The MeidasTouch Podcast - Bill Barr’s book tour, progress in DOJ’s Jan 6 prosecutions and more! (Feat. Harry Litman)

Episode Date: March 8, 2022

On today’s episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast, we have an incredible guest, LATimes Legal Affairs Columnist, and a former US attorney & DOJ official, Harry Litman! In addition to all his amazing work, Harry also hosts the incredible the Talking Feds podcast. During the interview Harry gives us his take on Bill Barr’s shameless redemption tour, AG Garland’s process with prosecuting the Jan 6. insurrectionists and much more. The remainder of the episode, the brothers discuss the latest breaking news, including updates on Ukraine, the latest Truth Social flops, Bill Barr embarrassing himself again, & Donald Trump’s most recent ludicrous comments. If you enjoyed today's episode please be sure to rate, review and subscribe. As always, thank YOU for listening! Follow Harry Litman on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/harrylitman Subscribe to Harry's podcast "Talking Feds" here: https://www.talkingfeds.com/ DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/meidas Better Help: https://betterhelp.com/meidas Listen to Hell & High Water podcast with John Heilemann: https://therecount.com/podcasts/hell-and-high-water Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun.

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Welcome to the Midas Touch podcast. Ben, Brett, and Jordy fighting for democracy each and every day, each and every pod.

We've got great guests on this pod. Harry Littman, LA Times legal affairs columnist and former U.S. attorney at the DOJ, teaches constitutional law at UCSD and UCLA, and is the executive producer of the Talking Feds podcast. I would say one of the top legal podcasts, maybe the top legal podcast out there. Although Legal AF, my legal podcast, many people are saying is the best legal podcast. That's a record. That's the fastest you've ever plugged Legal AF on the show. Within the first 10 seconds of the Midas Touch podcast, you plugged Legal AF. Just amazing. Legal AF has been fantastic, though. Extra good lately because so much is going on. Your breakdowns have been so fantastic. And I've been loving the Wednesday editions of Legal AF. For those who don't know, there's now a Wednesday edition of Legal AF to

bring you even more legal analysis. So good stuff, but definitely check out Talking Feds. I mean, this morning on Talking Feds, he had just like this all-star panel. I listened first thing in the morning. It was Aaron Burnett. It was Rick Wilson, Eric Swalwell, all in one show discussing the most important issues of the day. So definitely check that out. And we definitely have a lot of issues to discuss. But Jordy, first, I got to say,

congrats on the big game. Jordy officially squared off against Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who is the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, the front runner. And you know what? I said congratulations, so I kind of spoiled it. But it's more to it than just the game itself.

I recommend everybody go to our YouTube channel and check out the Josh versus Jordy video. It's incredibly heartwarming, incredibly uplifting. Not really a big spoiler, Brett. It was on the front page of basically every newspaper that Jordy beat Shapiro. Jordy beat Josh Shapiro, yeah. It was. You know what, though? We were all winners that day because, you know, we raised money for the greater. Yeah. The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, which is such a special cause. So seriously, thank you to everyone who watched the live stream. That was awesome. Thank you to everyone who contributed. And Brett, thank you for

flying down here and helping to stitch all of that together, man. Without you, that wouldn't have happened. So. Oh, and obviously a huge thank you to flying down here and helping to stitch all of that together, man. Without you, that wouldn't have happened. So, oh, and obviously a huge thank you to attorney general and future governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro. I mean, this guy is a superstar. Thank you for accepting the challenge. Were you nervous playing? Yeah.

I mean, he almost beat me. He did. Like there was a point where- It was way closer than I would have liked. I think you got a little afraid at one point. You're like, I better step up my game. And then you were like shooting threes and stuff, but I was impressed by the miss. He really didn't miss.

He had one spot on the court where he could shoot and he would make the shots without fail. But Jordy came on top, won the one V one game. We raised a lot of money for them. My sales representative. Great job, Jordy. Cause we may have disowned you. If you lost the game, hold on, you guys keep going.

I'm going to grab the poodle. Golden poodle is a trophy that gets passed around the golden poodle i brought at uh some home decoration store in my competition with jordy where i beat jordy in tennis jordy beat me in basketball we were one on one we i won one he won one and somehow he stole the golden poodle he showed he stole it and flew it showing the screen the golden poodle jord again, ignores the fact that most of our people listen to this on the audio. They need to watch, man. It's an incredibly engaging visual podcast, even more so. They need to watch and listen and tell all and tell 10 friends to watch and listen and keep growing.

We talk about Jordy almost missing. Let's get into the news. Big misses by Bill Barr recently on his rehabilitation tour, whatever the hell he's supposed to be doing. He spoke to Savannah Guthrie recently about his book, and he was asked, I think, pretty basic questions about Donald Trump. Why don't we play the clip, though, that everybody's talking about right now, and we'll talk about it afterwards. But let's play Savannah Guthrie interviewing Bill Barr. You say in your book, it's time for the party to move on from Trump. Liz Cheney has said he is not fit to serve and should not be ever near the Oval Office again. Do you agree with that? Well, I certainly have made it clear I don't think he should be our nominee.

And I'm going to, you know, support somebody else for the nomination. But if he is the nominee and you have your choices, Donald Trump or whoever's running on the Democratic side, would you vote for him? Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable to me that I wouldn't vote for the Republican nominee. So even if he lied about the election and threatened democracy, as you write in your book. Well, it's better than a Democrat. It's hard to project what the facts are going to turn out to be three years hence. But as of now, it's hard for me to conceive that I wouldn't vote for the Republican nominee.

All right. All right. I have so many, so many thoughts. First off, it's hard to project what the facts are going to turn out. Let me not project what the facts are going to be. Let me cite a source, your book. There's nothing that needs to be projected. Your book says that Donald Trump lied about the election to try to overthrow our democracy. What facts would you need to project?

So that's my first point. Brett, you give it. So my first, I'm going to make a couple. So my first point is the boogeyman of, yes, of course, I'm going to fight again against the destructive progressive agenda. What destructive progressive agenda? Allowing people to vote, getting people a higher minimum wage, protecting the environment. Like what is this evil progressive agenda that he's trying so hard to stop at every cost that he would want to elect Donald Trump, the man who by his own admission is a threat to global democracy? And this is like all these people who try to release these books to try to make money off their situation. This is how every interview goes the same way. They're like, so, sir, do you think Donald Trump is a threat to American democracy? And then it ends like this. Had to take a cold, hard look in the mirror.

And absolutely, Donald Trump is a threat. And I tried to stop him. Next question. Sir, next question. So you think Donald Trump is a danger to national security? I absolutely, unfortunately, have come to the conclusion since my time in the White House that some of the conduct I've seen has been beyond the pale. Interesting. So you would probably say then that he's like a psychotic madman, hell bent on ending the entire planet as we know it, yes? You know, I think that when you take a step back and you can finally reflect on those years, I think that there are deep issues we need to explore along those lines. And so I did try to call attention to that. I did what I could in my position.

Interesting. So what do you want for Donald Trump in 2022? As between the radical progressive agenda and the potential of a Republican, I may have to vote for. It's like not even skipping a beat on the last one. You think he's a madman? Yes. So would you vote for him in 2024? Oh, absolutely. I vote for him.

I mean, that's it. I would definitely vote for that madman. That madman who's trying to overthrow democracy. That is way, way, way, way, way safer than someone who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third takeaway is, look, it's a money grab. Again, they must have the same PR person that Chris Christie had a few weeks ago because all of them, they do this, right? It's crazy. They all go out there. They all get publicly shamed for taking these interviews. I'd say Barr fared better in the media than Christie did, but still not well. And at the end of the day, they just want to make money. They don't care what they have to say to sell their damn book. And I asked the same question that I asked for Chris Christie, which is,

who is Bill Barr's audience? Who are Bill Barr fans? Who are they? Who is buying this book? Because I couldn't tell you a single person in the Venn diagram of all the various supporters where it overlaps into Bill Barr fans who are going to buy this book. It's just an outrage. And these people should be publicly shamed. And these people should not even be able to walk outside without being shamed and booed. Well, I'll tell you, at the end of the day, this is what Bill Barr means when he says the progressive agenda. This is what he means. This is what they all mean. Barack Obama. They do not want black and brown leaders. That's what it really comes down to. The institutions that they're protecting is their whiteness, is white supremacy at the

end of the day. That is what they want to protect. And their illogical way of describing these things is because they can't just go out and say what they really intend to say. Because a progressive agenda right now is fighting for workers, is raising the minimum wage. Hey, it doesn't make sense to us that you're paying workers pennies while a CEO is making $100 million a year and then not paying taxes. That's some sort of radical, wild agenda. It absolutely isn't a radical and wild agenda. It's a common sense agenda fighting for the American people. That's their sort of vision of America. And I think once you look at all of their ideology, all of their actions through that framing, it makes sense why

they support a country like Russia. It makes sense why they want to turn America into Russia, because they look at that as the ideal of what America should aspire to be. They look at the persecution of the LGBTQ plus community there and they go, why aren't we doing that here? And they go, why aren't we doing that here? And not only why aren't we doing that here, let's do that right here in Florida. That's what they say. They go, how could we implement these policies here on a level that we could get through our Senate, our state Senates, our state house of representatives. That's their goal. Time and time again, it's why they support Putin. It's why they buy into that same Putin propaganda

and spread the same lies here. It's all a means to the same end. Yeah. And the means to that end is power. At some point, is democracy able to fulfill their goals of power? And their assessment of it is currently, them being the radical right extremists who call themselves Republicans, the Republican Party, that democracy no longer works for them anymore the way it once did. And so they need to switch the system, even if that means authoritarianism, even if that means sacrificing democracy. And we see this and the stark contrast of it is so much more illuminated right now with the bravery of the Ukrainians risking their lives and fighting for democracy. And you compare an actual courageous effort by them with the clownishness of these convoys, which don't even have any thread of logic. They never had any thread of logic, but it's literally just an insane mental asylum. People driving car

people shouldn't have licenses. You're talking about the free dumb convoy with all the truckers recently, right? I'm definitely talking about the free dumb convoy. And I just think it's highlighted that like, first off, they all look like bad guys. Like they all look like the bad guys. They all look like the villains from, I just saw the Batman guys. Like they all look like the bad guys. They all look like the villains from, I just saw the Batman movie. Like they all look like the villains, right? And, and, and frankly, you know, and frankly they are, I mean, these are people who are corrupt with no conviction. You see these videos emerging of Roger Stone over the weekend, bragging about selling pardons

on behalf of Donald Trump, on camera, bragging about it because for them, lawlessness is the end. Lawlessness is the objective. That's why I'm happy that we have on the podcast, we'll bring in in a little bit, Harry Littman, because I want to talk about really the rule of law. Democrats are fighting for the rule of law in prosecuting insurrectionists, in getting documents about insurrectionists, in enforcing the rules of a civil society, of condemning Putin. We are the party. We're the rule of law party, period. Yeah. I mean, there's one rule of law party. There is one party that lives in reality. And then there's one just insane, crazy party.

And you saw it today, even, you know, there was a report out on the Hill that was talking about how Republicans are actually threatening the Justice Department now, saying that if they are investigating Trump, that it would trigger a political war. First off, the Republican Party has already declared political war on the United States of America. And that statement in and of itself is very Putin-esque. That statement is like the same statement that Putin made leading up to his invasion. If you do anything, we're going to declare war.

It's the same thing. And I think if you haven't been paying attention, do you see it yet? Do your friends and family see it yet? Have you told them? Do you see the Putin propaganda machine and the right-wing propaganda machine? Do you see how they are the same? Read the statements coming out of Russia. Read the statements that come out of the GOP. They are nearly identical. Both of them invent these bullshit stories and they spread them as the truth. They spread them as gospel. We're going to denazify Ukraine. That's no crazier than the conspiracies we've seen about the Clintons. That's no crazier than the conspiracies we've seen about Hunter Biden. That's no crazier than the conspiracies we've seen about even Midas Touch. It's no crazier than the conspiracies we've seen about even Midas touch. Like it's no crazier than the conspiracy. We are filing a class action against all machines. It's no bigger than, you know, that craziness. It's not. What does it even mean? We're filing a class action against all machines. That guy's like Trump's closest one of Trump's in the White House when they were figuring out how to overturn the election. He's not just some random crazy lunatic. I mean, he is, but he also had an influential role on that White House. I mean, you could be sure if Trump was president right now. He's just some crazy lunatic who was in the White House. Who was in the White House. He's both. You could be both. I mean, if Trump were president,

like in addition to our government probably supporting Russia and wanting to pull out of NATO and constantly criticizing NATO, as we've seen Trump do publicly right now. But you could see Trump repeating the same Putin lies about denazification of Ukraine and saying stuff like, oh, you know, Ukraine, very corrupt in bed with the Bidens and the Clintons. Very bad. It's a very bad situation over there. We need to help Russia cleanse Ukraine of this corruption and this Nazi scourge that has taken over the country. He wouldn't use words like scourge. It's a little too complex for him. But you could see him making statements like that. And in that case, you would see 50% of the country echoing Trump's statements,

and we'd be in a much, much, much more dire place in the world right now. So you'd probably be like, well, we have to show strength with Russia, with this weak Ukrainian leader who tried to help embed with the Bidens and the Clintons. And it's getting very ugly over there in Ukraine, by the way, and we need to step in. I mean, those people would buy it hook, line, and sinker. And the GOP, all the people who are speaking out right now, they would back Trump in it if he were in power. They would back him 100%. So, I mean, I think we need to be cognizant of that fact and understand that we have a real threat to democracy here in America and the he misspelled potato. This was in 1992. And that was like, well, you wouldn't recognize it. I mean, I don't remember it from a memory, but I know it from learning history. Yes. So that was the biggest scandal in history. So that was, you know, back in the day where education was important, that was like a major scandal. Just in the past 24 hours, Donald Trump has praised

North Korea's Kim Jong-un and saying that he wants his staff to act like Kim Jong-un's staff and cower to him the way Kim Jong-un's staff cowers to Kim Jong-un and praised Kim Jong-un for making his advisors sit at attention when he talked and that that's how American workers and American people who work for him should act. So that was one. And in the same speech that he gave, Trump said that perhaps what would have been a better military strategy would have been if America took its F-22 planes, put the Chinese flag on them, and then bombed the shit out of, this is his language, then bombed the shit out of Russia. And then we can say China did it and we didn't do it and China did it. And then China will start

fighting with Russia. This man had the nuclear codes. This man had the nuclear codes. And that was his idea. And then rather than be like, OK, that's the dumbest fucking idea in the world and the scariest thing for a former president to say, the echo chamber of these right wing radicals who are now all Republicans, you know, short of maybe Liz Cheney and Adam Kitzinger and maybe on Tuesday, Mitt Romney, depending on which Tuesday it is. You know, you get people like Michael Knowles, who hosts a very popular podcast, who's brought on. Well, with Ted Cruz, he hosts a podcast as well. He takes a photo like this. I mean, this is his photo. He's got his head. Ben's got his hands crossed underneath his chin very astutely. This is an interesting thing. You know,

I'm a deep thinker. And then he writes unironically a saner Russia policy than everything Biden has given us to date. And that's not unique to Michael Knowles. That's what all he does. He hosts the podcast with Ted Cruz. That's what all the Republicans, a.k.a. radical right extremists, are out there saying right now. Not Biden, who united NATO, united the allies, imposed tough sanctions. Ukraine helped supply Ukraine with weapons, rallied the world around Ukraine, isolated Russia. So it's just Russia, Belarus, Iran, Iran and the GOP. That's basically the only people who support Russia right now in the world that this F-22 idea. Now, Brett, maybe you can explain to me what's the logical fallacy of the F-22 theory by Donald Trump? I don't even think we need to get into the

logic of this dumb fucking idea. I mean, it's just the stupid idea. China doesn't have F-22 plans. China doesn't have F-22. Do we even need that analysis to decide that this is just a dumb, idiotic, scary, frightening idea? Come on. And to that, you know what I say, Brett? P-O-T-A-T-O. Let's bring in our guest, Harry Litman. Harry is an LA Times legal affairs columnist, former U.S. attorney and DOJ official. He teaches constitutional law at UCSD and UCLA and is the executive producer and host of the Talking Fed podcast. But before we bring it, Harry, before we bring it, Harry, I got to talk about AG1. Yes, I was hoping you would. I feel like I told you I was going to talk about favorite of the Midas Mighty AG1 by Athletic Greens. Everybody's talking about

all the Midas Mighty. Everyone who listens to this podcast, I haven't pulled it, but I think everybody who listens to this podcast now drinks athletic greens based on our recommendation. I can't confirm that that's entirely true, but I can confirm that I see hundreds of photos of everybody drinking AG one and taking this journey with me for the same reason that I took this journey. I was taking these gummies and these vitamin pills and all of these things that I thought were giving me the nutrition I needed, but they weren't. As I said, you can look at pictures of me from four months ago and look at my pictures post my AG1 journey. Drastic. Drastic. I take my AG1. I do a little scoop-de-doop.

I put the powder in the cup-de-de-cup. I put the watery water in it. I shake-de-de-shake, and then I drink it, and then I got the energy I need for the day. Athletic greens, when you take it, you're absorbing 75 high-quality vitamins, minerals, whole foods, or super absorbing 75 high quality vitamins, minerals, whole foods or superfoods, probiotics, and adaptogens to help you start your day right.

This special blend of ingredients supports your gut health, your nervous system, your immune system, your energy recovery, focus, and aging. It really does all things. It's lifestyle friendly, whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy-free, or gluten-free. This is for you. It costs you less than $3 a day. You're investing in your health and it's cheaper than your cold brew habit. And Athletic Greens is a climate neutral certified company. So right now it's time to reclaim your health and arm your immune system with convenient daily nutrition, especially heading into the flu

and cold season. It's just one scoop of cup of water every day. That's it. No need for a million different pills and supplements to look out for your health and to make it easy. Athletic greens is going to give you a free one year supply of immune supporting vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. All you have to do is visit athletic greens.com slash Midas. Again, that is athleticgreens.com slash Midas. Take ownership over your health and pick up the ultimate daily nutritional insurance and post your pictures on AG1 to Midas Touch, and we will be sure to retweet it. That's athleticgreens.com slash Midas.

Let's bring in Harry Lipman. We've talked a lot about these issues on the Legal AF podcast, and it's great. I want to hear a former federal prosecutor's views. You know, he's led a prosecutorial office. He knows, you know, these issues in and out and hosts an incredible podcast. Let's bring in Harry Littman. Thanks. You forgot a big part of my resume, man. U.S. attorney in? Pittsburgh, PA. I think the minus touch has a personal connection there.

Absolutely. I blame that on Jordy because one, Jordy's based in Pittsburgh. Two, Jordy is the researcher pre-interview. So Jordy should have realized you are his hometown prosecutor. Jordy, what's going on there? He realized, if you're from Pittsburgh, you just don't have to say it. People understand that they know if they pick it up. Jordy did fine. Absolutely. Yins have no idea, Ben and Brad.

Yins have no idea. I think I know what that means, Yins. I don't fully know. Jordy may have done fine. But you know who didn't do fine? You know, well, we'll see it this evening when it airs. But I've seen the clips is Bill Barr on his rehabilitation tour or whatever the hell you want to call this. So now Bill Barr is out there saying that he opposed Donald Trump, that he wasn't supportive of it yet. He would

vote for Donald Trump. Are you watching this, Harry? What in the world is going on there? Man, you guys come out of the box with the worst and toughest questions. You wouldn't you wouldn't. This is this is more. So look, I worked for Bill Barr way back when it was Bill Barr one. And, you know, we and we got and the country got Bill Barr, too. But a week doesn't go by where I don't take crap justifiably for being I before I was at the LA Times, I was a columnist of The Washington Post. And I came out happily with the op ed saying, you know, count me as one Democrat who thinks Trump made an excellent choice for all the reasons that, you know, he's now sort of touting. And then along, I was in pretty good company. You know, there were other people who had worked in the department when I had, but I actually worked pretty closely with him. And he was a department guy. He was an institutionalist. He was a grown up, for one. Already it was the case

of all the, you know, that was about the biggest flaw that was emerging with this bizarre, you know, psychologically flawed president was his need to have little children around. And Mubar wasn't grown up. And I thought he would stand up to him. So little by little, you know, I ate my lunch in horror. And when he had that, that press conference post Mahler, you know, I, I turned on my old patron and was really had been pretty, pretty rough then kind of, kind of vicious, including, you know, I have a circle of friends who also worked with them. Not all are Republicans.

And it's kind of there's been this heart. There was this heartbreaking aspect to it then. So in a sense, I'm the last guy to ask about this. credibility is a hundred percent shot I mean I was really tough on him after and I wondered if part of it was the kind of a bitterness at feeling the last sort of thing I said to him was don't make a liar out of me and he proceeded to make a big liar out a big fat liar out of me to the country. And on top of everything else, it was just so baffling and kind of tragic because it's not like we've ever talked about Donald Trump, but I had a little doubt that he viewed him with contempt.

He is a real party guy, but that he viewed him with contempt. Okay, so now here we are. And the truth is, yeah, everybody I know is lambasting him and his it's not going well. His PR tour, to the extent I've seen snippets, his voice and other things, it's just his body language. But the fact is, and again, no one's going to listen to me, but but he there were some real things he did that have to figure in the overall picture of Bill Barr. Not only at the end, I've no doubt, I think nobody has any real doubt that he did those

things and stood up to him in December and January. And the quick retort to that is always, yeah, but after everything else he did, that's, that's worthless. That's just that's a sort of a non sequitur to me. I don't think it was at all worthless that Barr and that Rosen and Donahue, the people he put in there shared, you know, they stood up big, which he doesn't get credit for. And I think is right. There was an investigation going on of Hunter Biden. Well, you know, for over a year and he never told Trump. Now, I don't know why exactly. It's not of a piece with other stuff that he did. But Trump got friggin impeached to try to get the now, you know, I think they've now called him the Jewish Churchill, the hero of the day, justifiably the new president of Ukraine, Zelensky, just to say we are looking into corruption. That was really what it was about. So he could have that red meat talking point. You know, I'm sorry, DOJ is investigating Hunter Biden. That's that's redder and meatier. And he never gave it to him. So look,

I'm again, no, no one's going to listen to me now. And I don't it's a I feel like it really brought home. I'm a journalist now and just have to sort of call it as I see it once he once it seemed to me went off the reservation. But I think he brought to the job a in a way people didn't realize. I didn't realize a real animus and resentment toward the whole Mueller project and the whole report. He actually did sort of see it, I think, as kind of political and which, you know, to me, it was the opposite. And Bob Mueller was, you know, the apotheosis of the good prosecutor. But something was off there and he absolutely then didn't call it square in a way that was you know really designed to blunt um very important information so this is all long-winded way of saying yeah i agree that the that the comeback

is not going great the whole thing is a is really kind of um has a special kind of roadkill tragedy to me. And I'm not your best Bill Barr discusser. But it does seem to me that everyone on you could, you know, I'm a we're a rule of law show. I try to be a rule of law guy, but everybody on my side of the of the that of the rule of law guy, but everybody on my side of the rule of law divide, pretty much Democrats, at least, are lambasting him for, and it doesn't exactly hold up. He did a lot of damage. He facilitated him. All that's true. But I think the overall fair verdict of history will be ambivalent or mixed. He wasn't Mephistopheles, though he played it pretty good for a few months there.

Harry, that's why I think you are, though, where maybe I disagree with you. You are the most credible person to talk about it because, as you mentioned, you are a rule of law Democrat. And so whether that means there is a Republican AG, if they are following the rule of law, that's fine at the end of the day. But where your views on him shift is because your ideology about being rule of law, that moral compass has always remained the same. And so when someone deviated from that, you said, wait a minute, that's no longer the rule of law. And that's why when Bill Barr starts making statements like,

I believe the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by Democrats, and that it would be inconceivable to me that I wouldn't vote for the GOP nominee, even if that individual is Donald Trump. And Donald Trump led an insurrection. Donald Trump is praising Putin. Donald Trump this past weekend is praising Kim Jong-un. That's no longer the rule of law. That is the rule of lawlessness. And I think that is why Bill Barr is getting condemned, you know, and people of his ilk should be condemned and we should embrace. We are rule of law. And unfortunately, I wish both political parties were. But it seems that there's only one political party plus Liz Cheney and, you know,

maybe one or two others, you know, that that want to hold lawlessness accountable. I basically agree. And it's been it's been a what the hell happened to the Republican Party and how did they ever pull themselves out of this self-created mess? But again, back to Barr. Look, I think I always knew he had partisan Republican views. Here's a little war story from from 90 to 92 or whatever this all you guys are new yorkers and and long islanders by birth so you you would certainly have followed woody allen when he when it came out that he was imagining in in red america it's like he's a watch he's he's dating his step. Leave aside all the sort of assault kind of accusations. He's doing what he's marrying his stepdaughter, et cetera. When this came out, Woody Allen in a interview said at the time, seven words, the heart wants what the heart wants. You can totally see what he meant within context if

you give it a veneer of sympathy to Woody Allen. Bill Barr wigged out and he went, he is a sort of pre-Vatican II, Opus Dei, whatever that is, Catholic, and he wrote a speech as Attorney General, basically like what does this have to do with the Department of Justice? But he really did. He does have this view, had it then, of the sort of over the top and marginal, almost comic view of the terrible cost to the culture of progressive values. But it was all consistent with, I agree with you, that's bad, but far and away worse is just not applying the facts and the law. So when he stood up and mischaracterized the Mueller report, or when he stood up and said, I've looked at it only brought poor

lackey Rod Rosenstein into the saying, here's my deputy who also says no crime was here. That I think is a far more serious transgression to the rule of law. Just, you know, basically dishonesty about facts and law. You hear this all the time. Every prosecutor boasts rights, but certainly Merrick Garland, we're going to follow the facts. But it's true. And when you're behind the scenes, and I worked a lot at DOJ, including at Maine Justice with Merrick Garland, at Maine Justice with Bill Barr. How many years were you there, Harry? Huh? How many years were you there? I was there from 92 to 98 before I went back to Pittsburgh. So, and that was in the main, it's been really useful for now because, you know, it's not, it's, I did, I was a line prosecutor and I ran an office,

but actually seeing how it works in Maine and how you are supposed to interact. Oh, that whole thing with the White House, that was another, like, what is Bill Barr doing? And once he let his people doing. So those departures from A, calling the straight shots as best as you can on facts and law, and B, these really important norms of especially a kind of a wall between the White House and DOJ, with this important exception that people seem to have set to the side about Hunter Biden. That's where, you know, he was crazy on culture stuff in 92, but he was a straight up rule of law attorney general for, you know, George H.W. Bush. And now he's with this orange haired child who I know he must have contempt for. Again, he's never said it. And he somehow, you know, allowed huge compromises to the DOJ mission

and his own integrity. As I say, I looked up to the guy. It's it's like there's an element of personal kind of heartbreak to me that that people have no sympathy for because they see him as just a villain. Let's talk about the current DOJ's efforts, the prosecution under Merrick Garland of insurrectionists. We saw a lot of the initial plea agreements for, I guess you can call it, some of the less bad insurrectionist behavior, and so some more limited sentencing. We've then seen escalations in sentencing, a recent plea by a terrorist oath keeper for the sedition conspiracy charge. We see a current trial that's taking place right now into the seditious conspiracy of an insurrectionist who engaged in some of the most heinous and egregious conduct. It's all heinous and egregious,

but specifically there. And then we see the January 6th committee now subpoenaing records from a professor, former professor John Eastman, his records, and he's claiming he's Trump's attorney. So his class. Yeah, let's go ahead. He's been right. Former professor is right. Did you know Eastman, by the way? No. You know, I don't know where where the hell he came from. And, you know, was any port in a storm and something. That's all he was, was a guy who had this for cock theory. So they they were the same same really with Jeffrey Clark. But but but I'm sorry, I didn't you know, and that was Eastman's reps for people like he always had these weird theories, which in a pre Trump era kind of fascinated people. And some people would see watch the

Eastman lectures at Chapman. Oh, I can see that. Yeah. What kind of crazy theory he would come up with? But he but I heard somebody somebody like that who was. Yeah, that was his calling card. Yeah, I can see that. He's now a professor. Yeah. And let's talk about the DOJ prosecution. Where do you think it stands? You know, lots of people are saying Merrick Garland's going too slow. Merrick Garland's going too fast. Merrick Garland's the greatest. Merrick Garland's the worst. Where do you stand on that? So first, no one's saying he's going to second count. Count me as one rule of law Democrat who thinks Merrick Garland friggin walks on water. And I you know, that was from being down the hall with him personally.

And I know he's a it's not like, you know, I see him every time I'm in D.C., but he's certainly a friend. So I guess I should say that. But he is so the real deal. But let's talk about it, because he's getting lambasted by people who think he's not going fast enough. If you put aside and it's a huge thing to put aside, but it's also a huge thing to take on a prosecution of political insiders up to and including Trump. These guys had the perfect DOJ week. People started going so slow. The biggest prosecution, biggest investigation of all time. And they've done it by the book. And guess what? They're in about the, you know, last third of the last third of the book. And both the trial that you said, Ben, last week and the plea involved cooperating witnesses at the highest level.

That's why you're going up the ladder. So this first guy pleads to a seditious conspiracy. Remember, we started with basically trespass, seditious conspiracy as the serious as you get. And you're not going to make these charges. I think some people understand this, but a lot don't. And tell this is the DOJ playbook. You bring it serious enough. You have facts and evidence and you have people in great jeopardy. So they cooperate. They've done that by the book. All thing, you know, it's not by the political calendar that resets every every second November, but it's not hasn't been slow. And they got the cooperator in to plead and now he's going to cooperate and the trial. They also had a fellow three percenter plead. that's textbook success. So on the immediate mass of what they wanted to do,

and by the way, what Garland, you know, had a passion for doing, his two biggest cases ever, you know, Kaczynski and McVeigh, he, you know, talk about a rule of law guy, just it came out, this was a sort of undercover, you know, not fully covered part of his January 5th speech. But the you know, the kind of justified rage beyond party and politics at the at domestic terrorists and getting in the in the way of the peaceful transfer of power, the absolute calling card of a democracy. All that, and I don't think people have really tumbled to this important feature of cooperating witnesses. So everything now, I think, has fallen in line and will continue, right? That he was the guy who pled last, he was the first to the trough. He's going to get a good deal. He should get a good deal. But now, you know, we're going to really put together a huge part of this story. Now, there's two other huge parts of the story. There's two other huge conspiracies out there for sure. One is the whole

kind of seamy netherworld of Alex Stone and the guys who actually form a bridge between the terrorists and the political officials. And one for sure is, you know, Trump himself. I've written others. Other prosecutors have. You've got now the the checklist for that every prosecutor is supposed to do. You know, basically, it's a righteous case and the evidence is there and a conviction is probable. And I think we are at the point as sort of a country that you can say the only thing worse than with all the immediate and inevitable turmoil and political sturm und drang, the only thing worse than not than prosecuting Trump would be or or his circle would be not prosecuting him. You saw Jim Comey with a with an op ed today saying, you know, everyone's got to be prosecuted. But and maybe we're moving to there. But I'll

just I just want to say two things. First, this shouldn't take away from what independently looking at the main factual event, not the main moral or political event, has been a pretty successful and textbook and organized and methodical mission so far by DOJ. And second, happy to talk about it, but there's a welder of complications to a U.S. versus Donald Trump case. It probably needs to be greenlighted only by the president of the United States because there's so many questions of what's best for the country, et cetera. And I understand and can somewhat, you know, I can discuss garland's native conservatism which he has as a prosecutor you know we're talking about criminal cases and then you know that's his he's got this kind of of mindset and how it plays in the trump realm but but you know this this is a has been really solid and textbook to date and we may be doubling back there but i just want to say the same he's been super solid and that's been great for DOJ people, you know, playing by the rules against

norms back up there, et cetera. The January 6th committee is the best. I think there's no real competition, best congressional investigation ever. Talk about comprehensive, methodical, productive, et cetera. So that, you know, huge props to them as well. And, you know, down the line and maybe not that far, it looks to me like we may hit a sort of disconnect between them and a really difficult, if decorous wrestling match. And that's in our future. But again, real professionalism from the Congress and real professionalism from the DOJ. Harry, you mentioned prosecutorial conservatism of Merrick Garland, which I think is an interesting

phrase. And I think that could show itself, though, in two different ways. It could show itself in nobody is above the law or could show itself in prosecuting a former president is too dangerous for the United States of America. So where do you what do you think is actually going on? I meant the first. I meant the first. You know, we take seriously that, you know, we had that. We keep it quiet until we bring them. We do our talking in court. We make sure everything's buttoned up. You know, there's been some people on speed. You know, screw it. Go, go, go to the top now. And, you know, because the timing is really necessary in the country. This investigation involves so many more extra prosecutorial considerations about basically the health of the democracy. And that, you know, I think that's why

prosecution might, you know, many people think reasonably, I'm probably among them, that it's pretty important, but that's not in the normal playbook. So by conservatism, I just mean the first. I don't think he has any trouble with the notion no one, former president, et cetera, is above the law. But, you know, look, you put yourself in the shoes of a really serious, top notch, historically good attorney general. And that is what you've got who, you know, has to think, OK, do we shoot at the king, you know, or at the former king? And the the there's not a page in the U.S. attorney's manual that covers some of the the stuff there that he has to or he and Biden in consultation have to actually, you know, take stock of. And that wouldn't normally be the case but he's not look i think he's basically fearless so i don't think uh he'll be moved by you know trump and politics on the other

hand i don't think he'll be moved by you've got to do it the you know the the we're about to lose the one six committee all the all the kinds of you could you could say political pressures i i think they're that sort of demeans them a little but all those kinds of things that will be coming from what is definitely his his home party you know he and he understands and sympathize oh i, and I know this personally, his contempt and outrage at what happened is second to none, including all of us, us four. But not a casual kind of decision to make on the end but i will also say we don't know exactly um but i think there's very strong reason to believe they're hardly out of the box on a serious investigation of the political um actors here up to and including trump just because everybody except the department of justice leaks like a sieve in washington and we wouldn't know if there had been subpoenas and that kind of stuff.

So he is going on a schedule that if it gets to Trump, won't get there soon. And I understand and in some way share everyone's frustration with that. Yeah, I share everyone's frustration, too. Although, you know, I think there's a weird thing happening of people equating what Merrick Garland does with the Democrats chance for success in the midterms. And I'm like, Merrick Garland is not a legislator. He's not like an elected official in that way. So I don't understand why you're putting all the eggs in our midterm basket in a guy who is not on our schedule. There's a reason. And it's actually for the betterment of our country.

Yeah, I mean, you should be glad that he isn't. I understand. It'd be nice to have whatever you thought about Bill Barr or who would be the Democratic equivalent. I don't know. I do think that like Democrats, there are fewer of those, but I'm sure there are some who would with a wink.

Well, look, forget some. Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, two unimpeachable, fantastic public servants. And Adam Schiff, by the way, that gave a prosecutor. They should they'll be teaching that in rhetoric classes. I mean, he was awesome. There's no doubt as attorney general, he'd be awesome. There's also no doubt as attorney general, the case, as long as the president agreed, would already have been brought. So that's part of what you could say is the conservatism. There would be people who would be ready to say, look, this is my normal job, 99.5%. Guess where we are now, guys?

We are here. We have to be thinking about different things. And we might as well think about it now rather than later, because if we are going to if we really do have in mind the public good of a prosecution here, as far as holding, you know, as far as accountability, as far as the good of the political system as you know, overall, which is not our normal lookout as prosecutors, but probably is here, might as well do it now. That would be absolutely unsure if it were Attorney General Schiff, an honorable decision. And you could question whether Merrick Garland, who walks on water, is making a mistake in doing what? Fundamentally applying the same playbook that goes for a bank robber and a corporate fraud guy to the former president

of the United States and not taking account of the special factors enough or fast enough, et cetera. But everyone, each of those instances would still be acting in good faith. And it's exactly, as you say, Brett, the desire of people who, for good reasons, want to see him prosecuted, that for political reasons, want to see the Dems not lose, not have the 1-6 committee be forced to fold up shop dishonestly, not want to have a a whole series of investigations for, you know, did somebody use their email inappropriately when there's, you know, don't want to have the whole crime and investigation brigade that'll happen if the Republicans win. It gets mixed up in Merrick Garland's mission.

And Merrick Garland's reflexive responses. Sorry, that's just I'm I'm leaving that to decide. I hear you, but it's just not what I do. Let me throw out two theories for you that are going around in the legal world right now. And I'm curious to get your thoughts on where you stand. So I've seen many legal minds, including former House impeachment manager Daniel Goldman, speculate that DOJ is not investigating Trump at all because we would see public evidence. Like you said, we would hear about subpoenas, about grand juries and all these things. On the flip side, I've seen people like Alison Gill, who hosts the Daily Beans podcast, who is a partner of our show, who is incredible. One of her theories is that if Garland truly declined to prosecute Trump,

we'd see similar shakeups at DOJ like we saw at the Manhattan DA's office. We'd see people quitting. We'd see people leaving in protest. So I'm curious, can both of those theories be true? Yeah, they can. It's just where we are. So that's what I think I agree with. These are both good friends and great commentators. And I think they're both right. We would have, but we were nowhere near.

And this is what's sort of disconcerting. We are nowhere near a declination, nowhere near a declination. And of course, he's got the same back to what I said about the success of the last week and method he and some people, I think maybe including Dan, have criticized, you know, he's going, it's, you know, up the top. Now we'll get to Alex Stone. Now maybe we'll get, well, Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Well, you know, get to somebody in the room and it's like, God, you know, in the long run, by the time you bring this prosecution, its actual benefit to the common, well, will be so, so dissolute. I mean, I mean, so diluted, excuse me. So I think where we are is what, as Dan says, we would know if they were real, if there was a grand jury looking at, forget Donald Trump, looking at Mark, well, Mark Meadows is a special case, but, you know, looking at any of Trump's circle for 1-6, we would know it. And if there were a declination, we would also know it. And that

means that we are, we have neither yet. Now, you know, I think it would probably be a mistake if Merrick Garland is saying we got to get all the way to the top, put it, you know, have everything tied up with a ribbon and a bow on the one six actual investigation before we would even move, the difficult issues of intent, which I think by now are very well proven, totally are even just with publicly available evidence. He could he could do it. I don't know. I don't we don't know that he's doing that, but why it does seem to me that it would have that it would now be timely for there to be real action on an active investigation of a it's a different file that you would open up from everything you've done so far. The file on Donald Trump under 28 USC 1512 and 20, I mean, 18 USC 1512 and 18 USC 371, the thing, the exact crimes that the one six committee

identified, they are going to send a referral. And so, I mean, it will happen. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. I think one could take professionally quibble with that. Nevertheless, I believe it hasn't happened yet. And certainly no declination has happened. Allison and Dan are both my friends and I agree with my friends, even if, but it, but it is in fact, you can, you can make it harmonious. Oh yeah. And for, and for the record, I think they're both brilliant and I'm a huge fans of both of them. And I think both their legal theories have merit, which is why I'm was curious and eager to get your thoughts on it. Last thing for me, before I toss it over to Geordie, I know everyone's like, let Geordie

ask a question already. Stop silencing Jordy. What do you guys got against Pittsburgh anyway? Exactly right. I was in Pittsburgh recently and I had a very good. Okay, but anyway, go ahead. It's when the penguins trash the Islanders at least a couple of times. That must be it. That's exactly it.

As far as go deep. You took the words out of my mouth, Harry. No, the other thing I'm curious to get your thoughts on, it's been 80 plus days since Mark Meadows was referred for a criminal indictment. So why do you think that has not happened yet when Steve Bannon happened at a much quicker pace? Yeah, that's a really, really good question. And I can get you to 30, 40, 50, pretty easy, but it is a long time. So look, I'll tell you the process. It's a much harder case for starters because there is a tenable claim, I think, not meritorious, but a tenable claim of executive privilege that Bannon didn't have. So they have to work through that. I think this would have also been the case with Bannon, but they definitely have to let a defense. You know, this is a this is a

decision whether to whether to take away someone's liberty or to try to. They got to let his lawyers come in, make their presentations, maybe make maybe there's some kind of negotiation going on in a triangulated way, and meetings take forever to convene, 50 days, 60 days, but it's a long time. And if they're going to turn it down, they ought to just... And Garland would understand this. They may they may be saying, again, they take he takes criminal prosecution really seriously. So he may be saying if Meadows is overall thinking executive privilege, it's got the flavor of it, even if it doesn't hold up legally and that we could bring it legitimately. But, you know, that's not enough to take a guy's liberty away. You can see they're concluding that, but then they should rip the damn Band-Aid off.

And they should have already. And there's good and there's good reason to. So, you know, a normal process, but to, you know, more legally complicated and definite, like kinds of memos from different affected constituencies within the department and and meetings with his counsel, maybe a series of them. But that's the book. Here's how you could fault Merrick Garland. I won't do it because I just don't know the inside facts well enough. But in general, he plays it by the book all the frigging time. And here with Meadows, if no one knew anything about January 6, but just an important guy was under investigation, which in theory we wouldn't know, you go through a process with lawyers and meetings, et cetera, et cetera. But there is something on the other side here. There is a real need for acting with dispatch.

And there is a need for recognizing the book, the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which, you know, it's a governmental bureaucratic document. It doesn't cover everything. So it's getting a little long in the tooth. There may be reasons that they've tentatively decided to decline, but they really want to bend over backwards because they know it'll take the wind out of the sails of the committee. One thing about the referral, same thing with Bannon, the committee is the victim. So that gets real weight. The victim, a separate institutional part of government has come to you and said, I've been harmed here. And you really look at it carefully. And the reason I mentioned that is if and when,

and I think it's when, they bring a referral on Trump for the two crimes that are in that Eastman paper, that's not the position the Congress will be in. It's the country that's basically the victim. And DOJ will say, thank you. And now we'll evaluate the evidence independently. But back to Meadows, and maybe they've tentatively decided no, but they're really, you know, penning over backwards

or trying to facilitate some negotiations with the committee itself. You know, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow. And that's certainly true at the DOJ. But it's too frigging long already. You know, they should if they're going with a no, go with the damn now, because, you know, you don't want and Garland knows this. I mean, they violated norms again and again in the last, you know, under Trump and Sessions and Barr that foiled a really, you know, the public's right to know. The bigger outrage, I would say,

even then no criminal accountability for the most, you know, damaging stuff is that here we are, and we don't even have the whole story of what the hell happened. You know, we haven't, you know, and it's because of the stonewalling by Trump and the and company and the sort of cynical manipulation of the difficulty of getting content from Congress. So, you know, compare the Kennedy assassination or compare 9-11. It's a it's a Democratic imperative to get the story for, you know, for. And this is what, you know, the hesitation on a guy like Meadows is preventing them from doing if they can't bring content. So they they got to retreat and play with the cards they're dealt. But it's time to deal them. I agree.

Yeah. And I mean, you know, politics abhors a vacuum, I would say. And the DOJ creating this vacuum, I understand they have a policy that says, hey, you know, we're not allowed to comment on ongoing investigations. But I think they need to say something because all that's going to fill that vacuum are conspiracy theories, frustrations, anger and distrust in the process. And so that's why these are really important public points. This isn't politics in a Democrat Republican way to take to take stock of. So, again, the it's possible that that Garland has made a decision precisely because of all the political, you know,

roiling to be pressed exactly by the book. And in a, you know, that's something in professor Chapman seminar or elsewhere, I think I would argue is not right, but, you know, given who he is and his overall sophistication, I would just want to know everything, but I, you know, this is not, it's never gonna, it was never possible to play this whole thing by the book because the book doesn't cover this. It just, you know, this is, this is a exigent, even singular event in the country's history. The book, the book wasn't written for it. And Harry, as you just saw there, Brett is the king of saying, I just have one more question

and then proceeding to ask three more questions before he allows me to speak. So you just saw that play out on real time. I love that. And you're hungry and you want them to pass the meal. Harry Lippman, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast. No, no, no.

I know we're short on time, Ben. Just cut whatever you want. Well, you guys obviously will. No, we don't're short on time, Ben. No, but just cut, just cut whatever you want. Well, you guys obviously will. What would know? We don't. We're one take. We're one take. Oh, man.

Harry, sorry, all you audience for my long windedness. I didn't realize. Oh, I'm really sorry. OK, when I do my podcast, half of what I do after is cut out all my prolix crap so that people hear. Well, anyway, go ahead, Harry. On the last on the last pod, I was just working out on the Peloton. I just showed up drenched in sweat.

And the brother's like, what do you do? I'm like, it's all about transparency. This is what you get. Let's already ask a question. Minus words and all. Okay. All right, Harry. Sticking with our theme here, which is clearly attorney generals, as well as our Pittsburgh

connection. Yeah. I was fortunate enough this past week, I was able to play the attorney general of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro on a game of one-on-one basketball. We raised money for the greater Pittsburgh. Yeah. Yeah. It was awesome. I hear he's pretty good. Is it true? He could hoop. We, we had a really competitive game. He's got game, right? Yeah. He could play, he could play. And so we raised money for the greater Pittsburgh community food bank, as well as his gubernatorial campaign. And one-on-one good for you, man. That's gutsy. It was scary, but I took it home. I took it home. So knowing that you do have your

Pittsburgh connection, obviously, how important is it to have a big D Democrat governing over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Okay. Here I am. I don't know if you have a video taking off rule of law hat. Here I am putting on political hat. Super important. Absolutely. That's all I got. Well, Jordy gets the two word answer. That's pretty awesome.

That's all I need. I'm a master of gravity. So I appreciate that. By the way, he's a comer. I've worked with him. He's actually two words, super important. Further affiant saith not. Okay.

And then taking it back now to your podcast, Harry. So this morning you released an episode of Talkin' Feds, which is amazing, with a blockbuster panel, man. I mean, Aaron Burnett, Eric Swalwell, Rick Wilson, Talking Ukraine, domestic politics and DOJ. So tell our audience more about the show where they can listen. Great. Anywhere, anywhere you get Midas touch, you can also get talking. That means anywhere. Yeah. So it's a round table and we're like incredibly blessed with the level of guests, which is cool in and of itself. You know, Aaron Burnett, Rick Wilson, Eric Swalwell is not bad. You know, it's great.

But and I don't think I mean, week in, week out, we really have some phenomenal guests. But the thing about it is you take guests like that. Rick Wilson, largely political Republican background, but now anti-Trump. Eric Swalwell, super smart, former prosecutor, but also a member of Congress, was president for the State of the Union. Aaron Burnett. Aaron Burnett just came back from Ukraine. You put those three together and start them talking in a cross-current dynamic way. And I just feel like totally lucky to have to, to have my, to have that job. So it's not, it's, there are great people of the, of, you know, you'd only see them really, I think on like a

Sunday meet, you know, panel, it's that kind of level on T on network TV, but even there, they'd each have sort of five minute little sound bites back and forth. Here they have 50 minutes of pretty rich conversation. And, you know, the Ukraine stuff, I avoided all the news to get to the richer questions of what's Putin's end game and how are we going to deal with 10 million refugees, et cetera. So I just feel like, you know, man, this from a podcast point of view, this is living. And it's when it when it catches, you know, you know, this when when the three of you are there again, when it catches a kind of second, third, fourth gear with people questioning each other and back and forth. I just got to say, I don't it's the sort of thing I don't see or hear anywhere else. And, you know, I just love doing it. What was what was your final takeaway with that panel speaking about Russia?

What would you leave feeling? There was a lot of talk about Putin and is his mindset sort of 1989 or like, you know, 18th century. But there, you know, I think the danger because he doesn't really have an end game. That was a big thing. You know, the want to talk about domestic politics also and, and, and, you know, the state of the union. I know you guys reviewed that in your last podcast and gave it very high marks as, as did the the, the panel. And, you know, I mean, it's the, I guess the biggest takeaway was we're living through history. This is, you know, 1848, 1917, 1945, 1989, and 2022. It really is the sort of exit question was, took a piece by Alex Fisher in the Washington

Post, is the world being kind of remade? Look what's happening in Germany, NATO. Look at how the United States has, in fact, been the world leader after losing so much authority after Trump, et cetera. And the basic notion is this is history. We're living through history. Oh, and also Putin is going to spend the rest of his life in Russia or the Hague. You know, he's now actually come into a kind of outlaw Saddam Hussein status. That was those were the big takeaways. But the the conversation itself, it's it's hopping. We will check it out. And we tell all of our listeners to check out Talking Feds podcast.

Harry Littman, thank you so much for joining us today. A pleasure, guys. Thank you for having me. So great having Harry. I'm going to check out. You've already listened to the panel that he did? I listened to the panel. It was fantastic.

It's really, really, really good. I recommend everybody take a listen. How did you guys know he was from a Berg? How'd you mess that up? One, you're the book really, really good. I recommend everybody take a listen. Preston Pyshko How did you guys know he was from a Berg? How'd you mess that up? David Schawel One, you're the booker, number one. So that's usually the details that you're supposed to provide to us in the research. Literally your job criteria. Preston Pyshko Yeah, it's that. David Schawel You know what it's kind of like? It's

kind of like the job criteria. Let's talk about job criteria for a second. Okay. The job criteria of a social. Okay. The job criteria of a social media company at the very least is to do social media, like is to work. Like I think tomorrow, if I was like Ben, Brett, Jordy, I wouldn't call myself Ben though. And I would be like, we need to start a social media company. I'd be fairly confident that in terms of its ability to function, if you have a week or two weeks, it would at least function better than Truth Social right now that has literally a stock price. I'm going to look up the most recent stock price of- It's publicly traded. I didn't realize that.

Well, it was with the SPAC. So it's looked it's looked into the, the other company, which I'd run a blank on the name, but Ben knows, but so yeah. Digital world acquisition company is the name of it. And it is look to be fair today, it's down about 8%. Um, I, I, dude, I need to short the shit out of the stock. Like I keep saying I'm going to, I have not yet. I feel like I just have to like the, the. The underlying thing doesn't even work. It is a ridiculous concept. I'm showing it right now. It's down 8% today, but it's still trading at 89.

Do you know how ridiculous it is that the SPAC trades at 89? There are SPACs open at $10 a share. So at 89, the amount, this thing has like a market capitalization of like 16, 17 billion dollars, bigger than like almost the same market cap as like a Peloton right now. And it doesn't do anything. It doesn't have a product. It never had a product. Then when it tried to do a product, it doesn't even work. And so Trump is apparently beyond pissed about Truth Social saying, quote, what the fuck is going on with Truth Social? I don't know if that's even a real quote. It was quoted in an article, but I'm sure he said something like that. But maybe he didn't. Maybe this whole thing seems scamish to begin with. not a thing. There are SPACs that acquire or merge into actual real companies that do things that have a share price at $9 or $8. It's beyond crazy that there are people who know Trump rips them off at everything and will give money to the stock thinking, not this time. This time is different. So that's one. Trump, truth social,. Okay. And he has Devin Nunes run it. Like let's

pick the most incompetent member of Congress to now run a social media company that doesn't work. Exactly. And then we'll talk about, you know, about not knowing your job or not knowing how to do your job. Thank you, Jordy, for being this, having this. Yeah. Is this analogy all rooted in me. It is Melania Trump, just her even an inability to actually launch a purported fundraising event. What was it called? Tulips and topiaries. Yeah. Is that how you say it? You say topiaries? I think so, but I'm sure I'll get hammered for saying yes, but I believe so. But yeah. Do you know how to pronounce topiaries? Is that how you say it? Topiaries. Topiaries. All I know for people who think we have a hedge fund, I can imagine that the word topiary is something that people with a hedge fund would probably know

what it is. You know, there's a couple of people out there just screaming in their cars right now. Hold on. Topiary topiary oh we nailed it not only that ben as you would know that it's not called a hedge fund but a trust fund um but a but that's right ben the speaking of trump scams a florida that's what we tell harry we don't edit dude you see our mistakes you are on this journey with us you could call it out that's why. Right, Jody? Transparency. We don't know where we're going to start. We don't know where we're going to end up, but y'all are here with us. But let me provide some context. So a Florida fundraiser

that was to feature Melania Trump has been called off after state regulators there concluded that the company working with Trump to organize the event had not properly registered to solicit contributions. Another Trump charity scam, this time coming from Florida, which I think says a lot. If Florida is calling you on your bullshit, then time to reconsider some things. This makes the second state, I believe, in which the Trump family has not been allowed to run a charity. It really says something when the guy who had the nuclear codes is literally not allowed to run charities in states. I mean, you're probably not the best person. I'm just going to end on that. But yeah, I mean, we've seen this whole, every attempt, everything that they do is all a grift. It's all a failure. I mean, she had to buy her own NFT because no one was buying it.

This operation isn't allowed to happen. Truth Social is a dud. Not even Trump is posting on Truth Social. He didn't truth the truth. He didn't truth the truth. He didn't truth the truth or re-truth the truth or whatever. He didn't re-truth the truth truth. And the only post I've really even seen from Truth Social was from Nick Fuentes saying that he is glad that Putin is standing up to DC, adding fuck the State Department. He did a truth with that. He said, Nick Fuentes, who Marjorie Taylor Greene, zero. This screenshot has no retruths, no truth likes, no truth comments. He wrote, I for one, I'm glad that Putin is standing up to Washington, DC. Fuck the State Department, fuck the Pentagon, and fuck NATO. That is the kind of content that you will see on Truth Social. I cannot imagine why it is a ghost town. This podcast is brought to you by BetterHelp.

I love BetterHelp. I use BetterHelp. BetterHelp isn't self-help. It isn't motivational speakers. BetterHelp is professional therapy that you can check out through your computer, through your smartphone. If you don't want the therapist to even have to see you, if you just want to do it, you could turn off your

screen. I know some people don't want to have that encounter. I do it with my screen on. But for me, waiting on the long lines of like being in a waiting room for the therapist sessions that I had or just even calling, it was very difficult. By the time I waiting room for the therapist sessions that I, that I had, or just even calling it, it was very difficult by the time I would get to the therapist, kind of come back, it would take a really long period of time. And that would kind of stress me. That would kind of stress me out too. And so it would add the stress of the actual travel. Yeah. You don't want that. I don't want that. So with better help, I have a professional therapist. And as I focus on, you know, working out as I focus on other aspects of my life, you really need to take care of the

most important relationship you have. And that is the relationship that you have with your help. Better help is online therapy that offers video phone and even live chat sessions with your therapist. So you don't have to see anyone on camera if you don't want to, it's much more affordable than in person therapy, which I like, And you can be matched with a therapist in under 48 hours. Give it a try. See why over 2 million people and me have used BetterHelp online therapy. I know a lot of the Midas Mighty have used this. Just go use it. You don't have to talk about it. You don't have to post pictures that you use it. Just use it. It will be helpful for you. And again, this podcast is sponsored by

BetterHelp and the Midas Touch podcast. Listeners will get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash Midas. That's B-E-T-T-E-R-H-E-L-P.com slash Midas. I want to talk about the bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers, the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian mothers and daughters and grandmothers and sisters and brothers and everyone there who are fighting so valiantly right now. And we're seeing news of holding Kiev, holding major territories, stopping Russian gains. And I think some of the evidence that we have of this also is that Russia is apparently trying to now recruit soldiers from Syria because I think about 95% of their forces, it's been reported that were prepared for this have already either

entered or been destroyed. And they're really kind of floundering there. They have not achieved their military goals. They've not achieved their military objectives, despite some of the GOP trying to cheerlead them on and be their propaganda arm. They've not hit their goals and objectives. They said that they were going to be able to take it in three hours, is what Putin had said. They thought that they were going to go in there and be greeted as conquering heroes, which they've not been. And again, just want to say that my heart goes out to the Ukrainian people. Brett, anything else you want to say about that? No, I echo your thoughts. Every day, I'm just so inspired by it. It's also interesting being in California on a completely different time zone where when it's day here, it's night there

and stuff. And every time I wake up, I just rush to my phone to make sure that everything is still okay there because it's such a volatile situation. But just seeing the strength, the resolve of these incredible, incredible people, it's so inspiring. And I saw a video yesterday- I do the same. When I wake up, I turn around, I turn over, I go to my phone, I look up Ilya Pomeranko right away. Yeah, I check the official Ukraine account. And I saw like a video yesterday. I wake up, I turn around, I turn over, I go to my phone. I look up Ilya Pomeranko. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I checked the official Ukraine account and now Kiev has an official account. Now the city of Kiev itself has an official account. So if you want to go and follow it, you know, KYIV at KYIV, go follow Kiev. And it's just incredible. I mean, I saw a video yesterday that really just took my breath away

of a young girl in a bomb shelter in Ukraine, singing, let it go to a crowd of people and how she just kind of stopped the crowd. There were babies crying. Everybody was scared. Everybody's huddled up in this undisclosed location in Ukraine. And this little girl with an angelic voice just starts singing, let it go. And everybody just looks at her with admiration. And then at the end, she smiles. And to see this happening in light of what is happening right outside that bomb shelter of Putin, indiscriminately bombing apartment buildings, indiscriminately killing civilians. It just really shows you the strength and power of the Ukrainian people, especially when contrasted to just the horrors of what Putin is doing and what the Putin propaganda machine is doing. Because as Putin gets more desperate, more desperate, what you see is

their propaganda arm ramping up. You see them trying to clamp down more on these protesters, arresting more people, threatening more people with jail, looking through their phones on the street to see if they are dissenting with the official line of the Putin government. I think those Russian people, by the way, are also incredibly brave. Those people taking to the streets in defiance of Putin, in defiance of all of these threats to their lives. I think that is also true bravery. And I hope that everybody here in America looks to that bravery that we're seeing on the streets in Russia and on the streets in Ukraine and sees what it truly means to fight for democracy. those tweets of today. The Battle of Kiev as of March 7th. As a witness, I can confirm this map's accuracy. As you can see, Russians are not even close to encircling Kiev. And I don't understand what they're counting on given the severe casualties and extremely slow movement. And

the map just shows only a very, very, very small portion of the outskirts of Kiev having any kind of Russian presence in it. You also post a photo of the International Legion fighters, people from all over the world who have come to fight for Kyiv. There's also a quote from Chief of Defense Staff Admiral Sir Toyni Radikin on the Russian convoy of the UK, saying that we're seeing Russia failing to operate in a, quote, competent fashion, and that is impacting morale. And one of the things that we've seen is that the Russians are out of fuel. They haven't planned for the fact that their convoys can't go through in the mud. And so their convoys often just get stuck in the mud. And they just seem to be a very incompetent

fighting force. But, you know, day in, day out, though, it seems that their strategy more as they can achieve their military objectives, that was just launching missiles at civilian areas to try to just literally destroy all of these cities, towns, incredible legacy of Ukraine. But Ukraine's not going to be defeated and Ukraine's going to stay strong.

And we all need to support Ukraine, Ukrainian people, however we can. Thank you so much, everybody, for listening to this episode of the Midas Touch podcast. Want to give a special thanks to Harry Littman, special thanks to our sponsors, AG1 and BetterHelp. And of course, we always like to give podcast recommendations. We definitely want to recommend Harry Littman's podcast, which is, as we said, is called Talking Feds. And also want to give a shout out to the Hell and High Water podcast. Hell and High Water with John Heilman, superstar John Heilman, who I've been seeing like every day on MSNBC. I feel like he fills in for hosts when they're not there or he's- Big John Howell supporters here.

I've been a big John Howell supporter for a long time. You might know John yourself as the host of the Circus on Showtime, which is one of the most innovative political shows I think ever created. And he's the national affairs analyst on MSNBC and NBC News. He is just straight up crushing it. He is just a prolific, prolific analyst who I know many of you are familiar of. And you might also know him as a guest from this very podcast, The Midas Touch Podcast. He was on here a few weeks ago. So in Hell and High Water,

John dissects our tumultuous times. I mean, think about all the things that we've been speaking to on this very podcast with deep thinkers from around the world on politics, on policy, and culture. You got people like Brian Cox, AKA Logan Roy from Succession. Fuck off. Big Brian Cox fan, former Brian COVID advisor, Andy Slavitt, journalist,

Ann Applebaum, and LA mayoral candidate representative, Karen Bass. So if you like in-depth conversations with people like that, that get at the heart of this apocalyptic moment that we're still living through, unfortunately, Hell and High Water is the podcast for you. And you can subscribe to Hell and High Water wherever you get your podcast, same place that you get the Midas Touch podcast. So hope you take these recommendations. Hope you check them out. And the better informed we are, really, the better that we're able to face the issues that lie ahead of us and the better prepared we are to protect our democracy. Brothers, this has been such a great episode. I feel like we covered a lot. Our interview with Harry was fascinating. It truly did fly by. If you like the show, remember to give us a five-star

review in your podcast app of choice and leave some kind words for us. We always appreciate you leaving kind words for us in the review. It means a lot to us. We read them all. Remember to tell a friend. Let me get a little bit more specific. We've been attacked by some trolls and we need y'all to step up and leave a five-star written review. Please. Just do it right now. It takes one minute and tell friends about the show. We've seen week over week, our podcast growing brothers. We just hit over 35 million podcast downloads across our podcast network. So make sure that you subscribe to all of the Midas Media Network podcasts. You'll find a link to all of them in the description of this podcast. So you can just go one by one and go subscribe, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe.

So go and do that. And thank you, Ben. Any other final words for us before Jordy does a sign-off? No final words other than we so greatly appreciate everyone's support as always. We'll keep fighting for you. Shout out to the Midas Midas!