Harry Litman [00:00:00] Harry here with a quick note on our latest offerings on Patreon. We've posted no fewer than five, count them, five new Patreon one-on-ones this week, all about burning issues in the news and with knowledgeable expert speakers. They include former SDNY prosecutor Jen Rogers on Governor Cuomo's many liabilities, Bianca Brooks on the Year for Youth and also Gen Z in lockdown. Jason DeParle, The New York Times poverty reporter on the proposed child tax credit that was showcased in the Daily. Lisa Kern Griffin, former prosecutor and evidence theorist on proving Trump's mental state and especially intent in different cases where he will claim, for example, he subjectively thought that he had won the election. And finally, Congresswoman Val Demings on the Department of Justice's potential role in police reform at the state and local levels. Go to patreon.com/talkingfeds, you can see all of these and decide whether you're interested in subscribing five dollars a month, three dollars for students to subscribe, and have exclusive access to these and more offerings on Patreon. OK, here's this week's episode.
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Litman. We come to the end of a week that, even more perhaps than we realize, will go down in the history books. On the fiftieth day of his presidency, President Biden signed into law a $1.9 Trillion omnibus COVID relief package, passed over unanimous yet fairly quiet Republican opposition, and minutes later addressed the nation for the first time as president, laying out an aggressive plan for substantial return to normal life by July 4th. These developments alone would call for major headlines, but they don't account for the historic shift in American governance that the week ushered in. The relief package is of a piece with major New Deal legislation that fundamentally altered the reach and role of government as a progressive agent. One provision alone, the inaptly named child tax credit, will provide all parents with a monthly check and is predicted to cut the rate of childhood poverty by more than half. The bill overall represents the most dramatic investments in American families since at least welfare.
Meanwhile, the country marked the year anniversary of life under COVID with its multiple dislocations and half a million deaths. The administration was also beginning to turn its attention to immigration, where indications are that it will be far more challenging to turn the corner to a new day. In fact, during the administration's first 50 days, the number of migrant children on the border has tripled, and there's been a step back in the direction of the old broken system, where applicants were admitted to the interior and then years passed until their claims could be heard. In Seaboard politics, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was in dire straits and barely hanging on to the governorship from the combined pressures of six accusers of sexual harassment, and allegations of monkeying around with the numbers of COVID patients in nursing homes. The Democratic leadership had all but abandoned him, and Friday brought the most unkindest cut of all: a joint call from Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer for Cuomo to step aside. To break down these monumental developments, we have a fantastic panel of guests from government, the private sector and the press, all of them returning guests to Talking Feds, and they are:.
Joe Lockhart, one of the top communications and public affairs professional in the country, a frequent contributor to CNN and the co-host of the Words Matter podcast. Joe was press secretary under President Clinton from 1998 to 2000 and before then to a number of prominent officials, including Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. His communications consulting firm, Glover Park Group, has worked for Facebook, the NFL and many others. Welcome back to Talking Feds, Joe.
Joe Lockhart [00:05:01] Thanks, Harry, for having me on again. It's always a pleasure.
Harry Litman [00:05:04] Matt Miller, partner at Vianovo and former director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice. He is a justice and security analyst for MSNBC and he's written for a wide range of publications. We have had the particular good fortune to welcome him on many occasions, and he is also guest hosted Talking Feds. Thanks as always for being here, Matt.
Matt Miller [00:05:29] Always great to be here, Harry.
Harry Litman [00:05:31] Laura Jarrett. Laura is the anchor of CNN's Early Start with Christine Romans. She previously served as a CNN correspondent based in Washington covering the Justice Department and a wide range of important legal issues. She gets up every morning at 3 a.m. to bring you the news. Thank you very much for joining us again, Laura, at the end of another long day.
Laura Jarrett [00:05:56] Thanks so much for having me on, Harry!
Harry Litman [00:05:58] And Congressman Joaquin Castro. Joaquin Castro is in his fourth term representing Texas's 20th congressional district, covering over half of his native San Antonio. He serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Education and Labor, and is vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He was the co president for the House Freshmen Democrats in 2013 and chaired the 2016 presidential campaign of his twin brother. Congressman Castro, thank you so much for joining us again on Talking Feds.
Joaquin Castro [00:06:35] Yeah, great to be with you.
Harry Litman [00:06:37] All right. Let's jump right into the 1.9 Trillion American Rescue Act. So just the numbers alone, it's huge by any measure. It's a number so big it almost doesn't quite register. One trillion, two trillion, what's a trillion between friends? We might have thought it was sort of an opening bid by the Democrats, but the Republicans didn't counter and there wasn't any debate. So we have the one point nine billion dollar final price tag. Congressman, can I ask you, why is it so big? Is it all needed? Was some stuff in there that the Democrats were prepared to jettison, or did you want to fight really for every last million dollars?
Joaquin Castro [00:07:20] I think that overall there was a concern about doing too little. There was a concern of coming up short, and I think we could have done more coming back from the Great Recession of 2008, 2009, at least that was the sense among members of Congress. And so it took us a little bit longer to get out of that recession, and we didn't want to make the same mistake this time. And also, I think some of this aid, the package probably could have been smaller if Donald Trump had done more during his tenure as president. But don't get me wrong, there is incredible need out there, both on the individual level for people and their families, but then for institutions like governments, educational institutions, the health care system, all of it. It's an ambitious package, but I think it's exactly what we need to make sure that we, that the country gets back on its feet, that the number of unemployed people comes down significantly and that we maintain once we're back on our feet, that we maintain that strength and go forward.
Harry Litman [00:08:18] Yeah, and let me speak to the maintaining, because the numbers, even if all needed for the recovery, it's clear that it's not just spending a lot of money. You could argue many people are already arguing that it embodies a sea change in the role of government in citizens lives, a pretty sharp turn away from a more or less conservative ideology that seems to have held sway, at least back to Clinton. The overall package contains some remarkably progressive features that really seem to put it on the same kind of historic footing as, say, some of the New Deal legislation or the the Great Society legislation of the 60s. Is that fair? Do you guys agree? Anybody?
Laura Jarrett [00:09:01] Harry, I agree completely. And it seems to me that the president has just managed within the first 50 days of office to get probably the most quietly but yet bold progressive legislative agenda through, and there really hasn't been that much pushback. I mean, that's the part that's so interesting to me, is that you think about this being done in other administrations, and I think that there would be a whole bunch of pushback from multiple corners. And this time, I wonder, is it one just because obviously we're in the midst of such a devastating pandemic and people still need so much help and they've been waiting for help for so long, but two, I wonder if it's also just Joe Biden. I wonder if there's something about his leadership style that was capable of doing this in a way where it didn't sort of hit you over the head with it. And yet, I mean, it's basically guaranteed income for poor families, right? The expanded child tax credit is an enormous development and it's somehow seen as just sort of like, 'OK, yeah, we're doing that now.' I just I find that sort of amazing.
Harry Litman [00:10:10] I mean, it really is remarkable in just this way. And of course, the other big statutes I referred to were legal revolutions, they were with really substantial majorities of both parties. Here, the Republicans didn't play and I think we'll talk about this in a little bit, but for whatever reason, they were tepid in their opposition. And it's just kind of happened, and now we're waking up and seeing some of the phenomenal features that are in there and that Democrats believe or hope will be features of American government going forward.
Laura Jarrett [00:10:44] Right. Even though a single Republican didn't vote for it, they also weren't so loudly against it, right? You can think of plenty of other legislation where Republicans aren't going to be for it and they're going to let you know that they're not for it. And again, I wonder, is it a product of just the middle of the pandemic? Is it a product of President Biden? And is it also a product of the fact that poll after poll shows the American people wanted this? I mean, overwhelming majorities of people were in favor of this. Now, that hasn't stopped Republicans before at balking at certain stuff, but I wonder on this one whether there was a political calculation that this is not a fight to have.
Matt Miller [00:11:18] I think it was all that and a few other things. For one thing, the Republicans were too busy fighting Dr. Seuss to fight the bill, which obviously I'm being flip, but the point I'm making is the center of gravity in the Republican Party is no longer on fighting over fiscal issues. It's fighting culture wars. That became true most of all under Donald Trump, who took a sledgehammer to what had been the Republican Party's fiscal argument for years and years, and made clear that's not where he felt the party ought to be. I think that's where the party is now. I do think to the point everyone has made, it is not just incredibly substantive feat. It is an incredible political accomplishment, especially in the Senate. No disrespect to the congressman... I know that, I knew I was going to, I knew I was going to get that. Obviously, congressman and Speaker Pelosi did an amazing job. But look, to pull off what Chuck Schumer did in a Senate with the bare possible minority, with senators who are not used to falling in line, and to do it this quickly is an incredible feat. Barack Obama had 58 Democratic senators when his stimulus bill passed and he had to scale it back. People might remember, couldn't get the initial package he wanted, couldn't do it this quickly. This was an incredible feat to pull off.
Harry Litman [00:12:28] All right. And let me just itemize here what we're talking about. Laura mentioned the child tax credit. In theory, that will reduce from 14 percent to 6 percent the child poverty rate, but there's remarkably progressive legislation involving health insurance, student loans. There's black farmers receiving over four billion dollars in what you could argue is a step toward reparations, which would have been an inconceivable development. It does seem. Well, it's certainly a political tour de force by Biden on his fiftieth day in office. But also, I just want to double back to what Matt said about the new Republican Party, because it conjoins with Laura's point about the popularity here. They know that a lot of Republicans are going to get these checks, too, and are going to want them and want them soon. I want to talk about their strategy in a second, but it seemed to me that their hands were tied. I'm especially impressed with the whole child tax credit provision. Let's focus on his speech last night on, you know, on one of the best days in the history of the presidency. He came out and let me just say that he was notably not triumphant, nor was he doing a jig or anything because of the important sober message about COVID. What did you guys think about or how did you analyze the tone he brought to his first national address?
Joaquin Castro [00:13:59] I thought that Joe Biden did an extraordinary job with his address to the nation. I thought his tone was pitch perfect, very matter of fact, very steady and strong, not dramatic at all, which is a big departure from what we saw in the last four years. And also, I thought, took an opportunity to sum up for the country what the last year has meant to the country and to Americans, just as individuals, as people, you know, that so many folks have lost loved ones. They've lost time with loved ones. And I think that right now, you see his popularity is still sky high for a president. And I think that it's going to continue like that for some time. As Matt had said, part of the reason you don't see Republicans being as vociferous is that I think they realize number 1, that the country is still hurting, but also that this is actually popular even among many in their base. And Donald Trump fundamentally changed where the center, the public face of that party is, and it now much more connected to events outright rather than just implicitly.
Harry Litman [00:15:03] I also thought that he notably tried to make it a speech for all Americans. You know, there was mild cheerleading, but nothing triumphant. There were cavils during the campaign of doddering Uncle Joe and the like, and I think his self-command really put those kinds of concerns to rest or at least them him out of the water for yesterday. Joe, what were your thoughts, just about the tone he decided to strike in the speech, if it was the right one and what he was sort of aiming to portray?
Joe Lockhart [00:15:40] Well, I think it was the right one to be a cheerleader after a year where 500,000+ people have died is just hitting the wrong note. And I think he balanced looking back and looking and being kind of the mourner in chief, feeling the pain of the country and acknowledging the pain of the country and then looking forward to what the solution is. So I thought it was straightforward, sober and most of all, effective. It's what I think the country has been looking for for the last year.
Harry Litman [00:16:10] Yeah, I mean, in some ways, obviously, he looks to under promise and over deliver and it was, I thought, presidential. But let's talk about, he's certainly set the bar for the fate of his presidency is depending on both two pronged attack against all the economic stuff that we've talked about. But covid itself. And it's the one thing about the Republicans, they were quiet, but they laid down certain rhetorical markers that they'll be looking to see him fail if possible. You had McConnell and others talking about old failed liberal policies, and what about this tricky point that everything seems to depend on widespread vaccinations. He's ordered the states to make everyone eligible by May 1st, and something like 49 percent of Republican men say, I'm not going to get the vaccine. How will he be able to fight that kind of battle?
Joe Lockhart [00:17:12] I think that the single most important thing that Biden has done, and I was saying this till I was blue in the face last year, that when the president of the United States says, we're going to do something and I'm going to mobilize the entire government, everyone in that government understands what they're supposed to do. And what Trump did was send all sorts of mixed signals, and he didn't hold anyone accountable, and they they knew the president wasn't serious. So the big difference with with President Biden is no one's under any illusions that this isn't serious, that they don't have, that their jobs depend on delivering what the president has promised, and that's the power of the presidency. That's the power being able to mobilize in a way that everyone gives the maximum effort. You can reach these goals. You know, on the Republican men, I think just like the pollsters undercount Trump's vote consistently, I think those polls over count Republican men. I think Republican men are saying this as a protest to Biden, but when they sit in their House and they talk to their wife, their wife or their children or the smartest one in the house says get the damn vaccine. I think that's less of a problem than the polls say, but we'll see how this bears out.
Laura Jarrett [00:18:22] I also think we're not yet at a moment where we have enough people reaching almost herd immunity, right? We're not at that moment yet where people can really see like, oh, my life is going to be dramatically better when I get this vaccine, right? When we start seeing people back in bars and sports arenas and not just at 25% capacity, but in a real way, people are going to want to be a part of that. And right now, I mean, at least in all of my reporting, the access has been much more of an issue than hesitancy, but I think as the vaccination rates go up and more and more people get to hug their grandkids, I agree with Joe, I actually think people are going to change their tune on that. And Harry to your point on Biden sort of having this strategy, again, sort of quietly done, is this strategy of over delivering, but under promising. I mean, just think like we are now at a point where 66 million people, I think will now have been have been vaccinated and he's just done that in the first 50 days. It's such a smart strategy on his part because it's not just over delivering on lofty policy goals, it's like things that are going to change people's lives when they've been devastated for a year. And so I think to do that so quickly earns people's trust in a way that I think is quite powerful so early in his presidency.
Harry Litman [00:19:45] I mean, it's true. And it's not simply that they came in and started running, they had really solid plans of all things in place. You know, Ron Klain has a shout out here where they were really ready to sort of hit the road. And I have to say part of this is Biden's you could say good luck. It does feel like prosperity is just around the corner. I mean, I think about him a little bit in comparisons with FDR, especially this last week. You can feel spring in the air in a sense, in terms of the pushback against this crazy disease that has held us completely captive for a year.
Matt Miller [00:20:24] Yeah, I don't know that I would call it good luck. There are a million ways that this vaccine rollout could it could have gone wrong had they not executed it correctly, which so far they have. There a million ways it still could go wrong, just both in the logistics and getting thesort of reluctant people to take the vaccine.
Harry Litman [00:20:40] Do you share his optimism that people will take it?
Matt Miller [00:20:42] I do, but it's a variable. And to the point I was making, there are a number of variables that could still go wrong for him. So I think largely they have made their own luck so far when it comes to the vaccine rollout. It's been impressive. And Joe is right, the entire government responds when the president sets direction, but it doesn't always respond efficiently and effectively, and that is the thing that so far has been so impressive. And I think it helps by the fact that just about if you look at the senior ranks of the government, they are all people who have been in administrations before who have done hard things in administrations, a lot of them were there for the good parts and the bad parts of the Obamacare rollout. These are people who know how to make the government move.
Joe Lockhart [00:21:24] Harry, I have to add one thing, which is that so far Biden's only been talking about the carrot, but he also has a big stick. Laura's right that access is really the issue, and when people are denied access to things they want to do, they will be incentivized to get the vaccine. If TSA starts asking for a vaccine card to travel, they'll get the vaccine. If they can't get into a stadium, and I believe the sports leagues will go along with this. Yeah, they'll get the vaccine. So, again, we're in the carrot phase, but there are a number of sticks in the arsenal that I think Biden can utilize if there is this hesitancy based on politics.
Harry Litman [00:21:59] That's an excellent point. Congressman, let me ask you to sort of weigh in a little bit on the politics, because, I mean, it seems to me this could be an existential crisis for the Republicans. If this all goes well, it seems to be a kind of national repudiation. I mean, you wonder then what happens going forward? I don't want to be overly dramatic, but it seems like the sort of basic structure that has dominated American politics for the last 10, 20 years might be up for grabs. Does that strike you as plausible?
Joaquin Castro [00:22:37] Well, yeah. I mean, look, ordinarily the president's party gets popped in the midterms. There's only been a few exceptions to that, but Joe Biden is off to a very strong start. And as a Democrat, obviously, I hope that that that holds through the elections next year. And you also have a Republican Party that's in a very strange place, to say the least. Their fealty is to somebody who at this point is a shadow figure, not really out in public, Donald Trump, but somebody who also still holds a strong command over the Republican Party base. He just asked them not to use his likeness to raise money off of him, which to me means he wants to be at the center of everything. He wants people to give him money so he can dole it out. So they're in a they're in a very strange place. He basically brought racial grievance to the center of the party. In other words, took it out of the shadows and put it at the center of the party. But again, I'm issuing an understatement here, but they've got a lot of sorting out to do about who they are, what they stand for, who they're trying to appeal to, what their message is going to be. And if you look at what happened with President Obama's first term, I think it actually took them several months back then to figure out what issue they were going to latch on to and it ended up being mostly Obamacare.
So I think to be even if we were being generous to them in the assessment right now, I think they're still kind of in this phase where they're trying to feel out like what what's their message going to be? What's their issue or issues? What are those going to be? You can see them on this border stuff right now trying to see how much resonance that has. So for me, it's still a little bit, a little too early to tell whether they're going to be able to bounce back and actually do what parties have done in the midterm, which is to do well when you've got the other party's president in power, or whether Democrats are going to be able to buck the usual trend and do well in the 2022 midterms.
Harry Litman [00:24:33] It's true, it did seem here that Biden, for one, had a surefootedness that at least some of his critics in the campaign doubted, but also that in this case, it was the Dems who knew exactly what they were doing and where they wanted to go and how hard they wanted to fight. And the Republicans who were flailing, wanting maybe to play rhetorical cards, but not really go to war over it. And now we have the stage set for a potential revolution in American government. All right, so, you know, as we've said, Biden would be in remarkable territory in some ways unexpected, almost sort of an FDR type figure, indications are from the White House that if he garners this great political capital, he would look to be spending it on immigration maybe first and then infrastructure. So I just want to talk about immigration, because it's it's an issue that many people have identified from way back as the one that the Dems could mistakenly use and wind up on the shoals of the shore. And it's certainly true that as things stand now, he's gotten rid of the worst parts of the Trump policies, but we're kind of in the same perennial mess. So he has in mind this big overhaul of immigration law. Let me just put it up in general, what your thoughts are about it, both the idea of such an ambitious agenda in immigration especially, and then the approaches in the US Citizenship Act?
Joaquin Castro [00:26:14] I don't think so. I think he ought to spend a lot of capital on it because it's an issue that has not been resolved in a generation now. And you saw some slippage with Latino voters in the 2020 election, and if the Democratic Party does not deliver some kind of immigration reform over the next few years, you're risking seeing more of that. I think there was a real regret that between January of 2009 and January of 2011 that we didn't use our large majorities in the House and the Senate and the presidency to get immigration reform done. And so now I think with this large and growing bloc of Latino voters, they become more susceptible to the Republican argument that oh, the Democrats don't like you either. They're not doing anything either, right? When they have the majorities, they don't do anything. That's what was said last time with some effect, and I think that will grow. It has the potential to grow more resonant if we fail on this.
Matt Miller [00:27:18] Look, I think it's an issue the president has to tackle. There's a policy, number one, a policy demand inside the Democratic Party to tackle immigration reform that he has to listen to. And number two, it is a problem that continues to bedevil this administration early on, as it did the last administration and as it did several administrations before that, because it's such a tricky problem. I think the real question is whether there is any way you can get Republicans to work with Democrats on an immigration solution. Not so much in the House, you can ram a bill through the House probably, but in the Senate, where as long as you don't kill the filibuster, you're going to need 10 Republicans to work with you to do this. And that, to me, seems like extremely, it seems like extremely long odds against that happening, given where the Republican Party is today and given how they see immigration as an issue they plan to beat the White House over the head with.
Honestly, I think the bigger immigration problem for Biden is not it's not so much attempting to pass a bill and failing or getting too far out over his skis on attempting to pass a bill. It's just running the machinery of government when it comes to immigration. Look, there are voters that the Democratic Party needs who believe that no one should ever be deported ever. And there are voters the Democratic Party needs who believe we need to be much tougher and not let anyone into the country. And so how do you square that circle when you're running the government? It's a problem that jammed Obama all the way to the end. And I suspect it's going to be a problem for President Biden as long as he's president.
Joe Lockhart [00:28:48] I agree with Matt that under the current circumstances, there's absolutely no way you can get 10 Republicans to work with Biden on immigration. They believe this is their ticket back to the majority, they're not particularly principled anyway. So we definitely can't expect them to take a principled stand. I'd make two further points, though. One is one of the things Biden can do is deal with the problem at its root, which is go back to trying to help the governments and help the economies and help create a stable situation where there isn't terrible poverty and violence so that people have less incentive to come to the United States. We ignored that, and I think that puts Republicans in a bit of a tricky situation, which is if Biden says I want to limit immigration too, but this is how we do it, it's hard for them to to worm their way out of it. But I think ultimately and I think we'll probably talk about this, this all comes down to the politics in the Senate and the politics of the filibuster. I don't think the Democrats can get anything through unless Republicans believe there's a real threat of blowing up the filibuster. And that means Joe Manchin has to say, I would blow it up.
So I think there has to be an issue where Manchin will bend a bit and I think it's on voting rights. So if I were by the White House, I would push that first, because I think that's really the only thing that I can think of that Manchin would say I just can't go along with Republicans, you know, excluding blacks and browns from the polls, even in West Virginia, I can't do that. And I do think he's a man of principle. There's a domino effect if you can do that, it doesn't mean you get rid of the filibuster. You just hold the threat over the Republicans. And he says and Manchin tells Susan Collins when they have their weekly lunch, if you don't work with us on immigration, I'm going to go with Schumer on the filibuster. Is that likely to happen? I don't know, but I think as all of these states move to suppress voting, and to undo the advantage the Democrats have gained in the last decade, you know, even the most conservative of Democrats will be are appalled by that and will do almost anything they can to stop it. So that's why I think you've got to move on that first, and let the other big issues come behind it.
Laura Jarrett [00:31:10] So I think Joe raises a host of really interesting questions about the filibuster and Democrats strategy on this, but I just want to return to something else you said, Joe, about immigration and the root of the issue here, because it strikes me that at least in the past couple of weeks, before we even get to the issue of a larger piece of landmark legislation on immigration, you have to deal with what's happening with the number of unaccompanied children that are crossing the border right now, and the influx that folks are seeing at the at the border. And it's striking to me, even though this is now the Biden administration, not the Trump administration, there seems to be a tendency to talk about people as numbers and not human beings. And I think that for whatever reason, you fall into this language of talking about a surge. But we're talking about people, we're talking about children being kept in facilities that are basically like makeshift jails. I mean, these are facilities that are being made for adults and children are being forced to stay in them because they have nowhere else to put them.
And as Matt pointed out, this is not anything new. President Obama struggled with these issues as well, and President Obama has reversed course on the children issue vis a vis what Trump did. And so now he has an issue on his hands that I think he's got to face head on and fast, and before the issue of the larger immigration bill, whatever that looks like, the path to citizenship, all of those progressive ideals which are clearly important to his administration, I think he's got to figure out what to do with the kids first, because it's a humanitarian issue and it's one that's going to come to a head faster. I mean, think about the child separation policy and just sort of how that captured sort of our consciousness for that moment in time. And it's because it was about children and their parents and these children are coming in without their parents. And so I just think it's an issue that is about the core of who we are as a country, and it's going to come to a head very quickly.
Matt Miller [00:33:12] And you let them in, but you have to keep them somewhere. Right? Not all of these children have family members and we don't have the space for them. It is a very difficult problem.
Laura Jarrett [00:33:19] But they're holding them for longer than 72 hours. So they're going to start to get sued pretty quickly, I think.
Harry Litman [00:33:24] Fair enough. And I want to return to what Joe said, which, you know, you could muster everybody in the Senate. But, you know, there's Joe Manchin and there's also Conor Lamb, who's just an example because he's in my backyard in Pittsburgh. But a lot of Democrats who will say, don't do this to me. This is the one issue that you will make me lose my tenuously held seat. So it does seem I mean, each of you has also pointed out piecemeal solutions that I think you could get a fair bit of bipartisanship for, including DACA or including things involving children. But that's the question, I mean, Joe's point kind of goes to it. Timing is a lot here, and if he's really earnest about a big overhaul and I just want to point out it's been staring everybody in the face for decades, that you need a really big overhaul. And we've nevertheless never had the political will or maybe the imagination to do anything more than little Band-Aid solutions. But if he's in earnest about doing that, it's about the biggest risk that it seems to me is out there for him.
Matt Miller [00:34:40] So I disagree a little bit, Harry. I think the biggest threat to Democratic members is not casting a controversial vote on immigration reform, it's a situation like happened right before the midterms in 2014, where you have a number of people at the border, an immigration system that is basically flooded and can't handle it, and massive political controversy that accompanies it for which the sitting Democratic president is blamed. And that blame accrues to all those members when they're up the polls. The way for them out of that box is to pass some sort of legislation that helps that problem. Now, the challenge, of course, is that's easier said than done for all the reasons we've articulated. So I actually think the bigger political problem is in doing nothing legislatively and letting this problem fester until it explodes right before the vote. But the solutions are not so easy either.
Harry Litman [00:35:27] But I want to push back on that a little bit. You know, maybe this is from my experience in here in San Diego, there is another temporary alternative that avoids that political black eye. What we've done in the past is say, OK, you're going to have your adjudication of refugee status and it'll turn out to be in 2025, and people are let into the country so you don't have the images of teeming folks at the border, but on the other hand, it's a politically expedient but completely irresponsible or, you know, non solution to the bigger problem. That's already what is happening, a little back to the old mess.
Matt Miller [00:36:06] Little back to the old mess, which in turn leads to more people coming. And it's a it's a cycle.
Harry Litman [00:36:11] Fair enough. Let's sort of close this out. But you're obviously think it's pretty delicate in terms of timing and mustering either some Republicans or certain Dems in purple states. Do you see it happening? And, you know, do you see there's already an act drawn up, ready to go? Do you think they will push through or do you think this is one where they'll back off and try to play it small, at least say until 2022, essentially?
Joe Lockhart [00:36:39] Yeah, I think absent abolishing the filibuster, there's no way that this can get through. And then it's a battle of the politics of this issue rather than the actual policy. I think there's a number of things the administration can do from an administrative point of view that will temporarily address this. They can handle it better than the Trump administration did. The bar there is pretty low, but it's going to be one of those issues, I think, that very quickly becomes a political football rather than a serious policy debate. And I think that extends to a lot of issues because Republicans do not have an interest in governing right now. They have an interest in tearing the government down and to showing...
Harry Litman [00:37:22] And this is their favorite thing to do it with. They think, right?
Joe Lockhart [00:37:24] There's this, they will likely to try anything. It's one of these situations where if someone in the Biden administration finds a cure for cancer, the Republicans are going to vote with cancer. They have a strategy of grinding the government to a halt and then blaming Democrats for the lack of solutions to real problems. And that puts us into another political battle. The last thing I'd say on this is, you know, I think a lot of people in D.C. get caught up in what I call the consultant class. That is still rooted in like 20 years ago and the issues — there's movement on this. Younger people think about this differently than older people. Younger people are now voting in bigger numbers vis a vis older people. And I think we've already turned the corner on a number of issues, whether it be social issues, and I don't think we're there yet on immigration, but we're going to get there. So, you know, if Conor Lamb tells me he's got a real problem with this, that's OK. But if Conor Lamb's consultant tells me they've got a problem, we're not in 1990. The world is different right now, and I don't know that we know how these issues play.
Harry Litman [00:38:33] This ties together our two discussions, right? It does seem intractable. It seems impossible, but I don't know no more impossible I guess, than the child tax credit. No more impossible than the abolition of student loans.
Joe Lockhart [00:38:46] If I could push back on that. Those issues weren't intractable because you could do them through budget reconciliation. All the other issues you can't. Budget reconciliation as a rule in the Senate that says if it's a budgetary matter and anything that's germane to how we budget, authorize and spend money, you don't need 60 votes. It's a simple majority. So, for example, the Democrats just pushed through the COVID relief bill under budget reconciliation. The Republicans under Trump pushed through the big tax cut under budget reconciliation. We're just not in a place where we can get 60 votes. So in some ways, that's not really complicated. The issues become complicated to pass once you need 60 votes. And that's just simple math.
Harry Litman [00:39:31] Fair enough. And one of the solutions that you proffered are partial ameliorations, executive action - that's actually been tried a fair bit and it barely dented the problem. I think Clinton had a huge expansion in immigration judges, which you could appoint under article, but, you know, the problems remain. All right. So that's the marker we've kind of laid down now is whether they will, in fact, go big, as they're suggesting, or whether they'll think better of it, at least for the immediate future. That's, of course, assuming we're in a posture two, three months from now where the basic, huge goals that Biden has set and kind of has to set. So in that sense, it strikes me as a smart political gamble, in fact, will be looking pretty good.
All right. It is now time to take a moment for our Sidebar feature, which explains some of the issues and relationships that are prominent in the news. And today, we are honored to welcome Congresswoman Val Demings, who also previously served as the first female police chief in Orlando. Congresswoman Deming's will talk about newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice's ability to advance policing reform.
Val Demings [00:40:54] I am so relieved that Attorney General Garland, I am so very thankful that he is at the helm because this is a man who's dedicated his life to the rule of law. He understands clearly that we are a nation of laws. He has his priorities in order, he's made it clear that domestic terrorism, for example, what happened on January 6th, will be at the top. That's his number one priority to hold those accountable. But I also think as we go down this very complex road of police reform, we've got to get it right. I believe that Attorney General Garland brings the kind of balance that we need. We're talking about guidelines or laws that will affect federal agencies. Coming to Congress having worked in local government, I really saw the feds as the place where we got it right, right? We set the example for others to follow. I now know that is not the case, but I want to do the work to help get it right. The last thing I would want, you know, I've served as a police chief, is having to have the government come in and tell me what to do. I said you play a critical role in fixing your own brokenness. You cannot be pleased with the horrible incidents that have occurred throughout this country. We've got to fix it, you play a major role in doing that, fix your own brokenness. But I do believe that he's the right person at the right time, that these federal guidelines, he's going to bring everybody at the table to make sure we get it right, input from everybody, including law enforcement, so that we can develop those guidelines, standards that will find their way down to local and state law enforcement. We have a lot of work to do, it's a heavy load, but he's the right person, right time.
Harry Litman [00:42:51] Thank you very much, Congresswoman Demings.
We have just a few minutes left, and I thought we would talk about something that's become pretty front burner, a real actual conflagration and almost as we go to our taping, which we do on Friday, and that is the matter of the New York governor. So we've had in the last couple of days a sixth accuser come forward and at least the conduct she describes is quite serious and even criminal. AOC and Congressman Jerrold Nadler both came out for resignation today. There's very strong erosion as in very bad erosion for him of support in Albany itself, including 40 percent of Democrats saying resign. He came out very strongly saying, I won't bow to political pressure, I won't be part of cancel culture, and I didn't do these things. His strategy, however, the sort of one lifeline he has is to wait for a report from the attorney general of New York. So I just want to serve up two questions for people's thoughts here. One, can he wait? Because it's not - it strikes me, especially with some of these new accusers, it's not going to be next week. I don't see how she does a report in less than three or four weeks. And then could it matter? Could the AG report, in fact, save him? Or at best, will the report have to be at least somewhat damning and not enough to keep him in office?
Laura Jarrett [00:44:33] It seems to me his fate is largely depends on what comes next. I wonder what is the bridge too far? I can't think of a Republican in recent memory that has had six allegations of unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment against him where Democrats didn't immediately call for his resignation. Democrats moved slower on this one, I think, for a variety of reasons. But now you have almost the entire New York House Democratic caucus lining up against him, and what's fascinating to me is how they strategize on it. The reporting is that they basically had these sort of back channel communications to make sure that they all came out against him together because they knew if only one did, then the others would feel the pressure to. And right now, of course, he is denying anything that rises to something criminal. He's saying basically, yeah, like I was a flirt, but I didn't do anything bad. And blaming it on cancel culture to me is baffling and sort of sounds eerily reminiscent of some people I think that he would not want to be in the same camp as, but what happens to him in even the next weekend, I think is really critical.
Matt Miller [00:45:50] Blaming it on cancel culture was a mistake, that was him flailing a little bit today, I think, and looking for lifelines anywhere he could find him. But where he needs support right now is among Democratic elected officials in New York, and trotting out a conservative line is not going to help him in that regard. He's in real trouble and he has to hope that the New York attorney general, number one, finishes her investigation before the impeachment investigation that started in the state assembly finishes, and he has to hope, number two, that it exonerates him. Both, obviously, things that he can't count on. People compare this to Ralph Northam, who was able to ride out his investigation by just not resigning. The difference is the conduct that was in question for the governor of Virginia happened decades before he was governor, not while he was governor, so he didn't face an impeachment threat. And that's the difference here, his political support seems to be cratering inside the Democratic Party. And so if the impeachment inquiry moves quickly, you could see that produce a result before the attorney general gets anything off the ground. Impeachment is going to be political as much as legal, and that can move very quickly.
Harry Litman [00:46:58] More.
Matt Miller [00:46:58] Yeah more, more.
Joe Lockhart [00:47:00] But I think as we saw in the previous two impeachments on the federal level, he will have some cards to play to slow that down. I think that we'll hear from the attorney general before the assembly tries to throw him out of office. There's a couple of things here. One is that I've known Andrew since I worked with him on the I think the Mondale campaign, so 1984. He is extraordinarily stubborn, just like his dad was. And if you tell him he has to do something, he's immediately going to say, no, I don't. I don't have to. So I think he'll try to ride it out. You know, my big thing is, and I've been thinking about this a lot over the last week or two, is I'm afraid that now that there is an allegation of criminal behavior that will all focus on that and that will be the bar. That's not the bar. Sexual harassment is not acceptable. You do not have to touch someone to sexually harass them. It is about power and it's about power at the highest levels abusing their power.
This is what we accused Donald Trump of, he abused his power. Andrew Cuomo has abused his power, and you don't have to commit a criminal act to be run out of office once you abuse your power. There has to be a leader someplace, somewhere who stands up and says, I'm not a criminal, but I behaved in a way that abused my power and I do need to go. I think that's the only elegant way for Andrew. I doubt he'll take it, but I think we're not going to make progress on this issue in our society until we all wake up and say even if the sixth accuser turns out to be someone who just manufactured it, that the first five people have said enough that he should be removed from office.
Harry Litman [00:48:40] Right. And they're all public and out there and corroborated. The sixth, it's true. If that is the focus, on the one hand, it's much more serious because criminal on the other, she didn't want to file a report. It's not clear that that one will hold up.
Joe Lockhart [00:48:53] But, Harry, I think at one level, you're right, it's more serious. But on another level, it's not because we can't have the lesson of this be you can use your power, you can sexually harass as long as you don't break the law, as long as you don't commit sexual assault.
Harry Litman [00:49:07] That's another way of saying that he won't be able to ride it out. And I don't see what report she could possibly issue that wouldn't be damning enough as things stand. But I have to say, I don't mean to be snarky and you guys know this stuff better than I do. But my just brutal sense of this is there's just too much blood in the water. He is a dead man walking. I don't think we're going to get to the attorney general stage. You know, I don't think he's going to survive March.
Joe Lockhart [00:49:35] I would just add that New York state politics are unique and somewhat bizarre.
Harry Litman [00:49:40] Unique, bizarre and really nasty.
Joe Lockhart [00:49:43] Yes, and up until very recently, very corrupt. And the attorney general, although she's a Democrat, is no friend of Andrew Cuomo. In fact, Andrew Cuomo has very few friends.
Harry Litman [00:49:54] Right. If you're thinking of it in terms of which way the wind's blowing, there's just no way she's going to step up and be his savior.
Matt Miller [00:50:01] So you hit the most important point about him there at the end, which is he has no friends. He's run the state through fear. And so when you get in trouble, you've got nobody to help you out.
Harry Litman [00:50:11] All right, we have just a couple minutes left for our final feature of Five Words or Fewer, where we take a question from a listener and each of us has to answer in five words or fewer. Today's question is from Edward Schneider, and it's actually fairly legal, so I'm going to pick on Laura and ask her to answer first: while the president declassified the report on the Khashoggi murder, he didn't refer the matter to DOJ for prosecution. Can a prosecutor, federal or state, decide to prosecute anyway?
Laura Jarrett [00:50:46] I'm not sure what jurisdiction a state would have to prosecute. The federal jurisdiction issues are really tricky, as far as I understand, and I should preface this with my law degree has long since lapsed. I am a dues-paying member of the Illinois bar, but I was never an international law expert. But from what I recall, there's a little thing called immunity. And so holding him accountable involves a whole bunch of different interests between the State Department and the Justice Department. So five words or fewer on holding someone accountable for Khashoggi's death, which is important: It's tricky.
Harry Litman [00:51:30] OK, Congressman? And you can take it from a legal or a political or policy angle, if you like.
Joaquin Castro [00:51:37] Wow, man, that is a tough question. And I think - well, because I think you have jurisdictional issues, right? Because it didn't happen in the United States. So unless it involved, you know, I'm just kind of... he was a U.S. resident, but the events occurred outside of U.S. soil. So yeah, I mean, so I think that would be the crux of what you'd have to figure out.
Laura Jarrett [00:51:59] This is like a bar exam.
Matt Miller [00:52:01] Yes, but they won't.
Joe Lockhart [00:52:03] I would say: governing is imperfect and complicated.
Harry Litman [00:52:09] There you go, I'm with Laura: Very tricky.
Thank you very much to Congressman Castro, Joe, Laura and Matt. And thank you very much, listeners, for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcast, and please take a moment to rate and review this episode. You can follow us on Twitter, @TalkingFedsPod , to find out about future episodes and other Feds-related content. You can check us out on the web, talkingfeds.com , where we post full episode transcripts, and you can look to see our latest offerings on Patreon, where we post discussions about special topics exclusively for supporters. Submit your questions to questions@talkingfeds.com , whether it's for Five Words or Fewer, or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our Sidebar segments. Thanks for tuning in, and don't worry: as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking.
Talking Feds is produced by Jennifer Bassett and Rebecca Lowe Patton. Our editor is Justin Wright. David Lieberman and Rosie Dawn Griffin are our contributing writers. Production assistance by Matt McArdle. Additional research by Abbie Meyer. Our consulting producer is Andrea Carla Michaels. Thanks very much to Congresswoman Val Demings for discussing the possible role of the Department of Justice in effecting reform of policing at the state and local levels. Our gratitude goes, as always, to the amazing Philip Glass, who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito, LLC. I'm Harry Litman, see you next time.
