Preet Bharara:

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

Karen Tumulty:

This state was her absolute best case to make this argument, but again, it just didn’t quite get her there, and I think that is largely because Trump’s grip on the Republican base is just so strong.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Karen Tumulty. She’s a political columnist at the Washington Post who has been on the ground for last week’s Iowa Republican caucus and Tuesday night’s New Hampshire presidential primary. Tumulty has seen a lot in the political arena. She covered Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign for the Los Angeles Times, the ascendance of Newt Gingrich for Time Magazine, and the rise of Donald Trump for the Washington Post where she’s worked since 2010. In her newest initiative, you can even sign up to receive for text updates from the campaign trail on the Washington Post website. Tumulty joins me to discuss why Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis have been unable to dethrone Trump and how this primary season is unique. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Q&A

Now let’s get to your questions. This question comes in a tweet from Michael who asks, “What would you have done if a client started acting the way Trump has acted in and out of court during the two civil trials? Does the inability to control self-destructive client behavior in a high profile case create a red flag for potential new clients or matters?” So that’s a great question that has to do with attorney-client relationships. Everyone is familiar with the attorney-client privilege, but the relationship is a fraught one often and an important one and it has to be respectful and good in both ways, in both directions.

So you’re probably referring to some of the things that Trump did, his antics in the last couple of civil trials where he has attacked the judge, he’s attacked the proceedings. In other cases he’s attacked the prosecutors, he’s engaged in outbursts with the court. He’s been disrespectful to the court, and most importantly it seems on various occasions, has not listened to the advice of counsel. Even though ironically in a particular case in Florida relating to the classified documents handling, it appears that he’s going to ultimately make an advice of counsel defense. So there’s some irony in the practice of Donald Trump not listening to his lawyers, and then try to claim a defense in a criminal case that he shouldn’t be prosecuted or should be acquitted because he was listening to the advice of his lawyers.

So the way I look at it as a lawyer, as a practicing lawyer in how you deal with a client, there are at least three important things. One, you need your client to be honest with you, transparent with you. That’s a critical part of the representation. It’s how you become effective and can remain effective. You don’t want to be surprised by things. I have on more than one occasion, not acceded to the representation of someone when I wasn’t 100% positive that the client was going to be fully, completely, and absolutely transparent with me. And you really can’t represent someone well or effectively or with integrity if that’s in question.

Second, and relatedly, you kind of need your client to listen to you, to take your advice. Which doesn’t mean that every time you say take path A versus path B, the client has to agree. If the client is informed and made aware and is open-eyed and clear-eyed about the consequences of one path versus the other, what the risks are of one path versus the other, what the flaws in one argument might be over another argument. And you think it’s not unethical to make the argument or immoral or illegal to make the argument, oftentimes you will make the argument, but you just need to have the communication in place and understand even if it’s the case that the client is not going to listen to you and follow your advice on every single little dotting of the I or crossing of the T, there has to be a basic reciprocal respect and openness to taking the advice of counsel, otherwise it doesn’t work.

And third, kind of less importantly, but somewhat importantly if you’re trying to make a living, is clients must pay your fees, unless they’re a pro bono client. And on all three counts, Donald Trump has repeatedly, reportedly, and I think has been shown in various court proceedings, violated all three principles. So if I had a client that I wasn’t smart enough to shy away from in the first place who engaged in the antics that Trump has engaged in in multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions, I would probably withdraw from the representation at that moment.

Now recently, Joe Tacopina, one of Trump’s lawyers in one of the criminal cases, has withdrawn. We don’t know if it’s about fees, we don’t know if it’s about a difference of opinion. We don’t know if it’s about lack of transparency. But I’m willing to bet it’s one of those things. I don’t know for sure, but probably it is. And I think a lawyer has to remember that he or she’s part of a profession and you have professional responsibilities. And as an admitted lawyer to a bar, you’re an officer of the court. So you have to be careful, not only for the purposes of representing your client effectively and efficiently, but for your own livelihood and your own reputation and your own career.

I note that many of the lawyers who have served Donald Trump both in connection with the challenging of the elections in various states in the federal election and in other matters have themselves become criminal defendants and have themselves had their licenses suspended. Some are in danger of being disbarred. And that I take it is all from the sort of perverted and perverse relationship that Donald Trump often has with his lawyers.

Now the best way to deal with a client or potential client is to determine at the outset whether or not you can have a productive and effective relationship with each other, such that you are true to your own reputation and your own integrity, and also advancing the interests and cause of your client. It is much less ideal and often problematic and disruptive if you don’t make that determination until you’ve had the representation for a period of time or you’re on the eve of trial, or even worse, you’re in the middle of trial.

So a withdrawal at that moment, despite what I said a moment ago, is a very, very extreme thing to do, to leave a client hanging. And in the criminal case, you probably wouldn’t be permitted to withdraw given that the trial has commenced and a jury has been impaneled. So the most important thing to do is to determine at the earliest possible stage if you can have an appropriate and proper and effective relationship with your client. And if you can’t, you should walk away.

This question comes in a tweet from James. “If Judge Cannon continues to slow roll the classified documents case, do you foresee a point at which Jack Smith brings a separate case in New Jersey?” Well, that’s sort of interesting question, and I spoke a little bit last week on the show about the question of whether or not Judge Cannon is in fact slow rolling the case. I opine that she doesn’t seem to be in any hurry. There’s a lot of evidence that any particular decision she’s made that causes a delay in the proceedings may be justifiable and may be appropriate and may be legitimate. But the some total of all this paints the portrait of somebody who is in no hurry to go to trial. And whether that means she’s trying to delay the trial till after the election as an intentional matter is unclear and it’s hard to know and probably impossible to know, but I think that the current trial date of early spring is not likely to be maintained.

Now, as for what Jack Smith’s options are, it’s a very rare and unusual thing to bring counts against or an indictment against an individual in one jurisdiction and at the same time bring them in another jurisdiction. Although it happens. Paul Manafort, you may recall, was prosecuted both in the Eastern District of Virginia and in the District of Columbia, both in federal court. And there are other cases where, because of venue problems, some acts happened in one jurisdiction and some acts happened in another jurisdiction. But generally speaking, once you’ve cast the die, and you’re proceeding as Jack Smith has apparently decided to do, cast his lot in the Southern District of Florida, and then it was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, that’s where the action is going to take place.

There is, as you suggest in your question, some evidence that there was mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s residence in New Jersey. And by the way, the other reason I think that Jack Smith is not planning some surprise and bring an indictment in New Jersey is that with respect to the indictment in Florida, Jack Smith actually did bring a superseding indictment where he added allegations relating to the issue in New Jersey in Bedminster. So I don’t think he would add those facts and allegations to an indictment pending in Florida, if you otherwise thought about bringing a separate indictment with separate counts in district court in New Jersey.

At this late date, we’re already approaching the beginning of February, and there’s no reason to believe that even if he wanted to and if it was appropriate and it wasn’t duplicative of things that are already brought in Florida and Trump would be able to get a trial before the November election if he brought a case now. I think that’s almost certainly impossible and would be a weird and unusual gambit on his part. So all eyes should remain on the Southern District of Florida.

This question comes in a tweet from Christie who writes, “Hey Preet, do you agree with your colleague Elie Honig, that Jack Smith should say the E word, election, in his briefings since everyone including SCOTUS knows that’s why justice should be rushed. Hashtag AskPreet, hashtag StayTuned.” Now, it’s a great question and we’ve talked about it and I’ve addressed it, and I’m of a similar mind in some ways with my friend and colleague Elie Honig. I don’t agree with the language she used in your question when you say that’s why justice should be rushed. No, justice should be done in an appropriate deliberate way with proper speed, but that does require that justice be swifter than what is being contemplated right now.

So on the one hand, I have thought for a long time that it was a little bit odd that when Jack Smith talks very insistently and stridently about the need to have a trial on a speedy basis, the government’s right to a speedy trial, he touts in the same way the defendants in different circumstances tout and press the need for a speedy trial for themselves, that in those documents to the court, in those briefs to the court, in those arguments, he has not made plain what everyone understands.

And that is that the reason for speed, appropriate speed in this case, is that as we’ve discussed many times, if the trials don’t happen and conclude before the election, and Donald Trump wins reelection and is installed in the presidency, especially with respect to the federal cases that Jack Smith oversees, there’s a real likelihood, in fact almost a very significant probability if not certainty, that those cases would have to halt. Donald Trump has multiple avenues including directing people at the Justice Department to drop the prosecution and/or asserting his right as reflected in the OLC opinion or multiple OLC opinions at the Justice Department that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted and take him away from his commander-in-chief duties and other responsibilities as president of the United States.

So on the one hand, I do agree with Elie Honig that it would make perfect sense to state the obvious. To tell the courts very plainly and directly and forthrightly that one of the reasons we need this to happen is if we don’t have accountability now, we may never have accountability. If we don’t have a trial now, we may never have a trial.

On the other hand, and I don’t mean to sound like I’m hedging so much, but the fact that it’s so obvious and known, and people who like me and Elie and other commentators and the justices and judges themselves in these matters understand and know that there’s a clock, and it’s a very definitive clock relating to the election and the possible reelection of Donald Trump, you kind of don’t need to say it. And my guess is that the thinking in the minds of Jack Smith and his colleagues is that it maybe looks a little more political than it needs to look. You don’t have to state the obvious. And we’re getting the point across in the way we’re getting the point across.

I will also say that I have great respect for the people at the Justice Department, and I’m longtime friends with some of the senior leaders of the Justice Department. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. There is an argument to be made, and it’s I think supported by some of the reporting that has come out recently and a few months ago, that the Justice Department was not early enough focusing aggressively on potential criminal liability on the part of Donald Trump related to January 6th. That when Merrick Garland and his team came in, they were rationally and legitimately and understandably not wanting to look political, not looking like they’re immediately putting a target on Donald Trump’s back.

And in the meantime, were also legitimately and appropriately and understandably, taking great pain and effort and resources to prosecute the individuals who stormed the Capitol, who rioted at the Capitol, who engaged in violence at the Capitol to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of defendants. So they were doing their job, I’m sure they felt, and they were, they were leaving for another day this thorny, tricky political issue of whether or not the president of the United States himself or the former president might face criminal liability.

And it was not until the January 6th Committee began its work in earnest and started putting on hearings where there were revelations upon revelations. And in particular, when Cassidy Hutchinson testified in a way that made it more clear that there really could be criminal liability on the part of Donald Trump, that the Justice Department kicked into high gear. So I’m not blaming anyone, I’m not really criticizing anyone. I understand how these things unfolded. I understand the arc. It does make sense. But it is also true that we might be in a better position with respect to the clock if the Justice Department had acted more quickly. I’ll be right back with my conversation with Karen Tumulty.

THE INTERVIEW

Karen Tumulty joins me from Manchester, New Hampshire to discuss what she saw during the New Hampshire presidential primary and what it means for this fraught election season. Karen Tumulty, welcome to the show.

Karen Tumulty:

Thank you so much for having me.

Preet Bharara:

So I should tell listeners that we’re recording this on Wednesday morning, January 24th, and you are about to head to the airport to leave Manchester, New Hampshire. Excited to leave or sad to leave?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, it has been a pretty long couple of weeks between Iowa and New Hampshire. And I’ve got to say I’ve covered a lot of these things over the years, and this one, this time it feels like there’s so little suspense in these first two contests, and we do feel like we’re in this kind of a long grim march to inevitability.

Preet Bharara:

Well, you thought that march was long. There’s a much longer march coming up now. So there are many questions I want to ask you about the race and the long-term unfolding of this. Let’s just start with where you are. You covered other New Hampshire primaries, and many primaries and general elections, of course. Could you describe what the mood was in New Hampshire among voters? And then we’ll get to how big of a blowout it was for Trump who beat Nikki Haley by I think about 11 points. But what was the mood?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, as I said, there has been a real lack of suspense here. And also the traditional role of the New Hampshire primary is to do the opposite of whatever Iowa did. In fact, Donald Trump is the first non-incumbent ever to win both the Iowa Republican caucuses and the Republican primary in New Hampshire. This time around, you didn’t have the sort of little plucky underdog who gives the front runner his comeuppance at any point. So I think there was a real lack of electricity in this primary. But I do think that especially here in New Hampshire, voter turnout set a new record in the Republican primary. And I think that says that voters really do understand how much is at stake, how much is really on the line in this election.

Preet Bharara:

Is it fully fair to refer to Donald Trump as a non-incumbent? Obviously he’s not the incumbent. But he was the sitting president of the United States for four years and he was the standard bearer for reelection in 2020. We don’t have a lot of precedence of people who have been president, lost the reelection, and then came back for a third try in New Hampshire. So isn’t it the case that there’s really not a prior scenario that’s similar to this in modern times?

Karen Tumulty:

You’re right. He is sort of a pseudo-incumbent. So we really don’t have any perfect parallel to any of this situation that we are in. Of course, we’ve never had a leading candidate of a political party simultaneously looking at spending much of his campaign in a courtroom either.

Preet Bharara:

That’s totally true. Now, you said a second ago the turnout was impressive and it was up. Why would turnout be up at the same time that you say that enthusiasm appeared to be down? Were they turning out mostly for Nikki Haley to cast a protest vote, or were there additional new Trump voters enthusiastic as well?

Karen Tumulty:

There were a whole lot of things going on in this electorate. One thing is that there was basically no contest on the Democratic side. And in New Hampshire, voters who are registered as unaffiliated with either political party can vote in either primary, whatever primary they want to. So of course, they all went into the Republican primary, and so that probably boosted the numbers. But we also saw Trump doing well in places where we are not necessarily accustomed to seeing him doing well, places where he didn’t do well in the New Hampshire primary in 2016. For instance, he won the suburbs, which I think was something that was surprising.

Preet Bharara:

Some people have noted already this morning, including the Wall Street Journal, that, yes, it is true that Trump won decisively. You have also said that he’s locked up the nomination effectively, even though Nikki Haley has not yet conceded. But there looks to be some warning signs for him among independents. And if you’re the kind of person who thinks that independents are the group of people who help you win the general election, maybe that’s a bad sign for Trump reporters. Do you have a view on how independents voted and what that means for the Trump campaign in the general election?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, Nikki Haley, although she lost by 11 points, double digits, this was a solid win for Trump, that was actually a narrower margin than we saw in a lot of the election eve polling. So you really did get a sense that she had at least some momentum coming into the final hours. And I do think it is those independent voters. And when you look at a presidential election that is likely to be decided in six key states, maybe seven at max, yes, those independent voters are going to matter a lot. And the other thing is that where typically as a candidate moves from a primary to a general election, they try to broaden their appeal, reach out to the middle. That isn’t going to happen with Donald Trump. So I think there is going to be a real challenge for him when it comes to bringing in voters who are not part of his ardent conservative Republican base.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s talk about someone we haven’t talked about yet, and that’s Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. So I was among the people on this podcast who would ask every guest about DeSantis a year ago, 10 months ago, year and a half ago, and thought that he was unstoppable in the Republican party. And if he became the nominee, given where my partisan leanings are, was worried that he would handily beat Joe Biden, given the troubles with the economy and everything else, although those things have gotten somewhat better. What on earth happened to Ron DeSantis?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, Ron DeSantis, there were a lot of really high expectations for him after his landslide win in Florida in 2022. But it turned out that the real Ron DeSantis on the campaign trail was not as appealing a candidate in person as it looked like he might be. He also was kind of positioning himself as Trump without the drama. He was taking these really harsh stands in Florida. And I think that voters looked at him and looked at Trump and thought, you know what? We’ll take the original if what we’re voting for is Trumpism.

And finally, if you talk to people in his campaign and in the super PAC that supported him, they say that the deciding moment for him when his numbers really started to crater and never did recover was in that very first Trump indictment. That because that sort of forced the entire Republican party, including Trump’s challengers, to rally behind him, it really took a lot of the oxygen out of the race for anyone else. And it was interesting because none of these candidates were really willing, they were so afraid of alienating Trump’s base, that none of the candidates were really willing to take him on on a lot of his biggest vulnerabilities.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, it pains my heart to hear you say, as others have said, that what ended up sealing Donald Trump’s ultimate success, which we’ve seen now in two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, was the beginning of trying to hold him accountable for alleged crimes in New York and in other places. That’s a way of saying that structurally, even if DeSantis had been a stronger candidate, even if he hadn’t committed some errors in the campaign, is it arguable that there was no way it wasn’t going to be Donald Trump because of the consolidation of his base around him in solidarity in the face of these criminal charges?

Karen Tumulty:

I think that is absolutely true. And the other thing is that, especially in the last few weeks, we have seen a lot of the Republican establishment closing ranks behind him. You think back to January 6th, and it at least to me would have seemed inconceivable that after the attack on the capitol that all of these people who initially really did put the blame on Donald Trump for inciting it, are a lot of the people who at this moment are standing up and endorsing him.

Preet Bharara:

Because what choice do they have? If you believe in the party system, and I’m not saying I endorse this because they can go elsewhere, and there are many prominent Republicans, both ex-members of the judiciary, former elected officials, who have abandoned not only Trump, but the entire Republican party. And we see them, not enough have done that to make a difference. But was it to be expected that everyone would just fall in line behind Donald Trump? Isn’t that the way it works?

Karen Tumulty:

I guess now in retrospect, yeah. But like I said, at the time, I certainly wouldn’t have thought so. Especially you come out of not only 2020, but in 2022, Donald Trump endorses all of these candidates who go on to lose spectacularly in the election, in Senate races, in places like Georgia and Pennsylvania and Arizona. There was reason at one point at least to believe that maybe the party was ready to move on from Donald Trump was the fact that they had lost a lot of elections. While he was president, they lost not only the White House, but the House and the Senate. In the 2022 campaign, his backing really cost them a number of Senate races in places like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona. So you did have people who were arguing that, and here in New Hampshire, we certainly heard it from Governor Sununu who was ardently backing Nikki Haley, that sticking with Trump was just a formula to keep losing.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, well look, certainly that’s the track record. I guess I’m also wondering about what the various arguments were against Trump and how they fared. So for example, Chris Christie decided, and it seemed very plausible and logical, that if you’re trying to beat somebody, you’ve got to use all your ammunition. You got to talk about all their vulnerabilities and call it straight. That failed miserably. You have DeSantis as you’ve described, basically saying, I’m Trump without the drama. And Nikki Haley, she didn’t do it, but she performed better than everyone else and was the last person standing and remains the last person standing. What’s your analysis of Nikki Haley’s distinguishing herself from Trump and the way she did it?

Karen Tumulty:

She really upped the volume of her criticism of him in the final days and raised issues, for instance, his mental capacity, that she hadn’t before. But I think that was sort of too little, too late. And she would hedge things. She would say, “Well, wherever he goes, he is followed by chaos, fairly or unfairly.” As though Trump had nothing to do with the chaos that follows him everywhere. So it was like she took swings at him, but she really didn’t connect.

Preet Bharara:

Didn’t she also make the argument, seemingly lifted from a lot of polling analysis, and as I think you put it, this is not the election that people wanted. And whether you’re a Biden supporter or a Trump supporter, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, large populations in the US just didn’t want to see a rematch of Trump and Biden. And I thought I heard her on a number of occasions basically saying, let’s move on from the politics of recrimination and all the legacy of the prior fighting between these guys, and get someone more youthful and just move on. And I thought that was a compelling argument to make and one that didn’t require so much assailing Trump and alienating his voters. It was just sort of like, can we do something different this year? A new generation. Did that have any resonance at all?

Karen Tumulty:

That had more resonance here in New Hampshire because of the nature of the electorate. And again, all of these independents able to vote in the primary. So this state was her absolute best case to make this argument. But again, it just didn’t quite get her there. And I think that is largely because Trump’s grip on the Republican base is just so strong.

Preet Bharara:

Do you expect Haley to continue on until South Carolina, her home state?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, so Trump had this big rally Saturday night where he brought out just a huge lineup of South Carolina prominent Republican officials, including the governor, McMaster, all of whom are supporting him. And it was clear not only is she running double digits behind Trump in the polls in South Carolina, but she’s going to run in a buzz saw of opposition from basically every leading Republican official in the state. And then we of course saw it capped off when Tim Scott, the junior senator of South Carolina, someone who was appointed to the Senate by Nikki Haley when she was governor.

Preet Bharara:

I think she calls him Brutus now.

Karen Tumulty:

Right. And he endorsed Trump. And so that is what-

Preet Bharara:

So is that your way of saying that Nikki Haley can’t subject herself to a humiliating loss in her home state and will drop out before South Carolina?

Karen Tumulty:

I think there is a very good chance of that. And by the way, the donors, they are likely to sort of try and persuade her of that as well. I mean, I think she is going to have really a lot of difficulty raising money now going forward.

Preet Bharara:

Yes. So what’s the logic of staying in even past today?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, for one thing, the South Carolina primary is not until the end of February. So certainly I think she’s got some time here to make this decision. And of course, it’s always the candidate is often the very last person to see the fact that they need to get out. So there’s no urgency. There’s no rush right now for her-

Preet Bharara:

I guess that’s right.

Karen Tumulty:

… to make this decision.

Preet Bharara:

I can’t remember a time, but maybe I’m forgetting an election, where the general was pretty much locked up and everyone knew who was facing whom in January of the election year. Am I right about that?

Karen Tumulty:

That has never happened, at least in modern history. You might recall, for instance, the 2008 Democratic primary went on into May.

Preet Bharara:

Oh yeah.

Karen Tumulty:

Usually that is more the norm, that these battles go on much longer than this.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. So I’m wondering what does that mean? So there’s going to be a lot of prognosticating and pontificating, side people, you and me and many others, seeking to analogize this election to prior elections. I mean, obviously this exact matchup happened four years ago, so there’s that analogy in parallel. But given this election, the general election effectively is going to be this long, and we’re going to have to live with this political battle longer than usual.

How do you think that affects the race? How do you think that affects the chances of either candidate? There’s already a sense of, not my part, I want to make that clear, but a sense of boredom with these two elderly men facing off against each other. Now you’re telling me we’ve got to deal with that for another nine or 10 months. How do you think that’s going to affect each person’s chances?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, for one thing, there is a real advantage to Trump now. As he becomes the presumed nominee, he does have the opportunity to essentially take over the entire party machinery, whether it’s the state party operations, the fundraising, he does get to consolidate it. But I agree with you. I mean, it’s going to be this weird mix of people kind of dreading the election, but also in a state of very high anxiety about the election.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think in some ways Trump, by being the presumptive nominee this early and not having people nipping at his heels or trying to take him down or weaken him, erases the general incumbent’s advantage that a sitting president has like Biden?

Karen Tumulty:

I don’t know. Because I do think we’re also in this weird situation. Normally when a president is running for reelection, the race is a referendum on that president. But this is going to be a situation where really a lot of the race is going to be about Donald Trump, the challenger. So heaven only knows how this is all going to play out. And of course, we have all these external factors that nobody can predict. I mean, whether it’s the 91 criminal charges against Donald Trump. Biden was able to campaign in 2020 largely from home because of COVID. We were all stuck at home. I think he’s going to have to get out there more. His performance is going to be scrutinized.

There are just so many unknowns. And I also try and sort of game out, what’s this going to do to turnout? I mean, what we know about Trump is that he drives turnout on both sides, on the Republican and the Democratic side. But at the same time, given how unenthused people are about this being their choice, are we going to have a low turnout election? And in that case, it truly will come down to which side gets out their base.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I want to talk about what’s going to affect turnout in a moment. But I was struck last night by an exit poll that was performed by NBC News. And obviously you would know more about this than almost anyone. Exit polls are not so reliable. But I was struck by what people thought was important. So according to this NBC exit poll, on the issue of who can defeat Biden, Trump had 59%, Haley had 39%, which I think the polls showing head-to-head matchups don’t square with that as far as I know. And on the question of who fights for people like me, Trump has 86%, Haley has 14%.

And I’ve been struck over the last number of years of how important, it’s that issue. It’s the appearance, and you can have an argument about whether or not it’s true, but the belief among Trump’s base that he fights for people like me. So if you care about that, your obvious choice is Donald Trump. On the other issue that other people care about, who has the right temperament, it’s a total reversal. It’s 14% Trump, 85% Haley. And if the electorate cared about temperament versus the perception of who’s fighting for me, this election would be in a very different shape. Do you have any reaction to those poll numbers?

Karen Tumulty:

Yeah, I do think that we’ve seen a number of polls, and again, let’s remind people that we’re in January, so these polls are not worth a whole lot. But increasingly Trump is doing better than Biden in key state polls. So I think that the electability argument that both Haley and Ron DeSantis tried to make has lost a significant amount of its resonance.

But yeah, Trump, from the very beginning, from 2015 when he came down the escalator in Trump Tower, has been all about fighting. And as you go around and talk to Trump voters, that’s what they like about him. They feel like he doesn’t get pushed around. I get pushed around. And that’s where you get people believing Trump is going to fight for them. And this is the guy who goes out and says, “I am your retribution.” It’s ironic because it’s paradoxical. Because he is so self-centered, he’s making so much of this race about looking backward at the 2020 election, but he has convinced his base that he is out there to fight for their values.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Karen Tumulty after this. So we had to go to this next subject because it mildly terrifies me. As bad as I think the situation is already from my perspective, but before I ask you the more direct question, let me ask you the more general question about vice presidential picks. Don’t talk about Trump yet for 2024, but historically, everyone covers with bated breath who the vice presidential pick is going to be. And there’s lots and lots of discussion about whether or not that person will be a historic first, will it be a woman, will it be an African American selection, what state are they from? Will they be able to shore up credentials or be a complimentary candidate? And my sense is over time that, generally speaking, the vice presidential pick neither helps a lot nor hurts a lot the candidate. There may be an exception with McCain choosing Sarah Palin, but could you just give us the context of how much the vice presidential pick has tended to matter in American politics?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, you’re right. It used to be you would pick a running mate according to you wanted to pick up a state. This was Kennedy Johnson wanting to pick up a part of the country. I think that has long, long ago lost its usefulness. I do think that in Trump’s case, given where things ended up with Vice President Pence, he is definitely going to be looking for someone, potentially you would want to perhaps pick a woman or a person of color, but he is also going to be thinking beyond that. He is going to be thinking to someone who will not challenge him, will basically do whatever he wants them to do. And so it’s going to be a really interesting decision to watch on his part.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, you mentioned Kennedy Johnson. That was a Northeastern politician in the Democratic party picking a Texan from the South who had a different kind of base of support. And then you had what I remember being kind of unusual at the time, in ’92, Clinton didn’t pick someone who was different and complimentary. He picked someone who was kind of like himself, Al Gore, another young up and coming Southern statewide elected politician. So it’s sort of a doubling down. So it’s one thing to double down and pick someone like yourself if you are Bill Clinton, whatever you think of him, but a different thing to double down if you’re Donald Trump and pick someone… So I guess before I get to the mainstream picks, is there a possibility or even a likelihood that it works in his favor and he decides to pick someone like Vivek Ramaswamy, or dare I say it, Karen, Tucker Carlson?

Karen Tumulty:

Yeah, I would be really surprised. I think Trump-

Preet Bharara:

Why would you be… Because he retains some pragmatism or not?

Karen Tumulty:

No, because he wants there to be only one star of his show.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, okay. That’s an interesting reason. Right.

Karen Tumulty:

And I think for the same reason, he wouldn’t pick necessarily a Kari Lake. I think if I had to put my money on who I think right now would be the likely running mate, I’d go for Tim Scott.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I didn’t think you were going to be so bold as to name a likely prospect.

Karen Tumulty:

Well, right now. But that would be the sort of type of, on the one hand you would be making history, putting a person of color on the Republican ticket. And also the Trump people think they are making inroads with non-white Americans. But you also have in Tim Scott, somebody who I think would be there to just sort of praise Trump, not challenge him, and not necessarily draw much of the spotlight off of Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that’s why he made the move he made? Tim Scott, I mean.

Karen Tumulty:

Actually it’s very funny. Back in the 1990s when Tim Scott was a county councilman in South Carolina, he did an interview with the Charleston newspaper and they were asking him what he thought of his political future. And he said, “Well, what I’d really like to be is vice president.” Obviously he ran for president this time.

Preet Bharara:

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait. He said that? Was he making a joke?

Karen Tumulty:

He did say that. No, he didn’t. And in fact, whoever was interviewing him asked him, “Not president?” And he said, “Oh no, no. As vice president you get to make a lot of statements and pursue your own issues.”

Preet Bharara:

That should be an ad. Was he not familiar… Who said it? You must know. You have an encyclopedic knowledge of all politics. Maybe it was Harry Truman who said the vice presidency isn’t worth a bucket of spit.

Karen Tumulty:

And there are other versions of it.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. It’s a bucket of something else.

Karen Tumulty:

I think it was John Nance Garner.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, okay. You would know better than I. So do you think he hadn’t heard that?

Karen Tumulty:

Right.

Preet Bharara:

Which job would you like? I would like the bucket of spit job.

Karen Tumulty:

Right. And again, I mean he was very young when he said that, but that quote has surfaced many times during this campaign.

Preet Bharara:

Who are some other possibilities or people who will be talked about as potential VP picks for Trump?

Karen Tumulty:

I think somebody like a Kristi Noem would probably be given a lot of consideration. Elise Stefanik, I mean, everything she appears to be doing appears to be auditioning for the job. Somebody who would be the warrior for Trump. Who else? I do think that it makes a lot of sense not to go with a white male.

Preet Bharara:

Well, you haven’t mentioned one person who we talked about a lot in this episode, Nikki Haley.

Karen Tumulty:

Yeah. I don’t see that happening.

Preet Bharara:

Because she’s crossed him, and she also violates the other principle you mentioned, which is she can also be a star?

Karen Tumulty:

She has said pretty definitively that she’s not interested in the job. Of course, people do change their minds.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, that means nothing.

Karen Tumulty:

Right, right.

Preet Bharara:

Separate and apart from what Trump’s proclivities are, as a matter of pragmatism and seeking to win, wouldn’t a Trump Haley ticket be pretty strong and help him among independents?

Karen Tumulty:

Potentially. But I just don’t see the chemistry here. I mean, she was the last person standing against him.

Preet Bharara:

It’s interesting because I think of Nikki Haley as a pretty talented politician by a number of measures, including her being the last person standing, although not enough. But the other measure is when I think of people who had pretty decent reputations and pretty decent future arcs to their political career, and these people include Mike Pence and Chris Christie, and a number of other folks, and I may be forgetting somebody, but almost uniquely I think Nikki Haley came in to the orbit of Donald Trump and emerged with a higher profile and better prospects than when she came into the orbit. And for almost everyone else, the opposite is true. Assess that conclusion.

Karen Tumulty:

I absolutely agree with that. And Trump sending her to the United Nations really gave her, she now has foreign policy experience. She has just an amazing resume. Which by the way, I think she’s also got to be thinking about over the next few weeks as she’s deciding when and how to exit a race that is simply not looking winnable for her. She’s going to have to be thinking about how to do it in a way that would say position her best for 2028.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, that’s why I’m a little bit surprised she hasn’t gotten out yet. She made her statement, she was the last person in the race against him. Independents favor her a little bit more than they favor Trump. So maybe it’s the case she’s taking a little time off and she’ll do it very shortly, but not to get way ahead of ourselves because we still have a long trek to the election in 2024. And again, four and a half years is more than a lifetime in politics. But at the moment, if you had to write a column about it, neither Biden nor Trump, I guess Trump potentially could lose and run again in 2028, but I think the likelihood of that is very, very low, and certainly Biden won’t, that the most favored to win and be the standard bearer for the Republicans in 2028, it’s got to be Nikki Haley. No?

Karen Tumulty:

I would agree. And again, as she’s trying to decide how she makes the decisions that she is going to be called upon to make over the next few weeks, I think that is going to be very much on her mind.

Preet Bharara:

So what’s this election going to be about? Is it going to be about the economy? Is it going to be about democracy? Is it going to be about these trials? Is it going to be about immigration? Is it going to be about some combination of things? Is it going to be about social issues like abortion? How do you see, given how much time we have, and maybe it’ll alternately be all of those things depending on the month, how are we going to be describing the themes of this election some years from now?

Karen Tumulty:

I think it’s going to be about all of those issues, but I also think it’s not necessarily going to be about issues at all at all.

Preet Bharara:

At all. Right, right.

Karen Tumulty:

I think that, I wrote a column a few weeks ago where I talked about how often we hear people when Trump does something horrifying, say, this is not who we are. But increasingly I think this is who we are. And I think this election is going to really be remembered as one in which the American people decide who they are.

Preet Bharara:

What does that mean?

Karen Tumulty:

Well, are we in fact a country that stands for a foreign policy that is isolationist? Is this a country that turns its back on immigrants? Is this a country where people’s values become less inclusive? Is this a country where economic policy is backward looking, not forward looking? I just think that there are just so many, the stakes, the starkness of the choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is so sharp that I do think it is going to be one, this election, that does define our national identity in a way that I really can’t remember any recent election doing.

Preet Bharara:

I tend to agree with all that, but then I also think we’re all of those things. Because America, like a person was once famously said, America contains multitudes. And there’s segments of the population who literally would take a benevolent despot, a dictator, if it was a dictator whose outcomes they respected and liked. And there are people at the opposite end of the spectrum. And there are people who are welcoming of immigrants, and there are people who think, like Trump has said odiously, poison the blood of America. And I don’t know how that can be resolved in the sort of general assessment of who we are. Because depending on who you’re talking to and where they live and what their beliefs are, they’re one thing or another. Isn’t that also true?

Karen Tumulty:

I do think, though, that if the country turns toward the sort of authoritarian model that Trump offers, that is a turning point. And by the way, it’s not just this country. I mean we are seeing this happening in places all around the world. Trump was at a rally the other night praising Viktor Orban of Hungary. I just really do feel like we’re at a hinge point here.

Preet Bharara:

Are we in more of a hinge point than we were in 2016 or 2020?

Karen Tumulty:

Oh boy. Yes, I think so. I think so. I think that you look at the complete dysfunction of government. I think that Trump was not quite running as the authoritarian in 2016 that he is now positioning himself to be. No, I think that if anything, this choice, because in 2016 people could look at Trump and say, first of all, I think a lot of people voted for him thinking there was no possibility he was going to win. But I think they could also look at him and say, he was a businessman and once he gets into office, he will grow into the office. It’s the office, [inaudible 00:49:20].

Preet Bharara:

That it’s an act. I think a lot of people thought what he’s doing was a shtick.

Karen Tumulty:

I don’t think people are diluting themselves this time in the way that they were, that at least some people could in 2016.

Preet Bharara:

Can he do just as well as he did in 2020 without expanding the number of votes or the kinds of votes or the places where he got votes at all and win this time because of a potential lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for Biden? I mean, as a mathematical matter, that’s the only way Trump can win if he doesn’t expand. So I have two questions. Do you expect Trump to maintain the voters that he got last time, or lose them, or get more votes? And then what do you think is going to happen on the Biden side?

Karen Tumulty:

I think that the people who were with Trump in 2020 are still with Trump. And I think the big challenge for Biden is going to be motivating specific parts of his base that are sometimes difficult to get to the polls, whether it is people of color, young people. Those are the people who I think are going to be the big challenge for the Democrats this time.

Preet Bharara:

Right. It’s really, it’s a voter… Another way of, I guess, stating that is at base and at essence the election is an exercise in Joe Biden getting his people to turn out more than almost anything else.

Karen Tumulty:

Absolutely. I think that that is going to be what the Biden campaign is going to be laser focused on now going forward. I mean, everybody recognizes that this is an election that is all about mobilizing your base.

Preet Bharara:

I mentioned a bunch of issues a couple of minutes ago. I just want to touch a little bit further on immigration. We had an whole episode about the border on this podcast in the last couple of weeks. How potent an issue is that? And do you see the Biden administration trying to do things to minimize the political fallout from actions or inactions at the border?

Karen Tumulty:

I think that the Biden administration and Democrats at large were in denial about how serious the crisis at the border was. And now that it is mayors of blue cities saying that this is a situation that is stressing us beyond what we can handle, I think there is going to be a very large imperative for them to get this situation under control. And it’s certainly something that you hear everywhere. Here in New Hampshire, which this was the first place I think I really heard people talking a couple of cycles ago about the problem with opioids. I mean, a lot of people blame these problems on the chaos at the border.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Look, it’s becoming a problem that is being spoken about as a problem, not just by Republicans, but by Democratic mayors and governors as well, which is doing a lot to force the Biden administration to pay heed.

Karen Tumulty:

Belatedly too, because this is something that you live in Texas or New Mexico or Arizona, I mean, people there have known that there was a genuine crisis at the border.

Preet Bharara:

All right. I’m going to ask you about another issue or question in the structure of this race that also gives me worries. Third party. Third party candidates. The last time a third party candidate had, I think, a big deal, or maybe I’m getting this wrong, would we say it was in 1992 with Ross Perot who took sizable chunks of the electorate into his fold? What do you think is the outlook for independent runs and how that might affect voting for Trump and Biden?

Karen Tumulty:

I personally was not taking No Labels all that seriously until quite recently.

Preet Bharara:

Why recently?

Karen Tumulty:

Because I just thought, again, the potential for the damage that they can do is so high, but now I think there will be people looking for some alternative to this choice that they don’t want to make. And because the election is going to be fought on such a narrow, narrow battleground, basically seven states at the most, I mean, we are talking about a situation where a few tens of thousands of votes could make all the difference. So yes, I think third party candidacies could matter a lot if any of them takes shape in a significant way.

Preet Bharara:

We’re running out of time, and I know you have to get a plane. So I’m going to ask you the very easiest question I can. Who’s going to win in November?

Karen Tumulty:

Oh my God. Such an easy question. I mean, that’s kind of going to be… Since I was surprised that Trump won in 2016, I’ decided I’m not that great at predicting things.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Well, nobody was. But I guess the other way of asking it is is the structure of the race and the arc of the race now, is it a tossup, or based on traditional criteria, does the race favor the incumbent as it almost always does? Or does it favor the prior incumbent and we haven’t seen that really happen before? I guess is there any possibility it could be a very strong win for either side, or is it necessarily going to be at this point looking at our crystal ball, a very, very close, hard fought battle no matter what?

Karen Tumulty:

I think the nature of our politics these days is so polarized that it is going to be a very close race. And it is going to be one where there will be high anxiety all the way to the end. And of course, should Trump lose, and it’s a close race, then we may find ourselves once again in a situation where he is denying the results of the race, and then we find ourselves once again in overtime.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, it’d be an interesting rerun. Well, I wish you safe travels. Thanks for your insight. Thanks for spending time with us. Karen Tumulty, thanks for being on the show.

Karen Tumulty:

Thank you for having me.

BUTTON

Preet Bharara:

Before we end the show this week, I want to share a story that inspired me and I hope will inspire you too. The story is about Lisa Manganello, a librarian at South Brunswick High School, not far from where I grew up in the great state of New Jersey. Aside from her work in the school’s library, Lisa has taken on the noble task of teaching media literacy to South Brunswick students. According to advocacy group, Media Literacy Now, the term media literacy refers to the, “Ability to decode media messages, including the systems in which they exist, assess the influence of those messages on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and create media thoughtfully and conscientiously.” Through her lessons, Lisa hopes to help kids navigate the internet and learn to separate facts from disinformation. What an important skill that is going to be. In an interview with CNN, Lisa said…

Lisa Manganello:

Whatever article you’re choosing, I want you to be able to look at it from a critical lens, and really make a decision about whether or not this is a trustworthy article. You can have an opinion on either side, but you should be able to validate that opinion with a fact-based article. Information literacy is going to give them those skills.

Preet Bharara:

At a time where the majority of our children and young adults are using social media on a daily basis to get information, we need people like Lisa to help them digest that content. In fact, back in October, I had the chance to speak with U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy about social media and its effects on young people. In his advisory entitled “Social Media and Youth Mental Health,” one of the main steps that Dr. Murthy suggests policymakers take in order to address the negative impact of social media is to support the development, implementation, and evaluation of digital and media literacy curricula in schools and within academic standards. Just last year, New Jersey’s governor, Phil Murphy, signed legislation that mandates schools to teach media literacy in grades K through 12, making New Jersey the first state to do so. Since then, three other states, Delaware, Texas, and California have done the same. In her interview, Lisa ends by saying…

Lisa Manganello:

These are kids that are going to go out and do brilliant things. We need them to think about how they accept information in a smarter way, because I think that will change the way we all do.

Preet Bharara:

I couldn’t agree more.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Karen Tumulty. 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. You can also now reach me on Threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24PREET, 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 editorial producers are David Kurlander and Noa Azulai. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The audio producer is Nat Weiner. And the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Jake Kaplan, and Claudia Hernández. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.