저자: AndrewWeissmann/진행:SarahLongwell · 외국인
요약 보기
전 FBI 일반고문 Andrew Weissmann이 출연해 대법원의 투표권법(VRA) 판결 이후 루이지애나 등 주들의 긴급 선거구 재획정 움직임을 당파적이라고 비판했다. 대법원이 판결을 신속히 하급심에 송부한 것도 Jackson 판사의 반대의견을 인용하며 비판했다. 대법원 개혁(증원·임기제·전문가 추천제)과 Fulton County 선거 관계자 대상 대배심 소환장 문제도 다뤘으며, 금융·자산 가격에 대한 언급은 없다.
다듬은 글
I could go on a whole Robert Mueller tangent, but I'm not going to. I'm not going to because because I do that. No, I know. I just Yeah. Well, you're the story. Hello everyone and welcome to the illegal news. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bull Work, and once again, I am joined by one of my all-time favorites.
Andrew Weissman is back. But Andrew, Kate Shaw was on last week. I don't know if you know Kate Shaw, but she rushed it on this podcast. I was like, I don't know, man. Kate. Kate. Okay, those are big shoes to fill for people who didn't. Kate Shaw is fantastic in like every way. I just like walked around later being like, does everybody know about this woman?
Like she's so she was But you know what she didn't do? Here's the thing. So Kate, she's so smart, so cogent, so crisp and clear in her delivery. She explained things so well. You know, no Sarah, this is what I'm hearing. I'm hearing but Yes, there is a butt. There's a butt, but it's a kind it's a kind butt, which is she didn't have any stories.
There were no stories. And so it was just it was incredibly clear analysis. But I do I do think that the audience comes in part for the Andrew Weissman story of it all. And so if you've got anything sitting around, I'm sure we'd love to hear it. Um well, as you know, I I have nothing but stories. So it's interesting when I teach, I actually am generally really careful about war stories.
And I because there's so much material that you have to cover. I really try and pick a war story that's going to like elucidate and illustrate a problem because I mean I can just as you you know Sarah you probably don't know this about me but I could just tell war stories like for the entire podcast.
It's does appear that way. I you didn't have to tell me that. I think I I could glean. Go. I don't have a law degree but I could glean. Okay. So this is just to be fair. We were I was about to before we started I said, "Oh, I have this funny story." Because we were talking about Oh, this is like a perfect segue to We were talking about signing books because guess what this is?
Is that your But you got them. That's so exciting to have. So, you know, it's really funny. You know, for people should know, there's something just so cool when the physical thing arrives. Um, so this is coming out two weeks from yesterday, so you can still pre-order. Pre-order it, man. put them up put them up high on the list on the New York Times list.
Exactly. And so Sarah and I are busy signing um cards and we were and Sarah asked me, "So what are you writing in addition to signing?" And I'm like, "I'm sorry, you're writing something cuz you know you're signing hundreds of these things." And Sarah's like, "Well, of course, of course." So now, of course, I have to go back and like write something.
You just signed your name. That's not enough. People want to You got to give them something like a catchphrase or something. Well, maybe I could write an anecdote in each one. Yeah, you've got all the time in the world. Yeah, pages. Pages. Anecdotes. A bespoke story for everyone. So, I was like, maybe I could do it with an acronym.
So, I could just do like, you know, like N OBBE, which is like, you know, because Washington is nothing but acronyms. Okay. So, I do have two acronym um stories. And by the way, since we since we last talked, you thought I only had one, but you know, it's like that old, where did the second one come from?
You're like, "Wait a second. I have Wait, wait, Sarah, I have four." You're like, "Let's just go. Let's just hit Let them wash out. Come on." So, um, so, you know, Washington is the land of acronyms. Like, nobody speaks English. It's like every single thing is turned to an acronym. So, when I was first at the FBI, Matt Olsen, this wonderful, wonderful attorney, um, had the position of special counsel before me.
I come in, he spends a week training me, and the last day he's like, "Okay, well, we're going to go to the NSA and we're going to talk to the Durnza, and he's got a question about um the DNI, and we're going to be doing this with FISA." And he goes on and on and on. He goes, "But but first, we're going to go to ABP." And I was like, Matt, you know what's amazing?
In one week, I understood absolutely every acronym you used except what was that ABP? Cuz I I didn't I don't think we covered that. And he goes, ABP? That's OB, which is the coffee shop. Yeah. And I'm like, really? Like you can't even say OB. You like have to have an acronym. He's like, get used to it.
Which is true. like everything is. And that led to my second one, which is Janet Npalitano, who was the head of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Um, bet her folks she would give them a case of beer if anyone could brief her on a subject and not use an acronym. And she never had to pay up. Oh.
Cuz they just couldn't do it. Yeah. They couldn't do it. They They could not do it. and they would like screw up with like and then you know we went to DHS you know or [clears throat] then we went to the FBI so like there's just acronyms constantly you know who was not a big fan of that Robert Mueller Robert Mueller was really a big fan of like speak English like I don't want like all of this new speak
well I'll tell you part of my journey in Washington DC has been learning how to absorb the acronyms and nod as though I know what people are talking about but never bother to learn what any of them mean. Well, it's also, you know, for what we do here, which is to translate what is happening, like translating the law, translating what's happening in politics.
um you know language that where you have acronyms and specialized words is a way of excluding people and keeping them in the dark and having the sense of like I've got special knowledge and it can really be a bad crutch and it's very very useful to speak English um both to so everyone understands and also so like people can weigh in and understand what's going on and you're not sort of hiding the ball.
Um, so you know, I really understood where Robert Mueller was coming from. I could go on a whole Robert Mueller uh tangent, but I'm not going to I'm not going to because because I do that. No, I know. I just Yeah. Well, you're the storyteller. You're the storyteller. Uh, all right. So, you worked at DOJ for more than 20 years.
You were general counsel for the FBI. You have a podcast, Main Justice, with Mary McCord. You obviously have your book coming out, Liars Kingdom. Uh, there are a few topics I want to cover today. I want to talk about what happens since the Supreme Court's Voting Rights uh act decision last week, which Kan and I covered at length and she broke down beautifully.
But there's been a bunch of new stuff now as a result of that that I want to get into. Um I also want to talk uh about what's happening with reauthorizing FISA, which I think is something that not a lot of people are following, but it's important and so I want us to talk about it today. And also just I want to get into a little bit more of the lot of prosecuting of Trump's enemies out there.
We talked a lot about this last week with Comey, but there's more going on. So that's what we're going to do today. Let's start with the Voting Rights Act. Last week uh when Kate Shaw was here and we did the breakdown of Louisiana versus Cala, she summarized that the court basically gutted uh the VR's protection for minority voters.
But less than 24 hours after the decision, the Louisiana Governor Landry announced, uh, his intent to redraw the state's district before the primaries, uh, which was set to start this month, like early voting was happening. Um, crazy. And so they suspended the primaries until the maps are redrawn. And then this past Monday, May 4th, the Supreme Court agreed to fasttrack its opinion to the lower courts, allowing it to take effect immediately.
which I just as a lay person, tell me if I'm wrong, but this seems like downright partisan to me to be like, "Yeah, now that we've made our decision, we're going to fast track it so you guys can redraw maps before the midterms." Because the redrawing of the maps right now, this arms race is all about trying to squeeze out more Republicans.
people are kind of Kate I think rightly focused on the racial elements and disempowering black voters, but like it's really just a race for Trump to try to figure out can he get more congressional seats squeezed out by doing redistricting before the midterms. Um so like tell me about what's happening here and is is my characterization correct?
Sure. So um so first let's focus on what the states are doing. So absolutely this decision comes down and they're like how can we rush through redistricting before the midterms. Um what is remarkable there is that when the states wanted to slow down uh democratic processes this is like several years ago they said no no no you can't possibly change things just you know 6 to 8 months out from an election you know this that would disrupt everything primaries are ongoing no way no how and that was the state's position And now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's like we want to race to the finish.
Um it it in many ways reminds me of of um what happened with um the Merrick Garland versus Amy Coney Barrett uh nominations, which is you know what, we need to take our sweet time when it's a Democrat, but as soon as Ruth Bader Ginsburgg rest um dies, um we're going to race through Amy Coney Barrett.
It's just very very partisan. Now, it's one thing for there to be Congress that's partisan. Congress, you know, is partisan. Um they're entitled to be. Not that they should always be, but that is part of their their um their raise on detr. Um and the same thing is true for states in large measure. There are certain things that really it should there should be areas where it is not a partisan issue.
in the area that I'm, you know, steeped in, which is either the intelligence community or or law enforcement. That really should be a bipartisan effort. Um, where you hit the nail on the head, Sarah, is the Supreme Court's reaction um to all this. the normal course, what normally happens is that there is about a 30-day period where the Supreme Court waits um to issue like a mandate and to send the case back down to the lower court.
And the reason for that waiting period, which is really normal, um is that many things can happen. there can be requests um to reconsider to change things and so that there's a there's like this grace period and there's there would have to be a real emergency and some reason to rush um and here um Justice Jackson issues a scathing um descent to what is happening saying that there's no reason to rush that this is part There's no reason not to do this in normal course.
You're basically deciding that um this can be done that what the states are doing can be done before the midterms when there's already a Supreme Court case on this issue about essentially not being not being able to change elections too close to the election. So, this is really sort of it's basically sort of um a pocket veto of any challenge because they're sort of allowing the states to get a sort of a running start.
Um now Justice Alo said yes we are allowing them to do that because we have found that what is going on in the states is unconstitutional and that there are these districts that that are is they say and this is now the law of the land that there's racial gerrymandering that's going on and that's the Cala decision which you and Kate talked about.
So from Justice Alto's point of view, which is the majority view, it's like, oh well, we're sending this back quickly because we want to make sure there's no racial gerrymandering that can interfere um with the um midterm elections. To say it though is it's like George Orwell has to be rolling in his grave because it is so much talking about newspak that we started with.
Um this is war is peace, freedom is slavery. Um the the idea um I I said this on my podcast to me that one of the big pictures about what is going on is the Supreme Court on its own with no congressional findings says we think that we need to tinker with and update a congressional statute. Like who are they?
They're not in Congress. We need to update it. That's Justice Leo's line. And why? Because basically that 15th Amendment is sort of done with. We we're we're we're in a sort of postracial era. Um the the you know, Voting Rights Act, we we don't really need that anymore. They're saying at a time that, and this is just my view, that we have the most overtly racist president that I have that I have been alive to witness.
Um, and that starts with the Obama birther conspiracy. Um, it goes through um decrying the um the ability of a quote Mexican judge, who by the way was American, um to the fact that um black and brown uh immigrants are eating cats and dogs um and that decrying um all sorts of of immigrants and what they are capable of and doing.
I mean, it's at a time when we have the most racist um policies and language coming out of the White House to have this Supreme Court say, "Oh, we're past all that and we need to rush through um the change in state election laws before the midterms is I mean, to me, the Supreme Court has turned itself into just a Mickey Mouse court and and it's so hard to have any sort of faith in the court and in elections.
I mean, this is sort of now going into your area, but I would assume that your polling would show people are just like it's all just partisan. it's all just, you know, people just um playing games and that votes don't there's no principles and it's just everyone's going to change the rules midame just to um see who can win.
Um and so I just think it it while it it is obviously um minority communities who are hurt by this decision and by the the effects that are happening now. I think we're all hurt by just how much it it interferes with our faith in democracy and sort of the the right to vote. Yeah. Uh I wish I could tell you I thought voters were going to be more bothered about this.
I think it remains to be seen whether specifically minority voters sort of see this as an attack on themselves and um and push back. Uh but like the thing that really is true of so many voters is is I'm sure if we talk to some Democratic groups, some highinformation voters and those groups might bring it up.
Vast majority of voters, these are process stories that they don't often like can't get their hands around. Like they can on the abortion decision, but something like this I actually think um isn't going to break through. I haven't heard it come up a ton uh in what we've been talking about. I do have one quick question that you and I have never talked about.
So JVL and I have been having a discussion where look, I think a lot of us as in the more political realm are thinking about what do you if if a Democrat is elected in 2028, what do you do to remedy some of the damage that's been done here? And JBL has put forward and written a couple of times, right?
And this is goes to your book um too, but JBL's put forward like the the idea of expanding the court. Um, and I think that my sometimes people are like, "Sarah's such a conservative or whatever." And a lot of it just comes down to like do I I have some like conservative instincts around change, right?
Like I just am I am loathed to change important American institutions because we've gotten into this arms race around the court, right? And because there's been, you know, it's funny. I I have I've heard uh I when we were talking about it, some people were responding in the comments saying, "Well, this is this is Mitch McConnell's fault.
Like, we have to do this. Mitch McConnell started to wage this war. Like, that's where the tit fortat began." Cuz my I would say my like immediate concern is always about unintended consequences and getting into an arms race in the court. We expand, it continues to expand, we lose the relevancy and importance of the institution.
Um, but I'm also a big believer in we've learned a lot during this era about things we need to solidify, things we might need to change. So, I'm like certainly open to a conversation about what we change, but I'm desperate actually to hear what you think about the idea of and conservatives would tell you it goes back to Bourke, right?
Like everybody can kind of reverse engineer themselves to a place about ways that the courts have been politicized to a place. What do you think though about the idea of expanding the court now? So I think there there are lots of ideas and and the one thing I'm going to answer your question but the one thing and it's not just because I wrote about this in one respect um that you know my book is is about what to do about political lies.
But I think and and I'm writing a piece for the New York Times right now that has to do with what we're going to talk about, which is retributive prosecutions. And it's something that Congress can do. We have got to in this 250th anniversary of this country um rethink our um our guard rails um that are not functioning and not working.
Uh, and I I think it is really important to have these conversations and to be open to any and all ideas and to vet them and to really not be afraid to say that this is not we now know from Trump 1.0 and 2.0 that there's that the the systems and checks we have are not functioning. We have a one branch of government that's completely asleep.
the the legislative and we have a Supreme Court that can take advantage of the fact that the legislative is asleep which is how I view sort of what happened in the Cala decision and we have the executive doing that as well. Um and so to answer your question I don't think that the answer um ultimately is um sort of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
Um it's not like they we would be doing it because the case load is so big um and that they need just need more people. Um that would be if they that were the argument I'm open to that. Um there are other suggestions though. So um one idea is and there there you know there was a whole commission that Joe Biden had put together with various ideas and that was to me it was sort of sort of obvious that he did that as a way to kill anything which is you know there's a old thing in Washington which is like if you if you want to sort of not have something happen you're saying um let's get a committee with all of the voices together and all of the stakeholders let them come up with a report because it's like you know by the time this gets resurrected and people focus on it, it's gone.
I mean, like no, it's no longer the issue duour. Um, but one of the issues is term limits essentially or or um either a term limit or an age limit so that you don't have the oddity of the way that people are getting on the court is just longevity in terms of who dies or who retires. And so you can have a system of sort of gradual um replacement and that sort of deals with um depending on the election sort of you know not having the situation where you have a court where just one president by happen stance is is appointed you know the vast majority of people um presumably that that that will help deal with that.
The other is something that other countries do. I'm a big believer in like looking at other countries which is um you know our system for nominating judges is a political one. Um and we're seeing it right now where we're seeing nominations where these it's it's appalling that Congress would approve these judges because they're not willing to say can someone run for a third term for president?
Hm. That's let's see. Hm. Pretty tricky question there. No, the Constitution answers that. No, they can't. Um, or was there fraud in the election? I mean, these are judges so that the presumably that I mean, they're going to be judges. So, it's like presumably they can base that on evidence, which is there is no evidence that there was material fraud in the 2016, 2020, 2024 election.
In other words, make it by let make it sort of out of the partisanship. No presidential election um uh has has had that in in my lifetime. Um so um you could have a system where the appointments process and sort of the nomination process is through professionals um where you have um people who are skilled and knowledgeable and you can have a system which and I hate to say let's go the houseion days but where the people being nominated may not be people you agree with politically but they are qualified and they are not hacks.
They are people who are smart and yes, they may have views that you disagree with, but they are reputable people. Um, and so that you could have a judge Wilkinson in the fourth circuit who was, you know, who issued this scathing decision about what the Trump administration's doing with Mr. Garcia. You could have Judge Ludig um also a you extremely conservative um jurist.
Um but by all accounts both of them are you know the the cream of the crop in terms of who could serve on the Supreme Court. So there are other ways to deal with the sort of what I think is sort of the gross partisanship that you see in particularly in in certain of the justices. Yeah. I mean that's always I to me the idea and I don't know which is easier.
Um I mean part of this then is because uh for me a lot of my thinking around what reforms is also what can you get done right so like if it's going to take a const constitutional amendment to turn us into a place where we don't have an electoral college I'm like we can debate this guys but like it's just not going to happen.
So it's like not really worth spending energy on. Agreed. And we can do all of the things that I talked about though can be done. Um, I totally agree that constit if you get to the point where it's a constitutional amendment. I mean, like look, the pardon power needs to be changed, but you know, we can talk about it, but it's not going to happen.
Um, because, you know, the reality is, and then I know JBL talks about the reality is like, you know, we're not flying um anytime soon. So, like we can all wish that we could fly, but it's like that is not a particularly fruitful discussion to have. Um and so you got to start with what within the realm of what could be done.
What are the ideas out there? So let's move on and uh talk about the Fiser surveillance. But before we do, we're going to do an ad from our friends at Factor. The illegal news is sponsored by Factor. For me, eating healthy isn't a willpower problem. It's a setup problem. Until I found Factor. With Factor, I'm hitting my nutritional goals this season without planning, grocery store runs, or cooking because I hate cooking and I'm no good at it.
Factor has meals built around your goals, whether that's weight loss, overall nutrition, more protein, which I am trying to do, or GLP1 support for strength and workout recovery. Check out Factor's Muscle Pro Collection. Every meal is crafted with functional ingredients, lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole foods, and healthy fats.
Factor bands 175 plus ingredients. No artificial colors or sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup, no refined seed oils, just nutrientdense food. These are fresh, never frozen. Over a 100 rotating weekly meals, including globally inspired flavors like Mediterranean and Asian, so there's always something new to look forward to.
You don't have to like, you know, eat the same thing over and over again. It's ready in 2 minutes. You just microwave them. Factor shops, preps, cooks, and delivers straight to your door, so you have more time for everything you love this spring. These factor meals are super popular around the bull work.
In fact, uh there's like testy slack exchanges when we get them in terms of people trying to claim them uh and say that they're theirs and they get in fights over them. So, don't fight with anybody, but head over to factormeals.com/illegalenews50 off. All one word and use code illegal news50 off to get 50% off and free daily greens per box with a new subscription.
While supplies last until 927206, you can see the website for more details. Go get your Factor meals. They're so good. Thanks, Factor. Okay, Sarah, do you have you have no dog ads? Because my my dog is here waiting in the wings politely. He was so good on the last ad. He does not tell anecdotes. He cuts right to the chase.
He's just comes. He's adorable and leaves. I actually can't believe they haven't been banging down our door to do more ads like that. We rocked that ad with your dog. Rocked. Yeah. If you're listening out there, come on. Come on. More more more animal stuff. I've got cats. I've got This is We should debate that some other time, but I'm a cat person.
This is not It's not going to go over well. People get really mad at me when I just say I'm a cat person. But I'm sorry, guys. Lesbians like cats. It's just It's like It's We were born this way. We can't help it. Okay. So, I'm not I'm going to just move right on. Sure. Sure. Uh you're right. FISA reauthorization is a thing that I think frequently comes up and it's always uh I've always heard libertarians get very in my world get very exercised about FISA.
Um but it's up for reauthorization and there are a lot of libertarian leaning Republicans who do not want FISA to be reauthorized but Trump really wants it reauthorized. Can you just give us the overview of FISA and what's happening with the reauthorization this time around? Yes. Um, this is something that I'm going to give a quick shout out because Just Security uh did something that's sort of a pretty deep dive.
It probably more than maybe people want to know, but Ryan Goodman and I uh did a pretty lengthy video um that is out on the just security website about um this reauthorization. Okay. So, I am going to make this intelligible. I think but you you're going to interrupt me when it becomes like too in the weeds or like you're basically like
don't need to know that. Um I will intervene on behalf of all normal people who do not understand. Love that. Okay. So there are people on the libertarians on the right and and also even MAGA people on the right and uh liberal uh civil rightsoriented people on the left who all have issues with various aspects of FASA.
They are intelligence tools that are used by the government whether it's the uh the National Security Agency, the FBI, certainly the Department of Justice to gather information um to protect this country. I need to give you just a disclosure. Um whe there's not I am in favor of certain reforms but I generally have the view and I think most people who have been inside the intelligence community have this view which is that there are certain intelligence tools that are indispensable to keeping this country safe.
Um, this is an area where I'm pretty hawkish on why we need the tools. I I am very very open to the idea of certain reforms that could be put in place um to protect rights, but we're absolutely dead set against the idea that that these tools uh don't that they were not to exist that it would it is not a safer world.
I'm going to interrupt just to say the the the main sticking point if I'm wrong if I'm right or wrong here you can tell me is that FISA can often be used to do like the warrantless wire attachment like the surveilling of Americans. Yeah. So there are two parts of FISA. There's there's a part that is really you get a warrant, you go to court, you have to establish um uh cause.
Um a judge signs it and it's it's similar to what would happen in a normal criminal case. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about something called 702. 702. Don't confuse. Now, we're going to do a lot of numbers because I assume you have talked about the Comey indictment. So 702 is not a threat on the life of the president.
Right. So it's not 8647. Yeah. Right. 8647. Right. Which we're supposed to separate into 86 and 47. So this is 702. So more numbers. And I just want to make sure in case people are listening to this in the government that by 702 I am not meaning to threaten anyone. Um and I have this joke because it is
so ridiculously preposterous. in case it's not obvious what I would think about that case. 702 um is a way of embodying uh how the Supreme Court has interpreted the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects um the privacy of everyone in this country. If you noticed I said everyone in this country that means citizens and non-citizens.
anyone in this country is protected by the fourth amendment. And that means that you would have to get a warrant. You'd have to get judicial process to to do certain things. Um but when you are trying to surveil and intercept people overseas not in this country for non US citizens overseas the fourth amendment according to our current Supreme Court and prior Supreme Court uh decisions does not apply.
Okay. So, you can see how this becomes an issue because the court says as long as you, the Department of Justice, are targeting nonitizens who are overseas, you don't have to worry about privacy under the Fourth Amendment because they're not protected. But here's the problem. When you do an interception of somebody overseas who is a non US citizen, there are myriad questions.
How do you know that the person is still overseas and they didn't come into the United States? Um because we're dealing with 702 deals with thousands and thousands of people like I mean just we're not going to be like one off. This is huge huge scooping up of data. How do you know that the person's not a US citizen or a US person?
What what are you doing to determine that? What presumptions, what data are you looking at? And then the really big thing, Sarah, if you are talking to a person who is overseas, who is a non US person, your information is scooped up also. And so the concern is and it's true that US person data as well as everyone else in the United States who was covered by the Fourth Amendment and people talk about it in terms of US persons because they think it's more um it has more political salience to say look you're spying on Americans you're getting this without a warrant.
But it would be that it's just as much a problem for anyone in the United States who's protected by the Fourth Amendment. That your information is getting scooped up under this idea that you can target someone overseas. It also puts a lot of pressure on the idea of what does it mean to target? Because you're not supposed to reverse target.
In other words, oh, I really want to focus on Sarah, but let's see does is Sarah talking to somebody overseas? Oh, let's say we're going to target that person, but what they're really doing is then scooping up your information, but they're doing it without getting the warrant that they would need if it was happening in the United States.
So, um, and so one of the proposals um, for reauthorization is that yes, you can have these sort of 702 programs. You can get all of this, but if you want to access the conversation with Sarah, like if you know, if you look through and you see, oh, the person overseas is talking to someone in the United States and the government wants to see who that is and what is happening, they need to get a second warrant.
They actually in that case, it's a first warrant. they would need to get a warrant so that a court says yes there is probable cause yes there is or reasonable suspicion there's some reason and it's not just the government on its own doing it because it starts looking like a real backdoor way um and especially this is one of the lessons from Trump 2.0 O which is the presumption of good faith and good judgment on the part of the government is no longer something that I think is appropriate and warranted.
And frankly, as somebody who worked in the government for 21 years, I would welcome the scrutiny. It's like, you know what, I will do my job. I will roll up my sleeves. I will get the evidence and I will um make sure that I am not violating people's rights. And if I am right, I can go to court and I can show a court that I'm right.
Um, and it's not a way to run a country to say, "Trust us." Um, don't worry, we're not going to do that because that that that can be something that's abused in any administration. Um, you know, again, try to make it not about Trump. It's like that is something that I think we have to learn from the period that we're in.
So, I hope that sort of explains sort of what the issue is. And and to be clear, one of the reasons that I think people in the government though, they want to see 702 um reauthorized because the intelligence that you get from being able to monitor what people are doing overseas. If you have seen the daily PDB, another acronym, presidential daily brief, your jaw drops.
At least mine did. the first time I read it and the second time and the third time and you need that ability to know what's happening and I think one of the key things you need is an ability to do very quick triage on what are the because there's so much data what is what is the what are the things that need to be looked at first what are the things that are so concerning Robert Mueller used to say this, which is that it's no longer the case that we will not have something in our holdings about um some terrorist activity.
It's why didn't it pop up? How did we not see it? Because there's so much data. And so having the tools, not just the judgment and the experience, which we need, we need those people there. God knows we don't have them now in senior leadership, but you need the tools to be able to say, "Oh, here's reasons why we need to look at this." And that's one I think the advocates for for 702 say that is one of the key things that it provides the government.
I see. Okay. So explain to me in the political context. I know Congress did like a short-term reauthorization but Trump wants a long-term reauthorization and why are they using it to target their enemies here the way he does? So the debate is um some people say I want a straight reauthorization meaning no changes at all.
Some people are like should it should be killed. Um just to be clear, Cash Patel when he was not in the government, he and many others were like, "Oh, uh uh look what happened to Carter Page. We can't trust the government. All of this stuff needs to be eradicated." I'm sort of somewhat of hyperbole, but they were like, "We are against all of this." Now that they're inside and they see just how indispensable it is and on their watch you, you know, you don't want to see uh people being killed in terrorist attacks.
At least presumably that's what they're thinking. And I have no reason to think that they wouldn't be thinking that. um uh they're thinking well okay is it straight authorization or is there or is and as opposed to just getting rid of it or is there some interim measure um that can be used such as this idea of getting a warrant um based on at least some even if it's not probable cause maybe even a slightly lower standard um and so that is the debate the last time this came up it was authorized for 2 years and then that's why it's coming up now I actually think it is appropriate to not have a particularly long-term uh reauthorization because it's useful for the government to somewhat have a leash on it so that um if there are abuses that we see and that the court identifies that the the government isn't thinking oh well that we're fine for the next 10 years it's like this is going to be brought up in two years which and um and to answer your question about the abuses of intelligence products.
Who the hell knows? Yeah. If you had to ask me what is the number one thing that I am worried about in the sort of intelligence area for abuse, it is what we learn in the next administration about what this administration um was doing. An example of that is post 911 uh the Bush administration um engaged in warrantless wiretapping and all sorts of programs.
Now admittedly it was right after 9/11. A lot of times pendulum swings um happen uh and look did I think it was too far even at the time? Yes. But it but to be clear there the reason for it was not to go after political adversaries. It was to keep the country safe. Um and so there can be obviously honest debates about how to accomplish that and and and good debates about that.
Um here because it is such a powerful tool and can be misused. Does anyone have confidence that a powerful tool that can be misused is not going to be misused by this administration? And because it's all secret, we that's why what people might be saying, well, why don't you know, Andrew? And the answer is it's all under wraps.
It I do not have security clearance. Um you do not have security clearance. None of us outside at this point um in in normal circumstances has security clearance to and a and a a reason to know um this information. So, we do not know if there's that abuse going on. Hey, just this is also a slight aside, but related.
Cash Patel and the FBI. Now, there was an Atlantic reporter who wrote that uh negative piece about cash and now they're trying to go after who they say leaked like they're doing like an investigation. They're going after people. Is that the FBI? Are they allowed to do that? What's happening there? So, I'm I'm just trying to I'm trying to calm myself.
Center. Okay. Um people say I've gotten this comment which is like how can you be so calm? And I usually tell people it's like oh that's cuz you don't see me before I was calm. Um where you like you know it's a lot of expletives that that um I still don't I try not to use. Um although I will tell you Sarah a little inside tip that when you hear me say God's green earth
that's kind of my that's your swear. Yeah. Well, yes, because let's just say in real life that's not what I used to say. Mhm. So, Cash Patel has, let's see, brought a civil case against The Atlantic while also overseeing a criminal case into the reporter for um I'm sorry, what first amendment activity?
I mean, are are you kidding? I mean, like, just to be clear, unless he they have evidence that he they manufactured the story and didn't have any sources at all, that is protected first amendment activity. So, he is there's obviously a huge conflict of interest to bring a civil case and then to conduct a criminal investigation.
Um, two, where the hell is Congress on this? Because you know what? Congress sort of stepped in to really try and protect the Federal Reserve and Powell to basically say, you know what, you want another chair? That's that ain't happening if you're conducting this, you know, BS investigation of Jerome Powell, Janine Piro.
So, like back off the God's green earth off. Yeah, exactly. Got it. Well said, Sarah. And so, where are they on this? because this is like a reputable journalistic organization. Um, where you don't see that happening at all. And I think I mentioned the last time we were together that again if I were the Atlantic, I'd be like, "You want a trial, Cash?
You want a trial? Let's go." Yes. I loved this idea. I I have made sure they're listening. Andrew Weissman has some good advice. Everybody go listen to it. I'm also rip on this. Uh, excuse me. and for for a slightly different group the extent to which there was an entire chorus of free speech absolutists including one Elon Musk but it was like the rais on detra we need Trump because we need a free speech administration the extent to which these people have gone wildly quiet with the exception of a few really good people like my friends at at fire uh the foundation for individual rights and expression but like most of the both uh most of the advocates on the right who claimed that free speech was one of the essential reasons that we needed Donald Trump uh have gone deadly silent in the wake of his assault on the first amendment of which this is just another one but an egregious one.
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean look this is I mean this is free speech for me and not for thee. Um and and you know that is that is an you know I'm not big on always saying oh this is just like every authoritarian regime in every you know part of the world but this part this idea of um squashing sort of media disscent is is straight out of an authoritarian playbook.
Okay. Well not to make a surveillance pun. This seems like something we should keep a close watch on in this issue. It's my producer. We'll just It's fine. Uh, all right. Let's hear from On Skin and then we're going to get to our next topic, which is prosecuting Trump's enemies. I love Oneskin, but again, I mean, it's great, but not I don't think it's Is that a dog product?
I don't It's not. This one's for me and for my face. Uh, very much not for dogs. It would be messy. This show is sponsored by One Skin. Once Skin is my favorite. In fact, I keep it right here by my desk all the time. I put it on because I don't really have a great skinare routine. I just have a when I'm sitting at my desk and I remember I put on my one skin, my face cream, my eye cream, all of it.
Whether you're someone who tries every new skincare product that hits the market or you've been using the same one or two things for years, some people just realize that their favorite skincare product just isn't keeping up for them anymore. But not me. Thanks to One Skin. It doesn't just make my existing routine better.
It actually works differently than anything else I've tried. And believe me, if something doesn't work for me, it does not last because I won't keep it up. As we age, not that I'm aging, some skin cells stop functioning the way they should. Longevity scientists call them zombie cells, which sounds scary.
And that's what's actually driving those visible signs of aging, the fine lines, the loss of firmness, the dullness that creeps in over time. And One Skin's OS1 peptide was specifically engineered to address those. So, you're getting everything you expect from great skin care with OS1 doing something most skin care was never built to do.
And this isn't just my experience. Oncein's results are backed by over four peer-reviewed clinical studies, over 10,000 five-star reviews, and they've been recognized by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. You really don't need a complicated routine to get healthier, younger looking skin. Born from over a decade of longevity research, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age.
For a limited time, try Oneskin with 15% off using code illegal news at onkin.co/ilgalenews. That's 15% off oneskin.co with code illegal news. After you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you, specifically Sarah Longwell.
Uh that will help us out a lot. Thanks once again. All right, thanks once again. Let's get to the prosecution of Trump's enemies. Obviously, we talked about Comey's indictment last week with Kate Shaw, uh and the sea shell gate. Uh you and I talked about the prosecution of SPLC, uh which I think you characterize as equally politically motivated, uh and baseless, but I want to talk about what's happening to Fed Chair Jerome Pal, who you just invoked, uh and the Fulton County election investigation.
Can I just say one thing that is an update on the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC? Yes. Have you followed the Todd Blanch uh what what should we politely call it? Retraction. I haven't. He is on air and says, "What do you mean?" I'm I'm some I'm not direct quotes, but what do you mean that the Southern Poverty Law Center was was giving us information and giving information to the FBI or to DOJ?
I mean, there's no evidence of that. And it's like, hm, really? So, of course, um, the Southern Poverty Law Center, wasn't there like a formal working agreement? So, it's there's so much because so the Southern Poverty Law Center in writing their lawyers before there was an indictment said, "What are you talking about?
We were giving you information from this um from us, which we got through this informant program, and you were actually using it." Um, and so but even if you weren't using it, you know, we were trying to get you to use it to thwart what was happening. So that's like it's that's the direct contrary to the charge, which is that the nature of the charge, remember, is that the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't want to thwart hate groups.
They actually wanted to help um hate groups so they could continue fundraising. That's the theory. And so Todd Blanch is on air saying there's no evidence of that. And then he has to go, hey, we didn't know that this was an informant program. Which is sort of like who cares? I mean, like whether he knew it was an informant program or not is irrelevant.
But he's then says, you know, whether um we got some of this information is not what they're charged with. It's irrelevant to the case. And I was like, "No, that actually is the case." I mean, I was just like, "So, he did this about face and he did it because the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a motion in court that said he has said X and it is not true and so there should be a retraction." And in fact, um, the government had to come in and say, "Oh, well, in light of what Todd Blanch has now said, [clears throat] there doesn't need to be an additional retraction cuz he did a 180.
This is the acting attorney general of the United States who has overseen a prosecution of a revered um and esteemed civil rights group whether you agree with all of their tactics or not. Um so it's it's sort of a remarkable turnaround. It is one more reason that I think this case is dead on arrival.
And I assume you agree the the same thing about Comey, right? Because I was just thinking about Todd Blanch. I think in that same interview um cuz I did not watch the whole thing or or if I did I didn't clock that part. The part that I was focused on was where he was like oh yeah it's fine he was being asked by Kristen Welker so are you going to prosecute people who are making the 8647 t-shirts and you know all the people who are saying it online he was like well of course not why would we prosecute them and it's like well I'm are these is this not a death threat?
Is this not your case against Comey? What do you mean that it's fine if they say it? And it seemed to me, again, not a lawyer, that but I know what vindictive prosecution is. And it feels like uh Comey is going to have a heck of a case to say that this was vindictive prosecution if they decline it for everybody else, but only pursue it for him.
So Todd Blanch was intimating that there was more evidence that the reason that James Comey was singled out from this paniply of people who are um who are posting 8647 is because there's something else there. I mean that falls into a category of give me a break. If there was something else there you don't think it would be in the indictment.
Let's see it. By the way, this is the the other thing which is all of this and this is going to go to um the it's the SPLC case, it's the Comey case is this idea of the chilling effect of of bringing these cases. Um and here's like a really minor example. Um I was last week at a place in France called Monichelle.
It is an 8th century monastery on a rock in the sort of north west corner in the middle kind of in off the shore built on a rock in the sand and sort of this incredible spot and and and I'm sitting there trying to I'm trying to not think about my book, not to plug it, not to think about the bull work.
Sad. I know. Sad. Sad. It's like you're like what? Um not trying to think about main justice. My past I'm trying to turn off and just have a few days of on a monastery on a rock. I've got it. Exactly. And what I look down from the top of the abbey down to this cuz it's on this rock and it's there's a low um there's the beach is goes on for really long time and then short this the water comes up and it's just it surrounds the entire abbey but before the water came up I'm looking at the sand and what do I see in the sand?
8647. God, you're good. You're good. I saw that one coming from a mile away. Exactly. And so I'm thinking I am going to take a picture of that and send it to Mary McCord, who I do a podcast with at Main Justice. And I think given who I am, like this is like Todd, it's like this is like mana from heaven for Todd Bland.
She's like sitting there drooling at like you know you know oh there's another person I can prosecute yet another person besides James Comey so I don't do it but I am here to tell you the anecdote I don't know post it on Instagram let him come see what happens exactly but now they're going after Jerome Pal.
Uh that's where we are. Okay. So, so talk to me about about this administration now going after Jerome Pal, who by the way is like the strangest folk hero of our time. I'm basically obsessed with Jerome Pal and how he's handling everything. But them going after him, him rolling off and being like, "And I will stay.
I will keep my seat on the board. I will have a new seat on the board." Sarah, he is brilliantly handling this. I know. I love watching the cage match between him and Janine Piro and Donald Trump. So here's here's So first they're like um we want you off and so we're going to try and pressure you off by either um making you look like a fool in at this press conference where you actually do the reverse and make Donald Trump look like he sort of does a gotcha and pow says you got your numbers wrong.
Um so he's not having any of it. So then they're like, "We're going to open a criminal investigation." And they um and they issue these two grand jury subpoenas to which Judge Boseberg goes, "Not so fast." And issues two, not one, but two really rock solid opinions. But there's more because that's where Congress stepped in and said, "You ain't politicizing the Federal Reserve." And so here's the deal.
Jerome Pal is sort of time uh time restricted in terms of when he has to step down as chair but he is not uh similarly timerestricted in terms of continuing as still being on the board. So he can go from being chair to being on the board. Um most people though generally go from being chair to just leaving but they don't have to.
And so, um, Congress says, including some Republicans, are like, "Uh-uh. Attillais was good on this." Excellent. Excellent. Going, you want a chair, you got to drop this. Like, ain't going to happen while you're while you're fumpering around with this nonsense. And so Janine Piro, tail between her legs, has to be like, "Okay, we're going to try and work something out and we're not pursuing the subpoenas and we're not going to appeal Judge Boseberg's decision." Um, and so it seems like there's a bit of a truce, but Jerome Powell is smart because he's like, you can take that and, you know, it's like a token and that gets you like not not even on the New York subway anymore.
Um, and he's like, nothing protects me from you turning around and just reinstituting the criminal investigation because you're those kind of people. So, he's like, I you know what, I have another card to play. I'm h I'm gonna step down when it's time to step down and and I'm gonna still be on the board.
So, see you. Um and because and so Janine Piro is still going, well, we're not appealing, but depending on what happens with an an inspector general's report, we may or may not resuscitate the criminal case. So, she's trying to be like, "Okay, I didn't totally lose. I may resuscitate." and drone pal like you can resuscitate or not resuscitate cuz I'm going to be on that board and so he's playing his card.
Um Congress is still very much backing him up. I do suspect that the Supreme Court is going to which has this issue coming up about how much power the president has to remove people including on the Federal Reserve and is likely to say when it comes to the Federal Reserve that there has to be cause.
In other words, it's not you can't just say you're done, you know, off with your head. There has to be a reason um that you're firing somebody. And so that obviously doesn't exist with um uh Jerome Powell, doesn't seem to exist with respect to Lisa Cook. And so you're seeing this sort of stalemate where I think ultimately um Janine Piro is trying to save face um and not make it seem like she just instituted a BS investigation um which which of course it is.
Yeah, exactly. Um and so but she does you know what's she going to do? Turn around and say, "Yo, okay, you're right. You you caught my you know my hand in the cookie jar?" So, she's trying to save face and drone pal's like, "Well, you know what? Then I'm not leaving cuz if you're going to try and say this is still pending, screw you." Um, and can I just curse for a moment?
It's a free country almost. So [gasps] this is what I have learned after and it's to my parents probably deep deep um regret because it's like thousands and thousands of dollars of higher education to have this be sort of the rule of thumb of like how you operate in the world where one person goes you and the response is me no you.
It's like that that in many ways is like you know years at like I went to Princeton and I went to Columbia and all these like fancy places and that's the the result and you can just my parents have to be like really like did we really have to like do do all of that for for for that you know that level of analysis?
Yeah. Uh well, it was worth it was worth every penny. Uh Mr. and Mrs. Weissman. Uh because it's not our fault. This is where we found ourselves in the discourse and this is how we have to deal with it. Uh but I just want to This is just a a Jerome Pel appreciation uh segment because uh he's not the hero we deserve, but he is the hero we're getting and God bless him.
Uh all right, last topic and then we got to get out of here. Uh Fulton County. just want to do an update on the Fulton County stuff because there's been a little bit of movement there. Fulton County um continues to be uh this uh Trump bugaboo. People know that there was a search warrant. There's there's litigation that is still pending that about um uh efforts by Folsson County to say that um the search warrant was improvidently granted.
But the latest is that the administration is trying to obtain through a grand jury subpoena all of the names of everyone who essentially it's like anyone who ever worked and put touched um the Fulton County election process. They want like hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of names. And again, just think about the chilling effect.
There's obviously there is no um factual basis to investigate hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. So this is like you know your classic fishing expedition which is not what a grand jury subpoena is for. Um a grand jury subpoena is not supposed to be to harass. Um that is a Supreme Court case directly on point.
Judge Boseberg used it in striking down the Judge Powell um the the Judge Powell the um uh Chairman Powell um subpoenas that we were just talking about. Um and um this is one where the chilling effect on people where we have midterms coming up. These are people who are generally um volunteers, low-level people who are just good citizens um and bipartisan people.
Um these are the people you want to be doing this who believe in their country. And you just imagine what the you're thinking now, which is yes, I want to do this, but the chilling effect is and then your name's going to be on the list and you're going to be investigated and you may need to get a lawyer and they may accuse you of um you know, posting something that says that has four numerals in it and saying that constitutes a threat.
Um, meaning if if you can make this up out of whole cloth, the chilling effect on the running of our country and people doing things out of patriotism and principle is I think is the point. Yeah. We're not angry enough at at at some of this this the the extent to which because you're exactly right and chilling.
This is like it's like a bunch of 75 year olds like the people who just, you know, do the ballot collection and poll watchers, whatever. Um, and yeah, they're just they're like, yeah, volunteers in election administration cuz they want to see us have a good clean election. And and this is what's so crazy about it.
So these are not people get together as a group. This is not some some isolated group that's like figuring out what to do. These are people from all sorts of walks of life that you couldn't possibly have a conspiracy. Like it's just too many people and too many witnesses and too many poll watchers. I mean, it's just not how things work.
I mean, having investigated crime for decades and defended um, you know, people accused of crime for a decade, that's just not how it works. It's not possible to have that kind of conspiracy. And so, you really have to ask what is the purpose here? And the purpose, unfortunately, is really similar to the everything we are seeing in these vindictive investigations and prosecutions.
I talk about conspiracies a lot because I listen to a lot of voters and voters believe in a lot of conspiracies. In fact, it's like becoming a real dominant mechanism. But like conspiracies crop up when people just don't know how things work. Like that that idea of like I don't know how it works and therefore it must all be rigged is like no actually there's a perfectly legitimate system and anybody who's worked in election administration will tell you that the like there's no way to do the things that people think we're done.
So wait, that's a good thing. Do you do that? I mean, um, of having somebody on to just talk about here's what I do. Here's how like this is how a poll watch works. Here's how just like sort of to just help dispel the mystery and also their background because some of these people it's like um I'm a school teacher, I'm a retired cop, I'm, you know, it's like I'm a retired librarian.
Um, and this is what, you know, this is something that I do. I mean, these are sort of people that in that you meet every day in your life and you would never ever think, "Oh, these are bad people." You'd think, "Oh, what a lovely thing to be doing." We have 100% had people write stories for us, especially in the wake of 2020, we really got people who did election stuff to the regular people to say why it was implausible that these things would happen.
Um, Republicans who were like, "No, this isn't how." Also, Steven Richer, who was the Maricopa County Supervisor in 2020, is like a good pile of mine who's been on a bunch. Uh, just to be like, "Let me tell you how like cuz he was the guy who ran the election and was like, "No, none of this is rigged.
None of this there none of these conspiracies are real. Let me tell you." And he's very good at laying out exactly how it works. That is not satisfying for people who want to believe that things were rigged. Like they just cuz I I listen to voters in the focus group say things like if if like why didn't they investigate the fraud?
Why didn't anybody look at the voter fraud? You're like that was the most investigated election in American history. Those things were invest they recounted. They did hand recounts. Like they ran that thing into the ground. And people are still out there saying, "Well, why didn't they even bother to look?" And you're like, "I don't you know, how do you how do you talk to people around that?" Okay, we've gone long.
Good show, long show. Andrew, you're the best. I love it when you're here with me. A reminder to listeners to go get your book, Liars Kingdom. It's on pre-sale now. Hits the shelves May 19th, which is soon and so exciting. There's a 15% discount code for Bull Work listeners that we're going to drop in the show notes.
Go get his book, everyone, right now. We'll see you guys next time to talk about more illegal news.
댓글 0