Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and seventy seven percent of Americans blame
Speaker 1: Trump for gas prices. We have such a great show
Speaker 1: for you today. The Majority Reports Sam Seedar stops by
Speaker 1: to talk President Trump's rapidly deteriorating health. Then we'll talk
Speaker 1: to talking Feds Harry Littman about his productions for the
Speaker 1: retirement of Justices Thomas and Alito. But first the news.
Speaker 2: So, Molly, Trump has suffered a huge legal loss when
Speaker 2: he tried to ban asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: This is like exactly what we know about Trump. He
Speaker 1: loses in the courts, and he's always losing in the courts,
Speaker 1: and here he is more losing in the courts. So
Speaker 1: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled
Speaker 1: to one that Trump could not deport immigrants under summary
Speaker 1: removal procedures of his own making. So basically, he makes
Speaker 1: a reason to get rid of people and then he
Speaker 1: does it. That's not going to fly here. So barring
Speaker 1: foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States
Speaker 1: from applying to asylum if they've made the statutory showing
Speaker 1: that they are eligible for being considered to receive asylum.
Speaker 1: So basically this is all illegal. And this is the
Speaker 1: larger problem with Trump, isn't writ large besides the fact
Speaker 1: that it's a moral and a lot is that it's
Speaker 1: also illegal. And that's where we are today, is that
Speaker 1: Trump has yet again lost in the courts because none
Speaker 1: of this is legal. And so here we are another
Speaker 1: day that ends and why another loss in the courts
Speaker 1: for Trump world unsurprising, but there'll be more.
Speaker 2: So then when he's not losing in courts, we have
Speaker 2: the DOJ being not even able to cook up these charges.
Speaker 2: He tried to Trump up on Jeroan Powell.
Speaker 1: Yeah, cook the books. So Donald Trump really mad at
Speaker 1: Jerome Powell because he wouldn't lower interest rates, so he
Speaker 1: decided to cook up an investigation into him.
Speaker 3: Jerome Pal.
Speaker 1: I mean, the stupidest part of this whole story, and
Speaker 1: there are many stupid parts, so I don't want you
Speaker 1: to just focus on one stupid part. But the stupidest
Speaker 1: part here is that Jerome pal was appointed by Trump
Speaker 1: the first time. So like, this is not some like
Speaker 1: woke leftist, this is a Republican guy, and Trump has
Speaker 1: cooked up this idea, probably likely with the help of
Speaker 1: his buddy Bill Pulti, that he mismanaged the renovation of
Speaker 1: the FED. There's no evidence to support it. And so
Speaker 1: what happened here is that Tom Tillis, who was not
Speaker 1: running again and so he has become like all Republican
Speaker 1: senators who are not running again, brave in the eleventh hour.
Speaker 1: He's the Liz Cheney of the Senate. That guy was like,
Speaker 1: you know what, You're not going to get handsome Kevin.
Speaker 1: Remember handsome Kevin.
Speaker 2: I don't stop thinking about it, especially after those flattering,
Speaker 2: flattering remarks during his congressional hearing.
Speaker 3: Miss right.
Speaker 1: This is a call back to friend of the podcast,
Speaker 1: Justin Wolfers, who had a there was handsome Kevin and
Speaker 1: smiling Kevin Kevin Walsh versus Kevin Hassett. So Kevin Walsh
Speaker 1: Trump wants him to be the FED chair. And what
Speaker 1: we had here was that Tom Tillis said, you're not
Speaker 1: going to get your FED chair passed until you drop
Speaker 1: this dumb investigation of Jerome pal By the way, I
Speaker 1: want to point out my favorite part of this whole
Speaker 1: thing is that the person involved in the investigation into
Speaker 1: Jerome Powell one box of wine. Judge Box of Wine.
Speaker 1: You'll remember her from earlier seasons.
Speaker 2: Bolly, how could she have botched this?
Speaker 4: There's no way.
Speaker 2: She's so good at everything she does, meeting drinking.
Speaker 1: Yes, well again, we have many Fox News hosts in
Speaker 1: this administration, all of whom are a complete disaster. But
Speaker 1: Judge Box of Wine is a perennial favorite for us
Speaker 1: because she's an alcoholic and we love to make fun
Speaker 1: of alcoholism. We'll be doing it later at the show,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 2: One of the things, though, I think is always so funny,
Speaker 2: is like with the Trump administration is going after these people.
Speaker 2: They're going look at the Biden crime family, all these
Speaker 2: things that you know, Like a thing I like to
Speaker 2: remind people is that before Joe Biden was vice president,
Speaker 2: he was literally the poorest senator and that this whole
Speaker 2: crime family thing. You know, Barisma fifty thousand dollars. Then
Speaker 2: we have Eric Trump bragging about twenty four million dollar
Speaker 2: Pentagon deal that his company just landed. But no, nothing
Speaker 2: to see here in this family.
Speaker 3: Never.
Speaker 1: I hate corruption, whether it have a D or an
Speaker 1: R in front of it, and voters hate it, by
Speaker 1: the way, but it's important to remember that as much
Speaker 1: as like, Eric Trump is really dumb, and so he
Speaker 1: ends up in situations like this. And so let's take
Speaker 1: a minute to pour one out for our friend Eric Trump.
Speaker 1: He's on Fox Business with Maria Bartaroma. The money honey,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is like an incredible quip. If you
Speaker 1: can find it, you should because it's amazing. And basically
Speaker 1: he goes on to talk about how great the robots
Speaker 1: are and she congratulates him as if like State TV
Speaker 1: is congratulating the sign of the monarch. And you know
Speaker 1: what's so inconvenient for Trump world is that we have
Speaker 1: been a democracy for a long time and so we
Speaker 1: Americans are not really used to like the kleptocrats the
Speaker 1: way that this crew is spinning it. And so it
Speaker 1: just feels very very very sleazy and very very wrong.
Speaker 1: And that's because it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so as promised as kash Pttel has launched a
Speaker 2: lawsuit against the Atlantic for reporting that he really hits
Speaker 2: the bottle, like very rare reports have ever shown. What
Speaker 2: we've now found with this is a little streisand effect.
Speaker 2: Sure enough, there is arrest records, people innundating the Atlantic
Speaker 2: with stories of how drunky is. I saw on TikTok
Speaker 2: someone showing him drinking twelve beers in a matter of
Speaker 2: two hours at a hockey game. I don't know if
Speaker 2: it was real, but I don't even know how someone
Speaker 2: does that.
Speaker 1: So cash Battel has sued the Atlantic. This is the
Speaker 1: way Trump world does that. They'll sue, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is the model for this. You sue reporting you don't like,
Speaker 1: you sue. But here's the problem with all of that
Speaker 1: is that in order for this to go, that will
Speaker 1: be discovery. Discovery will be a bitch, as they say,
Speaker 1: it will involve lots of investigations, a lot of emails,
Speaker 1: a lot of text messages. And what we'll see, undoubtedly
Speaker 1: is that everybody in the FBI. You remember, cash Battel
Speaker 1: has decimated the FBI. He's fired numerous people who were
Speaker 1: you know, lifelong career, military career, FBI, people who have
Speaker 1: really given their lives the FBI and who have worked
Speaker 1: hard and you know, have done important work. And what
Speaker 1: we're going to see is that when you fire every one,
Speaker 1: people start leaking about you. And do we think cash
Speaker 1: Battel is a drinker? Yeah? I don't think that story
Speaker 1: gets written unless he's a drinker. I think that if
Speaker 1: this lawsuit goes forward, I think it'll probably get dismissed.
Speaker 1: But if it does go forward, I think it is
Speaker 1: going to be very embarrassing for the FBI and for
Speaker 1: cash Battel. I mean, the name that trends has been
Speaker 1: trending about him at least was on X, which I
Speaker 1: think is pretty great, is Jay Edgar Boozer.
Speaker 2: Yes, a member of the liquor cabinet, as they're saying.
Speaker 1: Yes. Sam Cedar is the host of The Majority Report.
Speaker 1: Sam Cedar, Hi, Molly, Hi, thank you for coming on
Speaker 1: the podcast.
Speaker 3: My pleasure as always.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because it's like we're eighteen months
Speaker 1: into this train wreck of a president of a second term,
Speaker 1: and it's finally hit a moment where my man has
Speaker 1: that sort of has hit the has hit a number
Speaker 1: of number where Eva Alex Jones has decided to break
Speaker 1: with him.
Speaker 5: Yes, we're in like George W. Bush at his lowest
Speaker 5: EBB territory. And frankly, I think there's probably like thirty
Speaker 5: to thirty five percent of Americans who are never going
Speaker 5: to abandon any Republican president. Ever, I should say, yeah,
Speaker 5: thirty to thirty five yeah, percent of Americans who will
Speaker 5: not abandon a Republican president. He doesn't seem to care
Speaker 5: in many respects. I think, you know, that's because, like
Speaker 5: I think, he has made just so much money, there
Speaker 5: has been so much corruption and graft, and I continue
Speaker 5: to believe that as much as his stupidity and his
Speaker 5: inability to do anything other than the last person tells
Speaker 5: him with iron, I am quite convinced there has to
Speaker 5: be a monetary renuneration for him in some way about this.
Speaker 5: I don't know, you know, I don't know what that
Speaker 5: would be, but it just seems to me be the case.
Speaker 4: But yes, he's losing support.
Speaker 5: I mean, the biggest thing I think, I mean, if
Speaker 5: I was him, is I'd be very worried about losing
Speaker 5: the Senate.
Speaker 4: Yes, because it's one thing.
Speaker 5: It's not like he has an agenda, and they'll be
Speaker 5: doing investigations and they're just gonna, like any investigation, you'll
Speaker 5: start with the small fish fish to get to the
Speaker 5: big fish. But if the Democrats take the Senate, it's
Speaker 5: hard to imagine him not being impeached and thrown out
Speaker 5: of office. I don't know if he cares at that point.
Speaker 5: Maybe he's like, listen, I just made four billion dollars
Speaker 5: over the course of a year.
Speaker 4: I want to go spend some of it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: It's funny because it comes back to this idea. So
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has this unitary executive theory, which means he's
Speaker 1: the most powerful president ever because he's also installed a
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House who is merely a sick of fan.
Speaker 1: But the point of what you're saying, that he's governing
Speaker 1: like a monarch, that is absolutely correct. And it's funny
Speaker 1: because earlier on in his earlier on in the in
Speaker 1: his first year, everyone was like, holy shit, he's governing
Speaker 1: like a monarch. Because he's not. He's going to cancel
Speaker 1: all the elections and do everything he can to stay
Speaker 1: in power. I think since his polls have really just
Speaker 1: degraded to such a point that even Tucker Carlson, who
Speaker 1: again is not a spiritual leader, is not a liberal,
Speaker 1: do not welcome him into any tent. But that even
Speaker 1: these people are saying they have to get distance from
Speaker 1: him in order not to alienate their base. There really
Speaker 1: is a sense in which, like he is not governing
Speaker 1: like a monarch, he's governing like someone who doesn't understand
Speaker 1: that he's losing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I mean I think I don't know, like
Speaker 5: what does losing mean to him?
Speaker 3: Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 5: Like what Like I think losing to him means going
Speaker 5: to jail or not having more money. And it seems
Speaker 5: to me that like he's pretty confident that he's not
Speaker 5: going to go to jail because they've basically like eliminated
Speaker 5: almost all the mechanisms in which he could go to jail,
Speaker 5: even after he's you know, been president. I mean any
Speaker 5: you know, I'm sure they're shredding files somewhere in the
Speaker 5: bowels of the Justice Department, and the guy has just
Speaker 5: made I think I don't think we'll ever.
Speaker 4: Know exactly how much.
Speaker 5: I think it's just an extraordinary amount of money that
Speaker 5: we can't even really sort of wrap our heads around.
Speaker 5: And I think it's all been bribery through you know,
Speaker 5: his his crypto and kickbacks from from foreign countries, and
Speaker 5: I just and so I don't I don't know. I
Speaker 5: think that's probably why. And then you know, I would
Speaker 5: imagine there's also a certain amountestinility.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, you get to be his age.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think at one point you're like, I've
Speaker 5: basically I made it to the point where I can
Speaker 5: coast now.
Speaker 1: Right, seventy nine years old he is, you know, when
Speaker 1: he came into office, he was this time the oldest
Speaker 1: person to ever be put in the presidency, the oldest ever.
Speaker 1: So as old as Biden was, this guy's actually older.
Speaker 1: And he did spend all of Biden's terms saying that
Speaker 1: Biden was too old to be president. We can have
Speaker 1: a question, we can have a conversation about that, for sure,
Speaker 1: but it is, you know, Donald Trump is not old
Speaker 1: in a vacuum. He is old in a world that
Speaker 1: he created.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I think what we have is probably like
Speaker 5: the portfolio that he interested himself in. You know, it's
Speaker 5: clear somebody has said I mean I think just today
Speaker 5: or yesterday, Ice said that they were going to cut
Speaker 5: back on their most extreme tactics, right. I mean, there
Speaker 5: are elements who are who feel like, oh, the Republican
Speaker 5: Party has to have some type of future, we have
Speaker 5: to mitigate something.
Speaker 4: In some areas, it's like we don't want to.
Speaker 5: And I don't know who that is. I don't know
Speaker 5: if it's Susie Wiles or if it's.
Speaker 3: You know, JD.
Speaker 5: Vance is in there. I mean he you know, he
Speaker 5: wants a political future. We saw that also with you
Speaker 5: know what's happening with the CDC now, despite the fact
Speaker 5: that there's according to the Lancet, I think they came
Speaker 5: out with a report this week saying that the CDC
Speaker 5: was just decimated. Yeah, they are eighty percent short on staff.
Speaker 5: And they also just reportedly quashed a report that said
Speaker 5: that the COVID vaccine cut the number in half of
Speaker 5: people who would go to the er. Yeah for COVID,
Speaker 5: but they've they have enough personnel to just make sure
Speaker 5: they don't publish that. And there is some awareness that
Speaker 5: we've got to pull back on some of these more
Speaker 5: extreme things at least for the time being.
Speaker 1: And I think we should talk about Maha because this
Speaker 1: week RFK Junior did a number of insane hearings. So
Speaker 1: he's he's talking to the House, he's talking the Senate
Speaker 1: about cutting the funding for HSS. He's got, you know,
Speaker 1: because that money needs to go to our more with
Speaker 1: the ron or wildly unpopular war with the Iranians, which
Speaker 1: was never explained to anyone but has ended up with
Speaker 1: the straits of Hermos blocked and Donald Trump is like,
Speaker 1: I don't today. He was like, I don't care about
Speaker 1: this straits. We don't get anything from them. And I
Speaker 1: was like, when you don't understand how dynamic pricing works,
Speaker 1: when you don't understand when something is fungible. But I
Speaker 1: want to like go back to this idea. There was
Speaker 1: a coalition, like Donald Trump was able to make some
Speaker 1: inroads with women voters because women love RFK Junior, not
Speaker 1: women who have foreseene. But no, I'm just kidding, but
Speaker 1: why do women love Why? How did this happen?
Speaker 4: And you know years ago.
Speaker 5: There, I mean, I'm thinking, like ten years ago, I
Speaker 5: remember doing an interview with somebody who was talking about
Speaker 5: this sort of like crossover between sort of the the
Speaker 5: sort of new age and right wing circles. Yeah, and
Speaker 5: and I think that's where it started. And I think
Speaker 5: like there was some type of overlap between sort of
Speaker 5: conspiracy and sort of like new age you know health
Speaker 5: for like well beat wellness, it was the wellness uh community.
Speaker 5: And I did a radio show with Bobby Kennedy for
Speaker 5: several years after Air America with him and a one
Speaker 5: of the biggest trial attorneys in the country. And you know,
Speaker 5: I still go to conferences with tort lawyers, and there
Speaker 5: is this strain of like you have a lot of
Speaker 5: anti corporate fighters who were fighting corporations and they you know,
Speaker 5: they see discovery and a lot of time these things
Speaker 5: are settlements, and so this stuff doesn't necessarily get public,
Speaker 5: and they see a lot of you know, horrific things
Speaker 5: in terms of like corporate malfeasance and people willing to
Speaker 5: sell products they know are harming people, and it is
Speaker 5: hard for some not to be conspiracy minded about it.
Speaker 5: And so you know, you see this crossover there, and
Speaker 5: I think, you know, there's a lot of that with Mah.
Speaker 5: And I think COVID was very difficult obviously for people,
Speaker 5: both not necessarily the vaccine per se, but just.
Speaker 4: I mean the experience of it.
Speaker 5: There was the whole country was in trauma, and so
Speaker 5: I think like the skepticism of vaccines was attractive to people.
Speaker 5: And you know, sometimes like the way I would express
Speaker 5: this in terms of like the efficacy of mentioning a
Speaker 5: problem that plays on people's anxieties. Everybody, you know, mothers
Speaker 5: are concerned about their children, their fathers too. As a society,
Speaker 5: we're very nervous about our children. And I just remember
Speaker 5: how Barack Obama won Iowa in two thousand and eight
Speaker 5: when nobody gave him a chance and he started talking
Speaker 5: about social security and he said, so scaredy is in jeopardy. Now,
Speaker 5: social scarity was not in jeopardy, but he triggered the
Speaker 5: anxieties of older people, people our age, my age, you know, like,
Speaker 5: is social scarity gonna be?
Speaker 4: There?
Speaker 5: Can I get more? Et cetera, et cetera. And all
Speaker 5: you have to do is bring up social Security. You
Speaker 5: don't really even have to, like, you know, and just
Speaker 5: remind people of their anxieties. And you know, Bill Clinton's
Speaker 5: I feel your pain. You know, if somebody feels like
Speaker 5: at the very least their anxiety is being articulated, that's
Speaker 5: all it takes. And then, you know, you can go
Speaker 5: down a rabbit hole. And the problem they're running into
Speaker 5: with maha, as it were, to the extent that that's
Speaker 5: a thing, but it's certainly some cohort of people, is
Speaker 5: that there is a the Trump administration doesn't really give
Speaker 5: a shit you And if there's money to be made
Speaker 5: by you know, immunizing, yeah, immunizing roundup from or from
Speaker 5: monsanto from or bear from any uh, you know, potential liability,
Speaker 5: They're going to go for it. That runs contrary to
Speaker 5: Kennedy's whole ethos to the extent that, like his anti
Speaker 5: vax stuff has now been seen as a liability in
Speaker 5: the White House. That seems to be turning as well.
Speaker 5: And you know what we're watching with Kennedy at this
Speaker 5: point is I mean, he was, it was on display yesterday.
Speaker 5: It was fascinating when he was trying to justify Donald
Speaker 5: Trump's math. You know, he said, when the if the
Speaker 5: price goes up, you know, if it's one hundred dollars
Speaker 5: and it goes up to six hundred dollars, that's a
Speaker 5: six hundred percent increase. Now this is not really even
Speaker 5: the point, but that's actually a five hundred percent increase, right.
Speaker 5: But nevertheless, and he says, so if it's at six hundred,
Speaker 5: it goes down to one hundred, that's a six hundred percent.
Speaker 3: Now. Of course, what.
Speaker 5: I found fascinating about this, on a couple of different
Speaker 5: levels was one, if you want to know how Bobby
Speaker 5: Kennedy lies and manipulates studies, sounds like he knows what
Speaker 5: he's talking about. Like that's a perfect example, because I
Speaker 5: think like even those of us who are like barely
Speaker 5: math literally understand that you one hundred percent of a thing,
Speaker 5: you can't reduce that more than one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: You can multiract more.
Speaker 5: Than one hundred percent, but you can't reduce it more
Speaker 5: than one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I am no mass geness, but even I and.
Speaker 5: So A, it was a great window into how he
Speaker 5: thinks and manipulates and where he's willing to go in
Speaker 5: terms of presenting his argument right.
Speaker 4: And then the other thing was, here's a guy who.
Speaker 5: You know when we saw this on display in the
Speaker 5: hearings this week, like the Monsanto stuff, you know, out.
Speaker 4: The window Mercury. Yeah, and for him like Mercury.
Speaker 5: You know, he was on Mercury twenty two years ago
Speaker 5: when he and Rolling Stone about the vaccines.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's it.
Speaker 5: And the idea that you know, the Trump administration allowing
Speaker 5: more mercury in the air, I mean, I can tell
Speaker 5: you it is a deep, deep obsession with mercury. And
Speaker 5: having to sort of like cover and deflect during these
Speaker 5: hearings about that and then getting in front of Donald
Speaker 5: Trump and trying to essentially like he has an audience
Speaker 5: of one now. And it shows how even from the perspective,
Speaker 5: which I totally disagree with in terms of like, you know,
Speaker 5: his conspiracy theories and what I think he genuinely believes.
Speaker 5: I think, you know, there's a you know, we could speculate. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and I should say full disclosure, I have not talked
Speaker 5: to him quite some time.
Speaker 1: Probably.
Speaker 5: Yes, I'm frankly disgusted by his behavior beyond you know,
Speaker 5: the typical amount that I'm disgusted by everyone in the
Speaker 5: in the Trump administration, but to watch how much he
Speaker 5: is going to genuflect the Donald Trump. He has an audience,
Speaker 5: have won, and I think people, you know, he has
Speaker 5: sold out even those completely perverse and I think and
Speaker 5: warped principles that he had. He has gone full mercenary now.
Speaker 5: And I think that's I think they're for people who
Speaker 5: were one issue voters, like Maha people.
Speaker 4: I think that they're done.
Speaker 5: They see Kennedy, you know, from their perspective, he you know,
Speaker 5: the White Knight, went into the City of Sin and
Speaker 5: he's now like become a swamp creature.
Speaker 4: To mix many metaphors.
Speaker 1: I like it. A fifth of all Trump voters, now,
Speaker 1: this is the statistic guy. So did I believe that
Speaker 1: Trump should be impeached. Really like that they've so flipped
Speaker 1: that they are.
Speaker 4: Now that seems high to me.
Speaker 1: It does seem high. Wait, let me find it.
Speaker 4: But I mean, look, there was there, there was.
Speaker 5: A cohort of people who voted for him because they
Speaker 5: wanted a an unnamed change to the system. And I
Speaker 5: think for part of that cohort it has been immigration
Speaker 5: has appalled them. The immigration policies have appalled them. They
Speaker 5: didn't realize they were they were they were were going
Speaker 5: to be a target, or just like how vicious it
Speaker 5: would be, or that their friend would be a target,
Speaker 5: or their parents or they're you know. And I think
Speaker 5: for another course, like inflation's not down, wages are not up,
Speaker 5: gas is now super expensive. I think they're like, what
Speaker 5: the hell, You're just like the rest of them.
Speaker 1: So I actually am right, believe it or not. She
Speaker 1: Elliott Morris, who's been on this podcast, one out of
Speaker 1: every five twenty twenty four Trump voters supports impeaching the president. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's our new paull at strengthen numbers. It's crazy, But
Speaker 1: you know, these are voters. They were low A lot
Speaker 1: of them were low information voters, low frequency voters. They
Speaker 1: saw Joe Rogan. They saw something, you know, they saw
Speaker 1: a quick bit of he's going to make things less expensive.
Speaker 1: Some of them hadn't vote. The younger voters have the
Speaker 1: highest level of Trump or Mores, and you know, they
Speaker 1: were like, this isn't what we wanted.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean he ran as a change agent, and
Speaker 5: he was helped with that mission by I would argue
Speaker 5: Kamala Harris by going around with Republicans and saying.
Speaker 4: He's outside. He's the outsider, right, I mean that that
Speaker 4: was a problem.
Speaker 1: So you think Liz Cheney did not get the base excited.
Speaker 5: It's not a question of getting the base excided. I
Speaker 5: mean obviously she didn't, and she Yeah, there was a net.
Speaker 5: There was a cost associated with that, but from their perspective,
Speaker 5: they thought there would be a plus. And all they
Speaker 5: were doing was reinforcing the narrative that Trump was trying
Speaker 5: to run on again, which is I'm an outsider, I'm
Speaker 5: a change agent. I'm going to come in there and
Speaker 5: they're going, ah, but you are an outsider, and we're
Speaker 5: look at Will Well, here's the entire political establishment, you know,
Speaker 5: finding up against you. They were literally reinforcing what he
Speaker 5: was trying to run, which is I'm going to bring change.
Speaker 4: I'm not like in it was. It was a disaster.
Speaker 5: And so I think a lot of people were just like,
Speaker 5: particularly younger people, I don't know, you know, like if
Speaker 5: you're twenty five, were you really paying that much attention
Speaker 5: to what the president was doing from sixteen to twenty.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
Speaker 4: Like, no, you weren't.
Speaker 5: And you know, even if your third were you paying
Speaker 5: that much attention? Maybe probably not? And here comes a
Speaker 5: change agent?
Speaker 4: You know you want change?
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 1: So Sam, this is something I'm curious about because I'm
Speaker 1: writing about it. Like one of the things that struck
Speaker 1: me that Harris had problems with was she was very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable running against billionaires and she was very uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: that kind of populous language that even Donald Trump, despite
Speaker 1: having the richest cabinet and despite being quite rich, was
Speaker 1: able to embrace. Do you think that was toxic?
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't know, you know, like you know,
Speaker 5: who knows what's inside you know, anybody's head.
Speaker 4: But I think that, like.
Speaker 5: She had a history of moving around ideologically, so I
Speaker 5: think like she you know, I don't think anybody would
Speaker 5: ever have accused her of being an ideologue, and I
Speaker 5: think it was a function of like, who are the
Speaker 5: people around her doing debate prep with someone who is
Speaker 5: moonlighting because during the day they were serving as chief
Speaker 5: counsel for Google against the US government with their antitrusting.
Speaker 5: Her brother in law was the top advisor, was counsel
Speaker 5: for Uber. And they're going to bring in people who
Speaker 5: are like minded, and there's an you know, they they
Speaker 5: consider themselves non ideological, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 5: they have a very corporate money centered ideology and and
Speaker 5: that is the way that they think. The corporate mentality was,
Speaker 5: you know, lay low, don't offend these donors. You know
Speaker 5: these people who are you know, Tim Walls is they're weird.
Speaker 5: Was one of the single most effective political messaging.
Speaker 4: I've ever seen.
Speaker 5: I've been doing it for twenty years, and they shut
Speaker 5: it down, and they shut it down.
Speaker 4: It was one of the most effective things I've ever seen.
Speaker 4: It was brilliant.
Speaker 5: I don't know if he meant it, you know how,
Speaker 5: but it was.
Speaker 4: It was brilliant.
Speaker 5: And they shut that down because I think they were like,
Speaker 5: they wanted a constituency that looked like them, and uh, you.
Speaker 4: Know, you don't say you know, you know, you don't.
Speaker 5: Say weird, that's nice, that's just not appropriate in a
Speaker 5: political thing. And then you know, and then their hostility
Speaker 5: towards antitrust, I mean they and in frankly, you know,
Speaker 5: the Gaza stuff.
Speaker 4: Now, I wish.
Speaker 5: If the Democrats had only thought to do like an autopsy,
Speaker 5: not like a little lot, but to actually do an
Speaker 5: autopsy and to find out what I mean, Look, we
Speaker 5: all know they're sitting on this autopsy because we.
Speaker 1: Make all the consultants look terrible.
Speaker 5: It makes the consultants look terrible. But it also is
Speaker 5: about Gaza. I mean, look's not kid. There were reporting
Speaker 5: that Harris canvassers were basically told when they were coming
Speaker 5: back with like, we're getting a lot of Gaza responses, Like,
Speaker 5: we're no longer recording that, yeah, tell us the other responses.
Speaker 5: We're just not that's just no longer an option. They
Speaker 5: managed to alienate a lot of core constituencies probably voted
Speaker 5: for Harris, but they didn't go out and encourage other
Speaker 5: people to vote for her.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's the thing. Staying home is just as
Speaker 1: problematic or not getting other people out there. And that's
Speaker 1: why she lost those swing states, Sam Cedar, Will you
Speaker 1: come back?
Speaker 3: Of course.
Speaker 1: Harry Littman is a former US attorney and the host
Speaker 1: of the podcast Talking Feds.
Speaker 6: Hey everyone, it is our latest Molly Harry mashup, in
Speaker 6: which metical commentator and author Extraordinary Molly Jong Fast hits
Speaker 6: me with legal questions and I with turn fire with
Speaker 6: queries about politics.
Speaker 3: Molly. Always great to see you and to chat with you.
Speaker 3: Who starts your call?
Speaker 1: So I'm going to ask you a question about the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Trump super mad about the tariffs, having some
Speaker 1: complaints about the tariffs. I'd love you to talk to
Speaker 1: us about what you think about the Supreme Court. There's
Speaker 1: like a whole docket of stuff that's going to you know,
Speaker 1: we're just about hitting Supreme Court season. I want you
Speaker 1: to tell us what you're looking at, what you're watching,
Speaker 1: what you're waiting for.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, glad to do it. You're right.
Speaker 6: The Court, unlike other institutions, they finish up, you know,
Speaker 6: at the end of the school year, rise and leave,
Speaker 6: get rid of everything one way or another.
Speaker 3: And that'll be at the end of June.
Speaker 6: And by the way, everyone will be watching close that
Speaker 6: day because that's the traditional time to announce retirements, and
Speaker 6: all eyes will be on Thomas and Alito.
Speaker 3: Yeah. First, I just want to mention on the Twitter thing.
Speaker 3: He couldn't have been more.
Speaker 6: Like apoplectic and disparaging, and yet he never even made
Speaker 6: an attempt at a legal point. It was just this
Speaker 6: must be bad for America because I wanted it. Two
Speaker 6: big cases everyone's sold their breath for. When you and
Speaker 6: that last week they released something on Friday, people were wondering,
Speaker 6: will this be the day? The first thing everyone's waiting for,
Speaker 6: And it was argued, I think in the very first
Speaker 6: hearing time in last October is the voting rights. So
Speaker 6: you probably remember there's this what many people consider the
Speaker 6: most important piece of civil.
Speaker 3: Rights legislation, if not legislation.
Speaker 6: Period, that passed in the sixties, and it had two
Speaker 6: really important engines. Section five, which the Court has already
Speaker 6: done away with, and that gave the DOJ a opportunity
Speaker 6: to sort of push back against changes that certain states
Speaker 6: who had a history of discrimination made. There's also Section two,
Speaker 6: and that's been held anyway to be a test that
Speaker 6: if you put into play anything that is racially has biased,
Speaker 6: it can be challenged on that basis, and there's I
Speaker 6: think like twenty actual districts around the country, maybe more
Speaker 6: Molly where the people who are there are so called
Speaker 6: majority minority districts are because of that very section and
Speaker 6: courts having held you got to do better here or
Speaker 6: you're diluting the minority vote.
Speaker 3: That very section.
Speaker 6: Now there's indication the Court might want to strike down
Speaker 6: is unconstitutional, and.
Speaker 3: That would be seismic for the overall map.
Speaker 6: But and I think they will strike it down, but
Speaker 6: I don't think it'll be in time to change things
Speaker 6: for the midterms, maybe for twenty eight. And then finally
Speaker 6: everyone's waiting for the birthright citizenship case. I think the
Speaker 6: administrators are going to lose that one. It's just completely outlandish,
Speaker 6: and the reports will go out around the land. Oh see,
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court isn't so bad, but those will be
Speaker 6: well overstated.
Speaker 3: Then, no, court, you couldn't write an.
Speaker 6: Opinion upholding this completely countertextual interpretation in the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 3: So it will continue to be the case.
Speaker 6: I think that anyone born here, whoever their parents are,
Speaker 6: will be an American citizen.
Speaker 3: And you know that's a pretty American idea.
Speaker 1: The Voting Rights Act dies but it's not in time
Speaker 1: for this mid term election, will be time for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight.
Speaker 6: I think that's right. And even twenty twenty eight, they
Speaker 6: got to draw new maps. You only draw new maps
Speaker 6: after censuses. Of course, that hasn't stopped them now this term.
Speaker 6: We just had the big result in Virginia yesterday, which
Speaker 6: you know is more in your valley wick than mine.
Speaker 6: But so far that whole effort by DRS seems to
Speaker 6: be at best to kind of stale me.
Speaker 3: So I think it'd be weird even to try in
Speaker 3: the middle.
Speaker 6: But certainly for the next census that's going to matter,
Speaker 6: and we'll see if Congress responds at all. They could
Speaker 6: reintroduce it, but especially if the opinion is like, oh,
Speaker 6: this is unconstitutional Congress.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: I love talking to you know.
Speaker 6: It makes me think about there's all the big questions
Speaker 6: swirling around. I just talked to Rick Wilson, but it
Speaker 6: really puts me in mind of things that are every
Speaker 6: time I think of that.
Speaker 3: Ah, that's interesting. I got to asked Molly, and here's
Speaker 3: my start.
Speaker 6: Been a pretty humillion a couple of weeks for the
Speaker 6: Vice President of the United States, JD.
Speaker 3: Vance Trump seems maybe to be setting him.
Speaker 6: To take the blame in Aroan, even as sources close
Speaker 6: to him why to the media, the MVP never wanted
Speaker 6: the war.
Speaker 3: He drew this as you pointed out.
Speaker 6: Damn paltry crowd at the kind of right wing event
Speaker 6: he used to start at. Are his political fortunes well
Speaker 6: and truly fallen? Would you say, or is there third act?
Speaker 6: I guess you'd have to call it because his first
Speaker 6: act was anti Trump.
Speaker 3: Is there a third act for him in the offing?
Speaker 1: Well, you'll remember what happened to Donald Trump's first vice
Speaker 1: president one, Mike Pence. First of all, even when you're
Speaker 1: not the second fiddle for a complete narcissistic sociopath, it's
Speaker 1: a bad job. Even when you're just the vice president
Speaker 1: for a normal president, it's not a good job unless
Speaker 1: you're Dick Cheney. But I think in this case, I
Speaker 1: think Vance has a number of problems. One is he
Speaker 1: has this humiliation. He's been tasked with bringing peace to
Speaker 1: the Middle East, the Iranians. I think what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has done with Iran is really kicked at Hornet's nest.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump has really been trying to de escalate
Speaker 1: the war in Iran. But the problem is that the
Speaker 1: Iranians are ideological in a way that I don't think
Speaker 1: Trump quite understands, and so he's not able to sort
Speaker 1: of back this train up. And I think it's a
Speaker 1: really tough job for Vance. But I think there's another
Speaker 1: tension here, which is that Trump is a lame duck.
Speaker 1: He's seventy nine, he pulls terribly and he's not running
Speaker 1: for reelection again. But he knows that the minute he
Speaker 1: chooses his successor, his power gets diminished even further. And
Speaker 1: so the power he has to play JD Van's against
Speaker 1: Marco is sort of one of the last cards he
Speaker 1: has left. And so I think it is very unlikely
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump will make JD the heir of parent.
Speaker 1: I think he'll do as much as possible to keep
Speaker 1: that question running for as long as possible. The other
Speaker 1: thing is that Jadvance is saddled with a really unpopular
Speaker 1: president who has made gas prices higher. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's so funny because it's like, there's so many reasons
Speaker 1: not to support Trump. His anti democratic stance is racism,
Speaker 1: is sexism, is misogyny. But ultimately, the thing that seems
Speaker 1: like it's really doing it as the gas prices.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but that's really super interesting analysis. It's a very
Speaker 6: FASTI and fastree. And if I can say, because you're right,
Speaker 6: if that's writing wants to play him off against each other,
Speaker 6: that also suggests he doesn't kick Vance to the curb
Speaker 6: for a while.
Speaker 1: It works much better for him to have JD. Vance
Speaker 1: and Marco fighting over his love. And one of the
Speaker 1: things we saw was that the wife of Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk, she endorsed Jadie Vance really early from turning point,
Speaker 1: and you could see like what it did was she
Speaker 1: lost her power that way. That's a mistake. You will,
Speaker 1: Nancie Trump, make your turn bring it so yesterday, I
Speaker 1: think in bat Shittery we had Todd Blanche up there
Speaker 1: and remember you know this is on the heels of
Speaker 1: the Bondie departure, which I think is relevant. Todd Blanch
Speaker 1: up there with Cash Fatteu indicting the Southern Poverty Law
Speaker 1: Center meaningful for any number of reasons, one of which
Speaker 1: is that they are the group that hunted the KKK.
Speaker 1: They have you know, been around forever. They have this
Speaker 1: cooked up case that they paid informant and somehow that
Speaker 1: is wire fraud. Isn't that what the FBI does? And
Speaker 1: also right, and also what the fuck go?
Speaker 6: Yeah, my two responds to that that's what the FBI does,
Speaker 6: and to what the fuck? It is a deeply intellectually
Speaker 6: dishonest case. So, first of all, the wire fraud, the
Speaker 6: fraud here is supposed to be, and it's got to
Speaker 6: be all these a lot of specifics against the donors.
Speaker 6: The theory of the case is that you to the
Speaker 6: donors and said, please give us your money. We're working
Speaker 6: to ferret out extremism. We have a great track record,
Speaker 6: including with the KKK, And a very important way to
Speaker 6: do it is the way law enforcement always does it. Infiltry,
Speaker 6: get a confidential informant, pay them money.
Speaker 3: That's the whole big.
Speaker 1: Risk in their life for you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6: So, besides the sort of overall hypocrisy of it, it
Speaker 6: was sort of revoltingly political and dishonest in a way
Speaker 6: that others haven't been so far.
Speaker 3: Because you know, anyone who.
Speaker 6: Heard it, you scratch your wait what oh, it turns
Speaker 6: out that all this time we thought they were good guys,
Speaker 6: they actually were pro extremists. And then you take a
Speaker 6: step back and understand the just deeply bs theory of
Speaker 6: the case, and Plants stood up and said, all this time,
Speaker 6: and the indictment says they've actually been promoting extremism. And
Speaker 6: it's exactly as you say, Mollie, that if that's true,
Speaker 6: then the FBI forever has been promoting the mob, promoting
Speaker 6: drug cartels, because it's the exact same way. Now they're
Speaker 6: trying very technically to say, well, maybe they defrauded donors.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's going anywhere.
Speaker 6: And then there are secondary things about they pay them.
Speaker 6: You can't you're not going to pay confidential informants where
Speaker 6: they check this as SCPC and supposing money laundering. But
Speaker 6: the basic idea they can try this technically, but the
Speaker 6: basic idea is just designed, it seems to me to
Speaker 6: mislead the American people, is for the headline, and a
Speaker 6: headline that they.
Speaker 3: Know is it's confusing because it seems like it can't be.
Speaker 6: And then when you look just one level deeper, you
Speaker 6: know it's just a total I think the legal term
Speaker 6: would be bullshit case and it's really this is blanche
Speaker 6: you know, really trying to do BONDI one worse.
Speaker 3: But the notion this is the Department of Justice.
Speaker 6: They're to enforce the laws, you know, truth, justice, without
Speaker 6: fear or favor. And it's just a political hit, that's
Speaker 6: all it is.
Speaker 3: I don't think it'll last.
Speaker 6: But and you notice they didn't indict any people, just
Speaker 6: the organization itself.
Speaker 3: But even if somehow they can make.
Speaker 6: In the Middle District of Alabama, a very pro Trump
Speaker 6: part of the world, make little things stick, it's really
Speaker 6: important to understand the whole effort is just deeply dishonest
Speaker 6: and political.
Speaker 1: When they were talking about Cash Battel, who was screaming
Speaker 1: at a journalist when they asked him about the Atlantic
Speaker 1: reporting of his drunkenness, he said, well, a grand jury
Speaker 1: has indicted, so we know it's true and we know
Speaker 1: they did it. Just explain why that's not. That's not
Speaker 1: how any of this works.
Speaker 6: Well, we're where what people always used to say about
Speaker 6: grand juries, and especially the Middle District of Alabama is
Speaker 6: they can and you know, willn dydah Ham sandwich of
Speaker 6: and of course the administration has been serving up different
Speaker 6: kinds of sandwiches that grand juries have rejected.
Speaker 3: But yes, it's child's play.
Speaker 6: And in my whole career, Molly I've only heard or
Speaker 6: been involved once in a case where the grand jury
Speaker 6: refused charges.
Speaker 3: It wasn't even my case.
Speaker 6: It's exceedingly rare, except yeah, for the grand jury to
Speaker 6: say no. They typically sit there and say, you know,
Speaker 6: and rubber stamp. That's a problem. People noticed it, which
Speaker 6: has made it all the more striking, the skein of
Speaker 6: failures by the Trump administration. But that is again, anyone
Speaker 6: with any sophistication knowledge knows that's the best you got.
Speaker 6: The grand jury said, that's that's another part of the
Speaker 6: whole fiction here, and again the most of the grand
Speaker 6: jury would have said has been persuaded in some technical way.
Speaker 3: The grand jury has not.
Speaker 6: Accused the spccre of actually supporting extremism. That is just
Speaker 6: a you know, total deceptive is a kind way to
Speaker 6: put what's really a bullshit charge. All right, So this,
Speaker 6: well you talked about Patel and man oh Man, he
Speaker 6: comes right out of the box with that defamation suit
Speaker 6: against the Atlantic for all those allegations.
Speaker 3: We'll see where that goes and why he's doing it.
Speaker 6: Also this week, Glori Chevez diremer Is, the Labor Secretary,
Speaker 6: has gone in the wake of some really Toddry allegations.
Speaker 6: My basic question you, Molly, is first, why does this
Speaker 6: administration produce such you know, outlandish scandals, really nasty stuff
Speaker 6: month after months? And is everyone in your sort of
Speaker 6: estimation is the American public so used to scandal now
Speaker 6: that there's no real political price to be made from
Speaker 6: this kind of conduct that you know, normally used to
Speaker 6: make people kind of gasp.
Speaker 1: Well, remember, up until a few weeks ago, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: refused to fire people, and you just moved them around.
Speaker 1: So I do you think scandal's matter? He did that
Speaker 1: because scandal's matter because he knew how bad the optics were.
Speaker 1: So that is number one. Number two is I have
Speaker 1: a couple of thoughts about these women. So we have
Speaker 1: three women who have been fired from this administration, Lori
Speaker 1: Shabas Dreamer, Pam Bondi, and Christine Nom. Shavez Dreamer and
Speaker 1: Christine Nom have two very similar situations. Shabaz Dreamer has
Speaker 1: the father and husband who were both really problematic. The
Speaker 1: father probably is alleged to have harassed people in her
Speaker 1: orbit who worked for this government, treating government employees like
Speaker 1: you know, all three of them in the Shabaz Dreamer
Speaker 1: case treated government employees as if they were personal staff.
Speaker 1: With Nome, you had a similar situation, right. We have
Speaker 1: Corey Leuwandowski treating her government job like in ATM, and
Speaker 1: you have allegations there too, and.
Speaker 6: Both of them have a daughter resigne to them, right
Speaker 6: or thanks side right?
Speaker 1: No, but you don't get fired for adulter a at
Speaker 1: least not in the Trump administration. And I think also
Speaker 1: more importantly the adulter ay blew up for her during
Speaker 1: the hearing, which I thought was actually really interesting was
Speaker 1: that she kept being asked this question of whether or
Speaker 1: not she was having sex with Corey and she wouldn't
Speaker 1: answer it, maybe because Corey would have been mad at
Speaker 1: her for not doing it, Maybe because she didn't want
Speaker 1: to lie in her oath because she knew there was
Speaker 1: enough evidence to show that it was. Like either way,
Speaker 1: it's informative when you think about when you're going to
Speaker 1: interview other members of this cabinet, because there are going
Speaker 1: to be endless I mean endless interviews with members of
Speaker 1: this cabinet any which way. So I just thought there
Speaker 1: were a lot of similarities between Dreamer and Nome which
Speaker 1: I think are worth noting. Ronnie is a little bit
Speaker 1: of a different story. But I would say what I
Speaker 1: think is relevant here is that there are a lot
Speaker 1: of bad cabinet members trump World, from Cash Battel to
Speaker 1: Lutnik Meg.
Speaker 3: Junior, yeah there where we're going, Yeah, who are.
Speaker 1: Bad at their jobs and who are probably going to
Speaker 1: get fired. But I think it's noeworthy that the women
Speaker 1: have such a hard time hanging on. I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: think it's because they're worse. I think it's because the
Speaker 1: women of Maga have to twist themselves into such a
Speaker 1: pretzel to exist in Maga that there's just a lot
Speaker 1: more that can go wrong. And that's why you see,
Speaker 1: you know, you see these men sort of ruining their careers.
Speaker 1: You see just all sorts of second order effects that
Speaker 1: you might not be able to game out.
Speaker 3: Got it, Okay, bring it on.
Speaker 1: Yeah. My question for you is about the sort of
Speaker 1: Trump World's criminality, Like, for example, Christy Noom, now she's gone.
Speaker 1: There's all sorts of fraud questions, right the two hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty million dollars for the horseback riding movies. You know,
Speaker 1: they're just different smoking guns with a lot of these
Speaker 1: cabinet members. If you're trying to go after what Christinome
Speaker 1: has done. Where would you start? What's the legal like,
Speaker 1: is that a federal crime? I mean, obviously the Trump
Speaker 1: DOJ is not going to prosecute this, but you don't
Speaker 1: want to miss the term limits. So can states prosecute this?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: Could California prosecute this? And if so, what would it
Speaker 1: look like to try to start investigation into Christynome because
Speaker 1: obviously there's been a lot of really fraudulent spending.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so three quick points.
Speaker 6: First of all, I mean, the administration's been like a
Speaker 6: crime wave, including Trump himself. You think about the emolument's
Speaker 6: class stuff, You think about the part and stuff which
Speaker 6: would play as a quid pro quoll.
Speaker 3: We've somehow forgotten about.
Speaker 6: It because DOJ is going nowhere and impeachment hasn't been
Speaker 6: on the table. But the two impeachments were righteous, each
Speaker 6: of them in the first term. But we have one
Speaker 6: after the other after the other. That's point one. Point
Speaker 6: two where would you start federal crimes?
Speaker 3: DOJ? Oops? Point three? Can states do it? Because they
Speaker 3: won't do anything.
Speaker 6: Although I do want to point out there's going to
Speaker 6: be a big, big kind of internal debate if the
Speaker 6: Democrats win the presidency in twenty eight about whether to
Speaker 6: force criminal accountability for what has been a really both
Speaker 6: damaging and brazen wave of crimes, or whether you know,
Speaker 6: there'll be some voices saying yeah, yeah, yeah, but we
Speaker 6: don't want to bog down our new power in that.
Speaker 6: But it's also the case balling increasingly. There's a lot
Speaker 6: of critics who said this that a federal crime could
Speaker 6: be a state crimes.
Speaker 3: State crimes are the default.
Speaker 6: You know, there are ninety five percent of all criminal
Speaker 6: prosecutions in the country.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 6: Of course, taking them on will be stepping on a
Speaker 6: hornet's nest. We already see Minnesota doing it with an
Speaker 6: assault by a nice agent. I think you're going to
Speaker 6: see charges that against the killers of Alex Preddi and
Speaker 6: Renee Good. But it's the case that New York's a
Speaker 6: very good example. It has a statute, it's a state statute.
Speaker 6: But pretty much you, as with the Feds, you step
Speaker 6: foot in there and you do a fraud.
Speaker 3: People can go after.
Speaker 6: And I think it becomes a political question more than
Speaker 6: a sort of law school exam question.
Speaker 3: Does Letitia James.
Speaker 6: Think, man, oh man, I've gotten beat up and I'll
Speaker 6: hold back. Do you know particular ags in particular jurisdiction,
Speaker 6: think I've got what I need to go forward.
Speaker 3: In general, we haven't seen very much of this, and.
Speaker 6: You would typically expect first that these would sound in
Speaker 6: impeachment and second in federal court. And I just want
Speaker 6: to point out, had Bondie, say, been the subject of
Speaker 6: a criminal referral before she quit, I don't see how
Speaker 6: this administration, even this administration, would have gotten out of
Speaker 6: some kind of special counsel. So if there is a
Speaker 6: special counsel for certain high level violations, you might see
Speaker 6: it would be a civil war in the DOJ and
Speaker 6: the White House, and Trump would do everything that Nixon
Speaker 6: tried to do to squelch it and more.
Speaker 3: But that's also on the table.
Speaker 6: To me, it's basically a political question whether the Dems
Speaker 6: are going to want to go that way. And you
Speaker 6: know this better than I, but I detect a real
Speaker 6: kind of critical debate within the party over it.
Speaker 3: Follow up.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to do this, but I have like legal questions.
Speaker 3: That's what that's why we're here.
Speaker 1: Who sets up a special counsel? Is that only the president?
Speaker 1: Or can other people do it?
Speaker 6: It's the Attorney general who finds under the regulations, and
Speaker 6: there's no way around it. You could have a conflict
Speaker 6: of interest. But we just saw we've seen Todd Blant
Speaker 6: stand up and I'm sorry, say things that aren't true razenly.
Speaker 6: So could they stick it out and say no special
Speaker 6: Maybe all of these we found, to our chagrin, ultimately
Speaker 6: turn on political pressure. That and legal questions that the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court have settled in Trump's favor. But in theory,
Speaker 6: the AG says conflict trying to priminoid prosecute the Attorney
Speaker 6: General or the Labor secretary or the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 6: I gotta do for appearances, I need a special counsel.
Speaker 6: Of course, if you cared about appearances, you wouldn't be
Speaker 6: doing these completely raw, nasty, unjust reprisal prosecutions in the.
Speaker 3: First place, for sure.
Speaker 1: For sure, the broad.
Speaker 3: Question on my mind these days.
Speaker 6: Everything seems to be stacking up in DEM's favor for
Speaker 6: the midterms, But apart from their opposition to Trump, in
Speaker 6: many ways they don't seen so unified.
Speaker 3: Will that be enough to bring it home?
Speaker 6: What do the Dems need to do to stick the
Speaker 6: landing in the midterms.
Speaker 1: I think the House Democrats will win the House. I
Speaker 1: don't know what they do in Florida, but I think
Speaker 1: Democrats will win the House. I mean, I think they
Speaker 1: need to run anti Trump, which they will obviously very
Speaker 1: easy to do that. I think focusing on fraud, which
Speaker 1: is something that Trump wanted to do. He has One
Speaker 1: of the many things that JD. Van's his tasked with
Speaker 1: doing is a anti fraud remember, an anti fraud thing,
Speaker 1: which is completely ironic because Trump is engaging in all
Speaker 1: sorts of fraud. So I would run on fraud if
Speaker 1: I were Democrats. The Senate is the thing I'm watching
Speaker 1: the most closely. Alaska. A Democratic senator from Alaska would
Speaker 1: be a big fucking deal. Iowa, Texas, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get involved in Texas. It's too scary,
Speaker 1: but Iowa has all these empty open seats, and that
Speaker 1: seems like a real I don't know, Maybe they flip
Speaker 1: the governors, maybe they flip the Senate seat. You know,
Speaker 1: that's a jony earned seat. I could see that happening.
Speaker 1: There's just a lot of drama, Like the main Senate
Speaker 1: is a lot of drama. You know. The Platiner. I
Speaker 1: think Platner is going to be the candidate, But I
Speaker 1: don't know what happens with the platin Er Susan Collins matchup.
Speaker 1: I think that like Michigan, which seems like it should
Speaker 1: be a very easy one, is gotten so ugly in
Speaker 1: this three way runoff. And Michigan is a state that's
Speaker 1: very divided, that has a lot of Muslims, a lot
Speaker 1: of Jews, and you know, you have these three different,
Speaker 1: wildly different candidates, and that's a very late primary that
Speaker 1: doesn't happen until August, so I think that could all
Speaker 1: work against Democrats. So those are the things I'm watching
Speaker 1: and a little bit worried about if I were to worry,
Speaker 1: which I always do.
Speaker 3: Mollie, it's always a blast to be with ESCA next time, Thank.
Speaker 1: You, Harry. No moment in second Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2: So, Mollie, you know, one of the things with conservatism
Speaker 2: is we're always trying to bring back the past. And
Speaker 2: you know the past that they try to bring back
Speaker 2: is very selective. But they've brought a new thing into
Speaker 2: the canon of the conservative past they're trying to bring back.
Speaker 2: Are you ready for it?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: Firing squads.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice announce Friday that it will resurrect
Speaker 1: federal firing squads as part of its effort to implement
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's Day one executive order to remamp capital punishment.
Speaker 1: I hate capital punishment same. Do you know why I
Speaker 1: hate it? Tell me because it's terrible. It's killing people,
Speaker 1: and it is so terrible. But it's also very stupid,
Speaker 1: it's expensive, it is a really circuitous way to punish people.
Speaker 1: It's just so terrible. And like with everything in Trump world,
Speaker 1: when they've figured out something terrible, they want to make
Speaker 1: it even worse. So this would be a way to
Speaker 1: make capital punishment even worse than lethal injection. Just awful,
Speaker 1: awful stuff. Should be a shame, should be afraid the worst.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I dated someone who is involved with a lot
Speaker 2: of the pro bono defenses of some of people that
Speaker 2: people would be very shocked that they defended that word
Speaker 2: facing capital punishment, and you learn that it costs double
Speaker 2: the amount to do this that it does to keep
Speaker 2: someone in jail for life, which is a lot thing
Speaker 2: a lot of people don't risk. There's no good argument
Speaker 2: for capital punishment when we get so many prosecutions wrong
Speaker 2: in this country all the time. This goes to that
Speaker 2: thing that like some people are saying, Oh, it's the
Speaker 2: cruelty is the point. But this goes to the stupidity
Speaker 2: is the point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's so stupid, it's so gratuitous. It doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense, it doesn't do anything. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: more on it. I mean, like so much in Trump world.
Speaker 1: It's just the worst. It's violent, it's horrible. That's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: Thursday and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics
Speaker 1: make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.