The Daily Beast Podcast - This Week Could Be Even Worse for Donald Trump Than Last Week

Episode Date: January 30, 2024

This week on The New Abnormal, hosts Danielle Moodie and Andy Levy discuss the week of horror that could flip the game for Donald Trump. Then, Rolling Stonereporter and former The Daily Beast journalist Adam Rawnsley walks us through his recent report looking into Trump’s secret presidential immunity plans. Plus! Author Jeff Sharlet is here to talk about Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s battle against Biden at the border. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current Campbell News conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Kedden, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears.

What an excellent show we have for you today. Rolling Stones, Adam Ronsley, is here to walk us through his recent report looking into Trump's secret presidential immunity plans. Then, author Jeff Charlotte, is here to talk about his new book, The Undertow, scenes from a slow civil war, all about Texas Governor Greg Abbott's battle against Biden at the board. But first, let's have some fun. So, this is a big day for me here. on the new abnormal because we get to talk about sports.

Woo, sports! I am surrounded by people who do not care about sports, the exception of Seamus. But thankfully, the right wing and the Republican Party is so deranged right now that they have turned sports into absolutely insane conspiracy theories. And the latest is that the Super Bowl is rigged and that the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Baltimore Ravens over the weekend to go to the Super Bowl because Taylor Swift, as some of you may have heard, is dating Travis Kelsey, tight end on the Kansas City Chiefs. And the conspiracy theory is that the Biden administration, apparently, working in conjunction with the NFL, has set it up for the

chiefs to go to the Super Bowl so that Taylor Swift can get more coverage and then she will endorse Joe Biden. I hope you are able to follow that. That is. the conspiracy theory, and I want to point out, it is right-wing weirdos on the internet, but it's not just right-wing weirdos on the internet. It's also right-wing weirdo presidential candidates like Vivek Ramoswami, who it should be pointed out was within the past week on a stage with Donald Trump. And he is out there saying, I wonder if there's a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially, culturally propped up couple this fall. This has now metastasized. It is not just some weirdo, right-wing, bizarreo people you've never heard of unless you're terminally online.

It is actually mainstream Republican figures. Danielle, I know you're chomping at the bit to jump in here, so let me shut up. There is nothing more that I want to discuss with you than sports. And as a good queer, I just want to say, I too like the football on occasion. But let's just be clear here. I'd like to point out, Daniel, that your girl. friend who's a beautiful human being. Because she loves you, Andy.

Actually is into the football. It's into the football. Right. So she's a good one. Here's what I will say. The way that these people will force themselves into conspiracy contortionism to come out with a reason why they will never be able to accept losing anything is wild to me. Because that's what all of this is about. It's like, look at this person who is,

Taylor Swift, who is going to somehow thwart the American election and give it to Joe Biden and it's going to be Trump's win. It's just like everything is about setting up the reasons why Trump could lose other than the fact that he's a fucking misogynist racist criminal with multiple indictments and charges against him. They will not take responsibility for their flawed king figure that they're trying to create. And instead, they have to go out on these right-wing conspiracy, like, I couldn't even follow the bouncing ball with what you were saying. It was so fucking stupid. But that's what this is about. It's like they can't take responsibility for themselves, or if Trump loses, just the same way that Trump got on stage and said, if Haley were to

win a state in this primary race, she'll need to be investigated. Because it's, It's all about seating the ground for a turnover in any way possible of election 2024 if it's not for Donald Trump. Yeah, I think all of that is 100% accurate. It's just the funniest thing about this one is that Taylor Swift has got to be, I think you could conservatively say she is one of the 10 most recognizable people in America. Mm-hmm. I think it would be tough to argue with that. And she might even be, you know, closer to a lot closer to number one than than she is to number 10. And the idea that her popularity has to be, you know, sort of artificially inflated is so wild.

But they think that her whole thing, the fact that she's on magazine covers constantly and her music is everywhere. They think all of that is some sort of sci-op. Yeah, Jesse Waters on Fox the other day, there was a Chiron, a lower third asking, you know, is Taylor Swift? a Pentagon SIEP, that was too much for me to even look into further. It's absolutely wild. These people's brains are so broken and I think it's irrevocable. Like I don't think they're ever coming back. I think this is who they are now if they weren't like this the whole time.

But I just don't think there's any coming back from the level of thinking that Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelsey as part of a Joe Biden's siop. All of this is part of trying to lay the ground. work for should Trump lose yet another reason, quote unquote, reason why he lost and that in that it was rigged, et cetera. And you mentioned that, you know, he's currently under 17,436 indictments, I think it is, which leads us to what happened, I guess, over the weekend or on Friday, I can't remember. And that is that E. Jean Carroll was awarded $83.3 million in damages for Trump defaming her. Danielle, take it away.

Let me just say this. E. Jean Carroll is probably one of the most courageous people because of her fortitude to continue to clear her name that has been wrongfully dragged through the mud by Trump, by his associates, after she came out and a jury of his peers found him guilty of sexual assault could not keep E. Jean Carroll's name out of his fucking mouth. And so he was fined originally with $5 million. What is $5 million to Donald Trump? That's what he uses on a regular run at McDonald's. And so this, it needed to hurt. It needed to hurt him. And $83.3 million is not a small chunk of change, particularly for a man who I don't think is as liquid as he claims to be or as wealthy

as he claims to be. Andy, the fact that a man that has been found guilty of sexual assault, not a rumor, not a he said, she said, but found guilty of sexual assault is but steps away from claiming the Republican Party's nomination and potentially of getting a second term in this country is so fucking sickening to me. Just so sickening. And, you know, I listened to this right-wing woman who was interviewed and she said that following the verdict and the announcement of the punitive damages that it makes her want to vote for Trump more. So exactly what you said about these people and their brains and the rot and never coming back, this is for everyone else who actually still sees sexual assault and violence against women as something that should not

be celebrated, applauded, or given access to power. So Bravo, to E. Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan, her attorney, for, I think, this historic win. Absolutely. Rana Romney McDaniel, who is the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, suggested that Nikki Haley needed to drop out of the race and everyone needed to sort of coalesce around Donald Trump and unite around him. This was like literally around the same time that this verdict was coming out. And I was thinking if even 10 years ago, you had told me,

me that if you would have seen a headline saying, you know, R&C chair says Republican candidate needs to drop out, you would think it would be the guy who has all the indictments and has just been ordered to pay a woman $83.3 million for defaming her after he was already ordered to pay $5 million for sexually assaulting her. And the fact that it's not and that instead it's the R&C chair saying the person who didn't do all that needs to drop out so that the person who did all that could have a clear path to the nomination. It's so insane. And again, literally, 10 years ago, you would not have thought that this was possible, I think. No, you wouldn't have because it wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago. This is how Trumpism and Maga Supremacy have

corroded our politics, that we think that shit like this is normal or we just breeze over it. The man was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman. And the idea that that in it of itself is not disqualifying from being president, let alone, oh, I don't know, leading an entire insurrection just shows you like, what does justice look like at all for rich white men in this country? And that's just like a laughable question to even ask. And so Donald Trump will have the right to appeal, which I'm certain that he will or already has written up the paperwork for to, appeal the amount of money that he is required to give her, but he will be required to give her a substantial amount of money. And I hope that it hurts. And I hope that whatever appeal he makes

is slap down because, you know, even after the verdict came out, he went on his broke down social media platform, said a whole bunch of things. But you know what he didn't say? Her fucking name. So maybe that is a lesson and a signal to the rest of these judges overseeing. his cases that you need to start taking the actions that Donald Trump does outside of the courtrooms at these rallies that put people in danger, that you need to start taking them seriously and giving him the penalties that will shut him the fuck up. Yeah. And we should point out, the $83 million was, as Michael Tamasky points out in the New Republic, he says it was more than three times what Carol's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, was asking. And it was the jury that

decided that. So the jury sat there and said, well, we know how much you're asking for. We're going to give you three times more than that because that's how much we think what Trump did is disgusting. And I think there's a lesson there. Well, there's two lessons there. One lesson is there are a sizable number of people in this country who are sick of Donald Trump's shit. And bravo to the men and women on this jury for being among them. The other lesson, unfortunately, is, as the judge said after this trial, in his instructions to the jury, he said, my advice to you is not to tell anyone that you were on this jury. And the reason for that is, I think, fairly obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway,

because they could be in danger if they did. And they could be in danger if Donald Trump starts giving out their names. They could be in danger if some deranged magaloon just finds out their name or their address. And as we've said a million times on this podcast, you know, this is this is straight up mafia territory. This is mob territory. And that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a mob boss. Donald Trump is a mob boss. And what you said earlier is so incredibly true talking about just how brave E. Jean Carroll is for putting herself through this. And yes, she got rewarded for it. And she's already said that she is going to use the money. She hasn't said specifically where,

but I believe her phrase was she wants to spend it on something, quote unquote, Trump hates. And she said if it will cause him pain for something to give money to certain things, perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump. So good for her and good for the jury. And I guess this week coming up, Judge Nguyen Goren is supposed to announce the fine that Donald Trump is going to get in the trial that was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. And that could be even an even larger amount.

So again, as Michael Tamaski points out at the New Republic, this week could be even worse for Donald Trump than last week. Yeah, because Tish James is asking for, I think, well over $300 million. Yeah. And to disrupt Trump's ability to do business in New York at all. So this decision coming out of Judge Engron's court is going to be a major one. We also have to consider the fact that Donald Trump's entire image. And he said this himself in a recent interview was built on his brand.

There's no better brand than the Trump brand, he said. And that's how I got into the White House, he said, because art of the deal. I'm the guy on the television that is, you know, that is saying you're hired, you're fired. I'm the businessman. And so that case that Tish James has brought is ripping a. the rose-colored glasses off, ripping the wool from people's eyes and saying he's a fraud. Just in the same way as universities, his stakes, whatever it else that he's been shilling, all of those companies have fallen.

And so taking away his ability to do business in New York and then hammering him with something that could be, I mean, over a quarter of a billion dollars. and we're not sure if Donald Trump is actually a billionaire, this could be really for him outside of any of the other cases pending the death nail that is actually needed. And when I say that, I don't mean, oh, then he drops out of the race in America is safe. No, I mean that him hitting the kind of downward spiral, rage machine, like just going all off the hinges, like there are no hinges left.

I think that this will be the case to do it. Yeah, you may well be right about that. And you brought up a good point that as part of this, one of the things that Judge and Goring can do is strip Trump and the Trump organization from conducting business in the state of New York. As anyone who lives here knows, in certain areas, it's hard to walk down the street without seeing Trump's name on buildings and stuff like that. And like you said, his brand is his life. And to take that away, I mean, look, New York is not a state that was ever going to vote for Donald Trump for president. but there's a reason that this guy who now lives in Florida, but there's a reason why New York is so important to him because it is, among other things, pretty much the business capital of America, if not the world. And so to strip him of the ability to do business in the state of New York is huge. There's another thing you mentioned earlier that I want to get at is that Trump has not uttered, you said, you noted that Trump has not uttered Gene Carroll's name yet since the trial, or since the verdict. And my question is, how long do you think he can go without uttering her

name? And the reason I bring this up is if he defames her again, she can take him right back into court again. And she will. And she will probably will. And my guess is she's not going to get less money, she's going to get more money. I think if we know anything about Donald Trump, it's that it's going to be next to impossible for him to have the kind of discipline that would require him not defaming her again. So this could keep going. This is an exaggeration for effect. But we could see E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump in court every year for the next 20 years. He's just that unable to control himself. And she could literally be getting, you know, $100 million payouts every year for the rest of her life if, you know, if he can't control himself. And there's a good chance he can't.

Donald Trump is a toddler tyrant and he cannot control himself. Hence why he's going to continue like, you know, that lady, that person, maybe he won't say her name and be able to maintain that. But like, we've seen it. We've watched him get warned. We've watched Engeron's court warn him. We've watched other courts warn him. Chuckkin's court warn him, you know, over and over again. He is a toddler tyrant and cannot help himself.

at all. You want to talk about somebody that doesn't have the temperament to be president of the United States. It's Donald Trump. He doesn't have the temperament to do much of anything. So I hope for her case that he keeps saying her fucking name. And it just keeps like a slot machine in Vegas. Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching, every time he does it. You know, and I wonder after the decision comes down from Engeron, I honestly wonder if he doesn't start continuing to slander that justice, right? and what happens and what happens there. But what this case shows, this defamation suit, is that there are penalties for the kind of shit that people talk. And hopefully this will be a signal.

I don't know. But I say let Donald Trump be the slot machine payout for E. Jean Carroll and all of the people that he has harmed along the decades that he's been around. Yeah. The thing is, nobody needs this. Well, nobody needs this more than America. but nobody needs this more than Joe Biden. Mm-hmm. 100%.

A Pew poll that came out a few days ago shows that only 33% of Americans approve of Joe Biden's job performance. This is unbelievably low. And there's various reasons for it. Look, people do not like the economy. I know this is a big deal. Rather, this is a big fight because people who, you know, economists and people who study it, economy keeps saying, but the economy is good. Unemployment is low. Inflation is coming down, etc., etc. But most of America is sitting there and saying, yeah, we're not feeling it.

I sort of see both sides of this argument. I do think by standard metrics, the economy is actually doing fairly well. But people sort of ridicule the people who say the economy's not doing well and say, oh, this is totally vibes based. And my thought on that is maybe, but vibes can be real. And if you're looking around and you're seeing empty storefronts, even if you're doing okay, you're talking to people who can't afford medical bills and you're talking to people who are worried about putting food on their table and clothing their kids, you're going to sit here and say, I don't care what the statistics say. I'm not feeling this economy. So there's that. There's what's going on with Israel and Gaza. And I want to bring that up in one particular thing. The young adults, this is 18 to 29, 27% percent. approval for Biden, 71% disapproval. That ain't good for a Democratic president. There are varying factors for this, and the economy is certainly one of them. Joe Biden's age is a big part of all of this. And let's not, you know, we have never downplayed that on this podcast, and I don't want to downplay that now. People think he's too old to be president. You want to agree with that. You want to disagree with

that. Fine. Most Americans, even people who are voting for him, think he's too old to be president. And there is, of course, there is what's going on in Israel and Gaza. And now we, We have American troops being killed. And young people are looking around and going, I don't like this guy. And that ain't good. Yeah. It's, I mean, we, this campaign, the Biden campaign, has issues. And it, when what we are realizing is that it is not going to be enough to just hammer in

on Donald Trump's criminality, on his, you know, desires to be America's first dictator. And all of the billions of dollars that are being. put into institutions like the Heritage 2025's campaign and promise of institutionalizing Trumpism that Joe Biden has to show something to the American people, both young and old, across race and ethnicities, that he can bring together the 70% of us. And right now, if you can still go to a grocery store and you get to the checkout and your bill is higher than. You're than it was last month and last year, but you're telling me the economy is good, the response is going to be good for whom? Oh, the jobs report is great. But like, I still have to have two and three jobs

in order to barely make ends meet. That is the reality for too many people in this country. And then you have, you know, on top of it, our foreign affairs issues that are not presenting America in the best light, that are actually doing quite the opposite with people then trying to make sense of what it means to uphold democracy, this big D idea of democracy. And so this administration can't take anything for granted. They can't assume that, oh, the economy is going to speak for itself. Or people will just watch and see Trump devolve and that'll be enough because the people, the millions of people that are watching Fox, don't see any of this.

So this campaign, it doesn't necessarily need a restart, but it needs to have a bigger imagination than what it has right now and recognize that the 70% of people that are normal that live on Earth 1 are exhausted and they're frustrated. And hopelessness is not a place that Democrats need folks to feel and be in nine months heading into the presidential election. Yeah, absolutely. I want to point something out. again, this sort of gets to the sort of divide between economists and normal Americans. There was a new study that came out about a week ago, I think, from a think tank called Groundwork Collaborative. And they say that they have resounding evidence that the main driver of inflation right now is high corporate profits. In other words, this is a thing called greedflation. And the thing is, the reason the prices are high when you go to the grocery store,

or you go to Costco or you go to Target or whatever, the reason the prices are higher than normal is because companies are simply charging more for things while their costs have gone down. So according to this report, 53% of inflation is being caused by this. So over half of the reason you're seeing higher cost is simply because companies have decided they want to make even more profits. They're not passing on higher costs of them doing business to, you, their cost of doing business have actually gone down, but they have simply decided that they want to inflate their prices. And the thing is, you know, you can put out these reports, but if people

don't know this or don't think this, they see higher prices, who are they going to blame? They're going to blame whatever party is in the White House. That's just the way it goes. I think that's part of the disconnect and maybe is part of the reason why Biden's numbers are so low. I'm not making excuses. Joe Biden, like you said, he needs to be out there. If his mind is as sharp as the people around him say, he needs to show that to the American people. Because him not being out there on a daily basis and not talking to the American people does nothing but fuel the belief that he honestly is not up to the job mentally right now. So if that's not true, and I hope that's not true, if it's not true, you got to show us. Would you say rigging the NFL and getting Taylor Swift to endorse him during the halftime of show at Super Bowl would probably prove his mental integrity? Yes. Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal reporter Adam Ronsley at Rolling Stone, where he covers the intersection of politics and technology. And the latest co-authored piece entitled Trump's Secret Plan to Expand Presidential Immunity to King George Levels.

The title says a secret plan, but Donald Trump has been spit in all types of truth ever since he announced his bid for the presidency in 2024. And he has said that he wants to be dictator for a day, you know, just one day. He wants to have the ability to, you know, abuse and, you know, seek retribution against his political opponents. talk to us about what this next level in his desire to be America's first dictator looks like. Yeah, and thanks for having me. I would say that this is, while it is not strategically a surprise that he is seeking to expand his authority and his immunity, given that he's been saying this at every opportunity in public, the secret aspect of it is tactically, I would say, is how he's going to go about

doing that. But what my colleague Swin Soup saying and I found out is that Trump and his advisors have been discussing essentially expanding on a 1973 memo that has been for better or for worse, the Bible of how Justice Departments do and most particularly don't prosecute sitting presidents for crimes. At 1973, Nixon is very much in a period of legal jeopardy with Watergate. And so it just happens that this office in the Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel, cranks out a memo saying, hey, guys, guess what? Can't prosecute a sitting president?

That has pretty much served as guidance since 1973 for successive administrations. Successive administrations have deferred to it. It's the reason why Trump did not get prosecuted or charged for obstruction during the Mueller investigation. And what we learned is that Trump and his advisors would like to put that memo out with a little bit of an asterisk saying, oh, by the way, you also can't prosecute a former president for crimes committed while in office. and that pretty much covers the space-time continuum.

So here's the thing, because I just want to interject and say, what I find alarming is, one, we saw the effects of this memo, which is essentially a suggestion. It is not written in stone or in the Constitution or anywhere, but we saw this during the Mueller investigation where here we come out and Mueller's team says that there are 10 ways. in which that Donald Trump, as the sitting president of the United States, had obstructed justice. Ten ways. But, oh, we don't prosecute sitting presidents. The cause for Trump attorneys is to essentially just give carte blanche the ability of Donald Trump to crime without worry, right? Because it's not as if, like, he's going to stop crime. They just don't want him to have to worry about it. Like, they don't want, they want these cases and all of these things to go away. They're legal standing, though, because you unpack it a bit in here just seems fuzzy to me. Oh, yes, yes. I can unpack it a little bit further. As far as the current

cases against him in the hypothetical where he's reelected, the office of legal counsel on whether or not they issue a memo to his liking are pretty much immaterial. From the moment, he gets reelected in this hypothetical. He appoints an attorney general. The attorney general tells the special counsel, well, yep, sorry, we're dismissing the charges. But I think, but a boom, the charges are gone. And he doesn't have to do anything, you know, that memo is not strictly necessary for prosecuting and while in office, because as we saw before, as long as they defer to the 19703 policy, which every other president has, they're pretty good on that front.

The goal is, number one, you know, giving his pre-second administration arguments, I guess, a veneer of legitimacy about his quote-unquote total immunity. But second, I think the play here is looking at his post-president. assuming there would be a post-presidency. Again, so this doesn't happen again. But as you mentioned, here's the thing. The OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, does not appear in the Constitution. Nobody there is elected.

They're not a part of the judicial branch. OLC memos are very nice. You know, they're written in very flowery language. What they are is not law. What they are is norm and custom. And people treat them like law. You know, if you read the original 1973 memo, it is kind of fucking hilarious. them contemplating just, you know, how the heavens will fall if a president's ever prosecuted for crimes.

And meanwhile, you look at countries from South Korea to Israel to, you name it. Believe it or not, democracies can prosecute their chief executives and the sky doesn't fall. I think the play here is essentially to try and trade on the norms, right? What we saw, like, take for example the torture memos is the Bush administration comes to power. They issue a secret OLC opinion saying, hey, by the way, torture is awesome. within the own OLC of the Bush administration, they rescinded it later. And also you get a second administration coming in saying, by the way, all of the interrogation and detainee stuff that came out of that office, it's gone.

So you can, you know, a next administration could follow, assuming a Trump presidency would allow it. But in theory, a Democratic administration could follow a second Trump administration and just crumble up that OLC memo and proceed as per usual. I don't want to be remiss and kind of glossing over the fact that all of this is based on the assumption, like you keep saying, oh, if in fact Donald Trump were to leave office if he were to become president again. Yeah, that's a big question mark. We say these things, but the fact is that they, and by they, I mean the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, they are putting together an entire plan and apparatus ready to go on day one of the Trump. administration's second term in order to install him for good. So when you're talking about in your

piece, getting rid of career appointees and putting in, you know, sole Trump advocates into these spaces, I just want to give you a space to talk about why that's dangerous. Like, why that should raise a red flag. That's the gist of, I think, what we're trying to get at this is that just because they're going to issue this memo, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to have the force of law. It's sometimes hard for me to get in the heads of some of these people, but, you know, Trump and his aides are also talking about repealing birthright citizenship, which is in the Constitution, which I think even he would have trouble getting rid of it. So just because they're talking about it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to have the effect of a force of law. But what

it does is it goes to intent, is that it shows their view of executive power and it shows their intent for the executive. I mean, just the fact that, you know, the office of legal counsel is nominally at least supposed to be an independent source of legal advice. And here they are, not even in office saying, hey, yeah, if we get a second administration, we're going to have them crank out this, which is not exactly how an independent source of legal advice and constitutional advice would function. It would be made possible by the fact that one of the things you you start seeing a lot recently in Magaland is a lot of quiet part out loud. And you see a lot of talk saying, well, this, this norm that we have that the Justice Department

is not supposed to, you know, be responsive, I think is often the euphemism that they urine, that they use, that the Justice Department is not supposed to be responsive to the White House. It's silly and antiquated is that we should, you know, they should be responsive to the White House's policy priorities, aka essentially making the Justice Department a politicized arm of the White House. The reason that memos like this would be possible is, number one, shredding that norm. Number two, stack the Department of Justice with people who would be only too happy to do that. And number three, shredding the sort of minimal personnel policies that prevent this kind of thing, you know, from having the civil service essentially be an army of the president's perpetual campaign.

So one of the people that you interviewed in this piece, Kimberly Welle, a law professor, said this, quote, certainly former presidents are no longer sitting in office. So the idea that it pulls them off of their task at hand under Article 2 of the Constitution doesn't make any logical sense because they're no longer president. So again, what the memo, the original 1973 memo, and then I want you to touch upon the 2000 kind of update that happened to the memo is they're arguing, okay, 1973, a sitting president can't be charged with a crime. But leaving wide open the fact that, okay, well, when you're no longer president, meaning that your tasks are no longer about the function of the country and the executive branch, then like, you're open for investigation. And what the attorneys for Trump are

trying to say is like, no, no, no. Once you're president, essentially, you're just covered for life. Here's where I find myself recognizing that I need to stop putting logic where they don't. Because then you have right now in the House of Representatives, the Republicans going after Joe Biden for what they perceive as criminal whatever, because they haven't actually said to the American people what they are investigating in order to impeach Joe Biden. But I'm like, but on one hand, y'all are arguing that presidents are above reproach. So which, which is it? Are they above reproach? Or are they not? Or are they only above reproach if their last name is Trump and or they're a Republican?

But everyone else should be open for investigation and charged and put in a gulag. Like, I'm confused. I would point out this is one of the things we heard, which caught my attention, was that essentially the plan for this memo, at least tentatively, would be to issue it towards the end of a Trump administration. Again, asterisk, assuming there is one. And it wasn't mentioned to us, but I would note that that would be. he've opened the conspicuous possibility of a Trump Justice Department charging a former president

by the name of Biden and then issuing the memo. But I mean, honestly, who knows? They're not champions of consistency on this. And as you mentioned, and as Professor Wellie mentioned, you know, the whole sort of bullshit conceit of the 1973 memo and its, it's reiteration in 2000, as the sort of Clinton administration was contemplating another impeachment of a president, is that, you know, being president is such a full-time job that, God forbid, if a justice department had to prosecute him, the heavens would fall and the, you know, the government would grind to a halt. And the thing is, the historical record doesn't really bear that out, is that we had a civil trial involving a former president, Clinton, the sexual harassment case. And whatever you think of the merits of

that case, one thing we can all agree on is government didn't grind to a halt. Was it distracting? I'm sure. But government sure did not grind to a halt. We also had a special counsel investigation of the president running throughout the first two years of the Trump administration. Again, government did not grind to a hole. So, you know, the central conceit of all this is number one kind of bullshit. But even at that, even if we take it at its face, there are no constitutional important Article 2 responsibilities for a former president. Right. Besides ribbon cutting.

You're a pageant queen at that point. Like, let's be clear. Most presidents, once they leave office, right, we don't really hear from them again outside of whatever foundation, whatever library, whatever ceremonial thing is happening. Yeah, there is no constitutional responsibility to carry out $500,000 a plate speeches in exile. And I think that is a pretty good example of why this is all so ludicrous. And, you know, the other thing is that, you know, we keep talking about this. And the elephant in the room here is that the D.C. appeals court and probably later on the Supreme Court are going to rule on this. It's like this is not just a theoretical law school parlor game here is that this is a live and in contest issue in the federal court system arising from the DC elections case, is that Trump's lawyers have made essentially a very similar version of the argument that they are planning to crank out an OLC memo in order to Ryan dismiss the case against him in D.C.

Is that essentially, you know, there's a variety of different arguments they've used, one of which is that, you know, it's double jeopardy to prosecute and impeach. And also, by the way, that former presidents have total immunity and perpetuity. And if you paid attention to the oral arguments in the appeals court, the justices don't seem to agree with that one. No, because, I mean, in all honesty, Adam, it would put them out of a fucking job. Yeah. If for no other reason, like, you know, morality or values or integrity, if this gets kicked up, it puts the justices out of a job because what would you need a Supreme Court for?

What would you need any, you know, federal court for if you have a king? What would we be taking to court at this point? So I'm like, for self-preservation alone, I don't see the court siding with Trump on this. But last, what last thoughts to you? I don't see the D.C. Court siding with him, the Supreme Court. I don't know how that one shakes out. We'll see. But I think this just goes to how ludicrous this whole memo idea is, you know, if they do rule against them,

you would be putting essentially something that is blatantly wrong and already decided into a memo to declare yourself above the law after a couple of appeals courts have already told you, oh, by the way, yeah, you can totally be prosecuted. You know, we are in such a wild fucking political climate that I think this is the norm. And unless these justices in these cases decide like, oh, well, let us think, you know, 10, 20, 30 years down the road of how something like this may shake out. Although I can't imagine something worse than Trump, but let me knock on wood. I don't know how the setup goes. But Adam, appreciate you making the time for the new abnormal folks.

The piece is up at Rolling Stone now entitled Trump's Secret Plan to Expandual Immunity to Caneal, to King George levels. Appreciate you. Thanks. In the immortal words of Mel Brooks, it's good to be the king. A story that, in my opinion, has been severely undercovered

by the legacy media is what's happening in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott has refused to allow federal border patrol agents entry into an area called Shelby Park that lies on the border with Mexico. Shelby Park was used by the Border Patrol

to process migrants, but Abbott has instead used the Texas National Guard to put up concertino wire around it and set up barriers inside it to prevent migrants from using it to come into the country illegally. Abbott says the feds have failed to do their job in securing the border and therefore have, quote, broken the compact between the United States and the states, and 25 Republican governors have signed a letter in support of his actions. Joining me now to discuss this is Jeff Charlotte. He teaches writing at Dartmouth College, has won

multiple awards for his own writing, and is the author of seven books, including his latest, The Undertow Seins from a Slow Civil War, which is now a finalist for the National Book Critic Circles Award in the nonfiction category. Jeff, welcome back and congratulations. Thanks, Andy. Good to be with you again. So I guess my first question, before we get to Texas, I'm curious what percentage of the undertow becoming a National Book Critic Circle Award finalist you think is due to the interview I did with you about it? Well, they did write me a letter, and they asked, could we get Andy over there? And I said, I can't speak for him. So I'm kind of filling in for you. Okay. If I win, I can accept the award for you. In my behalf? Yes, yes.

Oh, excellent. All right. Good to know. I suspected that, but I wasn't sure. Okay. Let's get to the serious stuff. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you about this issue is because the undertow is subtitled scenes from a slow civil war. And there's been a lot of talk about what Abbott doing as being along those lines, maybe not quite in the same way you meant it. Maybe in the same way you meant it. Do you agree with that talk? I mean, it's not up to me to agree with it. that talk when the right wing is sort of saying we are moving toward a civil war. Some folks saying we should be moving toward a civil war. I mean, I don't agree that we should be moving toward a civil war, but I agree that, yes,

it's on the table. And that Abbott and 25 governors, which is astonishing to me, and I'm sitting here in New Hampshire where we have the so-called moderate governor Chris Zununu, Republican, who is for it, although Cross River is Vermont. We have Republican there, too, and he thinks this is crazy. He's not for it. because it's moving toward a civil war. It's kind of like playing chicken.

And this is a thing that I've been saying about this sort of slow civil war for a long time. I thought it was a matter of time until one of these governors decided to dare the federal government. And they did that a little bit in the pandemic with the state National Guard commanders saying, we're not going to follow the vaccine. We're just going to disobey an order. What are you going to do about it? Now we have that escalation. These are days when a lot of, not a lot of people have a lot of great things to say about Joe Biden.

But one thing I will say is this is at least in this front, I am glad he is taking a calm and steady approach and resisting the cause of those, oh, why don't you just federalize a National Guard? Right. You just start shooting because that's the game they're playing. I want to get to that a little more in a minute. But I want to ask you, you posted some thoughts about this whole thing on blue sky, which for people who don't know is the social media site for discerning users. And that was the other reason I wanted to have you on is because I thought a lot of what you said was very thoughtful. I want to read back some of the things you posted and then ask you to, you know, sort of go into it a little more expand upon it. The first thing you posted was, how serious is this?

My 14-year-old asked hearing the news of Trump calling on governors to send National Guard to Texas to resist federal government. Just posturing, I reassure them. What I don't say, same way Russian roulette's just a dumb game. Yeah, and I think that's the kind of posturing that we've had this thing going on for a while where around the country, and this is sort of part of that, what I think of as a slow civil war, you get, you know, outside a library, outside a bar, outside of school, outside of church, a hospital, you get a row of oathkeepers or proud boys or three percenters or your local militia. And they line up with their guns and they stand there. And I think there's a lot of folks who are really tempted to say, well, it's just cospool. Right. And there's an element of that. But it's cosplay with a loaded gun. There's an element of that here, too. I do think it is posturing. I don't think Greg Abbott actually is trying to provoke a civil war. I think he is trying to make a kind of spectacle. I think he is counting on the federal government being a little more mature and backing down because it's sort of like he's setting a bluff. What do we tell our kids? We tell our kids, well, it's just posturing. That's one way of diminishing it and saying, no. No, they're not trying to start a war in this country. But as adults, we have to recognize that they are making it very possible. I mean, we've had situations, and most tragically, I don't know if you were talking about

this, but most tragically, that situation of two young children, an eight-year-old and a 10-year-old and their mother attempting a border crossing. Now, the federal agents, the Border Patrol, not normally known as heroes, couldn't have made a difference. They would have been there too late. But the fact is, they don't have access to the area where these three people drowned because and then when they showed up, the Texas National Guard is there armed, live ammunition saying you're not coming in here. Everybody kept their heads. How many times do you

want to keep striking that match and tossing into the dry grass and hoping it doesn't catch fire? How many times it's just a really, really dangerous situation? I don't think this one's going to catch fire, but I think it's a dry run. I think it's a practice run. Yeah. And to get back to what You said earlier, you know, obviously there have been calls from some Democrats and whatever for President Biden to nationalize or federalize the Texas National Guard. And he can do that, as people have pointed out, Eisenhower did it in Alabama to counter Bull Conner's attempts to prevent black children from integrating Birmingham schools. But as you said earlier, and as you posted, he said, quote, this is by construction an incredibly

tense moment with GOP governors orchestrating a showdown. Biden could suppress it, which could really be the spark or the whole damn explosion that kills a lot more. It's de-escalation time. Since obviously you do not think that the president should take over the Texas National Guard, what do you think he should be doing in this situation? That I'm not as well positioned to answer because I'm not privy to those kinds of behind-the-scenes conversations, which I'm sure are taking place. But in the sense, I think there's a couple things happening there. First of all, we have to remember is that as tens as the civil rights era was, Biden does not have the authority over the military that Dwight Eisenhower had. When you talk about he could federalize the Texas

National Guard. That is, he could put out an order whether they're going to follow. And seven state national guards already broke orders on the vaccine mandate. The risk, of course, is, and this has always been the risk, and it's not just little lefty me saying this. You're seeing senior military officers saying, we have a problem with a chain of command question of officers not sure whose orders to follow. So the risk, the real terror would be one part of the Texas National Guard decides, hey, he's a commander in chief. The other side decides they're persuaded by this fake constitutional argument. And it is a fake constitution argument. We talk about why, that the state has a constitutional right to do this. And we see, you know, Governor Kevin Stitt,

of Oklahoma, who is right in there with him saying the Constitution supersedes the president, which is a just bizarre statement. By Constitution, he doesn't mean that document that empowers the president to be the executive. He means the imaginary constitution, the constitution that is spoken of on January 6th and 1776. The idea, it's the same constitution he's talking about the sheriffs around the country as many as 40 percent now call themselves, constitutional sheriffs in which they believe that they are the highest law in their county. And I would like to know how many constitutional sheriffs are at play down in this Texas region where this is happening because that's going to be part of the attention to should things escalate.

Yeah. And, you know, we were talking beforehand and I said, look, you know, Jeff, I didn't bring you on to start getting into Article 6 of the Constitution says so-and-so because that's not your job. That's not what you do. But since you brought it up and you are absolutely correct, Abbott is trying to claim that there's a clause in the Constitution that in the event of a state being invaded, that state has the authority to engage in war. And this clause is specifically limiting the power of the state government. What Abbott is claiming is an invasion does not meet the definition of invasion that is meant in the Constitution. So you're absolutely right in saying that it's a completely phony argument that is somehow being either bought into or pretended to be bought into by these other Republican governors.

Yeah, but although the phoniness of it is what's scary. So if Abbott really believe this, if this was an invasion and they're allowed to defend themselves, then why aren't they opening fire? And they're not because he knows it's not an invasion. And thank God. But they are actually putting that on the table and they're sort of skirting that with razor wire. And then, of course, people remember there was those sort of like weird circular saw blades

that were putting in the river. there's a hunger game's element to this, right? There's a spectacle. There is, let's get the sort of the titillation of who will die, who will blink. But it is a game, and they are running it as a game. And we know this because they are

not responding as if they actually believe it's an invasion. Thank God, I don't want them to even as I'm terrified that they have opened the door to that. And of course, if you go roaming around, I'm about to say the right wingless fear, but let's just call it what it is. We have moved into

the age of fascism, you will find plenty of people who are excited about that idea, including one former president, Trump, remember? What do you want? He wanted? Aligators and moats and things. I mean, you know, and the silliness of it is what distracts us from the violence of it. And we should remember this spectacle is kind of a convergence of silliness and also really grotesque in painful violence. Yeah, it does, you know, in a certain way, it feels like, I don't want to say a culmination because God knows something worse could be coming. Maybe a continuation of sort of the thing we've seen from people like Amin Bundy. And even going back further, I guess, if you want to talk about like Randy Weaver and things

like that, except in this case, it's not a private citizen. It's an actual state sort of defying the federal government. Or how about David Koresh and the Branch Divideons and Waco, which of course we remember is where Trump launched his 2024 election. campaign, and that is very visceral. I just a little while ago actually attended a conference of the Texas secessionist movement, which is like all secessionist movements right now still pretty fringe, except that it seems to be getting backing from the same kind of big West Texas billionaires who are the guys backing the right wing branch of the Texas legislature. I say the right wing

branch. It's all right wing, basically, at this point, but there's a right wing and then there's a further right wing. The billionaires are behind the further right wing. They're using the secessionist movement, which is sort of invoking the same kind of language of invasion and we part we have to get away from the United States so we can defend ourselves and we can invoke this kind of mythology of the Alamo. They're using this as a wedge to drive the entire Texas state government right wing. And it's worth looking at who those guys are. And there's some great reporters down there in Texas who are digging in. But what's fascinating, and I think there's a temptation on the left always to see it's about nothing but money, right? That's a reassurance narrative. That's actually, what did it were

only about money? These guys are committed Christian nationalists who are committed to the idea of Texas as a Christian nation. They have been speaking the language of blood pollution, which Trump has now mainstreamed into the national conversation for a long time. That's all swirling around there with who is not, by the way, of course, the most right-wing politician in Texas. And he's constantly suspect and constantly trying to prove himself as a figure who can stay in the game. Well, and that's where, you know, we talk about posturing and we talk about things being performative. But as you pointed out, with your Russian roulette analogy, a lot of these things that are posturing and performative reach the ears and the minds of people who don't realize

that. And you mentioned people like, you know, the proud boys. And we've got the oaths. and the Amin Bundys of the world. And they hear this stuff as at least, you know, there's a chance that they hear this stuff as a call to arms. And I mean that literally. I start looking at this and I'm like, is this possibly a flashpoint moment? I mean, we've got, you know, Abbott is actually aping language from the actual civil war talking about the federal government has broken its compact with the states. Yeah, broken as compact. That's, I mean, that's amazing language. I know. Look, remember, the first battle of the Civil War, Bull Run, was also thought of as posturing. Remember, people lined up with picnics to watch it.

They were sure it was going to be one battle. The Union was going to, the South was going to come up. The Union was just going to put them in their place really quick, and the war be over. Now, there would be some gunfire, but this was not a big deal, right? I mean, this was a Sunday. Well, I don't know if it was a Sunday, but it was sort of a Sunday afternoon. Go out there with picnics and watch. Of course, it ended up being a route.

The South won, and it's hard to believe it. In the South, just as equally believed that, oh, we're just going to win this battle, and that'll be it. That then leads to one of the bloodiest wars in U.S. history. The posturing becomes the reality. And we say that it's calling to those Ammon Bundys and those three percenters and those oathkeepers. Look, one of them opens fire. One of them opens fire on federal troops. What happens?

Look at the situation where now in the Middle East where a drone killed. three American soldiers. Now the United States government feels itself in a bind. If it responds, the war gets bigger. If it doesn't, the war gets bigger. So what happens if that comes? Now, you said this could be a flashpoint. The good news is this, and I think this is good news, and you go back to January 6th and like over time, I mean, in my own reporting, traveling around the country, talking to J-6ers, they were all armed. Not all. There was a lot of guns there. And they didn't come out. beside the one officer who shot Ashley Babbitt, one of the insurrectionists, the other officers, the Capitol Police officers, had the wisdom to keep their guns holstered,

because if they had taken out their guns, there were enough guns there, and then we would have been on. And the amazing thing, like a miracle, only one shot fired. That seems a bitter thing to call miracle. But there is, I think, as the stakes get heightened, a kind of natural restraint that digs in. I don't know if it's enough, but it is a force in play. I think the federal government is exemplifying it. I can't believe I'm praising the Border Patrol, which is not an agency I admire in any way. Yes.

But they're responding to this calmly. I mean, they could have gone up and said, hell no, you're not keeping us out. We're the federal government. We're coming in. And they didn't. To me, that's the right move because the civil warriors online, the lefty civil warriors are like, ah, can bring it on. We'll win it.

Nobody wins a civil war. Yeah, no, I think that's undoubtedly true. It's terrifying that what we're depending on is sort of, everybody being calm and at least somewhat rational when we know a lot of these actors are not particularly rational to begin with. And yes, I agree with you. I'm very happy that January 6th didn't turn out to be worse than it was. I'm not entirely sure that I'm secure in thinking that that's going to hold as we move forward. Well, look, I mean, go back to 2020. And do you remember the Wisconsin vote counting board and was like maybe three Republicans and two Democrats. And there was

one, a young man who was a youngish man or a young dad who was a Republican. And he did the right thing, despite it being basically the end of his political life, his social life, his everything else, right? And the mistake people then said was like, see, the system held. Now, the system didn't hold if you have to depend on one person or the same way that like General Millie, when General Millie on January 6, let's everybody know. Don't do anything unless you hear it from me. That's not the system. That's one guy making a decision. So what Abbott and the other 25 governors have done have actually knocked the pillar of the system out. So now we don't even have a message of the system. We are just depending on the restraint of people who are trying to demonstrate to the world how unrestrained they are. Yeah,

it's pretty frightening. Jeff, I thank you so much for coming on to talk about this. I had a feeling you would be great. And for once, my feeling was correct. I really appreciate it. And for those who haven't read The Undertow, it was one of the best books of 2023 and absolutely deserving of being a finalist for the National Book Critic Circle Award. And I would urge everyone to go out and read it. Jeff, thank you so much again. Thank you, Andy.

Andy Levy. Danielle Moody. How are we starting off this good, good week with your fuck that guy? Well, I'm a little nervous about my fuck that guy. It's a business. And I feel like it's a business that it's entirely possible is beloved by a lot of our listeners. Uh-oh. And so I just, I want to implore our listeners not to shoot the messenger here. Oh, dear. And I just want to report that Trader Joe's, okay, which is for people who don't know is, I guess you call it sort of an upscale grocery store chain.

wouldn't call it that, but go ahead. Yeah. I know the people who love it will say, Andy, it's so much more than that. But I don't, I'm not going to get into that. They are being accused by the National Labor Relations Board of illegally retaliating against workers, firing union supporters, and spreading false information to try to hurt a union organizing campaign. This is as reported by Dave Jameson at Huffington Post and also a bunch of other places. They are not. now taking a step further, and they're sort of following Elon Musk's lead here because he did the same thing recently. They are now arguing that the National Labor Relations Board itself is unconstitutional. The NLRB was a New Deal program, started in the 40s, you know, when it sort of is an umpire,

a referee, you know, mediator between labor and business. There's a new conservative effort. to say that the NLRB is unconstitutional. And it's part of a larger deal. It's as with a lot of other things on this podcast, a lot of it goes back to this Heritage Project 2025 that we're always talking about and this conservative effort to sort of get rid of the regulatory state, as they call it. Things like the EPA wanting to stop businesses from poisoning water and the National Labor Relations Board going after unfair business practices. Yeah, things like that. So Trader Joe's is not only being accused of being anti-union and of doing things that are currently illegal in order to keep its employees from unionizing. They are buying in to this conservative tactic of claiming that the National Labor Relations Board itself is unconstitutional. And look, I'm not a huge boycott guy in the sense. There are things. There are companies I won't use. I won't shop at.

There are websites I won't use. but I don't generally sit there and tell other people they shouldn't use them either. It's just not my personality. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that. It's just not me. So I'm not telling anyone here to boycott Trader Joe's. I'm saying take that information and do with it what you will. And, you know, you need to decide for yourself whether they're white bean hummus.

You know, it's so delicious that you just can't live without it. And you don't care that they are. trying to destroy unions and even the National Labor Relations Board itself. This is a true life example I just used. I'm not going to say who it is, but it's a producer who is normally here with us, but is not right now. But that's all I'll say. That could be a lot of people. And I'm not going to narrow it down any further than that.

So I'll just end now and say Trader Joe's, in my opinion. Fuck those guys. I don't think that white bean hummus is worthier integrity. you know, and that's, that's what I will say. Yeah, no, there are people who don't agree with that is all I'm saying. Anyway, you know. Danielle, who's your, who's your fuck that guy? You know, I like to keep mine pretty classic,

so the people don't come from me in the way that they're going to come for you. Andy, and so my fuck that guy is the Heritage Foundation, who folks I will continue to talk about until they are no more. But guess what? They are ramping up. and have raised, get this, more than $150 million last year. And just as a reminder that Heritage Foundation is leading Project 2025, which is a massive coalition of right-wing and MAGA-supremist organizations that are planning to, quote,

take the reins of government and install on day one in their 900-page battle. plan as it's being called to install only Trump loyalists in every single agency that they don't decide to shut down on day one of not only a Trump administration, but any Republican administration. These people have spent the last several years sharpening their swords and getting ready for battle against our constitution, law and order, like any sense of democracy, they are done with it. And this plan is not secret. And so the fact that they are not only backed by billionaires, but have raised $150 million. And I keep asking, where is the left's plan? Where is the rest of America's plan for how we hold on. I don't see it. But if that doesn't scare the shit out of you,

that these people are well funded, they are strategic. They have put in to plan a database of tens of thousands of people to enter into agencies like the Department of Justice, the Department of Education and others so that they can finish gutting it from the inside out. If that is not enough of a reason for you to decide and maybe get off the fence or relieve yourself of the apathy of this election season, then I don't know what will. But for that reason and that reason alone, the Heritage Foundation remains forever, my fuck that guy. I feel like it's not really for that reason alone. It's for so many more reasons, but we don't have a lot of time.

No, we don't. I think we're getting low. So yeah, I'll just agree with you and say fuck that guy. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens?

Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.