Jon, Dan Pfeiffer & Preet Bharara on Trump’s Pressure Campaigns | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: You don't think Democrats could. elect a vindictive prick? DAN PFEIFFER: I don't know. I mean--. JON STEWART: Really? PREET BHARARA: I already mentioned Rahm Emanuel. [LAUGHTER]. And that's why I mentioned him. And you pooh-poohed it one minute ago. JON STEWART: I was not pooh-poohing. I'm not a pooh-pooher. [THEME MUSIC]. Hey, everybody. Welcome to The Weekly Show. It is July 23 on a Wednesday. It's coming out on a Thursday. And let me just begin with, what a fucking week! This-- I can't even get into the Late Show,

Daily Show of it all. Watch Stephen's from Monday. Watch ours from Monday. I think you'll get a sense of how we're feeling. and just how tenuous this moment-- oddly enough, the episode today is about levers of power and coercion. from the government and how they use their power. to manipulate, and to get what they want, and to force people into authoritarian tendencies.

And it's hard to even focus on it with--. I mean, every day now is a new-- there was another Epstein. Dropbox, you know, the--. your iPhone bringing up Memories of Us. Like, there's another-- it's them. It's Epstein and Trump at a wedding. Now there's all these photos. It's them dancing. There's video of them getting matching tattoos. and eating spaghetti like Lady and the Tramp.

Like, their relationship-- the fucking weirdness of it all. And god-- thank god social media. wasn't around in those times. We'd be watching on a loop on CNN and MSNBC. the TikToks that Epstein and Trump make in Cabo with beauty. pageant contestants. Like, they very clearly dug each other in a deep Starsky.

and Hutch kind of a way until whatever happened. And all his attempts at the-- as. each new video and photo drop comes out, he gets more unhinged. Bah! There should be firing squads for NPR hosts! He's just losing his fucking mind. And there's nothing that can distract from any of this. unless Hunter Biden decides to go out and drop a three-hour.

mixtape of his nuttiness, which is what he did, the gift that keeps on giving, which he said--. he goes, oh, my dad had a bad debate, but he was on Ambien. And I'm like, that doesn't make it better, dude. Like, it calls into question the decision. making of the whole team. Dad, you got the most important night of your life. You gotta be sharp. Here's a couple of quaaludes to take. the edge off so that you're ready to really.

rock that fucking thing. And he goes-- what was the thing he said? He said something crazy. He goes-- oh, he was-- ah, he was. talking about the deportations and how angry is about them. He goes, if I'm president in two, or three, or whatever years, I'm going to call them. up and go, I'm invading you unless you. give those people back. And I'm just like, Hunter. Dig the hypothetical, but I don't. think it's gonna be a worry for you. that that's gonna be the thing that happens.

But the main thing is still the main thing. I mean, Donald Trump using every arm. of the federal government to intimidate, and bully, and push. things in his direction, and the general compliance. that appears to be at the root of all of his power. This fight against him through all legal and ethical means. has to be--.

has to be turned up, as they would say on Spinal Tap, to 11. All of these institutions have to fight back. And to get to that conversation-- actually, I think our guests today are going to be incredibly. apropos to discuss what that sort of coercion. looked like in the past, how it has changed. What are the various things? So let's get to them now. [MUSIC PLAYING]. I'm delighted to welcome our guests for the program today--.

Preet Bharara, who is the former US Attorney. for the Southern District of New York, a podcast host, Stay Tuned with Preet. He was appointed by Obama in 2009. He was fired by one Donald Trump in 2017. And we've got Dan Pfeiffer, cohost of Pod Save America. He's an author. He's got Message Box, which is a newsletter. about political strategy. And he was a senior advisor to Obama. for strategy and communications, 2013 to 2015. Gentlemen, welcome to the podcast.

PREET BHARARA: Good to be here. DAN PFEIFFER: Thanks for having us. JON STEWART: I am excited to talk about--. I feel like the two of you represent good insight. into this world of political retribution, how presidents use the leverage of their office. and the varieties of-- let's call them, for the time being, independent agencies that exist--. or formerly independent agencies that. exist within the executive.

How is that discussed? Dan, I think you've probably got. a really good sense of how that's. discussed behind the scenes. Preet, I think you've got probably. a really good sense of how those wishes are executed. And what are the guardrails that exist around there? So I guess I want to start with, Dan, you've been in these meetings in the Oval Office. How explicit are presidents about their wishes to--.

I don't want to use the word "punish,". but exert influence on the institutions that may think. they don't care for, whether it be the press or conservative. or liberal institutions? What are those conversations like? DAN PFEIFFER: I mean, you're very careful, right? Because there's-- prior to Trump, there was a real set of guardrails that even if you had. the worst instincts, if you wanted to exert influence, you want to exert retribution, there. were a set of things that would prevent you from doing that.

One is just a general good-faith belief in democracy. and the rule of law. JON STEWART: Does that ever come up in the office? Do people go like, hey, man, I don't know. if this is good for democracy. We've got a good-faith respect. DAN PFEIFFER: Well, I think it's just assumed. It was, for a long time, naturally assumed. No more. But then the other thing is the agencies. really were independent. Like, I just can't emphasize this enough, that-- like, take the Department of Justice, where. Preet knows a lot about, is--. as a person who had a political portfolio in the White House,

I was never allowed to be in communication with anyone. in the Department of Justice on any sort. of law enforcement matter. JON STEWART: Not allowed? DAN PFEIFFER: Not allowed. The only people in the White House. who could talk to the Department of Justice. on a law enforcement matter was the White House counsel. And they were usually on the receiving end of information. Like, I would find out--. I was in charge of the president's communications. for six years. I would find out about a major Department. of Justice announcement five minutes before it happened. And sometimes that was good news, like an arrest, a terrorist plot foiled,

a settlement in some sort of large consumer litigation. or something like that. And sometimes it was really bad news, like the appointment of a special counsel to look. into a leak investigation. But you would find out five minutes before. And that was a line that no one-- everyone believed. you should never cross. JON STEWART: And didn't. DAN PFEIFFER: And did not. And did not. JON STEWART: Would they have--. and, Preet, maybe you can speak to this, because I remember-- and this is in the Bush years--. they had guys like Jack Goldsmith, who would be working.

on briefs that would allow them to do the things. that they wanted to do. Clearly, there were dictates-- and I imagine the Obama. administration did it too-- to their Justice Department, where they would get their lawyers to try and draw. up justifications for political moves that they wanted to do. Preet, is it your understanding that that's how that works? PREET BHARARA: Yeah. I mean, it depends on what the issue is and was. I'm not sure it was Jack Goldsmith. But you have an Office of Legal Counsel within the Department. of Justice that writes opinions on what is or is not.

lawful, advisable, whatever. There were the so-called famous, notorious torture memos--. JON STEWART: Correct. PREET BHARARA: --that were written by Jon Yoo and others. in the Bush administration. And then there are people who will say, just to be fair, on the other side of the coin, that when Barack Obama, President Obama, decided to engage in drone strikes. against an American citizen who had turned into a terrorist, was that really justified, justifiable, or not? Presidents rely on those kinds of things.

But just further to what Dan was saying about the allowance. of political figures to talk to folks. in the Justice Department, there. were guidelines about that. And when we say, before Trump, it was different, it wasn't different all the way back to the beginning. of the Republic. It was different going back to Nixon. There was a guy named Nixon. JON STEWART: No, I'm not familiar. Are we talking about Mojo Nixon, the musician? Are we talking about-- what are we talking about? PREET BHARARA: Look, it's always left to the immigrants. to teach the people who have been here longer. about their political history. JON STEWART: Sure. PREET BHARARA: And so a lot of these guidelines that Dan is.

talking about came into existence because of Nixon's. overreach and because of Nixon's unlawful activities. and the unlawful activities of the people around him. There were serious guidelines with respect to what a Justice. Department official could or could. not take in terms of a call from a political official. Those are not there anymore. They're gone. Another thing that we may get to, just to put a point on it, is, as you mentioned, I was the US Attorney. in the Southern District for a long time, hired a lot of people there.

One of the people I hired into that office. was a very, very able lawyer, exemplary assistant US. attorney named Maureen Comey. She shares a last name with the former FBI director, someone. who the President of the United States. despises with a white-hot passion. I believe that her firing was unlawful and remains unlawful. JON STEWART: Unlawful because the executive is not allowed. to exercise hiring and firing over the district attorney's. offices, or why unlawful? PREET BHARARA: The President of the United States.

has absolute ability, as he did in my case, to fire me, to fire cabinet officials, to fire political appointees. We have civil service protections. And you can like them or not like them. But they've existed for a long time. The Trump folks like to call that the deep state. They have their own deep state. And you could repeal those laws if you want. But the interesting thing about the firing. of Maureen Comey, which I believe. happened because her last name is Comey--. JON STEWART: Sure. PREET BHARARA: --and not because of some. dereliction of duty with respect to Jeffrey.

Epstein or anyone else--. the only justification they gave was Article 2. Article 2 is the article that relates to the presidential--. JON STEWART: Well, that's the justification for everything. PREET BHARARA: For everything. Article 2. That means you can do anything you want, no matter what. I hope that she takes legal action. But the idea that you can reach into far-flung bureaucracies. and pinpoint individuals, notwithstanding. legal protections and process that's accorded to them,

because you don't like their name, or because you don't like their father, or because you got pressure from the right, the hard-right folks who say, fire this person, is not right. JON STEWART: Well, and you got fired, because you're in the same--. you're in the same office. PREET BHARARA: Yeah, but I was a political appointee. confirmed by the Senate. I was totally subject to being fired at will. JON STEWART: All right. So political appointees are at will. Civil service employees have to follow certain procedures. And if those procedures aren't followed, then that is unlawful. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Believe me, there are some people. I may have wanted to fire when I was a US attorney.

But I observed what the legal parameters were. And you can't do that without process. JON STEWART: But this gets us into this weird cycle. And this is the thing that I want to talk about. So Dan, you're in the office. And the President of the United States. decides, I'm not crazy about the way. this one federal prosecutor's office is running things. I would like to get rid of these two. particular federal prosecutors. They are not political appointees. But I would like to do that. Isn't there a process where they say, great,

let me talk to our counsel, see if they. can draw up justifications? Another-- isn't this a bit of an ouroboros. that we're talking about? We all want to talk about where the guardrails exist here. But isn't the United States bureaucracy complex enough. that you can basically justify loopholes in almost any process. to do whatever it is that you want to do? And isn't that how presidents often accomplish that? Is that your experience, Dan? DAN PFEIFFER: Well, I think it goes to,

motivation matters a lot here. So what is the reason why you're doing this? Like, the way this conversation would go in the White House, when I was there, at least, is the White House counsel. would be sitting on the couch in the Oval Office, two seats over from me. And they would say, you can't do that. JON STEWART: Talk about the couch. Pillows on the couch? What are we-- is it tastefully appointed? Are their feet up on the ottoman? What are we dealing with? DAN PFEIFFER: Now I think the couch may be. fully gold in the White House. But it was a nice stripe when I worked there. JON STEWART: Do we have dishes with M&Ms and nuts. that are sitting on the table? PREET BHARARA: Does JD Vance have access to that couch now?

JON STEWART: Settle down, Preet. DAN PFEIFFER: Very on brand for Obama, it was a bowl of apples in the Oval Office. JON STEWART: Ah, OK. DAN PFEIFFER: I don't think Michelle Obama was. letting us put M&Ms in the-- JON STEWART: All right. All right. Get America moving. DAN PFEIFFER: But the White House counsel would say, you can't do that. And here's why. And the president could theoretically-- like, I was never part of any conversation. where we wanted to fire random prosecutors. in the middle offices. That wasn't a thing you worried about. JON STEWART: Right. DAN PFEIFFER: He would say, well, what about this? And then the lawyer would push back and say--. and even if you could justify-- you could find a way to justify.

some sort of reason, you could create some cause for said. firing or whatever else, there would be concern about blowback. for doing it, right? JON STEWART: Political or legal blowback? DAN PFEIFFER: Both. Both. So you-- like, the president has all this power. until a court says you don't have it anymore. And so are you gonna do this? You're gonna try to fire these two people. You're gonna take all this political blowback. from the senators from said--. who are from that district where. these prosecutors are from. And then is a court going to stop you? So you took the blowback for firing them.

But then a court says they have to go back to work on Monday. And so you have gotten all the downside. and none of the upside. JON STEWART: Right. So it's a cost-benefit analysis. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Look, folks. I don't know where you're getting your comfort. during these difficult times. But I'm telling you, man, the good comfort is this--. cuddling up on the couch with your cat. Now, I don't have a cat. But it does sound pretty nice right now.

I have had cats. And they will, contrary to their reputation, cuddle you pretty hard. But this podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Smalls cat food is protein-packed recipes. made with preservative-free ingredients. you'd find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls. their best overall cat food. Cats.com. That's where cats go when they're. looking for information. That's their Google. Now, Smalls was started back in 2017. by a couple of guys home cooking cat.

food in small batches for their friends. Oh, they must have lived in Brooklyn. A few short years later, they've. served millions of meals to cats across the United States. After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners. reported overall health improvements. Here's a review from a real Smalls customer. Elizabeth C. said, "My cat was always. so-so with her usual food, but she is very. enthusiastic about Smalls. Her breath is much better. And she poops much less frequently.

And it does not smell disgusting like it used to.". As someone who had cats, Elizabeth C., I feel you so deeply. I had their litter box in the closet where I kept my clothes. I'm not smart. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve. For a limited time only, because you are a Weekly Show. listener, you get 60% off your first. Smalls order plus free shipping when. you head to smalls.com/tws.

That's 60% off when you head to smalls.com/tws, plus free shipping. Again, smalls.com/tws. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Preet, I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Isn't there something that's a bit akin to doctor shopping. for pills with lawyer shopping that-- and I'll use the example. of the election in 2020. The White House counsel sits with President Trump and says, yeah, you lost, and you're not allowed.

to go through and get that. And then he says, is there another lawyer. that can get me a justification for why we can challenge--. isn't that a process that they all go through, to lawyer shop, to finally get to somebody who will say, actually, the vice. president can just deny the certification. and throw this whole thing into the House of Representatives? PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Look, going back to that guy Nixon again, he kept trying to get somebody to do the dirty deed.

of firing a top official. JON STEWART: You're talking about John Mitchell. when he was going in, right? PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Yeah. And they either do it or they got fired. Now, that was sufficient blowback, politically and legally, that he was undone. And he had to leave office. And we established all these guardrails in place of that. Companies do it too. You want to do a thing. It's on the line. Or maybe it's over the line. And you just want someone to justify it for you. It's not a new thing in American law,

or American politics, or American business. But there are degrees. There are degrees of these things. JON STEWART: Right, right. So we're talking about degrees of this. PREET BHARARA: Yeah, I think so. And look, I'll give you another example of something, just. going back to my expertise. In the last couple of days--. not everyone may be following this--. there was a woman, a personal lawyer to Donald Trump, who I believe completely and utterly unqualified--. JON STEWART: You're talking about Emil Bove? PREET BHARARA: Well, I'm actually. talking about Alina Habba. We could talk Emil Bove. JON STEWART: Oh, OK. OK. I'm sorry. DAN PFEIFFER: It's a long list. There are a lot of them, yes. PREET BHARARA: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: All right. Tell me about this one.

DAN PFEIFFER: Not Judge Jeanine Pirro, right? JON STEWART: Yes, yes. PREET BHARARA: No. Oh my goodness. The list goes-- is this a three-hour show? JON STEWART: The list goes on. Right. PREET BHARARA: Alina Habba was appointed. to be the US Attorney in an interim basis. in the District of New Jersey. Significant district. JON STEWART: I live here. Cleaned the whole place up. It's-- we're very lawful now. PREET BHARARA: You should be careful. She could come after you. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah. PREET BHARARA: By operation of law by statute--. this is not a norm-- by statute, her term ended at 120 days, which, depending. on how you count, was either yesterday. or will be the coming Friday. And under the statute, the judges in the district.

can decide to appoint her or appoint someone else. And they didn't appoint her for, I think, clear reasons, and instead appointed her hand-picked deputy, her number two. And you're like, OK. Well, now we have a legitimate district that's. led by a legitimate person. You know what happened? Pam Bondi, they fired the deputy who. was handpicked by Alina Habba. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: So I don't know who becomes the United. States Attorney there. So that's not a norm. That's a law. And a similar thing happened in the Northern.

District of New York. The lead prosecutor in a very significant. district, the judges didn't approve that person. So they designate-- under the law. So they have a runaround. They have a back-end plan. And they appointed him, I think, something like Special Counsel to the Attorney General. And they don't have an actual US Attorney in the Northern. District of New York. They have this guy who's the functional. US Attorney in the Northern District of New York. So it's a pattern of behavior to put his own people anywhere, no matter what the norms are, and more importantly, no matter.

what the laws and statutes say, no matter what the judges say. JON STEWART: So maybe the norm is partisan, but competent. And this new norm is ideological. and slightly insane. But Dan, I want to get to-- so when we bring up-- because I. want to use the examples that we have in front. of us with President Obama a little bit before we really. move into Trump, because I think there's a tendency here. to think this is a brand-new-- like you say, it's not a matter of degrees. This is brand new. So Dan, they want to do a seemingly.

extrajudicial drone strike against somebody who is there. Or here's-- you know what? Maybe this is a better example, Dan--. the IRS scandal that occurred during the. Obama administration. So you have a situation where the IRS is allowing. progressive-- people with words like "progressive". or "Democratic"-- their organizations to pass through. with the tax-exempt status in a way that they are not allowing. anything with the word "Tea Party" or "conservative".

to pass through, and clearly to a point where it's not random. This is something that is occurring with purpose. How do you explain that? Is that a rogue bureaucrat within the IRS? Is that something that is discussed on a political level? How does that occur? DAN PFEIFFER: Sure. So in this situation, there's two important facts here. The first is this was a field office in Cincinnati.

with career bureaucrats. JON STEWART: Deep state. I believe we call it deep state. DAN PFEIFFER: The deep state, yes. And all the investigations showed there had never. been contact between that office. and anyone of any consequence in the Obama administration. JON STEWART: So this was rogue. DAN PFEIFFER: This really was rogue. And then the second part is, when you actually. did the full investigation, there. was a whole host of progressive terms they were also flagging. And so it turned out to actually. not be the scandal that people thought it actually was. JON STEWART: Didn't that--.

if I remember correctly, and I probably. don't, because I'm old--. DAN PFEIFFER: It has been-- it has been 11 years now, I. think, yes. JON STEWART: Didn't they-- but they. paid millions of dollars in penalties for-- the IRS. paid millions of dollars. DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. There were lawsuits about it that were settled. I don't remember all the details of it. Like we said, it was a decade ago. But the initial view that they were only doing Tea Party. turned out to not actually be true. They actually had a much wider thing. But either way, that it-- like, the fear that someone could. do that is a very real fear.

Like, this is-- we get back to Nixon again. This is how you politicize the IRS. You have them audit your political opponents. This individual case was truly people. no one had ever heard of working. in an office in Cincinnati. And so that is-- like, it's not--. that's the fear. JON STEWART: Are those things discussed, Dan, in the office? Like, does someone ever say, like, look, Trump is very clearly targeting tax-exempt status. for his enemy institutions. He's threatened it with Harvard. He's threatened their accreditation.

He's threatened tax-exempt status. for a wide variety of organizations. that might oppose him. What are the levers of coercion that are. discussed in the Oval Office? And I don't mean--. I mean the Oval Office metaphorically. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, those sorts of things, never discussed. That is a bright red, Watergate-style red line. In a pre-Trump era, if you were thinking about the things that. could end your presidency, it would. be using the IRS to look at-- to audit,

regulate, go after your political opponents--. like, never once discussed, never thought of. If you brought it up in a meeting, you would never be invited to a meeting back again. You probably would be walking out of the White House. holding all of your possessions later that day. JON STEWART: Right. They do go through--. Obama used the-- I think it was the 1917 Espionage Act, where they would go after--. they prosecuted more journalists. under the Espionage Act. DAN PFEIFFER: This is a great example of--. JON STEWART: OK, here we go. DAN PFEIFFER: --the problem--. this is a great example of the independence of the Department. of Justice, right?

These are a bunch of Bush-era investigations-- most of them. were Bush-era investigations, not entirely--. that were then continued. Nothing drove Barack Obama more insane. than having to take all the blowback. for these investigations. JON STEWART: When he got the records from the AP. for a journalist--. DAN PFEIFFER: He never saw them. Right. Like, they never made it to the White House. JON STEWART: And he never requested those records? DAN PFEIFFER: No, never, never, had no--. JON STEWART: And nobody in the Oval Office ever said--. DAN PFEIFFER: No. JON STEWART: --there is a leak here, and we need to investigate this leak? DAN PFEIFFER: No. No.

There was never-- and it would have--. and I promise you, if you had polled the president's top. advisors, they all would have just wanted these. investigations to stop, because we're all the ones saying--. like, in my office, when I was the White House Communication. Director, every reporter could walk into my office without--. just walk right in. And the amount of people who came in, they were very upset, rightfully upset, about these investigations, the way it did tremendous damage. to the president's relationship with the press, to the use of him as a president who wanted to protect. the press, be transparent. But these were decisions made by career prosecutors.

in the Department of Justice without any contact with anyone. in the White House. JON STEWART: Dan, I may be naive. DAN PFEIFFER: Maybe. We'll see. JON STEWART: But it strikes me as--. that seems hard to believe, that political blowback. is swirling around the executive. about espionage prosecutions on someone like James Rosen. And they're getting records from AP. And the White House is just sitting passively, saying, dear god, there's just nothing I can do here other.

than just suck it up. DAN PFEIFFER: I would say--. I didn't sit in national security meetings. I can imagine that there was great concern within parts. of the national security community, the intelligence. community, about the leaks of highly sensitive intelligence. I don't know what those conversations were like. But I can promise you, from a political perspective, and from President Obama's perspective, this was--. and he even talked about it afterwards, about how--. about the problems with these investigations, and. took steps in his second term to put guidance.

in place that would protect journalists. in these situations. JON STEWART: But even that. That's what I mean. Like, that just strikes me as an incredibly passive. executive, in the way that Trump may be-- but Preet, what's your experience, in that you're. in the Department of Justice? Is that in any way realistic, that a president of status. would not--. if something is spiraling out of control within Justice--. because they are-- that is in the executive--.

that they wouldn't reach out through various channels. and try and rectify this situation legally? It's hard to believe. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Look, it depends on what the thing is. So there's a range of things that the Department of Justice. does, or can do, that a president would care about. And so, at the one end of the spectrum, it's totally legitimate, totally lawful, and I think no one would dispute. If crime rates are rising, and the papers are reporting,

we have a crime wave in these various cities, President. of the United States, whether it's Barack Obama, George Bush, or Donald Trump can call his attorney general and say, what are you doing? Can we surge prosecutors? Can we do some stuff? Can we change policies? Can we enhance penalties? All of that is totally fair game. and clear on the one end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum, a President of the United States. calls up his attorney general, or worse, calls up. the head of public corruption at the Southern. District of New York and says, I really hate Bill de Blasio.

JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. And I know you do, too. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. PREET BHARARA: That MF's gotta go. So can you help a brother out? And by the way, I'm the commander-in-chief. And under Article 2, I can fire you. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: That's probably the worst thing at the. other end, worse than the IRS. And in between, you have a lot of stuff. So if something is spiraling out of control, and it can be, I think, assessed to be properly a policy issue, like, what's the policy of the department. on subpoenaing journalists? JON STEWART: Right.

PREET BHARARA: I think that's more legit. JON STEWART: Well, that's why it's hard to believe. that it's not at their behest. PREET BHARARA: But if you call up, and you say, listen, only subpoena the Wall Street. Journal, but don't subpoena the New York Times, then it's more like the other category I'm talking about. So it's a judgment call, part of which. is policed not by statute or by judges, but by this other thing, blowback, which seems to be. a little bit of a thing of the past, because blowback doesn't seem to matter. to some people, including Donald Trump, so long as his MAGA base is in tow.

JON STEWART: But-- DAN PFEIFFER: I guess the--. JON STEWART: Yeah, go ahead, Dan. DAN PFEIFFER: I was going to say, the thing I'd say about this is, in hindsight, given. everything we've learned in the decade. since, would there have been so much blowback. if the President of the United--. if Barack Obama had called Eric Holder and said, this is not worth it. You cannot subpoena journalists. Stop these investigations. Would there have been huge blowback for that? I don't know. Probably not. Clearly not. Trump has gone much closer to the end of the spectrum. But the question is--. like, here's why-- and this is where lawyers are very.

cautious when they're advising presidents, is there's a slippery slope there. So one day, it's, don't subpoena James Rosen. The next day, it's, don't subpoena this Democratic donor. who's under investigation, or this Democratic politician. who's under investigation, or, even worse than that, go subpoena this political opponent of ours. And so they're-- the lawyers are very. careful about this slippery slope, if you. care about these things. JON STEWART: But it's hard to believe that the president. himself wouldn't say, these espionage investigations are.

unfairly targeting journalists, but I'm not. going to call to find out, because that's a pretty. slippery slope for me. And, you know, I hate Bill de Blasio. And I'm just going to use--. I'm going to use de Blasio for all the--. PREET BHARARA: That's a consensus position. JON STEWART: Right. DAN PFEIFFER: That's right. JON STEWART: I guess here's where I'm naive. It's hard for me to believe that someone with the strength. of conviction that Barack Obama had, that he would sit back passively.

and watch something spiral. I'll give you, like, just a stupid example. During the Obamacare rollout, my show did a little skit. We had Kathleen Sebelius on. DAN PFEIFFER: Oh, I remember this quite well. I was in the room when this happened. JON STEWART: Do you really? DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. Yeah. JON STEWART: OK, so you remember. PREET BHARARA: I have no recollection of it. JON STEWART: Preet, god bless you. You shouldn't. It's a tiny-- it is a blip in the history, not just of this country, but in humankind.

Kathleen Sebelius came on. And my first question--. I took out two laptops. And I gave her a laptop, and I had a laptop. And I said, we're gonna try two things. I'm gonna sit here, and I'm gonna. try and download on LimeWire every movie and song. that has ever been written. And on your computer, you're gonna try and log. on to the Obamacare website. And we're gonna see who gets there first. Dumb bit. But anyway, that sort of spiraled into a long interview.

with Sebelius about, if you believe that the government has. the opportunity to improve people's lives, isn't job one kind of a technical competence? I mean, for God's sakes, your fundraising emails. are 22nd-century technology. And yet this thing-- so anyway, I get a call. I can't remember how much later, but it wasn't much later. The president would like to talk to you in person.

And I have to go down to Washington, because you-- the President of the United States. calls you and says, hey, man. Let's talk. And it was--. I don't want to say terrifying, because I. didn't have the sense of Obama that I would have with Trump. But it was intimidating. And you're standing in a room, wearing a suit during the day, which, for me, as a stand-up comic, is hive inducing,

and you're in front of the Teddy Roosevelt picture, in front of the Coolidge desk, in front--. and you're surrounded by history. And you go into the Oval Office. And the President of the United States gives you shit. And I'm not saying it's the same thing, obviously, in terms of-- but it is--. I can't look at it any other way than a form. of intimidation or coercion. Now, to his credit, we got past it.

And we had a much longer conversation. that I thought was fruitful. But Dan, isn't the point of that, in some respect, to get me to shut the fuck up? DAN PFEIFFER: Well, I remember--. the reason I remember that, even though it was, what, 12 years ago now, is--. I don't know how the president--. I don't know-- I mean, he's a big fan of yours. I don't remember him watching The Daily. Show on a nightly basis. JON STEWART: Sure. It wasn't back then. It was a tremendously hot show. DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. JON STEWART: It was us and The Apprentice.

I don't what happened to that guy. DAN PFEIFFER: It was a different era of television. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: You just turn it on. There it is, right? JON STEWART: The Apprentice, The Daily Show, sure. PREET BHARARA: The good old days. JON STEWART: Sure. DAN PFEIFFER: And he had two questions for me. One was, how did Kathleen Sebelius end up on your show? And two, what was your phone number? JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. DAN PFEIFFER: I could answer the second one. The first one was a much harder question. to get to the bottom of. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: All right, folks. It's summertime, clearly. And look, you want to have fun.

You know what I'm talking about? You need a little bit of the cabbage to do that. You don't want to get burned by wireless bills. Beach trip, barbecues, three-day weekends, four-day weekends. In my case, I think it's like five- or six-day weekends, quite frankly. I mean, I really do have quite a bit of time off. But the wireless bill, it's gotta. be the last thing holding you back. That's why a lot of people are switching to Mint Mobile. Mint gets you the coverage and speed you're used to, but for, like, a lot less money. Limited time, Mint Mobile's offering three months--.

three months--. gets you through to October--. of unlimited premium wireless service, $15 a month, while your friends are sweating the data. overages and surprise charges. And you'll be chilling--. financially speaking, chilling. All plans come with high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, delivered. on the nation's largest 5G network. Goodbye, overpriced wireless plan. Mint Mobile's here to rescue you. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank.

Get this new customer offer and your three-month. unlimited wireless plan for just $15. a month at mintmobile.com/tws. That's mintmobile.com/tws. Upfront payment of $45 required. It's really the equivalent of $15 a month. Limited-time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes. on the unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. [MUSIC PLAYING]. DAN PFEIFFER: There's certainly no norm or historical precedent.

of a president not calling a member of the media. to talk to them. JON STEWART: Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: And this all comes down to, the question is like, I feel like we're sort of. wrapped around the axle of--. these journalist investigations are, like, incredibly serious. And in hindsight, in the real time, they were bad. They were wrong. The government should not do it. They should not have happened. Is there more the president could have done to stop them? I don't know. I know that there was-- we took the idea that you. don't tell the Department of Justice. how to conduct investigations.

Like, there is this idea, as serious as these are, that the President of the United. States, in any investigation, telling them what to--. telling the career prosecutors whom they should subpoena. or not subpoena in an investigation. is a very, very bad precedent, right? Could he maybe have said a public statement, like, no journalist should be subpoenaed, which would have the same effect. as the private phone call, but would. be maybe more transparent? I don't know. Maybe. Sure. JON STEWART: Preet, what's your understanding.

of the reality of this? PREET BHARARA: Yeah, look. Every president wants good press. Every president wants things to go his way. But again, there are degrees of this. Look, to stick up for Barack Obama. for a moment in one regard--. JON STEWART: This is not--. I'm only making the point that there are--. I'm not-- PREET BHARARA: No, no, no. No. Look, I was picking on Nixon. Lyndon Johnson was the master of putting the arm on people, personally and otherwise. As intimidating as it must have been to go to see Barack Obama, probably, you're happy it wasn't LBJ.

But all the US attorneys were gathered. early on in the Obama administration, the first term. And we had a photo op with the president. And we all went to the White House. We went to one of the big rooms and waited there. And it sounds quaint. JON STEWART: Did he ask you guys for my phone number. when you guys were in there? DAN PFEIFFER: [LAUGHS]. PREET BHARARA: Oh, he had it. He had it. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. PREET BHARARA: And he said a simple thing. And Patrick Fitzgerald was still one of the US. Attorneys at the time. And he says, I hired all of you.

But you don't work for me. You work for the American people. And you act independently. And that seemed quaint, whatever--. until Trump shows up. Trump, from the White House podium, from the Oval Office, on a regular basis, pronounces the guilt. of political adversaries every freaking day. JON STEWART: Sure. PREET BHARARA: And he gets away with it. JON STEWART: But here's the thing. So now, I think their view is--. and this gets us now to this new administration.

Their view is, there is no independence. in the executive branch from the executive. But that is an opinion that is lawyer shopped. That gets us back to Goldsmith, and the unitary executive, and this idea that the executive is based on solely. the whims of one man. And the Supreme Court has amplified that by granting.

immunity to the executive. So Preet, when we talk about these guardrails, haven't they been removed, not just by Trump, but by the Department of Justice itself. and the Supreme Court? PREET BHARARA: Yeah. No, I think you have a very good. argument in favor of that--. in favor of that position. The only thing I guess we can be thankful for, at least, and I mean this semi-ironically, is that they feel the need to at least paper. a legal justification for it.

JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Right. It's one of those things where you're like, no, I've got a Xanax prescription. Sure. Hold on. Let me just scribble it real quick. PREET BHARARA: It's a tiny--. it's a tiny-- so, for example, in the case of the deportation. of Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, everyone was talking about constitutional crisis. And the Supreme Court and other courts. said, facilitate his return. And they, like, bullshitted around. about what "facilitate" means. We don't know what that means. We'll get him a plane ticket if he shows up, you know, in an Uber. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: But at the end of the day,

they did bring him back. Now, they filed criminal charges against him. But they brought him back. And I don't mean to put too much store on, like, these fine distinctions. But maybe I'm overly lawyering it. They still do feel the need to have some justification for it. I disagree with the justification. But there are scholars who think it's true. There are members of the Supreme Court. who think that's a viable theory. I think, both as a matter of law. and also as a matter of-- like, do you. want to live in a country--.

put aside the Constitution and put--. do you want to live in a country. where the executive of the country, the President. of the United States, can pick and choose which individuals. in different states should be prosecuted and investigated. by the federal government? You don't want to live in a country like that. I don't. JON STEWART: But that's--. Preet, unfortunately, that's a political question. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. JON STEWART: And what we're seeing. is there are an awful lot of people who. want to live in that country, as long as the people. he's picking--. PREET BHARARA: Are the other guys. JON STEWART: --are the other guys. Exactly. And Dan, to that point, politically,

when you watch it happen now, I mean, he faces no political blowback. You talked about the political blowback in the thing. And you see it when he's in trouble with Epstein. What's the first thing he does? Arrest Barack Obama, strip the accreditation. As long as he's attacking the people his base hates, they're fine with it. And so, when you see him doing what. he's doing at Harvard, right? What does-- what recourse do they have than to comply?

What else can they do to an executive like that? DAN PFEIFFER: They can fight back, right? They can fight in court. JON STEWART: Which they're attempting to do. DAN PFEIFFER: And have won in court. Like, they're-- obviously, Trump. has the courts on his side. He has a Supreme Court that is in his favor. But--. JON STEWART: Or they'll throw it to some guy in Texas. that'll just be like, sure. DAN PFEIFFER: Right, right. Yeah, they'll forum shop or whatever else. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: But they have--. a lot of the things they have done. have been stopped by the courts, right? Held up by the courts.

And so there are limits here. What I think has become clear--. like, Matt Yglesias, the center-left writer, has the-- once said that democracy is just a bunch. of norms in a trench coat, which is something. that Trump is really--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. DAN PFEIFFER: --that Trump is really exploiting. JON STEWART: I think it's flashing us in a subway. right now. DAN PFEIFFER: That's exactly-- yeah, that trench coat is long gone. JON STEWART: Yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: He's exploited-- so a lot. of the things that prevented you from doing certain things. were not law. They were just ways in which everyone had done things.

before, in this belief that there would be. political blowback from not just the other party, but your party, from the public, and in particular, from the media, if you did those things. The world has changed so much. The Republican Party is so loyal to Trump. The courts are favorable enough to him. The media, the traditional political media, has been minimized in its influence enough. that it doesn't matter in the same way, that he can get away with a lot of things. that previous presidents thought.

they could not get away with. But to say he's not facing political accountability. is to judge it only in the context of his base, because the fact of the matter is, he does have the lowest. approval ratings of any president. at this point in their term since being elected. JON STEWART: I mean, he's almost. had that his entire political career. I don't--. DAN PFEIFFER: Right, and he lost the House in 2018. He lost the White House and the Senate in 2020. JON STEWART: Oh, they've got a strategy for that too, Dan. I don't know if you've heard. They've just decided to go in and be. like, what if we gave ourselves five more seats in Texas? DAN PFEIFFER: Right. Which will get-- which gets to a question for Democrats.

about how you use power in this environment, about how they respond to that. JON STEWART: Boy, that's a great one. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah. JON STEWART: Preet, for you, as you watch, so is it the taking away of funding for things. that he disagrees with? Is it the threatening of tax-exempt status? Is it the threatening of prosecution? What, for you, is the most egregious, then, unguardrailed action that the Trump administration takes, that in your mind, you just go, I can't even go back to Nixon.

on this one? This is just--. PREET BHARARA: So you know what it is? JON STEWART: Yeah. PREET BHARARA: It's actually not in my wheelhouse. It's the pro-measles policy of this administration. JON STEWART: Oh, that's interesting. PREET BHARARA: I mean, when I think about my family--. so I care about democracy. This is what I talk about. I'm a member of the legal profession. I was a United States Attorney. I'm a rule of law guy. And I fight those battles. And maybe it's because I don't understand medicine. But when I think about my kids, and my family members, and other people, what bothers me the most is the ruination.

of health care and the false debunking of what. vaccines can and cannot do. And when I see these-- the thing. that freaks me out the most as an American. are the measles numbers. Now, on the other side of the coin, I'm worried about--. I'm worried about all of it. You know, the weird thing about the legal strategy of. these guys is they lose a lot. And they will be losing a lot. JON STEWART: Well, is that, Preet, because-- look, you can go on cable news, and you can say anything.

And you can talk-- and you're seeing. that now in their conspiracy theory stuff, is it. all falls-- you know, where's Ray Epps? Remember, before they got in there, Ray Epps was the Fed that made the J6ers storm the Capitol. Well, now, you're the Feds. You're the FBI. You're all those guys. Why isn't that guy being prosecuted for doing that? Because he didn't, because it was all bullshit. And is it because courts force you--. and this is what I think the press should be doing more of. Courts, at their best, litigate the parameters.

of our shared reality. And is that why they fail so much in there? PREET BHARARA: I think they fail because sometimes they. take overreaching positions. So, for example, in my personal experience, I work at a law firm. My law firm, WilmerHale, is one of the four. law firms that decided not to bend at the knee and fought. The law firms who fought back on these executive orders. are 4 for 4 in DC courts, and it's going to go up for appeal, in scathing decisions. JON STEWART: What was the purpose? Explain to me a little bit, because I've heard about--. PREET BHARARA: Yeah.

JON STEWART: What is the justification? And Dan, I don't know if there were. law firms when you were there with Obama in this situation. But what's the justification of going. after a law firm that represented. people that you don't like? PREET BHARARA: Well, I think, as the courts found, there isn't one. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: It was just-- there isn't one. JON STEWART: Oh, OK. PREET BHARARA: In the same way that it makes no logical, legal, or pragmatic sense to cut off. science research funding at Harvard. because of anti-Semitism.

It's just-- it's going after your nemesis. In my firm's case, we had the temerity. to have employed Bob Mueller, former FBI. director and Special Counsel, who was gone from the firm. JON STEWART: Wait, is that why they went--. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. JON STEWART: Did they say specifically? PREET BHARARA: They make a reference directly. to the employment of Robert Mueller in the executive order, and another person who still remains at the firm. JON STEWART: What? PREET BHARARA: Right? JON STEWART: And what is the penalty for employing. someone like that? PREET BHARARA: Well, apparently, the intended penalty is a business death penalty, because what you have-- so the point I was going to make.

was, even though they lose a lot, they still accomplish. a lot, because they have a chilling effect on other people. and in other firms, some of whom are not as strong, but some of whom are just making proper business-- look, when they argue, falsely, that the Constitution says something. different about birthright citizenship, they know that lots of people are not. gonna rely on that provision of the Constitution. when they come to the United States anymore. When they do things like question FBI agents, and have them fill out a questionnaire, and say,

did you have anything to do with January 6? Maybe that's lawful, maybe it's not. Maybe it's proper, maybe it's not. But what it does is it tells every other FBI agent going. forward for all time, during this administration, hey, I got this order to follow this lead, or to subpoena this witness, or to talk to this guy. I now have to think, is that in any way. related to Donald Trump, or to Melania, or to Donald Trump Junior? Because my life or my livelihood. could be affected by that. It's a process by which it doesn't matter if they're. right or wrong, so much as having the chilling effect.

that they want to have. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: That's not a great thing. And I don't know how much there is to be able to do about it. JON STEWART: It's the tentacles, though. Dan, is that your feeling as well? It's the tentacles and the effect of their action, much more so than the-- it's almost the collateral. damage that their--. PREET BHARARA: I think that's exactly right. JON STEWART: --that their actions--. Dan, you thinking that too? DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, I agree with that. It creates a chilling effect, right? Like, I'm sure-- we're all in media. And I'm sure everyone has gotten a very aggressive.

defamation training. JON STEWART: I don't--. DAN PFEIFFER: Because now they're. suing everyone for everything. JON STEWART: I don't recall that. DAN PFEIFFER: Yes, well, I'd call your lawyer, then. But it's like-- and the sense is. that if someone is watching you, and they are going to make-- and even if they can't win. the case, they can get your case either to discovery, they can just make you pay a bunch of money in lawyer fees. And for me, it's like, this is Trump suing Ann. Selzer for a poll, an incorrect poll in an election he won, right? JON STEWART: Right. That's the Iowa pollster who said that he was doing worse.

than he was actually doing. DAN PFEIFFER: But still winning, right? JON STEWART: But still winning. Yeah, that's exactly right. DAN PFEIFFER: And that could have bankrupted. the newspaper there if that-- they. eventually dropped that suit. And that affects everyone. Like, it affects-- like, every company. now has to make a decision. We have just been through this with media companies. Like, is it worth--. should you just settle and maybe pay a price for it. over the course of your business or not? You have talked about this a lot. And it does-- some people will stand up. WilmerHale stood up.

Folks in the media have stood up. But not everyone stands up. And you have to do that-- and then now everyone in society. is doing that cost-benefit analysis of, is this worth the potential blowback that I am going. to get if I become targeted? JON STEWART: And by the way, it's not just about the people. that are on the air. And we saw that ABC paid 15. CBS, we just saw, paid 15 for a nothing--. just to get that merger through. And by the way, the FCC Chairman, getting back to our guardrails, shitposts Colbert and CBS--. like, the FCC chair, the guy who's responsible for this,

is just out there like, yeah, motherfucker. How's my ass taste? Like--. PREET BHARARA: I missed that one. That one, I missed. I would have--. JON STEWART: I'm obviously paraphrasing at some level. DAN PFEIFFER: But not by that much, honestly. JON STEWART: But I will say this. And I don't know if it occurs this way. in the legal profession, but to the media profession, there's the effect of the people that are on the air now. But I can tell you this. And by the way, it predates Trump. Ron DeSantis suing Disney--. I've been in those meetings with executives who have.

said to me, like, look, man. We don't want to get on their radar. So there are a lot of things that will never. be made, that you will never know about, that were killed in the bed before they. had a chance because of this chilling effect. So the irony is, as Donald Trump famously said, I've brought back free speech.

He's done the opposite. And I don't know if that's something that--. does your law firm now, Preet-- are. there pre-discussions about clients. that won't get protection? Not even the clients that you have now, or have had. in the past, or people there. Are there people who won't get hired? PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Look, I think there are people who, both in businesses and law firms, and I think it's OK to say this--.

what Donald Trump does is he exposes people. who have courage and fight in them, and integrity, and character, from the people who don't, sometimes over a lot of money, sometimes over a little bit. of money, sometimes over employment, sometimes. about ambitions that they want to achieve. within the government or outside the government. Yeah, no, it's a big problem. But the way to get after it with respect to these law firms. who have these executive orders imposed on them, which are. just complete legal garbage--.

I mean, of all the things we've been talking about, among the most garbage documents we've seen. are the law firm documents--. you're a layperson, and you immediately. understood that to be true--. is to win, and win, and win, and win, and win in the Supreme. Court, which I think would send a signal that there's. some things that are so egregious, and so crazy, and so. nuts, and so unlawful, that even this Supreme. Court will say the same. I don't know if that's gonna be true about other things. as well. And the lesson of all this is, or one of the lessons of all.

this is, if a president chooses to exercise all. of his discretionary authority and power in a maximal way, and Congress doesn't give a shit, and also endorses a unitary executive theory, in part, that helps the executive, and the judicial branch, co-equal branch of government, also endorses this ever-empowering and enlarging. executive, we're all in trouble. It's trouble. JON STEWART: Preet, do you think we're in this moment, then, in some respects-- so he's getting.

the legal justifications that he needs, or he's getting the halo effect or the poison cloud. from his actions that are deterring. people from taking action. But are we in an unusual time because of the abdication? He has the House. He has the Senate. And because he has such control over the base, is this really--. are we moving into a new phase of the country? Or in your mind, are we in just this weird eye.

that won't occur again-- a hundred-year storm. or something? PREET BHARARA: That depends on whether Trumpism, or whatever Trumpism is, survives Donald Trump. The weird quandary is, just further to what I was saying. a second ago, there was this opinion. by the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship, which wasn't actually about birthright citizenship. It was about this technical issue. of nationwide injunctions. JON STEWART: Injunctions. Yeah, yeah. PREET BHARARA: Right? And Amy Coney Barrett declared correctly. a principle of law, which is contrary to how we think.

about checks and balances, and co-equal branches. of government, and separation of powers. She said, the judiciary does not have a general oversight. role of the executive. That's true. But the problem is--. and then she said, the solution to an imperial presidency. is not an imperial judiciary. Well, that's all nice and wonderful. one the Supreme Court--. JON STEWART: Right, in the abstract. PREET BHARARA: In the abstract, in the ivory tower. But it's like, it's not our--. like, you elected that crazy guy.

JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: Not our problem. Call Congress. JON STEWART: We'll have to deal with it. Well, and almost like she said, the solution. to an imperial presidency is class-action lawsuit, that I can--. I can give you relief for an individual, but I can't--. you know, this guy, I can let eat at the segregated counter. But I can't let everybody--. I can't let everybody do it. Dan, you guys had a united Congress Obama's. first two years, yes? DAN PFEIFFER: Yep. JON STEWART: You had the House.

DAN PFEIFFER: Yes, we did. JON STEWART: Is the temptation there, when you're in that position, to do what Trump. has done, to some extent? Or was Democratic Congress not as compliant? DAN PFEIFFER: They were so far from compliant. It was a very different Democratic Party. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. DAN PFEIFFER: I mean, you sort think about--. JON STEWART: No, that sounds about right. DAN PFEIFFER: Right. I mean, part of that's the nature of Democrats. Part of it's just what the Democratic. Party looked like in 2009. Like, we had two senators from Montana. We had a senator from Alaska, two senators. from Arkansas, who had very different constituencies.

JON STEWART: Joe Manchin. You had-- DAN PFEIFFER: Joe Manchin. I mean, Joe Manchin was--. well, he was one of our two senators. from West Virginia at one point. And Joe Manchin, actually, of--. the way we think about Joe Manchin today, they were like 15 Joe Manchins, people. to the right of Joe Manchin on issues who. were in the Democratic Party. JON STEWART: Right. DAN PFEIFFER: And there was also--. the Senate and Congress viewed itself differently back then. It was a much more of an institutional actor. It was the Democratic Chairman of the Finance Committee. who would not let Tom Daschle become.

the Secretary of Health and Human Services. because of a tax problem. JON STEWART: Yeah, that's right. PREET BHARARA: How quaint is that? DAN PFEIFFER: Like, it's insane now. It was-- actually, frankly, it was insane at the time. JON STEWART: He didn't pay withholding taxes to a--. DAN PFEIFFER: Basically, yes. JON STEWART: --a green card holder? DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. JON STEWART: How dare you, sir? DAN PFEIFFER: You cannot be in government. So it was just-- you could not have gotten away with that. Like, there was-- you would face. blowback from your own party for doing things like that. The parties have changed. Particularly the Republican Party is obviously much more.

ideologically coherent than it was back then, and certainly, the Democratic Party was back then. But that was not--. even if we had wanted to do any of the things. Trump just talked about, our party would rebel. Some large portion of the party would rebel in two seconds. JON STEWART: So let's talk about that. Trump is, in some ways, a white-hat--. or I shouldn't say white-hat, but a black-hat hacker, where. he goes in, and he's exposing these strange holes. in our democracy, one of which is emergency powers. You go in-- if you look through our 250 years,

you can find an emergency power that allows you to do almost. anything through the executive, as long as you can withstand, I. guess, the political pressure. He's using now tax-exempt status. He's using funding polls. He's using the legal system. Isn't there a reverse engineering that can be done? And aren't Republicans in any way concerned that he is. handing a blueprint-- look, do you. think the federal government only spends on liberal issues?

Is there no fear that a Democrat gets in there. and goes, oh, no more block grants for Medicaid. to red states that are going to buy volleyball stadiums. in Mississippi? Like, I'm pulling that. Oh, tax exemption for that--. do we really think that Fox News, or the Federalist. Society, or any of these other places. don't get some benefit from the federal government, or wouldn't face some peril from the federal government?

Isn't he handing a pretty devastating playbook to. the other side, at some level? How are they going to fight that? DAN PFEIFFER: I think he's met Democrats. So he's relatively confident that they're not. going to do the same things. [LAUGHTER]. So try to think about--. try to think about the example--. JON STEWART: Oh, god. DAN PFEIFFER: Like, let's say a Democrat wanted. to follow that playbook. And so, like, so on day one, Fox. is kicked out of the White House press pool, not involved in it anymore. They invite Pod Save America in,

and whoever else is now in there. JON STEWART: Forget about that. How about they threaten their licenses--. DAN PFEIFFER: Right. Well, that's the next thing. They threaten the license. At some point, Fox is gonna want. to sell-- may want to sell its TV business. because of this probate case. How is a Democratic-- would a Democratic FCC handle that? JON STEWART: He would shitpost them. DAN PFEIFFER: Right. Like, but I sometimes--. I struggle to--. I have a very conflicted set of emotions. here, because, on one hand, I think one of the reasons why. Democrats are in this position is.

we have too often believed power is simply. a means to a policy end. And Republicans believe power, particularly under Trump, is an end in and of itself. And then, when you have it, you should look to nurture it, grow. it, use it, because you believe passionately. in your policy goals. And you can only execute them if you have power. And the Democrats should be much more aggressive. JON STEWART: They're doing both, by the way. I mean, it's-- DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, right. JON STEWART: They're not just power for power's sake. They're executing enormous changes. DAN PFEIFFER: But they view those decisions as helping them. maintain power, too, right?

JON STEWART: I don't know, man. I don't see how removing NIH funding from cancer research. somehow helps them maintain power. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, that--. JON STEWART: Like, all it does is--. DAN PFEIFFER: That's a fair point. But all the targeting of all these institutions, weakening institutional opponents--. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah, yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: --making the media bend the knee to Trump--. all those things. But at the same time, if a Democrat comes in and does all. those things, are we just on a downward spiral, where we are just a--. where we become Russia, where it's just--.

like, we sort of live in an oligarchy? There is a real danger in that. And so, as a Democrat, how do you think--. if you care about democracy, and you care about the rule. of law, how do you view your responsibility. when you come in to--. you don't want to naively cling to norms as you're. headed towards the iceberg. But what is the way in which you can more. aggressively utilize power? One thing I think Democrats could do if they had power. would be to take some of these norms that Trump has run over.

and turn them into laws, if we had--. to try to actually reinstate some of the guardrails that. existed only through voluntary compliance. and give them legal teeth. JON STEWART: I'm not even sure that he. complies with legal teeth. I don't think Trump complies with legal teeth. Preet, do you think that-- PREET BHARARA: No. JON STEWART: --would be an effective counter? I don't. PREET BHARARA: It depends on what the thing is. And some things, you can't--. some norms, you can't legislate. So for example-- some, you can. And even those, by the way, that I was thinking of just.

a second ago, are at risk. So the norm was, for almost two centuries in this country, that a president would serve two terms. That's better for the country. It's better for democracy. It's better for the rule of law and everything else. Washington set the precedent. Then FDR comes along. He's like, fuck it. I'm running four times. And then you know what we did? We changed the law. And even that, like, you know, solid, black-and-white print in the Constitution--. you can't run again--. he's got lawyers, forum-shopped lawyers,

making arguments, like they are with birthright citizenship, says, there's a loophole. He can serve a third term. So the law is a blunt instrument. And if you have somebody who is completely amoral, power hungry, forum shopping, who has all executive power, and a weak judiciary, and a weak legislature, and a sometimes-bending-the-knee. press, it's hard for the law to curtail the worst. instincts of that person, which I know sounds very pessimistic.

But I think it's true. JON STEWART: I think it sounds very realistic. I mean, I think-- and look, we're five, six months in, man. Like, he went from, I'm gonna deport the worst of the worst, to, like, who's that valedictorian. at that high school? Like, it's all eroding really quickly. PREET BHARARA: I'm a naturalized citizen. And I'm like, oh. JON STEWART: That's up for grabs. PREET BHARARA: We're not that far away from 24 months in, and I don't think this is an overstatement, depending on how.

things go, where a naturalized citizen in this country. has to be worried about saying something that they will say. invokes an emergency power to denaturalize that person. and go back to some other country. That's--. JON STEWART: What are the things Democrats can do? Because the Republicans right now are basically solidifying. structural advantages that are given by the Constitution. that sort of empowers rural states. in a way that infuses them with more power than they might.

Now, if he-- you get two senators in Wyoming, same as in New York. So population-wise, there are already. structural advantages to, right now, the Republican Party. There's more red states than there are blue states. There may not be-- the people may be around the same. But aren't there things that Democrats could do? Let's say it's not punitive in terms of, we're gonna take away. the tax-exempt status from this university, or we're gonna do--. and by the way, all this shit about the liberal universities,

and they're just pumping out liberals. And you're like, everybody on the Supreme. Court that's a hard-line conservative. went to Yale or Harvard. Like, what the fuck are they even talking about? But aren't there things, Preet, that. are structural, that Democrats can do, in the same way that-- look. In North Carolina, what do they do? As soon as the Democrat-- as soon as the governor is. a Democrat, they're like, oh, the governor. doesn't have power anymore. that's too bad.

PREET BHARARA: Look. You have to have the votes. So I think the most important thing is to get. one or both chambers back. JON STEWART: Or you have to have an executive. Do you need the votes, or do you need an executive? PREET BHARARA: Well, that depends. on what the answer to-- the new answer to the question. is of the First Lady in whose White House Dan served. And that is, when they go low, we go what? JON STEWART: Dan? DAN PFEIFFER: We go what? Do we go hardball? JON STEWART: Dan, is there-- is there a new answer to that? DAN PFEIFFER: Just a general life. practice that's served me well is I don't.

contradict Michelle Obama. So-- JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. PREET BHARARA: But does she have the same--. would she have the same answer today? JON STEWART: I'm not sure she'd have the same answer. DAN PFEIFFER: I'll let her speak for herself. But like, I think there are--. if Democrats had the House, the Senate, and the White House, like, what are some things you could. do that would expand power and help rebalance the scales? JON STEWART: Or that would insulate them. from the coercion and expansion of power. on the other side undemocratically?

Like, I'm not even talking about, like, well, let's just jam 30 liberals on the Supreme Court. I'm talking about ways to combat what we're seeing now. PREET BHARARA: Right, but there's a paradox. The problem is, even if Democrats are not. going to be as extreme in asserting executive power. as Trump, they like executive power. when they have the executive. And it would seem weirdly self-defeating to finally get. the White House and now think charitably. about the future against immediate self-interest, and do things that are good for the country,

so that not only the next president, but that president, who finally has power as a Democrat. after Trump, would curtail his own powers? I don't see how that's possible in the laws. of the political universe that we live in. JON STEWART: Right. Dan, does that make sense? PREET BHARARA: We need a commission. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, it's like--. Trump is the current end state of a sort of inexorable rise. in executive power that's been going on. with every previous president. Every president has had more than the last, in part. because Congress has sort of abdicated. all of their responsibilities for oversight, the--.

the entire idea of impeachment is. now mathematically impossible. JON STEWART: Impeachment, by the way--. I think that's one of the things that Trump did. That was always held out as kind. of the nuclear weapon, if you will, of accountability for an executive. By Trump being impeached twice, what it showed itself to be is. just another paper-thin political. process that really had no--.

that had no teeth. Oh, he was impeached twice. It almost felt like he got a speeding ticket. Like, it seems that impeachment is. now even no longer a guardrail of accountability. within the executive. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah, because even--. like, I remember a conversation with the White House staff. and President Obama during the middle. of the debt ceiling crisis, when we were about to--. United States wouldn't be able to pay its bill. We'd default on our bills. It would be a huge crisis. And one of the options, as ridiculous as it sounds,

is for the Treasury to mint a coin, declare it worth a trillion dollars, and say we have money. JON STEWART: I remember the op ed by Krugman. DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. And the-- so it's on there. And what would happen-- and one of the views is, what would happen if you did it? And the idea is that the Republican Congress. would impeach President Obama. And you'd say, well, the Senate, they're not going to get half the Democratic senators. to vote to convict him. But he would forever have that black mark. And the view is that would cripple. his presidency going forward.

But clearly, that's not the case. In fact, Trump's numbers went up. during the course of his impeachment. proceeding the first time. JON STEWART: Well, Bill Clinton too. I mean, when they tried to impeach Bill Clinton--. I think Clinton was the first one where you saw impeachment. as, oh, this is a bit of a--. a kind of a pomp-and-circumstance process. that doesn't really have teeth and mean anything. PREET BHARARA: It happened the second time, right? Donald Trump's political fortunes. were on the wane, as I understand it, until one inflection point--.

his indictment by the Manhattan DA. That's when his fortunes started rising again. And so not only did he have two impeachments that he got. through, four indictments, and one set. of convictions on 34 counts. So we talked about Reagan being Teflon. JON STEWART: You know, in some ways--. in some ways-- and not to bring it back to the measles. But it did immunize him. To some extent, if you've been impeached twice,

and you've been convicted of felonies, and you're still walking around, well, now you have a certain herd. immunity with MAGA that allows you to act. with impunity on almost--. look, even this Epstein thing. He's out there. My ratings are up 4 or 5 points. This is awesome. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah. The math doesn't actually show that, but I mean, still. JON STEWART: I'm not suggesting that that's true. I'm just suggesting that that's the way he goes there. So would you guys advocate, at least,

though, a close reading for the Democrats. of what this type of executive manipulation. could mean to at least protecting, in some ways, minority rights in this country, or any of those other things that need protecting? PREET BHARARA: Yeah, I think hardball should. be in the playbook for Democrats in a way. that it hasn't been before-- not to break the law,

not to do egregious things, not to be cruel, not to take away people's rights. But we have seen at least a version of a blueprint. of asserting very significant executive power. to get your own agenda done. I mean, I wouldn't advocate, and I would. repudiate, efforts to mimic his overreach in many of the ways. that he's done so. But there's a lot of distance between what Democrats seem. to be doing now, and have done in the past,

and what Trump is doing. And somewhere in between that, I think, is an ethical, but hardball approach to politics. But of course, I'm not the political expert Dan is. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah. No, I 100% agree with that. Like, we-- Trump has set a model. that we can follow about just an incredibly. aggressive use of--. JON STEWART: The levels of coercion, the levels. of power that you can use. DAN PFEIFFER: I think the question-- here, I think the test case for the Democratic president. starting in 2029 is like--.

JON STEWART: Look at Dan's optimism. Did everybody-- did everybody clock that? DAN PFEIFFER: Well, I'm just-- like, I mean, we gotta live with some hope here. PREET BHARARA: Did you say 3029? DAN PFEIFFER: Yes. Yeah. 20-- some century. PREET BHARARA: By 3029, I think we can do it. JON STEWART: Right, right, right. DAN PFEIFFER: Like, we should obviously. be incredibly aggressive. If there is an agency that's not doing what it should be. doing, we should feel-- we should try to reshape. it in the way Trump has. We should use power to build back aggressively the things. that Trump has taken apart, like USAID,

like just aggressively do that, push forward, be willing to lose in court if you can legitimately. believe that there is a ground from which you should do it. The thing Trump really did, because he's lost a lot, is he got caught trying on a lot of things. by his supporters. Even if he didn't succeed in them, looked like he. was trying to do things. And you'd much rather be seen doing. stuff than not doing stuff. JON STEWART: Sure. Yes, we can, I think, is their motto. Isn't that Trump's motto? Somebody's motto. DAN PFEIFFER: It's definitely not, si, se puede. But yes.

PREET BHARARA: Isn't there a reason. that Rahm Emanuel is gaining some traction? Because he's a little bit of a bellicose Democrat. JON STEWART: I don't know, in this--. I mean, I think it's probably very early for anybody. to have a rush. I think where I put a little bit of faith, and it's probably misplaced, is that as the actions that he's. taking accumulate in their audacity, I do think there's gonna come a moment, as we get closer to a possible change in power,

that some Republican institutions, law firms, Preet, that you might know, that might go, hey, they might do this shit to us. And maybe we need to be allied in some ways. with those that have been--. maybe you have Claremont College or Liberty University. going, you know what? I'm seeing how they're going to destroy Harvard. And we're close enough to a shift in power.

that I might want to throw my hat in allyship. DAN PFEIFFER: That's the question for Democrats, is, Trump is aggressively going after all. the institutional opponents to conservatism, right? The media, universities, law firms. Would Democrats do that to the institutional opponents. to progressives? Conservative media. JON STEWART: I would think, at this point, you have to. That has to be on the table, because--.

DAN PFEIFFER: But what about Liberty University, right? Like--. JON STEWART: No, that's what I'm saying. DAN PFEIFFER: Yeah. JON STEWART: So wouldn't they stand up and go, oh, they're. gonna turn this shit on us? Why wouldn't they? PREET BHARARA: Dan's earlier answer, which was, because they've met Democrats. DAN PFEIFFER: Well, I mean, the question--. PREET BHARARA: They don't believe it. DAN PFEIFFER: They don't they don't believe that-- they don't. believe we would do that. JON STEWART: You don't think Democrats could. elect a vindictive prick? DAN PFEIFFER: I don't know. I mean--. JON STEWART: Really? PREET BHARARA: I already mentioned Rahm Emanuel. [LAUGHTER]. And that's why I mentioned him. And you pooh-poohed it one minute ago.

JON STEWART: I was not pooh-poohing. PREET BHARARA: I mentioned Rahm Emanuel. JON STEWART: I'm not a pooh-pooher. PREET BHARARA: And you were like, yeah, settle down. DAN PFEIFFER: He might have other vindictive dicks. that he thinks could win. JON STEWART: I would never pooh-pooh, for god's sakes. PREET BHARARA: The kind of worry. is that the emulation of Trump is not. going to be the pragmatic and Nietzchean grab. for power, but the trolling. DAN PFEIFFER: Right. JON STEWART: Right. PREET BHARARA: I don't know what. people think of Gavin Newsom. He's sort of trolling, as opposed to--.

JON STEWART: But I'm saying, you can learn--. he has left-- he has left a roadmap. for coercion and leverage of power. that is not going to go away. PREET BHARARA: Yeah. Republicans have not read that portion. of Article 2 of the Constitution that says, what goes around comes around. JON STEWART: Right. I believe that was Madison when they. would make fun of his height. But that-- yeah, it's a different thing. Guys, I can't thank you enough.

Very, very interesting conversation. Preet Bharara, former US Attorney, SDNY, podcast, Stay Tuned with Preet. Dan Pfeiffer, cohost of Pod Save America and author. He's got Message Box, which is a newsletter. about political strategy. Guys, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it. PREET BHARARA: Great to be here. Thanks so much. DAN PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jon. JON STEWART: Bye, guys. [MUSIC PLAYING]. I guess what it comes down to, the takeaway. from the whole thing, is the Democrats. need a vindictive dick. [LAUGHTER]. I love the fact that Preet is like, I don't know.

Rahm Emanuel's kind of a vindictive dick. I think he could do it. LAUREN WALKER: Yeah, he had that name real quick. JON STEWART: Right? GILLIAN SPEAR: Uh, just off the top of my head. JON STEWART: But it did still strike me-- like, we're running. through all the ways that he is coercing. every liberal progressive, or things that he. deems liberal progressive. And then you're like, so Democrats could do this? Like, I don't know, man. That seems like, I don't know. Like, wouldn't people be mad? It's just like, what? LAUREN WALKER: Or, have you met a Democrat? I liked that line. JON STEWART: Right. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah.

The Republicans are so unafraid of us turning. any of this shit on them. LAUREN WALKER: But imagine if they do. The Republicans will be shocked beyond belief. JON STEWART: Right. No. It will be, how dare you? At long last. Have you no decency? They will take to--. I mean, there is no moral center. Remember, Mike Johnson just said, we all have to get to the root of this Epstein conspiracy. There has to be full transparency. A day later, I'm very--.

I'm OK with the--. meanwhile, the DOJ is saying, oh, yeah, we're gonna talk to Ghislaine Maxwell. Who in their right mind doesn't think that they're just gonna. go to Ghislaine Maxwell and go, here's what we need you to do. to get a pardon, or here's--. you like steak? You like lobster? You want to eat it every night? We can't pardon you right now because it. would look too fucked up. But we need you to come out and go, they don't even know each other. GILLIAN SPEAR: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean, for Mike Johnson, morality.

and transparency is telling your son. what porn you're watching. [LAUGHTER]. Starts there and ends there. JON STEWART: Gillian Spear, sounds. like you could be the vindictive dick. we're looking for. [LAUGHTER]. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, they never said it couldn't be a she. JON STEWART: Ah. And that is the Democratic twist. They'll never see it coming from a she. GILLIAN SPEAR: A lady dick. JON STEWART: A lady vindictive dick. Magnificent.

Well, it was, I thought, a very fun conversation. Brittany, what are the kids-- what are the listeners. thinking for us this week? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Alrighty. Jon. JON STEWART: Yes? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon. JON STEWART: They always start with Jon. Do they actually use my name in them, Jon? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Sometimes, yes. JON STEWART: Oh, all right. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: This one, they did. JON STEWART: Mr. S.? Señor Stewart? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Why do you think. Trump isn't suing Elon for tweeting that Trump. is in the Epstein files?

JON STEWART: I cannot for the life of me think. why Trump wouldn't sue Elon for "Trump. is in the Epstein files.". Trump is so clearly all over the Epstein files that--. I mean, that--. LAUREN WALKER: He's trying to get back at him in other ways, too, like trying to get a different contractor. for their Golden Dome. JON STEWART: No, they went in, and they. were like, we're gonna get rid of all those SpaceX contracts. And then they went in, and they're like, actually, uh, we can't. LAUREN WALKER: There's no one else. JON STEWART: There's no one else.

that can launch a satellite that--. we can't use NASA because we cut their funding to the point. where they are a non-functioning organization. Like, we're gutting the very government. that would give us options. LAUREN WALKER: Right. And who led that charge, in some respect? It's almost like the guy that we have. to give all our money to you. JON STEWART: You just blew my mind, young lady, although Elon has not--. you know, he knows that those contracts are up.

Like, they-- I do think they have. a little bit of a China-US, like, mutually. assured destruction. Like, I think they know enough about each other. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. But he's been awfully quiet lately, don't you think? JON STEWART: Yeah. No question, I think. But he's still got his lovely social media. platform, which is MechaHitler-ing. all over people's timelines. So it's still a very positive-- net positive for humanity.

Really exciting stuff. What else they got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Not starting with Jon this time. JON STEWART: Nice. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Given the current state of politics, could a book like Profiles in Courage even be written today? JON STEWART: First of all, it could absolutely be written. I think the problem with books is not if they can be written. It's if anybody's gonna read them. And I have no idea what Profiles-- yeah. I mean, and by the way, and to think that Profiles in Courage, written by JFK-- we have a tendency to lionize and, with.

glossy haze, look back and--. John F. Kennedy wrote that book that was not cynical at all. His father had no designs on making. the PT captain the president. Like, it's all a little bit of cynical craftsmanship. All those fucking-- those books that people--. that's one of the first steps to launching. the campaign is the hagiography of all kinds of other--. so yeah, it could definitely be written.

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Would anyone read it? JON STEWART: And perhaps turned into a hot prestige series. on Hulu. Well, this is all lovely. I gotta tell you, this episode has. lifted my spirits in ways that-- this. has been an unpleasant week. LAUREN WALKER: Yeah, I really appreciated. those silver linings, as thin as they. were, that they offered. JON STEWART: No, it was nice, because you do realize, with all the power that they have, like, we fight, we curse, we laugh. But they still are just like, yeah, I.

think we're gonna pressure them enough to take these people off. the air, and that person, or we're. gonna pressure them enough that that person won't ever. get a chance to get on air. Like, that shit's real. And--. GILLIAN SPEAR: I mean, Preet's silver lining was like, at least they still feel like they. need to have a justification. [LAUGHTER]. JON STEWART: It's nice to read the memo sometimes. LAUREN WALKER: The one I've been. telling myself is, it doesn't come from a place of strength. GILLIAN SPEAR: Oh. JON STEWART: I kind of like that, Lauren. By the way, that is true.

Every dictatorship, those movements. are not based on how powerful they think they are. It's how fragile they are. And ultimately, they are. The thing about the United States. and that whole rule of law thing. is it has a stability to it that. allows our economic progress, and our political progress, and our power in the world. And if you erode that stability, you really actually erode the secret sauce. of why this country has done so well over all this time.

And that's the irony of this entire operation. He's making us vulnerable, not great. But a fine, fine episode, as always. Lead Producer Lauren Walker, Producer Brittany Mehmedovic, Video Editor and Engineer Rob Vitola, Audio Editor and Engineer Nicole Boyce, Researcher and Associate Producer. Gillian Spear, Executive Producers Chris McShane, Katie Gray. I can't thank you guys enough. You rocked it. See you next week.

[MUSIC PLAYING]. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount. Audio and Busboy Productions. [MUSIC PLAYING].