Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Maggie Haberman:

The Trump folks, you asked how they feel. Do see it as something of a gift that the Manhattan DA case went first? Because they think that it is the most trivial of the cases. They like to say weak. I don’t actually think it is a weak case. The question is whether people think that it should have been brought.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Maggie Haberman. She’s a senior political correspondent at the New York Times, where she won Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Donald Trump’s top advisors and their connections to Russia. She’s written about the former president for decades, reporting extensively on him since 2016. Over the last couple of weeks on this podcast, we have focused on the legal implications of Trump’s indictment in Manhattan. So I wanted to speak with Maggie about the political impact. How might the charges play out in the GOP Presidential primary? How is the White House responding? And how is Trump personally handling all of this? That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

QUESTION AND ANSWER:

Now let’s get to your questions. This question comes in a tweet from Leon. Do you think the Trump’s stolen documents case will result in indictments soon? Such is a great question. I like the way you have asked the question super neutrally. The Trump’s stolen documents case. You’re of course, Leon, referring to the investigation that has been taken over by special counsel Jack Smith at the Justice Department, relating to documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Over 100 classified documents. There was a long back and forth as you may recall, are talking about and from other news reports between Trump, the people around Trump and the Justice Department, and the National Archives.

I think that the signs are there that an indictment is likely and probably not too far off. That’s in part because it’s not that complicated a case. They’re not that many witnesses you have to bring to bear in the grand jury. They’re not that many documents you have to deal with. The theory of the case is rather simple. I think the reporting and the information we have otherwise indicates that it’s not likely to be a prosecution, if there is one, based on the mishandling of classified documents per se. But rather the narrative that’s being developed by Jack Smith, through putting people in the grand jury and otherwise, is that Donald Trump intentionally obstructed an investigation about the documents. So it’s an obstruction charge, probably not a mishandling of classified documents charge.

No case is simple and no cases fully straightforward. But of the four things that Donald Trump is facing, prosecution in Manhattan, prosecution in Georgia, the investigation that Jackson Smith is also doing relating to the events of January 6th, and this Mar-a-Lago documents matter. The Mar-a-Lago documents matter is probably the simplest and most straightforward and the least sprawling. The other signs that an indictment is likely to happen is the speed with which Jack Smith seems to be proceeding and the aggressiveness with which he seems to be proceeding. There’s significant reporting from the Washington Post, from great reporters there in the last 10 days or so, that talks about all the new pieces of evidence that Jack Smith seems to have. Including video evidence.

This bit of reporting is pretty astonishing. Let me quote from the Washington Post article for a moment. Quote, “In the classified documents case, federal investigators have gathered new and significant evidence that after the subpoena was delivered.” Remember a subpoena went to Donald Trump after it was certified that all the documents have been turned over. “So after the subpoena was delivered,” according to the Washington Post, “Trump looked through the contents of some of the boxes of documents in his home apparently out of a desire to keep certain things in his possession. The people familiar with the investigation said.” Let me read further.

“Investigators now suspect based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence that boxes including classified material removed from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served. And that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes these people said.” The post some months earlier reported that Trump’s valet told investigators that he moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago at the former President’s instruction, after the subpoena was issued.

So you have multiple examples according to this reporting, if it can be believed, but it’s credible, that Donald Trump himself, himself looked at documents sifted through documents. Tried to keep documents, ordered other people to move documents. The fact that all this is being leaked and being discovered by the press, and the nature of the case as a general matter caused me to cautiously predict that there will be an indictment. Notwithstanding the fact that there’s also an investigation going on with respect to classified documents found at facilities that were being used by former Vice President Joe Biden, and former Vice President Mike Pence.

So of course we continue to get questions pouring in with respect to the indictment against Donald Trump, that was unsealed just last week. There are lots of questions about the evidence, there’s lots of questions about the propriety bringing the case. There’s a lot of questions about venue and everything else, and we’ll address those in due course. And Joyce Vance and I talk about a lot of that on the CAFE Insider Podcast. One thing we also discussed, which I think is interesting to bring to your attention if you haven’t heard about it, is something that’s happening in the immediate future. And that is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, is holding a hearing with respect to some of this.

What’s interesting about it and unusual about it is that he’s holding the hearing in my city. The city of New York. Where he intends to cast aspersions on the motivations and the practices of Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg. Wants to defend the former president of the United States against what he calls and they call political witch hunt. What’s further interesting is that Jim Jordan first asked for voluntary participation by. And when that was not forthcoming, has now subpoenaed Mark Pomerance, former special assistant district attorney who you’ve heard about on this show and otherwise. Who famously resigned from the DA’s office largely because he didn’t believe Alvin Bragg was going to pursue a case, a different criminal case relating to asset valuation against Donald Trump. And what I find kind of interesting is that Chairman Jordan is trying in some way to convert that criticism by Mark Pomerance into proof that it’s a political witch hunt and a political prosecution with respect to the hush money payments.

And I don’t know that that quite computes. Here’s a quote from the letter Jim Jordan sent to Mark Pomerance. Quote, “Just this month you published a book excoriating Bragg for not aggressively prosecuting President Trump. Laying bear the office’s internal deliberations about the investigation, and your personal animus toward President Trump. It now appears that your efforts to shame Bragg have worked, as he’s reportedly resurrecting a so-called zombie case against President Trump, using a tenuous and untested legal theory. Your book, again, unfairly disparaged President Trump and now opens the door to examination about the District Attorney’s office commitment to even-handed justice.”

So I find that sort of peculiar. They’ll engage in the sense they want to engage in and engage in the political support for Donald Trump that they feel is necessary, because he remains leader of their party and very likely will be the Republican nominee notwithstanding a move by Ron DeSantis in that direction. It is odd to me that Jim Jordan thinks that the history between Mark Pomeranz and that other case is somehow indicative of, or proof of a political motivation by Alvin Bragg. After all, the thing that Mark Pomeranz was not happy about was Alvin Bragg’s resistance to bringing a case that Pomeranz thought was fairly strong.

That does not signify somebody who’s grasping at straws and running to the fastest grand jury to try to indict someone. He had the opportunity to do it. And the fact that he didn’t do it and got some criticism from Mark Pomeranz, I don’t see how that connects to a pressure campaign on Alvin Bragg to do this other case. That he took a look at, as he said at the press conference, obtain new evidence about and brought that second case.

So the stunt will happen. I don’t know if it’ll have any effect. I think the rest of us should keep our eye on the ball, see what happens in court. See what evidence is adduced, see what motions are made, see how the judge reacts. And we’ll all continue to stay tuned.

I’ll be right back with my conversation with Maggie Haberman. What is Donald Trump’s next move after being indicted by the Manhattan DA? There isn’t a reporter around who knows the former reality TV star and president, better than senior New York Times political correspondent Maggie Haberman.

THE INTERVIEW:

Maggie Haberman:

Preet, thanks for having me.

Preet Bharara:

It’s hard to believe that it’s been over five years since you were here back in 2018.

Maggie Haberman:

That is hard to believe-

Preet Bharara:

Did you forget about us?

Maggie Haberman:

I started test. I definitely did not forget about you. I didn’t realize that it had been that long, but you’re right-

Preet Bharara:

It’s kind of crazy. It’s a-

Maggie Haberman:

A lots happened since then.

Preet Bharara:

A lot’s happening and a lot hasn’t happened.

Maggie Haberman:

That’s also true. That is also true.

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Maggie Haberman:

And when you put it that way.

Preet Bharara:

So I want to tell you about a memory I have from the last time we were together on the podcast. So five years and change ago before the pandemic, the great Covid-19, we were in person. And today you are in a home and I’m in a home, so I can’t see you. And so I can’t make this observation today, but I made it the last time we were on the podcast together. And you’re a busy person, I’m a busy person, and we like to be responsive and we like to be connected. And maybe we both, I would dare to say, have an unhealthy addiction to our phones.

And there have been times when I, and I see other people, in the middle of a conversation. Even I dare say in the middle of an interview, I might check my phone. Maybe there’s a message from the team. Maybe my family needs to reach me, when the other person is speaking. So I might check my phone when I’m listening. I saw you texting during the interview while you were speaking. That I’ve never seen before. In the middle of a podcast interview, you picked up your phone… Listeners wouldn’t know it or would’ve gotten that you were doing that. Other than your speech got just a little bit slower.

Maggie Haberman:

It’s just a mild embarrassed laugh that I did that. But yes, I’d like to tell you that it was an isolated incident Preet and that I learned and that never happened again-

Preet Bharara:

The texting and speaking, that I’ve never seen.

Maggie Haberman:

Well, it’s probably not advisable. I try to do it less than I used to. I think at that period of time when I was on in 2018, I’m trying to remember exactly what month it was. But 2018 was the year that Michael Cohen’s office and home were searched by the FBI. And the year when we were reporting after the Wall Street Journal first broke the news about the payment from Cohen to Stormy Daniels. That Cohen acknowledged to me that he had made this payment. And then we had Cohen pleading guilty. And so I feel like there were all kinds of things that might have required my picking up phone.

Preet Bharara:

Required in that moment. Okay.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I’m going to let that go. We’ll come back to it.

Maggie Haberman:

Thank you. Okay. I appreciate it. Let’s table it if you will for now.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll table it. We’ll circle back as they say.

Maggie Haberman:

Thank you. Good. Very good.

Preet Bharara:

But now let’s level set. Do these terms that people use that we didn’t use to use before.

Maggie Haberman:

That’s so true.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t even know what level set means, but I hear it all the time.

Maggie Haberman:

You know what? It could be emotional level setting. It could be technology level setting. Who knows? It could be anything.

Preet Bharara:

Well on the podcast level setting means something different. Anyway, so obviously we need to talk about the gigantic news of recent days. We’re recording this on Monday, April 10th in the morning. Donald Trump has been indicted. He has been arraigned. I feel like you know his psychology and the psychology of people around him better than any other reporter. And you’ve talked a little bit about this. What’s his mood? What’s the mood of the people around him? How are they handling this?

Maggie Haberman:

So his mood has broken into a couple of different parts. There was the sort of pseudo heady diving in before the actual indictment. And almost trying to dare the Manhattan District Attorney to indict him, suggesting that telling him-

Preet Bharara:

Dare accepted.

Maggie Haberman:

Right, exactly. Yes. Challenge met. Trying to insist to people around him that he was a fun experience. He was excited for a possible perp walk. This was, I think, bravado. This is something that he has saw to avoid for a very long time, Preet, which is getting indicted. And with an indictment comes an arrest. And Donald Trump for all of his eccentricities, shall we say, and ways in which that he is different from other people. I don’t think he’s so different that he actually wants to be arrested. In fact, I’m quite sure of it.

So there was that show of bravado until the actual indictment happened. And the indictment caught him and a number of members of his team by surprise. In part because they had convinced themselves that the case was falling apart. They believed reports, and then I think in some cases stuff they were hearing on their own that the grand jury that had been sitting and hearing the case was adjourned for a month. That obviously turned out not to be true.

So all of that then leads into the actual arraignment day/arrest. And he was not throwing staplers or furniture or what have you, but he was very angry about the indictment. He did not want to be arrested. The look on his face, Preet, when he went into the courtroom and the image has now been seen all over the place, said it all. And what was interesting is in the courtroom when he was sitting at the defense table and he was flanked by lawyers. And one camera was allowed. I think it was just one camera was allowed into the courtroom to take what I think was a pool shot.

And Trump apparently locked eyes on that camera on the lens. He knew what he wanted to look like in that shot. And this is a guy who as spends a lot of time thinking about visuals. I think he had put a lot of time into what the physicality was going to be of this moment. And then he-

Preet Bharara:

How would you describe the look? How would you describe the look? Defiant?

Maggie Haberman:

Resigned. Resigned, and somewhat defiant. There were times that I looked at that photo and I thought he looked pretty tired, honestly. But he was definitely resigned and sort of dug in. And then he went back to Florida, and then he was in a great mood. And he was making a show of letting everyone say that he was in a great mood because that is what he has done when the chips are down for decades. He shows that he’s doing just fine.

And so I think the people around him, it was a very… A number of people said to me that Tuesday, that the arrest day last week was very intense. It was exhausting. They weren’t quite sure what to expect. It was a little daunting being in that situation with him. And then they felt like they had survived it and got out. And then on they go, now they believe politically this indictment is going to help them in the Republican primary. It certainly seems to have given Trump at least a short-term boost. I don’t know that that will be the case if there are other indictments, but I think that’s where they’re right now.

Preet Bharara:

Who is he angry at other than Alvin Bragg?

Maggie Haberman:

He is angry at… That’s a good question. He is angry at Michael Cohen. He is angry at Stormy Daniels. He is angry at the press. He is angry at Republicans who are not with him. He is angry. One of the things that I have heard a lot since he left office from people who have spoken to him is that he’s quicker to anger. And that makes a lot of sense. And so I think you’re seeing some of that right now.

Preet Bharara:

I think you’ve written that and others have written that he’s afraid he was afraid of this.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

What does that mean? And why is he afraid, given that on so many other occasions he’s avoided accountability under the law?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, so I would just say a couple of things. There aren’t actually that many times prior to the presidency when he avoided accountability under the law in criminal investigations. He was criminally investigated in 1979 by Ed Corman, who was then the Brooklyn Federal Prosecutor. I should caveat that, and I did not know this obviously at the time, but Ed Corman performed my wedding ceremony. And then I found out in the last couple of years that he had played this role in investigating Trump.

It was a quick six-month investigation with a looming statute of limitations approaching on fraud. And it related to how Trump had acquired a parcel of land in Manhattan. The case didn’t go anywhere. It became sort of a template for Trump in terms of schmoozing and dealing, and him believing… And I don’t think this is why, but he believed that he had escaped this by dint of his charm and his ability to talk to investigators. And he made a habit of collecting prosecutors over the years. But the reality is that in terms of just associations. But the reality is that other than a 2013 investigation by Cy Vance, Alvin Bragg’s predecessor into a deal that Trump’s children were involved with in Soho. There haven’t been a ton of criminal investigations related to Trump. Most of his legal issues have been civil.

And they really became criminal when he became president. Or at least I would say actually even in the 2016 campaign when there was this counterintelligence investigation that was opened. And so when he was president that there was never going to be an indictment of a sitting president. So he’s avoided it, I think just by virtue of either people not looking for something, or because whatever he was doing did not merit an investigation, or on and on and on. But I think that the sort of threat of being investigated, the threat of people, the government coming for you has always loomed very large for him. And that’s why I believe he was afraid of this. And I think it’s most importantly, Preet, it’s out of his control. And he is someone who so prizes control in everything he does that I think that it’s hard to ignore.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it’s not quite out of his control. The thing I was going to ask you is has it ever occurred to Donald Trump over the course of years and decades that one way to avoid scrutiny is not to do shady stuff? I mean, look, yeah. You can make the argument that you’re a certain kind of person. I don’t believe this to be true. And you’ll attract attention because of politics or whatever. But when you engage in certain kinds of behavior like calling up the president of Ukraine and engaging an extortion. Or fermenting violence at the capitol, or taking classified documents and not returning them. Or lying about a retainer to… All these things were totally in his control. How does he think about that? Do you know?

Maggie Haberman:

He doesn’t think about that as something that was his responsibility. He should be allowed to do what he wants and people coming for him are the threat. I mean, this is somebody who has behaved throughout his existence as if systems and rules should not apply to him. And that was certainly true in the presidency. That’s sort of what you’re talking about in terms of that phone call to the Ukrainian president Zelenskyy. And so I think the way he thinks about this is, can you believe this is happening to me? If that makes sense.

Preet Bharara:

Victim.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Victim. Victim. Victim. Yeah. How does he think about his lawyers? I mean famously people have talked about, because that’s super interesting to me as a lawyer and been on both sides of this. Famously he had Roy Cohn as his lawyer. You’ve mentioned another lawyer who he’s angry at Michael Cohen, who is his right hand man. Helped him facilitate the payments to Stormy Daniels, which are at the center of the charges obviously against Michael Cohen. And now also at the center of the charges against Donald Trump.

He’s had other lawyers who’ve gotten in trouble, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who have been sanctioned by the court. Most recently, he added a lawyer who used to work for me, who’s a very good and smart attorney, Todd Blanch. Talk a little bit about how he thinks about lawyers and how his feelings about lawyers and his selection of lawyers has evolved, if at all over time.

Maggie Haberman:

Sure. My colleague, Jonathan Swan, and I just actually wrote a story about this that ran over the weekend about Trump and lawyers. And he has spent decades trying to have people serve in the model of Roy Cohn, who was his first real fixer wear. And everyone else has been some semblance of that. Obviously nobody was Roy Cohn for a variety of reasons. One of which is that Roy Cohn is very smart, but Roy Cohn himself was indicted.

Preet Bharara:

And you’re saying different from-

Maggie Haberman:

I’m saying that not everybody, not for all of his lawyers to be clear. But there are certainly members of his team over the years who have not been Clarence Darrow. I think that Roy Cohn also was in legal trouble himself repeatedly, and acquitted or ended in a mistrial on the foreign indictments. Ultimately, he was disbarred not long before his death. But that is what Trump seeks. Trump likes lawyers who generally will do anything. And he has been looking for that as long as history goes back with him. Todd Blanche is a bit of a different fit. Todd Blanche came

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. He’s actually smart and competent.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah, he’s a good lawyer. He’s a solid lawyer. And there are other solid lawyers around Trump right now. Chris Kise from Florida is a solid lawyer. There are other people who… Susan Nicholas, who has worked with the Trump organization for a while, Alan Futerfas, who was part of the Trump Organization trial. These are real lawyers. But then he has a bunch of people who he likes to see go on television. And it’s not that they’re not real lawyers, but they are people who he likes to see in a certain casting role. And that is one of the questions that he tends to ask people. Which is, we go on TV. Can you go on TV? Can you fight? Can do this, can you do that?

Preet Bharara:

And Joe Tacopina for example.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah, So Joe Tacopina, it’s funny, Joe Tacopina has been around New York legal circles for a very, very long time. I first met Joe in 2000 when he was representing one of the cops in the second trial related to the Abner Louima police brutality case, when I was covering Brooklyn federal court. And so Joe has been a very combative legal presence for a very long time. Some of his appearances on television have been pretty criticized by other members of Trump’s team, who felt that those appearances were unhelpful. But Trump really liked him because he was fighting. And so that is what Trump really values.

Trump had this line to me when I interviewed him for my book on him in one of three interviews. This was the first one in March of 2021. I asked him, other than Roy Cohn who were good lawyers for him? And the only other person he mentioned was Jay Goldberg, who had represented him in his divorce with Ivana Trump. I believe Jay Goldberg has passed away since. But he talked about he was quick on his feet. He was a great Harvard student. He was quick on his quick feet. So there are the two credentials.

One is a marquee law school, and one is quick on his feet, whatever that means. And then Trump went on to say, “A lot of these lawyers…” Well, I’m paraphrasing. But it was a lot of these lawyers they choke when the press calls, when you call, when the press calls, they just they choke. And that really is how he sees this. It’s all sort of how you handle him in public representation as opposed to legal representation.

Preet Bharara:

So do you have any inside scoop about the Todd Blanche appointment?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, Todd Blanche also represents one of Trump’s in-house counsel’s Boris Epstein. And Boris Epstein played a role in Blanche getting hired. Trump, I’m told, also sought the view of Paul Manafort, who was… I think his name is probably pretty familiar to your listeners. But he was the campaign chairman in 2016. He became ensnared in the Mueller probe into possible ties between the campaign and Russian officials. He did serve jail time. Other than Michael Cohn. I think he’s really the only one who did. And Trump ultimately pardoned him. But Blanche represented Manafort in a New York case related to Manafort and that case was dismissed. And so I believe that Manafort talked him up to Trump as well.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that the strategy for Trump legal and otherwise, but mostly I’m talking about legal strategy is what I think you’ve written before, attack the prosecutors and delay as much as possible? And given the timetable of the election, how do you think they’re thinking about timing of a trial?

Maggie Haberman:

That’s a really good question. So what came up in the court hearing during the arraignment was that Trump’s earliest return date I believe is going to be December. The first-

Preet Bharara:

It’s pretty far away.

Maggie Haberman:

It’s pretty far away. And then the prosecutors were talking about a very quick trial start after that in January. I think Trump’s lawyers wanted to push it back. I believe it was as far back as September of 2024, which obviously would get it to be right before the general election. That all assumes that Trump is a nominee, which the polls at the moment certainly indicate is the likely. Still though, it’s a poll in April, so who knows? But April, the out year.

Chris Kise is one of Trump’s lawyers who I mentioned who’s not an attorney of record on the case involving Alvin Bragg. But Trump’s various lawyers all have some level of visibility into various cases. And Kise had suggested to me that speed would actually, and transparency are actually Trump’s friends in this case. Because he believes the facts are generally on Trump’s side. But so far I’ve seen no indication that Trump’s lawyers are going to do anything other than take as long as possible.

Preet Bharara:

It’s a sort of political and legal judgment. Do you think he wants the trial to be pending at the time of the election or to have been completed by the time of the election? There’s a little risk in that. No?

Maggie Haberman:

There is a little risk in that. I think that his habit is just a delay as long as possible, and I don’t think that he’s looking at a weighty calculation of exactly what days might look like. I think he just wants to push it back as long as he can.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Do you think the lawyers have a sense or some consensus about how weak or strong the charges are? You mentioned one of them just thinks that the facts are on Trump’s side. Is that the consensus?

Maggie Haberman:

That’s generally the consensus. Yeah. I mean most of them think that this is a case that they can have a decent amount of luck with in pretrial motions. I’m obviously not a lawyer, so I don’t know enough to know if that’s true, but I think they think that they can have some luck there. I think that they’re all aware that Manhattan is not a particularly hospitable jury pool for Donald Trump. There are parts of Manhattan that are more favorable to him than others, but it’s tough.

Preet Bharara:

And what is their expectation with respect to these other three potential criminal cases against him?

Maggie Haberman:

That’s a really good question. So Georgia is the case that Trump in particular has been very worried about. Although I would say he’s now quite worried about the boxes case, the Mar-a-Lago boxes case as well. Georgia, I think, and this I’m just surmising, is nervous making to him because he’s on tape.

Preet Bharara:

But it was a perfect call.

Maggie Haberman:

So putting that aside, I think that that’s a part of it. The Mar-a-Lago boxes case is a concern to Trump’s advisors. They see how aggressively the federal prosecutors and investigators are looking at this. And I think the fact that some of his advisors have made very clear that not only the prosecutors, but at least the previous chief judge overseeing the grand jury, Bar Howell, who has since left that post and has been replaced by Judge Bosberg. But Howell, they believed in her rulings made pretty plain she considers what one advisor said to me is that Trump is a criminal. And so I don’t think they feel great about that case.

Preet Bharara:

They don’t feel emboldened over time with respect to the documents case, when it was discovered that Biden had classified documents, and Pence had classified documents?

Maggie Haberman:

They felt great about that. Those were very useful headlines.

Preet Bharara:

Those were the days, those were the sound days.

Maggie Haberman:

Right. That was heavy. Those were great moments for them. But those are hard to sustain when there’s still a bunch of other legal facts. So they felt great about what that meant as they were. I mean, one of the things, and Preet, I think we talked about this the last time I was here. Although as you pointed out, it was much longer ago than I realized. Trump, part of his MO is always to conflate PR issues with legal issues. And so the fact that Biden had boxes of documents, or not in boxes, I think he had some documents. Pence had some documents. I think it was a very, very small fraction of how many Trump had.

But that became a discussion of, look, everyone does it. Everyone has it. It’s a way to just sort of muddy the waters. Muddying the waters doesn’t really work with prosecutors, it works in public. It can work with the judge, maybe-

Preet Bharara:

I can speak from experience.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah. And so I think there’s the, Trump is increasingly experiencing a schism between his PR efforts and his legal efforts in a way that he really rarely has.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Maggie Haberman after this. You said something early on when we were talking about the political consequences of this indictment, and how it’s been probably a positive. He’s raised a bunch of money. He seems to have separated himself in the polls, at least in recent days from Ron DeSantis a bit more. But you said, well, a lot of this depends on what other cases drop.

Let’s say Georgia brings a case, and the documents case is brought by the Department of Justice. Let’s put aside January 6th for a moment. Based on your coverage of many elections and the arc of Donald Trump’s career, is that going to further galvanize his base or will they fray?

Maggie Haberman:

We don’t know. I’m loathed to predict for many reasons, one of which is just the generally I’m loathed to predict, but I think that it was… The Trump folks, you asked how they feel do see it as something of a gift that the Manhattan DA case went first. Because they think that it is the most trivial of the cases. They like to say weak. I don’t actually think it is a weak case. I think that if you read that statement of fact that went with the indictment, the question is whether people think that it should have been brought. I think that they have seen a way to get political upside out of it, and to try to use it to tarnish whatever else might come as political.

But I think that at a certain point, if you’re talking about multiple indictments in different jurisdictions, I think that’s a lot of freight. Right now, Trump is doing well enough in the Republican primary in part because the majority of Republican primary voters are not voting on electability. Which is really, the DeSantis argument is electability. I don’t know if that starts to get chipped away, if there’s additional indictments.

Preet Bharara:

You mentioned earlier that Trump sat down with you for three interviews when you were doing your book. Why does Trump sit down with you? No offense. Why does he sit down with Bob Woodward? Why does he sit down with people who are going to write books that are not going to be so flattering?

Maggie Haberman:

Because he cannot help himself. And in both cases, it’s sort of the same thing with me, it’s really about the New York Times. And his obsession with the Times. And with Woodward, it’s because Woodward is an iconic legendary name. So that’s as simple as that. And because he is utterly convinced Preet of his own ability to spin you. I remember asking an aide in 2017 after he had been ripping me about something in public. And then he sat down for an interview with me and I said, “Why is he doing this?” And they said, “He wants to see if he can get a good story.” And it really is it. I mean, it’s as simple as that.

Preet Bharara:

Hopes springs eternal

Maggie Haberman:

It’s more, it’s not even hopes springs eternal. It’s more sort of, I’m so talented at being able to spin people that I’ll bet I can do it this time.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Has he ever thought about representing himself in court?

Maggie Haberman:

He tells his lawyers that he’s the best, and that he could do it better than they can. I mean, remember part of his whole thing is telling people that he understands everything better than they do.

Preet Bharara:

Yes. He’s an expert and a stable genius, as he has said himself. You wrote less November that Ronald Lauder was no longer backing his friend of decades, Donald Trump.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

So we talk about his base a lot. What about the donor class and do they matter?

Maggie Haberman:

I think, Preet, they matter less than they ever did if I’m being honest. And I think that we lose sight of how… I’ll get back to your donor question in a second. But something happened over the weekend where Trump, in his first post indictment event, went to a UFC, whatever you call it, fight. This it’s not my area. But this was in Miami on I think Friday night, not Saturday night. And maybe it was Saturday night. Anyway, he went to this event and he apparently was greeted like a hero. And that the crowd reacted in a really electric way.

And the reason that matters is it is a bit of a measurable quantity of celebrity that no one else in the Republican field has. And that he has because he was a celebrity for decades. But he was more than just a celebrity. He was a celebrity who connected with a certain section of voters in the country, on this shared cultural basis. And so he has a durable level of support that I think people do keep underestimating. There is a certain amount of the Republican base that’s going to be with him. And it’s more than 25% at this point that’s going to be with him I think no matter what. And so I do think that that’s really important.

For that with somebody who’s got 100% name ID about whom everyone in the country has an opinion. I mean literally everyone. Donor money makes less of an issue unless that donor money is being put toward negative ads to define an opponent. And that’s what Trump has a super PAC for. Now, I don’t know what the super PAC has raised. DeSantis’ team told me in a story we did last week that they had raised 30 million in the course of just a couple of weeks since they launched. And that’s a huge amount of money.

It seems pretty clear to me that Trump’s amount of money is not that. But I don’t know that it has to be that. I think Trump has never been the favorite of the donor class. He certainly wasn’t in 2016. He only was by dint of being president for the four years after that. Most of these people who supported Trump among Republican donor class would never have been with him had-

Preet Bharara:

If it’s possible, I think he has 102% name recognition. If I’m doing the math correctly-

Maggie Haberman:

I was going to say-

Preet Bharara:

… I think he’s at 102%.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes. I think I’m not 100% sure, but I’m 100% sure that he has 102% name ID. Yes. So I just don’t think that money matters the same way with him.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. No, that’s probably true for the first time in a big race like this.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah, I think that’s right.

Preet Bharara:

And the other thing, we talk about the effect politically on Trump and how he has to campaign and garner support after the indictment. But the other half of the equation is the quandary that all of his opponents are in, because they also have, all of them have to attack the DA and attack the indictment also, which is… How much of a pickle is that for them?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, all you have to do is look at how DeSantis handled it, which was… So Trump, you asked me about why is Trump afraid on an arrest? And I said, it’s because he is not in control. If you think about how much control is incredibly important to Trump, just look at what he did that Saturday morning. Where he posted on Truth Social that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday, which was absolutely not true.

Preet Bharara:

He was trying to control his arrest.

Maggie Haberman:

He was trying to control everything. He was trying to control the news cycle. He was trying to control Republican sudden response. And by the way, it worked. So DeSantis came under two days of pressure from Trump allies and Trump’s own campaign to say something. He finally spoke at an event in Panama City that Monday, and he was very dismissive of Alvin Bragg. Which is not a leap for him because he’s been dismissing liberal prosecutors for a very long time. Alvin Bragg is a liberal prosecutor. And then he said, and this was a twist of the knife at Trump. He said it twice.

Ron DeSantis:

I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair. I just, I can’t speak to that.

Maggie Haberman:

That was a dig at Trump’s character.

Ron DeSantis:

Yes, it was.

Maggie Haberman:

And it was not received well, Preet in Trump land. And so it was taken note of around Trump, that when the indictment did happen, DeSantis put out a tweet within I think an hour. And he didn’t name Trump, but he called the indictment Un-American. Said Florida would not be part of any extradition, which wasn’t even under discussion at that point. It was pretty telling about the heat that he had felt.

Preet Bharara:

I find it hard to get over where we are and how politics has been turned on its head. And this may be a good thing. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing that people care less about personal issues. But the idea that in a campaign for the presidency or for any other office for that matter, usually it would be the case that opponents would feel like they were handed a gift.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

If one of their rivals was not only indicted by a credible prosecutor’s office. But also that at the heart of that indictment, whether you like the criminal case or not, is something as tawdry as what it is. That used to be career ending, and now you and I are discussing how that’s helpful to Trump politically.

Maggie Haberman:

It is.

Preet Bharara:

How’d that happen?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, because politics has become redefined by who you hate and who hates you back. And so what matters is not what you did. What matters is who doesn’t like what you did. If that makes any sense.

Preet Bharara:

I think it makes a lot of sense. You can put that on a t-shirt?

Maggie Haberman:

I put it in a book. If people want to buy the book, it was called Confidence Man. But in seriousness-

Preet Bharara:

It’s a short book.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah, very funny. But I did get into that in the book that this is… I did a story in 2014 when I was still at Politico about how many races that cycle had been marked by people who got elected, who had underwater approval ratings. And the volume of people elected with that state of affairs had been really surprising to pollsters. Because it used to be, as you know, needed to be at 50 or higher in your approval rating. And it was becoming the case that the water line was just getting lower and lower because voters just felt so gross about politicians in general. And expected sort of bad behavior from candidates that they no longer punish them the same way. And I think that’s a lot of it.

Preet Bharara:

It’s not completely new. Somebody I heard a couple years ago draw the analogy to the support for OJ Simpson. Obviously very different situation, very different alleged crime and-

Maggie Haberman:

Indeed.

Preet Bharara:

… everything else. But the people who are supporting OJ Simpson, even if they thought maybe he did the deed and killed his wife. Further to what you were saying a second ago, he had the right enemy. And that enemy was the LAPD.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

That had been shown to be in many ways racist and oppressive towards the black community. And that’s all that mattered. And that’s 30 years ago.

Maggie Haberman:

That’s actually a very good analogy. Yeah, that was 30 years ago, and I think that that was a strain that has now become sort of more broadly about politics in general and about culture in general.

Preet Bharara:

Are there particular people or one person among his rivals that the Trump team is concerned about in 2024?

Maggie Haberman:

They are laser focused on Ron DeSantis.

Preet Bharara:

And as they should be, or no?

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah. I mean if you look at the polls, Ron DeSantis is the closest to him. I think that Ron DeSantis has shown the most potential for growth. And I think that he’s… Well, we just discussed how much money is less significant with Trump. He’s still got a ton of money, so you can’t ignore him. And I think that you’ve seen an investment in DeSantis from some Republicans that you really never saw with any of Trump’s rivals in 2015 or 2016. Because they didn’t take it as seriously then. So-

Preet Bharara:

Is there someone else that they’re worried could sneak by Nikki Haley or someone else or no?

Maggie Haberman:

I think that they worry a bit about Tim Scott. But I really think that that’s basically it. And I frankly think that they’re hopeful that Tim Scott will end up drawing from DeSantis.

Preet Bharara:

And how does the DeSantis-Trump fight unfold? Trump makes fun of him. Trump calls him names.

Maggie Haberman:

I can’t believe you say that. That does not sound like the Donald Trump I know. Yeah. I mean he already is. He’s calling it more than calling him names. He’s calling him… He’s accusing him of misconduct with students when he was a teacher. He insinuated he might be gay. I mean he’s really… We’re seeing-

Preet Bharara:

So when is DeSantis, at some point, when are we going to see DeSantis throw a punch?

Maggie Haberman:

So, I’ve asked this question of people around DeSantis a lot, and the response that I get is, you’re really not going to see that. That that’s just not the fight he’s planning on having. He doesn’t want to let Trump set the terms of engagement. While it’s clear to me that he has had trouble figuring out how to tackle certain things about Trump, I do think that DeSantis is not intimidated by Trump. And that that’s unusual that we’ve not seen that.

Preet Bharara:

Interesting.

Maggie Haberman:

Now that may change, but right now I don’t think he is.

Preet Bharara:

What does that mean, not intimidated? Meaning he thinks he can win? Or he’s just not going to get bullied?

Maggie Haberman:

He definitely thinks that he can win and that he’s not going to get bullied. And that the sort of character attacks aren’t scaring him off.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think he’s learned the lesson? If we can remind people-

Maggie Haberman:

Ted Cruz?

Preet Bharara:

… who will cause you to… No, I was going to say Marco Rubio. Marco Rubo was the uplifting, inspiring Republican candidate. If want to ask who I thought was going to be the Republican nominee back in 2015, 2016, I thought it was going to be a Rubio. I thought Rubio had a lot of attractive qualities that independents would like. He was from Florida and he was hopeful and intelligent and all of that. This was before he had to drink a lot of water when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union. So Trump starts attacking him. And then I’ll never forget this rally where Marco Rubio gets up on the stage and he decides he’s going to be Trump and made fun of Trump’s-

Maggie Haberman:

Hand. His hand size among other among things.

Preet Bharara:

His hand size.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah.

Marco Rubo:

He’s always calling me Little Marco. And I’ll admit the guy, he’s taller than me. He is like six-two. Which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who’s five-two. Have you seen his hands? And what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust him. You can’t trust him

Preet Bharara:

And it didn’t work.

Maggie Haberman:

Nope.

Preet Bharara:

It didn’t work. And it’s not going to work for DeSantis either. So in some ways Trump has, I hate to say he has a Trump card because he can do that, and the other people can’t.

Maggie Haberman:

There’s no question that, I mean, one of the Trump’s hallmarks has always been, and calling cards has always been that he can get away with things that other people can’t. And that he can behave in certain ways that only work for him and that when other people try it doesn’t.

Preet Bharara:

It’s not even a moral issue. It’s not like other people-

Maggie Haberman:

No.

Preet Bharara:

It’s just not effective.

Maggie Haberman:

It just doesn’t succeed. That’s correct. And so-

Preet Bharara:

It’s like if Trump’s calling card was juggling bowling pins, and he was really good at juggling… And he was the best bowling pin, juggler. And DeSantis or Rubio or Ted Cruz or whoever the opponent is thought, well, voters really like juggling, I’m going to juggle. But you can’t juggle as well, it’s making it worse. And so that they always struggle for a lane. So what’s the lane that defeats Trump, if any?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, here’s the thing. The lane that defeats Trump is the lane where voters suddenly decide that the conduct bothers them. Right? Because I mean if you look at DeSantis and Trump, they’re not especially different on policy. DeSantis has been trying to get to the right of Trump on a number of fronts. There has been a belief among Republican strategists for some time now that Trump has certain vulnerabilities on the right. One of them is Covid related. Although I’m really not sure how animating that is in a Republican primary at this point. I think it was a price of entry for DeSantis, but I think it’s being over interpreted as the reason voters are voting, number one.

Number two is crime. Number three is immigration. You’re seeing DeSantis doing all sorts of work on that right now. And number four is China. And that Trump was, sort of… Not sort of, he was praising of Xi at various points during his presidency and he was seen as too soft early on in the pandemic. Although part of the reason for that was not just that he wanted to preserve his trade deal with China. But part of it was also that the US was reliant on China for certain medical shipments. And it was a complicated rationale. But nonetheless, it all adds up to a sense of perceived weakness on the right. I think DeSantis has been hoping to exploit that.

But generally speaking, their policies are not particularly different. And what ends up happening is where they are different though, Preet is, for instance, I don’t think you’re going to hear Trump support a six week abortion ban. I think you’ll try to hear him be as non-specific as possible. But privately, and I reported this last year, he was telling people that the end of Roe v. Wade was bad for Republicans. You’re seeing Trump’s super PAC hit DeSantis really hard on his votes related to Medicare and social security when he was a Congress member. And so you’re going to see sort of a typical politician of Ron DeSantis in that way.

But in general, what the lean for DeSantis is hoping that people want Trump without the drama. And the drama is not only priced in, but for a bunch of people it’s part of the appeal.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s say it’s Biden versus Trump in the general election election with maybe a trial concluded or trials pending. Putting that aside, the indictment issue, how is the 2024 general election going to look different from the 2020 general election?

Maggie Haberman:

So that’s a great question that I’ve been thinking a lot about in the last two weeks, ever since a story by Alex Thompson at Axios about how Biden might push his campaign announcement off to the summer. And there’s a number of Democrats who I’ve talked to who have been hand ringy about it. Which is does this mean that Biden’s not going to get in? If he doesn’t get in? It’s so late for everybody to form their own campaign. I have no reason to believe that Biden’s not running. So let me just put that out there. And if you accept that, which I do, I accept he is running. Part of how he can recreate the conditions of 2020, which really were Biden barely visible and Trump sort of hanging himself on a daily basis and blowing himself up on a daily basis. You’re seeing some of that right now, right?

Biden’s trying to step back, do presidential work. Does not feel an overweening need to be in headlines every single day. And is letting Trump get massive press attention despite this belief that all press attention is great for Trump. In a general election, it’s not. And so getting headlines for getting indicted is not actually a winning argument with independents, or suburban moderates.

Preet Bharara:

So that’s Biden.

Maggie Haberman:

That’s Biden.

Preet Bharara:

What’s Trump going to do different?

Maggie Haberman:

Nothing. And it’ll more cowbell. I mean really I think you will just see a really savagely run campaign, that’s all.

Preet Bharara:

So now, well, I’m do this hypothetical, which doesn’t please me. Trump wins the presidency and he’s not in prison. How does a Trump two term in office compare to Trump one?

Maggie Haberman:

I wrote a story about this a couple of weeks ago, it will be… I wrote it with I think my colleague Shane Goldmark after Trump’s speech at CPAC, where he described himself as your retribution. It will be, I think a term largely of spite. It will be finishing certain things that didn’t get dealt with, but those things tend to be less policy and more personnel related. It’ll be making sure he gets in people who will do what he wants and doing what he wants.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I mean, who’s the attorney general going to?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, I mean, it’s a great question. I certainly not going to be Bill Barr again, so I don’t know. It’s certainly not going to be Jeff’s Sessions again.

Preet Bharara:

Jeff Clark?

Maggie Haberman:

But it’s a great question of who could even get confirmed, right? I mean, he’ll have a much easier time staffing a White House with political appointments than he will having to get Senate confirmed cabinet posts. And it depends on what happens with the Senate as-

Preet Bharara:

Well, I was going to say, a universe in which Trump wins the presidency seems to be a universe in which the Republicans win back the Senate.

Maggie Haberman:

I think that that is correct. I think that is true.

Preet Bharara:

So, you could have a Trump two spiteful, vengeful, policy of retribution in his own words in January, 2025.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Where he has the presidency, the House and the Senate.

Maggie Haberman:

Yeah. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

That was a moment of silence.

Maggie Haberman:

I mean, yes, you could have, yes-

Preet Bharara:

I was I was doing a moment of silence.

Maggie Haberman:

Yes. You could have all of… Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt it. You can have all of that. I mean this, I think that… And you could also not have that Preet, right? I mean, I think there’s a reason to look at the last three cycles, ’22, ’20, ’18, and look at diminishing returns for Republicans across the board.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have a particular role as far as your beat goes in the 2024 primaries in general? Do you want to cover DeSantis? Do you want to cover Trump? Do you not want to cover Trump?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, it’ll be up to my bosses what I do, but I will be-

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, but what’s your… Well, you can tell them right now through the power of the podcast.

Maggie Haberman:

It’s sweet of you. I appreciate that. I think-

Preet Bharara:

What would you like to be doing in 2024?

Maggie Haberman:

I anticipate that if Trump is the nominee, I’ll be covering him. If DeSantis is the nominee, I’ll be covering him. If Tim Scott’s the nominee, I’ll be covering him. But I will be covering politics generally.

Preet Bharara:

One of the questions that I was going to ask you, but we sort of covered a little bit was whether or not the donor class has Trump fatigue? Whether or not independents have Trump fatigue? What about Maggie Haberman? Do you have Trump fatigue? Nobody’s worried about you. I’m worried about you.

Maggie Haberman:

Oh, appreciate that. You’ve known me a long time though. I think that my father is a journalist, as you know, and some of your listeners probably know. And I learned a lesson from him, which is that a journalist doesn’t leave the story and the story is not over. So that’s how I look at it.

Preet Bharara:

You’re like in the military.

Maggie Haberman:

There you go. Or something. It’s just what I do.

Preet Bharara:

It’s your mission.

Maggie Haberman:

Well, I mean, look, I think we’re not curing cancer, right? I don’t want to… There are a lot of people who are working-

Preet Bharara:

Are you denigrating the free press and the First Amendment-

Maggie Haberman:

I am not-

Preet Bharara:

… of the United States constitution.

Maggie Haberman:

Wow, okay. Yes. Thank you for that. No. But I do think the work we do is important, and I think that it is important in a democracy and the story is still ongoing.

Preet Bharara:

We talked about how Trump might be different in 2024, Biden might be different. How do you think the Press Corps generally putting you aside for a moment… Will the Press Corps generally be… I mean it already is very different from 2016 certainly.

Maggie Haberman:

I think so, yeah. And I think that for-

Preet Bharara:

Will be different from 2020?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, I mean, I don’t know how to answer that because 2020 was such a strange year because of Covid, right? I mean, think we’ll be covering events. We’ll be covering candidates will be campaigning in ways that they were not in 2020. So I think that’s going to be… There will be something to be at in a way there just wasn’t in 2020. But I think that the press is really aware of trying to call out… I think the press has done a really good job over the last two years in the face of a lot of attacks of calling out lies about the election. Of calling out denialism. And I expect that since I expect that denialism will continue, I expect that will continue too.

Preet Bharara:

Is Biden the Democrat and the general that the Trump folks find the most formidable, notwithstanding what they say?

Maggie Haberman:

I mean, they don’t really-

Preet Bharara:

Or is there someone else?

Maggie Haberman:

A number of them don’t really look that far into it in terms of-

Preet Bharara:

That reminds me of another question I’m going to ask you in a moment.

Maggie Haberman:

I think that they assume that Biden is the nominee, and they like their chances against him. Whether they should or shouldn’t, they like their chances against him.

Preet Bharara:

The question I was reminded of is, I think you say in your book that the Trump, maybe his team also, but certainly Trump lives in the eternal now. And that’s why nobody in the White House did any long-term planning. I guess my question, this is sort of a political science question. How does a person who does nothing but live in the eternal now become as successful as he is and become the president? Usually it takes planning and some understanding of object permanence. Those kinds of things matter. Is it just, again, he had the right enemies?

Maggie Haberman:

Well, no. I think it was a combination of factors. I think, yes, I do think he had the right enemy in the sense that he was running against a very polarizing opponent. I think the email hacks that the intelligence community says Russia did helped. I think this was a very close election in 2016, and so there’s a million factors when it’s a close election. But I also think that part of it is A, he gets dinged a lot with reason for his work ethic. But he actually outworked Clinton in 2016. And he actually seemed to be enjoying himself, which I am hard pressed to point to many points when he really has in the last two years. Especially as he’s been doing these events in the last couple of months.

And this goes back to my point about his durable support, going back decades as being a celebrity. People felt really bonded to him and believed that he was this uber wealthy guy. He’s to be clear, Preet, he’s wealthier than 99% of the country. So as much as the conversation is about that, he’s not really that rich. He’s a lot richer than most of us. Even if he’s not as rich as he says he is. But whatever was said about him and his business practices, people didn’t believe it because they had watched The Apprentice, or they had read The Art of the Deal. And so he had just been branded as this success story for so long that it was an impenetrable artifice. And I think that was a big part of it too.

Preet Bharara:

Maggie Haberman the book I’ll remind people because it’s still very relevant. Confidence Man; the making of Donald Trump and The Breaking of America. Thanks for being on the show again.

Maggie Haberman:

Thank you for having me.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Maggie Haberman continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. We discuss the value she still sees in using Twitter for her reporting.

Maggie Haberman:

Even in its currently sort of distorted form, it is still a real tool in terms of promoting your reporting, in terms of seeing other people’s reporting. In terms of seeing what information is coming out.

THE BUTTON:

Preet Bharara:

In our current moment of global anxiety, an ongoing war in Europe, rising tensions among world powers, it can be easy to feel cynical about the power of diplomacy. But I wanted to end the show this week by remembering a time when diplomacy worked, when peace was brokered and bloodshed ended. On Tuesday, president Biden and former President Clinton traveled to Belfast in Northern Ireland to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. That’s the peace accord that put an end to the so-called troubles. The 30 year period of sectarian violence that ravaged Northern Ireland, and also brought death and destruction to cities like Dublin and London.

The epicenter of the conflict was Belfast. A city that was divided between communities of largely Protestant unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to remain with the UK. And the mostly Catholic nationalists who wanted to join with the Republic of Ireland. Neighbors became enemies and neighborhoods became battlefields. Bombings were commonplace. People’s children were abducted and murdered. All told throughout the course of the troubles, an estimated 3,600 people died.

In 1998 with the United States playing a central role, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Irish Tee-shok, Bertie Ahern came to the negotiating table. And they set up a power sharing arrangement that gave both sides representation. The warring factions disarmed in favor of a democratic process. The deal also created an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Now, a generation later, things aren’t perfect. Tensions remain, and schools in neighborhoods in Northern Ireland are still largely segregated. The fallout from Brexit has introduced a new series of debates over borders and trade. But the deal brokered in 1998 effectively put an end to the political violence. And in the decade since, the Peace has for the most part held. That’s no small thing. The Good Friday agreement is a lesson that opposing factions, even those made up of people who view the other side as terrorists can come together to forge agreement and to save lives. What a powerful reminder for our current moment.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Maggie Haberman. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me @preetbharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. Or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669- 24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Wiener, Jake Kaplan, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernández. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.