The Dispatch Podcast - The Second Coming of Trump | Interview: Robert Costa

Episode Date: May 6, 2024

Robert Costa, chief election and campaign correspondent for CBS News, joins Jamie to discuss what a second Trump administration would look like. The Agenda: —GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s previous Dispatch Podcast appearance and Costa’s response —How Trump pressured different Republican leaders leading up to January 6 —Steve Bannon’s motivation and role —Trump’s ongoing legal cases and how they affect his campaign —Trump’s possible VP picks Show Notes: —NYT "Could Trump Go to Prison? If He Does, the Secret Service Goes, Too" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XC90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. Td Bank knows that running a small business is a journey, from startup to growing and managing your business. That's why they have a dedicated small business advice hub on their website to provide tips and insights on business banking to entrepreneurs. No matter the stage of business you're in, visit td.com slash small business advice to find out more or to match with a TD small business banking account manager. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jane. Weinstein. My guest today is an old friend of sorts, the chief election and campaign correspondent for

CBS News, Bob Costa. He is also the author of the book, Peril, with Bob Woodward. And I brought Bob on today, and I wanted to bring him on ever since my interview with Dan Crenshaw a few months ago. We quoted it again last week, and I quote a section of it at the beginning of this podcast on January 6th, because Bob has covered that day extensively in the days before and after. And I wanted to bring him on to discuss what exactly happened to refresh people's memory because it does seem like a lot of people are forgetting what happened that day and what the goal was. But we also talk about the Trump campaign and the Trump trials, things that Bob Costa also

covers extensively. I think you're going to find this podcast interesting and educational, as always, I hope so at least. So without further ado, I give you Mr. Bob Costa. Bob Costa, welcome to the Dispac podcast. Great to be with you, Jamie. I wanted to have you on after I had Congressman Crenshaw on earlier this year. And he brought up January 6th. And I think it's fair to say downplayed it. And I thought I wanted to have someone on who wrote a book that kind of outlined exactly what occurred to kind of refresh the memory of this audience of what went down that day.

So how I'm going to begin is, I'm going to read you his response and what he brought up about January 6. Just get you to respond to how that track with your reporting on what happened that day. Speaking of Trump's actions on January 6th of the post-election attempted overthrow of the government, But he responded, I'm sure how hard he tried. He tried with a lot of words and mean things. And that, you know, in the end, we could go into this forever, I guess. But in the end, it was a peaceful transfer of power.

And that was it. He went on to downplay the word insurrection. He said it was an angry mob that got really out of control. He went on. He used procedures to stay in power. That's a very different thing than like trying to raise an army to stay in power. When I pointed out that he seemed to do a little bit more than that on January 6th, he responded, what did he do? He tweeted at Mike Pence. Like, you know, did it instigate and make all these people

crazy and make them do crazy shit? Yeah, but in the end, he tweeted at Mike Pence. I pointed out he didn't try to help Mike Pence when Midd Pence was in trouble. He said, you can criticize the morality of it all day long, but you can't call it this, this sort of, this sort of South American style too, either. In the end, he tried through procedures, through his bully pulpit, through his ability to speak, but it ended there. He argued, he went on to argue that they would be laughed out of court if he continued this process and had made it up to the Supreme Court. You wrote the book Peril with Bob Woodward. I read it again recently. How do you respond to that memory of January 6th? Is that track with what you reported in that book? The story of January 6th,

is something a lot of people have opinions about, but as a reporter, I try to stick to the facts. And facts are dates, events, things that are confirmed. And January 6 to me is not just about one day, it's about a series of days, especially in the intense run-up to the certification day on January 6, 2021. And very briefly, I'll just walk through with the facts as I see them. Sunday, January 3, 2021, Mike Pence meets with the Senate parliamentarian. He discusses the possibility of having a vice presidential entry into the certification process. The Senate parliamentarian at that level says, sir, there's nothing you can do. There's only thing you can do is oversee the certification. You're essentially an MC of the certification. Penn says, well, I've been hearing from

different lawyers, different things. She says, no, Elizabeth McDonough at the time. She says, you cannot do anything except oversee the certification. Penn says, that's what I, I know that's what's in the Constitution, but I've been hearing a few different things. Thank you for that clarity. The next day, January 4th, 2021, Pence gets called into the Oval Office. Trump's there, so is Mark Short, Pence's chief of staff, and a new presence is there, a conservative lawyer from California, John Eastman. Trump says, I've been talking to this lawyer, John Eastman. He has an idea that you can act, you can stop the certification, you can disrupt everything.

Pence says, I really don't think I can. I just talked to the Senate parliamentary in the day before. There's nothing I can do. And Pence had been hearing from everybody that he can't do anything, including from former Vice President Dan Quayle, who oversaw his own January 6 back in 1993. On January 4th, though, Trump is adamant Pence, you have to act. And Pence is really taken aback by Trump's intensity. Trump later goes that afternoon and evening to Georgia for a rally ahead of the Senate

elections. And he says on stage that night on January 4th, Mike Pence, you better do what I want you to do. You better do what I want you to do. The next day, January 5th, the eve of the certification date, Trump says, I got to get Pence in the office. one-on-one. And so Pence comes into the Oval Office one-on-one, and Trump just leans into him. You have to do this. If you don't do this, you're not going to be my friend anymore. I made you.

You're everything because of me. Do what the people want you to do. And as Trump is saying this, there is a mob gathering outside on Freedom Plaza. No one knows, of course, that this would become part of the mob that would take the Capitol or try to take the Capitol in January 6th. But Pence is in the Oval Office, and Trump is so frustrated, but Pence won't break. He won't bend. And it's reported in our book and elsewhere that Pence leaves the Oval Office white as a ghost like he has just been through this harrowing experience, this conversation with Trump. And then we were the first to report that AIDS after Pence leave walked into the Oval Office. And what do they see? It's a very cold January night in 2021. They see the door of the Oval Office is open, despite it

being freezing outside. Why is the door open? Because Trump wants to hear the crowd outside. He wants to hear the crowd on Freedom Plaza, my people, he says, to multiple people who come in the room. And then he calls more people into the room later that evening. And he says, we have to convince the Republicans to act. We have to make this happen. And who does he speak to on the night of January 5th? Steve Bannon, who's over in the Willard Hotel across the street, coordinating with Rudy Giuliani to push the Republicans the next day to overturn the election. We were the first to report that Trump was calling into the Willard Hotel on January 5th. The reporting of that phone call led to a congressional subpoena for the first time from the January 6th committee, which led Steve

ban into being subpoenaed. He refused to comply with the subpoena, ultimately prosecuted for not complying with that subpoena. So whether it's the congressman or anyone else, we have an open dialogue in this country about the context of things and how people want to see different events. But as a reporter, I lived and breed the events of January 6th for many months, studying it, talking to people who directly participated. And I was actually at the Willard Hotel the night of January 5th. all the crowds outside. And these were people in military style gear. They were wearing fatigues. This was a rough crowd. The cops were having a tough time out on Freedom Plaza. I was there

11 o'clock at night. I remember calling Bob Woodward on the phone and saying something's up here, something strange is going on here. But even then, I had no concept there could be an overthrow attempt of the election. It was inconceivable, even on January 5th, despite, we forget this, It was inconceivable on the night of January 5th that there would somehow be what many it would call the coup attempt because it was un-American to think that that could even happen. Yes, the contesting of the election, yes, it was known that there was going to be some kind of objection to the count. But I just think back to the memories of that crowd on January 5th near midnight outside

the Willard Hotel and saying to myself, this is just a Trump crowd. They're getting ready to have a rally. thinking they could attack the capital, at least some of them. I go back to what the congressman said to me that there was no plan, almost there was no procedure. But reading your book, Bob, and I'd love you to expound upon this, it might not have been a good plan, but it does seem that John Eastman had outlined a plan that, you know, they would gavel the session closed and the states that had competing electors would not be counted and you could declare Trump the winner. What was that the plan? Was there a plan to get from here to there, to get from losing this election to

maintaining power? This was always about maintaining power. It was about getting Congress to block the certification so Trump could stay in power. I mean, Trump told multiple people in the days after the 2020 election that he wanted to stay in, that he knew he had probably lost. And there's been multiple testimony about that as well as our reporting. he pretty much acknowledged he had lost, even though he didn't believe he had lost. He didn't believe it was possible that he had lost, but he acknowledged that the count in terms of the numbers wasn't there. And so he started to think, could he stay in power? And most people told him, the only thing you could do is fight this in the courts.

And he did across the country. We remember the scenes of Rudy Giuliani having Zoom meetings with state legislatures and all these different lawsuits in Texas and Pennsylvania, Arizona. on and on, Georgia, all of these different efforts, but ultimately they fail. And I think that the story of January 6 is really a story of December 2020 through January 2021, because the failure of the court strategy in November and early December leads to the certificate, the electoral college voting in December, and it's over. And at that moment where it seems to be over because the electoral college is voted and all that's left is the certification, Trump is spoiling for something to happen. And there's this scene in peril where Bob Woodward and I reported that Trump's down at Moralago in Palm Beach for his famous New Year's Eve party in 2020.

And he loves going to the New Year's Eve party. And something strange happened on December 31st, 2020. Trump decides suddenly to get on a plane and come back to Washington. And people said, why is Trump skipping his own New Year's Eve party? He came back to the Oval, came back to D.C. on the afternoon of December 31st. skipped the party. And at the time, people thought that was very odd. Trump doesn't miss that party. We missed the party because he was being told by Bannon and so many others that you have to start to dig in now and fight, that this is the crucial week, December 31st through January 6th. You

can't, you know, you have to focus now on trying to stay in power. It has to be relentless pressure on Republicans, Pence, people in Congress, to echo your false claims. Of course, they didn't see them as false. And try to make this somehow get pushed into the House. or representatives or have chaos so the result is somehow questioned. I mean, there's so many threads to Paul. You mentioned they didn't see them as false. But as you did mention, and you write in your book, he does tell Kellyanne at one point, how did I lose to this guy referring to Joe Biden?

I mean, and I think this will be a key part of the federal case, the state of mind of Donald Trump, does he convince himself that he actually won and this fraud exists and the people that are telling it, this small group of people that are telling him that the fraud exist despite all the evidence of the contrary? Or does he know that it doesn't exist and he just wants to maintain power? Are you able to determine all? Well, with Trump, I mean, with Trump, though, I always believe you can't get in his head. I don't like it in his head because it's hard for me. I don't know what he really thinks. I don't know what he feels. I don't know what any principle or source or person I cover really thinks or feels. All I know is what he does. And what he did is take almost every

step possible to pressure Republicans to help him stay in power. Trump has said he wanted to go to the Capitol himself. There's a lot of different reporting and testimony about just how far he pushed to get to the Capitol that day. We all heard Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. But Trump himself has acknowledged that he wanted to go to the Capitol. And his Secret Service detail told him that would be something they would not advise. Speak a little bit more about this Willard, Willard Hotel. I find that, you know, an interesting scene that you paint in the book. You have, you know, Boris Epstein, Rudy Giuliani, Bernie Carrick, Steve Bannon. Are they there to overthrow, I mean, is that, is that why they have this war room? Do they believe it's possible? Well, they were

actually there to have a podcast. I mean, we're on a podcast now. I mean, the podcast drive American culture, I guess. But Steve Bannon has his war room podcast. And so he was doing it from the kind of mezzanine level of the Willow Hotel. But the war room podcast effectively became a war room for Trump's overthrow efforts. That because Bannon was like the fulcrum of all of these different conversations with Giuliani, that Bannon was really leaning on Giuliani to talk to Trump about the legal strategy. Bannon was kind of stirring up the outside forces. You remember Bannon at the time saying tomorrow is going to be a day like unlike anything we've ever seen.

He was generating kind of this right-wing fervor on his show. Giuliani was coordinating all the legal efforts with Trump. And they're all at the Willow Hotel because they're not at the White House. And Trump's checking in with them because these are his people. And he knows that they're fighting. He's skeptical that everyone in the White House is fighting for him. A lot of people are quitting, looking for their own jobs. He wants a fight.

Now, he knows it's a long shot based in everything I've heard about people who are speaking to Trump at the time. He knows it's probably not going to happen. But the thing is with Trump, whether it's his public profile in the 70s or 80s or 90s or even now running for president again, disruption is power for Trump. He doesn't see power as just a series of decisions to make or things he can do to like weaponize or wield in a way. Power to him is brute force to disrupt events, to disrupt a conversation. So for him, calling into a cable network, throwing a wrench in the certification of Congress, stirring things up for an hour to rally, confronting someone on social media, confrontation is his whole methodology. And so he just took it to the endth degree with January

6th. What's Bannon's motivation? Is Bannon's motivation to get that pardon at the end? Is that why he's become, you know, becomes this loyal lieutenant trying to keep, you know, tell Trump what he wants to hear in order? Bannon's a lot like Trump. I mean, Bannon is someone whose entire life is politics. his entire life is fighting what he perceives as a financial establishment, democratic establishment, media establishment, and Republican establishment in particular. So he's someone who wakes up every day and thinks about fighting the establishment because that's kind of the piston of his life. Did he want a part of it?

I, again, can't get in his head. He obviously didn't feel like he had any wrongdoing with any of his different legal issues over the years. But I've covered Bannon for a long time. And there is a part of Bannon that is extreme on the American scene that we haven't really ever, I think, fully processed as someone with his viewpoints came so into power in the United States. I mean, this is someone who back in 2011, I'll never forget it. He told me in Pella, Iowa, when I was covering a Sarah Palin documentary that Bannon had directed, called The Undefeated. He was premiering it in Pella, Iowa. But Bannon then, when he was an unknown politically, wasn't even running Breitbart.

He told me the future of politics is populism and nationalism. And I remember saying to Bannon then in 2011, what are you talking about? Those words are like from the 1930s. No one uses those words. He says, no, the middle class has been destroyed, the future of this country's nationalism. And I kind of think back to that conversation a lot because nationalism was, again, something we never would have thought when you and I were starting out in journalism, 10, 15, years ago that this would become some major current in American politics. But Bannon saw it and he fueled it. And so he does have an ideological drive to change American politics in a way Trump does

not, even if he might have his own personal motivations as well. Are you surprised, you know, we see now in Crenshaw's just one example, but we see from January 6th a lot of Republicans who on that day were very mad and very angry. And as time goes on, we now see a campaign by Donald Trump run with a January 6th choir. Some Republicans painting America similar to Navalny the way they're treating Trump, the late Russian dissident now. You had on that day, Lindsay Graham, or days after saying enough is enough, Mitch McConnell trying to, you know, speak him out of the party with his speech. Now supporting Trump. are you surprised that from that day what you saw the Republican Party seeming to rebel against Trump

to now falling in line again around Donald Trump who's running a campaign in part defending January 6th. I think the coverage of Trump often misses the point about the Republicans in Trump. They're not falling in line with Trump. They're not fearful of Trump. Hope Hicks in the days after the 2020 election was brought in the old. Oval Office by Trump. And she said to him, sir, why don't you give up? Just go back to Palm Beach, live your life. You can always run again. Have a good life. And he tells hope, no, you don't understand me, hope. I have to fight. I have to fight because that's what my people, that's what my

base wants. They demand that of me. So I must do it. She says, you don't need to. You do it. You can do a thousand things. You can have a happy life. You can be a great politician. You can be a major figure. Just give up. And he says, no, my people want me to fight. And that to me is one of the most revealing conversations we reported in peril, because it's the Trump I really know and have covered for a long time, which is, yes, he has a huge personality. Yes, he can fill an arena and kind of dominate it for an hour with his rhetoric and celebrity presence. But at the end of the day, Donald John Trump, at 77 years old, a former president, is not someone who's commanding power day-to-day inside of the GOP on positions, on policy, on the drift of the party.

He instead is in many ways an avatar politically for the base. And so the Republican Party isn't enthralled to Trump, but they are enthralled to their base voters, their coalition, the core voter, who are aligned with Trump as their own kind of weapon and spokesperson. But it's really the base that the party leadership doesn't want to contest and can't contest. They don't feel capable, willing, or able to change the drift of the base. And Trump sometimes stokes it and drives that conversation. Really, Trump is the kind of the standard bearer for a coalition that is with him and locked in with him, but not with him all the time in a personal level. And here's an example.

I'm here in Lower Manhattan. I'm sitting in Trump, the courtroom. I took a break to have this conversation. And I've been, you know, there's like three protesters outside every day, Jamie, here in lower Manhattan, outside the Manhattan criminal court. Is Trump a movement politician, yes, but he's not a movement politician who's commanding thousands of people to stand outside on a nice day in New York to stay, stand in solid area with him because he's not that kind of figure at the end of the day. I mean, people stand in line for rallies for hours and they kind of get a social kick out of it and they find friends and there is a movement quality. socially and politically to what he has built. But at the end of the day, the Republican establishment, and I know that whatever you want to

call it, the Republican leadership, I talk to them all the time. They go back to their states and their respective districts, and they can't fight what they see is just the overwhelming reality that the party doesn't want what they have long sold, that the post-Ragan order of GOP consensus on taxes, on foreign policy, on trade, is over. And any attempt to build it back is going to take enormous political skill, and no one seems to really have that at the moment. And so they're just kind of quietly aligned instead with this avatar for the base and grievance. And Trump's grievances about his own legal issues and personal problems aligned with how many people feel grievance about their own lives. So there's

kind of this symphony of grievance that keeps Trump afloat in a party that doesn't really like him at the top ranks, but accepts that he has a lot of power with the people who matter and vote. Well, that actually raises an interesting point that I used to ask on my previous show, the Jamie Weinstein show of all my guests back when Trump was president. Do you believe that Trump won because of his brand, his personality, that I will make you a winner, or do you think it was issue-centric, that he won because he took different stances than traditional Republicans? You mean, did he win the primary in 2016 or the general?

Primary, sorry. Yeah, I think that's a long conversation. A couple of things. I mean, the Iraq war created a lot of trust issues with core base voters with traditional Republicans. And you couple that together with what happened with the financial collapse of 2007, 2008, 2009, and the bailout of some of these Wall Street firms. You have on foreign policy and economic policy and erosion of trust. And into that vacuum walks someone who's willing to take on all of these kind of traditional positions, and he was really the only one doing it, and he was booed by things that people don't even think about now. Donald Trump probably doesn't happen in the way he happens in 2016, unless Ron Paul runs for president in 2008 and 2012. So Ron Paul had already chipped away at institutional Republican understanding and faith and traditional Republican foreign policy with his libertarian kind of non-intervention, his view of foreign policy. And then you add in Rick Santorum in 2012, evangelicals felt left out. Rick Santorum ran in 2012 and had a very

strong campaign that has almost forgotten now how many primaries and caucuses he won, almost beat Romney in a sense for the nomination if he had won a few more states and could have gotten some momentum. But Santorum, what's his Santorum's message in 2012 that almost makes him a real contender, blue-collar evangelical populism? So you look at some of the huge runs ahead of Trump. Non-intervention is outsider, cranky personality with Ron Paul, mixed with Rick Santor and Blue Collar Evangelical Populism. And you have the foundation for a Trump campaign. And you add to it the Syrian issue of immigration, which Trump really seized in 2015. And what in 2015 was only two years after the huge 2013 comprehensive immigration discussion. Remember Marco Rubio on the cover of Time

magazine. This was the future of the party. So the base was revolting on immigration. It was revolting on foreign policy, was revolting on economic policy. And then you look at that first stage famously for the first 2015 debate, and everyone there is still advocating traditional Republican positions except Trump. And you add in his ability to be a marketer and celebrity, he was in kind of this perfect storm, despite all of his issues we don't need to get into, personal, professional, financial, to be someone who was different and articulating the grievances and disrespect and anger people had inside the Republican Party about how everything had had unfolded.

Curious, you mentioned that you speak regularly with Republican leadership. It's just a question that I wonder about now that Trump is the nominee. I mentioned that Mitch McConnell famously gave that speech after January 6th. He didn't move towards impeachment or at least trying the case. Do you know, he was hoping it sounded like that Trump would just fade away. Do you know if he regrets not trying to put the nail in the coffin of Trump by actually convicting him in impeachment and ending his chance of being able to run again? No, I mean, McConnell has told people repeatedly, privately and publicly the same thing that

he has zero regrets because he believed at the time it wasn't worth conviction, but he just Trump needed to take moral responsibility for what had happened. And of course, history's going to look back and say, could the Republicans have gotten rid of Trump? I haven't spoken to McConnell at length about this over the years, but it's interesting that there's is a kind of view in that world of politics that if the Republicans had convicted Trump, it's not like he just disappears. Yes, he might not be able to formally run again, but there is a sense of exacerbation that it would have exacerbated the problem even more. And that's going to be a historical debate. Is that view right or wrong? Could have convicted

Trump really have erased him from the American scene and prevented him for running again in 24 and potentially serving again in 25, maybe, or would have even driven a wedge deeper inside of the Republican Party. You are, as you mentioned in lower Manhattan, covering the current case against Donald Trump. But the two big ones centering around January 6th are the Jack Smith Federal case and the one in Georgia. You know, there have been a lot over the years since Trump has been in political office and running for president, thinking of the Russia Mueller report and all these, everybody expecting something spectacular, something going to bring down Donald Trump. And it always ends not quite what a lot of people who are anti-Trump, especially, we're hoping for.

Do you think that there are things that Jack Smith knows that we don't know that will come out on trial that will be relevant? Undoubtedly. I mean, I'm jealous of Jack Smith. I'm jealous of any federal prosecutor or a federal investigator because they have a power. I mean, I'm joking, but not really. because they have subpoena power, you, me, when we want to talk to a source, we got to knock on their door, find their number, talk to them, try to get them to sit down. Jack Smith can just say, hey, you better come sit down or else you're going to be prosecuted or have real legal issues. So he's able to really send out a fishing net into the water of all these people involved and get some information about Trump's handling the classified records about January 6th and to get

called data records. I mean, I work so hard with Woodward. tried our best to get as much data as we could. And we got the Eastman memo, which was a really important document. Documents tell the story. And I think Jack Smith's going to be able to tell the story. And even if he doesn't go to trial, I hope some of this stuff eventually comes out. Because it's important for history to know what was really going on. I think about when we found the Eastman memo in the reporting apparel, we didn't even understand at the time. I think the full importance of it, but it really sketched out exactly what was trying to happen there, what they were trying to overthrow the entire election, and it was memorialized on paper. And I remember when

we found the Ginny Thomas text messages with Mark Meadows, and we said to ourselves, you know, this memorializes direct conversations with the spouse of a Supreme Court justice and the chief of staff of the White House about a conspiracy to overthrow the election. And what matters for Jack Smith and for any reporter is that talking to people about what happened is one thing. But when you can get text messages, documents, emails to tell the story. It's entirely different. It's harder to refute. And so a prosecutor probably has the ability to really get people to share documentation. And I'm very curious about that because the chronology of everything is so important. I just went through briefly at the beginning of this January 3rd through 6. But so much else just needs

to be learned. And I'm always curious more about what was the involvement of many people in Congress. Congress, because of it being Congress, really was the one place where the January 6th Committee didn't delve into as much. And I think that's for a PhD student or reporters down the line who are really going to study January 6 for years. That remains an area of reporting that needs more work done. What were congressmen and senators and congresswomen really doing behind the scenes? We know a little bit of it. We, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green's tax and a few other people's text. But it's like 1% of 1% of what was really going on. Yeah. You mentioned you would love to know more about what happened with what's going on in Congress. Is there any other, you know,

something that you were trying to chase down in your book that you weren't able to accomplish that you hope comes out that Jack Smith is able to figure out? Is there something that you're looking for in particular, tying the dots together? Well, Bob Woodward and I found the phone logs for the White House. So that was a really important find. because Trump is someone who operates his entire life on the phone. He doesn't use email, doesn't use a computer. So his whole life is the phone. So if you want to understand what Trump was doing and why, you have to understand who he was calling. So we were able to find some of the official White House phone logs. But of course, those phone logs don't have every call

because Trump had personal cells. Sometimes according to our reporting, he would use burner phones or phones that weren't necessarily his. Maybe you would use the phones of AIDS. John Bolton told me that Trump often seemed to use the phone of different people or was at least familiar with the concept of using, quote, burner phones, former national security advisors. So if Jack Smith is able to really get a map of all of the phones Trump was using in and around January 6 and who he was talking to, that would be a real starting point. The other thing is, which is I think it's going to be very tough to do because it's a president of the United States, Nixon had his tapes, LBJ had his tapes. Trump may not have tapes, but are any of these calls in and around January 6 recorded?

recorded. You know, was anything recorded? Because that would really, that would be so important for Jack Smith to prove criminal intent. Because it's one thing if someone's saying, Trump told me this, but there's no documentation of it. But if someone said Trump told me this and here's a recording, you're in a totally different ballgame. And that's why the Georgia case all comes down to Brad Raffinsberg recording that phone call. The Meadows, obviously, is kind of central. Do you believe he's flipped in some capacity that he is telling Jack Smith everything he He's lawyer, George Turwiggler, has told me and others in brief terms that Meadows, like anyone, is listening to federal prosecutors and cooperating to a point.

There's no detail offered by Meadows or his legal team about the extent of what he's doing, but he's clearly not refusing to comply with the investigation. Is that a tell, perhaps? I don't use the word flip about Meadows because no one's fully aware of what he's done. We do know that he provided a lot of text messages to the January 6th committee, and some of those text messages have been released. And Mark Meadows, if Mark Meadows doesn't share his text messages, at least in part with the January 6th committee, you really don't have a lot of material. His text messages, to this day, remains some of the core spine of understanding what was happening in it on January 6th. Without Mark Meadows' text, we don't know a ton.

so he clearly is willing to provide data at some level probably provide testimony but the idea of him flipping i mean he's still working in conservative politics and still working in and around trump's people so i haven't heard that he is quote flipped but like everyone who's like not everyone but a lot of people involved like bannon doesn't comply with anything and but a lot of people when you have a federal justice department investigator uh say you better sit down with us and talk and provide this and that, it's real. I mean, you can't start saying, well, let me pick and choose and maybe do this and that. I mean, the Justice Department is no joke. I mean, I've spent a lot of time talking to people who have been witnesses and grand jury investigations related

to this, lawyers who have been working with the grand jury. I think it's hard for people who don't report on this every day to understand the severity and grimness of dealing with a grand jury. It's not like this is a fun time in people's lives, even as a witness or lawyer. And this is serious stuff, even if it never gets to trial, you're under intense pressure to provide as much information because these prosecutors want everything. And they will squeeze and squeeze. Would you say that Meadows is still in conservative circles? The extent I've seen is all he does is Trump's, Trump's reaction to him is tweeting kind of, I hope he's not talking, but he was a good guy. I know he's not going to some things along those lines. If he talking to Trump, is he close enough

to Trump these days that he discusses the presidential campaign? Or? his communications between them cut off? I don't have much information on that. I know that he might socially see Trump from time to time, but I know everyone who's been involved as a potential witness in the Justice Department investigations is being told to be very careful with their interactions with Trump and his people because you can't have witness tampering.

So I would doubt they're socializing or talking at all, but they might be from time to time. Meadows is working for a conservative think tank, so it's possible. But it's a fraud atmosphere for him and others in the sense that this is an active investigation. And the Justice Department is watching every step you take in terms of interactions with the person being prosecuted, Trump, and you can't just kind of take it lightly. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you

take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands

of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's eth-h-o-s-com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and

requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Logistically, which of these cases do you think could be decided before the election day, if any? And if none of them are, and Trump wins,

are they all moot? I mean, are all these cases go into the trash bin? Well, I'm here in New York covering the criminal trial over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and the falsifications of business records with the underlying suggestion by the prosecutors. This was done to interfere in the 2016 election, that Trump took all these steps to falsify business records in the eyes of the prosecution to win in 2016 and avoid the Stormy Daniels stuff from coming out. This trial's happening, and it might be the only trial that happens this year. A lot's going to depend on the presidential immunity ruling by the Supreme Court. Is Trump immune from prosecution or not? They have to weigh in on that. What's the scope of what can happen there? If they throw some of

these questions down to a lower court, it could really make it difficult for Trump to face prosecution on classified records or January 6th this calendar year. There was a story, I think it was in Politico or the Washington Post, that Trump couldn't even technically maybe go to prison, even if he was convicted of everything. Do you know anything about it? that. I mean, they say because of Secret Service, you know, he has that protection. It would make it impossible to even go to prison. So if that's the case, what are some of these federal cases that have jail time? What is the risk to him there? Well, no one's above serving in prison. I mean, Trump could face prison time in New York if he continues to violate the gag order in the eyes of the

judge. The judge hasn't put him in prison yet, but he could confine Trump if he feels like Trump is disobeying his gag order rules. And that would be very complicated to put Trump in a Manhattan Criminal Court while he faced his trial. But just because you have a secret service detail doesn't mean you can't serve in prison. And it's an unprecedented moment to face possible imprisonment of a president of the United States. But there's nothing to say he can't be imprisoned. But a lot of this will depend again on the Supreme Court. Can a president be prosecuted or not on a federal level? Clearly, they can be on a state level or local level, but on a federal level for conduct while in office, it's an open question. I do know Jack Smith. Jack Smith, the moment the Supreme Court

offers any clarity, Jack Smith is likely going to try to move, get this stuff done. And I think it's going to be easier to move for Jack Smith in D.C. with Judge Chutkin on January 6th than it is on the records case. But you never know. This stuff's fluid. I'm going to ask you about Rudy Giuliani, because he's kind of an interesting figure in political life. And you've covered him for many years. People have tried to speculate and how he went from being America's mayor, this revered figure, almost across party lines, to, I think it's fair to say in maybe the lowest point of his life, apparently going bankrupt, tied his all his fortunes to Trump. Seems, in my opinion, I don't know if that would be something you would have to speculate on, just a little

off his rocker? How did he go from being someone who people thought as a sober-minded person being the figure that we see today? Well, I mean, it's for others to weigh in on his sobriety or mental acuity. But I was just with Giuliani in New Hampshire. And he's he's friends with Trump. I mean, I think a lot of this was forged back in October 2016 when two people really went on the Sunday shows for Trump, talked about Trump, despite Access Hollywood. It was Bannon and Giuliani. And Giuliani especially fought for Trump at that moment of political peril and went on the shows and was out on TV talking on Trump's behalf. And Trump's never forgotten it. And Trump is a creature of New York. And Giuliani's this major figure in Trump's eyes

from the 80s, from the 90s. And so they both kind of were figures of the page 6, New York world, political world, media world, right at the same moment in their lives. And so they have a generational rapport that's unlike almost anything else in Trump's inner circle, a New York rapport. And Giuliani was willing to fight in 16 for Trump and he was willing to fight in 20 by leading all these crusades to object to the counts in different states. And Trump doesn't forget it. To him, that's loyalty. And loyalty is the ultimate former currency in Trump's inner circle. And for a lot of people who've known Giuliani for years, they thought this was someone who was going to be kind of the person of the year after 9-11, someone who would be airports would be named after, would give commencement addresses 100 times a year, and would just kind of be a statesman fading into the future, just kind of someone from the 9-11 moment who was always going to be revered. But Giuliani rejected that kind of trajectory. Instead, ran for president and failed in 2008.

and really started to move closer to Trump and wanted to be in that realm of politics, wanted to be in Trump's cabinet. I mean, I think people who know Giuliani well said he would have welcomed being Secretary of State or Secretary, excuse me, Attorney General for Trump in 17. Ultimately, didn't happen, of course. But he wants to be close to the flame based in everything I've heard about Giuliani. And I've watched Julianne up close. I've spoken to him at length in the past year.

And he likes to be in the arena, even if it comes at a cost. to himself financially, clearly, and to his reputation. The remaining time we have left, Bob. Let's talk a little about Trump's campaign and what a second term might look like. It was interesting in your book, you quote Lindsey Graham saying his desire to be successful and being seen as having been successful is his best hope. Thinking of Trump, you know, in my mind, I forget what he was referring to that in particular. But in the second term, that to me suggests that maybe he might be a person who doesn't

pick people from the fringes, his base to be in cabinet members. What do you make of his desire to be successful and how that will may or may not make his presidency one of the fringes versus one of, you know, trying to put Jamie Diamond as Secretary of Treasury instead of some fringe figure? For Trump, it's always kind of a mix of people he thinks will help his own brand versus those he thinks will be totally loyal. He was frustrated, obviously, with Jeff Sessions when he made him attorney general because Sessions didn't seem to be pliable enough for Trump. And he told people privately based on my reporting, I need a Roy Cohn. I need somebody who's going to be in my corner. He's going to be my bulldog for me on all these issues. And Jeff Sessions wasn't that. So in his

view, Jeff Sessions was a failure. But he also liked it when Rex Tillerson, someone he had no relationship with, none. He made someone he had no relationship with Secretary of State. Why? Because it was the CEO of ExxonMobil coming in and working for him. And so I don't rule out him bringing in someone like Jamie Diamond, if Damon wants to serve as a Treasury Secretary of Trump wins or someone of that ilk, because Trump wants the business community to be in step with him, but he's not going to populate his entire administration with people of that kind of business background or kind of more mainstream presence. He wants people who are very much with him. And I could see someone like Rick Grinnell, the combative former ambassador, becoming Secretary of

state as well this time around to really fit Trump's worldview. But Trump, he can be mercurial, he can be hard to read, and he's not driven by ideology. It's almost driven by this kind of gut instinct. But let's be serious. I mean, if you look at the recent Time magazine interview with Trump, it's all out on paper. This is someone who is ready to begin having mass deportations of undocumented people in this country, ready to use the military if necessary. wants to continue to overhaul the federal judiciary. And this will be a presidency unlike any other. It'll be like Trump 1.0 on steroids politically and ideologically. And I think the biggest difference Trump, again, would have in the presidency is when he came in to power in 17,

he didn't really understand power. He was just getting to understand the institution of the presidency. Now he's someone who knows where all the power levers are inside the government. Do you think he goes after his enemies? I mean, does he go after Joe Biden? as a former president? Does he go after Mark Millie? Wouldn't be surprised. He's hinted at that repeatedly, and whether he would have a justice department that would really bend do his will and start to investigate a former president like that, I don't rule it out at all. I mean, he has said repeatedly he believes they deserve major investigations. And so that's alone unprecedented to have a candidate's promising

kind of federal investigations at that level of that scope. But with Trump, you can't, you can't take everything as a promise, but you can't shrug it off either. Because sometimes he says things and they never happen. Other times, they could be dramatic moments in American politics that have consequences for years. Any thoughts on who's the most likely candidates to be a VP pick? Trump, I'm told by people who know him well, likes Doug Bergam, the governor of South Dakota, excuse me, North Dakota. South Dakota's governor as well. Christy Noam is on the list, I'm told. But Doug Bergam, someone to watch because he fits the Mike Pence mole. He's low-key.

He's also very wealthy, unlike Pence, made a fortune in tech. Trump likes that, respects that. Trump likes Bergam personally, likes Bergam's wife. They get along well. Bergam would be appealing to traditional Republicans who don't find him to be kind of a copycat of Trump, but he doesn't alienate any Trump supporters. So that is someone I keep hearing more and more about. And, of course, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator J.D. Vance, two rising stars in the party.

Senator Tim Scott as well of South Carolina, all possible. It's complicated with Rubio's residency. You can't have two people from Florida. Rubio would have to address that at some level. And Vance is young. And young VPs have been chosen before, but it'd be a big pick for Vance to come out of there. Bergam's in his 60s. So it's a different kind of generational statement Trump would make. I think what I'm hearing from the Trump people is that they're not trying to make a huge statement with the VP pick. In a sense, it would be the opposite of a Palin pick, whereas Palin was a pick for McCain to try to revive the campaign,

bring electricity to it. I think Trump has so much electricity for better or for worse at the top of the ticket, someone who's much less electric is more of the favor for Trump's pick because they just need a stable person who's not going to lose votes, but isn't going to compete with the star at the top. Bob Costa, thank you for joining the dispatch podcast. Thank you, Jamie. Great to be with you. You know,