Preet Bharara:

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

Mark Leibovich:

There’s going to be a whole lot of people voting in a general election who don’t really think ideologically, but just think it’s kind of entertaining to have X or Y. I mean, I think it helps to be a show person. I mean, Donald Trump has shown you that to be not boring, to be a showman can get you really, really far in this environment.

Preet Bharara:

My guest this week is Mark Leibovich. He writes about politics for the Atlantic. And this week we have a pretty frank discussion about a lot of things, past and present. We talk about Lindsey Graham’s passing and what might happen in 2028. Mark Leibovich, welcome back to the show. How are you?

Mark Leibovich:

Preet, it’s a pleasure as always, and I’m great.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it’s good that you’re great because not everyone answers that way. Sometimes we can go an hour with people answering not in that way.

Mark Leibovich:

I wanted to make it quick. Brevity, brevity, brevity. I figured I would go to the default.

Preet Bharara:

Brevity is the soul of Mark Leibovich. So I wasn’t sure what we were going to talk about some days ago, but we have the passing of Lindsey Graham about whom I have a couple of things to say at the end of the program. He’s one of the senators that I knew because he was in the Senate when I worked as a staffer many years ago. So I have some personal thoughts about him. You have written about him and obviously met him and interviewed him. What do you have to say about his passing and his legacy?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, I mean, it’s stunning. I mean, no one really saw it coming. I mean, obviously death is always usually pretty surprising, but everyone was focused on Mitch McConnell. And then all of a sudden there was kind of this head fake over here and we wake up Sunday morning and Lindsey Graham had died. So that was kind of stunning. And I think one of the reasons it was sort of so surprising is that he is a very central character. He is always managing to be in the news, which sort of goes to what makes him tick a little bit. I mean, his favorite word was always relevance. “I want to be relevant.” That means some incredible contortions of his views and of his relationships and of his friendships. But in Trump world, it very much worked for him. And he was about to, a few hours after he died, go on meet the press for, I think, the 64th time, which would’ve put him within 10 of his late best friend John McCain, who set the record.

And Lindsey, like McCain, still cared about stuff like being on the Sunday morning shows, the shows as Trump calls them and Trump himself still watches them. So Graham more than anyone was always attuned to the so-called audience of one, which is going on TV and sort of talking directly to Trump and currying favor with him.

Preet Bharara:

Is the only difference between a significant politician, meaning a governor of a state or the mayor of a large city or a house member or a senator, and I’m sure there are other categories of significant politician, but is there any one of them who does not believe in being relevant? And is the only difference that Lindsey Graham just forthrightly admits it?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, that’s part of it. I mean like Trump, I mean he could be completely full of, can you say shit on this thing?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

He could be completely full of shit, but also-

Preet Bharara:

You always want to ask the question with the word in the question.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, exactly. No, he could be completely full of shit and completely candid at the same time. I mean, he and Trump sort of had that going. Yeah, I think everyone wants to be relevant, but people just define it differently. I mean, some people will define relevance as, “Well, I want to be relevant to the voters of Montana so that their issues feel addressed and they see me out there talking about things they care about so I can get reelected in six years in Montana.” Graham, I mean like McCain, certainly like Trump, had a very sort of wide lens on where he wanted to be sort of viewed. I mean, he wanted to be in the spotlight, as big a spotlight as possible.

Preet Bharara:

So you mean not just in South Carolina, but nationally and even internationally?

Mark Leibovich:

No, absolutely. Again, like McCain, I mean, he used to love going to the Munich Security Conference and sort of be in the mix. And by extension, he liked being on the golf course with Donald Trump and he liked being in the shot and he liked that being broadcast not just to the national sort of audience, but certainly to the Fox watching electorate of South Carolina, which was very beneficial to him.

Preet Bharara:

Is it possible and was it the case with Lindsey Graham that one can be so focused on relevance and also principled?

Mark Leibovich:

I suppose. I mean, again, I mean it’s a real sliding scale of principles and relevance also in Washington.

Preet Bharara:

Right, because look, you can decide to be relevant. Let’s say the most important issue in your world is climate change or civil rights or your right to life person. You can figure out all the ways in the world through traditional media, non-traditional media, and otherwise to be the most relevant figure on that issue to which you were wedded. That’s not what we’re talking about here or is it?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, somewhat. Lindsey Graham was deeply attuned to foreign policy. He was pretty consistent, I guess, on being very much pro-Ukraine, hard on Russia, anti-Putin, which is very much in the McCain tradition. He was a big supporter of NATO. And he would say, and many would say that he actually was a very important voice in Donald Trump’s year over the last 10 years to maybe moderate his positions on certain things. I mean, there are also personal things. I mean, John McCain was his closest friend and John McCain despised Donald Trump and the feeling was mutual and Trump sort of hated him to the grave and McCain kind of hated him back from the grave. I mean, I remember going to his funeral and seeing Graham talk, but also seeing Trump who was not invited just get totally trashed. But then Graham turns around and becomes Trump’s best friend and is quite ostentatious about it in a way that many people would say repeatedly, John McCain must be spinning in his grave about this.

And I think a lot of people, because of certain personal relationships and maybe the legacy of his best friend, John McCain, always were quite puzzled about what got into this guy.

Preet Bharara:

Well, is the explanation just what you said? Relevance? And the question that I wanted to ask you was, I don’t know how much it matters in the world. It kind of matters to people like us who follow politics and who knew some of these people and even maybe admired. I mean, I deeply admired John McCain, not a member of my party.

Mark Leibovich:

Did you admire Lindsey Graham?

Preet Bharara:

He was my favorite Republican senator when I was a young staffer in my early 30s.

Mark Leibovich:

More than McCain.

Preet Bharara:

So I didn’t interact with McCain as much. He was a little bit more busy, had more star power. He didn’t do as many matters and bills with Senator Schumer, my boss. But Lindsey Graham did. And Lindsey Graham was one of the very few senators, he was the only Republican senator who ever called me on the phone-

Mark Leibovich:

Really?

Preet Bharara:

… to speak to me, to speak to a staffer, which is unusual. You love that when somebody in power respects you enough to have a conversation with you. He was pretty funny. My one encounter with John McCain that I can remember was there’s a senator elevator.

Mark Leibovich:

Members only.

Preet Bharara:

There’s a member’s only elevator. And if you’re with a member who is your boss, you’re allowed to go in the member’s elevator. I’m in this elevator and I’m the only staffer. It’s me. It sounds like a joke, like three guys going to a bar, but it’s me, Charles E. Schumer, John McCain, and Dan Inouye, senator from Hawaii. And Chuck just says, he turned to Inouye I think for the purpose of entertaining McCain and said, “How’s Hawaii? You know Hawaii has the second-greatest beaches in the world. First best-

Mark Leibovich:

Far Rockaway was number one?

Preet Bharara:

… Long Island.”

Mark Leibovich:

Long Island.

Preet Bharara:

Long Island. He said it totally straight. And from the corner of the elevator, one John McCain burst into hysterical laughter. He thought that was very, very funny. But should we reevaluate the genuineness of the friendship between Lindsey Graham and John McCain given what you’ve said?

Mark Leibovich:

They would say that in life they had a fantastic friendship. I mean, I don’t know if both of them-

Preet Bharara:

He didn’t owe him any honor and defense in death.

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, many would think so. I would think so.

Preet Bharara:

I would, wouldn’t you, wouldn’t you?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. And he would always say, “Oh, I hate it when Donald Trump goes after John McCain. I hate it. I tell him that all the time.” I think they would kind of roll their eyes at the kind of faux moralizing that people sort of impose on posthumous relationships. I mean, there’s always people rolling over in their graves in Washington and certainly in media. By the way, the most commonly invoked person rolling over in their graves is Edward R. Murrow. Whenever someone does something in the media that is offensive to someone, they always say, “Oh, Edward R. Murrow must be-”

Preet Bharara:

Edward Murrow. He must be very fit.

Mark Leibovich:

He must be. However, I did an entire story on this for the Washington Post in maybe the 2000s and someone should look it up. But the kicker is Edward R. Murrow was in fact cremated. So despite the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of invocations that he is rolling over in his grave, in fact, there is no grave and there is no remaining mortal coil.

Preet Bharara:

The way I’ve been thinking about Lindsey Graham’s death and this discussion with you is to use him as a lens into politicians generally and politics generally. And as we sit here and either praise him or criticize him for qualities that he may or may not have, I want to assess those. And so one is this quality of loyalty, but a particular kind of loyalty. Loyal to your friend as in high school and in college perhaps if someone besmirches the reputation of your best friend, that person is forever your enemy and you defend your friend’s honor forever. Or if someone insults your wife in a way that becomes very, very well known and becomes a meme, you react a certain way. That’s the way men of honor, Mark, like you and I would behave and act, but we’re not politicians.

So the question is, isn’t it the case that you want politicians to have that sort of just run down their back and brush it off their shoulders because they have to deal again and again and again with either presidents or senators or members of the House or the press who have offended them or mocked them or humiliated them? That’s how the business of government works. So is it not a good thing?

Mark Leibovich:

You could argue it is. I mean, sure. I mean, actually I think that’s a very good argument that it’s a good thing. I would argue also though that this is not so much an issue by issue thing. It’s not like if you’re for abortion rights, I mean you’re mad at Lindsey Graham for being against abortion rights. If you’re pro-Ukraine, you are celebrating him today. I don’t think it’s an issue by issue thing. I think it’s very purely personal, specifically around Donald Trump. Both Democrats and Republicans believe that the kind of cavorting with him that Lindsey Graham engaged in and the really ostentatious flattery he engaged in-

Preet Bharara:

Cavorting.

Mark Leibovich:

… was so unseemly… Well, cavorting on the golf course. I mean, he was just always there. He wanted to be invited to Mar-a-Lago. I remember when Trump was not president, but it was like 2021, 2022, Graham just kept asking for invitations to go down to golf with him. At one point, I think Trump himself, this in some book said, “Man, Lindsey must really like golf.” But he allowed him.

Preet Bharara:

So in all this celebration, in particular by Democratic colleagues of his who remember him fondly, he was a fun guy to hang out with. And then we have this concept that we’ve been discussing that by definition, if you go to the body of the House or the Senate, there are going to be people who are diametrically opposed to your points of view and to your positions and to your bills and they’re trying to beat you and they fund people who are trying to end your career. And then you have to turn around and do a water bill with them. And so what the frick do you want? But on the other hand, I also understand people who say the following. Quote, “Senators Klobuchar, Booker, and Warren, please go seek out all the people who have suffered from Lindsey Graham’s policies and tell them what a friendly and affable guy he was to have a steak dinner with.” What do you make of that?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, I don’t know. This is why I try not to spend time on social media. I mean, people are complicated, relationships are complicated, and I think that’s just true in the Senate, if not more so, than it is anywhere else.

Preet Bharara:

Look, I think in the real world of, dare I say, the real world of high school, none of this would be stood for. You have your friends and you can’t desert them. And I don’t know if this obtains in the world of business. Politics is a little bit different for the reasons that I described. So do you begrudge this person, this view?

Mark Leibovich:

No, I don’t think so.

Preet Bharara:

You can say yes. You can say yes.

Mark Leibovich:

No, I don’t begrudge it. I see where they’re coming from. I 100% see where they’re coming from. And I remember a lot of the people who were genuinely mourning him and who knew him well, senators within a few months of the Kavanaugh hearings where Graham kind of famously jumped in and gave a really, I would say, performative but very angry sounding speech in defense of Kavanaugh that won widespread praise among Kavanaugh’s supporters, certainly in the White House. But you remember the Kavanaugh-

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, of course.

Mark Leibovich:

… hearings and that whole nomination. I mean, it was an incredibly divisive and personal and raw kind of time. And I remember talking to a couple of them and they said, “I’m having a hard time just getting the energy back to being friendly with Lindsey.” And of course that ended, I’m sure long before he died. So look, I mean, friendships do end, they can end. And high school, it’s fine. There’s no real stakes except for your own definition of self-respect and whatever. But politics definitionally, especially in a legislative body like the Senate, is about relationships. And I guess if you want to continue to get things done, perpetuating these relationships going to maximize your opportunity to do so.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to ask you a personal question, Mark-

Mark Leibovich:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

… as a preface to a different question. Are you a crier? Do you cry?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, somewhat. Not often, but yeah. I’ve been known to.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, but not like me. I can be a big crier.

Mark Leibovich:

I think, no, I am too. I sometimes get surprised by when I find myself welling up like TV shows.

Preet Bharara:

Did you watch the funeral of John McCain?

Mark Leibovich:

I was there.

Preet Bharara:

You were there. Did you cry or well up?

Mark Leibovich:

No. I was taking a lot of notes, so I have a whole chapter in my last book about it. I do have a book to plug, Preet. Yeah, no there’s a whole chapter called Thank You for Your… The book is called Thank You for Your Servitude. There was a lot of Lindsey Graham in there too.

Preet Bharara:

No, I remember. So I welled up, and I think a lot of people on the other side of the aisle welled up. Why did they?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, first of all, McCain, I mean more so than Lindsey was a giant. But also-

Preet Bharara:

Right. But I’m asking, describe what made him that.

Mark Leibovich:

He was a remnant, first of all, to a kind of Washington that’s very much ceased to exist even before Trump came along, but certainly the death knell was Trump’s election. And McCain was someone who cared deeply about his issues. He traveled widely. He was an extremely serious person, but also a very entertaining and complicated person. And he was just a central figure in the life of our nation. Washington certainly, but for people who followed politics or national politics anywhere around the country and around the world, I mean it was sort of inconceivable to a lot of people after John McCain’s career, which at that point, spanned maybe in the Senate, maybe 25 years or so, life going on without him because he was just such a massive figure.

Preet Bharara:

Can I posit one reason?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Would you say that John McCain was an inordinately principled politician, whether you agreed with him or not?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, yes and no. I remember Graham himself would say to me, I would say, “How do you flip-flop on Trump like this?” And Graham would say, “Well, if you think about it, McCain was always a huge path to citizenship guy.” He and George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy were pretty essential in the mid-aughts to try to get a pretty moderate pragmatic immigration bill passed that would’ve been in retrospect, but also at the time would’ve been completely groundbreaking. And then when he was running for reelection in 2010 and he was being primaried, he was doing these really border hawkish political ads about building the damn fence. So he said dang fence on the Arizona border with Mexico and he sort of played that game. So Graham’s point was he knew how to be expedient just like I do and people forget this, which I think is a valid point.

Preet Bharara:

Is it fair? You think that’s not a false equivalency?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, no. I think it’s fair. I think it’s fair. No, I mean, I think it’s equivalence. I don’t know. I think Graham took it to a very, very different level and a very personal level with Trump. I mean, again, when Trump is involved as he is so centrally here, it just raises the stakes and raises what many people would see as the unseemliness of it.

Preet Bharara:

There’s also the matter of John McCain having been shot down in his airplane. And if I remember this story correctly, pulled out from the water by a spear. And if political myth, you go through life believing these things and then you wonder if they’re actually true and then someone writes a book and says, “Totally not true. I’ve not seen this claim dispute.” He had a chance to come home and he didn’t. And so even before he entered politics, there’s a part of every American Democrat, Republican, Independent other than one guy who prefers people who weren’t captured. Other than that one guy, there is a visceral respect and admiration for both physical and moral courage. Both were in sharp evidence in his younger years.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, well, there was, but that one guy basically took a large portion of that guy’s party for which he was the standard bearer a decade earlier and really trashed him in a way that took hold. I mean, you can’t go on Fox News today and praise John McCain that easily without getting all kinds of blow back online and stuff.

Preet Bharara:

That’s another phenomenon that fascinates me and also disgusts me. You might call it the swift voting of otherwise consensus heroes. I think the term was first applied or mainly applied to John Carey, and I’m not sure that he was a consensus hero. But if you take some of the most unimpeachable principled folks and people who send mail and say, I’m picking the wrong group. John Carey aside, John McCain and in my mind, Bob Mueller, who was about the most unimpeachable Republican ramrod straight law enforcement officer in modern American history. And they swift voted the shit out of that guy.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, it’s horrible. It’s terrible. I mean, if you look at the clips after Mueller was first appointed by, I guess it was Jeff Sessions and by extension Donald Trump because he was president, he was praised immediately. I mean, I remember Newt Gingrich said he was a great choice and go down the list. And then all of a sudden, as soon as he started doing his work, Trump turned on him and most of the Republican Party at that point did the same. I mean, it’s pathetic, but it is the reality that was taking a hold then and has very much come to dominate large sectors of our politics now.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe it’s smart tactically in a Machiavellian sense. If somebody has a strength, that’s not how people often fight. You go for the weakness. What’s Gary Hart’s weakness? Oh, the monkey business.

Mark Leibovich:

But what’s Bob Mueller’s weakness? I mean, if you build it on lies, I mean, you can do that about anyone. Bob Mueller had some real problems at the end, obviously. I mean, he was a disappointment to a lot of people for what happened, but I think that that’s because mentally he was sort of losing capacity.

Preet Bharara:

But you take a guy like McCain and his mythical strength that’s nonpartisan, bipartisan, whatever you want to call it, was he was a war hero and a POW and he didn’t take precedence over other people. That is a moral virtue about which there can be unanimity. And then you get a guy who’s like, “Yeah, I like guys who weren’t captured.” And you know what? Initially people are like, “Well, that’s crazy.” But a lot of people are like, “Yeah, that’s a good point. Why did he get captured?”

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, no, it’s true. The joke with McCain was he was actually, he survived four plane crashes. But a lot of them, he was piloting himself. I mean, there was the iconic one that you referred to earlier.

Preet Bharara:

He’s like the plane crash e-guy.

Mark Leibovich:

Well, he would always joke about how terrible of a pilot he was, which I’m like, “Yeah, I guess he was kind of a bad pilot.”

Preet Bharara:

Well, there’s also the story. Wasn’t he unabashedly, publicly always naming himself as having the second-lowest grade point average at West Point?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. And then Trump always used to say, “Oh, he was so stupid.” And McCain, it was a very winning, self-deprecating line of his. Yeah, he was a trip. I mean, he also, by the way, he’s one of the few senators I’ve ever driven with. He actually does the driving. I’ve done a bunch of interviews in the backseats or in vans and stuff, but McCain actually drove himself for a long period of time. And oh, what a terrible driver.

Preet Bharara:

Why are we putting his sister in the job? Lindsey Graham’s sister?

Mark Leibovich:

I would imagine because she fits two criteria. One, I mean, she’s serving only until throughout the rest of this term and Lindsey was up for reelection. But I think her two biggest criteria is she will be loyal to Trump, as loyal as her brother was. And I think that was immediately clear, certainly to Trump and probably to Henry McMaster, the governor who was very Trumpy and who was the governor of South Carolina who appointed her. And the second thing is, she can just get on a plane and get to Washington. No one wanted McMaster, I’m sure, and Trump didn’t want any drama around South Park Carolina politicians trying to make a case for themselves in a way that dragged out. I mean, they need the vote, especially now that McConnell is pretty infirm.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s talk about a parallel proceeding going on in a more northerly state where you do have that drama, the great state of Maine. What do you make of the whole imbroglio there and why people fell in love with this flawed candidate?

Mark Leibovich:

That was definitely an imbroglio. There’s a great word. SAT word.

Preet Bharara:

It should be used more often.

Mark Leibovich:

Totally should be. And that’s what we’re doing here. The imbroglio was… So Graham Platner was this incredibly different kind of candidate. He seemed like he was. He had a great shtick. He’s an oyster farmer. Actually went out on his oyster boat last summer and his oysters are delicious. This was before anyone knew anything nefarious about him, which also sounds pretty true. Graham Platner, he was a great sort of working class figure or creation or working class… I mean, he’s sold as a kind of new kind of Democrat and it’s like, “Oh, working class white people, Democrats desperately need them. And here’s this guy in Maine, spent much of his adult life in the military, went through some real things, but also very charismatic, great on the stump, had a real following.” And then all of a sudden, as we all know now, Platner went Splatner and Maine now went-

Preet Bharara:

Did you coin that? Did you coin that, Mark?

Mark Leibovich:

I haven’t heard it elsewhere, so I’m going to say I coined it.

Preet Bharara:

Who upon hearing that would be spinning in their grave?

Mark Leibovich:

I would say because it’s Maine, I would say Ed Muskie. How’s that?

Preet Bharara:

Ed Muskie.

Mark Leibovich:

Edward Muskie, yeah. I mean, he’s a major man for Maine.

Preet Bharara:

Or he might be shedding a tear.

Mark Leibovich:

He might be, might be.

Preet Bharara:

You like that little bit of political trivia?

Mark Leibovich:

I like it. New Hampshire. This is great. I love going on podcast people around my age.

Preet Bharara:

And I’m the immigrant here in this couple. And even I know about Ed Muskie. So he’s another guy who wouldn’t tear up like you.

Mark Leibovich:

He did though, but it was wind in New Hampshire in 1972 that did that. Everyone, go Google that.

Preet Bharara:

Sure it was wind, Ed.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know. I was seven years old.

Preet Bharara:

Sure, it was wind.

Mark Leibovich:

Unlike you, I was very young at the time.

Preet Bharara:

What is your earliest political memory?

Mark Leibovich:

I would say probably the 1972 presidential race. I mean, I grew up in Massachusetts and I remember everyone I knew, all my parents’ friends, they were like, “Oh, we’re voting for McGovern.” So naturally said, “Well, everyone I know were voting McGovern.”

Preet Bharara:

Remind the audience where you grew up.

Mark Leibovich:

Massachusetts.

Preet Bharara:

Massachusetts, yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

Newton, Massachusetts.

Preet Bharara:

That was the one state.

Mark Leibovich:

Well, so yeah. So then he goes and he loses it. I learned the word landslide in 1972 and he lost 49 states, but the one he won was Massachusetts. So that gave me a window into bubbles. And I remember in 1984, I was at the University of Michigan and Walter Mondale, who was the Democratic nominee within maybe two weeks of the election, he did a big rally in Ann Arbor with Gary Hart. And it was a massive crowd and there was such great energy. And Mondale said, “Oh, I feel great energy in the crowd here and something is happening.” And sure, you go to a liberal college town, something is happening when Ronald Reagan’s on the other side of the election. And then I learned a similar lesson in college. So beware bubbles, that is the takeaway.

Preet Bharara:

Do you know my first political memory?

Mark Leibovich:

Tell me.

Preet Bharara:

It’s not as interesting, but it’s sort of interesting in how mundane it is. So I grew up in Monmouth County, New Jersey, and the center of activity in those times was what? The mall.

Mark Leibovich:

The mall. Okay.

Preet Bharara:

And it was the Monmouth Mall.

Mark Leibovich:

I was going to say the mob.

Preet Bharara:

No, the Monmouth Mall, which I think does not exist anywhere. I’m not sure. People will write in and tell me. And my father and mother gathered up me and my brother in 1976. So I was seven. My brother was four. And there was a huge crowd at the mall in the central area. Do you know who was visiting the Eatontown Monmouth Mall in ’76?

Mark Leibovich:

What month was it? Or was it the general election?

Preet Bharara:

I don’t remember, but I believe it was the general election.

Mark Leibovich:

Well, probably Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford.

Preet Bharara:

It was Betty Ford.

Mark Leibovich:

Betty Ford. There you go.

Preet Bharara:

It was the first lady.

Mark Leibovich:

Jerry Ford, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And I just remember everyone being so… I couldn’t even see the lady. I’m like, “Is that the lady?” And the arrival of the first lady at a mall in New Jersey is one of the memories, maybe the only memory I had from that entire year. But I was very impressed by how impressed everybody was that Betty Ford came to-

Mark Leibovich:

Betty Ford had quite a life and legacy, but she always talked about the experience not of having breast cancer or overcoming alcoholism and so forth. She talks about her visit to a New Jersey mall in 1976 as one of the more formative events of her life.

Preet Bharara:

Because I think we made eye contact. She caught a certain sparkle in my eye.

Mark Leibovich:

I think so. But by the way, to bring this not full circle, but it’s maybe half circle. John McCain-

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, semi-circle.

Mark Leibovich:

… whenever he would introduce people to his female members of… No, to both sex members of his staff, he would say, “Yeah, I just got out of Betty Ford.” I always said, “Yeah, they just got out of Betty Ford.” It’s sort of an old school version of the old school chemical addiction clinic. Anyway, sorry.

Preet Bharara:

Those are the old days when people wouldn’t talk about going to therapy.

Mark Leibovich:

No. Betty Ford helped us.

Preet Bharara:

Now, it’s in everyone’s public… She did.

Mark Leibovich:

And again, it was that trip to that New Jersey mall. All right, I’ll stop with that.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Mark Leibovich after this. Let me ask you a question. Let’s go back to Maine. And it’s not Graham Platner. It’s a different guy. And that different guy is Donald Trump. And we’ve seen it. Does Donald Trump leave the race and lose the race? Is the Graham Platner version of Donald Trump allowed to remain in the nominee spot, is allowed to campaign, is allowed to be defended, is defended, and beats the Republican long-term senator from Maine.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. The question is why does he drop out and why does Donald Trump not drop out? I mean, first of all, the two parties have completely different rules as far as what’s allowed and what’s not. What’s shameless and what’s not.

Preet Bharara:

And values. Values is another word.

Mark Leibovich:

You would think, and it’s not just a holier than thou thing, I don’t think. I mean, it’s just like, I don’t know. I mean, Trump has created a permission structure within the Republican Party that none of that stuff matters and you can just immediately just blame the messenger and smear the accuser.

Preet Bharara:

Could you argue that the track record of Trump and the legacy of Trump is what allowed Platner to survive as long as he did?

Mark Leibovich:

Possibly. I think he kind of widened the lens of what certainly people were willing to tolerate. I think also and what Democrats were looking for. I mean, he became kind of a cartoonish version of what a working class Democrat could possibly look like in the end, but it almost worked. I mean, if this reporting hadn’t come out, if this political report hadn’t come out, he would’ve made it to the finish line or to whatever deadline it was he needed to make and we’d be having this conversation non-hypothetically. But I do think that there is a sense, certainly within Democratic politics that the Al Franken example be meaning that Al Franken quit the Senate. He would, I’m sure, say prematurely or wrongly quit the Senate because he just felt pressure from a lot of people within the Senate, within the Democratic Party who said, “Hey, we have to be pure now.”

And obviously what Al Franken was accused of I would say was nowhere near what ended the career of any number of other people in media and politics and so forth or should have ended the career like say Donald Trump. So I think there’s been a bit of a correction there and I think that Platner again would’ve sort of benefited from that if not for this last story very close to the deadline.

Preet Bharara:

Can we skip discussion of 2026, further discussion of that and jump to 2028 even though I get resistance from some people on that? What is the thesis for a Democrat to win in 2028? And will that change a lot? I mean, I’m sure you’ll say it could change a lot over the next two years depending on what happens economically, what happens in Iran, and other unforeseeable things as well.

Mark Leibovich:

I’ve long past retired from hypothetical formulas. I mean, this will be defined by whatever candidate is nominated.

Preet Bharara:

What are some of the considera… So money begins to coalesce early. Money is not the be all and end all, but it’s important. And if you’re a person who’s seeking to run in 2028 and you’re trying to convince the most important podcasters in America and/or funders, if you’re not JB Pritzker, what are you telling them? Why are you saying me? I mean, I know what Rahm Emanuel is basically saying, “I’m not weak and I’m not woke,” which has the benefit of alliteration and I’m not sure how much more benefit it has. You got the fresh face, you’ve got the, “I’m different from Donald Trump.” You also have Gavin Newsom a little bit, he doesn’t say this, “I’m a little bit like Donald Trump.” Which is the argument that as you cover these things is going to gain traction in your estimation?

Mark Leibovich:

I think it’s all about performance. I mean, first of all, I mean we should never underestimate at this point the power of the left. I mean, you could even say that the Democratic socialist adjacent left after the fact that Platner was almost about to be nominated in Maine. Abdul El-Sayed, another big Bernie supporter, very, very popular on the left. AOC endorsed him. He’s sort of neck and neck right now with Haley Stevens in Michigan, could be the Democratic nominee there. And Maine and also Michigan, but more so Michigan. I mean, that would be sort of a test case of how someone that far left or perceived as that far left could do in a swing state, which Michigan is. So I mean I could see someone like AOC catching fire from the left and yes, that would immediately, many people in the center of the Democratic Party would recoil naturally, but who knows how far that energy can go and how wide it is.

And then there’s going to be a whole lot of people voting in a general election who don’t really think ideologically, but just think it’s kind of entertaining to have X or Y. I mean, I think, and this might go to Newsom, but obviously Newsom would have some flaws going in, but it helps to be a show person. I don’t know if… I mean, Donald Trump has shown you that to be not boring, to be a showman can get you really, really far in this environment. He’s also an advertisement of where it can take the country. So Newsom I think has shown that like Trump, he has a kind of feral instinct for just sort of throwing it out there and seeing if it flies and he’s been pretty effective. So I do think it will help, and this is probably a very unsatisfying answer, but I think it’ll help not to be boring. I think someone like Jon Ossoff could be very inspiring potentially.

Preet Bharara:

Talk about Jon Ossoff. I feel like he’s come a long way.

Mark Leibovich:

He has. I mean, he’s getting a lot of traction these days. He says he’s not going to run, but he’s a senator from Georgia. He’s young, a speaker.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m not following his local race.

Mark Leibovich:

He is up for reelection, which-

Preet Bharara:

He’s going to win?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, yeah, Georgia, pretty purple state, even sort of red purple state you could argue, but seems to be doing really well in the polls, seems to be performing it really, really well.

Preet Bharara:

Right. And there’s sort of the laws of physics, a slingshot around a large planetary body. In this case, his election is pretty good momentum.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, it seems like it. I mean, he’s very, very talented in ways I didn’t fully realize until pretty recently.

Preet Bharara:

Do you know who else I feel is quite talented?

Mark Leibovich:

Who?

Preet Bharara:

His compatriot in Georgia.

Mark Leibovich:

Raphael Warnock.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. What do you think?

Mark Leibovich:

Also getting a lot of traction. Yeah, I mean, they’re both very talented politicians, very different. I mean, Raphael Warnock is a preacher, African-American. Ossoff is more… He kind of kept his head down since he was elected in 2020 or actually it was 2021. It was the day before, it was a special election, runoff election right before January 6th. I think he smartly has tried not to make a lot of outward liberal waves given what kind of politics-

Preet Bharara:

Are you talking about Ossoff or Warnock?

Mark Leibovich:

I’m talking about Ossoff.

Preet Bharara:

Okay.

Mark Leibovich:

I think Warnock though is also now making noises and has done really well. I mean, it helped him that he was up against Herschel Walker in 2022. And it helps Jon Ossoff that he was not up in 2024 as opposed to now, because if it were 2024, he very likely would’ve lost. So I think he benefited from the calendar and I think Warnock certainly benefited from his competition. And I think Ossoff might to some degree also.

Preet Bharara:

I always think about the one thing that one of the things that was truly true that Joe Biden would say, “Elections are not a choice between me and the Almighty. They’re between me and the alternative.”

Mark Leibovich:

Correct. Yeah, he said all the time.

Preet Bharara:

He said it all the time, and I thought he was damn correct on that.

Mark Leibovich:

He was. He would always attribute it to, I think it was his dad, which I’m not sure. I mean, who knows? It’s a good line though. It is true.

Preet Bharara:

It is totally true. And so applying that principle here, do you agree… I don’t know if I agree. So instead of phrasing it that way, I’ll say, do you believe that given the power of Trump, even though he’s a lame duck and he can’t run again, presumably, that anybody who is going to successfully succeed to the mantle of the nominee of the Republican Party has to be an embracer of MAGA and an embracer of Trump as opposed to being someone of a departure from Trump?

Mark Leibovich:

I think it’s a real, real needle to thread. I mean, I think you need to be both. You cannot go up there.

Preet Bharara:

But you can’t renounce Trump.

Mark Leibovich:

No, because then Trump will renounce you right back and you’re going to lose the hardcore and that MAGA’s boom and you’re not going anywhere. So yeah, you need, I assume, look, Trump’s support has eroded quite a bit and it could really spiral over the next say year or so, especially if the midterms go badly for Republicans. So maybe we recalibrate that view in a year or so. Also, who knows if his health will hold up. I mean, that’s two, three years from now.

Preet Bharara:

So the reason I ask the question is prominent names and the people who are well-positioned, Marco Rubio and JD Vance are obviously converts to embracing Trump and they do it with a great zeal of the convert, whether you believe the conversion or not. Who are other people like that who may be celebrating at the convention?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I mean, I do think, again, if Trump falls, just really goes sideways and that breaches deep within the Republican Party, which has not happened to this point and hasn’t really come close to happening. You could see someone with conservative credentials, but mainstream credentials like maybe a Brian Kemp of Georgia, even though he’s battled with Trump. So that might, we’ll see how that goes.

Preet Bharara:

No, I’m going to say no on that one.

Mark Leibovich:

Okay. You’re going to say no on that one.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, next.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know. Tom Cotton, someone who-

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to say no on that one.

Mark Leibovich:

All right.

Preet Bharara:

Well, actually that’s less of a no. That’s less of a no.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. I mean, let’s see. Nikki Haley, no. Ron DeSantis might run again.

Preet Bharara:

Why Nikki Haley no?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, I don’t know. I mean, I think one, MAGA never liked her at all and they would double down on that.

Preet Bharara:

Let me rephrase the question from before. Rather than calling it a renouncing of Trump, can a Republican get elected without MAGA’s support?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, not now, not now. And I think it’s likely that you cannot get nominated without MAGA support.

Preet Bharara:

Now what about a candidacy quixotic or not of someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene? Does that shake things up?

Mark Leibovich:

It does shake things up. I mean, I don’t think she could win. However, I do think she has a real following. And she’d get a lot of attention, she’d get on TV a lot. And she has, in the last year or so, along with Thomas Massie and very few others, positioned herself as a very conservative, legitimately populist antagonist to Trump and has been pretty effective in pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump and MAGA, especially around Jeffrey Epstein. So yeah, I mean look, she also has a screw loose. I mean, it very much helps to not be conventional of thought, let’s just say. And again, I think people would be very compelled by her, at least the media would be, and I don’t know how far she could take it, but I think that it would certainly shake things up.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it seems to me that she would be interesting to have in debates.

Mark Leibovich:

No, absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

In the same way that Trump was interesting to have in debates in 2016 or that Chris Christie was interes… I mean, Chris Christie, I watched this again recently. I’m not sure why, but Chris Christie, at least for a period of time, completely vivisected, it’s another good word, demolished-

Mark Leibovich:

Marco Rubio.

Preet Bharara:

… Marco Rubio-

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, in 2016.

Preet Bharara:

… in 2016. I mean, the guy made a comeback by making the pilgrimage to the Trump heart and mind, but he did. And Marjorie Taylor Greene can say things at debates about people who purport to be anti-Epstein or pro-MAGA that other people can’t say with the same standing, right?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. I mean, she also, I’ll say this, I’m sure she said publicly what a ton of people within MAGA or former MAGA were saying privately, which is like, “What the fuck, man?” I mean, this Epstein thing is-

Preet Bharara:

You’re not going to ask me if you can say that word?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, it’s true though. I mean privately, they would all say, “How are we going to go out and defend this?” And of course they do, but Marjorie Taylor Greene didn’t bother. So I guess that’s to her credit.

Preet Bharara:

So this is not a long list that you’ve provided us.

Mark Leibovich:

All right. I haven’t really thought about it. So let’s see. Donald Trump Jr.

Preet Bharara:

There’s no Romney-like or Paul Ryan type figure who’s got any shot, correct?

Mark Leibovich:

There might be. I mean, I can’t think of them. I mean, again, Kemp would be the Romney figure, which is very different in that he would be immediately suspect to parts of the base, meaning the MAGA base in this case, the way that Romney was to the religious conservatives in 2012 and 2008 when he ran before. But I’m sure there are some Republican governors out there.

Preet Bharara:

What about Ted Cruz?

Mark Leibovich:

Oh yeah, I forgot about him. Yeah, he’s certainly talking about running. I mean, he’s been talking about this for years. I mean, I don’t think he’d be the easy MAGA choice. I mean, he’s already clashed with MAGA. And I think, didn’t they clash over something recently? I think someone, he clapped back on something. I don’t know if it was Epstein or what.

Preet Bharara:

He’ll screw his chances if instead of attending the debate, he goes to Cancun. That’s a problem for him.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. I mean, I think the way he comes off is a problem for him.

Preet Bharara:

But I also haven’t given it a lot of thought because you think about your side and you think about the Democrats. But if you go back to the Joe Biden father aphorism, if you could know in our science fiction hypothetical, if you could know who the Republican nominee was, you reverse engineer your nominee. Now you can’t know that so it’s just idle thought, but it makes a big difference. It makes a big difference.

Mark Leibovich:

It does. I mean, I would say, look, if you wanted to horse race this, I still would say that Rubio and Vance would be far and away right now the two front runners. But again, who knows, right?

Preet Bharara:

And as between the two, who’s got the better political skill?

Mark Leibovich:

Rubio. Rubio.

Preet Bharara:

And are you saying that because of the way he has threaded the needle and-

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, he’s very talented.

Preet Bharara:

… walked the line over the last year and a half? Yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

He’s very talented. I mean, he’s also like Graham, I mean, he’s flipped around a lot. I mean, he can argue his way.

Preet Bharara:

Democrats like the guy.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I think so.

Preet Bharara:

Don’t they? Well, they like him a lot more than JD Vance, correct?

Mark Leibovich:

They do. They do. I think he was seen when he was nominated for Secretary of State as like, “Oh, here we have an adult in the room.” And I mean, I don’t know what they’re saying now, but he’s been able to… I think the skill of him as a politician has been underscored by how he’s performed in this role and also how he’s stayed very much in the good graces it seems of Trump and the White House and supporters thereof. So there is some polling out there too that suggests that he’s more appealing to a lot of Republican voters right now than Vance.

Preet Bharara:

Look, and also there’s the power we should come to an end in a moment, but there’s the power of, depending on how the next two years go, the Trump endorsement.

Mark Leibovich:

The Trump endorsement, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Which is still a powerful thing. The Trump anointment, right?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it’s going to be huge. I mean, it’s certainly biggest factor in every state-wide race or every congressional race involving Republicans.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think Trump benefits from Congressional Democrats impeaching him a couple of more times?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I don’t think it would help Democrats at all. I don’t know why they would bother. I mean, yeah, if you win the House, you could probably get the votes to do it and then it’ll probably go down in the Senate like last time and Trump will be as dismissive as he was last time and it’ll be a Groundhog Day. Yeah, I think that the example of the first term shows that impeachment is not the blunt object that people might’ve seen it as before.

Preet Bharara:

But I hear a lot of talk, Mark, about it.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I think it might be counterproductive, but no one asked me. Well, actually, did you kind of ask?

Preet Bharara:

Well, I think I just asked you.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. Well, if you asked me-

Preet Bharara:

I asked you pretty squarely.

Mark Leibovich:

… I would say it would be counterproductive, although certainly there would be momentum towards it given where the Democratic Party is.

Preet Bharara:

Anything else you want to say? Any words of wisdom you want to impart? How should consumers be consuming news during this election cycle? And then I’ll let you go.

Mark Leibovich:

I think they should do it, I don’t know, with the great… Well, first of all, I think they should consume it.

Preet Bharara:

With the vodka tonic.

Mark Leibovich:

With a vodka tonic and with the frequent companionship of this podcast. It is always a pleasure to come on. It is the time I get to spend with you largely because we are in different places. And so yeah, I don’t know, just be careful out there. I think stay off social media if you can. Touch grass, meaning go outside, stay off social media. Actually have human contact with someone, especially in these summer months when the outer doors is not your enemy. Although it’s very hot this week, so everyone be careful.

Preet Bharara:

In New York today, it’s my enemy. It’s like 90s.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, it’s a lot of people’s.

Preet Bharara:

It’s 99.

Mark Leibovich:

Be careful. My phone is blowing up, so I got to go.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that meteorology report from Mark Leibovich, thank you. It’s always a pleasure to have you, my friend.

Mark Leibovich:

Thanks, Preet. Anytime.

Preet Bharara:

Thanks so much. Have a good summer.

Mark Leibovich:

By the way, coming onto a podcast of this length on my vacation speaks to my incredible affection for you.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I appreciate that.

Mark Leibovich:

And your staff.

Preet Bharara:

Make sure we don’t cut that. Make sure we don’t cut that.

Mark Leibovich:

Don’t cut that. Put it on.

Preet Bharara:

Farewell, sir.

My conversation with Mark Leibovich continues from members of the insider community.

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, he has such advantages both in that he’s so amoral. You could even say nihilistic, shameless. I mean, all of that’s a superpower if you want to use it.

Preet Bharara:

To try out the membership, head to staytuned.substack.com. Again, that’s staytuned.substack.com.

After the break, I’ll answer your questions about the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham and Jared Kushner’s negotiations on behalf of the United States.

Now let’s get to your questions.

So a lot of people have been asking me over the last few days about the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham. So I thought I’d spent a couple of minutes reflecting on my experiences with the late senator. So probably like many of you, I woke up on Sunday morning and did what every professional healthcare mental healthcare professional says not to do, I reached for my phone and that’s when I saw the surprising news. At a time when everyone has been wondering about the health and actually life of Mitch McConnell, it turns out that Lindsey Graham passed away overnight. And so I’ve been thinking about him and my experiences with him and what I’ve seen of him in the years since I served on the staff of the Senate. And I can say, I think without fear of contradiction anywhere on the political spectrum that Lindsey Graham and his personality and his approach and his evolution, some would say devolution is complicated to say the least.

Now, how you feel about Lindsey Graham probably depends quite a bit on when you first came to know him or know of him and what period of his career you’re focused on. So for me, my own direct experiences with Lindsey Graham were when I worked in the Senate from 2005 to 2009, and that’s a long time ago. And I will say Lindsey Graham probably was my favorite Republican senator. He was, I will tell you, a great deal of fun. He cracked jokes. He was well-liked by people on both sides of the aisle. He was a real person and his status as sort of best friend to, depending on your perspective, or sidekick to, or promoter of the Maverick Senator, John McCain, I think helped him in his stature as well. I will also say that as a young staffer in the Senate, there were a vanishingly few members of the Senate, duly elected actual members of the Senate who deigned to talk to staff.

Senators spoke to senators, staffers spoke to staffers, and that was it. And a very, very rare exception was Lindsey Graham. So I got to know him better than I got to know a lot of other people in the Senate and I did like him. I haven’t gone back and checked the records, but he was one of the most bipartisan senators at the time as well and a favorite of my then boss, Chuck Schumer, to work on bills together on a bipartisan basis. Senator Graham, as you may also remember, also had a close friendship with President Joe Biden. They served in the Senate for decades together. And during a 2016 interview, Graham teared up when he spoke about what made Joe Biden such a special person.

Lindsey Graham:

He’s the nicest person I think I’ve ever met in politics. He is as good a man as God ever created. And we don’t agree on much, but I think he’s been dealt a really gut blow. I think he focuses on what he’s got to do, not what he lost. His heart’s been ripped out, but he’s going to make sure that the other members of his family’s well taken care of. And he started talking about his grandkids, more worried about them than anything.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s the other thing I liked about Lindsey Graham, he was probably as good a questioner at Senate hearings as anyone on that committee. He asked smart, rapid fire questions. One of the most memorable and I think frequently played in the last few days moments came during now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing. Here’s the exchange.

Lindsey Graham:

Now, as we move forward and deal with law of war issues, Christmas Day bomber, where are you at on Christmas Day?

Elena Kagan:

Senator Graham, that is an undecided legal issue. Well, I suppose I should ask exactly what you mean by that. I’m assuming that the question you mean is whether a person who was apprehended in the United States is-

Lindsey Graham:

No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas.

Elena Kagan:

You know like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.

Lindsey Graham:

Great answer. Great answer.

Speaker 5:

I could almost see that one coming. And I thought…

Lindsey Graham:

Me, too. So you were celebrating-

Speaker 5:

Senator Schumer explained this to me earlier.

Lindsey Graham:

Yeah, he did.

Speaker 6:

If I might, no other restaurants are open.

Lindsey Graham:

Right. You were with your family on Christmas day at a Chinese restaurant. Okay.

Elena Kagan:

Yes, sir.

Lindsey Graham:

That’s great. That’s what Heineken Christmas is all about.

Preet Bharara:

By the way, on some matters, Graham was principled. Unlike many, he believed the presidents, generally speaking, deserve their choice of nominee. And in this case, the case of Elena Kagan, he was only one of five Republicans to vote to confirm her to the high court. Now, if you’ve only come to know Lindsey Graham over the last few years since the death of John McCain and as Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, you probably and legitimately have a different view of Lindsey Graham. And I think that’s fair. He’s done a lot of things over the past decade that I strongly disagree with and that I’m sure you do too. In fact, Lindsey Graham himself would’ve agreed with you at least at first on May 3rd, 2016, not that long ago in the history of the world, he posted this tweet, quote, “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it.” End quote.

But like a lot of other Republicans who benefited themselves from this, he changed his tune soon after Trump was elected in 2016 and became one of his most vocal allies and defenders. And as a lot of other people have observed who were closer to the situation, Lindsey Graham seems to have changed after the death of his friend, John McCain. He never seemed to be quite the same senator or the same person again. If you were being uncharitable, you might say that he is one example of many who decided that in the interests of self-preservation or self-promotion or proximity to power or to remain relevant, you had to befriend Donald Trump who you once upon a time though would destroy the country. At the risk of causing an overexposure problem for Hunter Biden, who I’ve talked about a bit the last few episodes, I want to share his poignant message after Lindsey Graham’s death and it’s this.

“When I heard about Senator Graham’s death last night, the first thing I thought about was not all the things he said and did in service of Donald Trump. I though of the time before Donald Trump when he was a brother to Senator John McCain, a time when senators from different parties could fight about politics and still be friends. That is the Senator Graham I will remember today, not because I have forgotten what came after, because in that memory there is hope, hope for a country where brothers can fight like hell over policy and still share a meal and a laugh and the loss of the people they love. I will choose to remember the time before Trump because I believe in an America after Trump.”

This question comes as an email from Melissa. She asks, “Is it legal for Jared Kushner to negotiate on behalf of the United States if he does not hold a government position and has not been confirmed by the Senate? In fact, didn’t Aaron Burr get in trouble for something similar?” Melissa, thank you for your question. So the answer is a little more complicated than yes or no. As a constitutional matter, the President has broad authority over foreign affairs and can rely on trusted advisors, including people who are not Senate confirmed to help conduct diplomacy. So one important fact here is whether or not the person doing the quote unquote “negotiating” is doing it at the behest of, at the instruction of, or with the blessing of the President of the United States. Now there is a law that’s been discussed not so much recently, but in the past called the Logan Act.

And the Logan Act purports to prohibit unauthorized private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States. The point being we have one government at a time and unauthorized negotiating on the part of private citizens can be a bad thing. But as I’ve said, that law likely wouldn’t apply here because Kushner is acting with the president’s authorization. By the way, one more point about the Logan Act. My recollection is it has never been successfully prosecuted and has only been attempted once or twice in the entire history of the statute. So that’s the Logan Act. Now all of that is not really why people seem to be raising concerns about Jared Kushner. By way of history, you’ll recall that Kushner served in the first Trump administration as a senior advisor to the president and played a major role in Middle East diplomacy. Most notably, he negotiated the Abraham Accords, which normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations.

In 2021, Kushner founded a private equity firm called Affinity Partners. According to SEC filings, 99% of the firm’s $6 billion in assets belong to foreign government-backed funds, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Kushner remains CEO of the firm, which invests that capital in private businesses and development projects including tech, AI, energy, and real estate in the United States, in Israel, in the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world. Meanwhile, Kushner returned to the Trump administration in September of last year as an unofficial advisor, helping to negotiate the ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas. And then this February, President Trump appointed Kushner to an unofficial volunteer role as special envoy for peace and he’s continued to be a major player in negotiations with Iran throughout that war. And so you can see where the controversy comes. Although President Trump has given Kushner a formal title, he’s not a Senate-confirmed officer.

And according to reporting, the White House has structured his role in a way that exempts him, exempts him from many of the ethics and financial disclosure requirements that normally apply to regular executive branch officials. To be clear, that doesn’t necessarily make the arrangement illegal since the president has considerable discretion to choose advisors and envoys. But it does mean that someone who is exercising significant influence over American foreign policy, who also happens to be married to the president’s daughter, may not be subject to the same transparency and conflict of interest rules that normally apply and they normally apply for good reason. And so that’s why ethics experts have raised concerns. Kushner told 60 Minutes last fall that he has never pursued any policies or done anything that have not been in the interest of America. I suppose that’s a good thing to have said, but because so little is publicly known about his financial interests and business relationships, it’s a little difficult for the public to assess the potential and likely conflicts of interest.

Now, my favorite part of your question is about Aaron Burr. His situation was a bit different and much more dramatic. Historians debate his exact intentions, but he was charged with treason for trying to get military and financial support from Great Britain and Spain to either attack Mexico or seize Western territories in the US to create his own empire. Can you blame him? Ultimately, he was acquitted because prosecutors could not prove that he had committed an overt act of war against the US. So that’s a little bit different.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Mark Leibovich. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcast 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 Bluesky or you can call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338. That’s 833-99-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 supervising producer is Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández. The video producer is Nat Weiner. The audio producer is Matthew Billy, and the marketing manager is Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.