --> 0:24:26.556
<v Speaker 1>can at least say that they're not desperately panic that

0:24:26.596 --> 0:24:28.196
<v Speaker 1>we're about to have a civil war or war in

0:24:28.196 --> 0:24:31.316
<v Speaker 1>the streets. So I don't know, I mean, I think

0:24:31.316 --> 0:24:35.396
<v Speaker 1>it'd be really interesting to see in retrospect. I wanted

0:24:35.436 --> 0:24:38.036
<v Speaker 1>to go back, Jacob to the point you raised about

0:24:38.156 --> 0:24:42.316
<v Speaker 1>impeachments getting more common, and I'm wondering why you think

0:24:42.356 --> 0:24:45.716
<v Speaker 1>that is. Is it that we have more partisanship. Is

0:24:45.716 --> 0:24:48.916
<v Speaker 1>it that we have more transparency about what government does

0:24:48.956 --> 0:24:51.676
<v Speaker 1>than we used to have. What's your view? Why do

0:24:51.716 --> 0:24:54.676
<v Speaker 1>you think these are more frequent now? I mean, I

0:24:54.716 --> 0:24:57.676
<v Speaker 1>think you know, polarization is a bit of a tautology, right,

0:24:57.716 --> 0:25:00.556
<v Speaker 1>In a more polarized political environment, you get more impeachments,

0:25:00.556 --> 0:25:03.436
<v Speaker 1>and you get more impeachments because you have more polarization.

0:25:03.996 --> 0:25:08.316
<v Speaker 1>One thing I might focus on is norms. Political norms

0:25:08.316 --> 0:25:11.836
<v Speaker 1>starting to fall way earlier than we're focused on. We're

0:25:11.916 --> 0:25:15.236
<v Speaker 1>very focused on Donald Trump's attack on all sorts of

0:25:15.236 --> 0:25:18.396
<v Speaker 1>political norms, which is very true. But I think in

0:25:18.436 --> 0:25:22.076
<v Speaker 1>the nineties there were a lot of things that had

0:25:22.116 --> 0:25:26.636
<v Speaker 1>been norms in politics, including around the justification for impeachment,

0:25:27.236 --> 0:25:30.876
<v Speaker 1>that kind of melted away without a ton of notice.

0:25:31.316 --> 0:25:35.076
<v Speaker 1>And if you want to figure out when things really

0:25:35.116 --> 0:25:39.156
<v Speaker 1>started to break down in Congress, I think it was

0:25:39.796 --> 0:25:44.556
<v Speaker 1>the Gingrich election of nineteen ninety four. Republicans retook the

0:25:44.636 --> 0:25:47.876
<v Speaker 1>House by a very big margin two years after Bill

0:25:47.916 --> 0:25:52.556
<v Speaker 1>Clinton was elected, and new Gingrich was committed to leading

0:25:52.596 --> 0:25:57.316
<v Speaker 1>the Republicans in a very different style than they'd been

0:25:57.516 --> 0:26:02.396
<v Speaker 1>led for many many decades, and essentially he declared an

0:26:02.476 --> 0:26:06.836
<v Speaker 1>end to any cooperation, an idea that politics really was

0:26:06.956 --> 0:26:10.756
<v Speaker 1>war in the sense that anything that passed was going

0:26:10.756 --> 0:26:14.916
<v Speaker 1>to be a political benefit to the Democrats because they

0:26:14.956 --> 0:26:18.796
<v Speaker 1>controlled the White House, and essentially that the goal of

0:26:18.836 --> 0:26:23.156
<v Speaker 1>the party that wasn't in the White House was obstruction.

0:26:23.676 --> 0:26:27.876
<v Speaker 1>That provoked a certain amount of Democratic retaliation. But I

0:26:27.916 --> 0:26:32.236
<v Speaker 1>think impeaching Bill Clinton for you know, what might have

0:26:32.356 --> 0:26:36.956
<v Speaker 1>been abhorrent personal behavior, but was I think still by

0:26:36.996 --> 0:26:43.436
<v Speaker 1>any constitutional definition, not political crime, not high crimes and misdemeanors,

0:26:43.996 --> 0:26:46.636
<v Speaker 1>started to break down those norms. Can I ask a

0:26:46.676 --> 0:26:48.996
<v Speaker 1>further follow up question about that Gingridge moment in nineteen

0:26:49.076 --> 0:26:53.156
<v Speaker 1>ninety four. Do you think that partly what you're describing

0:26:53.476 --> 0:26:56.596
<v Speaker 1>is the first time in modern American history that the

0:26:56.676 --> 0:27:01.636
<v Speaker 1>Republican Party had people in its senior leadership positions who

0:27:01.636 --> 0:27:05.036
<v Speaker 1>were overtly populist. I mean, there, you know, there was

0:27:05.036 --> 0:27:08.636
<v Speaker 1>George Wallace, but he was an insurgent candidate who didn't

0:27:08.796 --> 0:27:13.036
<v Speaker 1>ultimately make it nationally. You know, there had been Pat Buchanan,

0:27:13.796 --> 0:27:16.236
<v Speaker 1>but also had not made it to the very senior

0:27:16.276 --> 0:27:20.916
<v Speaker 1>most ranks of Republican leadership. Nixon didn't have the personality

0:27:20.996 --> 0:27:26.956
<v Speaker 1>to be a populist. I wonder if the Gingrich model

0:27:27.596 --> 0:27:31.476
<v Speaker 1>of Republican populism contributed to the emergence of the breakdown

0:27:31.516 --> 0:27:34.796
<v Speaker 1>of norms precisely because it was populist. And you know,

0:27:34.836 --> 0:27:38.076
<v Speaker 1>there have been democratic populist for many, many years. But

0:27:38.236 --> 0:27:40.356
<v Speaker 1>you know, most political systems have one side that's the

0:27:40.356 --> 0:27:42.316
<v Speaker 1>populist party, and the other side it's not necessarily the

0:27:42.316 --> 0:27:45.756
<v Speaker 1>populist party. Here you suddenly had both sides importing some

0:27:45.876 --> 0:27:48.916
<v Speaker 1>degree of populism. And populists like to break the rules, right.

0:27:48.956 --> 0:27:53.116
<v Speaker 1>Populists always say the rules of normal politics are rules

0:27:53.156 --> 0:27:56.836
<v Speaker 1>designed to serve the interests of the rich and the powerful.

0:27:56.916 --> 0:27:59.396
<v Speaker 1>So let's, you know, burn it all down. Yeah, I

0:27:59.436 --> 0:28:02.636
<v Speaker 1>think that's I think that's very insightful. I mean, Republicans

0:28:02.676 --> 0:28:06.196
<v Speaker 1>hadn't had a real populist moment since McCarthyism. I mean,

0:28:06.236 --> 0:28:09.236
<v Speaker 1>I think McCarthyism was a form of rightland populism, but

0:28:09.316 --> 0:28:13.596
<v Speaker 1>in the long period between the early fifties and the nineties,

0:28:13.756 --> 0:28:18.956
<v Speaker 1>populism was more associated with southern segregationists. I do think

0:28:19.036 --> 0:28:23.796
<v Speaker 1>what Gingrich was trying to do certainly had the tonality

0:28:24.076 --> 0:28:28.796
<v Speaker 1>of populism, but it's sort of populism combined with obstruction

0:28:29.516 --> 0:28:33.476
<v Speaker 1>as an alternative to compromise and legislation. I mean, there's

0:28:33.476 --> 0:28:37.036
<v Speaker 1>a fundamental question about whether the job of a member

0:28:37.036 --> 0:28:43.196
<v Speaker 1>of Congress is to pass legislation. Gingrich came in and said, nope,

0:28:43.476 --> 0:28:46.396
<v Speaker 1>our job is to stop all of it. There is

0:28:46.476 --> 0:28:50.036
<v Speaker 1>no version of a healthcare bill that Republicans could ever

0:28:50.676 --> 0:28:53.156
<v Speaker 1>support that would just be good for Democrats. It's more

0:28:53.316 --> 0:28:57.876
<v Speaker 1>government block everything. And that's what they did. And I

0:28:57.916 --> 0:29:01.596
<v Speaker 1>think that that was the kind of change in the

0:29:01.716 --> 0:29:06.316
<v Speaker 1>rules of the game that probably led to the Clinton impeachment.

0:29:06.876 --> 0:29:09.916
<v Speaker 1>And I speak of someone who thinks both impeachments of

0:29:09.956 --> 0:29:13.556
<v Speaker 1>Trump were justified. So I don't take the position that

0:29:13.556 --> 0:29:20.076
<v Speaker 1>that was illegitimate democratic retaliation. But if Republicans hadn't impeached

0:29:20.116 --> 0:29:22.876
<v Speaker 1>Bill Clinton, do I think that there would have been

0:29:22.916 --> 0:29:27.316
<v Speaker 1>two impeachments against Donald Trump? Maybe not. I think emerging

0:29:27.356 --> 0:29:30.676
<v Speaker 1>from what you're saying is maybe the beginnings of a

0:29:30.716 --> 0:29:33.996
<v Speaker 1>collaborative hypothesis here about the rise of impeachments. And it

0:29:34.076 --> 0:29:37.876
<v Speaker 1>might run something like this, if you have populist parties

0:29:37.916 --> 0:29:41.196
<v Speaker 1>on both sides and they do the obstruction, which is

0:29:41.236 --> 0:29:44.116
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that populists are prepared to do.

0:29:44.236 --> 0:29:47.316
<v Speaker 1>Because the populace doesn't just want to pass legislation it's popular,

0:29:47.356 --> 0:29:50.716
<v Speaker 1>but wants to block the other side from usurping the

0:29:51.116 --> 0:29:55.796
<v Speaker 1>people's will. Then you get a higher probability of impeachment

0:29:56.036 --> 0:29:59.516
<v Speaker 1>because impeachment itself, in some way is the ultimate form

0:29:59.516 --> 0:30:03.116
<v Speaker 1>of obstruction. Right. So, you know, Bill Clinton's supporters said

0:30:03.156 --> 0:30:06.196
<v Speaker 1>when he was impeached, listen, the Republicans are just doing

0:30:06.236 --> 0:30:08.596
<v Speaker 1>this to block him from being president, from doing what

0:30:08.636 --> 0:30:12.156
<v Speaker 1>he wants to. It's just an obstructionist technique. And similarly,

0:30:12.436 --> 0:30:14.436
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump supporters said that they said, you know, these

0:30:14.476 --> 0:30:18.236
<v Speaker 1>impeachment efforts, especially the first one, we're just intended to

0:30:18.596 --> 0:30:22.156
<v Speaker 1>interfere with his agenda as president. And I think what

0:30:22.196 --> 0:30:24.356
<v Speaker 1>you're saying is maybe there is something to that, in

0:30:24.396 --> 0:30:31.556
<v Speaker 1>the sense that obstruction is connected to polarization, and impeachment

0:30:31.636 --> 0:30:35.076
<v Speaker 1>is a form of obstruction, sort of the ultimate form

0:30:35.116 --> 0:30:37.276
<v Speaker 1>of obstruction. And then also explains by the way, why

0:30:37.876 --> 0:30:40.236
<v Speaker 1>Joe Biden seemed so eager to get the current the

0:30:40.276 --> 0:30:43.196
<v Speaker 1>third impeachment over quickly because he doesn't want the idea

0:30:43.196 --> 0:30:45.476
<v Speaker 1>of impeachment anywhere in this story. He just wants to

0:30:45.476 --> 0:30:48.956
<v Speaker 1>get on with his legislative agenda. I mean, this is

0:30:48.996 --> 0:30:54.076
<v Speaker 1>a very interesting hypothesis. It would explain why we have

0:30:54.116 --> 0:30:56.076
<v Speaker 1>more impeachments, but also it would explain why that's not

0:30:56.076 --> 0:30:58.676
<v Speaker 1>the end of the world. You know. It would explain

0:30:58.756 --> 0:31:01.916
<v Speaker 1>that politics evolves and in a moment where you have

0:31:01.956 --> 0:31:06.876
<v Speaker 1>a lot of partisan populism, you need tools to express that,

0:31:07.476 --> 0:31:09.756
<v Speaker 1>and maybe one of those tools is and maybe we

0:31:09.796 --> 0:31:12.836
<v Speaker 1>get more impeachment efforts going forward as a consequence, and

0:31:12.916 --> 0:31:15.876
<v Speaker 1>maybe that's fine. I think we probably will. And it

0:31:16.636 --> 0:31:19.156
<v Speaker 1>does mean some extent that the currency is devalued. The

0:31:19.236 --> 0:31:23.636
<v Speaker 1>more common it is, the less you know, historically aberrant

0:31:23.716 --> 0:31:26.036
<v Speaker 1>it is. I mean, I remember I was ten years

0:31:26.036 --> 0:31:29.436
<v Speaker 1>old when Nixon was impeached, and I was really into it.

0:31:29.516 --> 0:31:32.116
<v Speaker 1>I was riveted. But part of the excitement was, this

0:31:32.156 --> 0:31:36.236
<v Speaker 1>is something that's never happened before in anybody's lifetime. It

0:31:36.236 --> 0:31:38.596
<v Speaker 1>had been eighteen sixty eight. There was no living person

0:31:38.636 --> 0:31:40.836
<v Speaker 1>who could tell you how impeachment worked. And they are

0:31:40.836 --> 0:31:43.276
<v Speaker 1>all these books, you know that came out and all

0:31:43.276 --> 0:31:46.116
<v Speaker 1>these scholars had to kind of figure out impeachment for

0:31:46.196 --> 0:31:50.436
<v Speaker 1>a new century. It's becoming a lot more familiar. People

0:31:50.476 --> 0:31:52.676
<v Speaker 1>who in nineteen seventy four had no idea how an

0:31:52.676 --> 0:31:56.716
<v Speaker 1>impeachment actually happened. Now know exactly how it goes because

0:31:56.756 --> 0:32:02.676
<v Speaker 1>we've been doing it a lot. I wonder if impeachments, though,

0:32:03.876 --> 0:32:06.476
<v Speaker 1>could actually be less upsetting to all of us if

0:32:06.476 --> 0:32:10.596
<v Speaker 1>we come to see them as base basically the strongest

0:32:10.676 --> 0:32:15.636
<v Speaker 1>thing that Congress can do to condemn a president, rather

0:32:15.756 --> 0:32:20.956
<v Speaker 1>than as a process of a quasi judicial nature with

0:32:20.996 --> 0:32:23.916
<v Speaker 1>a verdict that might actually lead to an outcome, you know.

0:32:23.956 --> 0:32:26.836
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we have a tendency and the media as

0:32:26.876 --> 0:32:32.636
<v Speaker 1>a tendency too, to think about stories as legal dramas.

0:32:33.156 --> 0:32:34.516
<v Speaker 1>And it's hard to have a legal drama if you

0:32:34.516 --> 0:32:36.356
<v Speaker 1>know already what the outcome is going to be. And

0:32:36.396 --> 0:32:39.116
<v Speaker 1>so in some sense, these impeachments weren't that dramatic because

0:32:39.156 --> 0:32:40.676
<v Speaker 1>we knew what was going to happen at the end

0:32:40.676 --> 0:32:43.756
<v Speaker 1>of them. But if we get outside of that framework

0:32:43.796 --> 0:32:46.396
<v Speaker 1>and say, okay, we are going to have more impeachments,

0:32:46.556 --> 0:32:50.276
<v Speaker 1>but it's going to be reserved for situations where Congress

0:32:50.316 --> 0:32:52.996
<v Speaker 1>what wants to express its highest form of sanction for

0:32:53.036 --> 0:32:55.756
<v Speaker 1>a president, that might be good enough. And it might

0:32:55.796 --> 0:32:58.276
<v Speaker 1>even take us retrospectively back to the Clinton situation, when

0:32:58.356 --> 0:33:01.316
<v Speaker 1>we both agree that what Clinton did wasn't a high

0:33:01.316 --> 0:33:04.916
<v Speaker 1>crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution. But on the other hand,

0:33:05.116 --> 0:33:08.436
<v Speaker 1>he did lie under oath having had an affair with

0:33:08.516 --> 0:33:11.676
<v Speaker 1>the twenties thing year old secretary in the White House.

0:33:11.996 --> 0:33:15.276
<v Speaker 1>You know, two very very bad things, and you know,

0:33:15.356 --> 0:33:18.116
<v Speaker 1>bad in different ways from one another. And I think

0:33:18.236 --> 0:33:20.436
<v Speaker 1>in that sense, the idea that Congress felt it had

0:33:20.476 --> 0:33:23.476
<v Speaker 1>to say something to say that this conduct is not okay,

0:33:24.036 --> 0:33:28.556
<v Speaker 1>doesn't actually seem so outrageous in retrospect. Yeah, but fundamentally,

0:33:28.796 --> 0:33:32.436
<v Speaker 1>in a democracy, you make decisions in an election and

0:33:32.476 --> 0:33:35.196
<v Speaker 1>you have to live with those decisions until the next election.

0:33:35.676 --> 0:33:40.316
<v Speaker 1>And at the state level, many states have what I

0:33:40.316 --> 0:33:42.676
<v Speaker 1>think was originally a kind of progressive or a reform

0:33:42.676 --> 0:33:46.116
<v Speaker 1>of recall, and so as soon as the governors elected

0:33:46.556 --> 0:33:50.476
<v Speaker 1>in some states, including often in California, people are trying

0:33:50.516 --> 0:33:54.156
<v Speaker 1>to get petitioning to get recall on the ballot, and

0:33:54.276 --> 0:33:59.156
<v Speaker 1>so you're in a constant state of argument basically about

0:33:59.276 --> 0:34:03.476
<v Speaker 1>the legitimacy of an elected official and the question of

0:34:03.516 --> 0:34:06.636
<v Speaker 1>whether it elected official is going to serve out his term.

0:34:06.756 --> 0:34:09.876
<v Speaker 1>I think that basically not productive most of the time.

0:34:09.956 --> 0:34:14.956
<v Speaker 1>There are obviously situations where there are corrupt officials, officials

0:34:14.996 --> 0:34:19.196
<v Speaker 1>who abuse power, officials who deserve to be recalled before

0:34:19.276 --> 0:34:22.676
<v Speaker 1>their term is over. But you can't be having a

0:34:22.836 --> 0:34:25.716
<v Speaker 1>version of the election all the time. And I think

0:34:25.756 --> 0:34:29.556
<v Speaker 1>you've got to reserve these removal tools, impeachment being the

0:34:29.636 --> 0:34:34.436
<v Speaker 1>ultimate one for the rare cases, because otherwise, you know,

0:34:34.476 --> 0:34:38.756
<v Speaker 1>again it's it's politics as warfare all of the time.

0:34:39.756 --> 0:34:41.876
<v Speaker 1>But you're not saying that impeachment has to be reserved

0:34:41.876 --> 0:34:45.756
<v Speaker 1>for situations where it will work. No, I'm saying it

0:34:45.796 --> 0:34:50.156
<v Speaker 1>has to be reserved for situations in which it's justified,

0:34:50.316 --> 0:34:53.276
<v Speaker 1>in which what we're talking about is a high crime

0:34:53.316 --> 0:34:56.316
<v Speaker 1>in the political sense that it is something like what

0:34:56.396 --> 0:34:59.196
<v Speaker 1>we've just been through with Donald Trump, and not like

0:34:59.356 --> 0:35:02.596
<v Speaker 1>what we went through with Bill Clinton, where objection to

0:35:02.756 --> 0:35:08.316
<v Speaker 1>politics and some personal misbehavior or scandal is kind of

0:35:08.356 --> 0:35:14.076
<v Speaker 1>cobbled together as an argument for removal from office. Just

0:35:14.076 --> 0:35:16.436
<v Speaker 1>to close on a personal note, I think the first

0:35:16.436 --> 0:35:18.356
<v Speaker 1>time I was ever on a podcast was when I

0:35:18.396 --> 0:35:23.596
<v Speaker 1>was on your Trump cast talking about impeachment and related issues.

0:35:23.636 --> 0:35:27.236
<v Speaker 1>And at the time you hadn't started Pushkin and I

0:35:27.276 --> 0:35:29.036
<v Speaker 1>hadn't dreamt of being on the other side of the

0:35:29.116 --> 0:35:33.076
<v Speaker 1>microphone for a podcast. So this show definitely would not

0:35:33.116 --> 0:35:35.396
<v Speaker 1>exist or not for the question of the impeachment of

0:35:35.436 --> 0:35:37.996
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump. I can't exactly thank Donald Trump for that,

0:35:38.356 --> 0:35:41.316
<v Speaker 1>but I want to thank you for this conversation and

0:35:41.396 --> 0:35:43.796
<v Speaker 1>for the previous conversations that we had. They have had

0:35:43.796 --> 0:35:47.196
<v Speaker 1>a transformative effect on my life, very literally. Well, Noah,

0:35:47.236 --> 0:35:50.516
<v Speaker 1>the one part of impeachment I can really endorse is

0:35:50.836 --> 0:35:52.716
<v Speaker 1>talking to you about it. It was the part of

0:35:52.716 --> 0:35:55.796
<v Speaker 1>impeachment I really enjoyed. So I'm sorry that conversation is

0:35:55.836 --> 0:35:57.956
<v Speaker 1>going to end now, at least for a while, but

0:35:58.476 --> 0:36:00.436
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure we'll find some other things to talk about.

0:36:00.756 --> 0:36:09.916
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Jacob, Thank you, Noah. It was a huge pleasure

0:36:09.996 --> 0:36:12.396
<v Speaker 1>to talk to Jacob, as it always is for me.

0:36:12.476 --> 0:36:15.876
<v Speaker 1>The key takeaways have to do with Jacob's central insight

0:36:16.036 --> 0:36:20.756
<v Speaker 1>into the idea that impeachments are getting more and more frequent.

0:36:21.716 --> 0:36:24.516
<v Speaker 1>None until the middle of the nineteenth century, from the

0:36:24.556 --> 0:36:28.076
<v Speaker 1>time of the founding than a possible impeachment of Richard

0:36:28.196 --> 0:36:31.716
<v Speaker 1>Nixon so bad from Nixon's perspective that he resigned before

0:36:31.716 --> 0:36:35.156
<v Speaker 1>he could actually be impeached, and then in rapid succession,

0:36:35.596 --> 0:36:38.636
<v Speaker 1>Bill Clinton's impeachment at the end of his presidency and

0:36:38.756 --> 0:36:43.396
<v Speaker 1>not one but two impeachments of Donald Trump. Jacob thinks

0:36:43.556 --> 0:36:46.276
<v Speaker 1>this means we're going to have a lot more impeachment

0:36:46.316 --> 0:36:49.236
<v Speaker 1>going forward. And what's more, he sees this as intimately

0:36:49.316 --> 0:36:54.716
<v Speaker 1>connected to the rise of partisanship and polarization in our politics.

0:36:54.916 --> 0:36:58.556
<v Speaker 1>If Jacob's right, we're going to have more, not less impeachment.

0:36:59.236 --> 0:37:02.196
<v Speaker 1>A second important takeaway is to ask ourselves, is that

0:37:02.356 --> 0:37:06.716
<v Speaker 1>necessarily a bad thing? My own view of impeachment trials

0:37:07.076 --> 0:37:09.556
<v Speaker 1>after the experience of these two, is it We would

0:37:09.556 --> 0:37:13.276
<v Speaker 1>be making a mistake if we conceptualize those trials primarily

0:37:13.316 --> 0:37:16.356
<v Speaker 1>in terms of their success or failure in punishing the

0:37:16.436 --> 0:37:19.236
<v Speaker 1>president by removing him from office or by banning him

0:37:19.276 --> 0:37:23.076
<v Speaker 1>from running again. The process is simply too tied up

0:37:23.436 --> 0:37:27.516
<v Speaker 1>in politics for that to be the necessary outcome to

0:37:27.796 --> 0:37:32.756
<v Speaker 1>justify the means. To me, impeachment today stands for the

0:37:32.796 --> 0:37:36.516
<v Speaker 1>opportunity that Congress has to insist that it will state

0:37:36.596 --> 0:37:39.236
<v Speaker 1>once and for the record that certain conduct by the

0:37:39.276 --> 0:37:43.076
<v Speaker 1>president is entirely unacceptable, and that if he does so,

0:37:43.356 --> 0:37:47.596
<v Speaker 1>Congress must take action of impeachment or else send the

0:37:47.676 --> 0:37:50.756
<v Speaker 1>message to the ages that the president's conduct was normal

0:37:50.996 --> 0:37:55.636
<v Speaker 1>or acceptable. To me, Donald Trump's conduct both the first

0:37:55.636 --> 0:37:58.756
<v Speaker 1>time he was impeached and the second time clearly passed

0:37:58.876 --> 0:38:03.196
<v Speaker 1>that bar. As Jacob mentioned in our conversation, Trump's impeachments

0:38:03.356 --> 0:38:06.236
<v Speaker 1>both followed from the same course of conduct he was

0:38:06.316 --> 0:38:10.316
<v Speaker 1>trying to break the twenty twenty Democratic election. Will Donald

0:38:10.316 --> 0:38:14.156
<v Speaker 1>Trump ultimately be criminally prosecuted for this or other conduct.

0:38:14.676 --> 0:38:20.996
<v Speaker 1>It remains possible, but relatively unlikely. Already, Georgia law enforcement

0:38:21.076 --> 0:38:24.076
<v Speaker 1>is investigating Trump's call to the Secretary of State, where

0:38:24.116 --> 0:38:26.316
<v Speaker 1>he asked him to find or directed him to find

0:38:26.356 --> 0:38:29.876
<v Speaker 1>eleven thousand more votes, potentially threatening him with criminal prosecution

0:38:30.076 --> 0:38:33.116
<v Speaker 1>if he did not. That might lead to a prosecution,

0:38:33.196 --> 0:38:35.196
<v Speaker 1>but my guess is that the legal issues will be

0:38:35.236 --> 0:38:37.636
<v Speaker 1>too close for the case to be brought to a jury.

0:38:38.156 --> 0:38:40.756
<v Speaker 1>In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would have to prove

0:38:40.796 --> 0:38:44.356
<v Speaker 1>to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt two different things. First,

0:38:44.356 --> 0:38:48.796
<v Speaker 1>that Donald Trump's words were directed to the incitement of violence,

0:38:49.356 --> 0:38:51.916
<v Speaker 1>which probably means in practice that it would have to

0:38:51.956 --> 0:38:56.556
<v Speaker 1>be shown that he intended to incite violence and or

0:38:57.116 --> 0:39:01.356
<v Speaker 1>that his words literally were an incitement to violence. The

0:39:01.436 --> 0:39:04.316
<v Speaker 1>second component would be to prove that Trump's words were

0:39:04.356 --> 0:39:09.636
<v Speaker 1>actually likely to incite political violence. The latter would be

0:39:09.716 --> 0:39:12.436
<v Speaker 1>quite easy to prove, because, after all, after Donald Trump spoke,

0:39:12.636 --> 0:39:16.756
<v Speaker 1>there was indeed a violent riot, But the former would

0:39:16.796 --> 0:39:21.316
<v Speaker 1>be very difficult to prove because Donald Trump was characteristically canny.

0:39:21.636 --> 0:39:24.996
<v Speaker 1>He did not use words that literally called for the

0:39:25.116 --> 0:39:27.556
<v Speaker 1>use of violence, and it would not be simple to

0:39:27.596 --> 0:39:32.156
<v Speaker 1>prove that he intended for that violence to occur. Ultimately,

0:39:32.196 --> 0:39:35.236
<v Speaker 1>then it seems most probable to me that the jury

0:39:35.396 --> 0:39:38.996
<v Speaker 1>for determining Donald Trump's culpability for the events of January

0:39:39.036 --> 0:39:44.116
<v Speaker 1>sixth will be that most evanescent and yet most significant

0:39:44.156 --> 0:39:48.956
<v Speaker 1>of juries the jury of history. Until the next time

0:39:48.996 --> 0:39:52.796
<v Speaker 1>I speak to you, be careful, be safe, and be well.

0:39:54.756 --> 0:39:57.836
<v Speaker 1>Deep background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. Our

0:39:57.876 --> 0:40:01.676
<v Speaker 1>producer is Mo laboord our engineer is Martin Gonzales, and

0:40:01.716 --> 0:40:06.436
<v Speaker 1>our shorerunner is Sophie Crane mckibbon. Editorial support from noahm Osband.

0:40:06.916 --> 0:40:11.556
<v Speaker 1>Theme music by Luis Gara. Thanks to Mia Lobell, Julia Barton,

0:40:11.796 --> 0:40:16.756
<v Speaker 1>Lydia Jean Cott, Heather Faine, Carl mcniori, Maggie Taylor, Eric Sandler,

0:40:16.796 --> 0:40:19.516
<v Speaker 1>and Jacob Weisberg. You can find me on Twitter at

0:40:19.516 --> 0:40:22.916
<v Speaker 1>Noah R. Feldman. I also write a column for Bloomberg Opinion,

0:40:23.036 --> 0:40:26.076
<v Speaker 1>which you can find at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman.

0:40:26.596 --> 0:40:29.876
<v Speaker 1>To discover Bloomberg's original slate of podcasts, go to bloomberg

0:40:29.956 --> 0:40:32.756
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcasts, and if you liked what you

0:40:32.796 --> 0:40:35.556
<v Speaker 1>heard today, please write a review or tell a friend.

0:40:35.956 --> 0:40:37.356
<v Speaker 1>This is deep background