#432 — The Undoing of America
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
165.79878
Summary
David French joins me to talk about his experiences writing for The New York Times and The Weekly Standard, as well as his thoughts on the Trump administration and its impact on American government. He also talks about why he thinks Trump is a bad lawyer, and why he doesn t think he's a smart one.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if you're
00:00:11.740
hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed, and we'll only be hearing
00:00:15.720
the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense
00:00:20.060
Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore
00:00:26.240
it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're
00:00:30.200
doing here, please consider becoming one. I am here with David French. David, thanks for joining
00:00:39.340
me again. Thanks so much for having me back. I appreciate it. Yeah, it's great to see you. I'm
00:00:43.200
a big fan of your writing. Remind people where they can read you online. New York Times. I have
00:00:48.660
a newsletter and a column every week at the Times, and then also podcasts pretty regularly. So just
00:00:55.100
go to the New York Times, and there I'll be. Do you publish anywhere else, or are you exclusive
00:00:59.260
to the Times now? All my written work is at the Times. I'm also on a, I have a podcast called
00:01:04.360
Advisory Opinions that I do with Sarah Isker, and that is covering the law and the Constitution,
00:01:11.280
basically exclusively with a little bit of free, like, dating advice for lawyers sprinkled
00:01:16.060
in there as well. Right. Well, we're not going to cover the dating advice, but we will talk about
00:01:20.520
the law a little bit. Let's start with your big picture experience of the last seven some
00:01:28.920
odd months. How has the second Trump term struck you? I would classify it as an assault on our
00:01:37.120
Republican form of government, is one way to put it. If you're thinking about the American system
00:01:44.120
and the American form of government, one of the things that's really important is you sort of break
00:01:49.540
down the two foundings of America, the first founding, the 17, you know, running from 1776
00:01:54.540
and the Declaration through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then the second
00:01:59.540
founding is the Civil War and the Civil War amendments. The fundamental aim of the first
00:02:04.820
founding was establishing this Republican form of government. No monarchs, no centralized power
00:02:11.000
under one person. This is really fundamentally the entire object of that first founding is
00:02:16.960
establishing this Republican form of government. And what we've seen is in the last seven months is
00:02:22.720
what we've seen is an escalating attack on that Republican form of government. This is something
00:02:27.620
that's been happening for a while in the sense that the presidency has continued to just accumulate more
00:02:32.700
and more power over time. But it has now gotten to a point where that process is accelerating out of
00:02:38.920
control. And we're now seeing sort of a not just presidents accruing power sort of as part of a
00:02:47.300
incremental process, but now grabbing power. President Trump is grabbing power with both arms
00:02:53.780
in a way that is supported by particular MAGA legal theories and directly contradictory to not just the
00:03:01.520
letter of the Constitution, but the entire spirit of the Constitutional Project. So other than that,
00:03:07.280
things are going great. Yeah. Yeah. Well, before we get into more of what concerns you about
00:03:13.180
Trump and Trumpism and this assault upon our form of government, remind people about your political
00:03:20.620
biases such as they are, because I mean, one of the reasons why I love talking to someone like
00:03:25.420
yourself is that any allegation of partisanship just simply doesn't run through. So what is it? How do
00:03:30.960
you describe yourself politically? Well, I had been a lifelong Republican, so I was born in 69, came of age
00:03:37.120
politically during the Reagan presidency, would have long considered myself a Reagan conservative. So
00:03:43.780
I was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2012, supporting Mitt Romney, for example.
00:03:52.400
I was a member of the conservative legal movement. I was a former president of FIRE, the Foundation for
00:03:58.640
Individual Rights and Expression. I worked for conservative public interest legal organizations.
00:04:03.520
FIRE is not conservative. It's nonpartisan. But after I was at FIRE, I worked for conservative public
00:04:09.200
interest legal organizations. I'm a former army JAG officer served in Iraq during the surge. And right
00:04:17.360
until the rise of Trump, I would have proudly called myself a Republican, definitely called myself
00:04:23.900
conservative, still call myself conservative, but no longer call myself Republican.
00:04:27.940
Right, right. So what is the worst thing so far that has happened? It doesn't have to be one
00:04:35.880
thing. It just, what comes to mind when I ask you where the bright lines are? I mean, one of the
00:04:41.940
things that's most mystifying to me is to find myself in conversation with a smart person or an
00:04:47.400
ostensibly smart person who simply doesn't see anything that has happened that shatters any kind
00:04:55.000
of norm that should have been inviolate or, I mean, just like there's this kind of slow creep
00:05:00.060
where more and more becomes permissible. There's just too much to pay attention to. We just can't
00:05:06.860
follow the plot anymore. In Bannon's terms, the zone has been flooded fully with shit. And that turns
00:05:14.380
out to be so effective that you talk to people who really have nothing on their list of things that
00:05:20.400
seem so far out of the ordinary is to be disqualifying for this president or the political
00:05:27.400
movement behind him. What's clearly crossed the line for you in the second time?
00:05:32.400
Yeah, there's a few things, but the one that really stands out to me, and it's not going to be one
00:05:37.200
incident, but it's the cumulative effect of a number of incidents, and that is the distortion of our system
00:05:43.020
of federal justice. So the distortion of the Department of Justice into an instrument that is being
00:05:49.140
stocked increasingly with Trumpist partisans, the explicit targeting, public explicit targeting of
00:05:55.780
political enemies for potential criminal investigations, or in some cases, maybe actual
00:06:00.880
investigations. We can talk about the Bolton search, for example. I'm withholding judgment on
00:06:05.840
the underlying merits. I've not seen the search warrant, for example. I don't know some of the underlying
00:06:11.820
facts, but I do know that the run-up to the search warrant and the conduct of the administration
00:06:15.740
after the search warrant absolutely transgresses prior DOJ practices. The firing of prosecutors of
00:06:23.420
the Jack Smith prosecution team, the pardoning of the January 6th rioters, all of these things
00:06:30.340
together very clearly indicate that there is a two-tiered system of justice, that Trump's allies
00:06:36.460
receive mercy, Trump's allies will even receive pardons, and Trump's enemies, at the very least,
00:06:42.780
are going to be subjected to the most heightened and exacting scrutiny. And at the worst, even innocent
00:06:48.580
people will feel the brunt of the law under this administration. And this is the kind of system of
00:06:55.940
justice that is far more reminiscent of monarchies or autocracies, where you have the monarch, the single
00:07:03.300
figure, where their will, their desire is what justice is. And so I would say the attack on the
00:07:10.760
Department of Justice followed very closely behind something that is not as much in the headlines,
00:07:17.060
but is the systematic purge we're seeing in the Department of Defense as well. Both of those are
00:07:23.740
very much related. They have similar impulses. They have similar outcomes. But the DOJ process,
00:07:30.740
the Department of Justice process, is sort of further down the road.
00:07:34.080
Yeah, this selection for loyalty above all, right, just purging the various branches of government of
00:07:42.980
anyone who, you know, has a history of having criticized him or, given that history, hasn't made
00:07:48.880
sufficiently obsequious amends. I mean, because obviously there are people in his orbit who did
00:07:53.920
criticize him, like his vice president. But I think if you bent the knee enough and low enough
00:07:58.860
in supplication, he's a fan of that as well. So, but this using loyalty as the test, it produces many
00:08:07.240
outcomes which are undesirable. But one is that it selects for people who are not ethical almost by
00:08:15.100
definition. I mean, selecting for people who are willing to pass some humiliating loyalty tests where
00:08:20.300
they have to pretend to believe things that they obviously can't believe because they're preposterous
00:08:24.720
and are willing to say those things in public, right, and willing to, I mean, just the kinds of
00:08:30.120
proclamations you hear from Pam Bondi or Kash Patel. I mean, some of the things they said in,
00:08:35.680
you know, in the aftermath of the raid on Bolton, which we'll talk about. Again, I don't know the
00:08:41.100
details of the case, but the way Bondi and Patel spoke publicly on social media around that just
00:08:48.320
sounded like the, it's the language you expect from a tyranny. I mean, this is just not,
00:08:54.020
this is not the way our politics used to look. Well, you know, it was sometimes frustrating
00:08:59.500
prior to Trump that there is this DOJ practice that we're not going to confirm
00:09:04.140
the existence of investigations. This was the general matter. And there's a very good reason
00:09:09.400
for that. And the reason is that when people know that someone is subject to a criminal
00:09:15.380
investigation, they often skip straight to guilt that the existence of a criminal investigation is
00:09:21.080
somehow proof of criminal wrongdoing. And if somebody is investigated and not charged,
00:09:26.080
a fair society, a fair country doesn't want that cloud hanging over them. And so even this notion
00:09:32.480
where there, that Kash Patel is going to go on Twitter while the search is ongoing, or even while
00:09:38.980
it just ended and sort of, and, and spike the football over it, no one is above the law. When you
00:09:44.460
talk about J.D. Vance going on television and confirming investigations of Ambassador Bolton,
00:09:50.280
when you see the president of the United States calling for vengeance against his enemies and advert,
00:09:56.200
you know, you see administration officials advertising that they want to do mortgage fraud
00:10:00.600
investigations of some of their political opponents. When you see all of that, it, it reminds
00:10:05.500
you of why some of these rules exist, that, that some of these rules and norms and practices exist,
00:10:11.280
because specifically we do not want innocent people to face clouds of suspicion. And once the cloud lands
00:10:19.140
firmly through say an indictment, then that person has an opportunity to defend themselves, very limited
00:10:24.100
opportunity to truly defend themselves if they're just subject to an investigation. And that's just like
00:10:29.360
one piece of all of this, where, where barrier after barrier after barrier has been just blown through
00:10:35.980
in such a way that it's very satisfying to his core constituency because they wanted this. This is
00:10:43.500
exactly what they wanted. But for everyone else, for his opponents, it creates a sense that there's a
00:10:48.340
target on your back. And for the rest of America, it casts aspersions on people who may be entirely
00:10:54.440
innocent of any wrongdoing, but the mighty, the bully pulpit has been turned against them and their
00:10:59.460
reputation could be stained forever for just forever without any kind of judicial proceeding.
00:11:06.980
And even if their reputation isn't stained, because even if anyone who looks at the case
00:11:12.200
knows that it was, you know, spurious and vindictive and not, and shouldn't have been launched in the
00:11:17.940
first place, they can be bankrupted by the obligation to defend themselves. I mean, it's just life
00:11:22.980
derranging punishment. Yeah. Yeah. However spurious it is. I'm thinking of someone like Chris Krebs,
00:11:27.980
who was the election security officer who simply wouldn't agree that the 2020 election had been
00:11:34.280
stolen. And now he's been investigated for what indiscretion I've forgotten, but the real
00:11:40.060
indiscretion is that he simply wouldn't sing the president's tune at the time. Well, so there's two
00:11:44.960
sides to this monstrous object. There's the favor to friends and the vindictive vengeance against
00:11:52.020
enemies or perceived enemies. Let's take the friend piece of it. You mentioned pardoning the January 6th
00:11:57.380
rioters. Why was that as sinister as you think, and not just a difference of opinion about,
00:12:07.240
you know, that just too much had been made of a protest that just got out of hand, right? This
00:12:11.940
is just not, no one was trying to do anything of substance. They just got a little agitated. And
00:12:18.020
then, you know, we've seen video on Tucker Carlson's impeccable program of cops letting other people in
00:12:24.280
at least one side of the building. So it wasn't all flagpoles stuck in the faces of cops. Sometimes
00:12:30.240
the cops just let people in. So this is a morally ambiguous situation. Why isn't this just, you know,
00:12:37.560
clemency and a sign of just how capacious the goodwill of the current president is?
00:12:44.220
You've convinced me, Sam. That's what it is. I'm sorry. No. Let's go back a bit and talk about
00:12:52.840
when the pardon power was put in the original 1787 constitution. This was something that was
00:12:58.660
controversial at the time. And so you'll even go back and you'll read some of the ratification
00:13:03.840
debates in Virginia, most notably, where George Mason stands up and strongly objects to the powers
00:13:09.640
of the presidency, including the pardon power. And the concern there was that the president would
00:13:15.100
use the pardon power to assist his friends, to grant friends and suspicious characters would be a
00:13:21.160
phrase that would be used. A kind of impunity that the president would use the pardon power for his own
00:13:28.360
self-interest and that the how capacious the pardon power was, it's unreviewable. It's totally at the
00:13:34.700
president's own discretion. It's not limited by its any real terms in the constitution, that this would
00:13:40.080
become an engine of political favoritism. This is something that has been worried about for more
00:13:44.660
than 200 years. And so the answer to this was that the pardon power in many ways, it was supposed to be
00:13:50.840
in a lot of criminal justice reformers will defend the pardon power and say, well, wait, wait, wait,
00:13:54.980
hold on. The pardon power allows for sort of last ditch interventions of mercy when the judicial
00:14:02.480
system has created a miscarriage of justice and the judicial system. We have exhausted the judicial
00:14:07.560
system, but the miscarriage of justice remains. And that's the use of the pardon power. The abuse of
00:14:13.560
the pardon powers for favoritism, for friends. And so what you see here unfolding is exactly,
00:14:20.720
exactly the scenario that many of the founders, particularly the anti-federalist faction,
00:14:26.580
were most worried about, that this awesome pardon power would be used for friends to
00:14:32.040
benefit friends and allies, regardless of the merits of their cases. And so, you know,
00:14:38.000
when you talk about the January 6th pardons, he did not go through and say, okay, John Smith here
00:14:43.940
and Jane Smith, the evidence shows that a police officer in this state of confusion and sort of
00:14:49.460
the fog of all of the conflict, let them in. And then they were prosecuted when someone just let
00:14:55.860
them in. And then here's somebody else who we have them on video beating a police officer with a
00:15:00.160
flagpole or beating them with their fists. That person is a violent criminal. There's no sort of
00:15:06.580
confusion or getting out of hand argument for them. They're assaulting a cop. He didn't do that. He
00:15:11.500
didn't do that kind of inquiry when instead he said, everybody, everybody gets pardon or clemency there.
00:15:17.800
And so even the most violent, even the most depraved received unmerited favor from Donald Trump.
00:15:25.240
This is exactly what the founders, many of the founders were worried about. And when you go back
00:15:31.340
and you look at those early debates, what was the answer from the defenders of the constitution?
00:15:35.720
Madison arose and said, oh, we can deal with that through impeachment. Impeachment is the remedy.
00:15:43.120
We've seen how powerful the impeachment mechanism has been in Trump's case.
00:15:47.340
Right. But what this also shows us is the very thing that Donald Trump did, no lesser a founder
00:15:55.180
than James Madison would say that's impeachment worthy, that that's beyond the pale. And so it's
00:16:03.440
not just sort of the obvious injustice of obviously guilty people have who have engaged in violent
00:16:10.900
attacks on law enforcement have been granted a reprieve by this president solely because they're his
00:16:16.840
political allies and they committed violence for him. But what we're seeing is it's not just that in
00:16:22.920
isolation. This is also systemic. It's exposing a systemic problem with the power, the way this
00:16:33.320
How is it that he can, on the one hand, spin himself as the law and order president and on the
00:16:39.760
other hand, pardon people who we've watched attack police officers on video and there's no apparent
00:16:46.760
cognitive dissonance suffered by his supporters? I mean, does anyone in Trumpistan break with him
00:16:54.260
over that contradiction, the fact that he didn't distinguish among the rioters?
00:16:58.500
Your key word there was in Trumpistan. You know, if you are in Trumpistan, you believe the election
00:17:04.700
was stolen. If you're in Trumpistan, you believe that the entire January 6th riot and attack,
00:17:11.680
if anyone is really to blame, it's Nancy Pelosi for not having sufficient security at the Capitol.
00:17:17.800
In true Trumpistan, they believe that without foundation, that many of these January 6th
00:17:24.100
protesters were imprisoned and prosecuted without real due process. So in Trumpistan, you have people
00:17:30.720
who believe that the January 6th protests were exaggerated in their violence, no worse than,
00:17:38.040
say, the protesters who would occupy parts of the Capitol building, say, to protest the Kavanaugh
00:17:44.400
nomination, that the real violence that happened during that era was far-left violence in the Black
00:17:52.380
Lives Matter protests. And so they just have a completely different view of what occurred on January 6th,
00:17:59.340
that the violence was exaggerated, that the protests were legitimate, that the election was actually
00:18:03.360
stolen. And so they're going to look at a lot of those January 6ers as sort of heirs to 1776,
00:18:10.280
that these were patriots intervening on behalf of a president who was wrongly denied the presidency.
00:18:17.660
So they just, they're living in a different universe from many, many, many millions of other Americans.
00:18:24.720
Is there more to say about the Bolton case? I mean, I remember before the, the FBI raid of his house,
00:18:30.760
I mean, this is more or less right after Trump was inaugurated, he withdrew the security detail
00:18:36.220
from Bolton, who by all accounts had, you know, credible threats against him from Iran.
00:18:42.280
So the vindictiveness was easily and early established and clear. And it seems like, you know, whatever,
00:18:48.660
whatever the merits of this case, again, we, neither, neither of us know if Bolton's holding on to any
00:18:53.420
documents he shouldn't be holding on to, but it just seems like the president has telegraphed his
00:18:58.840
motives in, in focusing the justice department on people like Bolton from the outset.
00:19:04.900
Well, this is why you don't do that. This is why you don't name political enemies. Cash Patel had,
00:19:10.480
for example, had an enemies list in his book. When you name your political enemies, what that means,
00:19:17.440
and you name them and identify them and you take vengeance against them. So for example,
00:19:22.180
by lifting a security detail, what that does is it casts a shadow on all of the actions going
00:19:29.080
forward. So for example, neither you nor I, I don't have seen the, the search warrant or have
00:19:35.120
seen the filings in court to ask for the search warrant. So we don't know the underlying evidence
00:19:40.140
or lack thereof. All we know are the surrounding circumstances. And this is why you don't identify
00:19:46.520
targets. This is why you don't engage in vengeful actions because who right now can have any
00:19:52.020
confidence at all that this investigation is being conducted professionally. The only thing
00:19:57.360
that is keeping me from saying clearly this, this is a politically targeted raid is the fact that
00:20:03.620
federal judges did sign off on these warrants. So there, there was a check there. Now it's easy
00:20:10.700
to get a search warrant. It's not difficult to get a search warrant, but there is at least some degree
00:20:14.480
of judicial review that tells me that a federal judge saw this and thought there is at least some
00:20:19.700
reason for probable cause. So I cannot judge the underlying merits of that search warrant.
00:20:25.160
But what I can do is I can say that when you engage in public vilification of your political enemies,
00:20:31.120
when you do things like Kash Patel spiking the football, what that does is it communicates to
00:20:36.860
everyone that this is a political attack, not that this is the dispassionate, even-handed operation
00:20:43.160
of justice. And then let's say, Sam, that there was actual evidence of a crime. Let's just,
00:20:47.700
for the sake of argument, let's assume there is evidence of a crime. You've just really undermined
00:20:52.780
your ability to get a conviction because if I'm a halfway competent criminal defense lawyer, just
00:20:59.780
mouth-breathingly competent as a criminal defense lawyer, I can walk into a jury and say,
00:21:05.080
this is all political. And I can pull up quote after quote, action after action, note how they deviated
00:21:11.920
from standard department of justice practice. And then I'll turn to the jury and they're going to,
00:21:16.000
I would say, they're going to give you a bunch of complicated mumbo jumbo about how Ambassador
00:21:21.780
Bolton violated these highly technical and highly intricate security clearance requirements.
00:21:27.260
But I'm going to tell you, that's a smokescreen. What's really going on is this, and I can point
00:21:36.200
Yeah. So you're, you're actually in many ways, you're undermining, undermining the system of
00:21:40.480
justice on the front end and the back end because you're undermining confidence that these
00:21:44.260
investigations are uneven handed and you're undermining your prosecution, even if you uncover
00:21:50.840
What about the accusations that President Obama is guilty of treason?
00:21:55.980
Treason. If I'm not mistaken, treason, I don't know if it always carries a death sentence,
00:22:04.020
Yeah. Well, I mean, what are we, what are we to make of, uh, I mean, there's two things. One,
00:22:08.360
the accusation was made. Two, there's so, so much else has happened in the meantime that it was
00:22:14.040
promptly memory hold and it's probably not even in anyone, anyone's top 10 of the most interesting
00:22:19.280
things that have happened in the last six months. But to have a sitting president accused,
00:22:23.920
the prior one of possibly a capital offense, uh, and to say that he's now being investigated,
00:22:30.420
that's a 20 megaton piece of news that would completely subsume the presidency of any other
00:22:35.660
president. Oh, absolutely. It would. And it really does go back to that ban and flood the zone with
00:22:42.380
shit kind of formulation where if you're just, just shoveling outrage into the public,
00:22:49.100
you do induce fatigue. You do sort of induce this situation where, uh, you know, I'm sure you've
00:22:55.380
seen that, that Jeff online of Homer Simpson with his eyes wide, just retreating back into the
00:23:01.260
shrubbery. This is the natural human reaction to just nonstop outrage, nonstop crisis, nonstop sense
00:23:09.800
of alarm is a lot of people just back away from that. And so you're exactly right. I mean,
00:23:14.480
we could do this, the whole conversation, we could point to this or that thing that happened four
00:23:19.660
decades ago or 10 days ago or two months ago. And it will feel like five years ago because so many
00:23:25.500
other things have happened. And it just creates a sense of, uh, what you might think of as just
00:23:30.900
almost irresistible momentum that this is just the way things are now. And you either accept it
00:23:38.200
and go along with the tide or resist it and get crushed by it. And I think there's a, this is a
00:23:44.700
very intentional strategy. The difference between Trump one and 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is vast. There's
00:23:51.800
actually a lot of people around him of a specific theory of power and are using Trump's impulsiveness
00:23:58.020
and vindictiveness to pursue that theory of power.
00:24:01.380
Well, let's talk about that theory of power. You've written about the ways in which we're
00:24:06.320
discovering that the constitution has been, uh, an insufficient bulwark against the impulses of a,
00:24:12.780
of a corrupt authoritarian president. And, um, I guess let's touch the, uh, a point specifically,
00:24:19.360
which you raised in a recent New York times piece about why Congress has been so ineffectual.
00:24:25.880
I'm going to read you a quote here. You wrote in, in, in criticism of the, of this notion of
00:24:30.020
co-equal branches of government, which is a phrase that many of us have in our heads.
00:24:34.020
And you wrote, our nation is not supposed to have co-equal branches. Congress is supposed to
00:24:39.500
reign supreme. Yes. The other branches have the power to check Congress. Presidents can veto
00:24:44.160
legislation. Courts exercise judicial review, but Congress alone possesses the power of the purse.
00:24:50.760
Congress alone is supposed to possess the power to declare war. Congress can impeach and remove
00:24:55.620
members of the executive and judicial branches of government, including the president and justices
00:25:00.100
of the Supreme court. This does not seem to describe the Congress that we have. I mean,
00:25:06.200
so, so what is, I mean, you, in this piece, you also recommend that we amend article two of the
00:25:10.720
constitution. Give me a little color on the problem here. Yeah. So if you go back and you read the
00:25:16.460
federalist papers, you will see that the construct is that ambition is made to check ambition. In other
00:25:23.700
words, there's no one collection of people or no one person who can be trusted. If you'd like to
00:25:30.020
continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. Once you do,
00:25:35.960
you'll get access to all full length episodes of the Making Sense podcast. The Making Sense podcast is
00:25:41.280
ad free and relies entirely on listener support. And you can subscribe now at samharris.org.