Raging Moderates: Biden’s Cancer Diagnosis

26:06They're going to move forward with this. They're going to increase the deficit by$3 trillion if it gets passed. The big cut to Medicaid I already mentioned. Now that the CBO has actually had time with the bill, some of these stats that are coming out would send you reeling. You actually can't process how somebody could be for a bill like this. Like people making between$17K and$51K could lose an average of$700 in after-tax income. Those making$4.3 million or more would gain an average of$389 ,000. The bottom 60 % of taxpayers would get an average tax cut of$700 under the plan. but over$10 million would lose their health insurance.

26:43And I'm pretty sure that your health insurance is worth more than$700 in your pocket. And I guess in a bright spot, if you take them at your word, which is always difficult, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. You know, Josh Hawley had a New York Times op-ed saying you can't cut Medicaid. Ron Johnson wants more cut. That's my favorite. The people who are like, no, I can't be for this because it doesn't cut enough. But, you know, I'll take it. Susan Collins, Jerry Moran, all the rural hospitals are going to be gone. It's going to wipe out rural medical care in this country. And every once in a while, it's a good time to be a Democrat.

27:21And in this case, it is because you have all of these Republicans whose feet are going to be held to the fire because they represent rural states. and they've got millions of constituents that are saying, I'm going to have nowhere to go. A, won't have healthcare in the first place, but then if I do get sick, I can't even get to a hospital to get the care that I need. Yeah, and I think that's the correct framing. What I have seen is that it's a tax cut for the top 5 % and it's a tax hike for the lower 95. And in addition, the thing that I harp on about is it's going to add what I've seen, about$4.5 or$5 trillion to the deficit.

27:56I've seen numbers that are much bigger. I'm taking the more conservative one. That's about$30 ,000 per household. And keep in mind, the deficits that we're racking up are not being used to fund education or fund technical development or make investments in infrastructure that could ultimately pay off for future generations. It's essentially to extend corporate tax cuts and increase defense spending. And they're trying to minimize some of that deficit reduction by cutting social services or, you know, as you said, Medicaid. I uploaded my W-2s from last year into three different LLMs and said, how does the proposed Trump tax bill going to affect me?

28:39And they came back with things. I'm going to get wealthier. And one even started off with good news. So essentially, this is young people get to borrow money,$4.5 trillion, because the thing is, our credit is fine for probably 10, 20, maybe 30 years. People are crying that, oh, yeah, interest rates will go up. They already are. We just lost our AAA credit rating from, I think it was Moody's. Moody's, yeah. So we saw the 10-year go up, which means student loans, mortgages, everything, companies' ability to borrow money to pay for additional factories. So basically, everyone in America is going to pay slightly more money for everything.

29:20That's what an increased interest rates do, such that we can fund a tax cut for the top 5%, and our credit will be fine for a while. I don't think that there's going to be a failed treasury auction for a while. But effectively what this is, is people under the age of, call it 40, have to borrow an additional$5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the old and the wealthy. And people say to me always at the time, Scott, it's not young versus old, it's poor versus rich. They're the same fucking thing. Because if you look at the people who would benefit most from this tax cut, yeah, they're the rich, but they usually are people in their 60s and 70s.

29:58I think the Democrats need to do a better job of, you realize, this is like a household that's taking on, right now the household makes 50 grand, spends 70 grand, has 370 grand in debt, and is about to take on another 50 grand in debt. And by the way, when mom and dad die, they'll have spent all that time going to Cabo and partying and buying, you know, a Lexus. But that debt is going to be inherited by their children. It just, it strikes me as just such a criminal act against the young. And we don't frame it that way. We say, okay, we need to lower taxes. And also, I think if you came to the table and said, there are really some hard decisions to be made around our biggest entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

30:43You know, we have to make really ugly, severe cuts, and we're going to match those cuts, proportionate or two to one, with tax increases on corporations who are paying the lowest taxes since 1929, or in the very wealthy who continue to see a regressive or enjoy a regressive tax rate. I think you could make a moral and an economic argument for making those types of really deep, terrible cuts. and then said, okay, because there's some hard decisions to be made and we're going to start a path towards fiscal responsibility, which will ultimately lower the interest costs on our debt, which will ultimately lower the costs for everybody.

31:19But folks, we can't afford to keep spending the way we're spending and we can't afford to not bring in more revenues. I think I could have gotten on board with that, but instead they're like, no, let's cut people's health care so we can give the top 5 % tax cut. And the Republicans pushing back on this thing for their TikTok moment, they did talk about the deficit, but it was all through the lens of the cuts don't go deep enough. And I'm like, Jesus Christ. You don't think these cuts are going deep enough? That's where you're going with this? The cruelty is the point. In every aspect of Republican policymaking.

31:57The cruelty is the point. And you're totally right. Contextualizing the deficit in real terms would be an enormous public service that if any of these politicians would like to get on board with, I would certainly amplify it. I want to know about what it means for my mortgage rate. I want to know what it means for my grocery bill. I want to know what it means for, you know, how fast my 529 for my kids so that they can go to college is going to grow or or be slowed by the deficit, et cetera, all of that stuff. But I think that you really need to make it as simple as possible. Like if you do this, you lose this.

32:36We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or nutritional assistance. We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or your Medicaid coverage. We can choose. I mean, remember, I mean, we were sold so many lies during the confirmation hearings, But all this talk about it, we're going to actually do an audit of the Pentagon. Now, Secretary Hicks has told us that. And lo and behold, there are no cuts to the Pentagon. They're increasing the budgets. Republicans are never going to cut defense spending. That is a lie that they tell you every single time, along with we actually care about the debt and the deficit as well.

33:10So I really want Democrats to get super simple, like pretend you're telling my three-year-old what's actually in this bill and draw that straight line from the tax cuts. to the loss of services that matter to the lives of the average American. And that's not to say that the Americans aren't getting it. Trump is underwater in terms of how he's handling the economy. This bill is hugely unpopular. But they live only for the day, right? They love the one you're with. They're not thinking about what happens in 26 or in 28. They're just trying to cram as much junk down our throats as possible, as quickly as possible.

33:48And then they're going to worry about the repercussions later. Yeah. So just let me cement my reputation as an ageist. It really is old people fucking this country. I mean, first off, if passed, this tax bill would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history. And it's much more fun to create a class war. But who are the rich again? There aren't a lot of 26-year-olds thinking, wow, this tax cut's going to be great for me. Yeah. If you look at who owns shares, who benefits from these tax cuts, it's the old. And here's the problem. The old continue to have figured out a way to vote themselves more money.

34:24Oh, and guess what? We're talking about cutting Medicaid, but we're not talking about cutting Medicare or Social Security. Right. Because that's old people. And old rich people. Old rich people. Because old rich people still use their Medicare. Well, yeah, they still love their Medicare. It's great health care at a low price. They still want, you know, I paid into it. By the way, the majority of people who once they take out Social Security take out more than they put in. And it's not called a Social Security pension fund. It's called a Social Security tax, meaning it may not benefit you directly.

34:57And then people say, Scott, but it's not a deficit issue. Well, of course, it's similar. It's a tax on young people. When Social Security was initially conceived, there were 12 young people supporting every retiree. Now it's three to one. And people are working and living 20 or 30 years longer. And Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway should not get Social Security. And here's the problem going back to we need age limits in Congress. Say we're able to continue to live irresponsibly and live beyond our means and continue to take advantage of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has been earned through hard work and fiscal responsibility over 225 years.

35:38In 30 years, 75 % of Congress will be dead. See, above, they're too fucking old. So they don't have a vested interest in the future of America. I'll be dead by then. I mean, I know this firsthand. I believe where I live in Florida will probably be underwater at some point. But it's probably going to be 50 years, and I've done the math. I'm just not that damn worried about it. Whereas a 25-year-old is more concerned with climate change. I understand that. And we need more 25-year-olds in Congress such that we can be a little bit more future forward, such that we can be thinking about the requisite long-term investments to ensure our kids and grandkids have the same types of opportunities we do.

36:22So what is the incentive for people in Congress who are really fucking old? Well, whatever. Future generations will deal with warming oceans and an unsustainable debt load. As long as my credit card continues to be accepted and I can continue feeding at the trough until I'm dead, I'm down with these ridiculously short-term policies. These tax cuts, which largely benefit the wealthy, Republicans aren't cutting defense spending, Social Security or Medicare, all which would be unpopular with the constituents. Instead, they're going after the health and nutrition programs for the poorest Americans, which again is Latin for the youngest Americans.

36:58So, again, this is the bill just it goes from bad to worse here. The bill proposes cutting SNAP spending by 30 percent. I can't imagine a better investment than SNAP. Okay, stop a kid from being obese such that he doesn't have to spend$1 ,000 a month for a Zempic, is not clinically depressed, is able to make more money. People who are obese make less money. They're more likely to need knee and hip replacements and be on kidney dialysis when they get older, which is really, really expensive. SNAP beneficiaries only receive about$2 per meal. The federal government spent$113 billion on SNAP in fiscal year 2023, making the 27 increased AMT exemptions permanent will reduce revenues by$140 billion a year.

37:44So you could essentially, if you just made the AMT exemptions, if you said they're not permanent, if you had an alternative minimum tax that said wealthy people had to pay at least a certain amount, by the way, that amount isn't high, it would fund SNAP. And the thing about it is distinct of the moral argument, you know, distinct of the sob argument, which Democrats scream into TikTok about, we'll have more money. We won't have to spend as much money if we have a semi-healthy populace. I'm done with the morality argument. They're just stupid. We've literally decided, okay, guys, give us your credit card.

38:19We're going to run up. It's like that film Leaving Las Vegas where Nicolas Cage says, I'm such a fucking raging alcoholic. I am so addicted to alcohol that I've given up any hope of rehab. I'm just going to cash my last check for my severance pay, and I'm going to hang out with a prostitute and party like there's no, you know, like it's 1999 because I'm going to be dead soon. That is how we are approaching our government right now. We are Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas. Elizabeth Shue was my dad's number one crush in the entire world. I feel so old. Me and your dad. Well, Andy's dead on top of that, right?

38:54So I feel really old. He was much older. Not much older. He would have been seven years old. That's bringing the conversation down. She just did make a comeback, though, in the karate. What's it called? The Karate Kid 100. I didn't see it. But you're totally right about the investment part of it. Like, just make the economic argument. And, you know, I love the cruelty is the point. I go back to it all the time. Like when Republicans oppose school lunches and you think like, how is that physically possible that you could say it's a bad idea for kids to have food in their bellies? Just make the argument then you're so concerned about how well we perform.

39:28Guess when you can't do any learning and you can't function when you're hungry. So just give them a sandwich and let them do better in school. It's always the easiest stuff. like the simple things. And because they're morally bankrupt, they won't go with it. It's a really boring detail, but I just wanted to note that in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week, they went 26 hours straight, like overnight. And Democrats introduced 33 amendments and all of them failed, which they knew because we didn't have the numbers. But they brought in all of these people who are on Medicaid to tell their stories about what would happen to them or the people who are close to them if the programs got cut.

40:12And watching, I didn't stay up all night for it. C-SPAN had great coverage of it. But watching democracy actually happening live in front of us and people using the process, I thought, A, this is a way that Democrats are fighting back and at least getting these stories out there to amplify. But B, if we have that kind of energy across all of these committees and in the press and on all of the social media posts surrounding this reconciliation bill, maybe it gets through the House, but it will be impossible for it to get through the Senate, at least in its current form. Our producer, David, gave us some great data here.

40:50So essentially, one study found that children with access to Medicaid grew up healthier and less dependent on government benefits. Medicaid spending delivered a 2 to 7 percent annual return on investment. The sphere of the children ended up receiving disability payments. And studies also show an association between SNAP participation and a reduction in healthcare costs by as much as$5 ,000 per person per year. So in sum, these are great investments. It's good business. And then on the other side, the other thing that really pisses me off and people just don't grasp, the estate tax exemption is going to be increased from$15 million to$30 million for married couples next year.

41:29What that means is if you're wealthy, you put stuff in an estate and it transfers tax-free down to your heirs. And one of the things that distinguishes America from Europe is that we've always been somewhat against dynastic wealth. And we tax the states such that we can make forward-leaning investments that give a ton of young people incentive to work hard such that they can make it because the government is able to make great investments in technology, whether it's the internet or GPS or education, they give them a shot at being rich. And Europe's always been about kind of inherited family wealth.

42:01Europe is now less dynastic on many levels than we are. And the thing that is so insane about this is that if you look at studies on the relationship between money and happiness, once you get above, call it$30 million in wealth, you have no incremental happiness. And what people don't understand about these trusts, they value it at$30 million based on the value when it goes into the trust. If it grows to be worth$100 million over 20 or 30 years, which isn't unlikely, it all transfers tax-free. And here's the thing, and there's empirical and anecdotal evidence here. I know a lot of rich kids in New York.

42:39Trust me, folks, they're not any happier than wealthy kids. So as someone who's worked really hard and has aggregated some economic security, one of the things I want as a reward for my good fortune and my hard work is I want to give my kids a better life than the average kid. Let me just come out of the closet. I want to give my kids enough money so they can have a house and know that they don't have to worry about education costs. All right. You can easily do that. Easily do that with$10 million. You don't need 30. You don't even need really$10 million to give your kid a head start because you think, I've worked so fucking hard, I want to give my kids advantage.

43:19I think that is a natural instinct. All my friends who talk a big game about, well, I'm going to pay through their college and then they're on their own. None of them do that. Their kid is a good kid. They can't pursue their dreams without help from mom and dad. Mom and dad want them to live near them. Inflation, they end up giving their kids money. Fine. I think that's one of the benefits in what we work so hard when we're parents is such that we can help our kids out. But anything above, call it five or 10 million, not even that much. You think that gives your kid incremental happiness? It doesn't.

43:48Well, a lot of people feel like it hurts them in the long term. Like the Bill Gates is obviously working for billions of dollars now, but he's not giving them anything, right? Or they each get a million dollars or something like that? Yeah. I mean, there's different ways to cut the cat there. I mean, my guess is they're getting indirectly a lot of Bill Gates's kid gets a leg up on a lot of levels economically. But anyways, my point is, let's call it a million bucks. You know, the kid's not going to go hungry. You know, the kid can afford education. probably that's going to help in terms of a down payment towards the house, right?

44:20Anything above that, you get no incremental happiness. You get none. So, and it goes back to the notion, I think there should be an AMT tax of 50 to 70 % on anything above$10 million because it's not going to get you in incremental happiness. Whereas making forward-leaning investments with that capital to give younger people more of a shot, that gives a lot of people a lot of happiness. But all of this shit is not only giveaways, but it doesn't create any incremental value for anybody. The difference between holding on to$11 million of your$15 million in earnings versus being able to hold on to$9 million of your$15 million in earnings, no incremental benefit to you or your family.

45:00There's nothing you're going to be able to do that you weren't able to do before. It's not going to increase your health, your well-being. It's not going to lessen any more of your anxiety. You're just going to be richer. You're just going to have a bigger number. What I find so disappointing about this tax bill is, okay, I understand that the top 1%, and in most instances, the 0.1 % want a bigger number, but you're not going to increase the well-being of anybody. You're not going to increase the happiness. All you're going to do is create tremendous anxiety and despair among those people losing their Medicaid and create additional costs for everybody through higher interest rates, because it's irresponsible racking up deficits and increase taxation or reliance on government services and nonprofits when all of these people, you know, start getting their toes and their fingers cut off because of full-blown diabetes that wasn't arrested earlier in their life or that they didn't get treatment for.

45:52So we make the moral argument all the time as Democrats. I think we need to start making the economic argument that this is just going to cost us a lot more down the road. All we're doing is creating a fiscal disaster for the government and for the people who are still going to be around, i.e. 25 percent of Congress will still survive, still be around. And we don't do that. We just scream and cry about the morality of it all. We need to move to the economic side. Yeah. And also emphasize that we're talking about a difference in a tax rate from 37 to 39 percent. Right. Right. This isn't like we're suddenly going to be rating your coffers at a level that you can't withstand.

46:32And I wish that more rich people would talk about these issues the way that you are or like, you know, Ro Khanna represents the most billionaires of any district in the country. He says constantly, we need to tax the rich more, tax the rich more. And they still send him back. These are not people who are stupid. These are not people who are economically illiterate. They're obviously seeing something more to the story. And maybe we should get them on a roadshow to talk about why it's important to support policies that are more evenly distributed across different social classes. Okay, let's take a quick break.

47:08Stay with us.

47:12Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today. From Pushkin Industries, I'm Jonathan Goldstein, and Heavyweight is back. The new season is bigger than ever. Bigger hopes? I keep waiting for this moment. When he says, Mom, I get it. I'm sorry.

47:52Bigger dreams? Tom Hanks wants to meet with you. This is a real chance. And bigger heartbreaks. I thought it would be my movie moment. And maybe he would even whisper in my ear, I've always been in love with you. Check out new episodes of Heavyweight on Apple Podcasts.

48:16What if you could make that stop? With LPL Financial, we remove the things holding you back and provide the services to help push you forward. If you're a financial advisor, what if you could have more freedom, but also more support? Ready to invest? What if you could have an advisor that really understood you? When it comes to your finances, your business, your future, at LPL Financial, we believe the only question should be, what if you could? Pitt advertisement, Anna Kendrick, is not a client of LPL Financial LLC and receives compensation to promote LPL. Investing involves risk, including potential loss or principal LPL Financial LLC member FINRA SIPC.

48:48Welcome back. joining us today is a former federal prosecutor and host of the Stay Tuned with Preet podcast. Welcome to the show. A good friend. And my one, this is true. This is, here we go. Look at Preet. My one phone call. When shit gets real for the dog, which it will at some point, and I find myself in a very unfortunate situation, I have one call and I have told Preet that he is my one call and that if he ever sees my phone or my caller ID come up, he is to answer immediately. Must take it. He is both a sharp political or sharp legal mind, I should say, but also just very smart, very calm kind of guy you want in your corner.

49:27Anyways, good to see you, Preet. Good to see you. I have to apologize given that introduction that I'm not in my usual barrister uniform. I'm a little casual today. No, that's good. Yeah. If and when you should call upon me for my legal duties, I will have the proper attire. I appreciate that. What's on your mind? So the reason I reached out to you, well, we're good, good friends. And in addition, we've been talking a lot about how to more effectively push back. I think like a lot of Democrats, we share a real frustration that there is a more robust pushback. And one of the ideas, I won't say we, that I've suggested is that if you are essentially shipping people to black sites or what, in my opinion, fits the definition of concentration camps outside, sending people outside to a place where they're no longer subject to the same rights they would have on their domestic territory or where they're shipped off from, that you are subject to criminal prosecution.

50:24and that people who engage in illegal incarceration or corruption or fraud are still subject to, at some point, prosecution. And I have said this with absolutely no legal domain expertise. Why should that stop you ever, Scott? There you go. There you go. Perfect for 2025. There you go. So you are that domain expertise. Is this a viable strategy or am I just barking at the moon here? So a couple of—I'm a lawyer, so a couple of prefatory things. It depends on what you're talking about. It depends on what the conduct is. It depends on what an investigation reveals. I was just thinking as you were speaking, literally about black sites, there was a lot of debate after the second Bush administration about whether or not people who were acting on orders, literally to take people to black sites, whether CIA officers should be subject to investigation and prosecution.

51:15And Barack Obama, you know, Democrat, liberal, decided in consultation with his aides that that would not be an appropriate use of the Justice Department's resources, and people can debate that and go back and forth on that. There's not a profoundly deep history in recent times of doing that sort of thing. The other thing I'd point out, it sounds like, from what you were postulating in your question, is something that's going to take place in three and a half years. Something that would take place in a future administration that doesn't do a lot to solve the violations of not just norms and not just regulations, but statutes that may be going on.

51:50The third thing I would say is, you know, to the extent people want accountability and fairness and the rule of law to be back in the seat, that's all well and good. I will say that to the extent people are thinking about that, as some people listening to this might be, as a political strategy, that has been not borne out, right? Donald Trump was, in fact, subjected to multiple criminal investigations. He was subjected to two impeachments, and it didn't stop him politically. So I guess it depends on what, you know, if we're talking about proper rule of law accountability, that's one thing, which would be not for a while.

52:26And we can talk about the particulars of that. But the idea that there are some parties now, given the Justice Department, that's in the full control, more than it's ever been, in the hands of a sitting president, those things are not viable for a while. And as a political matter, they can backfire, as I think there's a decent argument that they did with respect to the prosecutions of Donald Trump. even the one that was completed and successful by the Manhattan DA's office. So have I—is that enough cold water? Let me just— Scott's depressed. He's going to start crying any moment now that you've— Well, it is a weak day.

53:00Let me just double-click on that or push— the only place I would offer pushback is that I think it's a political strategy reminding people that many of the crimes that may or may not be committed right now under the prosecution of the full letter of the law probably have a statute of limitations that is greater than three years and nine months. Yeah. And there's a political consideration, and I've suggested that at some point if we retake control of Congress that we draft legislation that probably won't pass or be vetoed that says, you know, El Salvador, keep in mind when the House slips back or when governments change, if we find that you in fact are incarcerating U.S.

53:34citizens, regardless of whether you thought it was a good deal with the president, that you'll be subject to economic sanctions. I would outline that right now, that I think a certain reminder that the America's memory is long and our reach is far might actually temper some of what I believe is extraordinarily unethical at a minimum and likely illegal, that it actually might be effective. But what you're pushing back on is no, to date, it hasn't been. It's been the opposite. It's been ineffective. Is that accurate? Yeah, but like, you know, hope springs eternal. I will say also just a couple just a couple more things one Yeah, people should stand up for the rule of law and call out potential Violations and transgressions where they see them point one is These guys act like they're always going to be in power They act like there's never going to be a next administration and it's certainly not going to be a democratic administration And that is just not So we'll see what happens in 2028 But there is a you know mathematically speaking a 50 % chance that he succeeded by a democratic administration and all the precedents that he has set and his people have set for the threshold and the standard for not just prosecuting but opening up a difficult and aggressive investigation are fair game for the other side right i'm not saying that there should be a tit for tat and that if there was over aggressive weaponization of the justice department that the next folks should do the same thing.

55:00But, you know, people are human beings and people might want to do that. And that's a distinct possibility. If you look at the standard set by the Trump administration for when they see fit to send FBI agents or ICE agents or Secret Service agents to someone's door and look at someone, whether it's Ed Martin, the departing U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, or a cabinet secretary, you know, a cabinet level position like DNI Tulsi Gabbard, The way they're talking about what prompts a criminal investigation, and more than that, what prompts a declaration that someone is guilty before being investigated, before being charged, and before being convicted, is quite low.

55:38I mean, just take a look at the example of, since we're in the wake of the controversy over former FBI Director Jim Coen. Seashell Gate? Seashell Gate. Yeah. That's a great name. I hadn't thought of that. My gift to you. Thank you. Was it a dumb thing to do? Should he have thought better of it? Should he have been aware of the fact that some people would interpret 86 to mean something other than, you know, get rid of somebody who's in public office? Sure. But you had Tulsi Gabbard, who is a Senate-confirmed, considerably important, powerful person in the Trump administration, who says outright, based on that ambiguous Instagram post, that Jim Comey must not only be investigated, but has already declared and decided that he should be imprisoned and should go to jail, you know, tells you what their standards are.

56:23And if that's the standard for investigation, there are a whole host of people already. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money, if not all my money, that there'll be further targets on the other side, on the Trump side, who have said and done things that constitute less ambiguous threats. Trump himself has used violent imagery, violent language. Donald Trump's son has used violent imagery and language with respect to, among other people, Nancy Pelosi's husband, who was brutally beaten within an inch of his life. You have other supporters of Donald Trump who have themselves used the 86 term with respect to Joe Biden.

56:56So what's fair for one is fair for the other. And so I don't see a problem with people raising the specter of that, given the low, low standard that's being set for investigation and prosecution by the Trump folks. I know Scott is very interested in kind of the personal revenge tour of this or what could be coming down the pike. I'm not advocating that. That's not how I would frame it, Jess, but go ahead. No, like what could happen to these people? Like we finally grow up there and start pushing back. We start thinking like them. That tour? That tour. And I'm buying a ticket for that tour, no matter how much it costs.

57:33You've made me defensive, Jess. Sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. I feel like this is our first fight. I'm calling Freit. I'm calling my one call. But if you're calling right now, I'm busy. I'm already here. Well, he's already here. There you go. Take advantage. A couple things that I'm curious about, not so much on the individual front, but I hear a lot of the courts are doing their job right now, at least when it comes to policy issues, especially in the realm of immigration where it feels like, you know, every level from local judges up to the Supreme Court are saying, no, you can't do this, right?

58:04You can't be using the Alien Enemies Act, et cetera. How would you rate the level of pushback or effectiveness that we are seeing from the courts right now on the policy front? I think pretty good, but it depends on how you're grading them. It's like saying, you know, a math teacher is holding ground by telling a student that 2 plus 2 does not equal 5, right? Yeah, we should applaud that. in an Orwellian environment in which there are school teachers teaching and accepting an answer of five being the sum of two plus two, judges saying otherwise are doing a great job and it's important. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we're in a crazy time when people have to explain that.

58:42We're at a crazy time when the Supreme Court that's loaded with conservatives, three of whom have been appointed by Trump himself, have decided, you know, not literally, Not so fast. If you're going to deport someone, you've got to look at what the law says. And Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case has interpreted the Constitution to mean there's got to be some due process. It doesn't have to be a full-blown trial like we're being scared with, but some due process to make sure that you've got the right person. And the person is deportable and is deportable to the place where you're saying.

59:12And it's got to be more than 24 hours. So that, I think, is a good sign. And I don't mean to denigrate it or downplay it at all, but it's a little bit like two plus two equals five. And it's refreshing in a black is white, fake news, up is down universe for people to say, you know, you know what? Math is math and the Constitution is the Constitution. It's good. Good. We have some good news. I'm just curious. I imagine you're still close with it, certainly in touch with people still at SDNY or, you know, from your former life. Yeah. How do people who are in the business of doing justice, which is what your book was called, feeling right now about getting up and going to work and figuring all of this out in the Trump era?

59:59Yeah, there are two sides to the coin. I still think it is the case that the massive work being done by federal prosecutors in the country and Department of Justice lawyers, whether in Washington or in the various U.S. attorneys' offices, is apolitical, continues apace, whether it's violent crime prosecutions or fraud prosecutions and the like. There are different priorities and emphases that Pam Bondi has put forward in various memos since she started. But the bread and butter of the office is probably the same. Now, with respect to certain fraught prosecutions and investigations that get a lot of outsized attention, like people who are or may be in the president's ambit or who are elected officials, you know, maybe it's a little bit different.

1:00:43and everyone can feel unhappy, even if it's not one of their cases, if they think there's a thumb on the scale or they think that people are being unduly harassed. I think there's a certain amount of trepidation on the part of a lot of people at the Department of Justice, but I still think that the majority of folks are just keeping their heads down and doing their job, even if they're not so thrilled at what's going on at the top. So I have a question that requires There's more political judgment than legal expertise, although it does involve the law. And you referenced earlier that I just called it seashell gate.

1:01:19I love what Yuval Noah Harari said, that democracies thrive on trust while dictatorships are built on fear. My sense is this is a perfect example of that. That this will be swatted away under any sort of responsible legal scrutiny. You know, free speech. I just think this is a ridiculous attempt to intimidate and create an atmosphere of fear such that people do not speak out and they silence any criticism of the president. Yeah. What are your thoughts around that notion, Preet? I think that's exactly correct. I've been saying for some time that the only logic behind, or at least one of the principal pieces of logic behind bringing completely ridiculous, stupid, unprecedented, unconstitutional, two plus two equals five claims, which is what Trump has done under the Alien Enemies Act, under these executive orders against law firms.

1:02:18And there's a whole bunch of other issues along these lines as well. They're doomed to failure. Nobody on the right or the left or the middle who is schooled in the law or wears a robe, really, with very, very, very small exceptions, think otherwise. Birthright citizenship is another that I left off the list. But the point is to have the fight, to have the political debate, and to chill the actions of other people. With the law firm executive orders, in which my firm was a subject, the point seems to be, even though every court that's addressed it has issued an immediate temporary restraining order, one court has issued a permanent injunction.

1:02:52It's not going to fly. It violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, various provisions of some of those amendments. The point is to make people think twice. Should I spend time and energy and represent a cause or a person who is adverse to the president of the United States or the president's party? That's just one example, and it goes to exactly what you were saying. If you can broadcast to the world that it may be the case that even if you're born in this country, you will not have the privileges and rights that the Constitution has said from the beginning are due and owing to you.

1:03:27Maybe you won't come here. So they're fighting a political battle, a policy battle. They're trying to beat their chests and say, we don't care what the courts say up to a point, and we'll see what happens when we get to that point. We don't care. Our view is the right one. We have the army. The courts don't. And so that is going to have a chilling effect on reasonable people to do that, which they have always understood was constitutional, lawful and proper. So in addition to being a federal prosecutor, you've worked with really prestigious law firms. Yeah. And something that was really chilling and disappointing, quite frankly, and maybe it's been misrepresented in the media and I'm very open to learning here because I think you have more insight into actually what went down here.

1:04:10So I've been really disappointed in what I'll call this domino of cowardice, and that is corporations have said, OK, it's easier for with respect to shareholder value to just give a million bucks the inauguration campaign and pay$40 million for some lame documentary for the first lady and basically just kiss his ass to stay out of his way. I can sort of empathize with that viewpoint. What was even more disappointing, though, was certain really prestigious law firms doing what I would loosely categorize as bending a knee and saying, all right, we'll do pro bono work for the family or we won't take on certain clients.

1:04:46It just seems so such an entire like puncturing or rupturing of the legal system and what it's supposed to stand for in terms of justice being blind. Am I exaggerating what happened here? Give us your thoughts on the context here and whether I'm being, as always, overly emotional here. So I want to be careful because I am in the legal firmament. I work for a firm that did not, it's not just your phrase, it's the phrase that Donald Trump uses, which makes you more than wince if you're a practicing lawyer or if you're anyone who cares about the rule of law. We did not bend the knee, and I'm very proud of that fact.

1:05:24And I continue to work there as a partner in part because of that fact. I don't want to be impolitic or impolite about saying anything disparaging about the firms that did in your phrase not my phrase in the president's phrase not my phrase bend the knee. You can imagine how I might think about that given my first statement. These are tough decisions. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the government. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the president United States. I think that what you have said is not outside of the mainstream of thought of people both in the legal profession and outside the legal profession.

1:05:59On its face, as has been evidenced by the court decisions that were rendered very quickly that I mentioned a minute ago, the executive orders are unlawful, unconstitutional, and I always like to add to that un-American. They will never pass muster. They will never be a thing in the future. It's another example of, this is two plus two equals 96. And I think that the better and more correct and more righteous course, not just the right course, but the more righteous course, if we can use that word still in 2025, was to fight because these executive orders are, I don't think it's too strong a word to say tyrannical and abusive and should not be allowed to stand.

1:06:39So I'm glad that my firm and some other firms are taking that approach. And Preet is much more polite and gentlemanly than I am. The Demand Justice site has this article called Standing Up to Big Law Cowards. And this is law firms that have pledged almost a billion dollars in free work to Trump. And they include Anno, Sherman, Cadwallader, I believe the name is, Kirkland, Latham and Watkins, Milbank, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden and Wilkie are all firms that have decided to do pro bono work and legal work to appease Trump. And I don't know how much you can say about this from a personal perspective since you're working in this field actively, but how legitimate do you think individual lawyers or firms' fears about continuing on with the good work that they're doing are warranted or justified in this environment?

1:07:34I have a very good friend who represents undocumented immigrants here, mostly Venezuelans, a lot of Ukrainians. And she's very scared to continue her work as they set about essentially criminalizing practicing law. Well, kudos to your friend. I think that's important work. Look, I think we still live in America. We said before that the judges are doing a good job of holding the fort all the way up to the Supreme Court. I think it does take a little bit more courage now and resolve to do that kind of work than it may have taken before. And I don't think we're at the point yet where individual actions will be taken or could be taken, although, you know, check back with me in six months or 10 months.

1:08:20That work can continue. Certainly it's the case that certain kinds of representations are probably less likely to be blessed and green-lighted at firms that have decided to settle with the president. The fear will always exist that you don't want to further upset the apple cart or upset the person at the top of the government. I mean, that's what got you in the soup in the first place, right? Like my firm, once upon a time we had as our partner someone I greatly respect, Bob Mueller, former FBI director and special counsel, and had the temerity to hire one of the great lawmen of the past century in our office.

1:08:57That's the thing that put us on the wrong side of Donald Trump. And so there's a natural tendency for there to be a chilling effect if you're going to do things that are going to put you on the wrong side of Donald Trump. So all I can say is good luck to her and all the people who are doing that. You can't let up in the face of that kind of intimidation. She's a huge fan and she's definitely listening, so she'll be excited to hear your encouragement. Good. One last question. We ask all our guests this. What's one issue that makes you rage and one thing that you think we should all chill out about?

1:09:28Oh, gosh. I mean, obviously the rule of law stuff makes me rage. Everything we've been talking about, I speak, I try to speak in conmeasured tones. But the attacks on law firms enrage me because I'm a member of the profession and I'm an officer of the court. And it's a manipulation of, you know, the psychology of people who are not just lawyers and officers of the court, but also members of businesses. Right. These are not charities. and I hate the fact that Trump and his people are deviously clever enough to put people on the back foot. And again, not speaking about any particular person or entity in particular, what causes me rage is, and if this were a play or a novel, one of the lessons you would learn from it, that if you have someone who is as devilish and unprincipled and amoral, not just amoral, but amoral, as Donald Trump come to town, the sad truth is that he often, and we've seen this again and again and again, will often reveal the lack of courage, the lack of principle, and the lack of virtue in his rivals.

1:10:39And that is, you know, a fact of life. And if this were just a story or an allegory, that would be one thing. But I think about that a lot. His opponents are often shown to be maybe if not as impure and unprincipled as him, but wanting, wanting. And that's why people who fight back and have the courage and the tenacity to fight back in this environment like your friend and others are to be valued and encouraged and supported more than ever before. Oh, and what should we chill out about? Yeah, you know, a lot of the dumb stuff that Trump does, in the first term, I tell the story about how I tweeted, after Donald Trump said that the White House was a shithole or some such derogatory term, Lots of people took offense.

1:11:24Lots of people who were quote-unquote members of the resistance said that's horrific. He shouldn't talk like that. And I posted a tweet back when Twitter had some people on the other side of the fence on it that of the top 50 things we need to worry about from this president, his insult to the White House is not one of them. And in response after response after response, people said, that's not true. We can multitask. It's all important. It's not, proportionality is a word that I've been using more lately. You know, attention is limited. Resources are limited. I hate the phrase, pick your battles, but, you know, order your priorities.

1:12:00He's going to say a lot of stupid shit that can occupy five minutes of airtime. It's not worth the five minutes of airtime. Think about what the kinds of things that you folks are talking about, Scott was talking about earlier, the rendering of people over the objection of actual judges' rulings, the distortion and disrespect of the Constitution. by the people who keep pointing to the Constitution and say they revere the Constitution, they don't. Those are the things that we need to focus on and keep our eyes on. Preet Bharara is an American lawyer and former federal prosecutor who served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2009 to 2017.

1:12:38As of 2025, he's a partner at the WilmerHale Law Firm. He's also the host and founder of Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara. Yeah. Preet, I always love hearing from you. And for those of you, it's not easy to make a podcast about the legal profession interesting. And I actually listened to your podcast. Thank you, sir. And you know what? Guess what? Can I plug something else? Sure. As of one week ago today, Stay Tuned with Preet is now on Substack too, as I know lots of people are. Oh, amazing. Check us out there. Check us out everywhere. Good. I always appreciate your time, Preet. Thanks, folks. Thank you.

1:13:13All right, Jess, that's it. That's it for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are David Toledo and Eric Jenakes. I mangled that. I'm sorry, Eric. I'm old. I shouldn't be president, and I can't pronounce the name of all these wonderful new employees we have. Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Only took me seven years to figure that one out. You can now find Raging Moderates. Put my finger on the button. My brain's shrinking. I can absolutely validate my prostate is the size of a grapefruit. You can now find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday and Friday.

1:13:46That's right, its own feed. That means exclusive interviews with sharp political minds you won't hear anywhere else. This week, we're talking with Larry Sabato about Trump's threat to democracy. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts. You don't miss an episode. Just have a great rest of the week. You too.

1:14:11With key insights from an AI assistant. Take a template with a click. Now your Imprezo looks super slick. Close that deal, yeah you won. Do that, doing that, did that, done. Now you can do that, do that with Acrobat. Now you can do that, do that with the all-new Acrobat. It's time to do your best work with the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio. They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. Well, why not make it a limited edition Groonie Smith Apple Vitamin Snack Pack from Groons? This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some. And bonus, it tastes great.

1:14:47All Gruen's daily gummy snack packs are vegan, nut gluten dairy free, and packed with more than 20 vitamins and minerals. Grab your limited edition Gruenysmith Apple Gruens available only through October. Stock up because they will sell out. Get up to 52 % off when you go to gruns.co and use the code Vox. AI agents are getting pretty impressive. You might not even realize you're listening to one right now. We work 24-7 to resolve customer inquiries. No hold music, no canned answers, no frustration. Visit sierra.ai to learn more.