Preet Bharara:

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

Garry Kasparov:

And I think there will be kind of disillusionment with Trump by many voters in 2026. I don’t think he can create miracles with economy. I think the inflation may be just curbed, but it’ll not go away. So there will be opportunities, but people will have to see, “Oh, there’s an alternative.”

Preet Bharara:

That’s Garry Kasparov, one of the greatest chess players of all time. He’s also a prominent human rights activist, a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin, and the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to defending liberal democracies worldwide. Kasparov, who grew up in the Soviet Union, has been warning about the autocratic dangers of a second Donald Trump term. Now he joins me to discuss Trump’s plans to consolidate power, the urgent need for change within the Democratic Party, and strategies for surviving political exhaustion. That’s coming up, Stay Tuned.

Q&A

Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes in an email from Christopher, who asks, “If Matt Gaetz is not confirmed as Attorney General, is he able to reclaim his recently resigned seat in Congress, or will he be unemployed?” Well, that’s a funny question, I guess, if the issue wasn’t so unfunny to begin with. No, once he resigned his seat in Congress in the House of Representatives, he remains out of that office. He remains unemployed unless he can find another gig. There are no backsies after you resign from the house.

Two other points I would make, one, if he were able to get back into the House of Representatives in some fashion, that would definitely cause the ethics report, that’s been the subject of a lot of controversy and a lot of people want to see it, unclear by the time you listen to this, whether it will have been released or a decision will have been made about its release. But if he comes back to the House, that sucker’s getting out. But in any event, he can’t come back to the House.

The second point I would make is, although Matt Gaetz wouldn’t be able to come back to his House seat, there is a sort of interesting prospect of his returning to Congress to the upper chamber, the United States Senate. If Marco Rubio gets confirmed to be Secretary of State, I guess it is within Ron DeSantis’ power, the governor of Florida. It’s within his power to appoint someone to replace Marco Rubio for a period of time, and I guess he could appoint Matt Gaetz.

This question comes in a tweet or a post on X from Mark who writes, “What is required to eliminate an entire federal department such as the Department of Education? Can a president just do this, or is Congress involved?” Well, this is a question that comes up every so often, and obviously it’s on your mind. Because the Department of Education is at least rhetorically in the line of fire of President-elect Donald Trump. It’s not the first time he has talked about eliminating the Department of Education. He talked about that in his first term. But very recently he said, “I say it all the time, I’m dying to get back to do this. We will ultimately eliminate the Federal Department of Education.”

Now, your question is a good one, and depending on how you feel about the Department of Education, it’s either good news or bad news. The Department of Education was established by an act of Congress in 1979. And is funded by Congress, therefore an executive order, or the waving of a magic wand, or Donald Trump wishing it’s so, or even saying that Mexico can pay for it, will not on its own eliminate the Department of Education. It’ll take a vote in both Houses. A law would need to be passed and signed by the President of the United States. Given the most Democrats, likely every Democrat would oppose the dissolution of the Department of Education, it would be a very uphill battle to do so given that it would require a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. So, that even though Republicans will control both chambers of Congress in the new term, there are still fewer than 60 Republican senators, so I think it’s safe to say something like this wouldn’t pass.

By the way, it is not unprecedented, even in recent times to eliminate or change or merge or reform departments that have significant power and authority. Remember, it was only after 9/11 that the Department of Homeland security was created, which rejiggered a lot of departments and agencies, including the Secret Service, because the country felt on a bipartisan basis that we were not adequately prepared for 9/11.

I’ll also say that as a general policy matter, there are lots of departments in government, including the Department of Defense, which is also the subject of some discussion about this, that are badly in need of reform where there is waste and fraud and abuse. And it’s all for the good to talk about ways to eliminate that waste, fraud and abuse or inefficiency. I think it’s a good thing to focus on those things. But this idea of eliminating department’s wholesale to my mind is cheap and lazy sloganeering. Along the lines of people who say, “Abolish the FBI or defund the police.” One final point, even though it is true that Trump cannot by fiat eliminate an entire department established by statute, like the Department of Education, there are probably a lot of things that he can do to undermine the mission and denigrate that department. We’ll see what his nominee Linda McMahon has in mind and what she does if she gets that job.

This question comes in an email from Christina. “Preet, what do you make of Alvin Bragg’s letter to Judge Merchan about Trump’s conviction in Manhattan?” This is a great and interesting question, and I think it’s a complicated issue in the letter that Alvin Bragg sent in the last couple of days will not be satisfactory to the minds of a lot of people. To just give you some background and get you up to speed. You’ll recall that of the four criminal cases against Donald Trump, only one actually made it to trial, and there was a conclusion to that trial and there was a 34 count guilty verdict, and that was some months ago, and Trump was supposed to proceed to sentencing. And that has gotten adjourned for various reasons, multiple times, including because of the kind of unexpected Supreme Court ruling expanding the scope of immunity and lessening the scope of liability for people who behaved badly while being sitting presidents of the United States, like Donald Trump.

So, there’s a lot of legal wrangling, a lot of stuff that needs to go on. And in the meantime Donald Trump has gotten reelected President of the United States. He’s not serving yet. He’s in a transitional period, but when he becomes president, there’s the question of the operative value of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that we’ve talked about a million times on this show, so you’re familiar with it, that essentially says, “A sitting president cannot be distracted from his commander-in-chief duties and the other responsibilities he has that are very, very important, by having to deal with a criminal prosecution.” No one has ever answered the question before of what happens if you get convicted before you’re the President, but there’s still some proceedings that have to take place after. Can you go to prison? Can you be sentenced? What are the issues relating to your release and probation and parole and everything else?

Alvin Bragg in response to a motion by the Trump folks relating to the Supreme Court opinion and his reelection to the presidency probably had only a couple of choices given the reality of the situation. Choice one was to consent to dropping the case, making it go away. And option two was some version of pausing the case, pausing sentencing for what will appear to be an eternity, four years, so that the jury conviction stands, the record stands, the verdict remains in place, but the ultimate judgment about how much time, if any, Trump should spend in prison or what fine he should pay, or what other penalties he might have to face gets delayed in favor of his time as President for the second time.

Here’s how Alvin Bragg’s office put it. “The people deeply respect the office of the President, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that defendant’s inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions. We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system.” So, to use in this instance, in this extraordinary instance, a very overused metaphor, Alvin Bragg’s office is between a rock and a hard place. It’s especially frustrating to people who would like to see full accountability and closure that uniquely among the four cases brought against Donald Trump that were criminal Alvin Bragg’s office was able to go to trial and was able to get a timely verdict well in advance of the election. But other circumstances, including the Supreme Court’s opinion and Donald Trump’s reelection, have stymied that effort.

Now, I said earlier in my answer to the question that Alvin Bragg had essentially two choices. I guess he had a third choice, which would’ve been to press for sentencing in the ordinary course. But I think that was probably not perceived to be realistic given the situation he found himself in, given the legal landscape, and given what probably Judge Merchan has been signaling. In any event, there’s been more back and forth about scheduling between the parties, who will file what brief when? But I expect we will know sometime in the next few weeks in a ruling by Judge Merchan how this will play out or whether it’s over.

THE INTERVIEW

I’ll be right back with my conversation with Garry Kasparov. Chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov has lived under a repressive regime. Today, he uses his experience to highlight ways to strengthen democratic values, especially when they’re under attack. Garry Kasparov, welcome back to the show.

Garry Kasparov:

Thanks for inviting me.

Preet Bharara:

So, before we get to all the events in America and around the world, I just wanted to, on a personal note, mention to you, because I don’t know that I had. The last time I did a live podcast with a studio audience on stage was in New York about two and a half years ago, and you were one of the guests. And I’ve often commented on the program that my kids are very not easily impressed, certainly not by their father, but my youngest child who was then I guess 17, is a chess aficionado and was so thrilled to meet you. You’re an inspiration to him. The fact that you showed up made me look a little bit cool that we’re friends. My son thought maybe his dad is not so bad either, and you were very kind to take a lot of pictures with him, so I thank you for that.

Garry Kasparov:

Good to hear. Good.

Preet Bharara:

How’s the chess game lately?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, I do not play chess professionally. I’m always busy promoting the game, working with rising stars through Kasparov’s Chess Foundation. And lately I played the exhibition event in St. Louis, Missouri.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I saw that.

Garry Kasparov:

I’m still kicking even the top players who are 35, sometimes 40 years younger than myself, but it’s just a sideshow. I’m an amateur, still remember how to move the pieces, but my concentration level is not up to the real challenge.

Preet Bharara:

Well, the other work that you’re doing that’s very important is advocating for human rights and advocating for democracy.

Garry Kasparov:

And unfortunately in other fields there are no strict rules as in the game of chess.

Preet Bharara:

No, there are not. And we’ve talked about that before. So you were not raised in America, but you’re a very sort of sharp observer and critic of American politics, and a good person to warn America of the ills of autocracy and all sorts of other bad authoritarian trends and regimes. I have a lot of questions to ask you, given what you’ve written and your commentary on the most recent election. First question is, were you surprised by the Trump victory and its margin?

Garry Kasparov:

Probably by margin, by the outcome, no, I was really worried. As you know, I endorsed Kamala Harris.

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Garry Kasparov:

It was not an easy decision, because I probably disagreed with her on many things, but I believed that Trump, and still believe Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And that’s why I thought that beating him was the most important, actually the only important thing in these elections. But traveling across the land, and I have events and speeches in various parts of this country and talking to people, I mean, my polling data mainly comes from the drivers who took me from the airport to the event. And what I heard in South Carolina, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, in Colorado didn’t make me feel comfortable. I could feel that there was enough anger on the field, and I also could see that the administration, Biden administration was disconnected with the folks on the ground.

And I still hope that the factor of Trump, that Trump himself could tip the balance on the scales because clearly half of the country didn’t want to see him coming back and recognizing the dangers. But even with Trump and with many other things that accompanied Trump’s return, on other side we had inflation, we had immigration, and I think we had Sam Harris pointed out very succinctly in one of his latest podcasts were the problems of cultural war, the problems of identity politics that have been widely rejected by rural America. And I still hoped that the balance will tip in the last minute.

But I think the campaign that Kamala Harris run, and I think there’s the lack of the understanding of the threat, I mean, brought us back to 2016. It’s not just a painful defeat for Democratic Party. But it’s amazing that the same mistakes that have been made in 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign where Trump factor was a new, I mean they have been repeated in 2024. Because I believe Trump was beatable. But it again, it’s ended up not just with his victory, but GOP, which is now under the thumb of Trump, got total control of all aspects of American political life and institutions.

Preet Bharara:

What do you say to people who argue, people like you and me and others who ring the alarm bell about a second Trump term and all the things he’ll do. And they say, “Well, he didn’t do them in the first term. He didn’t eliminate democracy in the first term. You’re just screaming, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” and it’s just scare tactics.

Garry Kasparov:

Look, I’ve been warning about Trump back in 2015. And again, unfortunately these warnings, as many others about Putin or rise of dictatorship were on the globe, they were not heated by the mainstream media and by public at large. Trump actually already achieved even during the first term many things that I viewed as a serious setback for democracy.

Preet Bharara:

Like what?

Garry Kasparov:

He normalized many elements of his politics that were before unacceptable. And I warned back in 2016 that many fundamentals of U.S. democratic system were based on customs, on traditions, on political patterns that were repeated from generation to generations. Nobody did it before, and that’s why you couldn’t even imagine how somebody could basically depart from them. Trump did. Trump actually exposed that American democracy was not based on such a solid foundation as many thought. Because some of the key elements they were, again, it’s a common understanding. We don’t do that. And the first term was not as devastating, because Trump won as he thought himself accidentally. Nobody expected him to win. He didn’t have a team, he didn’t have a plan, and that’s why he relied during his first term mostly on traditional Republicans. When you look at the choice of the Trump cabinet in 2016, 2017 that he did before inauguration in 2016, 2017, you found people that had their own opinions, like General Mattis for instance, or others that he brought in. And Trump’s factor was important, but not only dominating.

His picks for 2025, there’s this transition cycle, they’re very different. And they send a clear signal that Trump is aiming for privatization of power, because he brings his loyalists. And when you look at some key positions like Pentagon, DOD, DOJ, justice and intelligence, I mean, it’s not just about qualification of people that he suggested, but it’s just about his cronies. It’s very clear that Trump has a plan. And by the way, it’s not just one person on top. It’s not just Matt Gaetz as head of the department. When you look at numbers two and three, Trump is planning to bring his personal lawyers. I think overall we could see that Trump concentrated so much power in his hands that I’m not sure that the democratic institutions could resist the pressure from him when he starts dismantling the system of checks and balances.

What I’m worrying is, it’s not like dictatorship in its ideological form, but it’s more like oligarchy. That’s what we saw in Russia, for instance, in the ’90s. Where you have power concentrated in hands of you. And the fact is that the largest private contractor of the government, Elon Musk, could be in the position to decide how government’s need to spend the money. That tells you that the traditional system of checks and balances may not function during Trump’s second term.

Preet Bharara:

In some ways, I guess you could argue that the voters are allowing themselves to be manipulated. You in talking about the cabinet responded to somebody who tweeted, “Trump nominated Gaetz for AG because he wants Gaetz to be his AG, not complicated Occam’s plunger, a play on Occam’s razor. And you said yes in agreement. “Please no more 4D chess silliness. Clowns, crooks and vile toadies are also useful distractions from the real business of consolidating power and money.” Are we falling for distractions again and again and again, and are we being surprised again and again and again when we shouldn’t be? And how are we not supposed to be when he does things like this?

Garry Kasparov:

Some of these things are distractions, some are the illusions. But it’s about directions. It’s about the trend. And trend is very clear. The power will be concentrated in the hands of very few. And while we see some reasonable names suggested for top positions, like Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, the question is whether Rubio will be calling the shots or everything will be dictated by the Trumps inner circle, that will be in charge of all the key issues without even having formal positions in the government? Because typically you expect the other branch of the government to oppose. But I’ve not hear, I’ve doubts that the Republican Senate will have a spine to oppose many of Trump nominations. I think they will probably push some.

I would be very surprised if Gaetz is approved, is confirmed on the Senate floor. Maybe Hegseth, maybe Tulsi, but again that so many of them. So, you have at least four candidates that are totally, in my view, are absolutely unacceptable. It’s RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Hegseth, and Gaetz. But even if we find four Republicans to vote against some of them, I don’t think they will vote against all four. So which means some of them, some of these people, you could probably bet your money on it, will take their positions. And I don’t know which one is worse, Gaetz as the AG or Tulsi Gabbard, Russian asset, an apologist for dictators around the world, as the head of American intelligence.

Preet Bharara:

My vote is maybe even though the DOJs in my wheelhouse, it’s possibly RFK given how much damage we can do to public health.

Garry Kasparov:

Look, but it’s probably that will be the case, but that means that American intelligence will be led by someone-

Preet Bharara:

No, you wish you didn’t have to pick and choose.

Garry Kasparov:

Exactly, but that’s a problem. I may suggest that Elon Musk will look at the DNI and probably cut this office and just outsource it to Putin directly. So, just it’ll definitely save money and probably will be less damaging, because we’ll know exactly who’s running American intelligence and not having any illusions. So, the dangers are multiple, and I even don’t know where to look at. Because again, it’s just, Trump was not yet in the Oval Office, but we were already seeing the kind of obedience across the field. We saw what’s happened with Washington Post, with LA Times. While I may even approve some of the actions suggested by Trump, again, I was always opposed the vote policies. But the problem is you pushed one side and then the pendulum is swinging all the way to the opposite side, and it could go too far and the mechanism at one point can be broken.

Preet Bharara:

Do you see any hope of adult leadership and supervision and pushback in the fact that the Senate majority leader, it was John Thune, even though it was by secret ballot and not somebody who’s even closer to Donald Trump? Or is that just a small thing?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, it’s encouraging that it was not Rick Scott, who immediately said when he declared his candidacy that he would suppose recess appointments. Because I believe that Trump will try to use recess appointments to avoid confirmation hearings. But still he would need support of all the senators. Thune offers some hope. It’s among these three candidates, he was the best. And the fact is that majority of Republican senators in a secret ballot-

Preet Bharara:

It had to be a secret ballot, didn’t it?

Garry Kasparov:

Exactly. Secret ballot.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Garry Kasparov:

Yeah. But now question is, will they be courageous to actually to say something against Trump’s nominees openly on the floor? Again, I think there will be enough vote to torpedo to maximum three of Trump nominees. So, we definitely can count on Murkowski, on Collins. Collins is facing re-elections in 2026, so I doubt very much that she can support all Trump nominees. So, she has to show to her voters in Maine, which is definitely not a red state, so that’s-

Preet Bharara:

Right. And she’ll express great concern.

Garry Kasparov:

Yeah, Tillis also facing re-elections, the North Carolina Senator. I think again, I would say it’s a purple state, so leading red. But he has to also demonstrate his good taste. McConnell, I mean, I think McConnell knows that he owns this country big. He could have killed Trump’s political future by just adding 10 votes to the … And he’s included. And I’m sure if he would voted for impeachment in 2021, that would be end. So, he would lead enough Republicans with him. I think he might also join a vote to the chorus. And we’ll see if some of the Republicans like Mullin, the conservative Christian right would oppose Gaetz because of moral reasons. Again, I think there will be enough votes to torpedo against two or three candidates. But again, even if it happens, and we’ll all be celebrating, say Gaetz is not theirs, yes, but number two, number three will be Trump’s people. And by the way, then there will be someone else that Trump will suggest who will definitely go through, because again, it’s 53 Republicans-

Preet Bharara:

They can’t oppose every nominee.

Garry Kasparov:

They can’t oppose Trump all the time.

Preet Bharara:

I want to go back to this concept of surprise that you have commented on. In part because what I want to talk about today is how we’re supposed to, if you have a certain point of view like I have, and you have, overlapping point of view. How we’re supposed to deal and respond to Trump actions, Trump appointments, Trump policies? And you wrote, “The ability of demagogues and autocrats to surprise to create a new scandal every day is their superpower. It diminishes attention to the previous day’s transgressions and normalizes them. It slowly numbs the senses, including outrage. Values are the only defense, hold them dear.” Talk about the surprise and how one should be able to inoculate oneself to that?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, I think the only way is to create an alternative. I think that’s the problem is that the Democratic Party was definitely not in touch with folks on the ground. And elections was quite close because of Donald Trump. I had no doubt that if Republicans nominated anyone else, it would be much bigger margin of victory. What I learned from the game of chess from my professional career, so you lost the game. He lost the battle. You have to analyze what’s happened. And clearly this is the party had no game plan. And the fact is that Joe Biden wanted to run again. I mean, that was a disastrous decision, which by the way helped Trump to avoid the argument of the opposition, especially Nikki Haley, who tried to prove that Trump was unelectable. And I think Trump was unelectable, against a good Democrat Trump would be beaten.

So, it’s not that he was invincible. It’s now he pretends that he was the winner. Actually, he won by default because Democrats failed to come up with a good strong alternative. And again, while I endorse Kamala Harris, so I understood that she was definitely not the best candidate, and that’s probably understatement.

Preet Bharara:

Who is better? Who is better, Garry?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, anybody. I mean, this is basically, first you had to recognize that Joe Biden got a mandate in 2020 for four years. Nobody expected him to stay there just for eight years. And he was not in the position, he was too feeble. People could see it. So, he could have stepped down and paved the road for the primaries. But let’s say, okay, all mistakes being made. So, there were two fundamental problems, I think two fundamental mistakes that have made. One is, I believe the Democrats had to go for open convention. Yes, it’s mess, but it’s democracy. That will be a very strong the message to American public that we are just defending democracy. The fact is that Kamala Harris was just offered to this position nominated by a backdoor deal. I think that’s also undermined the argument that Democrats were defending democracy with small D. So, that was one-

Preet Bharara:

But can I just ask, do you really think that working class voters in the suburbs and in rural areas who might have been persuaded by a different Democrat really voted for Trump because Democrats weren’t sufficiently embracing democracy through an open convention?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, again, we are talking about relatively small numbers of voters that had to change their minds. And by the way, many didn’t show up. If you look at the numbers, sheer numbers is that she lost many votes. I mean, Trump’s still way below Biden numbers in 2020, but many people didn’t show up because they were not comfortable. And again, it’s a tough choice. So, a lot of people just voted for her because they believe Trump was a greater danger for democracy, while again, disagreeing with Democrats on many issues. But some people couldn’t actually cross this river.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, look, some Muslim voters, Muslim American voters in Michigan and elsewhere fed up with the Biden administration’s policy in the Middle East to the tune of, I think tens of thousands if not more, also voted for Trump, even though there’s a very decent argument that that was not a vote in their self-interest either. I don’t know how you explain all of that.

Garry Kasparov:

No, look, that’s another story actually. We can spend considerable amount of time debating how people vote against their own interest. But let’s not forget that many of these communities are run by very conservative clerics who are … Yes, they say they are pro-Palestinian, they care about Middle East, but I think they care more about total control of their communities. And when you look at the policies just undermining the rights of women, and they do many other things that are not aligned with Democratic Party policies, I think there was a trend that was pointing in the opposite direction. That’s why I think from the leaders’ perspectives, those who influenced this tens of thousand votes, Middle East was just an official reason that they presented. But otherwise they felt more and more … Having more in common with Trump’s bigotry than with Democrats. But again, this is still, it’s Michigan, it’s a key state, but there were many other places where again, we knew the country was split and working on the margins.

It’s not that she could have, or any democratic candidate could have landslide victory. But it’s like piece by piece, the step by step, cheap by cheap. Trump carved here and there and then just this advantage was growing because Democrats paid no attention to these groups. And while I understood the problem of dealing with Muslim voters in Michigan, but obviously choice of vice president I think was the final mistake that she made. And by the way, I believe that if she was nominated, I think that states the people who were behind this decision, they had to make sure that the vice president’s candidate would be someone to help her winning because that was the goal of the elections. It’s not about how we would run the country. It was about winning. It’s about to stop Donald Trump. You have to recognize that was the core of these elections, and preserving democracy in America. That’s why many people voted for her who otherwise voted for Republican candidate if not for Donald Trump. And choosing Walz over Shapiro I think was the biggest blunder that I think probably cost her elections.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I don’t know that I necessarily agree with that, but I take the point.

Garry Kasparov:

Why disagree because … I’m curious because I’m talking about winning or losing.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll segue to the next question I was going to ask that answers your question a little bit. Lots of smart people, yourself included, do all this analysis of policy positions and who is meant to feel comfortable or not comfortable, and people vote against their self-interest, but also people vote in favor of their self-interest, it depends on the issues. It depends on where you are. It depends on who your neighbors are. And there’s an argument in this time that all that analysis doesn’t matter so much, because what really matters in this moment, not just in America but globally, that people are sick and fed up with the establishment. And anyone who’s an incumbent is at risk of annihilation politically, which happened around the world. And in particular, if you are a charismatic rebel and you invade against the establishment, you’re going to get votes.

And that includes not just Donald Trump, but also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC. And there are very interesting overlaps of voters who you might think based on our models would vote one way or another. But the category of person that’ll vote for both AOC and Donald Trump defies all categorization of policy and self-interest, does it not?

Garry Kasparov:

No, I don’t think so. Because actually the answer to the question is in the prelude to the question. Because when you talked about the trend against elites. So, we have voters from the far left supporting Donald Trump, and I’m not surprised, because it’s about attacking the mainstream. And somehow AOC and Trump are not necessarily these two individuals, but as the phenomenons, they need each other, because they have common interests, right?

Preet Bharara:

But part of the point I was making was Josh Shapiro was another establishment politician, a very impressive one.

Garry Kasparov:

Josh Shapiro is a governor of Pennsylvania, so election is about math. It’s about getting 270 votes. And that’s considering that she was not best-

Preet Bharara:

Right, with Shapiro governor of Pennsylvania, I don’t know that he necessarily would’ve delivered Pennsylvania, but would he have delivered Michigan? But he have delivered Michigan and Wisconsin?

Garry Kasparov:

No, no, wait, wait. This is first, you have the elections that are being held in seven states. I mean look, I hate discussing hypotheticals, because history just, it’s already always happened.

Preet Bharara:

But this is a podcast, Garry. That’s what we do.

Garry Kasparov:

I know. But you have elections that will be held in seven states, seven, that’s all. And you have the largest state and the governor who has very high level of popularity, over 60%. Naturally, again with the gap that was in these elections, Trump won Pennsylvania but was relatively small margin. So, adding the popular governor, I mean again, you can’t bet on hypotheticals, but I think she would’ve delivered by Pennsylvania. If you look at the map and at the numbers, so you have already 19, so the electoral college votes, the largest of the seven states could be delivered, because you will have support of the governor. Obviously, they’re always offset, you may lose something. But also when you just look at the choices, look, it’s not me, it’s Walz. He looked miserable against Vance. I mean, how can you call yourself knucklehead? That’s how you lose votes.

Because people wanted to see strengths. It’s not strengths of those who say we defending democracy, but there was no defense. So Tim Walz doesn’t look to me as a defense. So he know how to reload the gun, it says you had a female candidate, you needed someone with some match qualities to fight Trump and Trump and Vance. So if you guarantee or almost guarantee Pennsylvania, then all you need is two states. Michigan and Wisconsin. You can even forget about the South. By the way, Arizona was lost by big margin, work on this. There’s no guarantee for victory. But I can tell you that the debates between Shapiro and Vance would end up differently. And I think that’s, by the way, if you look at the drop of your popularity, so look at this debate at the end of September, and then it kept dropping.

And also, she failed to actually to say how she’s different from Joe Biden. I mean, you run a campaign and he say, “I’m different.” No, you had to just show energy. They wanted us to support democracy. We did, again, even disagreeing with Democrats on many, many issues. But what kind of sacrifices they made? I mean, the campaign with movie stars with singers, we already saw it in 2016. It was a different campaign. I mean, she had to demonstrate her anger with what’s happening in the country. Probably she couldn’t. But that’s a way to get these voters.

Preet Bharara:

Well, she was in a very difficult spot.

Garry Kasparov:

But that’s why she was a wrong person on this spot. That’s why I believe open convention would give Democrats much better chance of winning no matter who would end up because this person would be a big better fighter.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Garry Kasparov after this. I bet you think this is true, and I think there’s a good bit of truth in what I’m about to say. And Bill Clinton said it more recently, and that is that, “People on the democratic side are often afraid of offending any single constituency in their perceived coalition. And so, they’ll be on the right side of,” Bill Clinton said this recently, “They’ll be on the right side on policy one, on policy two, on policy three, on policy four, and on policy five there’s a split, whether it’s about Middle East policy or the environment or anything else. And they won’t talk about policy five. And maybe policy five is the thing that motivates the other side. And there’s a reluctance.

So for example, there are reports that Kamala Harris kind of wanted to go on the Joe Rogan podcast, not to over elevate any other podcast. But the reports are that even though that might have introduced her to a whole new audience who was skeptical of her or not aware of her and hadn’t had much experience with her, people on the left, on her own staff and in her own party, she didn’t want to offend. Do you have a reaction to that?

Garry Kasparov:

Well again, election’s about winning. That’s why it’s the … When you talk about math, and again, I believe it’s a goal or any Democrats who would’ve been nominated to fight Donald Trump, the goal was to beat Donald Trump, to stop him from going back to Oval Office. Not about running the country, be comfortable because that’s what we heard. Or she would be comfortable with Walz. This is not why we were behind Democrats in these elections. I don’t think she was ready to meet Josh Rogan. Because you needed more fire. That’s why I thought Shapiro would add some fire and some energy to the ticket. It’s about fighting. It’s about showing people you’re not afraid to, not just upset, but to insult some.

Preet Bharara:

The Harris campaign may have been many things and may have lacked many things, but I don’t think it lacked energy, did it?

Garry Kasparov:

No. Look at her record. I mean, she never won primaries. I mean she was not the best candidate to fight. Many things she received just let’s be objective because of gender and race. She was not the best candidate for vice president. But because of George Floyd and all these tragic things and the country rising in 2020, so she was elected over Lesley Whitmer. Just for a moment. Think Whitmer would be vice president. I think she would’ve beaten Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Look, again, you’re dealing in hypotheticals. You never know-

Garry Kasparov:

It’s hypotheticals, but it’s really clearly-

Preet Bharara:

I thought that Ron DeSantis was going to get the nomination over Trump, and I was dead wrong. So, it’s easy to be Monday morning quarterback.

Garry Kasparov:

No, but you may be correct-

Preet Bharara:

But I don’t know.

Garry Kasparov:

Yes. But look, the best chance I saw was best shot at Nikki Haley. But she had a strong argument, which basically Biden’s decision to run had killed. Trump was unelectable. And unfortunately the numbers demonstrated to Republican voters that Trump could be Biden and Biden was still there. So Biden’s weakness basically secured Trump’s nomination. And Biden was happy with Trump around because they thought Trump was the best candidate for Biden to beat. So again, back to 2016 mistakes.

Preet Bharara:

I want to ask you a question about how people should deal with the next four years if they have a certain point of view, and they ultimately wanted defeat Trump or Trumpism, because he won’t be on the ballot in four years. And you have talked about this issue of exhaustion, and I have heard this from listeners and from friends and from family members, and you wrote that you had a tweet from 2016 December of 2016 that’s making the rounds again. You said, “I’m pretty sure why.” And the tweet from before said, “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda, it’s to exhaust your critical thinking to annihilate truth.” And you’ve spoken elsewhere about exhaustion. And I’ll tell you quite frankly, and I want my listeners to hear this, there are people who have written in with respect to both this podcast and the paid podcast behind the paywall podcast, the CAFE Insider, and have said, we love you, we love the podcast.

We can’t focus anymore on politics. We’re going to retreat, we’re going to do other things. I posted on social media this past weekend that I was going to be on this week with George Stephanopoulos to talk about the Gates nomination. And every reply in the first 20 replies had some version of, “That’s terrific, good luck. But I don’t watch the Sunday news programs anymore. I’m checking out of the news. A, is that a natural reaction? And B should we be fighting against that? Or should people live their lives and garden and be, with their families and their children and cook and ignore politics? I find that to be a very dangerous place to be.

Garry Kasparov:

Look A, it’s a natural reaction. I think people are tired. It still was a painful campaign, disappointing results. And they think that, “Okay, American democracy is strong enough to survive another Trump’s term, and he would not do that in 2028.” And by the way, you are the lawyer. Can you tell me that that U.S. Constitution definitely has our guardrails against Trump running again because they’re not too consecutive terms?

Preet Bharara:

It does, it does. But he has the military. I don’t know. Look-

Garry Kasparov:

No, he does. You’re sure he does. So there no second readings-

Preet Bharara:

No loopholes that I’m aware-

Garry Kasparov:

There, are no loopholes. Even Supreme Court cannot do that.

Preet Bharara:

It has never been done. And I’m not aware of any.

Garry Kasparov:

Never been done is not done, is the [inaudible 00:42:55]-

Preet Bharara:

No, I know. I know. This doesn’t work anymore.

Garry Kasparov:

This is never been done. You should forget. Is it ironclad?

Preet Bharara:

I think it’s ironclad. But this relates to another point about how to manage all this. If the point of elections is to win and the way to win is to win over people who are sort of on the fence and not deeply foregone to the MAGA universe, then you have to persuade them and they have to think you’re not nuts. And sometimes, and I don’t know if this is fair or not. When people on the democratic side on the left side scream, the sky is falling and say it’s going to be a dictatorship and it’s the last election we’ll ever have, there is some reason to fear that. But when you say that, I have a feeling that you turn off lots of people in the middle who think it’s just screaming bloody murder, the sky is falling. It’s not true. It’s an exaggeration.

And you don’t have a persuasive effect if and when you’re constantly talking about the world is coming to an end. And it may very well be, but as a matter of, because we’re being very pragmatic in this conversation. As a matter of winning and getting votes, what do you think the better strategy is?

Garry Kasparov:

Again, to win votes in two-party system you have to create an alternative. And the Democratic Party in today’s shape, it’s in disarray. It’s not an alternative. So, that’s why the Republicans feel comfortable doing whatever they want. Again, I may even agree with some or even many of the proposed policies. But what worries me, I’m not yet losing sleep over it. But I think we see very dangerous trends is that there’s a concentration of power and the basically abolishment of the checks and balances systems. You look at the rise of Elon Musk and Ramaswamy, and they will be in charge of what? I mean, we still have so many things that might have real power with no official titles. And that’s extremely dangerous. Because that means that Trump could basically skip many processes that have been built to secure that the system will not be used by executive office to its advantage.

And that’s what I call oligarchy. That’s what we saw in Russia. That’s what’s happening in many other countries in the world. And I see no guardrails against the rules of oligarchs that control both largest enterprises and have an important, if not a final say in many decisions of the government, that affect their businesses. So, checks and balances, that’s what helped American democracy to survive on flourish. And we will be celebrating the 250th anniversary of Declaration of Independence in two years time, actually in a year and a half even. And I wonder what will the founding fathers saying if they could actually see Donald Trump delivering the speech on July four to 2026? Because by that time, I think many of the institutions that they developed back in the 18th century might be same crisis, if not paralyzed.

Preet Bharara:

I feel like I’ve asked this question in a number of different ways, but I want to ask it in this way as well. John Fetterman, who was speaking in Pennsylvania, the senior senator, or at least maybe the senior senator from Pennsylvania, said pretty aggressively. “The Democrats should not freak out at every single crazy thing that Trump does.” Do you agree or disagree?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, if you want to win, you just have to come up with your own strategy first. And then you have to pick up your battles. I mean, Trump will definitely offer many opportunities to fight back. But the battles you select should be the battles that you can win. You don’t want just more losses. And also, they should be complementary these battles to your overall strategy. I think the strategy is to come up with an alternative in 2026. Because 2028 is still four years ahead, but in 2026 there will be a chance to take the House. Senate is out of reach now, this is very clear. But creating a powerful alternative, just shifting the party back to the center and bringing people that will have connection with the voters. I mean, for instance, in New York, like Ritchie Torres, so those or Jason Crow from Colorado, and now you have the Senator Slotkin just newly elected in Michigan.

So, John Fetterman you mentioned, those people that I think can do much better job by helping Democratic Party to create an alternative. Senator Kelly from Arizona. Again, it’s a long list. It’s not that the party is just, it’s running short with moderates, with people that can offer policies and ideas that will be embraced by the voters. And I think there will be kind of disillusionment with Trump by many voters in 2026. I don’t think he can create miracles with economy. I think the inflation may be just curbed, but it’ll not go away. So there will be opportunities. But people will have to see, “Oh, there’s an alternative.” And if they know that they have somewhere to go, if they know that it’s another strong alternative that could, the policy that could benefit them, it will make more difficult for Trump, actually for Trump’s supporters to push MAGA agenda in full.

Preet Bharara:

Is there someone who you think can succeed Trump? For the people or Trumpism, for the people who think this is disastrous for the country, assuming that we don’t go too far afield from American values and traditions and checks and balances, that’s a big assumption. But assuming we don’t, will you return to normalcy you think in four years? Or will JD Vance have absorbed both the lessons and popularity of Donald Trump among the base? What do you think?

Garry Kasparov:

Look, unless something terrible happens, just an economy and just people will turn away from MAGA. So we can be pretty sure that JD Vance will succeed Trump as a nominee in 2028. And it’s very important that there will be a strong alternative on the other side. But again, it’s four years from now. I think it’s very important if Democratic Party can regroup, can actually come up with new vision. Basically these Democratic Party needs. It’s a new Bill Clinton, somebody who could take the party from far left as Clinton did in 1992 and after the painful defeats in ’84 and ’88 with Mondale and Dukakis. So, the party just offered different vision. The party needs this process of the reverse resurrection, and if it’s being done, then we’ll see the results in 2026. So, 2026 will be the moment where we can answer your question with more data available. As of today, if you just make the projection in 2028 from today’s position, the answer probably will be on the negative side. Because Trump is all-powerful and he can implement many policies that he can push through without real opposition.

And again, to take people away from the Trump’s coalition, you have to show them an alternative. So far it’s not there, but I believe there are many ingredients and there’s this more and more voices of reason on the Democratic side demanding the change. And I think if the change is there, so we’ll see the MAGA coalition weakening. And by the way, that might influence even the Trump supporters on the floor of the Senate and the House. Because they will see that it’s Trump is not all-powerful and he doesn’t do this magic tricks with his demagoguery.

Preet Bharara:

I want to ask you about Ukraine since I have you. Joe Biden recently announced as a lame duck in the transition period with his adversary from 2020 now becoming the president on January 20th, 2021. And he’s finally saying, he’s giving the green light to Ukraine to fire, I believe U.S. supplied missiles into Russian territory. A, is that a good thing for Ukraine in the war? And B, is it a bad thing or a good thing otherwise?

Garry Kasparov:

The only bad thing about this decision, this was too late.

Preet Bharara:

Too late, yeah.

Garry Kasparov:

Because look, it was a war of aggression. Everybody agreed with that. And it’s not just simple, just the war. This a traditional like World War I, you have trenches and they shoot at each other, which war is horrible. But Putin’s war since he recognized he couldn’t beat Ukraine in battlefield was to destroy Ukraine. And the number of missiles that have been thrown on Ukraine, the drones and ballistic missiles is incalculable. I guess it’s just two days ago, the amount of explosives, when you look at the ballistic missiles, 120 ballistic missiles, and God knows how many drones. So just in one night, I think Putin dropped more explosives on Ukraine that probably Israel in Gaza and Lebanon for a year. So, to understand the amount of devastation in Ukraine, and it says Putin consistently attacks Ukraine energy infrastructure, the civilian infrastructure. Every day we read about Ukrainian civilians being injured and killed.

You have many kids. It’s hard, for me, it’s so painful to read, because I am still Russian citizen though I’ve been opposing Putin for a quarter of a century. But it doesn’t make me feel any better that it’s the country that was born and raised now is committing crimes equal to the [inaudible 00:53:10] crimes. And America had an opportunity to help Ukraine to stop it. There’s so many American weapons that have been collecting dust in the desert of Arizona or Nevada and in the storages, and these weapons could have changed the cause of the war, but Biden administration was not ready to actually say simple things. Ukraine must win. It’s always very ambiguous. “We will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes,” but it doesn’t impress dictators. And Putin kept his policy of destroying Ukraine. Because his airfields and missile bases have been basically protected by Biden.

There are about 250 targets in proximity of these American missiles or British missiles that are available in Ukraine to be hit. And these bases have been used in the last few months to cause devastation, destruction, and deaths in Ukraine. I hope that this decision, though it’s too late, will still help Ukraine to slow down Russian advance and will create different situations on the ground. And we’ll see what Trump is going to do, because it seems to be-

Preet Bharara:

Well, I’m going to ask you, how do you think this will play out between now and January 20th?

Garry Kasparov:

No, Trump made big statements in the campaign. I would end the war in 24 hours after I’m elected. So we’re already, what, 24 days since his election and or whatever. This is more than two weeks. And it can be resolved, because I think this war cannot end because Trump said so. And while I’m very skeptical about his ability to negotiate, so he believes he’s a great negotiator. But again, looking at the outcome of his negotiations with Taliban or with North Korea, so we may doubt his qualities in this field.

But it’s not just Trump. It’s the Ukrainian war cannot be negotiated throughout this, the process of making mutual concessions, for a very simple reason. Putin wants nothing else but to destroy Ukrainian statehood. And it’s not Garry Kasparov’s telling you, now it’s Vladimir Putin himself and his propaganda machine kept repeating for 24/7 for many years. So, the goal of this war for Putin is to eliminate independent Ukraine.

He may accept just half of Ukraine or just a third of Ukraine with just incorporate in Russia with the remaining part being under his direct or indirect control through his political puppets. But Ukrainians are not going to accept it. So, that’s why the best you can hope for, which is again, still questionable, it’s a ceasefire. But the war will not end unless one of two things happen. Putin regime collapses, or Ukraine is being destroyed. So, the temporary ceasefire means that for a year or two or three, there will be just preparation for another stage of war, because Ukrainians will never accept the loss of their territories. And Putin will never, according to what he has been saying, will never accept that he failed to achieve his main goal. And also, when you look at Russian economy now and the state of mind of most of citizens in Russia just falling Russian propaganda machine, war is the only way for Putin to stay in power.

And his war goes actually beyond Ukraine, because he’s challenging the existing world order. The fact is that Russia is still a permanent member of United Nations Security Council while violating almost every norm, every rule that, as you say, you said a few minutes ago, it’s never happened before. Putin doesn’t care. It’s the same logic as Trump, so what? So, I did it and I went away with it and nobody could stop me. We are seeing the dramatic shift in the geopolitical map, because Europe now has to also make her own decisions about its security infrastructure with Donald Trump’s showing no interest of defending Europe against potential Russian aggression if Putin, God forbid, succeeds in Ukraine. We’ll see many changes there. We’ll see the changes in Germany, the Scholz administration is just, government is about to collapse. There will be elections and new governments.

Again, it’s Trump brought chaos, but maybe this chaos was inevitable, because the system that existed before failed to stop Putin, failed to stop China, failed to stop Iran, Iranian terrorist attacks, failed to stop Taliban’s abuses, Maduro’s rise of Maduro’s criminal regime. Maybe we just have to go through the period with our eyes open and recognizing that it’s in our hands to make all the changes. And if we fail those, no one else to blame.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that seems like an appropriate note to end on. Garry, thanks so much for your time and your insight. Hopefully we’ll speak again soon and things will go better than we expect.

Garry Kasparov:

Yes, yes. We can pray for changes, or we can be actively engaged.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, you hear that everyone, we got to be in the second category.

Garry Kasparov:

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

Preet Bharara:

Thank you, sir. My conversation with Garry Kasparov continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider.

BUTTON

To end the show, I want to talk about an interesting story from the past week. Now, there are eternal philosophical debates incapable of being answered or resolved. For example, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or what is the sound of one hand clapping? And now there’s this one. If a parody site does something real, but it sounds like a joke, how do you know if it’s true? I’m speaking about the news from last week that the satirical outlet, the Onion, won the bankruptcy bid to buy Infowars, the infamous conspiracy theory website, founded by Alex Jones, also known as the worst person on Earth, among other things.

As you probably know, families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting sued Alex Jones for defamation for claims he made that the shooting was a hoax fabricated to seize firearms in the U.S. The plaintiffs won a $1.4 billion judgment. So earlier this year Jones was ordered to liquidate his assets, including Infowars. According to NBC, the proceeds from the sale of Infowars and Jones’ other assets will go towards his estate creditors, which include the families of Sandy Hook victims. Of course, nothing could take away the pain the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting suffered at the hands of Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists and opportunists like him. Like so many victims of gun violence in this country, they continue to fight for justice for their loved ones who no longer can. But there is, at the very least, some degree of triumph in Alex Jones’ beloved and dangerous sight being turned into one big joke.

After the auction the Onion in typical fashion, published an article about the purchase titled, “Here’s Why I decided to Buy Infowars.” “Founded in 1999 on the heels of The Satanic Panic and growing steadily ever since, Infowars has distinguished itself as an invaluable tool for brainwashing and controlling the masses. With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal. It went on. No price would be too high for such a cornucopia of malleable assets and minds. And yet, in a stroke of good fortune a formidable special interest group has outwitted the hapless owner of Infowars, a forgettable man with an already forgotten name, and forced him to sell it at a steep bargain, less than $1 trillion.”

Now, the saga is not over. The sale is currently in legal limbo as Jones and his lawyers have challenged it as improper and unfair. A hearing is set for later this month. Ben Collins, the Onion’s CEO, wrote on social media. We always knew the guys who currently run Infowars were going to take this badly, and use the loss to fundraise off of it and did not disappoint. So folks, we’ll be following how this legal battle shakes out. In the meantime, Collins says he’s looking forward to relaunching the dumbest site on the internet. As I keep reminding myself, and I hope to keep reminding you also, humor is quite powerful, and we can’t forget that, even when times are tough.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Garry Kasparov. 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 at @PreetBharara with the #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on Threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noa Azulai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández, and the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner and Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, Stay Tuned.