Preet Bharara:

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

Mark Leibovich:

I didn’t want to try to add to the body of journalism or sort of authorism towards White House intrigue, or trying to understand the psychology of Donald Trump. I thought an undertold story of these years was the enablers who were the people who allowed Donald Trump to happen.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Mark Leibovich. He’s a staff writer at The Atlantic where he specializes in US politics. He was previously the Chief National Correspondent for the New York Times Magazine. Leibovich is widely regarded as one of Washington’s keenest observers. His in-depth analysis of DC’s most powerful players is the subject of his latest book, Thank You for Your Servitude, Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission. It is an unsparing look at the Republican politicians who enabled the former president to remake the GOP in his own image.

Preet Bharara:

We discuss Trump’s viability as a candidate in 2024, whether Joe Biden should run for a second term, and November’s most highly charged midterm races at the state and the national level. That’s coming up, stay tuned.

QUESTION & ANSWER:

Preet Bharara:

Now let’s get to your questions.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m recording this on Wednesday morning, August 31st. And the question I’ve been getting a lot over the last number of hours is my reaction to the brief filed by the DOJ late last night. You may remember that Donald Trump and his legal team, such as it is, filed a motion asking for a special master to be appointed in connection with a search of Mar-a-Lago and certain other relief. And the Department of Justice was required to respond by yesterday. And we wondered when that brief would come. And it came just a few minutes before midnight, just beating out the deadline.

Preet Bharara:

You may have heard also that the Department of Justice did something kind of unusual. Usually in cases like this, before that particular judge and that particular court, briefs can’t be longer than 20 pages. In this case, DOJ asked if it could use 40 pages. They came in a few minutes before midnight at a clean 35 pages. So five pages to spare. Now that’s not the important part. The important part is what arguments they made and what facts they laid out.

Preet Bharara:

A lot of people predicted I think correctly, that it may have been a legal mistake or a tactical mistake for the Trump folks to ask for relief, which was kind of late anyway, coming two weeks after the search itself, when the documents had already been seized, already been likely reviewed, and already been likely filtered. And the reason they said that was the motion by Trump and his lawyers would prompt a potentially detailed response that would be more damning for the former president. And I and others who said that were absolutely correct.

Preet Bharara:

One thing in the brief that’s getting a lot of attention is an attachment. And the attachment shows a number of documents that remained at Mar-a-Lago, that FBI agents found and seized, that very plainly show red and yellow-colored cover pages. The red one saying secret/sci and the yellow one saying top secret/sci. So on their face, highly-sensitive classified markings located on the documents had not been turned over before despite, as we’ve described, incredible accommodation, patience, and extensions given to the president and his team to turn over these presidential records among other thing, by the way.

Preet Bharara:

DOJ argues Trump has no basis and no standing to contest anything with respect to the search and the handling of those documents because they don’t belong to him. They’re presidential records that don’t get to remain with someone when they’re the former president. But I found another attachment to be the most interesting thing in this motion.

Preet Bharara:

A few days ago, I was asked by Wolf Blitzer when I did an appearance on CNN, when the affidavit was partially unsealed. Mostly redacted, partially unsealed. And he said, “Is there anything that disappoints you with respect to these redactions?” And I said, “You know, I’m not really disappointed. Because as a citizen, as a former prosecutor, I want to make sure that the integrity of the investigation is preserved, that a roadmap is not given to people who are under investigation, that witnesses are not at risk and won’t be harmed.”

Preet Bharara:

But I said the one thing that I would’ve liked to have seen, and I couldn’t think of a reason why we wouldn’t see it in the unredacted affidavit, was confirmation of the reporting by the New York Times, Maggie Haberman and others. Which said that a lawyer for the former of president of the United States had signed a sworn certification after accommodations were granted, after subpoena was issued, signed a sworn certification, that all the documents asked for had been returned and none remained. And we didn’t see that in the unredacted affidavit. I’m not sure why, but we see it set forth in black and white in this legal memorandum, this legal brief by the Department of Justice.

Preet Bharara:

And I think this is incredibly important because it provides a basis and a justification for all of us, not just the court, but all of us to understand why they had to take the aggressive step of getting a search warrant. Because they tried again and again and again, to get the documents, asking for them politely, collecting some documents, issuing a subpoena, visiting Mar-a-Lago. By the way, as the brief also points out when certain agents went to Mar-a-Lago, they weren’t allowed to search in all the places where some of these documents were.

Preet Bharara:

And DOJs brief actually attaches the signed certification letter. Doesn’t say who signed it, but it says it’s a lawyer for the president. And it says, and I think this is important so bear with me, “Based upon the information that has been provided to me…” That’s a lawyer saying “based upon the information that has been provided to me”, presumably by Trump himself and others. So he’s hedging a little bit, right?

Preet Bharara:

He says, “I am authorized to certify on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump the following.” And among the things he certifies to is that, “A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida,” which seems to encompass all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida. “B. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena.” And certainly anything classified or marked classified would’ve been responsive to the subpoena.

Preet Bharara:

And the certification goes on to say, and this is maybe the most critical, “D. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.” So that picture is worth a thousand words as they say, but that is so in juxtaposition with this signed certification letter in which a direct representative, legal representative of the former president says, “We don’t got it anymore. We gave it all to you. None has been retained.” And then they go in with a search warrant and they find that that’s false, that it was a lie.

Preet Bharara:

Who’s at fault for that lie? Well, we’ll have to see what the facts tell us, but it’s not good for the former president. With respect to the issue of obstruction, if someone says they gave stuff to you and it turns out that was not true, the implication is that was intentional and designed to interfere with an appropriate legal process. So that I think is devastating. And I’m not quite sure why it wasn’t in the unredacted affidavit, but we have it now.

Preet Bharara:

As for the special master, I disagree with some of my colleagues and friends who are very, very stridently opposed to the appointment of a special master. I think the government is correct, the former president doesn’t really have standing. It’s in any event moot because the documents have already been filtered. But even the government in this brief is not particularly aggressive about the special master.

Preet Bharara:

They say things like a special master would be unnecessary, a special master is “disfavored” in this context. At the end of the day, maybe it causes some delay, maybe it’s a little bit silly because the work has already been done, but I don’t think it’s the most important thing in the world with respect to this matter. The most important thing is the evidence of obstruction, and likely the knowledge and intent of the former president in keeping these documents after repeated legitimate requests to give them back.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with my conversation with Mark Leibovich.

THE INTERVIEW:

Preet Bharara:

Mark Leibovich’s is incisive analysis of the personalities, politics, and theatrics that drive Washington culture, is often at the center of his profiles of the country’s top elected officials. His latest effort pulls back the curtain on Republican standard bearers, including Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, and other powerful figures in the GOP who have shown unwavering support for Donald Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Mark Leibovich, welcome to the show.

Mark Leibovich:

Great. It’s great to be with you.

Preet Bharara:

So you reminded me before we started recording, that you and I share a literary agent.

Mark Leibovich:

We do.

Preet Bharara:

Our friend, Elyse Cheney. No relation to the famous Cheneys. Am I correct?

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know of any relation. Although I would like to think that after we make Elyse so famous, the people will mention Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney in connection with how she is no relation to Elyse Cheney.

Preet Bharara:

So I should point out, Elyse did a great job. We both had top five New York Times bestselling books. Yours did a little bit better, I’m going to give you that.

Mark Leibovich:

Who’s counting?

Preet Bharara:

Yours says number one on it. So you wrote a book called Thank You for Your Servitude, Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission. That’s a play on admission I guess.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, actually it is. You know what? I mean, I authored that.

Preet Bharara:

Did you not realize that?

Mark Leibovich:

No, I did. It sounded cheeky at the time. I guess it is a play on admission, but yeah. So the price of… Yeah, it’s just too clever for my… I can’t even keep up with.

Preet Bharara:

Do you want me to tell you more things about your own book?

Mark Leibovich:

Please do. Yeah. I mean, I would like to forget about it.

Preet Bharara:

No, we’re going to come back to your book and the title because I have a question about it. But the other thing that occurred right before we began taping is I asked you where you are, and you said you are in Washington DC as we tape this interview. And I said, “Oh, is that the scene of future violence?” And you said, “Well, that depends on whether or not the DOJ does the right thing.” And I thought that is an intriguing answer.

Mark Leibovich:

Provocative. Right.

Preet Bharara:

And worrisome. What did you mean by that?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, I mean in great jest. Well, not in jest because there’s nothing funny about it. But I think in the context of recent public remarks by us, particularly Lindsey Graham. One of the former president’s sort of top sort of signature sick offense, he has suggested or said explicitly a few days ago that he thought that…

Lindsey Graham:

If there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information, after the Clinton debacle, which you presided over and did a hell of a good job, there’ll be riots in the streets.

Mark Leibovich:

And it sounded a whole lot like intimidation. So basically there will be riots. I mean, that is the sort of line of the week, and Lindsey Graham should know better. And hopefully that it doesn’t come to that. And hopefully I assume the Department of Justice will not in any way be influenced by that. But it’s certainly a troublesome thing for a public official to say, especially someone so close to the president, also the former president, but also former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, someone of Lindsey Graham’s prominence. He obviously should know better.

Preet Bharara:

And in your mind, there’s no doubt that that was meant as kind of a threat rather than an observation?

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, boy. Only Lindsey Graham can speak to that. I mean, it was widely irresponsible. I’d say that. It’s the kind of thing that certainly could be taken as a threat. And Donald Trump immediately seized on it and retweeted it or resocial it, or whatever the right word is now for whatever it is he does. He called a lot of attention to it. It’s a very serious subject so I certainly took it seriously. Whether you call it a threat or not, I don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean, I guess the other word you can use when the former president talks about it is exhortation, is it?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Is it guidance to his base?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, I mean, there is precedent for that too. If you look at January 6th, if you look at a lot of public comments that he has made that has rather quickly incited some activity, some potentially violent and criminal activity from his supporters. So yeah, I mean, I remember when I was reporting the book Mitt Romney said to me, he said, “The first thing you learned in politician school is don’t say something that’s going to inflame the random nut out there.” And Donald Trump never got the random nut memo.

Mark Leibovich:

You could argue that inciting the mob or the notion of a mob that can be activated whenever the president decides to tweet something or say something is a dangerous thing, but it’s also an asset or something that he sees as a tool in his arsenal. That, again, is kind of the definition of authoritarianism in some ways. It’s leading by intimidation. It’s certainly not politics by debate or persuasion, it’s sort of putting fear into the public domain.

Preet Bharara:

I want to go back to the book title, I said I was going to ask you a question about it. So first question is, tell us a little bit about why you wrote this book. And number two, when you say “Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission”, I’m not quite aware of what that price has been for anyone who has submitted.

Mark Leibovich:

That’s a great question. So backing up, I mean, why did I write the book? I always thought living through the Trump years, which is a story I never loved. I never loved the Trump story. And people would come up to me and other Washington reporters over these years and say, “Oh, you must be on cloud nine. There’s so much to write about and there’s so much colorful stuff, and there’s so much in the news.” And I did not like these years, as far as being a journalist goes.

Mark Leibovich:

It was not fun to be among the enemy of the people. It was menacing. A lot of the norms that we had been accustomed to were just sort of blown up in ways that I don’t think were as positive as many of Donald Trump supporters would’ve thought. But I did want to write a book. I wanted to write a book on the Trump years, but I didn’t want to write a book about Trump. I didn’t want to try to add to the body of journalism or authorism towards White House intrigue or trying to understand the psychology of Donald Trump.

Mark Leibovich:

I thought an undertold story of these years was the enablers, who were the people who allowed Donald Trump to happen, who allowed him to be rehabilitated from any number of just abomination as a presidential behavior. And that ostensibly became the Republican Party. So this was a book about the people who knew better. This was a book about Lindsey Graham. This was a book about Kevin McCarthy. It was a book about Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, go down the list. And essentially, the Republican Party became the party of surrender to Donald Trump. And this is what we have today. So submission is sort of part of the same equation.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. What’s been the price for any of those people?

Mark Leibovich:

It’s a great question. I would say their dignity. I would say they’re party. I would say their country. Now they would say-

Preet Bharara:

Well, those are things that maybe not everyone values anymore.

Mark Leibovich:

Correct. I mean, they would say that, “Mark, get off your high horse, get over yourself.” All of that stuff. The truth is, Kevin McCarthy wants to be Speaker of the House. He is paying a price in the sort of day-to-day misery of trying to placate Donald Trump. I describe this quite a bit in the book. I mean, being around him is not a fun proposition. I mean, he does not look like he’s having fun trying to ward off the next Donald Trump tantrum every day, or deal with whatever blowup or whatever acting out he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis. So I think there is a price, I think there’s a psychic price. And I think obviously it’s case by case, but I think it’s a big, big price.

Preet Bharara:

There’s a lot of things that people talk about with respect to the evolution of media and the influence they have, but something you said recently I’ve been thinking about. I suppose once upon a time politicians wouldn’t like any media outlet, particularly one that had a lot of subscribers or it was respected in some circles, even if it was a little bit progressive versus a little bit conservative. And in my experience, having been in offices that politicians have run, or at least one, they don’t like bad press.

Preet Bharara:

I know there’s some people who say, “No press is bad press.” But for the most part, people don’t like it. And in recent times, I wonder if that principle still holds true. And the reason I’m mentioning it is you said, as this book was being reported on and talked about, that you would give someone a heads up and say, for example, with respect to Lindsey Graham, his communications person, “I’m going to say this, I’m going to say that. He’s not going to like it. You’re not going to like it.” And you said your reaction was, or their reaction was, they could not have been more sort of, and this is your phrase, “Proudly indifferent to what The Atlantic was going to write.” Is that a new thing? Explain that to me. Proudly indifferent.

Mark Leibovich:

Proudly indifferent. No, I mean, I don’t know if they were just play acting for me just to sort of they didn’t want to give me the satisfaction of showing me that I was annoying them or scaring them or something. But no, I think… I mean, Kevin McCarthy’s communications person and Lindsey Graham’s communications person are the two people I had this conversation with right before we published an excerpt from the book in The Atlantic were in our work.

Mark Leibovich:

So essentially they were the two main characters in this excerpt. It was pretty damning. I didn’t spare a lot of, I think, sarcasm, ridicule, scorn, whatever word you want to use. And neither of them, they were just like, “Well, yeah. Okay, fine. Whatever.” I mean, part of it is just like, they don’t want to pay any respect to The Atlantic. It’s like, “We don’t care what The Atlantic says in South Carolina.” Or Kevin McCarthy’s caucus, they don’t read The Atlantic.

Mark Leibovich:

But also there was an element of, yeah, just spell his name right. Or in Lindsey Graham’s case, his communications person was like, “Yeah, whatever you do. Just please make sure you point out that Lindsey Graham and President Trump talk all the time, they golf together all the time.” That’s the only message I really care about. Because I mean, that’s the only message I think a lot of Lindsey Graham’s potential supporters in South Carolina are going to take from. And Lindsey Graham gets a lot of cosmic and political value out of being seen as a confidant of the former president.

Preet Bharara:

Isn’t their analysis somewhat correct?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

How many people who read The Atlantic who don’t already not like Donald Trump?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, probably. My concern giving the heads up is a couple things. One, I certainly want to fact check anything that could be wrong. I want to have a last round of conversations with the people who can correct the record before I actually put it on the record. But the other thing is just to make sure that they know that they’re not surprised. But yeah, sure. If your calculation is the number of, with the Venn Diagram between people in South Carolina who will vote in a Republican primary versus the subscriber list to The Atlantic, there’s probably not a very big overlap. And even if there was, I don’t think Lindsey Graham would care or his communications person would care.

Mark Leibovich:

Same was true the New York Times when I worked there before. I mean, they’re fully cognitive of… They know that they have different audiences and there are different people that they’re talking to depending on what the conversation is, who the reporter is, and so forth. But no, I mean, I thought that the indifference in this context was sort of a weapon in some ways. I mean, I didn’t care about it, but that seemed to be the tone of it.

Preet Bharara:

Is Donald Trump as a political brand and as a viable candidate on the Wayne… We’ve been hearing that a lot and we’re recording this on Tuesday, August 30th I think, in advance of the Thursday publication of the podcast. And one data point and Coulter to the extent that she has influence among conservatives anymore, I think has pronounced Donald Trump, done. Is he waning? Is he treading water? Is he growing? What’s his status as a dynamic political figure in America at the moment?

Mark Leibovich:

I think it continues to be monumental. And I think the reason for that is he’s the clear front-runner to be the Republican nominee in 2024. And no one is standing up to him to this day. He’s in all kinds of legal jeopardy, which we all know about, financial jeopardy, reputational jeopardy. I mean, he makes a fool of himself in 10 different ways, new ways every week these days, and yet no one pushes back on him. The sort of dear leader dynamic remains the prevailing one.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, maybe a lot of people are sick as hell of him. And a lot of them are Republican elected officials. But if they don’t say anything, that gives him the strength that he needs to carry on and probably be the nominee of his party, which immediately makes him one of two people most likely to be elected president in 2024. So to me, that’s a pretty powerful brand. And yeah, obviously others could disagree with me, but I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Preet Bharara:

What percentage of Republican Senators do you think wish he would go away?

Mark Leibovich:

Probably about 90.

Preet Bharara:

90. And do they say that to you?

Mark Leibovich:

No. I mean, some of them privately say. A lot of them have, in many ways, sort of said, “We have to move on.” But no, they don’t. I mean, it’d be politically very damaging to them to say that publicly in most cases. I mean, I think Romney and some other Republican Senators have said that, but very few others have. But no, I’ve asked this question to a lot of Republicans in the House and Senate over the last few years, especially when I was reporting the book, which was, “If the impeachment vote, the second impeachment vote, were a private ballot, how many votes for impeachment do you think there would’ve been…” Or a secret ballot. “How many votes for impeachment do you think there would’ve been among Republicans?” And I think certainly there would’ve been a vote for conviction in the Senate and probably close to maybe 100, 150 in the House, maybe more. I mean, the level of almost unanimity in these private conversations compared to what you hear in public is pretty striking. It would strike anyone who saw the duality between those two.

Preet Bharara:

So is he running again?

Mark Leibovich:

Sure, why not? I mean, I don’t think why. I mean, that’s sort of what Donald Trump is going to do. If he doesn’t, I assume there are any number of reasons why he could choose not to. But no, he’s given every indication that he is going to run again, that he wants to run again, that he should be president already. So maybe he resents having to run again.

Preet Bharara:

Didn’t he just say, in the last day or two, that he needs to be reinstated and we need a do-over?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. And I don’t know how that’s going to work. But I mean, haven’t heard any Republicans object to that. So when is this do-over? Will it be run in conjunction with the midterms? I mean, logistically it’s very challenging.

Preet Bharara:

On the other side of the coin, you have the current president about whom you’ve been pretty vocal on the issue of whether or not he should run again, Joe Biden. And you say not only should he not, but he should announce that forthwith?

Mark Leibovich:

Forthwith. I think so. I mean, again, President Biden has not asked me my opinion. But I think it would be a great thing. I think he’s too old. I think he’s been effective lately.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Before we go get to the substance of it, what about the timing? Is it your view? If you were advising Joe Biden, both for purposes of future democratic success and/or his legacy and/or what’s best for the country and those are slightly different considerations, would you say he should announce today? Wait till after the midterms? Or some other time?

Mark Leibovich:

After the midterms. Why not? I think the midterms should probably be about… It should be seen as a referendum on him. I think people are going to be focused on congressional and Senate candidates between now and November. And there’ll be plenty of time afterwards to reset and reevaluate where the country is after this next round of elections.

Mark Leibovich:

Look, I think Joe Biden seems to have had an extremely productive year. And I think if you start the calendar after, say the beginning of 2023, it would be a great opportunity to throw open the field to a whole new generation of democratic voices, younger voices hopefully. And I think it could be a pretty dynamic moment for the country and for the party, and also send a message that the Democratic Party is one that is not afraid of its future and ready to talk about who it wants to be going forward.

Preet Bharara:

You have an interesting verbal pattern. Can I mention it to you?

Mark Leibovich:

Please, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

You will answer questions. You’ve done it two or three times already with “why not”, suggesting that you’re not as thoughtful about the question as I know you are. Does that make any sense?

Mark Leibovich:

Interesting.

Preet Bharara:

You’re trying to hide your thoughtfulness, Mark?

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know if I have much to hide there. I mean, I think, “Why not?” No, why not? That’s interesting.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it’s very unusual. People don’t really… I’ve asked you multiple questions, and it’s not a bad way. It’s sort of like every time you get asked a question, you’re encouraging a thought experiment which is, “Well, why not?” And forcing the other party to consider, “Well, yeah. Why not?” Is that how you analyze things or am I overanalyzing you already?

Mark Leibovich:

No. First of all, can I just step out of our conversation?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

I keep taping it by all means. I don’t care. I mean, this is a great thing you’ve just done. I have never had an interviewer… No, I’ve never had an interviewer just step out of himself or herself and actually observe the patterns. I mean, it shows a great listening skill and great acuity and I feel seen in some ways. And now I feel a little self-conscious.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that was the goal.

Mark Leibovich:

Well-

Preet Bharara:

Put you back on your heel. And by the way, why not? Why not, Mark?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, I’m not back on my heels though. No, I’m actually thinking, “Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should I keep going?”

Preet Bharara:

No, it’s a very good thing. But at least to me it’s noticeable.

Mark Leibovich:

It could read as dismissive or glib. I can-

Preet Bharara:

But I know it’s not, because I know you and your writings. So it’s not that.

Mark Leibovich:

I’ve been accused of being dismissive and glib at times. But yeah, no, I think that that’s really interesting. I mean, actually it’s funny because it’s very… I think conversationally, it’s how I handle things. Like we’re obviously on the air now, so I’m choosing my words a little more carefully theoretically than I would in normal conversation. But I do think the sort of why not thing, and this isn’t a defense, it’s just sort of an observation. There’s something dynamic about it I think. I think it is something that tries to entertain the question, but also tries to entertain the opposite, the alternative. I don’t know. Maybe I’m trying to spin this beyond what is just an annoying verbal tick that I have to lose immediately. But anyway, it’s an interesting observation so I applaud you for making it.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe as Kennedy asks, some things see things as they are and ask why. Mark Leibovich sees things as they might be and asks, why not?

Mark Leibovich:

Why not?

Preet Bharara:

I can write for you, Mark.

Mark Leibovich:

That’s terrific. I like it.

Preet Bharara:

So you say Biden gets out, and there’s this torrent of young, fresh, energetic, political blood. I want to challenge you on that in a moment. But have Biden had not been in the race or he had lost the primaries in 2020, was there another Democrat who could have beaten Trump?

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think so. I think-

Preet Bharara:

Well, that has some bearing on your advice.

Mark Leibovich:

[inaudible 00:28:58] again?

Preet Bharara:

Correct.

Mark Leibovich:

So I guess the question is, would there be an alternative to him now? I mean, I guess the democratic voters-

Preet Bharara:

That’s my next question. And who might that be?

Mark Leibovich:

Why not? If not him, who?

Preet Bharara:

If not us, who? If not now, when?

Mark Leibovich:

I would say this, if Democrats do well in some of these Senate races, there could be some national figures emerging from some of those races who could conceivably be people running immediately. I don’t want to be one of those horse race people, but hey-

Preet Bharara:

We’re going to do some horse race. We’re going to do some horse race.

Mark Leibovich:

Why not?

Preet Bharara:

Why not?

Mark Leibovich:

John Fetterman, Tim Ryan, if he wins. Mandela Barnes, if he wins. Val Demings, if she wins. I mean, these are all pretty big reaches in some cases. But the Democrats could conceivably have a really strong, young, batch of newcomers on the national stage if a bunch of things break for them in some of these Senate races. And already a lot of things have broken, right? Because some of them they’ve managed to get real dimwit opponents so far, and who knows how that’s going to end. But Democrats have in some really key states, beginning with Arizona, with Mark Kelly, Tim Ryan in Ohio, Ohio Fetterman in Pennsylvania, go down the list, have run some pretty good races so far. And I don’t know, I think there’s great, to use a terrible Silicon Valley word, great scalability potential there.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, I thought you were going to say disruption.

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, that would be disrupt… No, I’m not.

Preet Bharara:

I think that’s worse than scalability.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, it’s true. No, you know what? I think the word disruption needs to be disrupted.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. I’m going to let that one slide.

Mark Leibovich:

All right, fine.

Preet Bharara:

You have not mentioned a number of people and one person you have not mentioned, and I want you to respond, is the sitting vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I haven’t mentioned her.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, why not?

Mark Leibovich:

Why not?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know, man. I think she’s in a real slump. I mean, she doesn’t seem to be able to reverse whatever. I mean, she’s got a tough job. Tough job both in that a lot of difficult things land on her desk in the way that the vice presidency can be a tough job and unpleasant bunch of assignments. But she doesn’t seem to have made much of a mark and does not seem to have much of an ability to reverse the sort of lukewarm opinions that have coalesced around her from the beginning. I think part of that frankly started when she was running for president. And that was sort of a disastrous foray for her and it wasn’t the best practice to be the principle. So, I don’t know, maybe she can turn the-

Preet Bharara:

Well, why was it disastrous?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, she didn’t make it to Iowa classes for one.

Preet Bharara:

Well, because she did the math and thought she didn’t have a path. And maybe she also analyzes the situation and thought, “If I do this with some…” I’m making this up, but I’m making a case for her. And she managed herself with some grace. At the end of the journey, maybe she would be selected to be the vice president. And so if that’s the analysis-

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, it worked.

Preet Bharara:

… that was pretty wily and smart.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. Maybe, I guess. But I also think that she… Look, I thought she ran a bad race. I thought she had all kinds of potential. She had a great reputation for being a really compelling and charismatic communicator and it never really took hold.

Preet Bharara:

How much of the ability of a vice president to make a mark depends upon, A, relationship with the president and B, how the president frames the role and job of the vice… So I’ll give you a hypothetical question first that maybe helps to answer that question.

Preet Bharara:

Dick Cheney, who was probably not beloved by a lot of listeners here, was a strong and influential vice president. Some say too strong and too influential. Would that have been possible that for the nature of his relationship with George W. Bush or would he have been that way with any Republican president in the White House?

Mark Leibovich:

I think it’s all about the president. It’s all about the level of responsibility that the president’s ready to bestow upon the vice president. So I think-

Preet Bharara:

And people perceived that. So people perceived… I think that bill Clinton gave, I was younger in those days.

Mark Leibovich:

I wasn’t, by the way.

Preet Bharara:

Gave respect and substance to Al Gore, right? Fair?

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, I think so.

Preet Bharara:

And the same was true with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, fair?

Mark Leibovich:

Fair. Yeah, absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

And there was a mutual respect and bro relationship, despite some hiccups every once in a while between Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Am I forgetting any recent presidents or vice presidents?

Mark Leibovich:

Or Mike Pence and Donald Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, well he was good until the hanging.

Mark Leibovich:

The threatened hanging, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

He was good.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, that’s true. He was-

Preet Bharara:

So was it Joe? So I’m asking questions. I have no view here.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, you’re just asking the questions, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

I’m neutral.

Mark Leibovich:

Mm-hmm.

Preet Bharara:

But do you mean to say or do you think that Kamala Harris’s woes, given her talents and given her abilities and given what the talent scouts were saying about her and thinking about her, that her failure to break through and appear strong is a function of the Joe Biden White House and his staff?

Mark Leibovich:

Partly. I think partly. In fairness, the Biden White House has had really, really big headaches to deal with. It’s interesting because Ron Klein, who was Joe Biden’s chief of staff, is steeped in the vice president’s office. I mean, he was vice president of Biden’s chief of staff. He was Gore’s chief of staff. I mean, he knows that office as well as probably anyone in his place.

Preet Bharara:

A little known fact?

Mark Leibovich:

Mm-hmm.

Preet Bharara:

Ron Klein was Woodrow Wilson’s vice president.

Mark Leibovich:

Unbelievable, right?

Preet Bharara:

Did you know that? I don’t know if-

Mark Leibovich:

He was the vice president or was he the chief of staff to vice president to Woodrow Wilson? All right. Who’s vice president-

Preet Bharara:

The joke is better. I think the joke works better if he’s the vice president, because it’s-

Mark Leibovich:

Vice President Ron Klein. Unclear. But you know what? I’ll accept that. And by the way, Woodrow Wilson, problematic.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I should have picked him in the end.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know. I will say this, this is-

Preet Bharara:

I’m workshopping the joke, okay?

Mark Leibovich:

I’m going to give this shout out to a guy named Joel Goldstein, I don’t know if he’s a listener or viewer, but he is the world’s foremost authority on vice presidents. And I know Joel, because I wrote a story on him for the New York Times Sunday Style Section in 2012. And I always thought it was funny that a expert on the vice presidency existed, and he was a law professor.

Mark Leibovich:

I remember saying to him, and he played along from the beginning. I said, “Joel, you’re just waiting around for the expert on the presidential historian to die so the vice presidential historian can take over.” But anyway, so Joel Goldstein just played around and he played along with my bit. I always interview him whenever there is a matter of running mate or vice presidential import. And I always call Joel Goldstein. So Joel, if you’re listening, we’re talking about your ilk, the vice presidents.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Mark Leibovich after this.

Preet Bharara:

I want to ask you a question about Joe Biden. And then I want to talk about some of these races that you’ve alluded to in some others. The narrative with Joe Biden when he was sunk, he was done, he wasn’t getting anything done. And I’ve heard a lot of people opine about this. I’d like to know what you think about that. Should he be hailed as a legislative master? Is this going to help the Democrats in 2022? What do you make of the last few weeks in the shift about perceptions of Biden? And he’s ticked up in the polls, a number of percentage points.

Mark Leibovich:

I think it’s been positive. I think it’s been materially great for his presidency. I think it’s reflected in the polls. I also think what’s been helpful to him frankly, and this might sound reductive, but Donald Trump’s been in the news for the last three weeks. And not for the right reasons. I mean, when was the raid or the search or whatever you want to call it. That was what pretty much three weeks ago now. And as usual, Former President Trump has not exactly used this opportunity, used this crisis, whatever you want to call it, to bring glory upon himself. So I think that has redounded well to the current president.

Preet Bharara:

The more Trump is in the news, the better that is for Joe Biden.

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, no question about it.

Preet Bharara:

And before we get to particular races that I’ll love you to talk about, what is your view of the role of the reversal of Roe v. Wade will play in the midterms?

Mark Leibovich:

Seems like it’s played a huge role already. I mean, just as far as what’s reflected in polling, what’s been reflected in some of these early primary races and the election in Kansas that’s gotten a great deal of attention.

Preet Bharara:

When Roe was overturned, did you expect there to be significant political blowback? Or do you think that was overstated?

Mark Leibovich:

I thought there would be some. I just didn’t think it would be what it seems to be, which seems pretty substantial. I mean, maybe more so than certainly Republicans that bargain for. And if you look at their rhetoric and how they’re trying to dial back some of their more extreme anti-abortion positions in the past, I mean, they seem to be quite concerned about it too. And the polls would seem to bear that out. So yeah, be careful what you wish for. Maybe this is the dog catching the car or something. But no, they don’t seem to know how to talk about this. And it does seem to be a potentially real, it’s a cliche, but a game changer for this election.

Preet Bharara:

Do you detect a difference in tone from the White House? A little bit more combative, a little bit more pugilistic, a little bit more snarky, I guess, on the social media? Is that a real thing?

Mark Leibovich:

I think it is. I mean, I don’t know if they replaced some people in the communication staff or this is a conscious thing.

Preet Bharara:

Well, they brought in the social media-

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, from New Jersey.

Preet Bharara:

[inaudible 00:39:47] from New Jersey. Yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

Everyone likes her people. She’s getting good early reviews.

Preet Bharara:

All right, let’s talk about some races. I’m going to pick states at random, okay? Ohio. There’s a Senate raise that pits Democrat Tim Ryan against Republican J.D. Vance. First question, how good a candidate is Tim Ryan?

Mark Leibovich:

So far he seems great. Tim Ryan, I mean, he was a good recruit for Democrats. He ran for president. He’s been a pretty prominent member of Congress for a while. He’s pretty conservative. He has working class credibility in the same way that Sharon Brown who’s the other Democratic Senator.

Preet Bharara:

Sharon Brown, like nobody would… Do people say Sharon Brown is anything other than a Liberal?

Mark Leibovich:

They say he’s a working class guy who can talk to traditional Democrats and Independents in Ohio, which is what you need in Ohio obviously.

Preet Bharara:

But National Progressives would say Sharon Brown is one of us. Correct?

Mark Leibovich:

They would. Oh, absolutely. There was a lot of-

Preet Bharara:

He’s not Joe Manchin.

Mark Leibovich:

No.

Preet Bharara:

Or some other type who has to tack to the right to win. How come he’s the only guy who’s a Democrat in Ohio who’s able to do that?

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know. I mean, Sharon Brown has a pretty… I mean, he’s got a pretty established style in Ohio that is pretty well-suited to Ohio.

Preet Bharara:

Is it just people like the guy?

Mark Leibovich:

People like the guy who’s been around long enough for people to like him, to know him. He’s kind of a give him hell type. He doesn’t apologize. And look, it’s possible even in a trending conservative state, or red state like Ohio, for people like that to really be pretty safe politically. Now I don’t know if that’ll be true in two years when he is on the ballot again. But I think Ryan is close enough to that profile that he could actually sort follow the same formula.

Preet Bharara:

I’m just making this up, this doctrine in my head. Is there anything to the theory of people in a state like divided government in the form of one Senator from one party and one Senator from the other party? Or did I just make up some nonsense?

Mark Leibovich:

I think so. I think some people… I don’t know if it’s like… All right, we have two senators. One should be a Democrat, one should be Republican.

Preet Bharara:

No, not so intentional. But the idea is, yeah, we’re like kind of a open-minded state. And we like the one guy and we like the other guy.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t know if people think that deeply about what the sort of makeup of their delegation is, sort of up and down the ballot. But I do think that people like theoretically the idea, in many cases, of divided government just as a check in balance. I think ideally there would be two sane parties that could work together better than the two existing parties are working together now. And I think many Americans would sort of opt for that if the choices seemed viable. I think in many states and many races, the choices don’t seem viable though.

Preet Bharara:

So I think it’s the case that certain Republican campaign committees have dedicated in recent days, tens of millions of dollars to Ohio to shore up J.D. Vance. I think taking some of those resources out of Arizona where Mark Kelly is doing very well. Do you agree that’s a sign that Tim Ryan is a big threat?

Mark Leibovich:

I think Tim Ryan’s a big threat. I think J.D. Vance is a big threat to lose. If you’re a Republican-

Preet Bharara:

He’s a likable guy. You think people of the state of Ohio like J.D. Vance?

Mark Leibovich:

So far, it hasn’t shown. The electorate of Ohio doesn’t seem to have warmed up to J.D. Vance to the degree that maybe he would’ve hoped. I mean, J.D. Vance has some real issues. He hasn’t come out much in public. He hasn’t seemed a natural candidate by any stretch of the imagination.

Preet Bharara:

Well, he was a reasonable person who wrote a bestselling book called Hillbilly Elegy.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah. Very good writer too, by the way.

Preet Bharara:

Very good writer, Mark. Yale Law School. Not elite at all that guy.

Mark Leibovich:

No, no.

Preet Bharara:

And said, in my view, because I’m in particular dimension on this, reasonable things about Donald Trump. Very, very critical of Donald Trump. Did a complete about face, and that… So this is going back to your book, Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission, the price of submission for J.D. Vance was getting the nomination.

Mark Leibovich:

Right, exactly. And saying things that…

Preet Bharara:

He got a rebate. It didn’t cost him anything.

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, okay. So he won the nomination. But yeah, I don’t know. I think that there is a great psychic price to-

Preet Bharara:

He will probably not ever be invited to give the commencement address at Yale Law School.

Mark Leibovich:

That I think is a price he is willing to pay.

Preet Bharara:

Correct. Which is no price at all.

Mark Leibovich:

Which is no price at all. But I also think that… I don’t know. I think that there is a psychic price to pay when you get elected saying something you 180 degrees do not believe.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And it’s great that you, I mean…

Mark Leibovich:

I think lying is a-

Preet Bharara:

I used to think that too.

Mark Leibovich:

You don’t think that there’s a psychic price?

Preet Bharara:

I think for some people. I don’t think it’s hard for Donald Trump.

Mark Leibovich:

No.

Preet Bharara:

I think Donald Trump pays no psychic price for his shamelessness.

Mark Leibovich:

No.

Preet Bharara:

And his hypocrisy and his lying and his bullying. He pays zero. Now you’re saying that he’s at the core of terrible on this point, and there are concentric circles around him. And I don’t know how far out some of those circles you’d put people in. But the people who are not as unself-aware as Donald Trump, or as narcissistic as Donald Trump. They ultimately, between them and their spiritual advisor, experience psychic pain.

Mark Leibovich:

I think so. Again, I can’t speak to their psychic landscapes. But first of all, I think Donald Trump, he is at the center of the concentric circle. So you have to view him differently from those on the outer rings of the concentric circles. So Donald Trump benefits from the price of submission that others pay, he just sort of laps up whatever others give to him while they sort of pay the psychic price of their own dignity, their own pride, their own reputations, their own self-respect, whatever you want to say. So yeah, Donald Trump at the beneficiary of this. Now what’s interesting is, again, as someone who’s interviewed all these people, there is a level of misery around them that I have detected over and over and over again, which indicates to me a price of submission. Again, the level of-

Preet Bharara:

Well, that makes me feel better. I feel better.

Mark Leibovich:

It should. But you can see it on TV. When you see Marco Rubio, when you see Kevin McCarthy, when you see Elise Stefanik on TV, trying to say things they clearly don’t believe about how great a person Donald Trump is. I mean, do any of them look happy doing it? No, they look extremely miserable. And that-

Preet Bharara:

Donald Trump doesn’t look happy when he is saying about himself, and yet I don’t think he experiences psychic pain.

Mark Leibovich:

No, but I think there’s a level of misery there that is of a different order that we can’t even begin to understand because there’s-

Preet Bharara:

Well, my favorite fact… Not my favorite fact. But I think the most unusual fact about Donald Trump, we’ve talked about it before, he doesn’t laugh. I think there’s no documentation, there’s no living witness who will testify that they’ve ever seen this 70 something year old man ever laugh. I find that remarkable.

Mark Leibovich:

You know what’s interesting? Little story from my journalism world. Right after Trump won in 2016, my editor at the then New York Times Magazine said we should write about Al Franken now because he was then the Senator. The sort of union of comedy and celebrity and politics has finally come to full fruition. And so I spent a lot of time with then Senator Franken. And he was the one that pointed out to me for the first time, “Here’s the thing about Trump that makes me nervous. The guy has never laughed.”

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Mark Leibovich:

Look it up.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I agree with that.

Mark Leibovich:

And it’s true. And when he does laugh, occasionally he’ll sort of let out a little chuckle. It’s an evil little chuckle. He’ll say… And it’s like, it’s not real. It’s just weird. It’s a weird thing.

Preet Bharara:

That’s like a horse noise.

Mark Leibovich:

It is like a horse noise. I don’t-

Preet Bharara:

Let’s move on to some other states.

Mark Leibovich:

And other animals.

Preet Bharara:

And other animals. Pennsylvania, we’ve already mentioned that in passing.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, Fetterman.

Preet Bharara:

The Democratic side, you got Fetterman. On the Republican side, you have New Jersey resident, Dr. Oz. What’s going to happen there?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, it looks like Fetterman’s running a great race except that he had a stroke. So that kind of suck. But putting that aside-

Preet Bharara:

Thanks, doctor.

Mark Leibovich:

… he seems… I’m not a medical doctor. I’ve not treated, possible, Senator Fetterman myself. But no, he seems to have run a very good race. Dr. Oz doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. Fetterman’s people seem to be running circles around Dr…

Preet Bharara:

Do you think Dr. Oz got overly beat up for the crudites? I bet you have plates of crudites all the time, Mark. I like you from the district.

Mark Leibovich:

I feel judged. First of all, I thought it was pronounced kru-dite. I really did, which is really pathetic on my part.

Preet Bharara:

You didn’t. You knew. You’re [inaudible 00:49:08].

Mark Leibovich:

I pretend. Wow. Okay. Well-

Preet Bharara:

Aren’t you? I don’t know a bad way.

Mark Leibovich:

I’m going to have some hors d’oeuvres right now before dinner. Actually, I guess crudites can be hors d’oeuvres. No, did he get unfairly beat up? Sure. But he put himself in his position.

Preet Bharara:

If you’re not good at computers, I think you’re [inaudible 00:49:26].

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, that’s-

Preet Bharara:

Am I right?

Mark Leibovich:

… a completely great joke. You know what? That is a really great joke.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Now you’re mocking the host.

 

Mark Leibovich:

No, I’m not. I’m celebrating the host.

Preet Bharara:

No, I don’t think you are. So Fetterman, he doesn’t… For people who are not find the race, he’s an unusual sort of figure for a Democrat.

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely. Yeah. First of all, he’s 8’9″ or something. I know you’re very tall. He’s not that tall.

Preet Bharara:

Great stature.

Mark Leibovich:

Great stature. No, he’s really tall. He’s like 6’8″, 6’9″, something like that. Anyway, he’s an interesting guy and he won a fairly tough primary. I mean, there was a lot of momentum towards his opponent who was Western Pennsylvania Congressman won in a special election. This is bothering me. Come on, what’s his name? Conor Lamb. Beat Conor Lamb in a tough primary. And yeah, no. And he drew a pretty bad opponent so far. So I’m really interested in learning more about John Fetterman.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s talk about Georgia, two races. The governor’s race, Stacey Abrams has a lot of fans among our listeners. What’s going to happen to the governor’s race there?

Mark Leibovich:

I mean, Abrams seems to be down in the polls. I mean, what’s interesting is that Brian Kemp, who was a really… He was a very polarizing figure in Georgia, still is. Had a really tough race against Stacey Abrams a few years ago, won narrowly. There were all kinds of accusations of all kinds of irregularities around voting. But Kemp sort of turned back Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump just had this vendetta against Brian Kemp, and Kemp managed to get the nomination anyway. But no, I mean, Stacey Abrams is a remarkably talented politician. She’s great to listen to. I don’t know if you’ve ever had her.

Preet Bharara:

But uphill. No, I have. She’s tremendous. She’s tremendous.

Mark Leibovich:

But yes, a very-

Preet Bharara:

Uphill, you think. Uphill.

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

What does that mean, if anything, for the Senate race that people are looking at, that pits Democrat Raphael Warnock against Herschel Walker?

Mark Leibovich:

Well, a couple things. I mean, Brian Kemp is a much stronger candidate than Herschel Walker. I mean, Herschel Walker on paper, at least, this athletic hero from University of Georgia.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I was explaining to my kids, and I was not a monumental sports fan, but everyone knew Herschel Walker. He was a huge figure in the country. And a lot of people remember that and may not know much else about him. Is that fair?

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely. I mean, arguably one of the two or three most iconic athletes in Georgia. He is African American and in a state that has a very large Black electorate. I mean, obviously, most of them have been Democrat and have supported and probably will support Raphael Warnock, who’s the incumbent. I assume that he’ll peel off some support. But Warnock is an incumbent, Abrams is not an incumbent.

Mark Leibovich:

And Warnock, he’s actually had an interesting couple of years. He’s spent a lot of time in the state. He won a pretty high profile race couple of years ago to get into the Senate. So I don’t know. I think it’s his to lose at this point, largely because the Republicans just didn’t nominate a better candidate. And Herschel Walker’s been a disaster so far. If I had to guess, I think Warnock’s going to win that race. Partly just because I think he’s a much better candidate and he’s the incumbent.

Mark Leibovich:

And also, look, Georgia is changing really, really fast. I mean, yes, Biden is struggling in Georgia, like he has been in a lot of sort swing states. But Georgia does not like Donald Trump. I mean, not only did they not vote for him in 2020, but I think a lot of Republicans and Independents are pretty pissed off at him over basically him losing those two Senate seats for Republicans to begin with. I mean, that was just a disaster in the post-election period in 2020.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I’m not the first person to say this, but when people were criticizing Biden and when they think about the reversal and the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure, and some other things. That even while they’re thinking about and criticizing the people they don’t, like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, they should really be spending some minutes thinking about Georgia.

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

And how America would be very different-

Mark Leibovich:

A hundred percent.

Preet Bharara:

… if those races didn’t swing the way they swung. And Georgia’s going to be important again.

Mark Leibovich:

One thing I think that Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump and have been afraid to say, because I mean they don’t want to get on the wrong side of him, is that Donald Trump has just been a monumental loser for his party. I mean, he’s the first Republican or the first president a hundred years to lose the White House, the House and the Senate for his party in a single term. And there’s all kinds of distinctions like that, that he has that people don’t point out enough.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s do one more state, you already mentioned it. Maybe we can do it very quickly, because I think it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen there. And that’s Arizona, which we mentioned a second ago. Mark Kelly, very strong, 10 points up in the poll I saw recently, who is obviously, for people who don’t realize, the husband of Gabby Giffords who’s a member of Congress and was shot in a tragic incident. Are astronauts who are articulate, guaranteed successful political careers?

Mark Leibovich:

It certainly helps. It certainly helps, because they known-

Preet Bharara:

Because astronauts are super cool. And it’s really not-

Mark Leibovich:

Who doesn’t dig in it?

Preet Bharara:

It’s not partisan. Yeah, no, I’d vote for an astronaut every time.

Mark Leibovich:

I will say this. I mean, as a non-astronaut, I feel like I have been at a great disadvantage in public life whenever I do venture into public life, which is probably will be increasingly rare after this podcast.

Preet Bharara:

Well, it’s a particular brand if you don’t screw it up, which is-

Mark Leibovich:

The astronaut or non-astronaut?

Preet Bharara:

Astronaut. Because non-astronaut has a lot of subbrands I think. Most of humanity, it’s like the other 9 billion.

Mark Leibovich:

That’s true. Different kind of [inaudible 00:55:37].

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to go forward and run for office on the brand of non-astronaut, which is obviously easily understandable.

Mark Leibovich:

You just want to divide us between astronauts and non-astronauts.

Preet Bharara:

There’s two kinds of people in the world.

Mark Leibovich:

I want bring together. I want to bridge the gap.

Preet Bharara:

What about Liz Cheney run for the presidency? How does that change anything?

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t think she’ll win, especially in this Republican Party. I think what would be interesting about Liz Cheney as a candidate for president on the Republican side would just be, she’s like a nightmare for some of these people. You think Donald Trump wants to be on a debate stage with her? I mean, she, I think as we’ve all seen, is a really good ask her of questions, she’s great at speaking truth, she’s got a level of contempt and genuineness in just in her ability to disparage everything that the Republican Party has become over the last few years. I don’t think any Republican wants to see her up there. So I think she would provide an incredibly valuable service of truth-telling. And for all those reasons, I think that the RNC and Trump and Trump’s allies will do everything possible to keep her off a debate stage with Donald Trump.

Preet Bharara:

So with respect, I’m going to disagree with my guest and suggest that… Because I used to have that thought with other matchups, that that is a significant overstatement of the contrast between an intelligent, articulate thinking person. And that person’s opposite in the form of Donald Trump. Because he has a methodology of dealing with facts and tough questions and preparation on the part of either a questioner or a debater, that is really remarkable skill.

Preet Bharara:

And guys like you and me, and people who think like us and have the political orientation we have, throw stuff at the television when Trump does his thing. And I know that in each of the debates, all the pundits said and they were correct, that Hillary Clinton won. But not by a landslide, lots of people watching including Republicans and a lot of Independents. And the contrast that you and I see, because we have a particular point of view and respect a certain kind of intelligence and elegance and reasonableness and logic, not everyone does.

Mark Leibovich:

I fully agree with you. And I don’t think Donald Trump would lose that race. But would you love to see the two of them going at it on a debate stage?

Preet Bharara:

I would. Except that I’m not just sure how it will go. It’s not like seeing two great gladiators go at it, or whatever sport it. Or the two best, the number one and number two tennis seed playing each other in the US Open. This is an example that somebody gave once. You have the greatest chess grand master who comes prepared with a strategy, and the other guy starts eating the pieces.

Mark Leibovich:

Yes. I’ve heard that before. I still think it’s fascinating. I think asymmetrical warfare is incredibly fascinating. I don’t think it’s comfortable for either party, which itself I think would make for a great matchup.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, you see interviewers go after Trump and ask for facts and ask for some basis. And you know what? Trump says things like-

Mark Leibovich:

He eats the pieces.

Preet Bharara:

… that’s what people are saying. That’s what people are saying.

Mark Leibovich:

It’s maddening.

Preet Bharara:

What’s the evidence? People are saying. That’s what people… Because there’s a time limit, because it’s not a courtroom. I made this point before.

Mark Leibovich:

I get it. I get it.

Preet Bharara:

You get away with it. And people think, “Yeah, he was tough. And he called someone a name.” He’s got nine exit strategies for any perfectly crafted lawyerly gotcha or non-gotcha question. He just does.

Mark Leibovich:

You know, maybe. I mean, yeah, I just don’t think it makes him any more winning or likable. What I would be curious to see, and this is why a face-to-face matchup would be a good environment for this, is like Liz Cheney taunting him saying, “Mr. President, go under oath. Just at some point, just why don’t you ever speak under oath? You said you were going to talk to Robert Mueller. You never talked to Robert Mueller. You said you were going to say that…”

Preet Bharara:

Go under oath, go under oath. Why doesn’t your dad go under oath? We went to [inaudible 00:59:50] because of your dad. Your dad caused thousands. I mean, just to say off the top of my head-

Mark Leibovich:

He would say that. Yes, he would do that.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And her fine point that, Mark, you raised and I think it’s a very good one. It gets derailed because he’s a gorilla. Not from the jungle, the other kind of gorilla. And it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because he’s not playing the same-

Mark Leibovich:

No, he’s not.

Preet Bharara:

… game that everyone else is.

Mark Leibovich:

I don’t think he’s the 800-pound gorilla that he was a few years ago. I don’t think his tricks would work as well.

Preet Bharara:

So you’re unimpressed by the tricks of Trump?

Mark Leibovich:

No. Well, yeah-

Preet Bharara:

DeSantis and the others.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, no.

Preet Bharara:

But the question’s not whether you are unimpressed by them.

Mark Leibovich:

Right. I’m not a Republican primary voter.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Is DeSantis another version of Trump? Or is he just something different altogether?

Mark Leibovich:

He’s something different altogether. I don’t know if it’s something that people are going to want.

Preet Bharara:

Any final words? I’ve kept you past the allotted hour.

Mark Leibovich:

No.

Preet Bharara:

Do you want to explain…

Mark Leibovich:

Myself? What I’m talking about anything? No. I mean, not really. That thing you said about the why not, that was a great moment. I hope you keep that. I hope that doesn’t-

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to send you a bill.

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, you should. No, it’s great. It was very clear sight. I loved when you did that.

Preet Bharara:

Because it showed some paying attention to you. People like being paid attention to.

Mark Leibovich:

They do. They want to be seen and heard.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, even if it’s through mockery. If someone does a good impression of you, that’s flattery.

Mark Leibovich:

Oh, it’s devastating.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, I don’t mean like Chris Rock.

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, right.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, a friend of yours-

Mark Leibovich:

Yeah, my daughters.

Preet Bharara:

… who’s paid enough attention. Yeah. Well, I’m sure that they have much to mock about their father.

Mark Leibovich:

No, they totally do. As any father.

Preet Bharara:

My kids too. My kids think I’m an idiot.

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

Mostly.

Mark Leibovich:

No, I will say this though. I mean, this has been a tremendous podcast.

Preet Bharara:

Thank you.

Mark Leibovich:

And I’m thrilled to be on it. I’ve been on a lot of them now and this is right up-

Preet Bharara:

The best one.

Mark Leibovich:

No.

Preet Bharara:

It’s right up there. It’s right up there.

Mark Leibovich:

Well, I don’t want to insult future podcasters that might want to have me on. No, this has been great. I mean I love talking to you, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll do it again.

Mark Leibovich:

I hope so.

Preet Bharara:

Mark Leibovich, number one New York Times best-selling author of this town, Thank You for Your Servitude, Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission, which we have discussed today. Wasn’t that high a price for many of you. Thanks for being on the show circuit.

Mark Leibovich:

But it was also a number one best-seller. Let’s keep our [inaudible 01:02:23].

Preet Bharara:

Which is all that matters. It was all that matters.

Mark Leibovich:

Absolutely. Thanks for having me on, Preet. This was great.

Preet Bharara:

Thanks, Mark.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Mark Leibovich 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.

THE BUTTON:

Preet Bharara:

I want to end the show this week by sharing a story that I found truly inspiring. And I hope you will too. The story, as reported by the New York Times, is about a group of women who grew up in a pre-Title IX world, where they didn’t have the opportunity to play organized sports, but finally got the chance to do so. For those of you who aren’t familiar, Title IX is a statute passed in 1972. It banned discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs.

Preet Bharara:

It applies to institutions like schools, museums, and libraries. Among other things that it accomplished, Title IX opened up the world of organized sports to women and girls all over the United States. In fact, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the participation rate of high school girls in sports has increased elevenfold since Title IX was passed. In this particular story, the New York Times headed to Adult Soccer Fest, a yearly tournament held in Tennessee specifically for adults with players aged all the way up to their 70s.

Preet Bharara:

Teams travel in from all over the country to lace up their cleats and compete. And for many of the women participants, the tournament provided their first opportunity to play soccer on a team. One of the women quoted in the story, now in her late 60s, said that she felt inspired to start playing by watching her own kids play team sports. Another mentioned the friendship she has made through the game, telling the Times, “I don’t find that in any other part of my life.” These women didn’t get the chance to play organized sports growing up even though they wanted to, and now they’re able to give it a real go. And that they did.

Preet Bharara:

To me, this story serves as a reminder that it’s never too late to correct the institutional wrongs of the past and to try something new that you’ve always wanted to.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Mark Leibovich.

Preet Bharara:

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag, askpreet. Or you can call and leave me a message at (669) 247-7338, that’s (669) 24-Preet. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Preet Bharara:

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producer is Adam Waller. The editorial producers are Sam Ozer-Staton and Noah Azulai. The audio producer is Nat Weiner. And the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, David Kurlander, Jake Kaplan, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost.

Preet Bharara:

I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.