Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of The Oath in the Office.
Speaker 1: I'm John Fugelsang, and I am so pleased and proud
Speaker 1: to welcome a man who does not appear in the
Speaker 1: Epstein Files, the star of our show, the author of
Speaker 1: The Oath and the Office, Brown University professor Corey Bretschneider.
Speaker 2: Hello, sir, Hello John, And you know, in the midst
Speaker 2: of so much bleak news, I look forward to talking
Speaker 2: to you every week.
Speaker 3: It just sort of cures.
Speaker 2: Me of any malaise I might have and lets me
Speaker 2: see the hope and the humor. And so we'll do
Speaker 2: as we always do. We'll talk about the worrying stuff
Speaker 2: that's out there and also the hope. And of course
Speaker 2: in the second half we'll have Harry Littman, one of
Speaker 2: the best commentators on law and presidential power, So looking
Speaker 2: forward to that as well.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: It's nice of you to say, Corey.
Speaker 1: Usually people find me the most depressing person in the room.
Speaker 4: I'm not an optimist. I'm a recovering cynic.
Speaker 1: And as bad as all of this is right now,
Speaker 1: I can point to you a lot of other times
Speaker 1: in American history where it was even worse, even without
Speaker 1: a flamboyantly racist moron for president. But also there's so
Speaker 1: much resistance, there's so much hope, there's so much reason
Speaker 1: to hang on again. As a recovering cynic. I'm just
Speaker 1: astonished at all the good people out there who are leaking,
Speaker 1: who are struggling, who are resisting. And I really want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about the reporting from Maggie Haberman
Speaker 1: and Jonathan Swan about Epstein. That could be the story
Speaker 1: of the month. But let's start with this tidbit that
Speaker 1: this White House was considering suspending Habeas Corpus. Apparently Donald
Speaker 1: Trump weighed suspending a constitutional right because he's allowed to
Speaker 1: do that if he can't spell it or pronounce it.
Speaker 1: So Will Sharf, who's this very right wing White House
Speaker 1: staff secretary. He wrote a secret memo last spring to
Speaker 1: Susie Wilds, the chief of staff, and the New York
Speaker 1: Times got it five page memo. And the whole thing
Speaker 1: was this guy in writing, because it looks like Will
Speaker 1: Sharp is looking to cover himself for posterity in writing
Speaker 1: making sure that Susie Wiles knew that this crazy idea
Speaker 1: from Stephen Miller to suspend Habeas Corpus for unauthorized immigrants
Speaker 1: was unconstitutional, Corey for listeners who vaguely remember high school civics,
Speaker 1: what exactly is habeas corpus and why have legal scholars
Speaker 1: called it one of the most important protections for any
Speaker 1: constitutional democracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great set up, John, It's certainly a
Speaker 2: constitutional right, but it's really more than that. It's I
Speaker 2: would call it the kind of core of the idea
Speaker 2: of a system of the rule of law, that we
Speaker 2: don't live under a tyrant or an absolute monarch or
Speaker 2: a dictator, that we live in a system in which
Speaker 2: everybody is supposed to be subject to the same rules.
Speaker 2: And the first idea there, and this goes back to
Speaker 2: the thirteenth century to Magna carta, is that if government
Speaker 2: is going to hold you against your will, it's going
Speaker 2: to detain you, it has to have a reason for it,
Speaker 2: and it's got to be it has to be a
Speaker 2: reason that they're able to give you a legal reason
Speaker 2: in court. And so the idea of being able to
Speaker 2: appear in court, being able to hear the reasons why
Speaker 2: you're being detained, that's the presumption of liberty and the
Speaker 2: idea that if you're going to be stopped from that liberty,
Speaker 2: that there has to be a great reason, a good reason,
Speaker 2: let's say, some reason for it. And you know it's
Speaker 2: not any right, it's a fundamental right in the sense
Speaker 2: if you think about it. Once that's gone, what is
Speaker 2: to prevent absolute control by the president or by the
Speaker 2: authorities over any individual, because they could say, Stephen Miller,
Speaker 2: for instance, claimed oh, I just want to do it
Speaker 2: in regard to Venezuelan's at least in the beginning, and.
Speaker 3: Repard to those from enemy nations.
Speaker 2: But if you don't have a right to appear in court,
Speaker 2: how do we know that I am from Venezuela, that
Speaker 2: I am the person I'm accused of being. And so
Speaker 2: quickly we saw when this got translated into policy, and
Speaker 2: now we know exactly who it was coming from Stephen Miller.
Speaker 3: Right, that was one of the problems. They were getting
Speaker 3: the wrong people.
Speaker 2: They were getting people who were supposedly guilty of crimes
Speaker 2: that weren't in any way, And we know the root
Speaker 2: of it. A battle in the White House, and at
Speaker 2: least you know that we could question the motives. But
Speaker 2: at least somebody stood up and said, hey, this isn't
Speaker 2: just a violation of the law. It's a violation of
Speaker 2: the fundamental idea of the rule of law, right, the
Speaker 2: basic idea of our constitution.
Speaker 1: Well, this guy's sharp is hardly a resistance fighter. He's
Speaker 1: the dirtiest pete. I mean, this guy's dirtier than Steve
Speaker 1: Mannen's hamper. But he clearly knew how illegal this was.
Speaker 1: And again, at the end of the day, Corey, we
Speaker 1: noticed these people are all looking out for themselves. So
Speaker 1: he writes, how you know, the Constitution provides habeas corpus
Speaker 1: can only be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion.
Speaker 1: But Stephen Miller was going around apparently saying that Trump
Speaker 1: can suspend it whenever he feels like, because he can
Speaker 1: do that. Professor, how God bless Stephen Miller. How often
Speaker 1: has habeas corpus actually been suspended in American history? What
Speaker 1: circumstances traditionally justify suspending it?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, the Congress in our Constitution it does
Speaker 2: say that Congress has the ability in times of emergency
Speaker 2: to suspend habeas corpus, to really postpone our right to
Speaker 2: appear in court. And Lincoln during the Civil War did
Speaker 2: try to unilaterally himself suspend the writ to suspend habeas corpus. Now,
Speaker 2: the courts came back at him and said, rightly, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, no, the Constitution's clear. Only Congress can do this.
Speaker 2: You can't do it on your own. And Lincoln, being
Speaker 2: a serious constitutional thinker nothing, of course, like Donald Trump
Speaker 2: or Stephen Miller, said Okay, I'm going to abide by
Speaker 2: what the courts said here. I'm going to seek the
Speaker 2: suspension of the writ from Congress. But the fact that
Speaker 2: Lincoln did it, I think is a lot of the
Speaker 2: fuel here. That Trump sees himself as a kind of Lincoln.
Speaker 2: We've seen it from other presidents too, that Nixon himself
Speaker 2: compared himself to Lincoln, talked about his emergency powers and
Speaker 2: in ordering crimes against his political opponents. Nixon did, of course,
Speaker 2: you know, run and run around the writ of Habeas corpus.
Speaker 2: So you know, there are precedents in some of the
Speaker 2: worst moments in American history, but they really don't support
Speaker 2: in any way this unilateral suspension that Miller was arguing for.
Speaker 3: And that's what the memo says.
Speaker 2: It points out why that Lincoln moment was one that
Speaker 2: was corrected, why other presidents who have tried to do it,
Speaker 2: I should say too.
Speaker 3: George Bush g W.
Speaker 2: Bush tried to suspend the rid of habeas corpus in
Speaker 2: regard to Guantanamo, and he was corrected by the courts.
Speaker 2: And in the Comedian case they said, I don't think so.
Speaker 2: There's no such thing as a law free zone under
Speaker 2: the control of the United States, And all of these
Speaker 2: things are in that memo correcting Miller and trying to
Speaker 2: educate I.
Speaker 3: I'm sure Trump didn't read it.
Speaker 2: It's way too long, but at least trying to educate
Speaker 2: this president.
Speaker 1: You had me at Trump thinks he's like Lincoln. I'm
Speaker 1: still on that except John Wilkes Booth would have been
Speaker 1: a much bigger fan. Corey, I got to ask you
Speaker 1: about the Situation Room. This place that's built for nuclear
Speaker 1: threats and terrorist attacks and military crises. This is the
Speaker 1: room where they famously tracked Osama bin Laden. Donald Trump promised,
Speaker 1: as you know, many times, to release the Epstein files,
Speaker 1: and now, according to reporting from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan,
Speaker 1: Trump's top officials held repeated meetings in the Situation Room
Speaker 1: to figure out how to contain the Epstein fallout, not
Speaker 1: to contain predators, not to expose predators, not to help victims,
Speaker 1: to contain the story. Bush's senior team, including JD Vance,
Speaker 1: Susie Wilds, Pam Bondi, Cashptel, Dan Bongino, who I'm sure
Speaker 1: is one of the leaguers, Todd Blanche and others had
Speaker 1: multiple emergency in the situation room. Okay, the same room
Speaker 1: of the bin Laden raid was now being used by
Speaker 1: Trump's people to strategize around their bosses. Many many connections
Speaker 1: to a convicted child rapist and child sex trafficker Corey.
Speaker 1: I just these guys spend ten years telling us there's
Speaker 1: this secret cabal of elites covering up sex crimes, and
Speaker 1: then they get into power and immediately form a secret
Speaker 1: cabal of elites to cover up sex crimes.
Speaker 4: The irony as sothic. Trump could use it as gravy.
Speaker 1: I have so many questions for you about all this,
Speaker 1: But what was your reaction when you first heard about
Speaker 1: these senior officials having Again, this was not about protecting America,
Speaker 1: This was about protecting their boss from their boss's own resume.
Speaker 2: Well, the first thing to say is I'm grateful that
Speaker 2: we have a light being shined on all of this.
Speaker 2: One of the problems with the debacle of the Epstein files,
Speaker 2: aside from the horror of Epstein's crime himself and the
Speaker 2: president's close friendship with this person who was a horrific
Speaker 2: sex trafficker.
Speaker 3: And abuser of miners, is.
Speaker 2: The failure of transparency, the ability to hide all of this.
Speaker 2: And of course, exactly as you say, my first instinct was,
Speaker 2: thankfully we have this reporting. At least we're getting to
Speaker 2: see what was going on behind the scenes, and we
Speaker 2: see the tension that isn't just an irony, it's something
Speaker 2: that they were aware of that. You have Bongino, you
Speaker 2: have cash Betel crying out against the supposed deep state
Speaker 2: and the idea that there's the secret cabal, and now
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, they realize in the Oval Office
Speaker 2: in these discussions, we're part of it. We're part of it,
Speaker 2: and they're calling for release of files. They're criticizing the
Speaker 2: attempt to hide.
Speaker 3: All of it.
Speaker 2: But increasingly, my sense is that as they learn what's
Speaker 2: in it, they realize they really are part of this
Speaker 2: deep state conspiracy that they've been railing against all the time.
Speaker 3: And you know, I.
Speaker 2: Think that's part of what the reporting shows. And of
Speaker 2: course I think the other horrific thing is the Pam
Speaker 2: Bondies of the world, you know, trying to cover all
Speaker 2: of this up, not thinking about the horror, not thinking
Speaker 2: about the wrongdoing, but thinking how can we protect this
Speaker 2: president at all costs? And at some point, you know,
Speaker 2: there's politics, but there's also a deep immorality, and that's
Speaker 2: of course at the heart of all of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, in June of last year, BAMBONDI told Trump,
Speaker 1: We've gone through the files. There's not a lot there
Speaker 1: a lot of child pornography. We can't put any of
Speaker 1: that out. There are some mentions of you, but nothing substantive.
Speaker 1: There are thousands and thousands and thousands of mentions of.
Speaker 4: This man there.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're in the situation room. And my favorite
Speaker 1: detailed professor could be the Rump reportedly wasn't even in
Speaker 1: these meetings. The president wasn't running the cover up. His
Speaker 1: staff was running a cover up about him. Imagine being
Speaker 1: so politically radioactive, your own administration is having emergency ops
Speaker 1: without you because you're a security risk to yourself. Now,
Speaker 1: according to the article, Vance, who again is only concerned
Speaker 1: with his becoming president someday, everything is filtered through that,
Speaker 1: and he was floating the idea of having more transparency,
Speaker 1: maybe getting Tucker Carlson to interview de Lane Maxwell in prison.
Speaker 1: By contrast, and Wiles and Blair, they just dismissed the
Speaker 1: whole thing is fringe noise. And Bongino of course comes
Speaker 1: off as the guy who knows how bad this is
Speaker 1: and says this will be Trump's Iran contra. And it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear that Bongino is one of the leakers. But wow,
Speaker 1: some of them wanted greater transparency while others favored containment.
Speaker 1: This has all been leaked, and apparently they were flipping
Speaker 1: out yesterday because they are quite convinced that Haberman and
Speaker 1: Swann have audio recordings of all of these individuals and
Speaker 1: one of the most secure your places on Earth discussing
Speaker 1: covering up child rape. I mean, what does that tell
Speaker 1: you about the internal split, that we know this much
Speaker 1: about this meeting?
Speaker 2: Well, I think it shows you how the weakness of
Speaker 2: this president is starting to emerge, and this turns out
Speaker 2: to be his achilles heel. It's one of the hopeful
Speaker 2: things about the story that Congress did eventually push back
Speaker 2: and demand transparency.
Speaker 3: So that's one thing we're.
Speaker 2: Also starting to get a sense of the internal dynamics
Speaker 2: of JD. Van's trying to save himself. He wants to
Speaker 2: be president. Obviously, one way that he can become president
Speaker 2: is to have this president impeached or be forced to
Speaker 2: step down. And the scandal over these files might be
Speaker 2: part of it. And somebody who I don't see winning
Speaker 2: a primary, you know, on his own, might have a
Speaker 2: real chance if he's the sitting president of the United States,
Speaker 2: and so the incentives are there politically for him to
Speaker 2: demand transparency. It too in the sense that he knows,
Speaker 2: you know, that Trump is going to be implicated in
Speaker 2: these files. The incompetence also stands out that Pam Bondi,
Speaker 2: you know, trying to cover up for the president, also
Speaker 2: release files unknowingly perhaps that you know, showing that he
Speaker 2: was implicated, of course, and so you know, it's just
Speaker 2: a sort of cacophony of incompetence and craven selfishness and
Speaker 2: as you said, covering up child rape. One big picture
Speaker 2: thing is one of the biggest dangers of the Office
Speaker 2: of the White House is the tradition of secrecy, in
Speaker 2: which basically we can hide crimes and we can hide
Speaker 2: immorality underneath this veil of secrecy, and we're seeing it
Speaker 2: here in the extreme because it is hiding complicity in
Speaker 2: the crimes of one of the most notorious sex criminals
Speaker 2: in American history.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just madness.
Speaker 1: I mean, as Donald Trump's makeup has made me say
Speaker 1: many times, do you, professor, the cover up is worse
Speaker 1: than the crime. I mean, our history is full of
Speaker 1: scandals where the attempt to cover it up became much
Speaker 1: more damaging than the underlying conduct. I don't know that
Speaker 1: Lessons repeating here. The underlying conduct is pretty awful, But
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen this part of the movie before,
Speaker 1: haven't we. They always create larger problems for themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, it's a famous line that
Speaker 2: history doesn't repeat at rhymes, and I think we see
Speaker 2: that here in the Nixon case.
Speaker 3: Certainly, the idea that there's.
Speaker 2: An awareness of the crimes committed, serious underlying crimes in
Speaker 2: the Nixon case, not just Watergate, but the at least
Speaker 2: the ten other crimes that were being investigated at the
Speaker 2: time of the pardon of Nixon by Ford, including an
Speaker 2: attempted assault on Daniel Elsberg and other protesters that the
Speaker 2: Special Prosecutor's office.
Speaker 3: Was looking into.
Speaker 2: And as these crimes became apparent, and as Watergate became
Speaker 2: a parent, they dug in by trying to pay people
Speaker 2: off as hush money. And then that cover up became
Speaker 2: the real scandal that we found on the Smoking Gong
Speaker 2: tape that took down Nixon. Now, what's the difference, I
Speaker 2: said at rhymes, It doesn't repeat. Some of that pattern
Speaker 2: seems very similar here, the cover up being part of
Speaker 2: the problem.
Speaker 3: But at least in that case Nixon was in charge, he.
Speaker 2: Was ordering the hush money, he was at least being informed.
Speaker 3: Also, the loyalty is remarkable to me.
Speaker 2: In the Nixon example, where his staff or is Haldeman
Speaker 2: and Erlickman is chief of staff and high level assistance.
Speaker 3: We're saying, you know, if you need us not.
Speaker 2: To be here to take the blame, we'll do it.
Speaker 2: They really love this guy. In the case of Trump,
Speaker 2: that's not the case at all. A he's not in
Speaker 2: control of anything, he's not even in the room, and
Speaker 2: be no way or any of these people taking the
Speaker 2: fall for him.
Speaker 1: It kind of makes all their attempts to steal elections
Speaker 1: seem so innocent and wholesome.
Speaker 4: Doesn't it.
Speaker 1: We got to take a break, but when we come back,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the latest United States Postal Service proposal
Speaker 1: to block mail ballots. Spoiler alert, it's designed to help
Speaker 1: one party.
Speaker 4: This is the Oath in the Office. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John
Speaker 1: Fiegel Sank Professor bretsch Us. Postal Service has proposed this
Speaker 1: new rule, and I'm not sure I understand this. I
Speaker 1: might need you to hold my hand here a bit.
Speaker 1: It would allow the Post Office to refuse to deliver
Speaker 1: mail ballots in and two states if those states refuse
Speaker 1: to turn over their voter role information to the federal government. Now, Corey,
Speaker 1: I'm old enough to remember racist talking a whole lot
Speaker 1: about states rights.
Speaker 4: But this is crazy.
Speaker 1: States would have to create a list of mail voters
Speaker 1: that employees of the service would review for eligibility, and
Speaker 1: the Postal Service could decide who didn't get to vote.
Speaker 1: And the Postal Service could not even send the ballots
Speaker 1: to a state if the state didn't give them private information.
Speaker 1: What is your initial constitutional reaction to this?
Speaker 5: Wow?
Speaker 2: You know we use this phrase self coup all the
Speaker 2: time on this show to talk about the ways that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is trying to use the presidency to usurp
Speaker 2: and destroy our constitution. And you know, he did it
Speaker 2: during January sixth in one way, and we've been focused
Speaker 2: on trying to repair that way. There's something called the
Speaker 2: Doctoral Count Reformact that keeps the events of January sixth
Speaker 2: from repeating themselves, from using that technique to destroy democracy.
Speaker 2: So he's just gonna pivot and find another way. Our
Speaker 2: elections under the Constitution are supposed to be controlled by
Speaker 2: the states and local government, and yet you have this
Speaker 2: institution of the Post Office, and Trump is trying to
Speaker 2: commandeer it to reverse what our constitution says and to
Speaker 2: really take control. Of course, he doesn't have to eliminate
Speaker 2: all votes for Democratic candidates. He can just tram a
Speaker 2: sliver of them in order to get that difference. And
Speaker 2: that's what he's trying to do. And this really unprecedented
Speaker 2: and illegal.
Speaker 1: Make it harder here, a little bit, make it harder there,
Speaker 1: a little bit, voter id save Act, ladies with a
Speaker 1: new last name, whatever they can do to just shave
Speaker 1: off the vote count a little bit state by state.
Speaker 1: The Constitution I thought, I seem to remember you telling me,
Speaker 1: once generally leaves election administration to the states, is that
Speaker 1: still a significant principle or do we not care about
Speaker 1: that anymore in this country?
Speaker 3: You know that's the law.
Speaker 2: But when Donald Trump says he wants to federalize or
Speaker 2: nationalize elections, this is what he's talking about, usurping the
Speaker 2: check of federal power by the states.
Speaker 3: And it was kind of a brilliant thing to do in.
Speaker 2: Some ways, to have multiple checks on power and federalism.
Speaker 3: Although it's traditionally been used.
Speaker 2: By racis to try to usurp the right to vote,
Speaker 2: now we're in a bizarrel world where we're seeing actually
Speaker 2: now it can be used to protect the right to vote.
Speaker 3: And Trump sees that, and what does he want to do.
Speaker 2: He wants to create a vulnerability to use a supposedly
Speaker 2: benign part of the federal government, the post Office, to
Speaker 2: usurp it.
Speaker 3: There is a precedent for it.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you go all the way back to
Speaker 2: the seventeen nineties and lead up in particular to the
Speaker 2: eighteen hundred election, Jefferson and Madison are writing to each
Speaker 2: other about the fact that they're worried that their mail
Speaker 2: is being read and really that the Federalist Party and
Speaker 2: John Adams are spying on them using the postal service.
Speaker 2: And the postal service was an enormously important part of
Speaker 2: our government. At one point it was protected from residential
Speaker 2: control who had an independence to it. That was ended
Speaker 2: in the Myers versus Nebraska case where the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: essentially put it under the control.
Speaker 3: Of the president.
Speaker 2: And the worry all along has been from scholars and
Speaker 2: from politicians. This gives communication control over the president, all
Speaker 2: sorts of control.
Speaker 3: And look at this all of a.
Speaker 2: Sudden, that fear of the abuse of national power by
Speaker 2: the post Office is being revived once again. And with
Speaker 2: this one proposal, which really is a proposal, let's say
Speaker 2: what it is to cheat in this upcoming election.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, could the postal Service legally determine voter eligibility?
Speaker 1: I mean that sounds crazy, Like what worries you the
Speaker 1: most about the federal government becoming involved in deciding whose
Speaker 1: ballots are allowed to travel through mail?
Speaker 2: Well, as we know with Trump's technique, and you see
Speaker 2: this in the Save Act and the voter id push
Speaker 2: to and as Stacy Abrams explained on this podcast, so well,
Speaker 2: you know every state has some form of ID. They're
Speaker 2: trying to create requirements of ID that will exclude some voters,
Speaker 2: and that technique will be used here too.
Speaker 3: They'll say, all we're.
Speaker 2: Trying to do is determine a neutral, simple thing, are
Speaker 2: you an eligible voter or not? And not send you
Speaker 2: a ballot If it's fraudulent. Well, that's not what's going
Speaker 2: to go on. What's going to go on is that
Speaker 2: definition of valid or invalid voter is going to be
Speaker 2: used to big surprise, destroy Democratic Party voters. And that's why, Yes,
Speaker 2: it's not just dangerous. It could work because it sounds benign,
Speaker 2: just as voter ID sounds benign, and yet they're able
Speaker 2: to reshape it, possibly into this technique to steal an election.
Speaker 3: We should be awfully worried about it.
Speaker 1: Well, meanwhile, Corey, I got some bad news for the
Speaker 1: terrorists of January sixth. It looks like it's getting harder
Speaker 1: for people who beat cops for Donald Trump's lie to
Speaker 1: get paid for their labors. Once again, yet another private
Speaker 1: contractor gets stiffed for working for Trump. But Judge Leoni
Speaker 1: Brinkman of the Eastern District of Virginia just extended her
Speaker 1: injunction against this sohole slat fun and she's pretty mad
Speaker 1: that the government is refusing to admit, under penalty of
Speaker 1: perjury that the fund has actually ended. Recall, just a
Speaker 1: couple weeks ago she blocked the move, and Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: said to the House, we're not moving forward with the
Speaker 1: fund period, and they're like, yeah, you're still trying to
Speaker 1: move forward with the part where the IRS can never
Speaker 1: go after Trump and his kids for committing crimes. And
Speaker 1: then later that next day, Trump said to reporters, I
Speaker 1: don't know if the fund's ending or not. So this
Speaker 1: judge seemed really mad that this administration is saying one
Speaker 1: thing and doing another, sort of like back during the
Speaker 1: January sixth cases when Rudy Giuliani would come out and
Speaker 1: preach all manner of fraud and then go into the
Speaker 1: courthouse and actually say under oath, Oh judge, no, there's
Speaker 1: no fraud. We'll not claiming any I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: this seems madness. The administration claimed the fund was paused
Speaker 1: while simultaneously refusing to formally terminate it. Do you agree
Speaker 1: the judge has every right to be so vexed?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And you know, just to kind of big picture
Speaker 2: think about all of the themes that we've been talking about.
Speaker 2: The sunlight that's ing the abuses and all of these
Speaker 2: cases is transparency.
Speaker 3: It's actually just learning about what's happening.
Speaker 2: And the more things come out, the more the American
Speaker 2: people have it explained to them what's happening, they react,
Speaker 2: and then that causes the president to react back. You
Speaker 2: saw that in the Epstein files case. And the more
Speaker 2: we learned about the cover up, the more we learned
Speaker 2: about what's in there that was being hit, the more
Speaker 2: we demanded Congress act, which it did.
Speaker 3: In this case, it's a little different.
Speaker 2: It's really the judiciary that's telling the main that's driving this,
Speaker 2: I think in a lot of ways, and there is
Speaker 2: an amazing group Democracy Forward.
Speaker 3: Shout out to them.
Speaker 2: I worked with them, of course on the brief that
Speaker 2: I filed along with other scholars saying that the tariffs
Speaker 2: were unconstitutional, and that case, of course did bring down
Speaker 2: the tariffs. And what they did here was so important
Speaker 2: is they challenged this Department of Justice supposedly anti weaponization
Speaker 2: of government fund that was a weaponization of government fund,
Speaker 2: and they just through pushing in court revealed what's happening,
Speaker 2: which is an attempt to reward Trump's political allies. Where
Speaker 2: is the legal authority to do that? Now, the statements
Speaker 2: of Trump and the Department of Justice have basically backed off,
Speaker 2: and yet the court is still considering this case. They
Speaker 2: haven't the Department of Justice hasn't given up and trying
Speaker 2: to defend as supposed anti weaponization fund. And so in
Speaker 2: the midst of all this, you have a judge who's like,
Speaker 2: what is going on. You're making these public statements that
Speaker 2: you're no longer doing this, and yet you're fighting this lawsuit.
Speaker 2: That must be incredibly frustrating for this judge, who, after all,
Speaker 2: is supposed to be considering a real lawsuit, hearing arguments
Speaker 2: about what's really happening on the ground, and instead is
Speaker 2: getting this mishmash. And not just frustrated, but the judge
Speaker 2: is now demanding, you know, either a clear statement that
Speaker 2: this is continuing this drive towards this anti weaponization fund
Speaker 2: or if that's not going to happen, then we're done,
Speaker 2: and basically an injunction to stop it. So we've been
Speaker 2: talking about hope transparency. It's not just transparency here, it's
Speaker 2: also the judiciary, not the Supreme Court, but the lower courts,
Speaker 2: lower federal courts have really been heroic in all of this,
Speaker 2: and this is a great example of it.
Speaker 1: We do have to hit a break, but before we go, Corey,
Speaker 1: it really does seem like, once again with Trump, the
Speaker 1: ambiguity itself is a political strategy, right. He's just hitting
Speaker 1: a snooze alarm, kicking the can, trying to see how
Speaker 1: much he can wiggle out by not committing too hard
Speaker 1: to one definitive promise.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would say it's some mix of incompetence
Speaker 2: and you see this in the chaos of the aftermath
Speaker 2: of the ft scene files and the internal debate amongst
Speaker 2: it and incompetence, and you know, also just not caring
Speaker 2: at we talked about transparency is the cure to abuse.
Speaker 3: For Trump, it's.
Speaker 2: All about lying at any cost, bsing in order to
Speaker 2: just get your way with a total indifference to what
Speaker 2: the truth is.
Speaker 3: And you know what, that doesn't work so well in court.
Speaker 1: We got to take a quick break. But when we
Speaker 1: come back, we're joined by a very special guest, Harry
Speaker 1: Livin will be here.
Speaker 4: This is the Oath in the Office. Don't go Welcome
Speaker 4: back to the Oath in the Office.
Speaker 1: I'm John Fiegel, saying, Professor, I'm so excited about this guest.
Speaker 1: This is someone that I've never actually gotten to meet
Speaker 1: in person before.
Speaker 2: What a pleasure. Our guest today is Harry Littman. He's
Speaker 2: a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: He's a veteran federal prosecutor. He's played a lot of
Speaker 3: roles in the DOJ and knows it well.
Speaker 2: He's also the host of the terrific Talking Feds podcast.
Speaker 3: We can trying to recommend to you all.
Speaker 2: You've seen him on MS now, and he really knows
Speaker 2: the DOJ from the inside. He knows how it's supposed
Speaker 2: to function, and why it's independence is supposed to matter,
Speaker 2: and how we're failing so badly at this moment. And
Speaker 2: we wanted to bring him on, among other things, to
Speaker 2: talk about what's going on with the destruction of the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice and its use as a tool to
Speaker 2: go after political opponents.
Speaker 3: So, Harry, welcome to the oath.
Speaker 4: In the welcome sir, thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Corey John good to be here, longtime fan, first time caller.
Speaker 4: I love thank you so much.
Speaker 2: I wanted to just start off by talking to you
Speaker 2: about this anti weaponization fund, and we just talked about
Speaker 2: this judge's frustration with what's going on the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice not withdrawing the suit, but also at the same
Speaker 2: time all of these statements that look like they are
Speaker 2: pulling back. I mean, so, what's your sounds of where
Speaker 2: things stand with this supposed anti weaponization fund and just
Speaker 2: your thoughts in general about what's going on here in
Speaker 2: the creation of the fund to reward political allies, including
Speaker 2: those who participated in the attempted coup of January sixth.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, so on that second question, I'll come to
Speaker 6: it after. It's a surpassing stinkpile. It's really about as
Speaker 6: bad as anything I think since the wholesale pardons on
Speaker 6: January sixth.
Speaker 5: But where it stands legally, I think is kind of murky.
Speaker 6: So to me, there's a basic legal question that they
Speaker 6: just can't answer well, and the question is whether the
Speaker 6: courts are going to force them to it, And that
Speaker 6: is what's the damn basis for. And I think you're
Speaker 6: really right to emphasize not just the fund but the
Speaker 6: whole amnesty provision. It's just a sort of taxpayer funded
Speaker 6: bounty directly to Trump of nine figures anyway, either that
Speaker 6: was an exchange, a regular old senttlement agreement. Oh, he
Speaker 6: will voluntarily dismiss his case, which was worthless literally for
Speaker 6: several reasons, meritless it already one case is exactly the same.
Speaker 6: It was probably unconstitutional because it was colluded. So literally,
Speaker 6: this zero thing is being exchanged for billions of dollars
Speaker 6: for Trump and his allies.
Speaker 5: That doesn't fly.
Speaker 6: And that and sort of narrow legal grounds because you
Speaker 6: can't use the money the Congress appropriated if it's not
Speaker 6: a real dispute. So that's the first than on the
Speaker 6: other hand, they could just try to say, okay, we're
Speaker 6: not relying on that. Instead, it's it's what it's Todd
Speaker 6: Blanche giving, you know, a few billion dollars to the
Speaker 6: well even if they leave the fund to sign one
Speaker 6: hundred million to the president he's professed to love, and
Speaker 6: just a raw kind of Attorney general gift that's even
Speaker 6: sort of worse. So legally, it's I think completely untenable,
Speaker 6: and they're going to try to straddle. Politically, I think
Speaker 6: it's pretty interesting, and I wonder what you guys think.
Speaker 6: But the Republicans and Senate initially balked, and there was
Speaker 6: just enough to sort of push back on the fund.
Speaker 6: But this other real stink part of an appendage here,
Speaker 6: the amnesty provision, which I think the American people would
Speaker 6: be equally repulse by.
Speaker 5: Seems to be just kind of hanging around.
Speaker 6: And the Republicans, who initially had gotten a little steel
Speaker 6: in their spine like corn In or till Us or
Speaker 6: you know, have not been falling through with the same
Speaker 6: kind of Hell, no, this isn't going anywhere. So it's
Speaker 6: one of these cases where I think the politics in
Speaker 6: a good way have driven the overall challenges, but it's
Speaker 6: to my mind not clear whether the follow through will
Speaker 6: get at both parts, and they're both independently, you know,
Speaker 6: complete outrages.
Speaker 2: I think we've talked a lot on the show about
Speaker 2: this so called lawsuit where Trump is settling with the
Speaker 2: irs supposedly, and the idea of it as a fraud
Speaker 2: on the court.
Speaker 3: I mean, have you ever seen anything like this? I
Speaker 3: was trying to think of examples.
Speaker 2: I president creates a sort of fake lawsuit in order
Speaker 2: to give leverage to himself to then settle with himself,
Speaker 2: in order to then create a fun to reward as political.
Speaker 1: And might not be able to get any American examples,
Speaker 1: but there must be some historical accesses.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, maybe Putin did something like this. No, look,
Speaker 6: it's really straightforward. But again, the lawsuit that he brought,
Speaker 6: he brought it too late. It was time bard he
Speaker 6: brought it against the wrong person, and the irs had
Speaker 6: already established that it is collusive because he controls both sides,
Speaker 6: and even if it were meritorious.
Speaker 5: His damages would be capped at one thousand dollars.
Speaker 6: Using that as the vehicle for these fights, it's completely
Speaker 6: beyond the pale. And so it's a flat out vehicle
Speaker 6: for self dealing and enrichment of the insurrection.
Speaker 5: It's an addition everything else. It's got this legal veneer
Speaker 5: for that.
Speaker 6: People may be accept for things that are really odious,
Speaker 6: just as conduct for Trump to do. So, the sure
Speaker 6: to answer your question is, you know, I've been focused
Speaker 6: on this a lot, and there are other cases where
Speaker 6: they've clearly been both the same side has been controlled
Speaker 6: by one guy, as Trump does here, And every single
Speaker 6: time the Supreme Court says that's not a real case.
Speaker 6: The federal courts can't hear that kind of case. We
Speaker 6: can only hear a real controversy. So this just doesn't
Speaker 6: fly in any way. But the question now becomes what
Speaker 6: court can There have been many suits against it, but
Speaker 6: there are going to be standing questions. That's always their
Speaker 6: sort of you know, hobby horse. Oh maybe it's wrong,
Speaker 6: but nobody can challenge it. There's this interesting case down
Speaker 6: in the Southern District of Florida where they judge said,
Speaker 6: I think you may have defrauded me. I would like
Speaker 6: this reopen. And just on Friday, Trump came in with
Speaker 6: a with a totally kind of aggressive but also psychotic saying, no,
Speaker 6: there wasn't any kind of collusion, No, there wasn't any
Speaker 6: of course we were adverse. Of course this was a
Speaker 6: you know, just essentially propagating the same lie. And what
Speaker 6: court can actually pull the plug on it, or whether
Speaker 6: the rs in Congress will pull the plug on it.
Speaker 6: It's right now, as outrageous as it is, to my mind,
Speaker 6: a little bit unsettled whether what obviously should happen, which
Speaker 6: is to have this thing, you know, dean and buried
Speaker 6: and never never see the light of day, Whether that
Speaker 6: will happen, or whether he'll somehow or be able to
Speaker 6: rest some kind of compromise.
Speaker 1: But it does seem like the danger primarily at this
Speaker 1: point is maybe not the actual prosecutions, but how the
Speaker 1: threat of investigation itself becomes the political weapon. That certainly
Speaker 1: seems the case with Komi and many others. I mean,
Speaker 1: in a way, he doesn't need to know he's got
Speaker 1: enough of a case to get a conviction. He's here
Speaker 1: to bankrupt people with legal costs.
Speaker 4: As puttive vengeance.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and you know, we just saw this yesterday with Newsom,
Speaker 6: and don't discount you know they're able, both Komy Knewsom
Speaker 6: were able to say bring it on. But the pain,
Speaker 6: the expense, the anxiety for the whole family. You know,
Speaker 6: we know that they were going around talking to anyone
Speaker 6: who knew Newsom's wife, say yesterday. So Komy has very
Speaker 6: unusually right. Normally the subject investigation, you keep your head down,
Speaker 6: but they've really confronted him.
Speaker 5: But you're totally right.
Speaker 6: We've had a record of failure in these cases that
Speaker 6: is breathtaking. Or you know, if when I was in
Speaker 6: the Department of Justice in my entire career, I saw
Speaker 6: one case where the grand jury didn't return the charges.
Speaker 6: It wasn't even mine, but I worked on it. And
Speaker 6: that's because you choose them very carefully. Here, they're chosen
Speaker 6: simply as you say to Harris, and make trouble and
Speaker 6: mean and Todd Blanch. You know, Pam BONDI had the
Speaker 6: impression she wasn't exactly sure even what she was doing,
Speaker 6: but she did it. Todd Blanch knows the difference. And
Speaker 6: he's literally come out and defended the right of Trump
Speaker 6: to bring these cases, these meritless cases. And it's just
Speaker 6: we're really grinding into both DNA. When you're talking about
Speaker 6: abusing the awesomeness of the federal prescatory power just to
Speaker 6: make trouble for political enemies. That just does not happen
Speaker 6: in democracies. That happens then.
Speaker 4: Some guys want to get disparked. Some guys just want
Speaker 4: to get disparred. Sometimes yeah, yeah, we'll see.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a good way to put it too,
Speaker 2: to recognize that, you know, they're not necessarily trying to
Speaker 2: get convictions in court at this point. They might realize
Speaker 2: that some of these cases are going to be tossed,
Speaker 2: but that's not the idea. Of the idea is to
Speaker 2: threaten your political opponents. And although you are seeing bravery
Speaker 2: from James Comey and Letitia James, and they do have
Speaker 2: the resources to back and the knowledge to know that
Speaker 2: they're going to win in court not to give in.
Speaker 2: My worry is, of course, that you know, it sends
Speaker 2: a chilling effect to the wider public, and it lets
Speaker 2: people know, you know, if you really are good at
Speaker 2: criticizing Trump, you might find yourself under indictment. And when
Speaker 2: you're weighing that cost of speaking out and taking the
Speaker 2: risk of being prosecuted or not doing so, at least
Speaker 2: for some people, it's going to tilt the difference. I mean,
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts about that, Harry, about the chilling effect?
Speaker 2: And I also did want to ask you John brought
Speaker 2: up your time at the Department of Justice. I mean,
Speaker 2: I just don't have to imagine that the government lawyers
Speaker 2: that you were working with would never have signed their
Speaker 2: names to these indictments. So what's going on that there
Speaker 2: are people who are willing to not just Todd Blanche,
Speaker 2: but the lawyers and the Department that are willing to
Speaker 2: go along with all of this. It seems like just
Speaker 2: a complete abandonment of legal ethics and their obligation as lawyers.
Speaker 6: Let's start there, never ever, ever, ever, Look, there's a
Speaker 6: absolute bedrock Bible principles of federal prosecution. Two things you
Speaker 6: must do, and if you haven't done them, your supervisors
Speaker 6: will put you through the ringer. You must believe or
Speaker 6: have the proof that the person has committed a crime,
Speaker 6: and it must be likely that you're going to be
Speaker 6: able to get a conviction. Two different standards, and if
Speaker 6: you don't have those, it is as elementary as it
Speaker 6: comes that get the hell out of here until you do.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 6: You're certainly right, Corey that there's a chilling effect. I
Speaker 6: know of people who you know are are flinching, And
Speaker 6: it seems evident to me that there are media stories
Speaker 6: that are have sort of false whataboutism, But that kind
Speaker 6: of impact is just secondary to like the what the
Speaker 6: f are.
Speaker 5: You talking about?
Speaker 6: You're going after people yet you know, oh, are not guilty,
Speaker 6: justsa Harris. It's so fundamental, a violation of everything the
Speaker 6: DOJ stands for. I feel sometimes like I'm a little nerdier.
Speaker 6: It pains to try to explain how completely you know,
Speaker 6: down to the absolute foundation of what the whole place
Speaker 6: is about, right to make that point, But yeah, anyone
Speaker 6: who has anything to do, and you see many many
Speaker 6: people leave the department at this kind of point, starting
Speaker 6: with say the Mayor Adams case would have been I
Speaker 6: did know the Department of Justice, and it's not any
Speaker 6: kind of nuanced thing. This is like, are you kidding me?
Speaker 6: Why don't you just go into court with like no
Speaker 6: clothes or whatever. It's just don't doesn't happen. So, yeah,
Speaker 6: the deep corruption that that could happen once, not to
Speaker 6: mention twice, three, four times. There's so much in place,
Speaker 6: including the mindset of all the people who show up
Speaker 6: for work for this very reason, that makes that not
Speaker 6: a possibility until you have the very guy on top
Speaker 6: saying do it. And yeah, I think he also has
Speaker 6: some allies there.
Speaker 5: You know. I think there's no doubt there's.
Speaker 6: A lot of you know, how will we try to
Speaker 6: correct the situation if and when things change, But this
Speaker 6: aspect of things will you know, I think there's no
Speaker 6: doubt that he will blanche and Bonny will go down
Speaker 6: in infamy.
Speaker 5: This is all you have to know.
Speaker 6: They brought merritless cases against political enemies of the president
Speaker 6: because the president wanted to. There's no possible defense of that.
Speaker 6: This is just revolting boom.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean and again like the topic, but it's
Speaker 1: just it's just I keep thinking, like we have to
Speaker 1: move on, you know, what happens to the long term
Speaker 1: institutional damage of the institutions, Like even if these investigations
Speaker 1: never result in convictions, the fact is that the founders
Speaker 1: didn't foresee this. Our system is available for rich people
Speaker 1: to use as a harassment tool for punitive vengeance, like that.
Speaker 6: We've crossed the room coon or maybe it's the River Styx,
Speaker 6: right that this could actually happen, and you really do
Speaker 6: you know, we should have such problems, But what does
Speaker 6: it take to because basically this was all inculcated in
Speaker 6: a more powerful way even than law, through culture and
Speaker 6: norms that were just from the time of Watergate, when
Speaker 6: the you know, revered Attorney General Edward Leevy came back
Speaker 6: to write the Ship. And then what I'm telling you
Speaker 6: is it's true, it's in Princevill's veneral consecution, but it's
Speaker 6: an ethos that is so completely baked in. I'm just
Speaker 6: trying to think about how it would work if a
Speaker 6: politically minded person for half a second decides to try
Speaker 6: to gin up a case, you know, they would be
Speaker 6: I think drun down the department. And conversely, by the
Speaker 6: way you have this mantra about the Biden weaponization, there's
Speaker 6: a way to confirm or deny that were these cases
Speaker 6: that fit the principles? Was there probable costa believe they've
Speaker 6: come in a crime, probably cost to believe conviction. There's
Speaker 6: not a case. There's not a freakin' single case in
Speaker 6: which those principles weren't satisfied, meaning there was no weaponization
Speaker 6: in the Biden Justice Department. The difference is the conduct
Speaker 6: of what people did and didn't and that's something that
Speaker 6: I do think it's been really hard to kind of
Speaker 6: uphill battle for just DOOJ types, not you know, pro
Speaker 6: Biden or pro Trump, but people to just sort of explain.
Speaker 6: I fear that the mantras kind of caught on. Oh
Speaker 6: both sides.
Speaker 5: Did it, they didn't.
Speaker 6: The DOJ was a righteous place, and the ultimate pain
Speaker 6: here is born by the people. You know, if you
Speaker 6: don't have the presumption of regularity and you can't get convictions,
Speaker 6: or you're doing it for political reasons, it's public safety
Speaker 6: and all the good things that DOJ is able to effectuate.
Speaker 6: That is ultimately in sacrifice.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you, Harry, I'm eager to talk
Speaker 2: about more about Todd Blanche and his potential future as
Speaker 2: Attorney General, but you did mention something that I'd be
Speaker 2: remiss if I didn't focus on, which is the period
Speaker 2: after Nixon in which you had Attorney General Levy trying
Speaker 2: to reshape the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: And as I understand.
Speaker 2: That history, and I'm wondering if what your take is
Speaker 2: on it, that you had Nixon who really did try
Speaker 2: to weaponize certainly the IRS and the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: to use He had plans to use special prosecutors as
Speaker 2: weapons against his political opponents, including Daniel Ellsberg and others.
Speaker 2: And in the aftermath of that, part of the idea
Speaker 2: of the Ford Whitehouse was bringing in this University of
Speaker 2: Chicago president who had very serious integrity, not a partisan in.
Speaker 3: The you know, certainly not in the Nixonian.
Speaker 2: Sense, and reshaping the Department through as as you said
Speaker 2: several times, through norms. But one of the things I
Speaker 2: guess I wonder about is there was the possibility at
Speaker 2: that time and now we have to think about it
Speaker 2: about more serious reforms about what we did have an
Speaker 2: independent council for instance, who could investigate the president without
Speaker 2: being fired Outside the contoys of the DOJ, there could
Speaker 2: be legal reshaping of the Department of Justice. That would
Speaker 2: have been another way of doing it, not relying on norms.
Speaker 2: So I guess my temptation in this second Trump term
Speaker 2: as we see the total destruction of norms and the
Speaker 2: taking of what's supposed to be an independent Department of
Speaker 2: Justice and turning it into a weapon of the president.
Speaker 2: You know, what do you think about what a future
Speaker 2: reform after we're done with this nightmare might be? Like,
Speaker 2: I mean, is it a matter of getting the right
Speaker 2: people back in the Department.
Speaker 3: Of Justice or more serious legal reforms?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: Both, And that is the thing, the kind of purging
Speaker 6: that people have documented, and every time I talk to
Speaker 6: someone who really reports on this, it's worse than we know.
Speaker 6: It's just complete fear and loathing of the people who
Speaker 6: are left there. But that really the part of the
Speaker 6: point that it's a cultural as well as legal kind
Speaker 6: of ballast, is that there are a sort of subset
Speaker 6: of people who really were that go to people of
Speaker 6: judgment and respect. They are disproportioned, they've just been completely
Speaker 6: hollowed out, and so there's literally talk I have, you know,
Speaker 6: some glancing involvement in people thinking about just this. And
Speaker 6: one of the things is, well, certain people come back,
Speaker 6: at least for a time to try to establish things
Speaker 6: on the legal front. And lev and you know, you
Speaker 6: mentioned Corey the Independent Council that had a whole kind
Speaker 6: of legal odyssey where the Ris eventually did not approve it.
Speaker 5: As a separate point, but.
Speaker 6: It's the paradigm for a series of possible moves that
Speaker 6: essentially would legislate these norms into I make them congressional enactments.
Speaker 6: And I'll just say generally this Supreme Court and its
Speaker 6: overall kind of enthusiasm for executive power, each and every
Speaker 6: one of those would have some kind of potential child.
Speaker 6: Oh you can't do that. You can't tell the DOJ
Speaker 6: what to do. Oh if you can't tell the president
Speaker 6: what he can say with the DOJ, in fact, it's immune.
Speaker 6: So that's part of the challenge. But people are really
Speaker 6: really aware of the challenge. I'll just say that of
Speaker 6: the two pieces, you know, when I think of the
Speaker 6: really vibrant and look, DOJ not perfect. On the other hand,
Speaker 6: more than people really recognize it was an idealistic place
Speaker 6: where people gave up a lot of money believe to
Speaker 6: go in and feel they were doing the right thing.
Speaker 6: And of the two elements the law and the requirements
Speaker 6: which people knew and the norms and culture, it's this
Speaker 6: one that is the stronger one. And it's a very
Speaker 6: hard general problem. How do you reconstruct culture? How do
Speaker 6: you have generations? And I think everyone seems to agree
Speaker 6: you can't just pretend it's twenty fifteen. It is more
Speaker 6: complicated than that. There will be holdover folks, but you know,
Speaker 6: they'll certainly be will and good faith to do exactly that.
Speaker 6: And at least the main borderlines that we talked about,
Speaker 6: like are you kidding me going reprizal prosecutions or are
Speaker 6: you kidding me? Just the converse of just letting political
Speaker 6: friends go, et cetera. Those will be understood. But when
Speaker 6: and how exactly it will be a flourishing place dedicated
Speaker 6: to service of the interests of the American peace people.
Speaker 6: That's like Hercules cleaning out the stables of the right.
Speaker 6: That's going to be really friggin' you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, God bless our tattern freight and warned guardrails held
Speaker 1: together tenaciously by duct tape. God bless these judges. I
Speaker 1: have to ask you, sir, as long as we have
Speaker 1: you here, what concerns you the most about Todd Blanche's
Speaker 1: tenure so far.
Speaker 4: If you had to pin it down to one thing.
Speaker 6: I would say the sort of crystalline moment for me
Speaker 6: with Todd Blance, even though it wasn't the most damaging,
Speaker 6: was when he goes down and talks with Elaine Maxwell,
Speaker 6: and that it is absolutely breathtaking lee without any possible
Speaker 6: public purpose, any possible taking care to do the people's
Speaker 6: business plainly and solely.
Speaker 1: Giving a rapist a cushy club fed prison doesn't help us, sir?
Speaker 4: Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 6: Even the Deputy Attorney General himself going down with no
Speaker 6: you know, to try to elicit this information that announced
Speaker 6: I am Donald Trump's lawyer, and if it comes to
Speaker 6: a choice between Donald Trump and the people, see a people,
Speaker 6: I am Donald Trump's lawyer. So in a word, I
Speaker 6: mean I should say that Todd Blantz has a special
Speaker 6: place of contempt in the sort of scorecard lineup of
Speaker 6: the people former d O jayers like me, because he knows.
Speaker 5: What the hell he's doing. He was accolutely clear.
Speaker 6: But if I have to capture in a heartbeat the
Speaker 6: worst thing about him, it's absolutely that just I love you,
Speaker 6: mister president, I'm your lawyer, and this whole department.
Speaker 5: Is here to serve you.
Speaker 6: That you know, that's not just a like a violation
Speaker 6: of norms. That's like, you know why we fought the revolution.
Speaker 6: I mean, that is so fundamentally corrupt of the basic
Speaker 6: job to do take care that the people's interests in
Speaker 6: the last be faithfully executed.
Speaker 2: So that would be in that word, yeah, it really
Speaker 2: is the opposite of the idea that the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice is there to defend the law, to defend the people.
Speaker 2: And he I mean, he hasn't said these words exactly,
Speaker 2: but his actions have more than showed it that, as
Speaker 2: you say, he takes his role as the president's personal
Speaker 2: lawyer and his role as Attorney General to be exactly
Speaker 2: the same.
Speaker 5: And you know he is more or less said it, Corey.
Speaker 6: He actually defended the president's baraga to bring these reprisal prosecutions.
Speaker 6: Bondy just did it or talked about how guilty Kobe was,
Speaker 6: but he's basically said, yeah, that's Article two. That's his
Speaker 6: read of article.
Speaker 1: Somewhere on a tarmac, Loretta Lynch is scratching her head.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you mentioned the Supreme Court, Harry too,
Speaker 2: and I wonder if you you agree with this. But
Speaker 2: to me, you know, the idea of the unitary executive.
Speaker 2: You know, one alternative to the unitary executive course of
Speaker 2: the founding would be to go the way of New
Speaker 2: York and have an independently elected attorney general. The Framers
Speaker 2: decided not to do that.
Speaker 3: They put the.
Speaker 2: Chief prosecutor of the United States essentially in the cabinet
Speaker 2: and under the control of the president. But the danger
Speaker 2: of the defenders of the constitution said, well, you have
Speaker 2: these norms, you have this Washington would never order the
Speaker 2: prosecution of his political opponents. And I guess now we're
Speaker 2: starting to pull these themes together to see the danger
Speaker 2: of that that what do you do, we're the norms
Speaker 2: when the person in charge of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 2: when the Attorney general is just willing to say, no,
Speaker 2: I am the president's personal lawyer. I really was struck
Speaker 2: by that point, and I just want listeners to absorb
Speaker 2: it that he was essentially willing to say it doesn't
Speaker 2: matter if you're guilty, we are willing to try you anyway.
Speaker 2: We talked before on the episode about the memos, talking
Speaker 2: about Stephen Miller's proposal essentially to get rid of habeas
Speaker 2: corpus through presidential action at least, you know, in the
Speaker 2: case of enem nations, in the case of Venezuela. But
Speaker 2: we're really talking about now too, is the getting rid
Speaker 2: of habeas corpus, getting rid of any fundamental idea, at
Speaker 2: least as concerns the Attorney general when it comes to prosecutions.
Speaker 2: Of course, we still have courts, we still have the
Speaker 2: ability of judges to push back. But the idea that
Speaker 2: the Attorney General would think that you can prosecute political
Speaker 2: opponents even if they're not guilty is about as fundamental
Speaker 2: and undermining of the rule of law as I can
Speaker 2: think of.
Speaker 6: So I totally agree, and that will be true this
Speaker 6: one thing. But tomorrow, twenty years, forty years, et cetera.
Speaker 6: On your point, though, like the Habeas corpus memo, that
Speaker 6: was pretty interesting because the administration has bound only there's
Speaker 6: just a bunch of people in their sort of hot
Speaker 6: house there.
Speaker 5: What can we do to screw them? You know? Anything?
Speaker 5: Any idea comes up.
Speaker 6: But it was interesting that a pretty conservative lawyer there,
Speaker 6: you know, wrote the memo back saying.
Speaker 5: Guys, you can't do that.
Speaker 6: Kill yourselves if you try to get rid of habeas corbas.
Speaker 6: But the notion that it just arose, and it's pretty
Speaker 6: much it's of a piece. It seems to me that
Speaker 6: kind of contemplation with what they've done with the Alien
Speaker 6: Enemies Act, or it's just if I Donald Trump say
Speaker 6: there's an emergency, nobody can question it, and that just
Speaker 6: can't be true, and the habeas is the is the
Speaker 6: best example, because you know there must be an insurrection
Speaker 6: or rebellion.
Speaker 5: That goes to the broader point.
Speaker 6: I think of what you're saying about the unitary executive
Speaker 6: if I could, because look, I understand the sort of
Speaker 6: syllogistic appeal of all executive power resides, but that kind
Speaker 6: of begs the question of once the executive power, there
Speaker 6: are things built into the constitution. Here's a very good example.
Speaker 6: You know, appropriations are with Congress, So how can you
Speaker 6: if you back to the slush fund, it's not just
Speaker 6: up to the executive to take this pot of money
Speaker 6: and say you can do with it. And there are
Speaker 6: many ways in which things are designed for Congress to
Speaker 6: be a counterpoint, and the Court has again and again
Speaker 6: kind of seen a without precedent, kind of robust role
Speaker 6: for the executive. But it just won't do to say
Speaker 6: unitary executive because the notion is okay, But what are
Speaker 6: the checks and balances that the judicial power supplies or
Speaker 6: that the legislative power supplies.
Speaker 5: And what's really been the.
Speaker 6: Engine of this administration is to just steamroll legislative power
Speaker 6: and have cowed the Republicans in Congress from doing anything.
Speaker 6: When the history of this all is written, you know,
Speaker 6: I think there'll be so much lame to focus on.
Speaker 6: Totally indolent and seeing Republican Congress.
Speaker 2: We've talked about Todd blanche and how dangerous he is
Speaker 2: in the midst of this administration which is hell bent
Speaker 2: on destroying the rule of law.
Speaker 3: I would say, as a whole you.
Speaker 2: See any way of pushing back against him a role
Speaker 2: for Congress.
Speaker 6: So I do, And in particular, you know, the sort
Speaker 6: of conventional wisdom in Washington I did my time there
Speaker 6: with nominees and controversial nominees is if somebody is in
Speaker 6: an acting position, you don't nominate them because they have
Speaker 6: to answer for so much. Todd Blanche we know from
Speaker 6: Pam Bondi basically was running the show, has his fingerprints
Speaker 6: on everything from the first week in March when he
Speaker 6: shows up, the whole thing with Sea Coat, prison and
Speaker 6: Al Salvadar all the way through.
Speaker 5: So that is going to be a bruising.
Speaker 6: I think you have an unusual opportunity because typically, through
Speaker 6: procedural maneuvers, both houses are able to keep really sort
Speaker 6: of strong rip Hofs from being raised. But not in
Speaker 6: a confirmation and he starts. I think, right, it looks
Speaker 6: as if, you know, it's getting probably two in the weeds,
Speaker 6: but it looks as if his best hope for a
Speaker 6: Democratic vote is gone. And there are four now Republicans
Speaker 6: who you know Trump three of them is you know,
Speaker 6: decapitated personally. So yes, I think the things that he's
Speaker 6: done are a frustration for.
Speaker 5: Me as a commentator. I don't know if you feel this.
Speaker 6: There's certain things that he's done that are so outrageous,
Speaker 6: but their basic strategies just smush them under the carpet.
Speaker 6: Not Now, there's going to be so much with Epstein,
Speaker 6: so much with this slush fund, so much with the
Speaker 6: amnesty part, of the slush fund, and so much going
Speaker 6: all the way back even to March, that he's going
Speaker 6: to be on the hot seat as the midterms approach,
Speaker 6: and individual Republicans, if they actually succumbed to White House
Speaker 6: pressure and vote for him, could get it on the
Speaker 6: other side from their constituents. And then in general I
Speaker 6: perceive a dynamic where little by little there are Republicans
Speaker 6: who are pushing back, and Trump's numbers are historically low.
Speaker 6: So yeah, it's not as terrible as it was. And
Speaker 6: in particular the nomination and conform hearing some lance, I
Speaker 6: think raises a real opportunity not just to go after him,
Speaker 6: but to highlight, as you say, the general lawlessness and
Speaker 6: degradation of the department.
Speaker 1: I just think of the ghost of Hary admirers watching
Speaker 1: all of this. You know, it's just insane, the corruption.
Speaker 1: I mean, Professor Rhino, we got to run. But do
Speaker 1: you agree with mister Liman. Do you think that you're
Speaker 1: going to have enough Republicans to go ahead and approve
Speaker 1: this henchman goon. It does seem that they are already
Speaker 1: looking at the numbers and they realize that, you know,
Speaker 1: supporting Todd blanch ain't going to help them with the midterms.
Speaker 2: I think it's a historic opportunity because they're vulnerable, they
Speaker 2: know it, and I think to kind of put a
Speaker 2: cap on this whole conversation, we can point to the
Speaker 2: prosecution of political.
Speaker 3: Opponents, the supposed.
Speaker 2: Anti weaponization fund, but they all have a common element,
Speaker 2: which is that this guy thinks he's the personal lawyer
Speaker 2: of the president, Tomma Deer the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: So if they could show that and.
Speaker 5: This president says the state.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just think it's a historic opportunity, and yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm excited for it's I want to see it called
Speaker 2: out in real time, and I think that might be
Speaker 2: a moment I was saying too, Harry. You know, in
Speaker 2: the confirmation of Elliott Richardson, you know, Congress was able
Speaker 2: to extract all sorts of promises to really use it
Speaker 2: as a way of focusing on Nixon's abuses.
Speaker 3: And I don't know if he's going to get through.
Speaker 2: I hope he doesn't, but if he does, at minimum,
Speaker 2: I would hope that's what the Congressional Republicans who are
Speaker 2: going to vote for him do do. What was done
Speaker 2: during Elliot Richardson's confirmation, which is get some promises to
Speaker 2: behave according to the rule of law, and then you can,
Speaker 2: of course very well might violate them.
Speaker 3: At least that's on the record.
Speaker 6: I mean, I know we're out of time on a
Speaker 6: one end, on a downer, because this is a sort
Speaker 6: of buoyant moment, it feels to me. But Cash Mattel
Speaker 6: made some promises, will never do you know? So that
Speaker 6: hasn't been the most honest of administrations.
Speaker 3: Well, I'd rather be honest than just hopeful. So well,
Speaker 3: hopefully keep getting some of both.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much Harry Littman for joining us. John, any
Speaker 2: final words of it.
Speaker 1: I just like to ask mister Lemon how our listeners
Speaker 1: can follow you and keep track of your brilliance on
Speaker 1: the regular.
Speaker 6: Oh, that's really kind of you. It's all talking fans,
Speaker 6: talking fans, talking fans. We have a substack and a
Speaker 6: YouTube at a rag table. Put in fans you'll find me,
Speaker 6: and I should say, especially on what the fun we
Speaker 6: were talking about. I've been doing a lot of writing
Speaker 6: in the substack and that's the best place to fallow.
Speaker 3: That's great, so we'll link to it.
Speaker 2: We'll link our substack to yours, and thanks so much,
Speaker 2: Harry Littman for this amazing discussion. It was brutally honest
Speaker 2: about how far things have fallen the Department of Justice,
Speaker 2: but at the same time, which we're always trying to do,
Speaker 2: hopeful about what the future might look like. So thanks
Speaker 2: so much for joining us on the oath in the Office.
Speaker 5: Thanks man, Let's do it again.
Speaker 1: Peace Well, Professor. I got to say this has been
Speaker 1: a great one. I think when historians look back on
Speaker 1: this period, it's either going to be a central story
Speaker 1: about this lawless administration trying to push boundaries, or it's
Speaker 1: going to be a story about how these American institutions
Speaker 1: proved strong enough to with stand us. We don't know
Speaker 1: how it's going to end yet, but man, it's pretty
Speaker 1: amazing washing and play out.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: The stakes couldn't be higher, John, And that's why I'm
Speaker 2: glad to be doing this podcast with you, to have
Speaker 2: amazing guests like Harry Littman, because it really is a crossroads,
Speaker 2: and you know, there is a version of this that
Speaker 2: goes wrong, that the people don't fight back, that we
Speaker 2: don't have the journalism and the lawyers and the protests
Speaker 2: that really stop this thing in which we crumble and
Speaker 2: which democracy ends.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 2: I am an optimist, not a recovering cynic, a continual optimist,
Speaker 2: and I believe we're going to prevail. But you know,
Speaker 2: I don't want to be naive about it. It's going
Speaker 2: to only happen if we push back against the vision
Speaker 2: of people like Todd Blanche, if we push back against
Speaker 2: those who are trying to cover up for Trump's association
Speaker 2: and complicity with this disgusting sex criminal trafficker, a person
Speaker 2: who just cravingly attacks. We could keep going, and that's
Speaker 2: how bad things are. But you know, I am, as
Speaker 2: you know, a deeply hopeful person. And when you think
Speaker 2: about the past, you think of those norms of the
Speaker 2: nineteen seventies. You heard mention of a brilliant attorney general,
Speaker 2: a former president of the University of Chicago, Attorney General Levy.
Speaker 2: You know, we really did come back after a disastrous
Speaker 2: criminal presidency in Richard Nixon. And that's why talking to
Speaker 2: Harry Littman talking about these issues gives me faith that
Speaker 2: we can do it again.
Speaker 1: We came back from a criminal presidency with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and then the American people decided they wanted another criminal president.
Speaker 1: So you know I'm well beat cops for a lie.
Speaker 1: Huhase sign me up for more, Professor. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for everything on this show. We crammed a lot
Speaker 1: of information in here. I want to thank Wendy and
Speaker 1: Beowolf and everyone who puts the show together. Corey, what
Speaker 1: is the best way for our evil army of the
Speaker 1: night to follow you and keep up with your brilliance?
Speaker 2: You can find me on Blue Sky at Democracy prof
Speaker 2: There on Twitter at Bret Schneider. See we have the
Speaker 2: Oath in the office Substack, so look for our links
Speaker 2: there to Harry's subsac as well. You can find us
Speaker 2: on YouTube as well. Is listen to us wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts. The amazing reviews keep coming in, John,
Speaker 2: people love this dynamic. We were number three last week,
Speaker 2: which I think is.
Speaker 3: Our record on Apple Government.
Speaker 2: And you know, keep telling people, spread the word, tell
Speaker 2: a friend, That's how we grow and get the message out.
Speaker 1: And I just want to let everyone know I'm on
Speaker 1: series six, five nights a week on Substack as well.
Speaker 1: My book is Separation of Church and Hate and I
Speaker 1: have a new piece Scory. You inspired me. I have
Speaker 1: my first ever article.
Speaker 4: In the Nation magazine.
Speaker 1: They asked me to write a piece for their Big
Speaker 1: America two hundred and fiftieth anniversary edition, and my piece
Speaker 1: is called Separation of Church and State America's best idea,
Speaker 1: and it's all about how these Christian nationalists keep on
Speaker 1: forgetting what our country's founders kept on writing down more
Speaker 1: than once. So please check that out, and Corey, I
Speaker 1: can't wait till our next episode next week on the
Speaker 1: Oath in the Office.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, John, We'll see you next time. Peace,