Pod Save America - A Front Row Seat to Trump's Trial

Episode Date: May 3, 2024

Former White House Ethics Czar and author of Trying Trump, Norm Eisen, joins Dan and Jon to discuss his insights from the first three weeks of Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial. Plus, Trump uses a day off from court to hold rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan, attack college protesters and Palestinians, and fear-monger about refugees. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris campaign capitalizes on Trump’s comments about letting states monitor women’s pregnancies as Florida’s abortion ban goes into effect and Arizona repeals its 1864 abortion ban. Also, Marjorie Taylor Greene keeps trying to oust Mike Johnson as House Speaker. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Smart journalism. Fascinating topics. Words that describe CNN's podcast, The Assignment with Adi Cornish. Last year, the Army missed its recruitment goal. It had 65,000 spots to fill and came up 10,000 short of that target. Why is it so hard to recruit? How's the Pentagon responding? And how are the voices of service members on social media shifting the balance? Listen to The Assignment with Adi Cornish wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Marjorie Taylor Greene will force a doomed vote on tossing Mike Johnson from the speakership. President Biden and Vice President Harris seize on Trump's comments about letting states monitor women's pregnancies as the abortion ban in Florida goes into effect and Democrats in Arizona repeal the 1864 ban. And later, legal scholar and former White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen, our old friend, stops by to talk about his front row seat to Donald Trump's Manhattan trial and all the rest of the week's legal news. But first,

Donald Trump used his one day off from sleeping at his criminal trial to hold two campaign rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan just one day after Judge Mershon held him in contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time. Trump responded by calling the judge crooked and corrupt. He also said the trial is bullshit. He did avoid attacking the actual witnesses, though, but he had plenty of other targets. He called Chris Christie a fat pig, said he might not accept the results of the 2024 election, accused pro-Palestinian protesters of being, quote, paid actors, and characterized all of this as, quote, having a little fun on the campaign trail.

Here's what Trump's idea of fun sounds like. Every college president, I say, remove the encampments immediately, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all of the normal students who want a safe place from which to learn. And, you know, you saw it last night. That's one good thing that really happened. You saw it last night because New York was under siege last night. It was a beautiful thing to watch. New York's finest.

Crooked Joe is now reportedly planning, this is wonderful news for you people in Wisconsin, to bring massive numbers of Gazans from the Middle East all live to your American towns, your towns and villages. All live to your American towns, your towns and villages. Your towns and villages will now be accepting people from Gaza and various other places. Yemen, lots of other places. Joe Biden seems to determine to he's just determined to create the conditions for an October 7th style attack right here in America. It's going to happen. Under no circumstances shall we bring thousands of refugees from Hamas-controlled terrorist epicenters like Gaza to America. We just can't do it.

All right. So the next day, in what seemed like another universe, President Biden had this to say about the campus protests. We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent. The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues. But, but neither are we a lawless country. We're a civil society.

An order must prevail. There's the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked. Let's be clear about this as well. There should be no place on any campus, no place in America for anti-Semitism or threats of violence against Jewish students. There is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it's anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans.

It's simply wrong. There's no place for racism in America. So slightly different takes from those two. So Trump hasn't really talked much about the war in Gaza beyond answering reporters' questions. And his basic take has been Israel should be able to do whatever they want, but just they should do a better job hiding all the death and destruction from the rest of the world. He thinks it's a PR problem. He also has a personal beef with Bibi because Bibi Netanyahu recognized that Joe Biden won the election. So that's his thoughts on Israel when he's asked. Now, though, in both Michigan and Wisconsin at these rallies, he is making attacks on the protests, the protesters, and Palestinians a more central part of his message and sort of refugees and immigrants writ large. What do you think he's

up to there? It's not particularly subtle, I'll tell you that. No. For all of the dumb shit Trump says, all the rabbit holes he goes down, the petty fights he picks with people, he has been remarkably disciplined in a larger meta-narrative about his candidacy going all the way back to 2016, right? Back to the very first speech he gave when he came down that escalator, which is that the world is a scary, chaotic place. Danger is coming to America, to your home. And even though you may not agree with everything I say or everything I do, you may find me uncomfortable in some ways, but I am the one person who is strong enough to protect you. And so the more he can bring this image of chaos to America, to this campaign, to put that in people's minds, he believes that will benefit him in this election.

It's not subtle. It's incredibly racist. It's incredibly dangerous to say that this is bringing an October 7th style attack to America, to demagogue refugees and try to make them seem like scary terrorists as he has done with immigrants, as he does on some other issues. But that's what it is. And the protests dominating the conversation here have, I think, allowed him to fuse sort of his world that's dangerous and America's coming apart at the seams into one message is why I think he's now taken the step to actually talk about it more.

Because he has been worried about trying to navigate the two challenging parts of the Republican base, which is one, the very pro-Israel right wing, and then the isolationism part. And the protests sort of allow him to ally that conversation and just sort of weaponize it to his benefit. Yeah. And also, by the way, he's dealing with, you know, border crossings have been down. And so he's not as able to take advantage of that issue and chaos at the border. And so now he's got the protests. And also that's why he's connecting Now he's got the protests. And also that's why he's connecting the in the weirdest way possible, the the border with the protests. He was saying that the protesters are paid actors trying to distract us from the southern invasion of, you know, immigrants from the Middle East and China and Africa. And look, it is a it's's absolutely a political campaign move. He doesn't really care about Gaza

or Israel that much. He does care about people who are angry or afraid or even just unsettled by all the protests. And he wants to tell them he's with them. He'll stop them by any means necessary. He thrives on creating an us versus them narrative and them is always foreign invaders or treasonous radicals or liberals. Right. And so he's got to otherize people, which is what he's been doing with these protests, too. I mean, this is it's his favorite thing. Right. Like this is his absolute wheelhouse. But I don't think it's just a campaign. It's not just a campaign move either. I mean, he has if you know, if you've seen footage of police arresting protesters, you know that some of these officers like don't really need encouragement

from the president to get tougher. But they're going to get a lot more than encouragement from Trump. If he wins, he has talked about ordering police and military to shoot protesters, to shoot suspected shoplifters, not with rubber bullets, with real bullets. He wants mandatory stop and frisk in every city. He wants to withhold federal funding from police officers who refuse. He wants to send in the National Guard and the military to use against protesters and to hunt down immigrants. And we didn't play it. But when Biden walked away, someone, you know, Mike Johnson has been saying President Biden's got to send in the National Guard. The Congress has been, you know, other Republicans in Congress

have been saying that clearly Trump wants to do that. Trump's planning to do that if he wins again. So that's on the agenda. And, you know, if you're upset with what's happening to the protesters right now and some of the scenes are extremely upsetting, it can and will get much, much worse under Donald Trump. And he's telling us that. And you can apply that to every single issue. Right. Right. And it's not to say that it's great now, but it can get worse. It can get worse. He's talked about the Insurrection Act, upset that the military didn't, you know, shoot the protesters in front of the White House back after the George Floyd protests. So, like I said, these guys don't need more encouragement

from someone telling them to knock some heads, you know? So what did you think about Biden's decision to give remarks on the protests? And like, how did you feel about the message? I listened. I did this thing where i just watched them in real time without looking at my phone and my take was what i know i know i know it's just it just happened to be that that's how i did it and you're gonna start with the tweets and then work your way back come on well maybe i should have because and my take was this was a well-delivered well-reasoned response to a very complicated situation where there are incredibly strong feelings on both sides for legitimate reasons, for legitimate passions

about a very serious issue, both what is happening in Gaza, obviously, then the response from the police, disproportionate in many, many cases, and then also to people reacting to examples and rhetoric and anti-Semitic signs and violence that has been part, even if it's isolated incidents, but are happening in and around some of these protests. And so very complicated thing. I thought the president delivered incredibly well. Then I did the thing I often do, which is I opened up Twitter and I saw that no one liked it. Everyone was mad about it. People were mad on both sides. And maybe there is no message that could navigate all of that and keep everyone happy, right? Because there are elements of it. He used the word disorder, which many people disagreed with. And I understand why people have that disagreement, because civil disobedience can be disorderly,

and that it's different than violence and lawbreaking. But on its whole, I thought it was the right message. Now, the decision to do it, I think the president was right to go out and talk. This is one of those, you know, so little breaks through to the public these days. We talk about this all the time. It's just there's political junkies like us live in one world and the rest of the country lives in a completely different one. This one is breaking through because it's happening on college campuses, because the elite media loves nothing more than to cover what happens on college campuses. In particular, if it's an Ivy League school, then they are deeply in on it. There's a lot of local

press around this because even if the situations are not as well-known or even as large as they are maybe at UCLA or Columbia or elsewhere, there are protests on lots of colleges around. And then on social media, these videos are everywhere, right? They're being pushed by both sides. They're being pushed to show the level of dissent that is happening. There's being the responses, the police response went viral. And so everyone's talking about it. So it's right for the president to do it.

But ultimately, as you sit there from the political strategist point of view, like if we are talking about this, like sometimes you have to talk about things that aren't, that aren't in your issue, your chosen issue set. And this is one of those moments, but another day of news about this is something that probably made the Trump campaign very, very happy. Yeah. I mean, look, I think the most effective thing Biden could have said to get, to make the protest go away was that, you know, he brokered a permanent ceasefire in Gaza or that he, you know, told Bibi Netanyahu that he refuses to support Israel anymore if they decide to go invade Rafah, which Netanyahu said he wants to do whether there's a deal or not. And I think until either of those things happen, I don't see the protests going away.

So I have a big disagreement with him there. But I do think as you're sort of parsing the speech, it is a really tough line to walk because I think the line between what counts as peaceful protest and what doesn't is a hard one to draw. Like violence obviously isn't peaceful protest. Threatening violence obviously isn't peaceful protest. Destruction of property is obviously against the law. Occupying buildings, encampmentsments. I think those are legitimate forms of protest and civil disobedience. But if there are rules and laws against that kind of protest, and if you've been warned about breaking those laws, then part of civil disobedience is accepting the penalty for that. I mean, that's what Dr. King said, right? He said that you should accept the penalty and you should do so civilly, not uncivilly, right? That was sort of the foundation of his belief in the civil rights movement. And of course, the civil rights activists were not treated civilly, but certainly they acted civilly. Look, I don't think that means that cops should fucking fire rubber bullets at you or tase you or beat the shit out of you, but that's a whole

separate problem. And so, look, I think that Biden needed to communicate to people that we need to have like the right of peaceful protest in this country is sacrosanct. And like that, that's just very important. And people have like strong feelings about this war. And if they want to go put themselves on the line for those beliefs, then they absolutely should. And they should have the right to do that. And the fact that we have this like militarized response isn't fucking great but also like you can't look at some of the scenes of not just the scenes of vandalism because vandalism is vandalism right but like this is this is unique this is unlike i think in vietnam the vietnam protests unlike the civil rights protests where you have you basically have a a

a marginalized group or people protesting on behalf of a marginalized group that also when we talked about this before there's like you know moments of anti-semitism here which is there's there's another marginalized group is feeling threatened right and i don't think we've seen that here for a while uh based on the. And so that's why you see these like protesters and counter protesters. And I do think that's why it feels so raw and why it feels so tough and probably why Biden stepped in to speak today. And also, you know, he's going, he's speaking at the Holocaust Memorial next Tuesday, I believe, and he'll be talking more about anti-Semitism there. And I'm sure he'll probably have more to say about Gaza as well.

Like, this is very challenging. The president is being cross-pressured in several ways. He's being pressured to speak out about the very visible uptick in anti-Semitism, not just at these protests, the uptick in Islamophobia that we are seeing. He's being pressured to talk about the disproportionate police response. He's being pressured to talk about the isolated incidents of vandalism and violence that are happening on American campuses that are canceling classes and canceling graduations. And so he's trying to take all

of that and put it into one set of remarks. And as you pointed out, the fundamental issue here is a policy one, right? And until you address that, none of the words are going to address it. I think so. This was a tough call. It was not an easy task, but I think the president was right to speak about it. Yeah. And look, and we can talk about, we can debate protests, we can debate all of this stuff, but like the core core issue the reason there are protests in the first place the reason there are crackdowns on the protests the reason trump's out there doing what he's doing at those rallies the reason biden had to speak today is because the war continues and uh no one has been able to end it no one has been able to force bb netanyahu to end it and i

don't think andrew biden has used some of his leverage to get more aid in and i know they're trying to work on a deal right now but he has not used all the leverage that he has to try to end this war. So I think when that happens and hopefully it does happen soon, that's when we'll start to see the protests actually go away. at the michigan rally trump also thanked the conservative supreme court justices for overturning roe v wade and in wisconsin he offered up an early take on how all these abortion bans are playing with people let's listen a couple of states i won't mention but a couple of states I won't mention, but a couple of states really surprised people. But basically, the states decide on abortion and people are absolutely thrilled with the way that's going on. Absolutely thrilled. That's just rave reviews for Dobbs. That's what I keep hearing from all the polls say. the polls say right yeah from uh from the six justices on the supreme court yeah it's thrilled like they are in arizona uh where uh republicans have been running terrified from the 1864 ban

that a court let go into effect so much so that a few of them few the republicans in the arizona legislature uh just joined with democrats in voting to get it off the books governor democratic governor katie hobbs is signing that law today that sound you hear is a uh relieved carrie lake holstering her glock uh but uh but on the same day uh florida's six-week ban went into effect uh which was why kamala harris was there uh this week giving a speech where she mentioned trump 21 times uh in the biden campaign also released a new ad called Prosecute. It's a seven-figure ad buy that's running in all the swing states. And I guess this weekend during the Kentucky Derby, here it is. Tonight, Donald Trump's new comments on abortion, saying that some states might choose

to monitor women's pregnancies to possibly prosecute women who violate abortion bans. pregnancies to possibly prosecute women who violate abortion bans. Two years ago, I became pregnant with a baby I desperately wanted. And I learned that the fetus would have a fatal condition and never survive. Because of the new laws in Texas, I had to flee my own state to receive treatment. Donald Trump took away our freedom. We need leaders that will protect our rights and not take them away. And that's Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So let's start with Arizona. Good that they repealed the extreme 1864 ban, but they still have a 15 week ban on the books. How do you think this changes the politics around abortion in Arizona and for Trump or does it? I don't think it changes the politics for Trump at

all, right? He is now where he was before, which is he is the person walking this planet singularly most responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. He has made a host of comments, some of the ones you just referenced, which suggests just how extreme he would be on abortion. He has said through his leave it to the states policy that he is a de facto supporter of even the most extreme bans like the one in Florida, and that if he were to be elected, he would be a supporter of Arizona passing a similar law again. We also know that Democrats have a little bit of an uphill battle to try to make voters understand just how extreme he is on abortion. That was true in the Arizona

before the Arizona Supreme Court decision. That was true after it. And it's true after the law was repealed. In the state of Arizona, I think there is some sense that that law really focused people's minds on the issue of abortion, that it was going to put that top of mind for lots of voters, that we believe that to be better for Democrats. I don't think this changes it that much because there is very likely to be an abortion referendum on the ballot in Arizona under all scenarios. And so as long as that is the case, I think abortion will be an incredibly important part of the political conversation and that Donald Trump and Kerry Lake will have to answer for that on a near daily basis.

Right. And also, it was a few Republicans that joined with Democrats to get rid of the ban. We have an election coming up and Arizona Republicans are just a few votes away from reinstating the 1864 ban. Right. And so this election matters a lot. And like you said, the referendum is also going to keep it top of mind for people. Love it. And Tim talked a bit about this on Wednesday's pod. But I would venture to guess that Trump saying in his time interview that he'd let states monitor women's pregnancies is a policy that probably doesn't land too well with the vast majority of voters in this country. But, you know, you are the host of Polar Coaster. So what do you think?

Yes. Well, let me look at all the let me let me dial up some poll numbers and see what this says. Let's take a walk down memory lane for a second. Do you remember in 2012, the leading contender to be Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick was not Paul Ryan, it was a man named Bob McDonald, who was the very popular governor of Virginia. He was a very popular governor of Virginia. And Virginia was at the point that was a huge swing state. If Obama could not win Virginia, it made the calculus to getting 270 very challenging. So the thought was Romney would pick McDonald.

He would win Virginia. He would be president of the United States. But in the run-up to Mitt Romney making his decision, Virginia Republicans tried to pass a law. Under McDonald's leadership, tried to pass a law that would require every woman who wanted an abortion to have a, and I'm using their words, not mine, a transvaginal ultrasound before they can get an abortion. Now I do remember this. Yes. And that law was so unpopular that they couldn't pass it. It created a national scandal and it completely sunk Bob McDonald's political career. Now, states monitoring women's pregnancies, government, state governments monitoring women's pregnancy makes that law look popular.

It is, you would have to design in a lab something to be as unpopular and fucking weird as what Trump is suggesting here. I mean, God bless the Biden campaign for going up as quickly as they are. This is exactly. That was very quick. It was great. I was like, wait a minute. This is not a digital ad.

This is a seven figure buy in the swing states. I was wondering if they like had another. I was like, wait a minute. This is not a digital ad. This is a seven-figure buy in the swing states. I was wondering if they had another ad and they just added the newscast about the monitor. It isn't that the old ad. They just spliced it in. I think it's part of the old ad. I'm sure they have a lot of footage in the can. And they just threw in David Mirror at the top there. As one does.

As one does in an ad, yeah. But no, I imagine they they heard what we all did or read what we all did whatever you do with time magazine um i tell you what you don't do you don't see it on the newsstand i saw some x time reporters getting mad at you for uh for pointing that out to you i mean just i mean it's just like have some self-awareness, people. The point of Time Magazine was it's being on the cover was it sat on the newsstand and then people would see you on the cover, even if they weren't buying it. I guess there's still newsstands at airports, right? I guess sometimes you walk around the city, you can see some.

I don't know. I don't know where people are seeing time. They're not. They're not. They're not seeing time. I mean, I wish Time Magazine was a great entity. I wish we still live in the world where it mattered. It does not. The fact that Donald Trump did an 83 minute interview with a relatively irrelevant print magazine to just drop opposition research of the Biden campaign was a weird decision, but I guess

we should be grateful for it. I will say it's also an example of like, everyone, one, you know, a lot of reporters have tried to, how do you interview Donald Trump? Like, how do you really get them? You know? And I do think that asking him just simple questions about policies that are going to elicit an answer like this one did is the way to go. Because like, all he said was like, what do you think about states that might do that? And in Donald Trump's lizard brain, right, it's just states. It's all up to the states. It's all up to the states.

So he cannot bring himself to weigh in in any way on the substance of this debate, this policy debate, because he has no fucking idea what he's talking about. And someone finally just got him to say, I leave it up to the states. And now he thinks that's his get out of jail free card. And, you know, it's then he lands in a situation like this where he's now saying, yeah, sure. States can monitor women's pregnancies. Yeah. Great idea. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. All right. With all the protests and abortion banning going on everywhere, you'd be forgiven for not noticing that Congress is back in session, barely. And that's where we find our friend Marjorie Taylor Greene plunging ahead with her quest to topple Speaker Mike Johnson, despite having nowhere near the votes that she needs.

That's because almost no one in her party supports the effort, including Donald Trump, and because House Democrats have said they'll join most Republicans in voting to kill the resolution and save Johnson. in voting to kill the resolution and save Johnson. On Wednesday, she held a press conference to explain herself and define herself against what she's calling the Uniparty. If this vote fails and the whole conference, the whole Congress supports the Uniparty, let me tell you something, that is not a failure. It's a win for the American people because that's a list of names. You're on notice, rest of Congress. Are we part of the Uniparty? Yeah, I think so rest of Congress. Are we part of the Uniparty?

Yeah, I think so. We are. We're part of the Uniparty. That's cool. You think there's any method to her madness besides getting more followers and juicing her small-dollar donations? No, I think you pretty much covered it. That's it, right? She's just an attention merchant.

Yeah, well, I will say that she is obviously a wackadoodle, but she does have an intuitively sophisticated understanding of modern American politics, which is attention is power. If they're talking about you, you're winning. And this is just in any other world where she didn't do these things, she is a backbencher congresswoman in a safe seat from Georgia. We would never know who she was. We'd never speak about her. No one could raise money for her. And she is staying in the spotlight. And so this is a short and long-term win for her, even if it is absolutely embarrassing. And it's uncomfortable for her colleagues, which obviously she doesn't really care about.

No. No. But I even wonder if all the attack like at some point when all of maga world starts turning on you and and and i don't know how uh i don't know how that well that goes for you i mean but it's like it's just such a loser in a whiner it's like you know what if if you want to let putin take ukraine if you want to shut down the government like go elect more right-wing kooks right like you know go go win yourself a house majority of of other you know fascist crossfit instructors and they can elect you speaker and then you can get like a whole bunch done you know but like the idea that you don't get your own way just because you're a loud asshole like that's how you're going to get your own way that only works for donald trump yeah i mean yeah if only there was an example

of a loud right-wing asshole who could get their way without using traditional means of politics. He's a special guy. He's a special guy, Dan. At the same event, Marge held up a blue hat, not a red hat, a blue hat that didn't say MAGA. It said MUGA, which Marjorie Taylor Greene said stands for Make Ukraine Great Again. And then she spent several awkward moments trying to balance the hat on top of a blown-up photo of Mike Johnson shaking hands with Hakeem Jeffries. So two questions on this. Can Marjorie Taylor Greene successfully define this election as MAGA versus MUGA? And separately, are you seeing any indication that Republicans are paying for their Ukraine vote with the base, since there were a lot of them that actually voted for funding?

I don't feel like Muga really rolls off the tongue. Like, I'm struggling to say it. Like, there's a bad mouthfeel in it. Muga. Muga. I'm not seeing any real evidence that there is a revolt in the base. I think for a couple of reasons. The first and most important one is that Donald Trump is not inciting a revolt in the base. He basically tacitly signed off on this. If he wanted to sink

this bill- Once again, takes a special kind of loud asshole. No. If he were out there hammering, there would be a revolt. So that's the main reason. The other reason is I think ultimately, and this is true on both sides of the Ukraine funding debate, and I don't think this speaks particularly well of the body politic, but I don't think people care that much. It's just it's not one way or the other. We are very detached from this and people are not thinking about all the time. And so there are other reasons for the Congress to get mad at people for doing and not doing things. And this is like a reporter reached out to me. It's like, how should Biden sell this? And I was like, I don't know that he has to. I think it's just he did that.

He got it done. And that's an example of getting something done. And that's worthwhile. But it's not you don't have to be out there selling the Ukraine aid bill. Yeah, the Republican place has, you know, plenty to get mad at gas stoves, pronouns, right? Just they got a whole long list. They don't.

They are just they're on to the next grievance. Yeah. Yeah. I was gonna say you take Ukraine off the list. They got plenty more where that came from. Okay, a couple quick things before we go to break. As you know, we wrote a book. Tommy Leavitt and I have a book coming out called Democracy or Else, How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps.

Dan, we are already 34% toward our pre-order target. And we're really grateful to everyone who's in that 34%. Thank you, guys. What's your target? It's 100%. Good answer. Good answer. Can I tell you, I did a little research in preparation for this.

I did a little research. Sure. You guys are currently number seven on the elections subcategory on Amazon. I didn't even know that I could check this. You're an experienced author. I've written some books. This is someone who's You're an experienced author. I've written some books. This is someone who's written two books. Three.

I've written three books. Yet another thing I'm going to be checking every day. Well, here's the thing. Do you want to know who's number one right now on the elections subcategory? Oh, is it Kristi Noem? It is fucking Kristi Noem. And so. Oh, my God.

We did not. No puppies. No puppies were murdered in the writing of this book. I would just say to the 64% of you who have not helped us reach the pre-order goal, you're letting Kristi Noem win. There is a story about how one of us during a campaign accidentally hit a moose. I'm not going to tell you who it was. That's why you got to get the book. See?

Was that good? That's good. That's good. Okay. You're book. See? Was that good? That's good. That's good. Okay. You're better. You're better argument. It's not what's in the look. We live in a time of negative partisanship.

It's not what's in the book. It's how can you use the book to be Kristi Noem? That's right. The book's about how you can make a difference at every level of politics. It's a fun read. It's a quick read. And I think it has useful advice whether you are uh just a a casual listener of pod save america or you're a political junkie just scrolling through twitter

all day like me either way you're going to find some great advice and insights in this book not only from us but especially from all kinds of experts strategists organizers activists elected officials got a whole whole crew in there. It's great. Dan's in there. Amazing. We got operatives, elected officials, smart people, and Dan. Dan. Yeah.

Yes, we Dan. Head to cricket.com slash books to pre-order your copy now. Also, we want to support our non-binary friends and coworkers with some merch based off a very funny Love Your Leave It segment. It's a t-shirt that reads, they slash them's the rules. It's a highly requested merch item that's finally here. Head to cricket.com slash store to pick up a shirt. When we come back, Norm Eisen.

you've read his op-eds you've heard him opining on cnn as a legal analyst you follow his scintillating twitter threads perhaps you've read his excellent book trying trump and if you're dan and me you've definitely heard him tell you all the things you're not allowed to do as a white house staffer please welcome back to the pod our friend norm eisen norm what's up hey fabs hey dan you're bringing back fond memories of all the advice i gave you about half of what you listened to hey we're still free you know when you were giving all of us ethics training in those early White House days, did you ever think 15 years later, you'd be sitting at the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, who apparently pointed and scowled at you as he left the courtroom? I did not, when we were together in the Obama campaign transition and White House, think that I would be an eyewitness to the first ever criminal prosecution of a former American president.

But when I came on Pod Save America, I think in the first week of its existence to talk about Donald Trump's constitutionally prohibited acceptance of foreign government cash and benefits emoluments. I'll bet if we listen that I said he's on the slippery slope to perdition. I would not be surprised if you had said that. Let's get into the trial. So you've been in the courtroom these past three weeks. What are your biggest takeaways so far? And most importantly, can you confirm that the defendant has, in fact, been farting in the courtroom? I like how you go to the critical constitutional issues, but it's the constitution of his digestion and not our nation's founding charter that you're most interested in. I will work my way from the lofty to the earthy in answering your question, Favs. The biggest takeaway from the trial is, number one, that you have the living embodiment of the American idea as Donald Trump sits below the judge and on a lower level than the jury in that somewhat faded environment of Part 59, Judge Quan Mershon's courtroom. You know, our country was founded on the idea that we don't want a king because no man

person is above the law. Everybody is subject to the law. That's the American idea. And holding Donald Trump accountable for his original election interference, his 2016 effort to deceive voters to grasp power, is an expression of that idea. It's sad that we've had a president for the first time in our history whose conduct has allegedly broken the law to a degree where he's criminally prosecuted. You do have Nixon. I've written in the New York Times. I think Trump's misconduct here is on a par with or perhaps worse than Nixon's Watergate transgressions because he cheated. He allegedly broke the law, campaign finance, election and tax violations to win that election in 2016 and then covering it up.

So you have the American idea in action. You have the gravity of the offenses. And then, you know, you have the physical weight on Donald Trump. I can tell you that it is bearing down on him the trouble that he's in. I sit where I can watch him, mercifully not where I can smell him, but where I can watch him. And, you know, some days you almost feel bad for the guy because the judge chastised him one day for acting out. And, you know, Trump was like Peck's bad boy.

He hung his head. He looked down in his lap. He's bowed over more. He's bent. It's almost like the scoliosis of justice, you know, as he comes in and out of the courtroom. You see him hunched over. So it is taking a profound toll. And he's not happy about it.

And, you know, when he saw me twice last week, he expressed that in, you know, I was the target of his ire. Lucky you. Do you think he recognizes you from CNN or he just smells you out as someone who knows ethics and therefore finds you personally distasteful? My engagements with Trump date back to that famous 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner. There's a picture of me. I was seated at the Washington Post table, as was he. And there's a picture of me laughing my tush off right next to him as he's got that Mussolini glare when President Obama was roasting him. So... Well, we got him. We got him, didn't we?

Yeah. You know, I'm not sure where this cycle of vengeance is like the Godfather movies. Where will it end? So there's that. And then I did advise both transitions in 2016, as I do every cycle, on the same issues that the three of us work together on keeping things ethical. Obviously, he didn't exactly take my advice. I was ejected from that transition summarily with the Chris Christie crowd. So that's the second thing. But I think it's a combination of the first impeachment and his hate watching. He's reportedly a very dedicated hate watcher of CNN. So that's

probably most of it. When you're sitting there in the trial, when you're not smelling Trump or being scouted out by Trump, you're watching the prosecution make their case. How do you think they're doing? Are they doing an effective job? And if you were trying this case, what's the one thing that would worry you about the evidence? I do think the prosecution has done an effective job. And the defense has had very good moments too. If Donald Trump would just let his lawyers do their job instead of forcing them, reportedly, be more aggressive, the defense, I think, would be putting on a very good showing here. The most worrisome part of the case is that, you know, when you look at the witnesses, I think David Pecker and Keith Davidson, who have been the two-star witnesses so far, they're not what you'd call highly savory

individuals. You would not be excited, oh, great, I'm going on a barge tour of European canals, and I've got the room next to David Becker and Keith Davidson. I mean, one guy is a preeminent sleaze merchant, Becker, second perhaps only to Larry Flint, whose name came up because he was bidding for Stormy Daniels. And Davidson is a leading purveyor of celebrity scandals and hush money. So if I'm the prosecution, it's a little bit like, will the jury believe those witnesses? That would be my anxiety. But Dan, the prosecution has built a very clever case in response to that because everything in the case corroborates everything else. So you would have to believe that everybody's lying and all the documents are lying. And we were listening to audio recordings today that those are fabricated and that Michael Cohen on his own paid for the Stormy Daniels story

and was never reimbursed. And there's a pile of documents proving he was reimbursed. So I just, I think the coherence of the case is going to carry the day with the jury. The other thing that I would be most worried about, I wrote about this for CNN. I'm doing a trial diary for them. So I do a couple of entries a day. with the jury. The other thing that I would be most worried about, I wrote about this for CNN, I'm doing a trial diary for them. So I do a couple of entries a day. Donald Trump does not want to persuade 12 jurors. He wants to persuade one juror. He's searching for one angry juror and for a hung jury, which he will proclaim as a great victory. So that would be my anxiety, that there's a Trojan horse on the jury who's going to do what we call jury nullification, ignore the evidence, ignore the law in favor of Trump, or one Trump supporter who just sees this proof differently.

So those are some of the main anxieties, but I think the prosecution is solving for those. Speaking of the jury, you can obviously see their reactions as the trial's unfolding. What has that told you about anything, about how they're thinking about this? It's a very educated jury, unusually so for any, you know, I've been trying to create cases for over 30 years and have been in and out of courtrooms for almost 40. I had a pre-law job when I got out of college. In fact, I had a legal internship when I was in college. So long, long decades in courtrooms. I've never had a jury with a higher educational level in any of my cases than this jury. Almost everybody has a college

or higher degree, and you've got lawyers on there. So it's a smart jury, and it shows very attentive. Unlike the defendant, we haven't talked about his other bodily function, his penchant for napping. Unlike the defendant, they're awake and alert. You know, I'm not sure what the generationally appropriate television references are, but the trial by design is like a combination of dynasty, of a primetime soap opera, and Columbo. I can assure you those are not the correct generational. Yeah, I figured. I figured. At least I have my self-awareness. I have my self-awareness. Self-awareness. And so even when you have these more mundane witnesses who are explaining how the documents came into evidence or how they unlocked Michael Cohen's cell phone pursuant to

a search warrant and got these tapes off of him, the jury is paying attention. Many of them requested notepads, they're writing and keeping track of things. And even in the more routine parts, you know, focus. So that's a good sign for a prosecutor, right? You don't want the jury to tune out. Now, what the jury doesn't know is the reason we have to go through all of these evidentiary rigmaroles is because Trump won't, it looks to me like he won't stipulate to anything. So all of the usual agreements that you have in a trial, he's forcing the prosecution to prove up every piece of paper, every email, every text. And that's unusual and can wear a jury down. But so far, they're hanging in there. That's a very good sign for the prosecution. And obviously, it's a Manhattan jury. So no wonder

Trump is risking gag order violations by criticizing the jury. He's very upset that a bunch of Democrats are likely Democrats are sitting in judgment of him. You mentioned the possibility of a hung jury. That was obviously the outcome of the case where John Edwards was tried for a similar campaign finance violation, hush money. In that case, one big difference was it was more unclear whether John Edwards was paying the hush money to, you know, hide it from his his wife or from the voters. It seems like the prosecution will have an easier time proving that it was from the voters in this case. Are there other sort of similarities in the case or other weaknesses in this line of or in this type of case that sort of worry like what does the prosecution really have to prove here and what did what do you think is that is is different about this than the Edwards case aside from

sort of the motivation for the hush money the lay down of the law in New York State is different. They will have to prove to the jury, this is the critical issue, this is where the case will be won or lost, that Donald Trump intended to conceal, aid, or commit another crime. And in the opening statements, they put three And in the opening statements, they put three possibilities before the jury that Donald Trump was intending to violate federal campaign finance law, New York criminal election influence law, or tax law by misstating his reimbursements to Cohen as income to Cohen. They've really led with that campaign and election theme. And every witness, the big witnesses so far, Pecker and Davidson, has said that this was being done to benefit the Trump campaign. Pecker was particularly important for the prosecution to bridge this chasm, Favs,

because he said, we entered an agreement at Trump Tower, me, Trump, and Michael Cohen in August 2015 that we were going to catch and kill these stories. We were going to make payments to people to benefit the Trump campaign, to help the Trump campaign. Cohen will testify about Trump's intent. But you have Pecker, who is a corroborating witness, and the prosecution is carrying that intent forward. The difference with the Edwards case is the

witnesses were weak. One of the key witnesses, Bunny Mellon, was too old and frail to testify. Another witness had passed away. And the witnesses they put on the stand did not give you this kind of devastating testimony that you got from Pecker. So in trials, my CNN trial diary I'm writing for today, the thing that we lawyers say to each other when a case is going on and you bump into the trial lawyer, how is the case coming in? We all have, as that noted litigator Mike Tyson said, everybody has a plan until they're punched in the face. We all have plans when we go to court. How is the case coming in? This case is coming in strong, and it'll come down to Michael Cohen.

But I think this jury, I've been studying this jury. I think this jury is going to believe Michael Cohen, as Judge N'Goran did in the civil fraud case. He's a character. He's a colorful New Yorker. But this is a jury that understands New Yorkers. And so I think the case is coming in well. And that's the big difference with Edwards. Trump continued. He's under a gag order. He's been held in contempt, fined nine, a whopping nine thousand dollars. I don't know what property is going to have to sell to cover that bill. But he once he once again potentially violated by truthing about and talking about Michael Cohen, apparently the person who all of democracy now depends on based on your analysis here. know uh depends on based on your analysis here um what how is there any way in which judge mershon can actually get trump to adhere to the rules of this gag order short of sending him to prison should he send him to prison should that be on the table he may have to cut his gas those vines, Dan.

For the record, my ethics training for Dan and Favs and about 1,200 others I tried to train everybody personally was liberally leavened with that kind of borscht belt humor. They will testify.

That's why we love you, Norm. It was standing room only to get into those ethics trainings. So, you know, I think that the judge has got him on a leash. Trump has not violated the gag order since these two orders for show cause were served. And I think that is because Trump knows. It doesn't mean he won't do it, but he knows the next time he does it, he's at very serious risk of being stepped back. Not for a long time, the judge saying, look, you're going to spend your evening in a jail cell, Mr. Trump. You're going to have an overnight with the Secret Service in a jail cell. And I think Trump is going to make a calculus. Does he benefit more or harm himself more by being stepped back,

even if it's only for a short time, if there's a 15th alleged violation? There's been 14 alleged so far. As he says, is there going to be a little bit of martyr action? He says he's going to be a modern-day Nelson Mandela. And does he want to save that shot for a powerful impact, like when there's some moment in the case when he really wants to draw attention to it? I also think he's not keen to spend a night in a holding cell. That is not his desire. But, you know, he certainly is not going to hold back out of respect for the jury, respect for the witnesses, respect for the court staff, or respect for the rule of law. He's going to make a calculation. The fact that he hasn't erred again

in the days since that second order to show cause dropped shows us that he's capable of holding back. The question is, you know, what side of the line will his calculations fall on if i were betting i would bet he's gonna fire one more torpedo and you know take the uh take the consequences to make a point yeah i saw that he he was asked after their trial today thursday um if he's gonna testify and he said i can't testify because of this gag order which obviously is obviously is not not true not how that works i don't have a legal degree but i know that's not how that works um but it seems like there's no you can't imagine a universe where he testifies or or todd blanch and his team let him testify right donald trump is calling the shots on this legal team, not Todd Blanch or Susan Necklace or Emil Bove, all of whom are very competent lawyers.

We would not have seen the gag order argument that we saw this morning where the judge basically asked the lawyers, why are you saying these things? The judge knew what was going on. The lawyers were being forced. In fact, since you ask, Fabs, Blanche went full Trump this morning because in his argument on the gag order, he started out by attacking the press, saying it's their fault. They're writing about this. So he criticized the press, classic Trump. He then turned on Michael Cohen, again, a Trumpism.

And he ended by complaining about all the Democrats on the jury when he was defending Trump's attack on the jury, to which the judge basically said, come on. So I think that, you know, I'm not sure the lawyers will be able to stop him, but the comment today probably shows that he knows he will be demolished on cross, and he's willing to take his chances, roll his dice on that one Trojan Trump juror, the one jury nullifier um he may think the case is you know he may think he has some candidates on that jury so not everybody on the jury is a pod save america listener although

i'll bet there's a bunch of them we know they're i hope not because they're not listening they perjured themselves they're not listening to this episode they are following instructions on that jury that's good that's good question about the uh leaving this trial for a second uh question about the immunity case you described it as one of the most important cases to appear before the Supreme Court. Oral arguments last week. What did you think of the oral arguments? And what kind of, what are you reading from the tea leaves? The Supreme Court is not going to authorize Donald Trump to send SEAL Team 6 out to commit assassinations because they might piss him off if he's reelected and he'll send

Team 6 to them. So they're not going to do that. They've already approached the edge of complicity and they'll be over the edge if they delay this case much beyond May 20th. That would be the date on a par with the 14th Amendment case, Anderson, in which a decision was issued. There, Donald Trump was actually on the ballot. There was no rush. They didn't want any cloud on his candidacy. cloud on his candidacy. I mean, how much more important is it for the American people to know if the man abused the office that he seeks to recover to commit crimes or not? So if they go past May 20, they will then have crossed the line of complicity. And then the other question is, are they going to remand the case in a way that

makes it impossible to get to trial before the election by setting up some test and requiring the judge to do fact-finding under the test? Or are they going to take Amy Coney Barrett's musings to heart and say, here's the test, and we're applying the test May 20th, we're sending it back down, and here's what's left of the case, go to trial. You know, unfortunately, I think the court is profoundly compromised. Certainly four of the judges who didn't even want to talk about what Donald Trump is actually accused of doing, right? Thomas, who shouldn't even be on this case, his wife is a material witness in the January 6th investigation. That's insane. Alito, who's completely off his rocker, who yelled at Obama in that State of the Union, where he warned the danger of Citizens United.

Favs, I might have worked with you on that line in the speech. Yeah, that's our fault. I remember going back and forth. No fault. I mean, it was right. No, I just do what you tell me. I think you had the last pen on that line, Favs. Ram called me the next morning i thought early early the next

morning i thought he was gonna be uh upset with me he's like oh my god he's like pour it on call every reporter pour it on that's a good issue for us doesn't doesn't sound like rom um and then cavanaugh and gorsuch gorsuch who was in law school with me and Obama and Kavanaugh, they are complicit as far as I'm concerned. The question is, will the center hold and decide this case timely by May 20 and in a way that allows us to get to trial. If they don't, then they too will be a part of handmaiden in Trump's attempted grab for an autocratic presidency. So that's what's at stake. And we'll see. I've marked that date on my calendar, May 20. Okay. All right. Well, the center hold in the center is amy coney i know i know it's it's uh that's where we are i'm not sounding a clarion call of optimism here dan but we'll see let's see what happens let's mark may 20th and let's see if they um you know she's been a little

she's been a little less doctrinaire so um i don't know her i know a bunch of the others but people who practice law with her said she was non-crazy so we'll see well she was hopping mad in the uh in the abortion case you know yeah she well that that's not surprising that's not surprising but norm eisen thanks for joining Pod Save America, as always. And we'll have to have you back as the trial continues. And we'll circle May 20th on our calendars, too, about the date for the immunity case. I'm here for you. Thanks for having me, Favs, Dan. And thanks for what you do on Pod Save America.

It's so important to all of us that you guys are out there. So thank you. Thanks to Norm for, you know, informing us and entertaining us today. That was just fantastic. It was a Norm Eisen tour de force, Dan. I mean, it was everything I thought it would be and more. Me too. Me too. I mean, it was everything I thought it would be and more. Me too. Me too.

I love Norm. All right. Everyone have a great weekend and we'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. If you want to get ad-free episodes,

exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doom scrolling, don't forget to follow us

at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farrah Safari. Kira Wakim is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer.

The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn,

Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pellaviv, and Molly Lobel.