Carte Blanche and an Inside Strait

Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials

and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal

topics of the day.

I'm Harry Lintman.

After standing down from his apocalyptic threats, Trump announced a fragile and bumpy ceasefire

with Iran.

For the moment, the bombs have stopped falling on Iran, but whether negotiations can bring

a lasting end to the fighting, and whether the U.S. will actually emerge safer and stronger

from the conflict, are far from clear.

Meanwhile, Trump's crusade against enemies at home got a fresh face, with Todd Blant taking

the reins at the Department of Justice.

Blant immediately signaled his guiding star, total obedience to Trump.

As if to emphasize the point, the Department debuted a new retribution case, this time

against January 6th, Witness Cassidy Hutchinson.

But Bondy hasn't fully left her 10-year behind, Democrats insist that she's still on the

hook for testimony on her handling of the Epstein scandal.

Beyond Washington, another pair of special elections saw huge swings toward the Democrats.

There's a growing sense that they hold a dominant hand for the coming elections.

As one White House source told a National Magazine, this war in Iran almost cements the

fact that we lose the midterms in November, the Senate and House.

To break down an explosive week, that included a series of reversals and new turns for Trump.

I'm pleased to welcome a great trio of expert observers of U.S. law and politics.

And they are.

Christy Greenberg, the former deputy chief of the Criminal Division in the vaunted Southern

District of New York.

Christy's a prolific legal analyst now, and she hosts Courtside with Christy Greenberg

on YouTube.

Thanks for coming, Christy.

Thanks for having me.

Jason Kander, the president of National Expansion at Veterans Community Project.

After serving in the Army in Afghanistan, Jason was elected to the Missouri State Legislature.

Later became Missouri Secretary of State.

He hosts the terrific podcast, Majority 54.

Jason Kander, thank you as always for your service.

And thanks for returning to Talking Fits.

Great to be back.

Thanks.

Jasmine Wright, the White House correspondent for Notice, before joining Notice, Jasmine

was a White House reporter with CNN, where she covered the Biden administration and the

2020 and 2018 elections.

I think it's her second time to Talking Fits.

Thanks for returning, Jasmine.

Thanks so much for having me.

All right.

So another week of heavy bombing, diplomatic brinkmanship in the war with Iran, the overriding

question it seems from the start has been, why exactly are we there?

What result will bring it to a close?

And there was some new reporting on these questions from a lot of outlets, including the New

York Times.

Anyone, what did we learn this week about why Trump seems to have taken the country to war?

I think that we have both learned a lot about how the president decided to go to war.

Obviously, I'm referencing that Maggie Haverman, Jonathan Swan, that is, you know, preempting

their new book, explaining how the president through several meetings, including a briefing

they report with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, decided that now was the time to

go to war and to try to take out Iranian leadership.

And also some of those conversations that happened beforehand, but I'm not sure that we learned

so much about why the president decided to do it outside of that this really made a case

and he seemed to agree to it, according to that reporting.

Something that we reported this week at Notice about, again, how some of those decisions

were made.

We reported that about a half dozen U.S. merchant marine academy cadets.

So those are folks who are on U.S. flagged vessels.

Some of them ultimately carrying some DOD equipment were basically trapped in the Persian

Gulf for about a month since those strikes began because there was no notice from the

DOD to the Department of Transportation to other private companies who run these flagged

vessels that are obviously very close to the military.

Just another way we've seen that these decisions to go to war happened in such a small, enclosed

group of advisors and that they didn't really get the normal type of conversations about

what are the implications of if we go to the war, what could happen if we go to the war,

who is at risk if we go to the war, that typically we've seen in addition to, of course,

there was no real consensus by the administration to build public sentiment around going to

the war.

So I wouldn't say that we know a lot about why still, but we certainly know a lot about

how those decisions were made.

Yeah, I have a theory that's right in the back of that, which is, you know, you ever

get those like phishing text messages?

This is going to be great.

I haven't heard it yet.

But Jason says, you know, it's going to be great.

Let's see.

Well, you ever get those phishing text messages that somebody is saying like, hey, do I have

the right number?

Or are they like, hey, are you going to the barbecue?

And you know, you know what that is, so you just ignore it or maybe sometimes you waste

the time, mess with them.

But then you're thinking, who does this work on?

Well, Netanyahu has been selling this for years.

He's been text messaging every president and saying, they're going to get a nuke like

right away.

We got to do something.

And every president for years has been like, come on, man, I know what you're doing.

And this president was like, wait, where's the barbecue?

And that's, that's what I think happened.

Because he just, frankly, just completely got suckered.

And the reason I say that is because while I don't think in the long run that this, like

most of the decisions that Netanyahu has made is actually in the long term interest

of Israel, I can very easily see what the argument is for why this war is in the interest

of Israel.

And I cannot in any way see what the argument is as to how it is in the interest of the

United States.

And so I think basically, you know, Netanyahu went fishing and he caught a Trump sized fish.

To Jasmine's point, he said risks of inaction are bigger than risks of action and Trump went

for that.

Though the reporting seems to suggest to Jasmine's point about, we don't really know that

just at a certain point, Trump had a notion and his close advisors all tend to put a lot

of faith in that.

Netanyahu, apparently, among other things sold the kind of old idea we've seen the movie

before that the US is going to be welcomed as liberators when they get to Iran.

Rubio said that's bullshit.

Ratcliffe said that part is farcical and yet Trump went ahead.

Your thoughts about, you know, what we know and where we stand now about what the hell

we're doing there?

Yeah.

It strikes me that if you don't state clearly what the mission is, it makes it that

much easier to come out later and say mission accomplished.

And that seems to be what they're doing here.

They're changing their tune every, every moment.

And I think that, you know, in particular, the language that we've heard from our war

secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been not only alarming, but also I think he's kind of given

up the game.

He had, I think, one post on social media where he talks about like, we're not there

for nation building.

We're not there to build a democracy.

And I think he's right.

I think they all knew going into this that regime change was unlikely.

Yes, you could, you could kill their leader, but you weren't going to be able to necessarily

put in anybody who is going to be more moderate or more willing to compromise.

In fact, the people that are there now are worse arguably.

So, you know, I don't think that was ever necessarily the goal there.

And this idea that there would be a popular uprising in support, I mean, Trump was told

beforehand that that was not going to happen.

And, you know, I think he wanted to display some military might.

And he seems very, you know, big on the fact that in Venezuela, there were no US casualties.

And look, that was a success.

So let's just keep going.

Let's just keep rolling with it.

And that'll be a good story.

Not really realizing that that's deeply unpopular, not what the American people voted

for when they voted for him.

And again, I just kind of go back to if you're trying, if you're so troubled by this theocracy

in Iran, the comments from our war secretary should be deeply troubling to you because we

are not at theocracy.

And yet he's talking about praying for overwhelming violence.

He dismantled a program that would protect civilians.

And you're seeing, you know, children in Iran, a school of girls being murdered.

And yet the way that petexeth is invoking Christianity as the basis for the war and

to support his bloodlust, I think should be troubling to anybody who supports a secular

democracy.

Jason, what do you, I want to serve it up to you also in your guys as a former service

member because in the overall scheme of wars, the casualties haven't been that great

but we're talking about 15 service members killed, hundreds wounded, Jasmine made the

point about the cadets caught completely by surprise.

And it seems to me this point that Christie's now making, well, all of you really about

the failure to articulate a reason for being there has to really make former service members,

current service members, it sticks more in their crock as it's one thing to give the

ultimate sacrifice for a virtuous reason that the people have bought into.

But when we don't know what the hell we're doing there, what do you say to the parents

of those 15 and the hundreds, right?

I mean, I, I'm so glad that I'm not the person who has to try to justify this to them.

And the thing about headset and Trump as a duo is to me, there are two very recognizable

archetypes, right?

I mean, you got, you got Trump who he likes to pick people as we see from the second

iteration of the Trump administration, who won't challenge him.

We'll do whatever he wants to do, but who also come across as very strong, but aren't.

And so this is what I mean.

Like Pete Hegg says, when I listen to him at his press conferences and he's asked broad

strategic level military questions, he responds with words that to a civilian press corps sound

like, well, sometimes, yeah, it's chest beating, but sometimes it's these buzz words that

are sort of like, if you run a business and you don't know anything about IT and your

IT person doesn't really like your question.

They just say a bunch of IT things and you, okay, well, you don't know what else to say

back.

So when I hear him talking about violence of action, we're going to secure this, we're

going to do this, you know, I got out as a captain.

I think Hegg Seth may have been a major for five minutes before he got out.

Those are the things that we learned as company great officers.

We learned those terminologies and they are super valuable and useful if you are leading

a platoon or you are leading a company.

But if you are in charge of the defense department, that's why people who are in charge of the

defense department usually have graduate degrees in national security studies.

It's why they usually have decades of experience moving division level and, you know, core level

assets around the world, managing multiple services, but he doesn't have that.

And so he's trying to like, to borrow a military expression, publish a third, sorry, by putting

all these fancy sound and words on it, but they're not fancy enough.

And so when somebody like me to your question, who is a company great officer, here's it.

I hear somebody who sounds like they just finished, maybe the captain's career course.

And now they're in charge of the entire military.

So that's who Hegg Seth is.

He's the guy who learned a few words and he's trying to throw him around his smoke screen

for a civilian press corps.

And Trump is your civilian, buddy, who when you go out to the bar with all your military

friends, Mal's off says all sorts of stuff says whatever he wants to say.

Knowing that you and your friends are going to be the ones who have to fight.

And after a while, you're like, hey, can somebody not invite that dude?

And so that's the dynamic that we're dealing with to your point about wanting to show military

might.

Yeah, because nobody named Trump has ever gone to be on the business end of military

might.

And so that's how I think we get here.

Jasmine, let me go back to you and fast forward to the present when we're supposedly in

some kind of two week ceasefire, but it's extremely tenuous and there's a controversy

involving Lebanon, which new reporting shows Trump intended agreed the deal would cover.

But while we are supposedly abstaining from bombing Iran, Israel continues to really

pummel Hezbollah, but in Lebanon, is the US already operating in bad faith on the world

stage here?

Do you think?

That's what the Iranians are claiming.

I mean, one of the things that they've kind of repeated over a state media over the last

24 hours is that there were a lot of reasons why the Iranians don't trust the US and negotiators,

not just because the last two times that they entered into negotiations, the US then began

bombing them immediately after.

I think that they have reason to be cautious and that that's what they continue to say.

But Lebanon is going to be an issue.

It's unclear to me whether the Iranians, you know, they have to save face and show that

they will support Hezbollah because they have this whole regional force and if they're

not going to support them, then why would others and other parts of the Middle East support

Iran, of course.

But it's not clear to me how far they're willing to go.

I mean, so much of this, so much of this conversation is happening in public, but then it doesn't

seem like what's happening in public is what the Trump administration is hearing.

You know, just a few hours ago on Friday, one of the top Iranian officials said that they

also need to talk about removing the sanctions before the negotiations even start, despite

the fact that JD Vance is in the air right now going to the negotiations.

So the Iranians are really meddling the US, seeing which leverage points that they can

continue to push before stoking the ire of President Trump, and I think you're seeing

him get more irritated.

But the fact is, I was talking to one White House official weeks ago, who said that it

is President Trump above perhaps anybody else in the White House and DOD, the larger administration

that is willing to bear the political consequences, no matter what they might be, for this military

operation because he wants to see a successful one, he believes that as long as they can define

the military operation as successful, the American people will eventually view the conflict

and what America has done as a success.

And so now, I don't think that that is true anymore.

I think the President is one of the largest voices saying it's time to get out, and he's

reading the TVs because we know that Donald Trump reads every poll on Earth, even if he

says that he hasn't seen that, and he is seeing the American people and saying that he's

seeing the American people lose patience with this.

And so I think you're seeing Iran recognize that the U.S. wants to get out and see how far

they can push the limits here, but certainly there's been a concern from their side about

whether or not they can't even trust the U.S. because it passes President, you know,

we may, JD Vance may leave, Islamabad on Sunday, and then we start bombing on Monday.

And not just that, but we have a truly unhinged mad man.

You know, ahead of the ceasefire, that Dr. Strangelove rhetoric, bomb them to the stone age

and the like, talk about unraveling whatever trust we have.

What did you think about that really crazed over the top rhetoric and even legal consequences

aside because he was saying here we come with the war crimes.

What are the practical effects of a president who, it's not, he wouldn't even call trash talk,

right?

Talk elliptic ravings.

What the hell and what does it mean for the U.S. on the world stage?

I mean, the practical effect is just what you're saying is right or wrong for decades,

the United States has been the country that sort of set the standard.

Now you can argue that we shouldn't be because we're also right or wrong, the only country

that has ever actually dropped atomic bombs, right?

But it has been in modern history, like certainly in our lifetimes, it has been that when

it comes to the conduct of war, the conduct of diplomacy, all these kinds of things,

we have set the standard.

And often that is just frankly because we're the biggest player, right?

So we've had that responsibility.

And you know, it ain't like there aren't other countries with the ability to wipe out

our civilization.

So it puts everybody in danger, right?

It lowers the standard for that kind of talk and when you lower, like look at what's

happened in our politics the last several years.

When you lower the standard for discourse, the standard for discourse gets lower.

And when you lower the standard for say wiping out a people, the likelihood of some group

of people getting wiped out at some point becomes higher.

The other thing that struck me is one that he's doing this in a post over social media.

This isn't like an address, a well thought out, you know, plan or strategy.

It's just an impulsive post that he made about wiping out a civilization.

And then, you know, to me, it shows such weakness rather than strength when you can't actually

take him at his word.

The people are like, oh, it's just rhetoric.

This is how he negotiates like, no, he's using this strong language and nobody even

believes him.

I mean, you know, at some point, like it's just, you know, he's bluffing, he's double

bluffing, whatever.

Like at some point, there isn't a strategy.

It's just a madman, as you said.

And the fact that he gives this 8 p.m. deadline and like, who's going to negotiate that Kushner

and Whitcock?

I mean, these are two people who, you know, their background is negotiating real estate deals.

They have no real experience in this area.

And they're not going to get a deal done by 8 p.m., everybody knows that.

And so then it signals real weakness when you have to go to Pakistan, have another country,

kind of go in and now sort of broker some compromise to bail us out and have this sort

of ceasefire really that's, you know, fragile at best.

And where Iran seems to really be, you know, I think in a much, much more of a position

of strength than I think anybody would have thought now that they really are controlling

the straight.

And so, you know, I just look at that as just yet another example of Trump just falling

down and none of his advisors really being able to tell him clearly what they think he

should and shouldn't be doing.

And he's just out there, you know, governing via social media post.

And that seems to be a rep's recipe for disaster.

Can we talk about the Pakistan thing for a second?

Because that's, that is wild to me because my entire life, when there have been two countries

at loggerheads and one or both of them seem to be belligerent and unable to speak to one

another and war is continuing, unabated, there's always been one country, maybe a couple

of others sometimes, but one country you always knew was going to step in and be like, hey,

you know what, we're going to broker something here.

And it was us.

And now, for the first time that I can remember in my life, we're one of the belligerent

countries and we need Pakistan to come in and be like, hey, everybody, let's get, you

know, you go to your dugout, you go to your dugout, both teams are warned.

Like we're on the field trying to fight as opposed to being the one that's like, hey,

cooler heads.

And that's really embarrassing, frankly.

Yeah, I mean, it is stunning.

And to the point of is he winning or losing, I think there might have been in the past

a time where he talks tough and then he announces a ceasefire, a couple of hours before

and, oh, Trump got it done.

And I was struck by how contrary to that scenario, all of the reporting was that he,

and I ran to borrow Jason's reference to pop culture.

We did have a little bit of the, you know, money Python, a mere flesh wound.

They've gotten covered, but they are declaring victory, absolutely unabashedly.

In fact, let's close out with this question.

If the status quo holds, will the US have lost this war?

Yes.

I think if the straight up Hormuz isn't open or that Iran maintains any control over

the straight up Hormuz, which was obviously not the status quo before the war, then the

White House will have to answer a lot of questions about what actually was one here.

A lot of explaining to do.

I completely agree with that.

I mean, it seems like with respect to the straight, we are in a worse position now than

we were before we started.

So if you're looking for the win, where is the win?

And what have we gained?

Yes, the leader has been killed.

Yes, they have lost some of their ballistic missiles, but if Iran controls the

straight and really then has a lot of leverage in that region and gas prices are going up

and now Americans are feeling it, I'm not sure how anybody could call that a win.

Yeah.

I mean, we lost, but it's weird because like we shouldn't have been playing.

You know, so it's just so confusing.

It's like one, like I'm very much a believer in the philosophy that nobody wins a war.

So let's put that out there.

But like if you're going to put it in those terms, it's hard to figure out if you want.

If nobody ever told you what the objective was.

So kind of feels like you lost the moment you started because you were in a fight,

but you really didn't understand why.

Yeah, although I think Jasmine made this point that we will have when that day comes,

some retrospective justification by Trump that will fit the facts totally and we'll see.

But certainly the president is going to declare victory no matter what happened.

Right, no matter what, but it's just not the cultural leader this point.

I mean, really it's a phenomenally unpopular war with the American people.

Can I say about that?

Because Jasmine is totally right and the president will declare that it was not only a victory,

that it was probably summer saying the greatest victory.

You know, that's what's going to happen.

But we should remember that, you know, with the Iraq war would not be considered a popular war.

When we started in the Iraq war with ground troops, by the way,

75% of the country supported it.

When we started this war as just an air and naval campaign,

41% of the country supported it.

Now that number is down to like one and four.

So I agree with you 100%.

That's what he's going to say.

And I think over time, because memories are short, that may grow.

But I think that this will have a much faster road to where Iraq has gone now,

because Iraq is a war where you can find people who are on record being for it.

And they will act like it's just a thing that happened.

They don't know how it happened.

It's weird.

And I think we're going to get to there on a run in like two months.

Like you won't be able to find anybody who was for it.

And that's not what standing at the big difference is the Iraq war was totally prepared.

You know, in ways that history is discredited,

but Powell at the UN and all that stuff, and we've had zero there.

They showed us the respect of actually taking the time to lie to us properly about that.

There you go.

Hey, everyone, Harry here, you know, I don't do many ads,

but I made an exception a while back for quince clothing.

And I'm here to tell you I'm still wearing my quince organic cotton crew neck sweater

all the time and it and the quince comfort stretch travel or five pocket pants

are the first things I reach for when I'm packing a suitcase.

They're durable.

They fit great.

They look good and they are inexpensive to boot.

It's been a major addition to my closet.

And now that it's getting warmer,

I'm really looking forward to checking out the quince Pima cotton t-shirts.

Refresh your wardrobe at quince.com slash talking feds for free shipping

and 365 day returns now available in Canada to quince.com slash talking feds.

Talk to you later.

All right, let's move to a domestic war zone.

Of course, I'm talking about the Department of Justice.

So Bondy out and new acting attorney general Todd Blanche.

SDNY alum where Christie worked gave this press conference early in the week

where he just made it clear, screw you, anyone who thinks otherwise.

Whatever the president wants to do, that's fine.

And whoever he wants to go after, that's fine.

Christie, let me start with you,

especially because you have a lot of colleagues who knew a USA Blanche when

what have you made of his sort of debut taking the reins at the department?

I think actually the biggest lie that he said in that press conference was when he,

you know, went through all the different iterations and scenarios of what could happen.

And then at the end said, well, I have no aspirations or goals or something like that.

I like, no, no, no, we all know what the goal here is.

You want to be the attorney general.

And in order to get that job permanently, this is what you have to say.

You have to say that you're on board with retribution.

You, even if you don't use those words, you have to signal to your audience of one

to President Trump that you were on board and you are there to execute his agenda.

And he has issues with various political enemies.

Great. We're going to investigate them.

We will take any referral.

We will communicate no firewalls.

Yeah, he told Donald Trump exactly what he wanted to hear,

but to be fair, so did Pambondi.

And anybody who knows how the Justice Department works,

who knows that the deputy attorney general,

which was Todd Blanche's position before this,

really effectively runs the Department of Justice.

And the AG is, you know, a figurehead is not the right word,

but is kind of more, more above it and at a higher level,

kind of making policy, you know, decisions and looking at different priorities.

But the nuts and bolts and the logistics of how the department is working,

that's the deputy attorney general.

So Todd Blanche has been running this department.

And the part that was there are so many parts that were just unbelievable.

But when he said, he nobody has any idea why Pambondi is not there anymore,

how are you going to do anything different?

What was upsetting before and how are you going to change it?

And I mean, the honest answer is we all know what it was.

Pambondi didn't deliver any wins.

She didn't deliver a scalp.

They just kept losing.

They were losing before judges, losing before grand juries,

losing in front of juries, losing prosecutors, losing agents.

I mean, people are leaving that department because they,

they won't do what this department wants them to do.

And so he knows all of this.

I don't, again, he can talk the talk.

But ultimately, at the end of the day, I mean, Harry, you know,

this like to actually prosecute a case successfully to not only get the

indictment, but then get the conviction to successfully prosecute a case.

You need facts, you need evidence, they can't, you know,

prosecute, be a press conference like that there's got to be something behind it.

And you know, for a long time, I just thought, well, maybe the investigation

and the pain of that for his political enemies would be enough for Trump to kind

of put them through having to deal with the financial resources, the time

resources, having the reputations dragged through the mud.

No, maybe that would be enough, but it clearly isn't.

Trump wants results.

He wants prosecutions.

He wants wins.

And you know, I don't see Todd Blanche being able to deliver those.

But if that press conference showed anything, it is that he is going to try.

Really that and his comments to a conservative political group that he

shouldn't have been in front of in, in any way, where he said,

boastfully, we've gotten rid of every FBI agent who worked on January 6th.

Yeah, it did show his colors and everyone who worked with them.

SDNY was both astonished and repulsed.

You got a wonder though.

He already to your point, it was pretty clear to me was taking the reins on the

Epstein stuff and Bondy was more or less, I think a figurehead might be the

right word, making, you know, social media things and then unfurling her.

An unbelievable nasty contentious testimony when she had to show up.

But you really got a wonder.

There's another hypothesis from Bondy's ineptitude about why they didn't get

convictions. It's just what you said.

And we ought to all be thankful for it that actually the grand jury system in

judges worked as it is supposed to.

What is he supposed to do really to succeed where in trumps and the audience of

one is Christy said, eyes, she failed.

I mean, I think it's interesting because the what he supposed to do now is the

reason why he has survived.

This far in Trump's orbit, I mean, to be clear here, he was not always, you

know, kind of the president's number one guy when it comes to law.

He obviously helped the president, but he is not somebody that people perceive

as being, quote, unquote, MAGA.

He is not one of kind of the original OGs in that space.

But what he is to the president and has continued to be in this role when he

was a deputy now acting is his fixer, right?

Whenever the president has a problem, a lot of times has been Todd Blanche answering

the call when they had a problem with Epstein and how it was being perceived.

A lot of people in the White House of blame, Pam Bondi, it was Todd Blanche,

who started doing all the podcasts and who started kind of apologizing for

the way that it's been run and saying that they'll do better, but not really

doing anything quite differently when they had a problem with the way that

Lindsay Halligan was being perceived.

She was really irritating people in Virginia when she moved over to that role in

part because she had this huge security detail.

We reported at notice it was Todd Blanche that got rid of that security detail,

that tried to make her seem more, you know, collegial with her colleagues so

that they would want to engage in these pretty markedly political investigations

that she was trying to launch against James Comey and other folks.

And so he has been in this role in which he is doing what it takes to keep Trump happy

and people expect him to continue to do that, obviously, at a larger scale.

I will say, though, to the point of, you know, him not being MAGA and him actually

being the one that is running the department, that even though the president,

obviously his audience of one isn't picking up on that.

The president's other supporters and other people in his orbit have a lot of

folks who I talked to when Bondy was first replaced, blame, not Bondy,

but Todd Blanche for the inability of these folks to have convictions at this point.

The lack of actual prosecutions that have been brought against the amount of people

that folks perceive to have targeted Donald Trump or to have targeted Donald Trump's friends

have been brought against them.

And so that blame is already there.

The question is, is whether or not Donald Trump is really earnestly listening to it?

And it seems that since Todd Blanche is getting this real chance to prove his worth in this place

that the president isn't listening to those folks.

But other people in MAGA certainly are not exactly down with Todd Blanche in the same way

that the president is.

That's a great point.

Go ahead, Jason.

Well, let me start this by saying that of the three people you've asked to guess here,

I'm 100% the least informed on the matter of what's going on at the DOJ.

In classic undeserved white man confidence, it won't stop me from having an opinion.

Bring it, bring it.

And so what I will say is, having been around politics enough,

it looks to me like Todd Blanche is a dude who's had Trump's year for a long time,

and Todd Blanche wanted to be Attorney General.

And I bet Todd Blanche was frank underwooden his way through this whole thing.

Wow.

And probably had a couple of people in the presidency,

or if not himself, that eventually made the president go,

maybe it should be this guy instead of her.

And that's based on nothing.

I'm not a reporter.

I have no sources.

It just from the outside, that seems very plausible to me,

because they're all doing the same thing.

There's nobody who's better at executing a terrible strategy or a terrible mission

that they've been given by the president than anybody else,

which means Blanche is probably going to run into the same problem,

because if you're being told to go out and indict and get a conviction of people

who are completely innocent,

you're probably going to run into that problem.

That is a wee problem, isn't it?

Yes, so look, it certainly advances the discussion.

It's an excellent point in that way,

and we're glad you didn't hold back.

I'll say as to Blanche, I think he's going to,

they're going to want him as acting for a long time,

but I think the guy is unconformable and won't get the nomination,

because it would automatically put into play all the crap,

all the scoutons dating back to Emil Beauvet.

I don't think he gets there.

Let me ask, though, there's sort of a two-count indictment against Bondi.

Everyone focused a lot on the,

she didn't deliver the scouts, as Christy said.

There's also Epstein.

What does his appointment and her alster mean for the whole Epstein mess?

Well, I think the most recent thing that we've seen this week is basically the DOJ saying that

because Pam Bondi is no longer attorney general,

it would not be appropriate for her to go and be subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee.

Democrats have basically said we don't agree with that.

We're going to talk to our personal lawyers and she needs to come in.

And so I think that this will,

I don't think that Pam Bondi is done with the Epstein files.

I think that eventually she will have to come in,

particularly if Democrats take over at least the House come November.

She will certainly be subpoenaed and we've seen what happens,

AKA Steve Bannon when you don't answer subpoena.

That being said, I think that the White House and the administration

had hoped that the Epstein Bureau was really behind them.

Obviously, we know the Iran War has taken over a lot of the oxygen.

And then somebody named the First Lady Melania Trump came

yesterday in this impromptu totally surprising.

What the hell?

Anybody that's totally surprising moment and said that she had no,

she was no connection to Epstein and basically said the liars who are publicizing whatever

because no one knows exactly what she was talking about are wrong.

And so, you know, this is obviously.

So what's everyone stop talking about it, which they weren't.

Yeah, everyone stop talking about this story that is not coming out about me.

And so, you know, the people who I've talked to around Trump were just kind of basically astounded

had no really idea about why this was happening.

I was at the White House asking questions earlier in the day like,

what should I know going into the weekend?

What should I be focused on that you guys could roll out or something like that?

And absolutely not a single person told me that Melania was going to say that in her

statement to the press.

So, you know, I think you can question whether or not they actually knew that was happening.

Supposing Trump said, but you know, he says that he doesn't know a lot about what's happening.

Either way, I think that this goes to the fact that in the beginning,

the White House was hesitant about the Epstein files for a myriad of reasons once I've

assumed that they looked at them and saw that there was nothing really in them, they say.

But in part because they felt that no matter how many documents they released,

it would not be enough.

And I think you're seeing this issue come up time and time again,

proving them right that no matter what they're doing,

it's not going to be enough for people because they are people within the

administration that were outside the administration just a year and a half ago

that stoked the flames and claimed this massive conspiracy.

And now people believe what they said, obviously they weren't the first ones,

but they certainly weren't the last ones.

And so people believe what they're saying.

And so it's difficult for folks to imagine that this issue of Epstein isn't going to

become an issue time and time again because people want to know more,

because it is a grassroots effort.

And nothing that the Department of Justice has done so far,

including releasing millions of documents,

but then withholding some others or having heavy redactions on them

has stopped that curiosity for people.

Including Melania's statement.

On the reprisal prosecution point,

this will seem a little inside-based,

so I'm going to you on it, Christy.

But I thought it was a really important and striking announcement.

They're going after Cassidy Hutchinson,

who in the country, I think lionized at the time when she came forward

and gave a credible story that really inculpated Trump.

But the person heading up the investigation,

this goes among other things to who's the possible successor to Forbondi,

Harmeet Dylan, the head of the Civil Rights Division,

is leading that investigation.

Can you explain why that's anomalous?

And what do you personally make of it?

Well, I mean, it clearly makes no sense in the sense of

if you're leading the Civil Rights Division,

uh, this is not a civil rights issue,

a civil rights issue that she could have been leading,

we were investigating the killings of Alex Predian, Rene Nicole Good.

That is squarely a civil rights issue,

and that's not one that, you know, she took up.

But this is just looking at somebody perjured themselves.

That is not something that the Civil Rights Division would ever take up.

That's something you would expect to have the U.S. Attorney,

in DC, Janine Piro, take up.

But again, Janine Piro just keeps striking out,

keeps losing, and so maybe they figure,

oh, it's not because we don't have evidence.

It's because we have the wrong prosecutor.

So now they're going to shift to somebody else

who is a keyboard warrior.

She shows up tough on X.

But again, we're now talking about a court of law.

You know, can she actually convince a grand jury

that Cassidy Hutchinson perjured herself

in her testimony?

That is a tall order.

Again, she would have to show that there was intent there

that she knowingly and willfully lied under oath.

And again, those are hard cases to make.

And I can't imagine in this one that she would be successful.

So it just seems as though it was more a desperation move.

Pambondi apparently initiated this a few weeks before.

The reporting is that she heard rumblings

that she may be on her way out.

And this was kind of a last dig effort.

Okay, let me see if there's somebody else.

Some other case that I can get you to show you

that we're trying.

Obviously it didn't work.

I don't think it will succeed,

but I am sure it is at least causing

Cassidy Hutchinson to have to, again,

have her counsel engaged,

have to deal with all of this.

It's a headache.

She's back in the news again.

Who knows what kind of a safety threat she deals with now,

having a target on her back.

I mean, generally in normal times,

these kinds of investigations don't get announced.

There's supposed to be things

that are happening behind closed doors

that wouldn't be public knowledge.

And so again, I don't know that anybody's going to be successful

in really getting him what he wants.

I mean, look in Florida,

they're investigating grand conspiracy,

which is a prosecutor for over a decade.

Never heard of that one.

It happens not to be a term in federal law, but yeah, right.

Yeah, but they're all just,

it appears like it's a show.

It's political theater.

It's not real.

And again, to the extent that they keep trying to tell Trump

that they can make something happen and they can't,

you can't keep telling somebody you can deliver

and then not deliver and expect to keep your job.

So we'll see how this works out.

All great points.

I just want to add a couple, one legal,

and when I guess you would say political,

and the legal, just so people understand

how weak a case this is,

the supposed charge against Kathy Hutchinson

is she reported that she had heard from someone else

that Trump had lunched for the wheel of the beast

because he wanted so much to go to the Capitol

and they weren't letting him.

She had heard that and another person said that didn't happen.

That is not perjury.

In fact, she certainly struck me as credible

that she had heard it.

That's point one.

And point two, I do think it was telling about Harmie Dylan.

She has been a really nasty bear teeth advocate for Trump

from way back an election denier and the like.

So they are kind of trotting her out in part

to audition for the tough enough, strong enough mean enough

role, including for a potential nomination.

All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you

by our sponsor Total Wine and More.

Each episode you'll be hearing an expert talk about

the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world

of wine, spirited and beverages.

Thank you, Harry.

And today's spirited debate,

we am peel the truth about Pinot Noir's

to see where the great shine best.

Willamette Valley and Oregon or Burgundy France.

Here in the U.S., we classify our new world wines

by the grape, old world wines like those in Europe

are classified by the region.

And France, Burgundy is not only the region

where Pinot Noir wines are from,

but it's also the Pinot's ancestral home.

No pressure, Oregon.

To level set, Pinot Noir is a thin skin grape

which makes it difficult to grow,

especially in warmer climates.

Burgundy happens to have a cooler climate

with ample cloud cover, making it the perfect home for pinos.

The cooler temperature allow the wines to rip them longer,

giving the grapes extra time to develop more complex flavors

like strawberry and dark berries

to black tea and earthy minerality.

Burgundy produces Pinot Noir's that are full of aromas

and nuances.

If we hop across the pond, we have pinos

from Williamette Valley and Oregon

with similar cloud cover, climate and soil composition

as Burgundy.

Oregon produces smooth and fruity wines

that are slightly earthy and most definitely tasty,

giving the region a Burgundy a run for its money.

You can find all of these at Total Wine and More

where we have a huge selection of Pinot Noirs

from Oregon to Burgundy plus wines

from every region in between.

All that's left now is to reach up to our shows

and pluck one out for yourself.

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More

for today's a spirited debate.

Okay, let's leave the troubled world of DOJ behind

and get a little bit more political

because the special elections that keep happening

really seem to be putting spring in the step

of the Democrats.

Most recently, a Democrat lost by 12 points.

However, in a total ruby red district,

Marjorie Taylor Greene's old district

and that 12 point loss represented a 25 point swing

from 2024.

So the old saw goes, all politics is local

and that's what the Republicans are hoping.

Oh, that's just special circumstances.

You can't extrapolate.

Others see signs of an apocalypse coming

for the Republicans in the midterms.

Who's right?

How much can we make of the series?

I just mentioned one of turnarounds and swings

in special elections by Democrat.

As the most fiercely partisan member of this group,

I suppose I will go first and give an answer

that won't surprise you,

which is I think it's gonna be a very good election

for Democrats.

Now, there's a lot of time between now and then.

But at the end of the day,

you just kinda keep it real simple.

Trump came into office saying, no more wars

and we're gonna make stuff less expensive.

And everything's more expensive and we're in a war.

Like the most unpopular in a long time

and it's not the only one we've been in, right?

Since this started.

And it won't likely be the last but continue, sir.

No, right on.

Like even between now and November,

that's a great point, Jasmine.

He already said our next conquest.

Yeah, so we're gonna keep doing this.

And you know what the big problem

the Republicans have right now is that usually

when you have a president in the, you know,

going into the midterm of their second term

and they're very unpopular,

they consider that to be a real problem for them.

And they do what they can to try and put Congress

in a position, particularly if they already have Congress

to stay in power.

And the problem they have right now is that

the president who's very unpopular

and is of the same party as them

doesn't really tend to care about people who are not him.

And so he's not very motivated to do things

to pull up his numbers.

He's very motivated to do things

that make his life like a little bit better.

So if something is annoying him,

like the Epstein files, that kind of thing

or how people feel personally about him,

particularly people whose opinion he cares about now,

which is like his base, you know,

he'll kind of try and do stuff about that.

But he's not very motivated to go out there

and make it easier for Republicans.

So I think they have a big problem.

Yeah, I think that there is some real fear

from Republicans, you know,

one special election going the way of Democrats, okay,

two special elections going the way of Democrats.

Hmm, three special elections

going the way of Democrats, oh shit, right?

Particularly one that is in the president's backyard.

I think that publicly they say that these are one-offs

but how many one-offs create a trend.

And I think fundamentally the question that they're asking

is the message from the top of the party,

which is Donald Trump, one that is unifying our base

and getting people excited to go out and vote

or is it one that is suppressing that?

And I think that you're seeing all of the signs

from the war show that it is suppressing that.

Now, when I talk to any of the Republicans,

they say come back to me in September.

Let's see what it looks like.

And I think that that's kind of fair, right?

You could see a world in which this war is wrapped up

by the beginning of May, right before the president

goes to China.

And so then you have two more months

of really terrible gas prices

and then September, October, you're coming out of it.

Prices are going down a little bit.

People are feeling a little bit more optimistic

about affordability.

Maybe they got a big tax return

as the White House has been preaching.

And then they're in a very different scenario

than they are now, but you have to think back.

There are 31 seats that are up for grabs right now

in which Donald Trump won by 10 points or less.

That is where that money is.

And if you only need two, three, four seats,

I think right now, after Clay Fuller is 219 to 215,

Republicans up, of course,

if you only need four or five seats, right?

That 31 number is looking really, really good

for the House.

The Senate, of course, it's a taller hill to climb.

It's every day goes kind of up and down, up and down.

The odds there are very slim, but for the House,

the odds are not so slim.

And so, you know, I think that the Republicans

are really hoping for a unifying message

from Donald Trump specifically on affordability.

His advisors are hoping that he focuses on affordability.

And he just can't get that message out there

because he's focused on so many other things

and people are picking up on that.

Well, one thing that strikes me is that

I don't understand how any of the Republicans in Congress

really make the case for what they personally

have accomplished.

They are basically saying, re-elect me,

or elect me, if you wanna give Donald Trump a blank check

to just do whatever he wants,

because he'll start a war, he'll do any number of things,

and we don't question him, we go on cable news

and say, war is peace, peace is war,

and affordability, oh, that was the Biden administration,

and either gas letting you into thinking

that what's happening isn't happening,

or just blaming Biden for it.

Like, it's one of two things,

whenever I turn on Fox or any of the other,

that works to try and hear what are the talking points.

But what you never hear is anybody really questioning

too hard what President Trump's agenda is

or what he's doing.

And to me, the vote is simple for people.

Like, do you want more of the same?

Do you want a Congress that is just not gonna show up?

And it's just going to let him do whatever he wants?

Do you think this is a president

who there should be no checks and balances for him?

I mean, that's really the question.

And given how his polling is looking,

how unpopular he is looking,

I would anticipate that most people would say,

this is not a guy who we should give a blank check to.

Now, if they take a step further than that

and they say, okay, well, what are the Democrats offering

as a counter, you know, I think that gets tough.

Like, I don't necessarily see a clear message

other than we're not him.

And hopefully that will emerge more of like,

well, what are the Democrats plans when they get

and how would they do things differently

other than not be a madman and actually have strategy

and listen to advisors and just, again, not be this person.

And, you know, you see some people who it seems

like in the Democratic Party their answer is

to be mean and get in the gutter like Trump.

And you see a lot of back and forth

with a lot of 20, 28 presidential candidates

and they try to give as good as they get.

You know, I don't know.

I'm kind of waiting to see if there will be somebody

who has more of the Barack Obama tone of like,

can we just, you know, have like more of a hopeful message?

Can we get to a place where, you know,

we aren't looking for people who are

for the reality TV stars or TV stars

and people who are, you know, going to have a message

to kind of bring us out of this ugliness.

And it feels to me like you've served up,

go for pitch to DH candor on that.

Let's turn finally to the dams.

Well, you know, it is a bit of a mystery

why the R's keep staying with them,

but I think Jasmine kind of posited.

How do the dams blow it, if you will?

I mean, it is really true that right now

that the field looks very well positioned for them.

And, but as Christy says,

it's not as if we have a cohesive message there.

What are you nervous about?

Certainly the party could screw it up.

What do you hope not happen?

Oh, it's a good question.

I'm not super nervous about the midterms.

You know, there's plenty to be nervous about,

in general, about what happens between now and then.

But I actually think that right now,

we're doing, you know, what's the old saying?

You know, don't get in somebody's way

when they're making a fool out of themselves.

So we're doing a lot of that.

And I suppose what we would do that would mess it up

would be to overthink it and to start, you know,

trying to come up with some message

that's so broadly appealing that it says nothing.

And I think that the most important thing in this moment

is to be authentic.

And the authentic thing is just to keep saying

like what Pete Buttigieg has been saying,

which is, you know, he said he was gonna do this

and he said he was gonna do this.

We said we would do those things.

She didn't believe us, but he said that

and you voted for him because you believed him

and he didn't do it.

And I think that's pretty simple

because what it's not is it's not going so far

as to having a message that's only he's bad

because it's saying like, no, we're actually gonna do

the things that he said he was gonna do.

You know, so I actually feel pretty cautiously optimistic.

Fair enough.

I'll just say very quickly as to Christy's point,

if you look at the dynamic of the emerging,

kind of obvious presidential hopefuls,

it's exactly on this axis of who's gonna talk

the toughest versus who's gonna look like conciliators

and play to a crowd that says,

let's have a new kind of politics

when they have that target rich environment.

And I do think the party is unsettled there.

When I asked Democrat's question, they say two things.

One, that the DNC is broke.

They don't have any money

and Donald Trump has $300 million war chest,

which he is planning to use basically all of it

for the midterms.

And so when you get down to crunch time in October

and you need the cash as a DNC,

the DNC, the D-trip isn't a little bit a better place

but are they gonna be able to bridge that gap?

A lot of people right now have a huge question mark

and they don't know.

And then secondly, the idea that yes,

Donald Trump is unpopular

and maybe that will fuel a turnover in the house

but the question then becomes what are Democrats for?

And when you ask them,

they don't really have a unified message for that.

All right, there you have it.

It's an end for now,

but we just have a minute for our final feature

of five words or fewer.

We take a question and each of us has to answer

and five words or fewer.

A lot of talk when Bondi was ousted,

the she is in Trump's words and sort of her own,

heading to a much needed, this quote

and important new job in the private sector,

what's her new gig going to be?

Five words or fewer?

Argo, we'll reveal in two weeks.

Yeah, okay.

Washtup loser lawyer, exactly what she called Jamie Raskin.

There you go.

Next, astronaut to the moon.

Oh, excellent.

And I'm going, it's a little bit of a hard choice for me

but I'm going with straight of Hormuz security

oversight.

All right, we are out of time.

Thank you so much, Jason,

Christy and Jasmine.

Hope to see you all again soon on Talking Feds.

Till then, talk to you later.

Thank you so much, Jason, Christy and Jasmine.

And thank you very much listeners

for tuning in to Talking Feds.

If you like what you've heard,

please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts

or wherever they get their podcasts

and please take a moment to rate and review the show.

Check us out on Substack at harrylittman.substack.com

where I'll be posting two or three bullets a week,

breaking down the various threats

to constitutional norms and the rule of law.

Paid substack subscribers can now get

Talking Feds episodes completely ad-free.

You can also subscribe to us on YouTube

where we are posting full episodes

and my daily takes on top legal stories.

Talking Feds is joined forces with the contrarian.

I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture

committed to reviving the diversity of opinion

that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape

where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump

for business reasons rather than editorial ones.

Find out more at contrarian.substack.com.

Thanks for tuning in and don't worry,

as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking.

Talking Feds is produced by Luke Creegan and Katie Upshaw,

Associate Producer Becca Havien,

Sound Engineering by Matt McArdle.

Rosie Don Griffin, David Lieberman,

Hansel Mahadrenathan, Emma Maynard, and Halle Nekker

are our contributing writers and production assistants

by Akshaj Turbailu.

Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass.

Talking Feds is a production of Delito LLC.

I'm Harry Lidman.

Talk to you later.