Preet Bharara:

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

Astead Herndon:

The similarity between Zohran and Trump, in my opinion, is their focus on mass politics. They’re not trying to calibrate for the center and they’re not trying to reflect the party as it is. They are trying to cut the party out, reach people directly, and those people shift the party.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Astead Herndon. He recently started as a host and editorial director at Vox, where he’ll unpack the 2026 midterms and the run-up to the 2028 presidential election. Previously, he was a national politics reporter for The New York Times. Astead joins me this week to discuss political coverage in a shifting media landscape. What today’s kitchen table issues say about American politics and the rise of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Then, I’ll answer your questions. Must the Speaker of the House swear in new members? And are President’s subordinates immune from prosecution? That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Is there a right way to cover politics? Acclaimed journalist Astead Herndon has some thoughts. Astead Herndon, welcome back to the show.

Astead Herndon:

Thank you for having me. I’m pumped to be here.

Preet Bharara:

So you are not only a multiple-time guest on the Stay Tuned show. You are, I guess, or about to be, I think you already are my podcast colleague and brother. Am I correct?

Astead Herndon:

Yes, we are now podcast cousins, I think.

Preet Bharara:

Podcast cousins. Once you start, we can talk about brotherhood. But cousins, I guess-

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I haven’t actually started the podcast yet, yet. I’m just in incubation.

Preet Bharara:

We’re like work friends.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

The only thing worse than work friend is we’re DC friends. Do you know that term?

Astead Herndon:

I actually count work friends a lot higher than DC.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we’re like DC friends, especially my friend from across the aisle. That’s not real.

Astead Herndon:

I look forward to growing in our friendship and colleagueship. I’m excited to join Vox.

Preet Bharara:

Could you just tell the listeners what I’m talking about?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, so last week was my first week starting at Vox Media. I’m joining Vox.com as a host and editorial director. I am launching a podcast next year and then we’re making some content as we build to that.

Preet Bharara:

Wonderful.

Astead Herndon:

But more so, I am just leaving the more traditional legacy time structure and trying to embrace different forms of journalism. I think that-

Preet Bharara:

I think that’s great.

Astead Herndon:

… the way reporting works right now, as long as you can do it, people will take it in whatever way you’re giving it to them and it doesn’t have to be in a more traditional newspaper-y language. And I’m excited to see how we can help people understand politics when we’re freed from premise of time subscriber.

Preet Bharara:

I always forget how young you are. I don’t know if other people mentioned this because I feel quite old these days. And I was looking back at your bio preparing for this interview and I had forgotten that you were named to Forbes Magazine’s 30 Under 30 in 2020.

Astead Herndon:

Yes, yes.

Preet Bharara:

How much under 30? Do you just make it? Were you like 29 point-

Astead Herndon:

No, I was 27, it was 27. I could tap out.

Preet Bharara:

You’re 27 in 2020, which makes you, what does that make you now 28?

Astead Herndon:

32, I’m 32 now.

Preet Bharara:

Very young.

Astead Herndon:

I’m turning 33 in March 21st. Honestly, this is part of my, even thinking about leaving and evolving. I came to The Times at 25, that was a shock job to get.

Preet Bharara:

Evolving, you just got out of childhood.

Astead Herndon:

That’s what I’m saying. I need to change, I need to. And so I felt like I have been young person in newspaper place for a long time and that’s really worked out for me. I really have loved the way-

Preet Bharara:

Obviously.

Astead Herndon:

… that it’s trained my brain.

Preet Bharara:

It’s interesting. At 32, you are already an alum of the New York Times. Most people spend a lifetime trying to get to The Times, so boy.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, I am an alum early, but I was hired early, so circle of life.

Preet Bharara:

Well, congratulations on that. I guess, my first question before we start talking about Democrats and Republicans and whatever the MAGA people are and the mayor’s race, which is coming up. I can just say the mayor’s race and I don’t have to specify that I’m talking about the great city of New York because that’s how arrogant we are in New York. But I guess, my first question is why is politics your beat? We have this discussion, I’ve had it a bunch lately. A lot of people, they’re tired of politics depending on what side they are, I think Democrats are a little bit more tired because they’re not winning. And they turn away and they stop watching the news and it’s too much for them. It’s too painful. You, to a greater extent, than I because I have another job also and I don’t only cover politics, you can’t turn away, this is your whole bread and butter. Do you go through cycles of like, God, I wish I was covering sports or something else?

Astead Herndon:

Honestly, my origin in politics actually is connected to sports. I joined journalism in college thinking I wanted to be a sports journalist because that’s where I got outlet and enjoyment. And then I realized actually I just want to watch and hang. I did not want to actually cover. And so, the way I deal with, I think, what a lot of people deal with when it comes to politics is by channeling my frustration, channeling my interest, channeling my hope, all of those things into our work. And so, I think, for me, I really identify with a lot of people who have felt like politics is broken, who have felt like political systems weren’t listening to people, who have felt like a game was kind of rigged. In fact, I feel like what my goal has been over the last eight years has been to help give people language to explain why they feel like that.

And so, I didn’t want… The reason I kind of do this stuff is because I actually really dislike how I feel like sometimes political insiders, kind of establishmenty types, gaslight folks into acting like their feelings of unjustness or their feelings that people are written out of system are invalid. When in fact, I think, you can know a whole bunch about the political system, know all the people involved and it still adds up to about the same thing. And so, that’s really what I find my work to be is giving people who feel that sense of distance, the reasoning and language of why they feel like that. Because then I think it empowers them to act on it.

Preet Bharara:

And when you come to Vox, are you a news journalist? Are you an opinion journalist? Are you both? Because you mentioned channeling your own views and feelings, that’s not how people often think of journalists.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. Well, in general, I would say that the distinction between news and opinion is a helpful one. One I’ve lived in for a long time. I don’t consider myself an opinion journalist. But the fact that voice and view is in journalistic work, I think it’s true for everybody. So you’re making a choice with your first quote, you’re making a choice with the ending, with the framing.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t pretend to be a neutral journalist at all. I don’t know.

Astead Herndon:

And so, I guess, I’m saying-

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know what I am.

Astead Herndon:

I guess, I’m saying is I’ve never thought of that performance of objectivity as my goal. I thought it was fairness as my goal. I thought as accuracy as my goal context, all those types of things. But it’s not as if I couldn’t be frustrated. You get what I’m saying? And so, I’ve always felt comfortable with saying, oh, I’m doing this story partially because I too recognize that frustration.

Preet Bharara:

Do you vote Astead?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. And so-

Preet Bharara:

Because there are some journalists who don’t.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, I never got the performance of not voting. You get what I’m saying? I’m like, if it took a vote for me to not-

Preet Bharara:

Katy Tur would like to have a word.

Astead Herndon:

I’m just saying, if it takes, like if I-

Preet Bharara:

Katy Tur doesn’t vote.

Astead Herndon:

I could just speak personally. If voting for someone means I could not cover them objectively, I would find myself to be bad at my own job. That’s not how I even think. And so voting to me is not the thing.

Preet Bharara:

But if you’re voting for somebody and I wasn’t even thinking about something so direct. But if you’re voting for somebody and you’re covering them, will you say the story that you voted for them.

Astead Herndon:

I don’t think you need to do that. I don’t think anybody needs to reveal who they voted for. All I’m saying is-

Preet Bharara:

But if you’re writing an article about the very person you voted for, you don’t think so?

Astead Herndon:

I don’t think inherently. To me, what you owe people is transparency about process. It’s transparency about how you win about collecting facts and let them decide whether they think that’s accurate or not. If that transparency burden is met, I don’t care who you voted for, I don’t care what you do in your spare time. If it’s truth accurate, and you can prove that, it doesn’t matter to me. And so one thing I think is actually important to go back to the original point about news and opinion, it’s like I’m currently reading this book about Black newspapers. And it really reminded me about how much that form of voice and advocacy was historically true of a lot of journalists who are outside of the mainstream for a long time.

And in fact, that news objectivity opinion distinction was one that was often created by mainstream outlets to absolve themselves of stories they weren’t covering. And so, all I’m saying is I don’t even see the act of having voice as incompatible with doing good work. And in some ways, I think if you ask the people I would consider journalistic heroes, folks like Ida B. Wells and others, they would say that voice was necessary to join that work.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t mean to push too much on this, but if you were being paid by CNN to be a spokesperson and you were covering a story about CNN’s financials or their future, would you?

Astead Herndon:

But being paid and voting is already not the same thing. So if I was being paid by someone, you for sure should say it.

Preet Bharara:

If you’ve given money to a candidate, would you say it?

Astead Herndon:

I would never give money to a candidate.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, you would never give money to a candidate. So why not?

Astead Herndon:

Because I think that’s different.

Preet Bharara:

It’s speech. It’s speech, Astead, the Supreme Court says it’s speech.

Astead Herndon:

That’s different. I think that’s a different thing. I personally would never give money to a candidate. Now again, you can give money to-

Preet Bharara:

But that’s interesting. You wouldn’t give money to a candidate because for journalistic reasons or you think it’s not a good use of your money?

Astead Herndon:

All of the above. I can’t even think of a reason I would.

Preet Bharara:

That’s super interesting. So if there’s a candidate for-

Astead Herndon:

But you’re talking the language of politics, I don’t think like, I don’t really think like this.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m trying to understand that.

Astead Herndon:

And so all I’m saying is if you’re asking about how I interact with politics-

Preet Bharara:

A lot of your readers who read about the political stuff, they give 10 bucks to a candidate or they give $100.

Astead Herndon:

Well, I’m not a reader.

Preet Bharara:

Some of them give, some of them. You have some readers who probably give millions of dollars, because that’s the kind of broad range of people who read you. Are you saying to them they’re wasting their money?

Astead Herndon:

Listen, people go to Carbone to eat Italian every night and I think they’re spending [inaudible 00:10:40].

Preet Bharara:

I can’t get in. I can’t get in.

Astead Herndon:

People go. People do a lot of things that I wouldn’t do with my money.

Preet Bharara:

Can I just say it right now, you brought it up. I can get into most restaurants but I can’t get into Carbone. So if anybody from the-

Astead Herndon:

I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve been to Carbone. I feel like you’re cooler than me.

Preet Bharara:

I’ve been there, but it was on-

Astead Herndon:

You can’t do it consistently. I get what you’re saying.

Preet Bharara:

These are the luxury problems that are not sort of addressing the real problems of affordability, which we’re going to get to in a moment. But you brought up Carbone. I think there’s nothing wrong with eating in a nice restaurant. I want to get to the mayor’s race in a moment. But first, can you set the stage? So people don’t like MAGA, in other words, less than a majority of folks are excited about Donald Trump, a lot of opposition. And it seems to me the only politicians as a category that the public likes less than Republicans is Democrats. Is that a fair numerical assessment?

Astead Herndon:

Right now numerically, anecdotally.

Preet Bharara:

So the Democrats get all hot and bothered. I may be among them about the… Look, again, I don’t have time and I have certain expertise. I’m not an expert in the architecture and history of the White House. But when I see a bulldozer taking down the entire East Wing without any conversation or discussion, I don’t know that I have the time to be upset about it. I certainly don’t have the time to devote more than one minute on the podcast to it. And I think how are people okay with that? And that’s like item number 170 after the things that are in my wheelhouse, like a specific un-American and I think unlawful campaign of retribution against politicians and adversaries that he doesn’t like. So what’s going on? What’s the landscape like for Democrats and Republicans?

Astead Herndon:

Well, basically I think that that fire hose of info, the fact that it’s hard to keep up is the point. So they’re coming into this administration and I think we’ll see this consistently through it. They’re not going to pick and choose priorities. They are going to flood the zone because the goal is a total remake of political, legal, economic system culturally too. So I don’t think we should insult them by not stating their intentions in full. And so that type of full-on fire hose is certainly the point. But to your question, I don’t know if Americans don’t care more so than I think… What we have to change, I don’t think there’s a universality of care in the same way. I don’t think everyone cares about the same things in the same way.

Preet Bharara:

Right. That makes sense.

Astead Herndon:

So there’s a lot of evidence that people care about tariffs. There’s a lot of evidence people think these ICE raids are bad. There’s a lot of stuff that says that Donald Trump the sequel, is not as popular or even as popular as he was before he got into office eight months ago, a year ago. And so there seems to be a fair level of buyer’s remorse if you just do straight electorate kind of question. The question is, is there recourse for them? That becomes a structural politics thing about them in terms. And then also is, and this is something we find when we go back to our voters, is being upset with Donald Trump mean that they regret their vote? Not the same. So is being upset with Donald Trump means they think he shouldn’t have the authority to try what he said he was going to do? Not the same.

And so we’ll see these instance of regret, but because the other side isn’t seen as having an affirmative option because the system is largely seen as rigged, there’s a little bit of an acceptance of like, okay, well, he’s just going to do it either. And so that’s why I’m saying it’s a little bit of a distinction is because I don’t think people don’t care. And I think it’s easy to say that because it hasn’t been expressed-

Preet Bharara:

We feel hopeless.

Astead Herndon:

… in the same ways it was. But I’m like, it just means that the care is showing up differently. And something like the East Swing is important too because I’m not sure people care about that in the same way. I don’t know exactly who the type is. It’s not like I’ve done reporting here. We have hard numbers. It’s not clear to me because that’s something like in the tradition bucket where I would just say to people, people’s tie to those things are sometimes a lot less than you think, particularly if they felt very distant from them in the first place. And so I would be really interested to see is the East Wing a precious thing that should be kept or is it the process he’s going about it or are people kind of into the idea of a big ballroom? I have no idea.

Preet Bharara:

I feel like I heard more in advance and during about the paving of the Rose Garden-

Astead Herndon:

For sure.

Preet Bharara:

… than the demolitions of the East Wing.

Astead Herndon:

That’s the surprise for sure. And the image for sure. And I think it’s certainly upsets a type of person. And so, go ahead.

Preet Bharara:

It’s corruption, it’s the $300 million being paid for-

Astead Herndon:

This is what I don’t-

Preet Bharara:

… by private folks. That’s what gets me about it, not the aesthetics as much.

Astead Herndon:

For sure. And I actually think this is a through line of a lot of Trump thinks. Sometimes I think we have to put the pieces together to say that even more so than the aesthetics, to your point, the overt shakedown of the TikTok deal, his open stating of who he wants to own Paramount. Plus, what we’ll see in-

Preet Bharara:

The plane from Qatar.

Astead Herndon:

… the ballroom. Right? I’m like, that to me is-

Preet Bharara:

It’s about the plane.

Astead Herndon:

Exactly. I’m saying that type of open-

Preet Bharara:

He could just park the plane in the empty lot that was the East Wing and make that where he has his receptions.

Astead Herndon:

I’m saying his type of open search of finders fees, his open grift. That part to me is a through line that could be named more clearly by Democrats, by media, whoever. But I’m like, it’s interesting though because of the shock value, it gets focused on these individual instances and I’m not sure there’s the same level of reactions to those.

Preet Bharara:

Here to me is an important divide. And maybe I only think about it as an important divide because I’m very specifically as a person in the public square on one side of this divide. But I hear about it all the time and it’s interesting to me. And I wonder what you think. As a matter of politics and campaigning, and the gaining and retention of power by Democrats. The advice goes from the political class, don’t go around talking about autocracy, and fascism, and democracy. That’s important. We’re not saying it’s not important, it’s vitally important, but nobody really gets it that much. That’s not what motivates people to go to the polls. It’s very esoteric. It’s often overstated.

So when you get out on the hustings, do they still have hustings? I don’t even know what hustings are. But when they get out on the hustings, you 30 under 30 in 2020, definitely don’t know what a husting is. I barely know what a husting is. And they get out on the so-called hustings. Talk about kitchen table, whatever the kitchen table issues are and prices and everything else. Now I’m not a politician, I’m not running for office, neither school board, nor mayor, nor governor of a state. And my expertise is in the law and that’s what this podcast is often about. So I don’t think I should stop talking about that stuff. But what about if you’re Hakeem Jeffries? What if you’re Chuck Schumer? What if you’re JB Pritzker? Do you buy that or not?

Astead Herndon:

I’m someone who thinks we’re a little too prescriptive about separating kitchen table issues and not. At this point, some of that stuff blends and you can make an argument that Donald Trump brought trans women in sports as an issue to the kitchen table in the last election. And so I don’t think that you can just separate those things and say that’s some type of firm distinction. At the same time, I do think there’s a fair point to say that Democrats have become more disconnected from working class stuff. Now I don’t think that manifests in the same ways that we often talk about. A lot of that cake I think was baked early with ignoring inflation and immigration ’21, ’22. I also think that it’s oftentimes in the focus on issues. So for example, I think there was a big focus from Democrats in the last several years on representation on including Black and brown people in certain rooms, particularly elite rooms, things like affirmative action and that being a form of growth to equality.

I use that as an example to say that was a type of thing that doesn’t hit for working class people of color. These are people who are largely not in elite spaces, who largely see those spaces as very distant from them, who have a broader question of public education and getting to college much less how many Black people are in Harvard. And so I’m saying that as an example of something that sometimes, I think, Democrats slid away from language that actually reaches the most least of them and really focused on things that were most tangible to people around them. And so in 2020, I think especially, there was a language of, I think, COVID really pushed this top-down language. I use race in criminal justice as a particular example because I think it helps make the point most clearly about the type of voters they lost in ’24 when we’re talking about non-college people of color.

When we’re talking about first generation Americans, they’re not thinking in that same black/white prism. They’re not thinking in that same, I think, college focused version of equality. And so when we talk about Democrats losing their way on kitchen table, I really think it’s more about that than it is about the way they often make that distinction. Because I think the most important thing, let’s use the trans women in sports example for this too. That was an issue that has clearly gone away from them in a public opinion since over the last couple of years. So they had two options, frankly. They could go out and forcefully defend their position and try to change public opinion or they can change their beliefs and kind of more match up with it. What they chose was neither. And I think that’s the worst of the options. I think you either need to lead or you need to reflect where the public is at. You either need to change the structures for something like democracy. You need to improve democracy, not just keep it the same. You know what I’m saying?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Astead Herndon:

And so that’s what I feel like would most connect Democrats with the people they’re losing is if they acknowledge that right now things are not working. And so they were doing too much status quo defense in terms of structures and the economy, where they should have been saying what we’re doing now isn’t working. And our pitch to you is one to improve it.

Preet Bharara:

You said a number of really interesting things so far. There are two that struck me. One I want to get to now. So kitchen table. You said some of these issues are kitchen table issues. I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that kitchen table issues are ones that are actually discussed by ordinary families at the kitchen table as distinct from what a lot of people mean when they say kitchen table issues, which is how do we afford the stuff that’s in our kitchen cupboard so that to the trans women, trans athletes doesn’t affect any consumers buying eggs, but they talked about it at the kitchen table.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. So I’m saying, usually we use those things. That term was born out of those things meaning the same thing.

Preet Bharara:

I always thought it was like, you know what I thought it was? And again, I don’t know what a husting is, so we should do some research. I feel like the kitchen table was where people paid their bills or is it where you have a family conversation? And so you’re paying your bills, you’re like, “Oh, damn, the eggs.”

Astead Herndon:

Yes. And so, I think the thought was that people don’t talk about culture at the table too. And I don’t think that’s true anymore. I don’t think that’s true at all. And so, one of the things I think is just different is I don’t think some of the rules of politics, particularly that governed parties leading up and particularly Democrats because Republicans had their own blow up of the rules with Trump. So I’m saying I think the democratic rules had just needed updating and they were way, they were lagging way behind in ’24. There was a sense that they did not need to engage in culture that’s so wrong. There was a sense that they can like, I think their discussion about new media, old media was still lagging. That ship had kind of sailed. And so I just don’t think that they have put themselves in the position to be where the public was on many of those discussions.

Preet Bharara:

So further to this, there’s a phrase that Republicans have used sort of gleefully for themselves and derisively about Democrats, which is Democrats lose the 80-20 issues. An issue in the public square in which 80% of people, whether it’s trans athletes or something else, go one way, and Democrats go the other. So here’s the last example I want to give you and I want to know if you think it’s a kitchen table issue or not. So Donald Trump issues an executive order in the last couple of months about it being a misdemeanor if you burn an American flag. And boy, I’ll tell you as a lawyer that is 100% unconstitutional. It’s not even a close question. It’s directly contrary to Supreme Court president. And I heard a Republican operative say maybe it was Trump himself, but I heard Republican operative say, yeah, so he puts forward this… And it’s also not enforceable. He puts forward this executive order that most people think is reasonable and it’s going to cause a lot of Democrats to go out and burn American flags and that’s great for us. Do you have a reaction to that?

Astead Herndon:

It doesn’t surprise me because they understand the bait for sure. But what I don’t think we should do is act like Donald Trump is Teflon right? There are-

Preet Bharara:

He’s not?

Astead Herndon:

He’s not. The man is unpopular and most of his actions are too. And so-

Preet Bharara:

Well, you don’t need to, it’s like the bar exam, right? What do you mean? Why is it like the bar exam? All you have to do is you have to pass by one point.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, yeah. I get what you’re saying. All I’m saying is that to me is an important starting point for when we’re talking about what are the levels of pushback that can be effective. And so we do see moments when I think this administration is forced to reckon with things that might be outside the bounds or I think we see more pressure on Democrats to rethink the rules fully to match where Republicans are. But I think to me it’s more important to stress that we have administration that is free to operate without the bounds of popularity more than it is to say what they’re doing is popular. I’m like, it’s actually important to say that they’re freed of the concerns of popularity because they’ve expanded the executive authority in certain ways because they’re pressuring the courts. Because they’ve minimized Congress’s impact. They have taken structural steps to insulate themselves from the question of their electoral blowback. And I find that to be more important than weather vaning, whether the public likes him or not, because largely they like his diagnosis of problems and dislike his solutions largely.

Preet Bharara:

So here’s the other interesting thing you said among many, Astead, that I’ve been thinking about since you said it. You talked about the tradition bucket. Some people will write and be like, you can’t put tradition in a bucket. That’s not where tradition belongs.

Astead Herndon:

Really, yeah, that’s fair too.

Preet Bharara:

Tradition belongs in a pedestal, Astead.

Astead Herndon:

That’s fair.

Preet Bharara:

You’re talking about a bucket. How young are you?

Astead Herndon:

In the coverage?

Preet Bharara:

No, no, no. I think it’s a fascinating concept and this is a good segue to the mayor’s race. Because yeah, some people don’t care and maybe they don’t need to care and who am I to judge whether you should or should not care about? So one tradition in American politics has been that experience is usually a good thing to have.

Astead Herndon:

Good point.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe some experience other than being a talk show host or a reality star or other than being a sort of non-voting, non-bill-introducing backbencher in the state assembly to become the chief executive officer of the most important city. So let’s talk about that. So why don’t you introduce folks, because we forget that we’re not necessarily the center of the universe in New York. We’re one week out from the election. People are going to hear this podcast five days before the election in New York City. Could you just very briefly, and then we’ll get into the details, explain to people who’s in the race at the end and what the dynamic is.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, so it’s come down to three candidates of note. There is Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee who is the 34-year-old assemblyman who we’re kind of talking about here.

Preet Bharara:

Was he in the Forbes list?

Astead Herndon:

I don’t think so. I don’t think he was cool enough pre-30.

Preet Bharara:

Oh man.

Astead Herndon:

He’ll make 40 Under 40. And he’s certainly the leading candidate. His main opponent is Andrew Cuomo, former governor. And then you also have a Republican nominee, Curtis Sliwa, who’s playing somewhat of a spoiler here as he rejects Cuomo’s insistence that he drop out. I think for me, there’s a lot of portions of this race that are really applicable to Democrats broadly. And I don’t mean that in a direct one-to-one because this is different constituencies, different places. We know that. But I do think that Mamdani’s success specifically has been with those communities that are the reasons that Democrats lost the popular vote in November. Blue cities who had dropped off from Ds and mostly were young people, mostly are first-generation immigrants. I said that before. And also, I would put working-class people of color in those buckets.

Democrats maybe don’t need those voters every single day of the week, but they definitely need them in situations and they’re the type of people who have been growing more interested in Trump. And the reasons you have places like Queens and the Bronx have a big shift that actually helped Donald Trump win the popular vote. Now, Mamdani says he succeeds in those places because of his focus on affordability, on class issues, and the fact that he has made promises that are more tangible than your typical democratic one. Free buses, free childcare. I’m forgetting the third free thing, rent freeze. And I say this, I say this to people as a helpful example of how these work. When I went to his rallies for writing this story for The Times Magazine, it was interesting because it was a call and response I haven’t heard since a Trump rally.

At a Trump rally, Donald Trump can say build the wall, right? And I can’t imagine a Biden or Harris policy that the crowd could fill in. But the Zohran has that sort of quality. He says, we’re going to freeze the rent. He says we’re going to make buses free. It’s a rallying cry that’s about that kind of mass politics rather than a means-tested bureaucracy delivering impact. And he told me that that’s the key version of what he finds to be his success. He doesn’t want to be someone who’s going to have to pitch how this infected your life. He’d rather do two or three things and they have a tangible impact on everybody’s life in the city. And I think that’s kind of where an increasing lane, particularly of the left is coming from in the post-2024.

Preet Bharara:

But is it no longer an effective response like it used to be? How are you going to pay for that? So when Zohran Mamdani says buses for free, does he then also say Mexico is going to pay for it?

Astead Herndon:

Well, he says two things. He says the millionaire tax. He says increasing millionaire tax, which is, I don’t know, halfway supported by assembly. I mean, this is the other thing about it.

Preet Bharara:

But my question is, going to the tradition bucket, has Trump forged the way… Trump’s a crazy, not credible baloney or malarkey depending on who you voted for last time like building the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it was one of, but there were many. And he got, it was like people sort of understood it was aspirational. Is that what people… Do people think that Mamdani or do people require Mamdani to actually accomplish-

Astead Herndon:

To do the things?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Yeah, that’s my question.

Astead Herndon:

The short answer is yes. And I think it’s important to say these are three things he can do. These are not crazy. These are not logistically crazy things. Even his opponents, even I talked to Richard Torres, I talked to people who consider themselves centrist people who don’t like him.

Preet Bharara:

The bus is for free. How much is that going to cost?

Astead Herndon:

I don’t know the exact number, but I can tell you that they already have done a free bus pilot through Albany. And so the only question here is will he have to do it through the millionaire’s tax? Will he have to push for the millionaire’s tax or no? And there’s a clear way that a lot of people think that Hochul will be able to find money elsewhere to give him a free bus, multi-year pilot without raising taxes. And he has already made clear his goal is in what they get and not how they fund. He’s already backed off of his promise of the tax. And so all I’m saying is they’re already, and the conversations between him and Albany, you are already seeing where the compromise is coming. And so I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say. We know childcare is plausible-ish. We know he can freeze the rent because of the board. And I’m saying we’ve seen the movement with Albany.

I think that’s why he has shown a kind of surentition through the general election. If he was still moving as he was doing in the primary, I think not reaching out to opponents, not doing a 180 on policing, not reaching out to real estate companies and saying he sees a place for them in the city. I don’t see how those things get accomplished. Those things have gotten closer to being accomplished because of the outreach that campaign has done. Now I don’t think that means that they necessarily get it done, but I do think it’s different than build the wall. Because he’s answered the question of paying for it and he’s acted with those partners to at least create an infrastructure that makes it plausible. Now where I think that there’s a lot of other issues for him, more importantly, honestly, than what he’s promised is what might happen to him in my opinion. Like Donald Trump-

Preet Bharara:

So I was going to get to that. So all this you’re talking about-

Astead Herndon:

Like Donald Trump is the thing.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, let’s jump ahead to that. We’re going a little out of order, but it makes sense to talk about it here, so just so people understand. It’s been a good campaign issue for Mamdani to be able to say that Donald Trump, who is still, even though he made some inroads wildly unpopular in his home city. And Mamdani says, Trump wants Cuomo to win, not because it’s good for the city, but because it’s good for Donald Trump. And Trump has made clear that he wants to go to war because he thinks he’s got a, look, frankly, he thinks he’s got a weak leftish, lefty, non pugilist as the future mayor of New York City. And he’s going to ride roughshod over him. A, does Donald Trump mean it? And B, how’s that going to play out?

Astead Herndon:

All indications that he means it. And we have no idea how it plays out. That to me is the big looming thing here is you can kind of talk me into an argument that Trump is more hands off of a place like New York City because of his transactional closeness with the Cuomos and Adams of the world. And the cities that he’s wanted to pick fights with. I’m from Chicago, Lord knows right now, because of his perception of a weak leftist mayor, it’s caused an interesting dynamic. One, I think it’s caused Chicago to rally around him and all of those type of things, but it’s caused these clashes to happen that I think New York City would prefer not to have. They would prefer not to have ICE running around these streets. And so, what I think is going to be interesting is there’s pretty much universal recognition even from Mamdani allies that come week two, the National Guard could be showing up. That Donald Trump’s going to want to pick a fight to minimize Mamdani, that Netanyahu might come to test his promise of trying to arrest him.

And so, I think what the situation to me like, the actual policy planks that he promised in the primary are the most achievable part of what he’s going to do. The issue to me is that he has become such a vessel and lightning rod broadly that it really, I know his answer is that you can’t kind of acquiesce to Donald Trump. You have to fight back. But I do think it plants the seeds for a legitimate fight. You get what I’m saying? And I don’t exactly know if that’s one that particularly put the levers of federal funding that the federal government has been willing to pull, with the willingness that he’s been able to… With Donald Trump’s willingness to use the federal government as a means of retribution, I guess, I’m like, I don’t know if that’s a fight I would love, but it might be a fight that’s an inevitable one.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Astead Herndon after this.

So there’s a model that has presented itself in the last week and that is the very, very, very popular mayor of San Francisco was awaiting the federalizing of forces in that town that Trump loves to hate on. I think it’s much if not more than on New York. And there’s a private phone call as reported between Trump and the mayor. And the mayor talked him out of it.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. But the tech billionaires really talked him out of it.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, so A, what happened? B, is that a model for Zohran?

Astead Herndon:

One, he did talk to her. And one, Donald Trump is more talk than action. So in general-

Preet Bharara:

Well, there were troops in LA.

Astead Herndon:

For sure, for sure, but I’m saying more talk than action when presented with someone on the other side. In my opinion, he’s much better at firing theoretically than actually. He’s much better at conflict generally than he is hand to hand. And so it would not shock me if a Zohran who would totally take it says, I’m going to go make the case to him directly myself. Sure. I wouldn’t put it past that.

Preet Bharara:

So publicly, so let’s talk about the strategy because we’re going to be dealing with this president for a number of years, not just Mamdani if he gets elected, but others as well. Is the strategy to be sort of with your base as he’s with his base pugilistic, and fighting, and loud language, but then get on the phone and get your allies and get the people who like the guy. There are more billionaires in Manhattan than in San Francisco.

Astead Herndon:

I think it’s two prong. I think one is the one you just isolated is to ready your base for the possibility of some Donald Trump resistance. But at the moment of conflict, be willing to engage with him directly, for sure. But I also think, and I think he has to take that because he’s kind of not afforded the other strategy that someone’s taken, which is just to keep their heads down. Lord knows that I’ve been interested in a lot of these institutions who have taken that approach also. I think Zohran has past that. And so, what he recognizes when I’ve talked to people during that reporting, they’re talking about creating a regional network of people who they think could get a message to the White House about ways to preempt if some federal funding is taken away from them. And so they have some form of recourse.

I think even you can see his actions with police as an opportunity to try to ingratiate himself in case of some test of loyalty came. I think it’s much easier for him if Donald Trump is making things more difficult to have a police union led by Jessica Tisch than somebody else. I think all of those actions were taken with the look ahead in mind that Donald Trump could complicate the initial several months and that sort of clash was semi-inevitable. And so I think that is the strategy is to ready the base by having those instances of pragmatism. Some of that is direct to Trump, but I would also say his keeping of the police commissioner is a core important part of that. He will risk the left backlash for the purposes of that stability.

Preet Bharara:

So that’s a great segue into what I wanted to ask you next. Is he a savvy political athlete who went from nowhere to being on the cusp of being the mayor of the most important city in the country, if not the world? Or is he two-faced and/or is he way ahead over his skis? And is it possible today to navigate your left base and also pragmatically and responsibly, fiscally and otherwise run a major city?

Astead Herndon:

Well, here’s the thing, it’s one thing I think he recognizes the job of mayor is not the one that rewards ideological rigidity. So this is something he talks about to me, whatever, and whoever asked, is that he’s reaching out to Bernie not to talk to Bernie Sanders about the same things you expect him to. But to ask him about how he matched his values with the day-to-day job of getting work done when he was mayor of Burlington. There’s a recognition that the city requires. Some of it’s institutional leaders, some of it’s longtime families or some of those rich families who might’ve been more uncomfortable. I’m saying he has a recognition that mayor does not allow you to get away with the things you got away with in Congress. Well, you could get away with in Congress in terms of just, I have my view and nothing else.

And so, when in this general election that’s been who he’s been reaching out to. Now, to your question about two-faced or not, he reaches out in the different version than he might’ve been four years ago. So he no longer… I mean, I think we can see the willingness to break all a millionaire’s tax is a part of it. He’s reaching out to pharma CEOs, not changing his policies, but saying, how do you lead a team? I’ve never managed anybody, teach me about leadership. So he’s acknowledging those shortcomings as he’s doing the reach out, but he’s doing it often on issues that are not the actual policy that those two are going to disagree on. You know what I’m saying? So is that two-faced or is that not? I don’t know. To me that sounds like normal politics and that sounds like a willingness to bring everyone into the fold. And so I would say that’s a good faith interpretation. You could also say that’s being who you need to be whatever time to get support. But I would argue that’s most politicians. And so-

Preet Bharara:

Well, there’s one in the race and I would not ever vote for the guy Andrew Cuomo, who I have had long dealings with professionally and personally. And I think as based on my criteria, utterly disqualified himself to be an elected official from any precinct as the city of New York. We don’t have to go into that. But-

Astead Herndon:

To me that’s a good point about experience, though. Because in this race, I feel like experience itself has been kind of exposed as like what are we asking here? Is Andrew Cuomo’s experience a helpful thing for him to be elected next? Is it something that voters should hold in a positive or negative way?

Preet Bharara:

A lot of reasonable people. Look, I don’t vote in New York City anymore, so I don’t have to face this dilemma. But I think all three are reasonable. We’ll see how the winner does. I think it is not a crazy thing to say that all three are severely wanting in terms of confidence in how it will go. Even Mamdani, it seems like you like him. And a lot people say that’s why he’s in first place.

Astead Herndon:

Well, I guess I’m saying, it’s really not like, dislike. I really-

Preet Bharara:

No, no, we don’t know. He’s untested. Let me ask you a couple of questions about, second, I want to talk about Israel and Gaza, but first, I want to ask you a question about his mettle, M-E-T-T-L-E. Because I do feel that he’s being characterized as a kid and he just got a big smile and that’s fine. There were concerns. I don’t mean to compare him to Obama who proved himself to be a very tremendous political athlete, which a phrase I don’t love, but I’ll use it. When I understood in 2008 that Barack Obama had what it takes to be like a steel-spined, pragmatic politician, do you know what it was? He was getting beaten up about his pastor.

Astead Herndon:

If you want to talk about this, I hated this moment. This is a horrible Chicago moment.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it is, but I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you-

Astead Herndon:

It’s actually a formative lesson in my life about politicians.

Preet Bharara:

… Barack Obama… Look, it maybe reveals something about me. Because I think I’m as idealistic as they come, but I want my guy to win. And not by cheating, not by stealing, not by being abusive, but you got to do something sometimes. And I thought Obama’s like a celebrity and he’s very handsome and he’s got a big smile. And when he threw the reverent to the curb, awful in all the ways that you, I’m sure, are thinking. But it told me that guy can maybe stand on the big stage and not be intimidated and does what it… And occasionally, you need the instinct for the jugular and Mamdani is going to need that with Trump too. Discuss.

Astead Herndon:

I hear you. Can I say what that moment reminds me of, honestly, about Obama and Jeremiah Wright? Is how the willingness to win, particularly in that kind of establishment liberal era overwhelms their value to do anything, to overwhelm their value to winning was more important than what you were winning about. And I think that-

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, but there are other things he didn’t compromise on.

Astead Herndon:

Well, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Astead Herndon:

I read this Jeremiah Wright thing two months ago thinking about Zohran and some Israel and other stuff. You should look back at Obama’s speech because he’s halfway mad at him for the goddamn America stuff. But he’s really mad at him over his criticism of the occupation of Gaza. He’s really mad at him over that. And to me, and the speech in question about America’s not applying its values of justice here in abroad is one that is increasingly agreed upon among democratic electorate and base. Now it could have taken some years, it could take time. I’m not saying Jeremiah Wright is all good and bad. All I’m saying is really to the point you’re making about winning. I think an increasing generation of people, and particularly younger people see it in the opposite way where they say politicians, particularly Democrats, have only thrown the same people under the bus for the purposes of winning. And they’re not taking that electoral calculus anymore.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I take issue with that only in the way that Democrats suck pretty bad at winning.

Astead Herndon:

They’ve been doing all that moderation. It hasn’t worked out for them. So I mean, what’s it going? What is it?

Preet Bharara:

Sure. But I want to talk about that and separate personality/persona/approach and dynamism versus policy. Those are married to each other. I think intelligent people, like I hope you and I are will say they are. But I think Zohran Mamdani’s policies wrapped up even in a more experienced but less gifted politician, that guy goes nowhere. Zohran Mamdani is a rising star. What differentiates him? Other people could talk about affordability and might want to have, I haven’t exhaustively looked at Brad Lander’s plan, but I don’t know that Zohran Mamdani has the most brilliant left plan ever brought to bear on the city of New York. What he does have undeniably is great, as my kids would say, rizz, he’s got charisma, he’s got oratorical skill, he’s got deafness. That guy in a one-minute answer, he’s as good as I’ve seen recently. And that’s not to not give him credit, I’m just saying his policies combined with those things matter a lot. Look, Trump, he’s an effective politician. I don’t like him, but to his base, he’s a riveting raconteur. He’s not boring. You don’t necessarily what he’s going to say. So those things matter.

Astead Herndon:

The similarity between Zohran and Trump in my opinion, is they’re focused on mass politics. They’re not trying to calibrate for the center and they’re not trying to reflect the party as it is. They are trying to cut the party out, reach people directly, and those people shift the party. Now, I think in general, the democratic establishment’s bureaucratic hold, its kind of technocratic hold on its electorate is over, it’s over. They’ve blown that up.

Preet Bharara:

Isn’t the example of that, let’s go back to your tradition bucket. It’s not quite what you meant, but I’ve just been thinking of, I might steal it from you.

Astead Herndon:

All means, go ahead.

Preet Bharara:

It has to be a very nice bucket. Maybe it’s like a champagne bucket, not like a cleaning bucket. In the old days, in my formative years, the person who was always going to be the one everyone bet on would be the attractive, polished, predictable speaking soundbites. That’s where soundbite came from, right? The original innovators were the soundbite guys, right? Because in the old days, you gave like freaking three-hour speech from, shall we say it again, the hustings. And that’s grown weary, right? The most polished, often white male, handsome guy, taller, never bald, was always going to be the guy.

Astead Herndon:

And it was all about triangulation. It was always about halfway saying something without really saying.

Preet Bharara:

Someone put some people against each other. So in the older days, Hakeem Jeffries would be, I think, the more attractive candidate to a segment of the population. I think Hakeem Jeffries, you tell me, is not in a good spot politically because I don’t know if he’s not… I was going to say I’m getting tongue-tied because I was going to say he’s too polished, but he’s not very polished. His back-and-forth BS on supporting or not supporting Mamdani. He’s trying to nab-

Astead Herndon:

But this is what I’m saying about leaving him the premises.

Preet Bharara:

Aren’t people sick of politicians like Hakeem Jeffries?

Astead Herndon:

I think people are sick of that triangulation. I think he would’ve been better off if he just said, “Hey, I’m not endorsing the guy.” He could have just said that months ago. And so, all I’m saying is I think from the moderate place to the left, both sides are going to increasingly speak in direct language. And I think that era of what… I think Harris is kind of the best example as someone who you could feel searching for that triangulated answer. I think people are really off put by that. And so, all I’m saying is it’s not as if I think that the way Zohran will be applied broadly is strict from the ideological point of view. I also think it’s a mode of talking and a mode of doing politics that even the center can embrace. If I was the center, I would be trying to do things that more tangibly affected people.

And the last thing I’ll say is I don’t think you can just separate his kind of aesthetic from his advocacy. The reason, and this is in the story too, the reason on the road, he is trusted about affordability, particularly the stand up to landlords or whatever, is because of Palestinian advocacy. He has the brand of I speak up. And so, I don’t think you have to do that just on Gaza, but I do think you have to be trusted. And so, right now among Democrats, criticizing Israel is 80-20, and so that’s not small.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know if it’s 80-20, there are a lot of-

Astead Herndon:

The Gallup stuff is wild. You should look, you should look.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that Jewish citizens in New York can, in good faith, be at a minimum really concerned about Mamdani’s positions and the statements he has made? And at worst, think that their lives will be less safe? Are there not people who, in good faith, believe that?

Astead Herndon:

That’s really not a question you can ask me. What could I say, whether it’s a good faith for them to think something about? I don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

We’re opining about a lot of people and a lot of people think.

Astead Herndon:

I don’t know, I have no idea. I can say, I asked Jerry Nadler if you think his advocacy has been too much for Jews. And he says, “Well, I don’t think anyone’s more unpopular than Netanyahu.” So I’m saying even among… So I think there’s definitely a type of person who’s never going to like him, Jewish, non-Jewish, like a whole bunch of people. That’s not really what I’m saying. I’m saying if Democrats want to win the voters they lost in November. They have to return the trust deficit that they’ve eviscerated. They had a massive trust deficit. And so whoever they are, they need to find a way to bring that back, be more honest about the process, be more honest about Biden, be more honest about policy mistakes, whatever they want to do. Sure. But that voter is not just coming to the left because they’re some massive progressive, no, they’re coming to him because they’ve earned trust about fighting back against the named villains. And I think the center’s going to have to deal with that in some way too.

Preet Bharara:

When you talk to Zohran Mamdani about his relationship with the Jewish community, what does he say? What does say about walking back global intifada comment and things like that?

Astead Herndon:

He says a lot. He says that he talks about how he feels that he is put into a caricature of only one type of Jewish supporter and that he feels like it’s been flattened and there’s a lot of different types who he engages with on a lot of different types of fronts. I know that they have been making more efforts to try to go not just to progressive or liberal Jewish spaces, but even in places that will be more skeptical of him. They did that particularly during… So I’m saying I don’t know what they say, but he also will say, and this happens to me a lot too. I’ll talk to some critics of his who will be like, well, my core problem with him is that his entry point to politics is his advocacy for Palestinians, that is core to his political beliefs and how he got into the game.

And he says, absolutely. If that’s the disagreement, it’s not a disagreement. He knows that. It’s just about whether you find that. If you find him supporting BDS and starting the Students for Justice in Palestine branch at Bowdoin to be inherently anti-Semitic, then that’s your answer. He did do those things. He does believe those things. Now he says that those things will not be a litmus test in his administration. He’s telling everybody who will listen to him publicly and privately that he’s not going to be asking about Israel, or BDS, or anything when he’s staffing. Now, do you want to believe that or not? That’s up to you. But did he have those beliefs? Yes. Does he say those beliefs are going to be in that office? No.

Preet Bharara:

Is Gaza-Israel, is that a kitchen table issue in the way we define it?

Astead Herndon:

Yes. Right now, 100%. Has been for more than a year.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Is Ukraine a kitchen table issue?

Astead Herndon:

No, not in the same way.

Preet Bharara:

What else is a new kitchen table issue out of the-

Astead Herndon:

I don’t know. I’m just saying TikTok feed. At this point-

Preet Bharara:

No, because it’s interesting to me.

Astead Herndon:

I think actually Gaza’s a great example of something that wouldn’t be talked about as a kitchen table issue, but is 100% a kitchen table issue.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Again, in the way that you mean, which is people talk about, they’re not going to affect the price of eggs.

Astead Herndon:

Yes. I mean it literally is discussed there. And so, I think that the core thing we’re discussing is still true. That I feel like when people collapse on the economy and providing for people tangibly, everything else in your agenda is going to get under that. So I think for 100%, the biggest thing that Donald Trump has done and will be has been tariffs and confusion, that always matters more. But does that mean that the other issues aren’t affecting? I think that has been a big mistake to assume, and I think this is increasingly true as we have a larger and larger foreign population. I remember when the Biden administration was telling me Americans vote domestically. And I’m thinking, how are we squaring that with the different makeup of who Americans are now? That’s not true in the same way anymore.

Preet Bharara:

If we wake up next Wednesday morning, the day after the election, thinking we maybe should have spent more time on Andrew Cuomo as mayor because we got this wrong. How’s it looking? Do you know how it’s looking?

Astead Herndon:

I would be very surprised if Andrew Cuomo wins, not just because of what Mamdani put together in the primary, but they have an advantage at this point in terms of organization, money, and interest.

Preet Bharara:

What about the turnout? I’m hearing that, and I don’t know much about this. There has been far greater early voting turnout. Who does that favor? Do you know?

Astead Herndon:

Again, we’re going to see a lot of projections here. People have been trying to say it’s because of Manhattan and blah, blah, blah, but I don’t even think you can assume certain boroughs are inherently pro-Cuomo. That’s not clear to me. So as of the numbers, Cuomo needs to spark a mass movement of people against Zohran who we haven’t picked up on in numbers.

Preet Bharara:

Well-

Astead Herndon:

I’m not saying that’s impossible. I’m just saying that’s unlikely.

Preet Bharara:

… can you talk about 9/11 more?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. I’m saying he’s hitting the buttons. He’s hitting the fear button. He’s hitting the 9/11 button. He’s hitting the globophobia button. I don’t know if that does it, but he seems to think it does.

Preet Bharara:

Look, Zohran is quite a bit to the left of where I have been and I have concerns. I also think he’s got a lot of capacity and talent. Have you met anyone who is really genuinely excited about voting for Andrew Cuomo?

Astead Herndon:

No. No.

Preet Bharara:

Ever in your life?

Astead Herndon:

No. Last time I was so excited about Andrew Cuomo was during the coronavirus, was when he was doing the press conference and stuff with Trump. Sure then. But in years? No.

Preet Bharara:

Curtis Sliwa, I don’t know, did you watch the debates? Curtis Sliwa.

Astead Herndon:

Curtis Sliwa’s going to leave here with fans.

Preet Bharara:

Best line of any debate, patting fannies and killing grannies.

Astead Herndon:

I just don’t see. And the thing about it is, I just want to say I’m not some Bob Duffy superfan. I just find Cuomo’s actions to this, I cannot find. In my opinion, nothing Zohran has said is remotely as offensive as saying he would cheer second 9/11. I find that so offensive. And the willingness that so-called Democrats have had to lie and to engage in overt bigotry, I find wild. I find why does no one else find, why does the Democrats not find that wild? What’s the difference between how Andrew Cuomo is talking about Zohran Mamdani and how Donald Trump is right now? Very little.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, well, Cuomo and Trump are very associated at the hip. He claims that he’s a big combatant against Donald Trump. They consort and have consorted. Can I ask you a question about politicians who leave office in disgrace and maybe we can consult in the tradition bucket, Shakespeare or the Greeks? What makes me crazy as a citizen is, and there’s other side of the coin on this. I’ll mention the other side of the coin first. There is something refreshing that a lot of people think is the case when you have a non-traditional, non-government lifetime service person like Donald Trump run for the presidency. He’s not my cup of tea, but David Pritzker is very popular in Illinois. Bloomberg, for what it’s worth was three-term mayor and I thought a very good one. And then you get a guy like Andrew Cuomo who can’t seem to want to do anything other than be elected. There are other things to do in life. There are other ways to make a difference.

Astead Herndon:

100%.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s Andrew Cuomo, it’s Anthony Weiner, it’s Eliot Spitzer. These are the ones I know from New York locally. They can’t go on and do something else and die in peace knowing that they’ve served and then serve in some other way. What is it about their build that makes them want to have a comeback in politics, which is not an easy business.

Astead Herndon:

I think they feel owed that perch.

Preet Bharara:

Why weren’t they grateful?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, I think they feel they are that it’s a birthright. I don’t even think this is just those type of people. Lord knows I spent two years dealing with Biden, people talking to me about he was somehow that God mandated a second term. And so I just say, I think in general when you’re in that type of place, you’re in the bad zone. And so more than anything, forget Zohran. Andrew Cuomo has basically run this whole race just demanding his opponents drop out and give him his supporters. And so because of name recognition and polling. And so just in general, I find when you slip into pundit brain and the justification for your campaign is one that relies on electability, cross tabby argument, you’ve lost the plot. I find that to be a place you should start immediately getting nervous is why are you not justifying your campaign through ideas, through people, through something tangible? Don’t talk to me about some consultant’s poll. And if that’s the reason everyone else needs to defer to you, to me, that’s not how democracy works.

Preet Bharara:

My podcast cousin for now.

Astead Herndon:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Depending on how things go, we can go up the familial food chain.

Astead Herndon:

Up the family tree.

Preet Bharara:

Up the family tree. Astead Herndon, welcome to Vox Media. By the way, when we joined Vox Media, I had this problem. If I said it quickly to people they thought-

Astead Herndon:

They would think that it’s Fox.

Preet Bharara:

… that I was joining Fox with an F.

Astead Herndon:

Yes. I’ve already experienced that.

Preet Bharara:

So just so people are clear-

Astead Herndon:

Vox.

Preet Bharara:

… V-O-X, Vox Media. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Astead Herndon:

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Astead Herndon continues for members of the CAFE Insider Community. In the bonus for insiders, Astead and I discuss how age plays a part in politics from voting to running.

Astead Herndon:

I do think age and generational change is going to be a big theme, but I would just caution the folks who think that means you have to say a certain thing or that the young people will always win.

Preet Bharara:

To try out the membership, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. Stay tuned. After the break, I’ll answer your questions about whether the Speaker of the House has to swear in new members, and whether the President’s subordinates are immune from prosecution.

Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes as a post on X from Your Favorite Gunkle. Nice to hear from you. “Could Representative Adelita Grijalva be sworn in by a judge instead of the Speaker? Why does it have to be Mike Johnson who administers the oath?” Well, Your Favorite Gunkle, that’s a great question, and obviously the relevance there is there has been this simmering controversy over the last number of days about Mike Johnson’s refusal to seat Representative Grijalva. And the theory is, and I think there’s a good amount of support for it, that he doesn’t want to do so because he’s beholden to Donald Trump. And to do so, she might provide the last needed vote in favor of turning over the Epstein documents. Can’t have that, can you?

So some people have asked the question as have you, why does it have to be Mike Johnson? Could it be someone else and get past the impasse? Well, oaths like the one federal officials take today, go back centuries, even before the Constitution. In the American colonies, public servants swore allegiance, as you may know, not to a constitution or a set of laws, but to a king. The revolution changed all that. Article VI, clause 3 of the US Constitution says, quote, “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” End quote.

That clause makes something crystal clear. Government officials in the United States don’t pledge loyalty to a monarch or a religious figure or even a president. It pledged loyalty to the Constitution itself, to the rule of law, and the system of government that it creates. But you’ll notice that Article VI itself, that provision in the Constitution doesn’t say who should administer the oath. Congress filled in that blank in its very first piece of legislation. The first Oath Act. When was that from? June 1st, 1789. And what does it say? It instructs that the Speaker of the House administers the oath to all the other representatives. So the basic legal framework has been in place ever since then. Later laws, including the one now codified at section 25 of Title II restates the same idea. The Speaker of the House administers the oath to members. The only exceptions are rare circumstances. For example, when the House hasn’t yet elected a speaker and can’t proceed with business.

In those cases, the House can vote to authorize another member or sometimes the Clerk to administer the oath instead. But that itself requires a majority vote and the current majority doesn’t seem interested in doing that. So we can’t get around Speaker Johnson’s gambit with another gambit to have someone other than Speaker Johnson administer the oath. Now, the question of whether the Speaker is lawfully delaying the swearing-in is a different and much thornier question, and that remains to be decided.

This question comes in an email from Robert. Robert writes, “The Supreme Court may have ruled the President is immune from prosecution no matter what he does. But does that immunity also apply to the people further down the chain of command who give or carry out those orders?” Thanks, Robert, for the question. So it’s not quite the case that the President is immune from prosecution no matter what he does. There are private acts that he could commit that will still subject him to criminal liability. As you probably know, in the 2024 case, Trump v. United States, the US Supreme Court ruled essentially that a president is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all of his official acts. It’s a much broader provision of immunity than people expected. And not everybody likes it. And it underscores a point that we’ve made here before, and that is, although we like to say no one is above the law, we like to say that everyone has equal opportunity to be held accountable.

That is not completely true when it comes to the President of the United States. And by the way, that has been a fact for far longer than the year since the Supreme Court case came out. You’ll recall from endless discussions on this podcast and elsewhere, there is a famous operative office of legal counsel opinion within the Department of Justice that says a sitting president, whether he has committed crimes or not, cannot be indicted. That has not been challenged in court, but that is the operative understanding of the Department of Justice and every member of the White House who has been there since Nixon. And one of the reasons for that is the job of President of the United States is considered so important and so requiring of focus that the distraction of a criminal prosecution is untenable for our democracy. You can agree with it or not agree with it, but that’s the reason why in people’s minds, Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel back a few years ago, couldn’t make a decision to charge Donald Trump.

Can’t do it under the OLC opinion, does not hold true once a president leaves office, does not hold true for the vice president, does not hold true for cabinet secretaries or members of his staff. In fact, I believe it’s the case that the Office of Legal Counsel considered the question of whether a president can be indicted for the first time back during the Nixon era. And they concluded most famously that a president could not be indicted, but less famously, but sort of relevant to your question here, that the Vice President did not deserve such protection against prosecution and could be charged, could be indicted. Now, your question about people who are further down the chain of command from the President, depending on who they are, depending on what their jobs are, depending on what kinds of official acts they’ve been engaged in. There’s a certain kind of immunity or qualified immunity they might receive also.

So for example, members of law enforcement who sometimes make tricky decisions, difficult decisions that result in harm to other people, they have some amount of protection from nuisance lawsuits from the public. Again, you can agree with that or not, or you can think the line should be drawn elsewhere, but they don’t enjoy the same kind of broad immunity that the President does or the protection from prosecution while still in office that the Office of Legal Counsel has conferred on the President for many decades now. It seems to me the relevance of your question is multi-fold. One, just the basic question, who’s above the law? Is it just the one guy or is it other people as well? The other point may be, well, if you are an advisor of the President or member of his cabinet, and you understand that you don’t share the same broad immunity that the Supreme Court has conferred. Because it’s been conferred only on the President, not upon you, maybe you’ll think twice about engaging in some unlawful act, particularly if the command comes from the President.

Of course, the cynical response to that is if this president is asking to do something, he’s covered by the OLC opinion. He’s covered also by the Supreme Court’s broad immunity decision, and you can be covered by a pardon. But let’s not be cynical today and hope that everyone below the President understands and appreciates that they can still be subject to prosecution for undertaking unlawful acts, whether or not the president is as well.

This question comes as a post on X from Scott. “Do you have any favorite nonfiction books about life as a federal prosecutor?” Yeah, I don’t know, Scott. I can think of one. Let’s see. Oh, there it is on my shelf. Oh, there are 10 copies on my shelf, Doing Justice by Preet Bharara. I know it’s a little early for Christmas, but not too early. Still available on paperback. Give it a shot.

This question comes as a post on X from Tomcat, who asks, “What questions do you have for your listeners?” Well, that’s a bit of a turnabout. It’s kind of like, ask not what questions you have for me, ask what questions I have for you. Something like that. So here’s a few questions and I’d love to hear your answers. The first one comes from the discussion I just had with Astead Herndon. And the question, as you remember from the discussion was, what exactly is a kitchen table issue? Some people think that issues relating to democracy or authoritarianism are not kitchen table and that kitchen table issues only include inflation, the price of eggs, things like that. Astead and I discussed how maybe those things were a little bit more merged. Do kitchen table issues include issues that are spoken about around the kitchen table? Or are they only about budgetary matters? Tell me what you think.

Question number two, this is a big deal in my world. So there’s a new movie out about Bruce Springsteen that’s all about the making of his album Nebraska. The movie’s called Deliver Me From Nowhere. Now, ordinarily, if I had my act together and I wasn’t so busy, I would’ve seen it on opening night. So I haven’t yet. So I’m looking forward to seeing it as soon as possible this weekend. My question is, did you see it? And if so, what did you think? And when you answer the question, give me a ballpark figure of how many times you’ve seen Bruce live. Final question. And yes, this is a test. What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything? So I’d love to hear your answers to any or all of those questions. Write to us at letters@cafe.com, or how about leave me a voicemail? Do something old fashioned. Leave a message at 833-997-7338.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Astead Herndon. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on 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 technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The supervising producer is Jake Kaplan. The lead editorial producer is Jennifer Indig. 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.