The Bulwark Podcast - A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President's Conspirators

Episode Date: August 15, 2023

Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he's getting the indictment he deserves. And this time, some of co-conspirators are likely to flip. Plus, how the Big Lie plays at next week's debate. A.B. Stoddard joins Charlie Sykes today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to, at work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding ways to overcome them.

If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P dot com. Welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is August 15th, 2023, and I imagine that many of you will remember where you were, assuming you hadn't already gone to bed. On

Monday night, when the Fulton Grand Jury dropped 41 charges against Donald Trump and 18 of his cronies in Georgia, Donald Trump now faces an additional 13 felony counts on top of all the other felony counts that he's facing. I believe the total is now up to 91 felony counts for Donald Trump. The 41 counts in the Georgia indictment, 22 counts related to forgery or false documents and statements, eight counts related to soliciting or impersonating public officers, three counts related to influencing witnesses, three counts related to election fraud or defrauding the state, three counts related to election fraud or defrauding the state, three counts related to computer tampering, one count related to racketeering, one count related to perjury. It is a 98-page indictment of Donald Trump and his henchmen. I mean, it's all there.

All the president's conspirators, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Cheesborough with voting machines, the smearing and harassment of election workers. But perhaps the most amazing thing about this particular indictment is the fact that it specifically includes RICO charges that are usually associated with mob bosses. New York Times reports. Like the federal law on which it is based, the state RICO law was originally designed to dismantle organized crime groups. But over the years, it has come to be used to prosecute other crimes, from white-collar Ponzi and embezzlement schemes to public corruption cases.

This is what the 98-page indictment of Donald Trump says. Defendant Donald, look, A.B., he's behaved like a mob boss his whole freaking life. He finally got the indictment that he deserves. It's so true. I'm sorry. Our guest today, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at Real Clear Politics. I mean, the racketeering thing. Oh, he has looked up to the mob, emulated the mob, and of course, been, you know, a low rent mobster and skirted the law for his entire career.

He has started. He has started to catch up with him. And what's so interesting, I went to read about it. And what's so interesting is that they don't have to prove in Georgia, under the Georgia RICO statute, to the jury. They just have to prove that the orange man baby is the head of the enterprise. The law doesn't require

that the state prove that he knew about or earned the crimes. They just have to prove the existence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity. And the enterprise doesn't have to be purely criminal. So she knows what she's doing. They've prosecuted politicians before on electioneering and voting crimes.

And so she knows that this is provable. And I think it is likely that the other people snared in the RICO, the other 18. I think it makes it more likely that they enter guilty, please, and that they flip. Yeah, I mean, let's come back to that in a moment. It is interesting. On the very, very first page of this indictment, I think it was probably the first paragraph I read last night, at all times relevant to this count of the indictment, the defendants, as well as others not named as defendants, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in a criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia and elsewhere. The use of the term

criminal enterprise. Can we have our theme music again? Because I want to read this because the 98 page indictment, just to get us in the mood of all of this. Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3rd, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy contained common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the state of Georgia and in other states. So the Don has has a problem here. He spent the morning, the evening in the morning you know

railing against an out of control very corrupt district attorney the usual suspects you know are coming to his defense uh I like Jonathan Chait's take on this maybe just maybe the reason Trump keeps getting indicted for crimes is not that the criminal justice system is in the grips of a vast liberal conspiracy but that he is in fact a criminal. Okay. So you mentioned a couple of things that I think are important because, I mean, there's something surreal about the fact that we're going to have the fourth perp walk. It hasn't gotten old for me. It's gotten old for you. I mean, it's- No, but I was thinking, first of all, I want to thank you, Charlie, for not dumping me as your podcast guest today. I play a lawyer on Google, but other than all, I want to thank you, Charlie, for not dumping me as your podcast guest today.

I play a lawyer on Google, but other than that, I don't know what I'm talking about. So it's really nice of you to let me join you on this explosive day. But I was thinking last night when we were waiting and waiting and waiting, I was thinking, you know, this is technically the fifth because apparently the supersized superseder that Jack Smith overlaid on the first Mar-a-Lago criminal charges when he did a second one, so this is technically the fifth, but it is the last. And so we really have to savor the flavor of this one. I don't think we're going to get another one.

I don't think it is the last. I think we're in Godfather Part 4 or part five here. But I think there are more. First of all, what we saw from Jack Smith down in Florida is his willingness to superseding indictments. Yeah, there's no reason to believe that he will not do the same thing in the January 6 case, not to mention the way that Donald Trump continues to bait the judges in every single jurisdiction to hold him in contempt. So, I mean, can we sum up here for a minute here? I mean, Manhattan prosecutor, the hush money case, 34 counts, the classified document case, Mar-a-Lago, 40 counts, 34 plus 40, the subversion case, the January 6th case, four counts, and now another 13 counts against

Donald Trump. But I think you alluded to this. Look, this is not just same old, same old, because the Georgia case is different. I mean, for some pretty major reasons. I mean, first of all, it's a state charge, so there's no presidential pardon, which is huge. In the back of my mind, I was thinking, well, what about a Republican governor of Georgia? Well, in Georgia, the power to pardon is vested under the state constitution to a board of pardons and paroles, and it requires that a sentence be completed at least five years prior to applying for a pardon. That's pretty big. Also, it is very likely this trial will be televised. This may be the only case that's broadcast to

the world. Now, Trump might try to remove the case to federal court. If he does that, it won't be televised, but that's a big difference. But you put your finger, I think, on one of the key differences. These RICO cases, this racketeering case, is very complex and there are major incentives for these co-defendants to flip, to seek deals in return for new evidence. So talk to me about that. So that's what's so interesting is that as they were criming with Trump and then in the aftermath, all these years that have passed, you know, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, everyone ensnared in this, the other actual fake electors and former party officials and state senator and people who are in this basket of 18 people, they're just facing a different reality when they wake up to this than they did when they were thinking maybe we'll beat the rap and Rudy

was drunk texting them at night telling them it was all going to go away. And he was an expert on the RICO statute and it would be fine. It's real now. And so the idea, when she says she plans to prosecute everybody at the same time, she is likely assuming that the number is going to go from 19 down to far fewer than that. And that she is going to get some cooperation from these people who are facing mandatory minimums of five years in prison, and then also they can't fundraise off of indictments on Truth Social and pay their legal fees. So their world is different now that it's real, and it's likely that they are going to cooperate with the state. And that brings the number of defendants down. It makes it a clearer path for a trial in what she describes as an ambitious calendar, right?

Six months seems a lot for 19 defendants. But we're assuming she's thinking that number goes way down. These people turn on Trump. I am wondering this morning, Charlie, and again, maybe the legal minds out there understand this, what happens when Mark Meadows doesn't cooperate with Fannie Willis in Georgia, but likely has with Jack Smith in a federal case? So I think there are more surprises, like you said, to unfold. Yeah, no, that's a really interesting question because, you know, Fannie Willis has at least suggested publicly that she's not coordinating with the feds in all of this. That seems,

I don't know, there's a big question mark over that. How do you not, you know, step on one another? There has to be some sort of coordination. We don't know for a fact that Mark Meadows cooperated with Jack Smith, but I think that that was kind of the assumption. He was not named as one of the unindicted co-conspirators. So we don't know. The point we're talking about, though, is so important because I think there are some critics who looked at this and said, okay, Jack Smith narrowcasted his indictments. He went after Donald Trump, made it as simple as possible. He could have charged all those other guys, but he didn't because he didn't want to throw too much dust up into the air. She has taken the opposite approach of going after 19 people all

at once. She was asked last night, do you plan to try them all at once? And she said, yes. But to your point, she also knows that an actual indictment marvelously focuses the mind, right? I mean, prosecutors will tell you that people will say, we're not cooperating, we're not cooperating, we won't take a plea agreement, we won't take a plea agreement. And then suddenly when they are faced with an actual indictment and arraignment and arrest and all of that, and as you point out, a mandatory minimum five-year sentence that will not be wiped away by a President Trump or a President Vivek or a President Ron DeSantis. They're going to have to actually serve those terms. That's when you have that really serious come-to-Jesus moment with your lawyers.

Yeah, and then I think you start to hear that Godfather music in your head. Oh, I'm going to be hearing that all the time. But yeah, I think it's just a whole different ballgame when there's a mandatory five years in prison. It just sounds like the Georgia Rico statue is obviously going to play to the state, and that it is going to be very tough for the defendants. And so at this point, if Trump can't promise you the pardon, like he's giving his pool boys at Mar-a-Lago in the documents case, it's a cold reality. And I don't, I'm again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what Fannie Willis is assuming and what her strategy is, but I believe that we're going to see some flipping and that things are going to change as we get closer to the trial. Well, that's the strategy.

But also, I don't think it's possible to overstate the degree to which obstruction of justice by dangling pardons is part of the Trump strategy. It was a huge part of the Mueller report. And the fact is that Donald Trump's whole life tells him that, yeah, he can obstruct justice and get away with it. And the prospect of pardons certainly has a way of, you know, counteracting any other pressure that the prosecutors could put on, you know, potential witnesses. Well, that's gone. That's wiped away. It's a completely different environment. So we'll see. There are other criticisms of this. I haven't, look, we're not playing lawyers here. And so I'm going to apologize in advance for all of this. Look, we're not playing lawyers here, and so I'm going to apologize in advance for all of that. Ruth Marcus, who is certainly no squish on all of this,

has some qualms about the breadth of the Georgia case. And she writes in the Washington Post this morning, where Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith took pains to acknowledge Trump's First Amendment rights and appeared to craft the charges to avoid butting up against free speech concerns, the Georgia indictment does not tread so gingerly. The very first overt act it cites in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is Trump's speech declaring victory in the early morning hours following election day. Now, overt acts don't have to constitute crimes in and of themselves, but using a candidate's victory speech as evidence against him is one aggressive move. And this is already kind of a theme that you get from folks on the

right that, wait, so she's actually charging as overt acts tweets or statements or things that were said like this. It does sound like she's going after speech. Your thoughts? I mean, I know what the counter argument is, but it seems like she's given a very powerful talking point. I don't know whether it's a legally valid point, but it's certainly it's going to be a talking point that's going to be on fire on Fox News, OAN, Newsmax all day today. Right. Well, Charlie, the problem at this point at indictment number five, because it's the superseding one and then the ones to come, we have a real problem with Americans tuning this stuff out.

It becomes too confusing for you and I to even explain. And people, you know, you and I have friends and family members, they might not be admitting it to it, although some of mine have, that they can't keep this stuff straight. And they're not going to take the time to learn or discern. Like, it's like too much noise. And so that's part of it. When you start talking, when you look at Donald Jr.'s tweet this morning, he goes right at, you know, criminalizing, you know, regular stuff. Speech.

And speech. And so it's very easy to confuse, although the statute makes clear that if you take an Uber, in part of your furtherance of your goal in the criminal enterprise, taking an Uber is obviously legal. It's things that you do to create the pattern and to meet your criminal objective. That is going to be easily explained to a jury. But yes, in the media, it's hard to explain. Once again, let's remind everybody that every act of fraud involves some sort of speech.

Every conspiracy involves words that are spoken. And this has been the defense that they're trying to raise that, well, I had a First Amendment right. Well, you don't have a First Amendment right to commit a crime or use words to intimidate or to induce somebody to commit a crime. That's why this racketeering statute, I think, is so important. We'll see whether or not those specific things, you know, will be able to survive, you know, legal scrutiny. But just a reminder about this whole, well, it's just you can't criminalize speech. You can criminalize speech if the speech is part of a criminal act. And I think

this is something that we're going to be hearing. And I thought that Judge Chutkin in the other case in D.C. last week, does it seem like more than a week ago? I know, I know. It warps time, all this stuff. It warps a lot of things. But yeah, I mean, she told Trump, you know, you don't have an absolute First Amendment right. You are, you know, you're out on bail. You have terms of your, you know, conditions. And if you continue with this inflammatory rhetoric, we're going to speed up the trial. Before I forget, I just can't get past this, that how the Georgia case is different. The sheriff down in Fulton County is saying, yeah, I'm going to treat Donald Trump like any other

defendant. We'll find out whether he does, because that will mean that he has a mugshot taken. Yes. Will he be handcuffed? I doubt that. But the mugshot is going to be a moment. The mugshot is going to be a moment Because so far, Donald Trump has not been treated like any other defendant in these cases. No, I completely agree with you. And the weird, sick part is, it'll be a moment that's bad for him, but he wants it. And so I'm going to be so interested to see, because his fundraising and his polling bumps have been reduced with each passing indictment. And he really needs the money. So I'm really fascinated.

He's going to have mugshot t-shirts and all that. I'm really fascinated to see, you know, how much of a pop he gets for this. He will get more if he has a mugshot. But I also want to quickly back up. There's something in the indictment that talks about the conspiracy to claim victory in a draft of the speech on October 31. Right. And he discusses a draft speech with unindicted co-conspirator individual one,

who I will not confirming this audience, but someone has speculated on Twitter might be Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, who was, as we know from the reporting, talking to Donald Trump in June or July of 2020 about how he should claim it was rigged. Remember, and the mail doesn't work and the fraud and the mailboxes and the post office. So it says that he discussed that five days before the election. And it says that unindicted co-conspirator individual one whose identity is known to the grand jury that they would falsely declare victory and falsely claim voter fraud the speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy so this kind of thing will be very easy for the jury to

follow but as i was texting with a friend this morning about whether his parents, who are Trumpers, would care about this fact, that the plan to pretend that he won was actually, you know, hatched days before November 4th. And he, of course, highlighted, Charlie, that this would not be discussed on Fox News. I don't know how completely hermetically sealed Fox News can be about all of this. Now, OAN and Newsmax, I think, you know, I just don't know. I mean, at a certain point, that's why a televised trial, I think, will be different, makes it different. But we don't know. I mean, there is a, I'm wrestling with two competing instincts here. Number one is that never bet against a pattern continuing itself. And so when people say, well, is the Republican Party going to break with Donald Trump now? It's like, seriously? I mean, after seven years, you are still asking that question?

No, no, no. They didn't break with him after the hush money. They didn't break with him after the Espionage Act charge. They didn't break with him after the subversion conspiracy charges. They're not going to break with him now versus the, but wait, maybe some things do actually matter. Maybe there is some moment of sobriety. And maybe for the Republican Party, it will come too late. I mean, this is the thing that if you're a Republican candidate or operative, you have to be thinking, look at that calendar. You could have the worst stuff dropping after Donald Trump has already secured the nomination, after it's all over, after you are completely lashed to him, in which case you are all in

on Donald Trump, right? I mean, the one complaint that Trump made, mark this, that I think was, I actually had a little sympathy with him on, believe it or not, he said, why did this take two and a half years? If these crimes took place, why did they wait so long and drop in the middle of a campaign? Now, obviously, he's making a bad faith argument, but I have expressed my frustration at how long it has taken. I mean, this has taken a long time,

and as a result, the calendar is a freaking nightmare. I agree with you. I think that point that he made is resonant. I think that it will help him. I think we all wondered why Georgia was taking so long. But in terms of your other point, I don't know that it changes the week in the Bulwark about how, you know, some of the candidates have abandoned the big lie. They have the chance at the debate, the rest of the field, to literally put it to bed as a group. We have Pence, we have Christie, we have now DeSantis, and then Tim Scott's on the record saying that Biden won the election. Remember, he voted to certify Biden's election on January 6th or 7th. So it is interesting if you think about something like that bit I just read from the indictment, maybe people who are thinking that the end is near for their candidacy, and they're willing

to say on the debate stage that Donald Trump lost the election, why not read that part of the indictment and say there was a freaking speech drafted five days before on halloween before election day and this was you know this is a an overt act and in furtherance of the conspiracy cited in the indictment why was there a drafted speech saying that he won the election despite the fact that everyone else thinks he lost like i mean would they go that far and and of course so so I don't believe that voters will budge. But I'm wondering about the candidates like DeSantis who see, you know, does he do the protracted sort of march to certain death? Or does he end his candidacy like JVL thinks sooner?

And if he's trying to preserve his dignity, does he go that far on the debate stage? The base is not going to budge. I mean, people with the MAGA hats are not going to budge. And quite frankly, and I'm going to be misinterpreted here probably, but I'm tired of listening to them and talking to them about all of this because they are not the majority. I mean, I think that at a certain point, we ought to recognize that base is maybe 30% of the electorate and the vast majority of other Americans are looking at this and going, this is crazy. And the voters will determine the outcome of the election. I think, you know, might pay attention to this and might be influenced. So we've gotten into this doom

loop of talking to the same people over and over and over again. I think it's time to get out of the diners in Western Pennsylvania and notice that, look, there are a lot of other Americans, tens of millions of Americans who are thinking this is disqualifying. But I want to go back to your piece about the debate, which is in my hometown next week. Yes. And I think it's suddenly become much more interesting. Well, it's been growing on me. I'm generally not a fan of debates. But you point out that the moderators, Brett Baer and Martha McCallum, are almost certain to ask the candidates whether they believe, you know, he lost the 2020 election. And what I thought was interesting, you wrote in the Bulwark about this June interview that

Brett Baer did with Trump back in June. And of course, you know, Trump is lying and Baer pushes back, you know, talking about all the recounts that found no significant widespread fraud. And Baer said there were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, more than 60, I think, by your own lawyers, some in front of judges you appointed. They came up with no evidence. And he wrote that Trump just responded to Baer with what you wrote as, quote, his drool string of random nouns and phrases he has used to titillate his voters for coming on now for three years truth the vote and stuff ballots and 51 intelligence agents and all of that stuff and bear with blood he said you lost the 2020 election so this is going to be a big thing at the debate

so okay chris christie is going to tell the truth right yeah? Yeah. Okay. He's on the stage. The other candidates have all acknowledged at one point or another, but when they're on Fox News in a Republican debate, what is Tim Sack going to say? What is Nikki Haley going to say? What is Vivek going to say? What is DeSantis going to say? How do you think they're going to handle it? So this is why I'm actually not hopeful, not optimistic, but excited about the debate. That's the word that I've landed on. And that's because given the recent comments from Ron DeSantis about the fact that Trump lost and those theories were unfounded, the fact that he has officially abandoned the big lie after all these years, given the fact that Tim Scott did vote to certify Joe Biden's election, given the fact that Chris

Christie is going to be there pounding away at the truth. Mike Pence will say that Trump lost and Biden won. And the fact that the moderator is going to be coming at these candidates the same way that he did a month ago in an interview with Donald Trump is going to make it hard on people like Tim Scott, who I expect to squirm. I think he's running for vice president. There'll be a lot of squirming. Yeah. Of course, Vivek, who says January 6th is a result of censorship, will do his BS. But I think that we don't really know what it's going to be like to be pushed by Brad Bear, and then, you know, who's going to be backed up by Chris Christie, Mike Pence, and DeSantis for Nikki Haley to try to squirm her way out of it. I think it's going to be really interesting.

I think it will be, too. And also, you know, for somebody like a Ron DeSantis, I mean, this really is kind of a make-or-break moment. I mean, if he's going to be the alternative, I see that he's actually slipping behind Chris Christie in New Hampshire. I mean, they're both in single digits, but either he has a breakthrough or people realize, yeah, he's not the guy. But, you know, in the back of my mind, I'm going to be thinking, you know, this debate takes place the week after the fourth indictment. It will be within a day or two of Donald Trump's perp walk and mugshot. And the candidates at some point have to be thinking, OK, do I actually want to beat Donald Trump? Do I want to win the nomination? Do I want to be vice president?

And if I want to beat Donald Trump, how is it that a guy who has been found liable by a federal jury for rape, facing fraud charges, conspiracy charges, violating the Espionage Act, all of these things, has been accused of racketeering. How come I can't beat him? How is it that I cannot convince voters that maybe this is not a good idea to go into 2024 with all of that? I mean, it's one thing to say, you know, he's a dominant political figure, but you would think that somebody would figure out that if you want to beat Donald Trump, you have to beat Donald Trump. Or are they still, A.B., waiting for the magical unicorn? Because I think they've been waiting for the magical unicorn. The magical unicorn came in Fulton last night, but I don't know. It's not going to be enough, is it?

I agree with you. So I agree that they're all hoping that he dies or has a stroke or an otherwise catastrophic health event. That's always been their plan. And that they will be perfectly in line for the MAGA base to turn to in their sorrow and panic and, you know, nominate. And that's obviously crazy. What I think is interesting is at this point, I think Vivek is running for a cabinet position, and I think that Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are running for VP.

And so for the rest of them, it's really, I mean, for Ron DeSantis, who sees himself losing market share with each passing month, he's only been in since May, but he's lost 25 points since February in the average polling. And he's heading in one direction. I think Ron DeSantis is a smart enough man, and so is Mike Pence, and Chris Christie's on sort of a different mission. But to realize that the MAGA base is unpersuadable. This is a cult and they are not going to be persuaded. If they thought six months ago, maybe we'll get in, we'll shake it up. Maybe MAGA panics about the fact that Trump can't win. They turn to a sensible alternative. Ron DeSantis

knows now that that's not going to happen. And so at this time, are you trying to run against Trump? Are you trying to lead these voters? Or do you just want a dignified end? And if you want a dignified end, you tell the truth. I guess. I continue to be amazed even after seven years that more people don't want the dignified route as opposed to the, is this really worth it? Okay, before I get to my next question, I to read something from cnn steven collison i share his sentiment here he writes the most astonishing aspect of former president trump's fourth criminal indictment is not the scale of an alleged multi-layer conspiracy to steal george's

electoral votes in 2020 from their rightful winner it is that the most astonishing aspect it is that trump the accused kingpin of the scheme to overturn Joe Biden's victory, who was charged on Monday along with 18 others, could in 17 months be raising his right hand as the 47th president of the United States and swearing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution he is accused of plotting to shred. I mean, this is this moment. So you look at the Republican Party and you go, really, I know you're sort of caught up in the rally around, but this is not rational behavior. It's not rational behavior from a political point of view. And if you just take

two steps back, it is really bad for the country. I mean, it is really as if you are wishing and rooting for a constitutional crack-up. I wouldn't be on crisis to a constitutional crack-up. I don't often quote Van Jones, but I thought that he also had one of those moments this morning describing it on CNN where he said, you know, the truth is like, yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. But if someone came to you to apply for a job at your vape shop, Charlie, I mean, Van Jones didn't use that example. He was facing 91 criminal charges.

Like, next. I mean, and you're asking, you're going to vote for this man to be president of the United States? I mean, he's facing 91 criminals. Like, it's so beyond surreal and irrational that we just can't find the words for it anymore. Look, I've made this point before, so I apologize for repeating myself, but it bears repeating. We have reserved our lowest possible standards for the presidency

of the United States, because to your point about the vape shop, okay, it is inconceivable that any publicly traded company in America would name or consider a Donald Trump as a candidate for CEO facing all of these indictments. It is inconceivable that any university, any school, any college, any team, I mean, what organization in the world would think of hiring someone for the top job. If they face 91 criminal counts, if you went in to be the manager of a used car dealership and someone did a background check on you and found that you were facing 91 felony charges, you would not be hired. You would not be hired at the vape shop.

What job could you get of responsibility in any sector of American life? I'm thinking about this. I'm just thinking about anybody in the military. Would there be any chance that he would pass any security background check at this point? And yet we might elect him president of the United States again. You know, other non-dog lovers say I wouldn't hire him to walk up my dog. But you and I, obviously, that's unthinkable. Absolutely not. You wouldn't hire him to walk up my dog. But you and I, obviously, that's unthinkable. Absolutely not.

You wouldn't even be a candidate. But no, it's true. And it's really depressing. And what's so interesting about these voters that we keep, as you say, like, you know, we can't unhinge ourselves from their opinions, the MAGA base, I mean, with each passing indictment, they continue to believe that the deep state has continued to make up more evidence. Like, that's what I love. Like, if it was just one or two, they could be like, this is crazy. Like, you know, something's just, I don't know, you know, they came up with like, they're giving him a bum rap. But there was, there was a quote yesterday that I absolutely have to find. It was a New York Times piece about with the fact that each indictment continues to help Trump and the indictment effect.

And Mallory Butler, she's 39 from Polk County, Florida, Charlie. And she says DeSantis doesn't have a pack of dogs hunting him down. And that tells me that somebody's probably backing him or he's in somebody's pocket at this point. And Trump doesn't have that, she says. So every single piece of evidence in every page of all these indictments of 91 criminal charges, a federal judge telling us that a jury has found him guilty of rape, all of this data is, all of it's made up, and the government just continues to make it up, in their view. You wrote last week in the bulwark, you know, accepting the big lie comes with downstream consequences, and it is forever. It means that

Trump has never lost an election. It means that these candidates believe they are now living in an autocracy. It means that every criminal charge Trump faces is fraudulent. And it means those men and women are not actually running against Trump to defeat him, but to help him and his party going forward. So, you know, you're talking about the other candidates, but that's where we are. So speaking of them, what's going on with Mike Pence, do you think? You've watched Mike Pence for a long time. It's kind of striking that Mike Pence, who has waffled and weenied all over the place on all of this in very puzzling ways, because I mean, I'm actually willing to give him a lot more credit for political courage in January 6th than a lot of critics are out there. But instead of leaning

into it for months and months and months, he seemed to be downplaying it, walking away from it, really minimizing what ought to be his legacy. I mean, the pivot point of his whole life. But now he's kind of leaning into it. What do you think? What's going on? I kind of like it, Charlie. I find him so painful to watch and to stomach. But he's just having a moment.

He's just, I don't know, he's like liberated. I mean, maybe I'm just wish casting. But he seems that way. No, I think that's what Tim Miller's just, I don't know, he's like liberated. I mean, maybe I'm just wish casting, but he seems that way. No, I think that's what Tim Miller's point is that at a certain point, you're a candidate and you're like, hey, you know what, I'm not going to win, you know, and it is, you can become, you can actually say what you're thinking, which is kind of freeing. You know, he's so cringe and watching all those times that he sat there in those cabinet meetings, you know, just filleting Donald Trump and everything. It's all so nauseating. But I found myself watching him in these recent clips where people start to jeer at him or, you know, make false accusations.

And he calmly takes the time to explain to the audience, like, you know, to give him the truth. And it's actually just really cool. I don't know. I just feel like he, you know, he definitely has nothing left to lose, clearly. And I think he wants to finish with dignity. And I think he puts himself back in at least part of the conversation. I was asking you about, you know, what are the various candidates going to say on the debate stage? I left Mike Pence out.

Mike Pence is going to be on that debate stage. And it will be interesting. I mean, Rhonda Santos wants to look like the next guy in line. I don't know that he's going to be able to pull that off because there's going to be Mike Pence. And if Mike Pence does on that debate stage what he did in Iowa last week, then I think the people, he's going to attract a certain amount of attention. So, I mean, I personally would not want to be on the stage with Chris Christie. And if I'm Miranda Sanders, I really have to look over my shoulder at Mike Pence. Now, look, neither of those guys is going to win this nomination. But keep in mind that when they do, back to your point about what will they say about the big lie, Chris Christie and Mike Pence and the

others who, you know, denounce the big lie will be seen by the Fox News viewers. When we keep talking about these alternative realities and, you know, what the Fox News viewers hear and what they know, there's no way to avoid what they're going to hear next week here in Milwaukee. That's what's so interesting is that, is that Brett Baer is going to force next week here in Milwaukee. That's what's so interesting is that is that Brett Baier is going to force the issue or Martha McCallum and the candidates, you know, there's a quorum now. I mean, there are four of them now who are going to speak the truth. Well, OK, Tim Scott's going to try to fudge it. But when pressed, you know, he will say, yes, I voted to certify Biden's election. He'll say there was a lot of cheating and this and that. But but in

between the fact that they're all going to be sobbing over the tragic two-tier justice system and Hunter Biden, they are going to cut, you know, they're going to cut loose on the big lie. And so this is just going to be fascinating. And Mike Pence is, I think he's on a mission to sort of like, just restore his reputation and finish up strong. And I think that's what Chris Christie's doing in this race. I completely agree with that. I think the other candidates, I think, you know, you're going to hear a lot of Hunter Biden stuff. You'll hear a lot of stuff about the two-tiered justice system. But it will be interesting to see whether or not some of the candidates, you know, especially DeSantis, is able to make a pivot to say, okay, but this is why we should

not renominate Donald Trump. I mean, at some point, they have to craft the argument that, okay, Hunter Biden is terrible. I'm going to check some of the MAGA boxes, and we're going to talk about Joe Biden. But this is why this party cannot run in 2024 with this man ahead of the ticket. The problem is they need to craft it in a way that is not solely about electability, because that's the hollow man argument because all Donald Trump has to do is look at the polls. And I'm not sure the Republican primary voters are as obsessed with electability as a rational political party would be. So it's going to be interesting to see whether they will do that. I just don't think that Rhonda Sanders has the political skills, the political flexibility

to be able to do that. Again, I think it's going to be interesting to see. Everybody will have a different agenda, and we know what Chris Christie's agenda is going to be. I think that's pretty clear. We'll see which Mike Pence shows up, the new, more interesting Mike Pence, or whether he decides this is the moment to back away and become boring again. And then we'll find out whether or not we have Rhonda Sands. Oh, by the way, speaking of Rhonda Sands, did you read that piece in the Washington Post about all of the people who work with him in Florida are completely unsurprised that he's fallen flat on his face? It's just terrible because he somehow, I actually feel sorry for him. He has no, you're right. He has no political skill. He's very sort of dysfunctional in the way that he deals with staff and the situation with his wife and sort of heading up a political team with strategy and hiring and care and feeding and all that. had such a smashing success in his re-election victory because of COVID, because he picked up

independent and Democratic voters, that he believed it was translatable to a national presidential campaign. And so did the donors. And they threw so much money at him and told him, you have to save us. You are the only person that moves us past Trump. You have to run. You can't wait it out. You're only 44. Of course, the best, easiest thing for you to do would be sit it out, but you have to run now. And he was talked into this and he's a disaster. I get really feeling sorry for him and I feel guilty about that, but I feel sorry for him. I do not feel sorry for him because I think basically the problem is that, you know, he's

an asshole. He's not just a performative asshole. He really is. What I think is extraordinary from that reporting is that it was so obvious to people that actually worked with him that he would not scale up. Why did we not hear that before? Why were so many Republicans and donors, why did they project onto him all of their hopes and wishes?

Why didn't they know what is very clear right now? Especially because you read that story, and I think Josh Dossie from the Washington Post wrote, it's a great story, that it was no secret that he didn't play well and get along with others, that he would do this. And so you look back on this and go, this reporting would have been perhaps more helpful a year and a half ago, and maybe the Republican quote-unquote establishment, the National Review type, wouldn't have thrown all of their enthusiasm his way, imagining he was somebody that he clearly was not. I mean, apparently all you need to do is pick up the phone and call somebody from Florida and say, what's the deal with this guy? And you would have found out he's a flaming asshole. I mean, so I guess there's a question about the journalism and there's also a question about the vetting on the part of Republicans and what their standards are. But in any case, hey, we're obviously going to be talking about these cases.

We didn't even get to the Hunter Biden case again. That'll come up again. But A.B. Sautter, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast on a consequential and extraordinary day. Great to be with you, Charlie. Thank you again for not dumping me for a lawyer. It was so much fun. And generally never want to have lawyers on, just so you know. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast.

I'm Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow, and we will do this all over again. The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.