Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I don't want to keep you all day,
Speaker 1: and we have so much to talk about, so let's
Speaker 1: get started. Should I call you ag Holder? Attorney General Holder,
Speaker 1: Your highness, your highness?
Speaker 2: You? Hey? You? Eric is fun? Eric is fine? How
Speaker 2: about that?
Speaker 1: Hi? Everyone, I'm Kitty Kuric and this is next question.
Speaker 1: You probably know Eric Holder is President Obama's Attorney General.
Speaker 1: But the question I have is how is he feeling
Speaker 1: watching the actions of the Trump administration unfold, especially given
Speaker 1: the fact he spent almost his entire career at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. There was no shortage of things to discuss.
Speaker 1: The dismantling of the DOJ, the LA standoff between Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom and Donald Trump, immigration, voting rights, the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, the role of the media, the role of
Speaker 1: the public, and protecting democracy. We even waxed poetic about
Speaker 1: Eddie Haskell. Yeah, that's right and Lumpy. Hey. I warned
Speaker 1: you there was a lot to talk about. Here's my
Speaker 1: conversation with former Attorney General Eric Holder. Eric Holder, It's
Speaker 1: a real privilege to be able to talk to you
Speaker 1: at this very important moment in our nation's history. I
Speaker 1: guess the question is where do we begin. We've seen
Speaker 1: so many things happen in recent months. I'm just curious
Speaker 1: on a personal level, how you have been able to
Speaker 1: process what we are all witnessing.
Speaker 2: You know, it's a hard thing to process, and I
Speaker 2: don't think that we should process this as we process,
Speaker 2: you know, changes in administration, differences in policies that happen
Speaker 2: as a result of the outcome of elections. What's happening
Speaker 2: now is not normal. It's not normal. I've served in
Speaker 2: the Justice Department under Republican as well as Democratic attorneys general,
Speaker 2: and what's going on, for instance, at the Justice Department
Speaker 2: now is unprecedented. And what you see this administration doing
Speaker 2: with regard to a whole range of things, attacking universities,
Speaker 2: attacking the media, attacking law firms. These are all the
Speaker 2: kinds of things that you would expect to see in
Speaker 2: a nation that is moving towards authoritarianism. And it's certainly
Speaker 2: inconsistent with who we say we are, you know, as Americans,
Speaker 2: and what our system of government is supposed to be like.
Speaker 2: So it's a hard thing to process. But to the
Speaker 2: extent I've been able to, I put myself in opposition
Speaker 2: and I think that's where everybody has to be. Unless
Speaker 2: we are forceful in our opposition, visible in our opposition,
Speaker 2: this administration will run rough shot over that which defines
Speaker 2: this nation and makes this nation exceptional.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the Justice Department because
Speaker 1: I think for most outsiders it is still kind of
Speaker 1: a mystery about how it works and functions and the
Speaker 1: people who were there. Can you describe what has been
Speaker 1: happening at the DOJ because I report on it piecemeal,
Speaker 1: But can you tell us sort of holistically what is
Speaker 1: going on there and the impact of what's happening.
Speaker 2: Well, you only have to look at kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: some specific things to get a sense of what's going
Speaker 2: on there. The firing of career employees that never happens.
Speaker 2: You know. I started in the Justice Department when I
Speaker 2: got out of law school, in the thing called the
Speaker 2: Public Integrity Section, which investigates corrupt politicians, and I tried cases,
Speaker 2: you know, all around the country. At the end of
Speaker 2: the Bida administration, are about thirty people in that section
Speaker 2: now there are four four. The voting section in the
Speaker 2: Civil Rights Division had about I guess about thirty thirty
Speaker 2: five employees lawyers. It now has about five these people
Speaker 2: have been fired, moved to other positions, meaningless positions, or
Speaker 2: encouraged to take early buyouts, and essentially kind of squeezed out.
Speaker 2: So the Justice Department is not doing things in a
Speaker 2: way that other justice departments under Republican or Democratic presidents
Speaker 2: or Attorney's general you know, have ever done. The Justice
Speaker 2: Department has pulled itself away from cases that had already
Speaker 2: been filed in Texas with regard to some voting rights issues,
Speaker 2: just pulled itself out of a case that had already
Speaker 2: been filed and the Justice Department was participating in. Among
Speaker 2: the most disturbing things Katie is the fact that this
Speaker 2: Attorney General doesn't seem to understand that the Justice Department
Speaker 2: has to stand to some degree separate and apart from
Speaker 2: the White House. She views herself as Donald Trump's lawyer
Speaker 2: and used the Justice Department as an arm of the
Speaker 2: White House. And the best ages are the ones who
Speaker 2: guard jealously the independence of the Justice Department, given the
Speaker 2: ability that the Department has to deprive people of their
Speaker 2: liberty of their property, and you can't make those decisions
Speaker 2: on the basis of political considerations. And that's my biggest
Speaker 2: fear they will remake the department, they will move out
Speaker 2: people who are steeped in its traditions, and then simply
Speaker 2: do Donald Trump's bidding.
Speaker 1: And all the King's forces and all the King's men
Speaker 1: will not be able to put it back together again
Speaker 1: even when he leaves office.
Speaker 2: Potentially, that's a big concern. There's going to certainly have
Speaker 2: to be a rebuilding effort. But I think in some
Speaker 2: ways that is for me, the silver aligning. There's the
Speaker 2: potential here to not only rebuild, but to try to
Speaker 2: reimagine what government could look like, not only the Justice
Speaker 2: Department but the other agencies as well. What should a
Speaker 2: twenty first century Justice Department look like? You're going to
Speaker 2: be coming in in twenty twenty nine, I hope a
Speaker 2: new Attorney General looking at the carnage that would be left,
Speaker 2: and so maybe you just don't put people back in
Speaker 2: the same places, in the same numbers, but you try
Speaker 2: to figure out, well, what is it that a twenty
Speaker 2: first century Justice Department ought to be about, and you
Speaker 2: staff it up, you prioritize it with you know, with
Speaker 2: that in mind, that is a That's what I try
Speaker 2: to think of as a silver lining. But make no
Speaker 2: mistake between now in January of twenty twenty nine, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of damage that's going to be done not
Speaker 2: only to the Justice Department, but other executive branch agencies
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: And it has already been done, right.
Speaker 2: Has already been done. I mean, you know the kinds
Speaker 2: of things where you essentially dismantle, you know, the Agency
Speaker 2: for International Development. It's kind of like whoa what, you know,
Speaker 2: a congressionally mandated and funded agency that they simply close down.
Speaker 2: You know, the little knotheads that doge walking around and saying,
Speaker 2: for whatever reason, we're going to disband to this agency
Speaker 2: which projects soft power for the United States.
Speaker 1: Also, the people who are monitoring waste, fraud and abuse,
Speaker 1: which is public enemy number one for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: The people who are charged with investigating abuse have all
Speaker 1: been fired, right.
Speaker 2: The inspectors general, you know, all but to let go.
Speaker 2: And so you can almost see how this is playing out.
Speaker 2: We'll remove all of the people who are supposed to
Speaker 2: monitor these kinds of things, all the folks who might
Speaker 2: be looking either outwardly or inwardly at potential matters of corruption,
Speaker 2: and so then we have a free hand to do
Speaker 2: that which we want to do.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Pam Bondi's belief that she's Donald Trump's personal lawyer.
Speaker 1: I want to read a quote from The Guardian which
Speaker 1: sums up I think the current state of the DOJ.
Speaker 1: Some say that the Department has in effect become Trump's
Speaker 1: personal law firm. Since taking office the second time, Trump
Speaker 1: has relied on staunch loyalists Pam Bondi and an elite
Speaker 1: group of Justice Department lawyers to investigate critics from his
Speaker 1: first administration plus political opponents, and curb prosecutions of US
Speaker 1: business bribery overseas. Ex prosecutors point to how Bondi and
Speaker 1: the department's top lawyers have halted some major prosecutions, fired
Speaker 1: or forced out laws who didn't meet MAGA litmus tests,
Speaker 1: and were instructed by Trump to investigate a key Democratic
Speaker 1: fundraising vehicle as examples of how Trump and Bondi have
Speaker 1: politicized the Justice Department. You know you were President Obama's
Speaker 1: Attorney general for six years from two thousand and nine
Speaker 1: to twenty fifteen. You know, I think the Justice Department
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong. Has often been accused of
Speaker 1: being overly political. If you think about you know, RFK
Speaker 1: being the Attorney General for JFK or Ed Meese right,
Speaker 1: and Ronald Reagan, and I think there's been criticisms that
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland was too careful and too a political and
Speaker 1: dragged his feet. But this is a whole new level
Speaker 1: of the politicization of the Department of Justice. And as
Speaker 1: you're watching this, I just wonder what you're thinking and
Speaker 1: how angry you're getting and how you're figuring out what
Speaker 1: can be done, as you mentioned twenty twenty nine, but
Speaker 1: it's a long way until then.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a harder thing to say politicization as opposed
Speaker 2: to what it is that they're doing, because they're politicizing
Speaker 2: the department and have done so relatively quickly. But they're
Speaker 2: not politicizing the Justice Department. They're weaponize the Justice Department.
Speaker 2: They're using the Justice Department to get at the perceived
Speaker 2: enemies of the president. And they're not necessarily enemies. There
Speaker 2: are political opponents. They're critics or people who potentially might
Speaker 2: have the capacity to oppose him in some ways. And
Speaker 2: so this is unbelievably disturbing. I mean, this is a
Speaker 2: cornerstone of our our system of government, that you have
Speaker 2: a justice department that, although a part of an administration,
Speaker 2: still maintains a healthy dose of independence. Yeah, ags get
Speaker 2: criticized all the time for doing things that are perceived
Speaker 2: to be or said to be political, and most of
Speaker 2: the time that's just political rhetoric. Justice departments that actually
Speaker 2: do do things on the basis of politics are the
Speaker 2: ones that get in trouble. Those are the ages who
Speaker 2: get indicted, are who are not looked upon favorably by history.
Speaker 2: History is not going to be kind to Pambondi. History's
Speaker 2: not going to be kind to the people who serve
Speaker 2: under her in the Justice Department now, because they're doing
Speaker 2: things inconsistent with the best traditions of a department, an
Speaker 2: organization that means the world to me. I grew up
Speaker 2: in the Justice Department. I grew up in that place,
Speaker 2: you know, out of law school line lawyer, US attorney,
Speaker 2: deputy Attorney general, attorney general. Most of my career has
Speaker 2: been spent in the United States Department of Justice, and
Speaker 2: it tears me apart to see what they're doing and
Speaker 2: tearing apart that very institution.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about what's going on in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles if I could, because obviously that is dominating the
Speaker 1: headlines right now. After several days of protest against immigration
Speaker 1: enforcement raised by Ice. As you well know, President Trump
Speaker 1: bypassed Governor Gavin Newsom and called up four thousand National
Speaker 1: Guard troops and a battalion of seven hundred marines to
Speaker 1: the city of Los Angeles. Legally and historically, how extraordinary
Speaker 1: is this move?
Speaker 2: Legally, it's an interesting case as to you know, I'd
Speaker 2: think California has sued, and it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 2: exactly how the case plays out. But historically this is
Speaker 2: something that runs counter to our traditions and counter to
Speaker 2: the practice that past presidents have used. You know, when
Speaker 2: a president has called out the National Guard without the
Speaker 2: request of a governor. Well, you think back to you know,
Speaker 2: the sixties, when I guess President Johnson called out the
Speaker 2: National Guard to protect the Selma to Montgomery marchers out
Speaker 2: of concern that George Wallace and you know, the state
Speaker 2: troopers there who cracked John Lewis's head on the Selma
Speaker 2: Edmund Pettis Bridge might not have the marcher's best interest
Speaker 2: at heart. So you can see something like that happening here.
Speaker 2: There's no basis to believe that the state and local
Speaker 2: authorities can't handle what's going on. I think this administration
Speaker 2: is itching for a fight. They want to do things
Speaker 2: that are going to antagonize people who are using their
Speaker 2: First Amendment rights to protest the immigration policies of the administration.
Speaker 2: They want pictures to show people in the streets doing
Speaker 2: you know, negative things. And to be fair, there are
Speaker 2: people who need to be held accountable. You know, people
Speaker 2: who are throwing things at cops, people who are you know,
Speaker 2: saying negative things to cops, physically confronting.
Speaker 1: Them, burning up cop cars, things like that.
Speaker 2: Those people ought to be in jail. They're thugs, you know,
Speaker 2: they're hooligan. They need to be in jail.
Speaker 1: They're exploiting the situation.
Speaker 2: Right, So there is that, But the vast majority of
Speaker 2: the people who are protesting are simply doing so in
Speaker 2: a peaceful way. Now, so I don't, you know, countenance
Speaker 2: people who are doing things that physically harm cops, you know,
Speaker 2: block traffic on major thoroughfares. It's also that's counterproductive at
Speaker 2: the end of the day. And you know, people waving
Speaker 2: flags of foreign nations think about this. I mean, how
Speaker 2: if you have you want to get the American people
Speaker 2: on your side and I think as regard to these
Speaker 2: immigration policies, the American people are appalled at what this
Speaker 2: administration is doing. But they're also kind of pushed back
Speaker 2: by some of the tactics that are being used by
Speaker 2: some of these demonstrators. But this is all political. This
Speaker 2: is all political. I mean to put you know, to
Speaker 2: call up National guardsmen and then they call up marines. Now,
Speaker 2: these marines do a great job at what it is
Speaker 2: that they do. I would bet that crowd control is
Speaker 2: not something that the United States Marine Corps is trained
Speaker 2: to do. And so that's just an incendiary kind of
Speaker 2: thing that Whiskey Pete and Donald Trump have decided that
Speaker 2: they want to do.
Speaker 1: Do you think they're intentionally trying to escalate the tension
Speaker 1: and create chaos instead of diffusing it asolutely.
Speaker 2: They want to antagonize, escalate and get the pictures that
Speaker 2: they want, which is to show you know, people hurling things,
Speaker 2: setting cars of fire, blocking traffic, you know, doing all
Speaker 2: those kinds of things to try to convince people. As
Speaker 2: Steven Miller said that there's a war of civilizations going on,
Speaker 2: what the hell does that mean? You know, really, I mean,
Speaker 2: you're trying to you know, we got criticized. President Obama
Speaker 2: was criticized of being the deporter in chief. If you
Speaker 2: look at what it is that we did. We use
Speaker 2: the courts to get people who have recently come to
Speaker 2: the United States, the immigration courts get them out, and
Speaker 2: then we went after people who committed serious crimes. We
Speaker 2: didn't take four year old girls who were in the
Speaker 2: potentially going to die and deport them to Mexico. We
Speaker 2: didn't take people who've been here. There was a waitress
Speaker 2: I think in Missouri, been here for twenty years, pull
Speaker 2: her out of her, you know, place of employment, and
Speaker 2: try to send her back. This is an administration that
Speaker 2: views certain immigrants in certain ways. If these people we're
Speaker 2: trying to get in from Norway, from Sweden, from Finland,
Speaker 2: from Northern European countries, any problem with that, I bet
Speaker 2: you know Afrikaners. Yeah, we're letting those folks in from
Speaker 2: South Africa. But if you happen to be Hispanic, if
Speaker 2: you happen to be a person from Haiti, from you know,
Speaker 2: African countries, we don't want those people. They don't want
Speaker 2: those people in this country. And that's what that's kind
Speaker 2: of the the underpinnings of their immigration policy, and that's
Speaker 2: why Miller talks about this clash of civilizations.
Speaker 1: So you think it's racism pure and simple.
Speaker 2: Not pure and simple. But there's a component to that,
Speaker 2: I mean racism, ethnicism. I guess that you might call it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean you'd have to be reluctant to look at that,
Speaker 2: which is fairly obvious, you know. I mean, you send
Speaker 2: a plane to get I don't know, was it fifty
Speaker 2: sixty Africanas out of South Africa. You insult the President
Speaker 2: of South Africa.
Speaker 1: In the show a photo from Congo, from Congo.
Speaker 2: That's got nothing to do with South Africa. It's all
Speaker 2: laying up predicate for the kinds of things that they
Speaker 2: want to do with our immigration system, again inconsistent with
Speaker 2: how America has always said it is and by and large,
Speaker 2: how we've always conducted ourselves when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 2: At the beginning of the twentieth century, you know, it
Speaker 2: was Italians and Irish who negative things were set about,
Speaker 2: and they would try to try to keep them out
Speaker 2: of the country. Chinese Exclusion Act. Now, these are not
Speaker 2: great moments in American history, and I fear that we're
Speaker 2: replicating that in the twenty first century under this administration.
Speaker 1: Hi everyone, it's Katie Curic. You know I'm always on
Speaker 1: the go between running my media company, hosting my podcast,
Speaker 1: and of course covering the news, and I know that
Speaker 1: to keep doing what I love, I need to start
Speaker 1: caring for what gets me there, my feet. That's why
Speaker 1: I decided to try the Good Feet stores personalized arch
Speaker 1: support system. I met with a Good Feet arch support
Speaker 1: specialist and after a personalized fitting, I left the store
Speaker 1: with my three step system designed to improve comfort, balance
Speaker 1: and support. My feet, knees and back are thanking me already.
Speaker 1: Visit goodfeet dot com to learn more, find the nearest store,
Speaker 1: or book your own free personalized fitting. What's frustrating to
Speaker 1: me is it shows the inability of our government to
Speaker 1: actually tackle a problem. There should have been comprehensive immigration
Speaker 1: reform long ago, and yet time and time again it
Speaker 1: never is able to gain traction. And we need a fair,
Speaker 1: humane immigration system in this country. And why can't Congress,
Speaker 1: Why can't they come up with a better plan that
Speaker 1: is fair to people but also involves laws.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, President Bush, George W. Bush certainly tried, right.
Speaker 1: Kennedy and McCain tried there.
Speaker 2: You know, Congress Senator Langford from Oklahoma came up with
Speaker 2: a bill that you know, made people on the other side.
Speaker 2: Democrats swallow hard, but said, you know, we'll support that.
Speaker 2: And what happened. Donald Trump said, no, don't vote for that.
Speaker 2: He wants the issue. He wants the issue. This is
Speaker 2: a central part of his administration. It's been a central
Speaker 2: part of his campaigns. When he wrote down that old
Speaker 2: and escalated to announce his candidacy back in August twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: he talked about, you know, Mexicans are rapists. They're not
Speaker 2: sending us their best. This has been a part of
Speaker 2: his stick and he'd rather have the issue than the solution.
Speaker 2: But you're right. I mean, we have got to come
Speaker 2: to grips with the fact that we have millions of
Speaker 2: undocumented people here who have contributed, you know, mightily, who
Speaker 2: pay taxes, who pay Social Security taxes, who are part
Speaker 2: of the fabric of this nation. They need to be
Speaker 2: treated fairly. But at the same time also recognize that
Speaker 2: borders mean something, and we can't take all of El
Speaker 2: Salvador and all of Guatemala and all Upondors into the
Speaker 2: United States. There are processes that people have to go through.
Speaker 2: If they don't follow those processes well as we did
Speaker 2: in the Obama administration, they need to be removed. But
Speaker 2: there is the need for and there has been the
Speaker 2: need for comprehensive immigration reform for decades.
Speaker 1: At this point, having said that, this is not the
Speaker 1: solution to just in a very draconian an inhumane way,
Speaker 1: take people who have been in this country, as you said,
Speaker 1: who are paying taxes, you know, money's going into the
Speaker 1: Social Security system, who are actually really important for our economy.
Speaker 1: Forty eight percent of agricultural workers are undocumented, and you know,
Speaker 1: look at the nation's hotels and you look at all
Speaker 1: kinds of workers. I think I heard there are a
Speaker 1: million undocumented workers in Los Angeles. You know, if all
Speaker 1: of these people are forced out of the country, it's
Speaker 1: going to have a huge impact on the economy, is
Speaker 1: it not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going to have a huge impact on the economy.
Speaker 2: There are certain industries that rely a great deal on
Speaker 2: immigrant labor, from meatpacking in Iowa to people who are
Speaker 2: picking crops in Florida and in California. But you know,
Speaker 2: we're also turning our back on our immigrant past. And
Speaker 2: here's the deal. Everybody who's listening to this, watching this,
Speaker 2: You know you're an immigrant stock unless you are descended
Speaker 2: from the Native American people. If you're the waspiest person
Speaker 2: in the world, if you can trace your roots to
Speaker 2: the Mayflower. Guess what those folks who came over here
Speaker 2: were immigrants. They were fleeing religious persecution. And it's just
Speaker 2: the question of how you got here and when you
Speaker 2: got here. And it's always seems to be that the
Speaker 2: latest are the ones who get villified and then they become,
Speaker 2: you know, assimilated into our society, and then you know
Speaker 2: they're fine. And so you know, Trump and his folks
Speaker 2: are trying to recreate an America that really never existed
Speaker 2: in nineteen fifties America. You know where June Cleaver was
Speaker 2: was vacuuming in high heels and in pearls, their white
Speaker 2: picket fences, no gay people, no.
Speaker 1: Black people, making an after school snack for Beaver Rally
Speaker 1: and Lumpy and Lumpy.
Speaker 2: And Eddie Haskell is Eddie Haskells not.
Speaker 1: Forgetting thank you, missus clean.
Speaker 2: Missus clever. He's my man. I love that guy.
Speaker 1: We're clearly the same generation.
Speaker 2: Eddie was the man, definitely the me.
Speaker 1: He was such a kiss ass. I couldn't stand him.
Speaker 2: Oh I love that guy.
Speaker 1: I was a lumpy girl.
Speaker 2: Oh ump, lumpy Rutherford.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, anyway, we digress.
Speaker 2: Oh there's important stuff, you know.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you Eric about Kilmar Obrega Garcia,
Speaker 1: who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year
Speaker 1: despite a court order barring his removal. So finally he
Speaker 1: comes home, right, and now he's facing these newly unsealed
Speaker 1: federal charges. I am so confused by this. Can you
Speaker 1: help me out?
Speaker 2: Well, I think we're all a little confused by that.
Speaker 2: The administration was confused by that when they said that, well,
Speaker 2: we deported this guy whoops by mistake, and they.
Speaker 1: They showed a photoshop picture of his fingers.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, the supposed he had tattoos that tied him
Speaker 2: to a gang. You know. Trump looked at it and said, no, no,
Speaker 2: that's not that's not doctored. And it's like, uh, yes
Speaker 2: it is, but all right, So yeah, they were confused,
Speaker 2: and they removed him without due process.
Speaker 1: Well, I wanted to ask you about due process, but
Speaker 1: first before I do, and jump ahead, what is going
Speaker 1: on with this man?
Speaker 2: Well, he's finally back in the United States, there are
Speaker 2: now he's now facing charges that appear to have been
Speaker 2: uncovered relatively recently. I read that a prosecutor has resigned
Speaker 2: in the Justice Department as a result of the actions
Speaker 2: that have been taken against this now defendant.
Speaker 1: Mister Garcia, is this a face saving measure in your review?
Speaker 2: I don't know about the strength of the case, but
Speaker 2: it does seem a little suspicious that these charges are
Speaker 2: now brought and they use that as the basis to
Speaker 2: get him, you know, from that hell hole in l Salvador,
Speaker 2: back to you know, the United States, when they could
Speaker 2: quite simply have told, you know, President Mukeley, you know,
Speaker 2: give us this guy. And if the American government had
Speaker 2: said that, he would have shown up in in the
Speaker 2: United States. So we'll see, I mean, we'll see what
Speaker 2: this how these charges go, and we'll have an ability
Speaker 2: to judge whether or not this was a pretext or
Speaker 2: whether there is a real basis to conclude that he
Speaker 2: violated the law in the ways in which the government
Speaker 2: has delineated in an indictment.
Speaker 1: Why is due process so important?
Speaker 2: Due process is one of the foundational parts of our society.
Speaker 2: Government power can only be used against individuals in prescribed ways.
Speaker 2: Due process means that you have the ability to challenge
Speaker 2: a governmental action that's directed at you, whether it's an
Speaker 2: attempt to take property from you, to imprison you. The
Speaker 2: government has to be put to its proof before it
Speaker 2: can actually act. And what we've seen with so many
Speaker 2: of these deportations is that people have simply been snatched
Speaker 2: off the street, put on airplanes and then move to
Speaker 2: El Salvador, South Sudan, Libya, you know, without any ability
Speaker 2: for these people to say, well, wait a minute, what
Speaker 2: why am I being taken away? Proved to me, what's
Speaker 2: the basis for the legitimate basis for this action? And
Speaker 2: people need to understand governments make mistakes, you know. I
Speaker 2: think about that, that that game makeup artist, that guy.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's best I can tell. He's taken because
Speaker 2: of tattoos that he had on his hands that apparently
Speaker 2: were misinterpreted. I don't know where this poor man is
Speaker 2: at this point, and I know got to El Salvador.
Speaker 2: I don't know what has happened, you know, to him,
Speaker 2: there's really no basis for his deportation, is best I
Speaker 2: can tell. And yet because he didn't have due process.
Speaker 2: He didn't have the ability to challenge that which the
Speaker 2: government wanted to do to him. He was simply picked up,
Speaker 2: put on a plane and then taken down to you know,
Speaker 2: that that place in El Salvador.
Speaker 1: And then I think about how sort of capricious it
Speaker 1: is when someone is is basically let go like that
Speaker 1: way in Missouri, when there was that community outcry, or
Speaker 1: the four year old girl who needed life saving medical care.
Speaker 1: But how many people are out there like them, who
Speaker 1: don't necessarily have a community or a citizenry rising up
Speaker 1: and defending them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's both the concern I have. How
Speaker 2: many other people are like that? And that's also the
Speaker 2: thing gives me some degree of optimism and shows the
Speaker 2: power of the American people. When that community in Missouri said, no,
Speaker 2: you're not taking her. What happened? Lo and behold she reappears.
Speaker 2: When the media does the great job that they did
Speaker 2: to publicize the case of that four year old, that
Speaker 2: poor four year old girl, cute as a button, cute
Speaker 2: as a button, what happens, Well, suddenly, okay, she can
Speaker 2: stay here, you know, for medical treatment that basically keeps
Speaker 2: her alive. The power of the media, the power of
Speaker 2: the American people cannot be underestimated, and you can't overestimate
Speaker 2: the power of government when those two forces are in opposition.
Speaker 2: And that's why it's incumbent upon the American people to
Speaker 2: be conversant with what's going on, to be active, to
Speaker 2: be engaged, and be committed to defending our values. And
Speaker 2: the media can't be cowed. The media can't be coued,
Speaker 2: is it then? To some degree? I think so, you know,
Speaker 2: there's a desire, it's a human thing to look at
Speaker 2: situations and to try to look at both sides, normalize things,
Speaker 2: be fair, be fair, and sometimes you've got to, you know,
Speaker 2: call them as they are. I mean, if I'm sitting
Speaker 2: here with you, I'm a Democrat, you're a Republican, and
Speaker 2: we're in the middle of a hurricane, and I'm a
Speaker 2: Democrat and I says, look, you know, it's raining outside,
Speaker 2: and you the Republicans say, no, it's sunny outside, but
Speaker 2: there's a hurricane going on. The reporters there has got
Speaker 2: to say. Can't simply say, well, the Republican said that
Speaker 2: there was no rain, the Democrats said that there was rain.
Speaker 2: End of analysis. No, you got to say the Republican
Speaker 2: was unbelievably wrong because in fact, there was a hurricane
Speaker 2: out there, and I think that probably makes someone in
Speaker 2: the media a little uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Well, I think when you try to search for the truth,
Speaker 1: and I can talk about this, you know better than me,
Speaker 1: very personally, that you're often accused of being biased. And
Speaker 1: if you actually just want to present facts and you
Speaker 1: are searching for truth, that is not being biased. I
Speaker 1: have so many people saying to me, Eric, what happened
Speaker 1: to you? And I said, nothing happened to me. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's what has happened to our country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's the deal. You've got to be prepared
Speaker 2: to deal with those charges of bias if what you
Speaker 2: are carefully reporting is truth in the same way that
Speaker 2: I was talking about before. You know, those congressmen, you've
Speaker 2: got to be acting a way that's consistent with your oath,
Speaker 2: even if that means you're going to be charged with
Speaker 2: being disloyal. Time are you going to be I'm married,
Speaker 2: you're gonna be called a rhino or whatever.
Speaker 1: Your musk is going to support your opposition. Although that's
Speaker 1: kind of a mess too now right.
Speaker 2: I mean, in universities have got to be prepared, you know,
Speaker 2: to take on forces that are doing things inconsistent with
Speaker 2: the way in which universities are supposed to conduct themselves.
Speaker 2: And it may cost your money, you know. Okay, you
Speaker 2: got to be prepared for that. You know, opposition, effective
Speaker 2: opposition does not come without a price. The reporting of
Speaker 2: truth frequently does not come without a price. We've seen
Speaker 2: this throughout our history, where you know, brave news gatherers
Speaker 2: have lost their lives reporting the truth, and we dishonor them.
Speaker 2: People in the media dishonor them if we are not willing.
Speaker 2: Members of the media are not willing to report truthfully now,
Speaker 2: and we've got to be supportive. We the American people,
Speaker 2: have to be supportive of people in the media. We
Speaker 2: have the guts to do exactly that focus on truth.
Speaker 1: Getting back to Los Angeles, I wanted to ask you
Speaker 1: about this Posse Commatatis Act. You know, I feel like
Speaker 1: I've gotten a law degree in the last few days.
Speaker 2: Eric.
Speaker 1: It's an eighteen seventy eight law that generally bars the
Speaker 1: US military from engaging in civilian law enforcement, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are saying, hey, Donald Trump, you cannot
Speaker 1: deploy the National Guard or Marines to do the job
Speaker 1: of law enforcement. This is not right. So does this
Speaker 1: law or this act not have any teeth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that's why they're trying to characterize it as
Speaker 2: the use of the military for national security purposes. I mean,
Speaker 2: the understand that Passecommatadis makes is a big problem if
Speaker 2: they are to be if the military is to be
Speaker 2: engaged in domestic law enforcements. So they're trying to characterize
Speaker 2: it as anything but that, and so they have to
Speaker 2: you know, say negative things about the protesters, that they
Speaker 2: are not only protesting inappropriately, but they're also a threat
Speaker 2: to national security, and in that way they think they
Speaker 2: can justify the use of the military.
Speaker 1: Are they also claiming that of the undocumented people who
Speaker 1: they're apprehending, that they're a threat to national security?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's that's certainly the claim, and that's
Speaker 2: why they try to make use of the military there
Speaker 2: to the extent that they possibly can.
Speaker 1: How did you like the fact that these protesters are
Speaker 1: being called insurrectionists, a word that was never used on
Speaker 1: January sixth.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, you know it. There's a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: stuff here that's a little hypocritical. You know, you call
Speaker 2: these folks, insurrectionists, these protesters, and they're doing that which
Speaker 2: the vast, vast majority. Now they're exceptions, but the vast
Speaker 2: majority are simply doing that which is guaranteed by our
Speaker 2: First Amendment. The people who stormed our capital on January
Speaker 2: the sixth were worthy of pardons. And when I hear
Speaker 2: people in this administration talk about how they want to
Speaker 2: protect the police, I think, well, wait a minute, what
Speaker 2: were you all doing when you pardoned all those people
Speaker 2: who beat the hell out of cops on the capital
Speaker 2: steps and in the Capitol on January the sixth, What
Speaker 2: we try to do with the blue theya, what we're
Speaker 2: trying to do with regard to police officers? When you
Speaker 2: decided that those true insurrectionists were deserving of pardons.
Speaker 1: So is he using that terminology to set himself up
Speaker 1: to use the Insurrection Act? And can you explain what
Speaker 1: that means?
Speaker 2: Well, that's a concern that I have that the possibility
Speaker 2: exists that that which we've seen now is really just
Speaker 2: a prelude, a foundation for the imposition of the Insurrection Act,
Speaker 2: which gives a president really broad ranging powers to do
Speaker 2: a whole range of things, but to declare an insurrection
Speaker 2: means you've got to meet a number of their number
Speaker 2: of requirements. I don't think those are met. I suspect
Speaker 2: they probably will not be met.
Speaker 1: Will he use it anyway?
Speaker 2: Well, that's what worries me, you know. I mean, if
Speaker 2: you'd ask me that question even six seven months ago,
Speaker 2: I would have said, you know, Katie, you're being a
Speaker 2: little alarmist here, hyperbolic. And now I can't dismiss that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I really can't. David from wrote a piece
Speaker 2: in The Atlantic, I think last week or so where
Speaker 2: he talked about the possibility that the Insurrection Act might
Speaker 2: be used to somehow tinker with the twenty twenty six midterms.
Speaker 2: And again, that's the kind of thing that I would
Speaker 2: have read five six months ago and thought, you know,
Speaker 2: that's just nuts. And now I think we have to
Speaker 2: be prepared. I still don't think it happens, you know,
Speaker 2: I think that twenty twenty six elections will go on
Speaker 2: and they'll be fine. But I think we have to
Speaker 2: at least be prepared for the possibility, the possibility that
Speaker 2: some attempt might be made to fool around with elections
Speaker 2: in certain parts of the country. And the fact that
Speaker 2: I even say that as a former Attorney general that
Speaker 2: we have to be prepared for. That possibility is something
Speaker 2: that's extremely alarming.
Speaker 1: If you want to get smarter every morning with a
Speaker 1: break down of the news and fascinating takes on health
Speaker 1: and wellness and pop culture, sign up for our daily newsletter,
Speaker 1: Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. You
Speaker 1: talked earlier about the Justice Department being gutted, and I'm
Speaker 1: wondering who is there or who will protect the rights
Speaker 1: of these protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights, the
Speaker 1: right to assemble, the right to free speech. If this
Speaker 1: civil Rights division of the Justice Department has been you know,
Speaker 1: dismantled essentially, who will stand up for these people?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, I mean I think there are a couple
Speaker 2: of sources. You've certainly got state attorneys general and state
Speaker 2: lawyers who can protect the rights of these folks. And
Speaker 2: then there's the private bar, which is why you know,
Speaker 2: when law firms cut these deals with the administration, that's
Speaker 2: why that was so troubling. It sends a chill out
Speaker 2: among other law firms who might decide to be the
Speaker 2: lawyers for these protesters, and now they know, well, if
Speaker 2: we get crosswise with this administration, maybe we will be
Speaker 2: the subject of an executive order, and so that is
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why you go after the law firms,
Speaker 2: because you reduce the possibility that your opponents will have
Speaker 2: adequate legal representation. So, yeah, the Justice Department is not
Speaker 2: going to help an awful lot, but there are still
Speaker 2: lots of lawyers in different places, both in government and
Speaker 2: on the private side, that you can come to their assistance.
Speaker 1: Having said that, is the legal system been effectively weakened
Speaker 1: or diminished as a result of Donald Trump's actions?
Speaker 2: You know, I would say it's been diminished or weakened
Speaker 2: in certain ways. I worry about what's happened to big
Speaker 2: law firms and their reactions to some of these executive orders,
Speaker 2: and I think there's been some weakness shown there. I
Speaker 2: think the courts have generally been done extremely well. You know,
Speaker 2: he has lost the overwhelming number of cases that have
Speaker 2: been brought before federal judges, So I think the system
Speaker 2: is held there. My concern there is that that's we're
Speaker 2: at the district court level, courts have held I think
Speaker 2: at the Court of appeals level, the courts will hold
Speaker 2: questions what ultimately is going to happen at the United
Speaker 2: States Supreme Court, and there I get a little concerned
Speaker 2: about with their view of their expansive view of executive power.
Speaker 2: And you know that you look at that immunity decision
Speaker 2: from you know, from the last term. Will that view
Speaker 2: of executive power allow the Trump administration to do the
Speaker 2: kinds of things that they are trying to do? Will
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court give them, you know, the authority to
Speaker 2: do things that I think they are clearly inconsistent with
Speaker 2: our traditions, our norms, and and our laws.
Speaker 1: Do you think the Supreme Court, I mean, have you
Speaker 1: got in any kind of encouragement by some of their decisions,
Speaker 1: by some of the justices seeming to not walk lockstep
Speaker 1: with the president?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I think I don't want to paint with
Speaker 2: too broad a brush. I mean, I think I'm concerned
Speaker 2: about and you know, see what the Supreme Court does.
Speaker 2: But I think that there is certainly a basis for
Speaker 2: hope that the Supreme Court will act in the way
Speaker 2: that Court appeals judges are acting, the way district court
Speaker 2: judges have been acting. But it's not the sure thing
Speaker 2: that I think, you know, it ought to be that
Speaker 2: immunity decision can't be undervalued, you know, to make up
Speaker 2: out whole cloth the notion that an American president is
Speaker 2: above the law, is above the law, you know, can
Speaker 2: violate the law, can direct you know, people in his
Speaker 2: administration to do certain things without any kind of criminal liability.
Speaker 2: I mean that's where that come from. I mean, where's that.
Speaker 2: You know, they talk about originalism, tech stualism. Where's that
Speaker 2: in any of the texts? You know?
Speaker 1: And then the question is what will keep the administration
Speaker 1: from ignoring any decisions made by the courts. You know,
Speaker 1: I was disturbed to see that part of this budget
Speaker 1: bill there was a provision that would prevent judges from
Speaker 1: issuing contemptive court orders, forcing people to basically obey their
Speaker 1: decisions in essence, right, And that is in the small
Speaker 1: print of this budget bill. That is adding to this
Speaker 1: whole notion of immunity in a significant way, is it not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's why this well go. I think, well,
Speaker 2: the big beautiful bill has got to be examined page
Speaker 2: by page. You know. I have problems with, you know,
Speaker 2: the continuation of the tax cuts, which were I think unnecessary,
Speaker 2: but you also have to look at those those kinds
Speaker 2: of provisions though they're just kind of tucked away there.
Speaker 2: They recognize the power that the courts have and the
Speaker 2: power the district court judges have, and they're trying to
Speaker 2: decrease that power. They're trying to systematically eliminate all those areas,
Speaker 2: all those places where they might run into opposition. And
Speaker 2: that's the thing that worries me. What's the endgame here?
Speaker 2: You know, if you take lawyers out of the mix,
Speaker 2: if you take the media out of the mix, if
Speaker 2: you take universities out of the mix, if you take
Speaker 2: power away from.
Speaker 1: Judges, there's no guardrails.
Speaker 2: This is all to what end at the end of
Speaker 2: the day. What is it that you are you're trying
Speaker 2: to do?
Speaker 1: And that's uh, well, you tell me what do you
Speaker 1: think they're trying to do?
Speaker 2: You know, I worry are they trying to find ways
Speaker 2: in which they perpetuate themselves in power in ways that
Speaker 2: are inconsistent with our constitution? Are they trying to make
Speaker 2: sure that, you know, elections can be conducted in such
Speaker 2: a way that they can guarantee result regardless of what
Speaker 2: the American people, you know, want to do. One of
Speaker 2: the things I've been fighting is this whole question of
Speaker 2: racial and partisan jerrymandering. Do they want to somehow, you know,
Speaker 2: use jerry mandering knowing that they've flattened the opposition, and
Speaker 2: then gerrymander things in such a way so that they
Speaker 2: can guarantee Republican domination of our state legislature's Republican domination
Speaker 2: of the United States House of Representatives because they're no checks.
Speaker 2: So that's at least one of the ways in which,
Speaker 2: you know, I get concerned about what it is they
Speaker 2: might do.
Speaker 1: Tell us more about the work you're doing to address
Speaker 1: your concerns.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, as Barack and I President Obama and
Speaker 2: I were leaving office, we tried to yeah, he's my
Speaker 2: good by, my good buddy bo. As we were leaving office,
Speaker 2: we try to figure out what is we want to
Speaker 2: do in our post government lives. What is the thing
Speaker 2: that we thought was most pose some of the greatest
Speaker 2: problems that we had to confront, And we pointed to
Speaker 2: the issue of jerrymandering, and so we formed up with
Speaker 2: the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that really looks at the
Speaker 2: way in which the lines are drawn for state legislative
Speaker 2: seats as well as the United States House of Representatives.
Speaker 2: And said, you know what, here's the deal. Let's just
Speaker 2: make that process fair. Let's do away with jury mandering,
Speaker 2: which guarantees that Republicans are going to win in certain districts,
Speaker 2: Democrats are going to win in certain districts. Let's just
Speaker 2: make it fair so that politicians are not picking their voters,
Speaker 2: voters are choosing who their representatives ought to be. And
Speaker 2: so we've had a fair, a pretty good amount of success.
Speaker 1: Well, how do you stop jerrymandering.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a number of things. You bring lawsuits where
Speaker 2: you find jerry manders. You put in place these independent
Speaker 2: commissions to draw the lines instead of interested politicians, and
Speaker 2: then you also support candidates who will stand for affair process.
Speaker 2: And I mean to give you a sense kat of
Speaker 2: how bad it was. You look at the election right
Speaker 2: after the the jerry manders will put in place in
Speaker 2: twenty eleven and twenty twelve congressional elections. Democrats got one
Speaker 2: point four million more votes for the United States House
Speaker 2: of Representatives in twenty twelve and ended up with a
Speaker 2: thirty three seat deficit. And it's all a function of
Speaker 2: the way in which the jerry manders were put in place.
Speaker 2: When we started out Democrats to have a fifty to
Speaker 2: fifty US House of Representatives had to overperform by eight percent.
Speaker 2: Now we wiped that out, and we had the most
Speaker 2: fair elections in terms of jurymandering, the lack of jury mandering,
Speaker 2: I guess in twenty twenty two. But there's still, you know,
Speaker 2: a lot of work that needs to be done. Twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, twenty twenty four. You know, we saw things
Speaker 2: much better than they were in twenty twelve, but there
Speaker 2: are still a lot of places Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, Florida,
Speaker 2: you know, Louisiana still places where his work to be done.
Speaker 1: There's also a Supreme Court case, Louisiana versus Calais, which
Speaker 1: asks whether creating a second majority black districts, something ordered
Speaker 1: under the Voting Rights Act, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Speaker 1: Critics say this case could gut what's left of Section two. Okay,
Speaker 1: I just said that, I have no idea what that means.
Speaker 1: Do you explain?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, Section two of the Voting
Speaker 2: Rights Act allows private parties as well as Justice Department
Speaker 2: to challenge unfair voting practices, you know, on the basis
Speaker 2: of race. If you look at the way in which
Speaker 2: the lines have been drawn in southern states where there's
Speaker 2: a history of racially polarized voting, that's a critical thing.
Speaker 2: There's a history of racially polarized voting. Those parties that
Speaker 2: have substantial African American support have been discriminated against. That's
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, say in Alabama. And so we brought
Speaker 2: a lawsuit there. This very conservative Supreme Court said, you
Speaker 2: know what they make up. Black folks make up about
Speaker 2: twenty seven percent of the population. Based on a number
Speaker 2: of congressmanment you have, there should be two Black opportunities districts.
Speaker 2: There was only one. We won the case.
Speaker 1: A Black opportunity district.
Speaker 2: It's a district that is created so that the African
Speaker 2: American population in a particular area has the ability to
Speaker 2: express its political will, so that there's if you want
Speaker 2: to elect a black person as a congressman, as a congresswoman,
Speaker 2: you have that ability. The lines are not drawn in
Speaker 2: such a way that precludes that possibility and undermines the
Speaker 2: ability of that twenty seven percent of the population to
Speaker 2: fully express their political desires. And so after our successful suit,
Speaker 2: that's a Supreme court upheld surprising to me, but got
Speaker 2: to give them credit they help we were. We have
Speaker 2: now for the first time, two black congressmen from Alabama,
Speaker 2: consistent again with the population demographics of the city of
Speaker 2: the state and also taking into consideration something people have
Speaker 2: to keep in mind that history of racially polarized voting
Speaker 2: without that Section two is not necessarily a tool that
Speaker 2: we can use. And so we've used that now in
Speaker 2: Louisiana as well. And now the Louisiana folks who didn't
Speaker 2: like the result are claiming that white people are being
Speaker 2: discriminated against by the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five,
Speaker 2: and they wanted to have that declared unconstitutional, rip away
Speaker 2: from the Voting Rights Act, the constitutionality of section two,
Speaker 2: using some of the same arguments that we use when
Speaker 2: the Act was put in place back in nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1: You warned that what we're seeing in the US today
Speaker 1: is quote remarkably similar to what happened in Europe in
Speaker 1: the thirties, and you've drawn comparisons to places like Hungary
Speaker 1: and Turkey. Do you think Americans grasp what serious trouble
Speaker 1: we are in and how the future may in fact look.
Speaker 1: I mean, I worry about that all the time. Too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people don't get it to the degree that they
Speaker 2: should now, and that concerns me a great deal. But
Speaker 2: I think there's a growing awareness among people. As you
Speaker 2: see these demonstrations breaking out not only in Los Angeles
Speaker 2: but in other parts of the country, and you see
Speaker 2: the size of them growing. I think there's a growing
Speaker 2: awareness of that. The American people are generally slow to rouse,
Speaker 2: but once aroused, they are a mighty force, and that's
Speaker 2: something that we can never forget. All the great movements
Speaker 2: in this nation came about not because politicians decided it
Speaker 2: was time for women to get the right to vote,
Speaker 2: it was time for a system of American apartheid to
Speaker 2: be taken down. It was because the American people said,
Speaker 2: you know what, it's not fair women can't vote. This
Speaker 2: system of segregation. That's just not fair, and that needs
Speaker 2: to be torn down. That's the power of the American people,
Speaker 2: and I think there is a growing awareness that fundamental liberties,
Speaker 2: fundamental rights, fundamental notions of who we are as a
Speaker 2: people and how we should be governed are being trampled.
Speaker 2: And so I am optimistic that at the end of
Speaker 2: the day of the American people will get to the
Speaker 2: right place, and I think do so, you know, in time,
Speaker 2: that's that's the thing that gives me optimism.
Speaker 1: There's no guarantee that democracies last, is there no? No.
Speaker 2: Democracy is an extremely fragile thing. You know, if you
Speaker 2: look at Europe in the UH in the twenties and
Speaker 2: the thirties, fascism communism didn't arise because they were strong.
Speaker 2: They rose because democracy was weak. You know, the Weimar
Speaker 2: Republic week, Kerensky, you know, in Russia week, so Lenin
Speaker 2: takes over, Hitler takes over. And I think unless we
Speaker 2: make sure that our democracy is strong, the possibility, the
Speaker 2: possibility that something similar to what has happened in Europe
Speaker 2: in the thirties, well more recently in Hungary and in Turkey,
Speaker 2: you know, could happen here in the United States as well.
Speaker 1: Do you think your good friend Barack is speaking out
Speaker 1: enough and warning enough people? And what about former presidents
Speaker 1: like George W. Bush? He cannot be happy with what
Speaker 1: is going on, and yet he's been pretty much silent.
Speaker 1: And I know there's a great tradition of former presidents
Speaker 1: not criticizing or opining on current presidents. But have you
Speaker 1: been disappointed that Barack Obama isn't saying and doing more,
Speaker 1: and that George W. Bush isn't saying much either. I'm
Speaker 1: not mentioning Bill Clinton because I think he's been speaking
Speaker 1: out a little bit more, but I'm not sure. But
Speaker 1: could they get together and in a bipartisan way talk
Speaker 1: about the dangers we're facing here?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, in some ways that would be an
Speaker 2: ideal situation. But I do think that the criticism of
Speaker 2: President Obama is not necessarily well founded. I mean, he
Speaker 2: gave a great speech at Hamilton College. He's worked with
Speaker 2: us at the NDRC. I've gotten him to endure or
Speaker 2: candidates at the state and local level to try to
Speaker 2: make sure that the underpinnings of our democracy get the
Speaker 2: appropriate amount of attention. He has used the power that
Speaker 2: he still has, I think in a judicious way. You
Speaker 2: speak out too much and then you just become part
Speaker 2: of the noise, and so I think he's got to
Speaker 2: pick his spots, and I think he has done so
Speaker 2: quite well. The thing that gets me, though, is that
Speaker 2: people always saying, well, why are the Democrats not doing this?
Speaker 2: Why is Obama not doing this?
Speaker 1: People?
Speaker 2: He dascy, where the hell are the damn Republicans? You know,
Speaker 2: they're the ones with the power. It's their president. They
Speaker 2: control the Senate, they control the House. They've got you know,
Speaker 2: you might argue control of the judiciary. Where are the
Speaker 2: Republicans here? Where's the opposition from the Republicans that I mean?
Speaker 2: I know, I know these folks don't think that the
Speaker 2: things that the Trump administration is doing, the things that
Speaker 2: they're doing are appropriate, constitutional, consistent with our values. And
Speaker 2: it's crickets from them. You know, they're afraid, politically afraid,
Speaker 2: some say physically afraid.
Speaker 1: Is it really that much fun to be a member
Speaker 1: of Congress that they just can't part with their jobs
Speaker 1: to actually do the right thing?
Speaker 2: You know, it seems to me that you got to
Speaker 2: be take these jobs and be prepared to separate yourself
Speaker 2: from the job if it means that you're asked to
Speaker 2: do something inconsistent with your oath. When you're Attorney General,
Speaker 2: you get to put up the portraits of four of
Speaker 2: your predecessors in the big conference room, and one of
Speaker 2: the people I put up was Elliott Richardson. Had him
Speaker 2: off to the left so i'd always see him, and
Speaker 2: he was there to remind me that, you know, you
Speaker 2: may have to do something that goes contrary to it
Speaker 2: didn't have I didn't expect this to happen, but contrary
Speaker 2: to what somebody in the White House wants you to do,
Speaker 2: and it may cost you your job. But that's why
Speaker 2: Elliott Richardson was a hero to me, because when Richard
Speaker 2: Nixon told him, you know, to fire the Watergate special prosecutor,
Speaker 2: I'm not doing that, and as a result, you know,
Speaker 2: he lost his job. That's the kind of attitude that
Speaker 2: people in Congress need to have. Take actions that may, yeah,
Speaker 2: may cost you your seat, but maybe it won't cost
Speaker 2: you your seat if enough of you come together and say,
Speaker 2: you know, we stand for principle over party, We stand
Speaker 2: for patriotism over the concerns of the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And maybe the American people appreciate and respect elected leaders
Speaker 1: who feel that they're doing the right thing. Maybe they'll actually,
Speaker 1: to your point, be rewarded for that, not penalized.
Speaker 2: See. I think that's right. I think people underestimate the
Speaker 2: sagacity of the American people.
Speaker 1: You know, I like that word sagacity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope I use it right.
Speaker 1: I think you did. They are wisdom.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there we go, there we go. And if it wasn't,
Speaker 2: we'll just do this part over. But no, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, the American people I think respect authenticity, they
Speaker 2: respect strength, they respect people who are willing to take chances.
Speaker 2: And yeah, that's what maybe Republicans would have to do.
Speaker 2: But the chances they have to take our political ones.
Speaker 2: And that's not too much to ask. You know, you
Speaker 2: swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a man.
Speaker 1: Eric Colter, I am so appreciative of your time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: This interview was a long time coming. We had a
Speaker 1: difficult time scheduling.
Speaker 2: Well, your schedule was such, you know you you're a
Speaker 2: busy woman. Oh I'm like semi retired. I could have
Speaker 2: been here almost anything.
Speaker 1: You know, our schedules just weren't aligning. But I'm really
Speaker 1: I'm so grateful that they finally have. Thank you so
Speaker 1: so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. This was fun.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening everyone. If you have a question for me,
Speaker 1: a subject you want us to cover, or you want
Speaker 1: to share your thoughts about how you navigate this crazy world,
Speaker 1: reach out send me a DM on Instagram. I would
Speaker 1: love to hear from you. Next Question is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartMedia and Katie Kuric Media. The executive producers are Me,
Speaker 1: Katie Kirk, and Courtney Ltz. Our supervising producer is Ryan Martz,
Speaker 1: and our producers are Adriana Fazio and Meredith Barnes. Julian
Speaker 1: Weller composed art theme music. For more information about today's episode,
Speaker 1: or to sign up for my newsletter, wake Up Call,
Speaker 1: go to the description in the podcast app, or visit
Speaker 1: us at Katiecuric dot com. You can also find me
Speaker 1: on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hi everyone, it's
Speaker 1: Katie Couric. You know I'm always on the go between
Speaker 1: running my media company, hosting my podcast, and of course
Speaker 1: covering the news. And I know that to keep doing
Speaker 1: what I love, I need to start caring for what
Speaker 1: gets me there, my feet. That's why I decided to
Speaker 1: try the Good feed Stores personalized art support system. I
Speaker 1: met with a Good Feet arch support specialist and after
Speaker 1: a personalized fitting, I left the store with my three
Speaker 1: step system designed to improve comfort, balance and support. My feet,
Speaker 1: knees and back are thanking me already. Visit goodfeat dot
Speaker 1: com to learn more, find the nearest store, or book
Speaker 1: your own free, personalized fitting.