Transcript
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions.
David: [00:00:00] Welcome to Outrage Overload, a science podcast about outrage and lowering the temperature. This is a bonus episode about Agenda 47 and project 2025.
So there has recently been a lot of discussion flying around about Project 2025. And you know what I found? It can be difficult to even find a [00:01:00] concise definition of it that isn’t loaded with kind of positive, uh, or I should say partisan or derogatory language, you know, but, but I’m gonna give it a shot.
We’ll see how, so I do here. So in what I’ve, what I came up with is in simple terms, project 2025 is a set of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation for how the next president should manage and reform the administrative state upon assuming office. You know, and Trump recently has tried to distance himself from some of it, particularly some of the abortion stuff.
Um, and the thing is over 900 pages long, um, there’s a bunch in there. Uh, I would say some of them are some things to be concerned about. You know, some, some are pretty fringe conservative views, but there’s also a lot of proposals that I think you could see finding some, some more broad support. I think it’s fair to say it’s got good ideas, bad ideas and ideas that are just never gonna see the light of day.
On that point, that kind of takes us, it’s an important note to me at least, that I think it’s something to really note that, that, you know, Trump doesn’t like to be told what to do. So I think he’s gonna pick and choose what he wants to take out of, you know, what he wants to implement out of project [00:02:00] 2025.
He doesn’t like having somebody else’s mandate and dictate what he does. So I, I see that as his personality, that he will not necessarily just take it and do everything in there. Um, and that kind of takes us to where we are now, where, where all of project 2025 is, you know, the 900 and something pages is way more than we can really talk about here.
And, but some of the more extreme ideas do overlap with Trump’s agenda. Uh, he’s publicly put this on his website in a series of videos. He calls Agenda 47. And there’s even too much in agenda 47 for us to cover all of that. So, so I picked three things that I find kind of concerning that I think we can talk about.
And one of those is, first is impoundment power. We’ll talk more about what that means, reissuing Schedule F, and we’ll go down that rabbit hole a little bit. And then this concern about reducing the political independence of the DOJ. So I’ve picked those three as some of the more extreme and concerning aspects of, and they’re, and those are in both project 2025 and in [00:03:00] Trump’s own agenda, 47.
Um, and there, there are a lot of other things we could talk about, but I think those are some of the most significant, and Trump can’t really distance himself from these because these are on his website and it’s part of his stated agenda. So before we jump into those details, I want to introduce our guest, Dr.
Sean Evans, professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Union University. Dr. Evans is here to be a voice of reason in these heated times to help us navigate anxieties with a healthy dose of optimism and grounded perspective. Welcome, Dr. Evans.
Sean Evans: Thank you for ha having me.
David: You sent over a column that, that you wrote, which I really, uh, liked it and talking about sort of the, how we’re gonna escape from the doom loop. And in that piece you say, the problem is that escalating polarization actually threatens democracy. The two most important norms of democracy are recognizing the legit, the legitimacy of one’s opponents, which in Parentes mutual toleration and leaders not abusing their powers, even when it’s legal [00:04:00] institutional forbearance, yet when the other side is an existential threat.
They must be stopped at all costs once this mentality takes over polarization spirals until democracy breaks down. You know, and that’s something we’ve talked about on this show with many of the guests that have come on. Uh, Andrea Shedler talked about that and others have as well. And also a Aaliyah Braley who may be filming with her work.
But she, uh, her research, you know, sort of, she, she talked to us about how people on both sides overestimate the willingness of those on the other side to violate democratic norms. And then that makes us, or, you know, makes they themselves more willing to violate those same norms. And, um, I think that’s a big, big piece of this is that we also tend to, um, uh, perceive the perceived threats are much worse than the real threats.
And that can take us in this part of the doom loop as well. And so you finish that piece with one benefit of democracy is that we resolve our conflicts with ballots, not bullets. For all our sakes, we need to escape the partisan doom loop and tone down our political language. [00:05:00] Now, I couldn’t agree more, and that’s how I wanna frame today’s conversation.
And, but before we jump into those details, I wanted to say that, you know, from our conversations, you’re, you’re pretty sanguine about Project 2025 and Agenda 47 and, and even a second Trump term in general, I think is, is that fair to say?
Sean Evans: Well, okay. Yes. I mean, the, the way I would say it is I believe that he is unfit to be president, but I’m not afraid if he actually wins because I believe that that our system works and con continues to work and that people can hold him and his party accountable in the elections.
And so in the end, I think people fear the worst. They fear what’s possible, not always what is probable. And I think a lot of their fears are, IM.
David: Yeah. Well, I definitely wanna, uh, well, and some of that will probably come out as we go down these individual issues, [00:06:00] but there are some aspects of that I do wanna make sure we cover.
So I, um, I’ll, I’ll try to work that in. But yeah, the first thing on, on the, my little list of three things is this increased impoundment power and, um, you know, there’s this, um, impoundment control act of 1974 that theoretically maybe with immunity, he could, um, disregard that without fear of legal, uh, repercussions.
Um, no, no, that’s what I, you to kind of counter some of this. So that’s one of the theories is that could happen. Um, you know, and then he could selectively fund and defund things. So I think you have, you’re, you’re sort of saying there’s backstops that would stop him from doing that.
Sean Evans: Right. So when you are looking at presidential in, it does not include violations of separation of powers because the basic idea, if it’s contrary to the separation of powers, it’s not official conduct.
So, uh, the president can try to impound money and he can try to ignore [00:07:00] why, uh, Congress’s uh, complaints. But Congress will complain. It will go to the courts. And I would imagine that the courts are going to side with Congress in that instance, in which case, at that point, I fully anticipate that Trump would back down.
David: So, um, you were saying that even with this, the, the way the immunity has been framed and e even with some of the, uh, deliberations they’ve had about it, you feel like it would not apply if it’s, uh, if it’s crossing separation of powers in some way. Uh, chief Justice John Roberts said that specifically in the majority opinion.
Mm-hmm. And so the, the, the Congress could potentially be. The ones to bring that case, or could that come that case come from any other sources?
Sean Evans: Yeah, it, it could come from Congress, it could come, so it, [00:08:00] it could come from people who are injured by the president not spending that money. So if he wants to prevent spending in social welfare per programs, the people who would potentially respend, uh, receive that money could sue because they have been injured, they meet standing, they can challenge the conduct of president.
David: Mm-hmm.
I mean this, I, I guess the same argument would apply to anything involving, um, unilaterally trying to, um, either stop or redirect funds, would be your opinion.
Sean Evans: Uh, yes. I, I mean, uh, I, I, I think if he tries that there will be people in Congress who will challenge it. There will be other people who challenge it.
If this affects states in any way, then you will see state attorney generals who are [00:09:00] going to challenge that. There are already people who are planning on how to respond to a Trump presidency if he wins. They’re looking at all the things in Agenda 47, project 2025, and they are preparing their legal briefs just in case.
And so no matter what he does, it is going to be challenged and I think we have to wait for things to work its way through the system. Yeah, and I, I did see several organizations sort of put out memos to that effect that they, you know, sort of working with their teams of, of lawyers to try to figure out all these different scenarios and how they might respond to it.
So, so here, here, what, what, what we try to say this about what I think Trump the US is designed to do. I think the whole point that Chief Justice Roberts is making with the idea that the president has immunity and core [00:10:00] constitutional responsibilities is that he’s trying to prevent the brand mineralization of policy differences.
And so this distinction between official and private con conduct is his attempt to try to do this if the president is acting as president in a way that the president is able to act. Then he should not be prosecuted for those actions. But if he does something that is, uh, not within that realm, then it is as a private person.
And so if you look at what Chief Justice Roro Robert says, he talks about how the president talking to people in states about potentially changing votes, that’s potentially not within the gamut of presidential authority because the president doesn’t oversee elections State do. And so [00:11:00] the idea is a district court would have to figure out if that is a private or a official act.
And as Justice Barrett says, in her concurrence, she makes a strong case about why this is a private act. And so I think in that respect, the. Protections are not as broad as what we think. In which case, if you can always make the case that the president is acting in a private capacity, then the president can be charged.
David: Mm-hmm. And, and I’m glad you brought that up too about the states because that’s something else that you, we talked about before that you were kind of reminding me about that. You know, we, we are, uh, we are a federal system, so, um, the federal government doesn’t own, doesn’t have power over everything. And you were saying that states and, and, um, even, even down at the local level could potentially also play roles as kind of backstops to some of this, right?
Sean Evans: [00:12:00] Of course, yes. Yeah, so, so I mean, if we look at this, there is a principle in constitutional law called the Anti Commandeering Doc doctrine, which basically says the Fed federal government cannot make state and localities carry out federal laws or federal acts. Uh, the, the idea is states are sovereign in their own right.
So a lot of people are talking about how the Supreme Court is empowering the president. I think they’re looking at some cases and not others because there are quite a few other cases where the Supreme Court is actually constraining the executive branch. And what we have to remember is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
These things that apply to Democrats will also apply to Republicans. So let me give you an sample. So the Supreme Court and ER v Raimondo [00:13:00] overturned the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine basically says any reasonable interpretation that a agency makes is acceptable. Now, let’s think about that, a reasonable interpretation.
Do you think an agency can make a reasonable interpretation of about anything that it wants to do? I, I mean, that’s kind of what we’re looking at here. The Chevron doctrine had no limiting power. Where are the limits on that? And so if Trump says it’s reasonable to think that if people are here illegally, I can deport them.
In Chevron, there’s the case that you can make, that the court should defer to that. In Loper. What the court is saying is that the courts also play a role in determining what [00:14:00] the law says. The president doesn’t make law alone. Even if we look at some other cases, I mean, and, and e even if we’re looking at things like Loper.
The idea also is, uh, for example, most people have been upset that the Supreme Court, uh, struck down the, uh, clean air program to regulate util the clean energy plan. Basically, what the Supreme Court said is, when you are taking actions of such broad and extraordinary significance, Congress has to step in.
Congress has to approve that. So basically what the Supreme Court is doing with the major question doctrines and other things is trying to constrain the president and re-empower Congress, which has been given away a lot of its power to the president because it’s just [00:15:00] convenient, because they like to blame the president for when things go wrong.
And so, uh, I, I, I tried to look at this not as what happens in one case and how it affects the Democrats, I also thinking about is what is the overall princip principle and how can it applied to Republican presidents at the same time? And so I would actually argue that several of the decisions that the conservative Supreme Court has made over the past few years is actually strengthening the separation of power system by limiting the president and empowering Congress.
And so I think when the president tries to take these broad acts on things like impoundment and other things where there are restrictions, then these same things are going to restrain a Trump [00:16:00] or other Republican residency.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I can hear listeners. So as listener advocate, I’m gonna say, uh, and I, and I have seen some experts speak along this line, these lines as well, and I, I think it’ll just be in probably, but I, but I wanna hear your, your, your take on this too, that, you know, um, well, that was the past.
This immunity case shows us the future. They picked a side and in, since they left it in their hands to decide what’s an official act and what’s not. If it’s a Democrat, it’ll not be. And if it’s a Republican, it will be,
Sean Evans: I think you read. Okay, so
David: here’s, and again, so this speaks almost directly to the doom loop, right?
Sean Evans: So Yeah. Yeah. It does speak to the doom loop in that they’re expecting the worst. Here’s why I would say, I think a lot of people are looking at things from a simplistic perspective. The Supreme Court [00:17:00] is not really six three as much as it is 3, 3, 3.
And there is, uh, empirical research that shows that people like Gorsuch, Alito and to Thomas on the far right, uh, Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett are kind of center, right? And then the three liberals are on the left. And even if we look at this past term. Half of these six, three decisions, half of them were not conservative against liberals.
The, the, the idea that conservatives vote in wa lockstep is mistaken. I’ll even give, uh, Gor Gorsuch as an temple. Gorsuch has very strong libertarian views in criminal cases. He’s more likely to vote with the liberals than the conservatives because of his skepticism of government power, and in this case, prosecutorial power.
[00:18:00] So this idea that all sits conservatives think the same way, is I think mistaken. And when you start looking at them individually, you see where there are fault lines on the court and how. Um, they’re not going to rule on down the line in terms of, uh, everything pro-Trump. I mean, we’ll, we’ll look at this.
In the immunity case, Thomas and his concurrent said the special counsel is unconstitutional. Barrett in her concurrence said, no, it’s not. So I I, I mean the, I did think that they’re all on the same page, I think is mistaken.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that. And so let’s move on to the schedule f now for folks that may not be that familiar with it.
This is kind of the idea of loyalists, you know, and, uh, throughout the federal government. And, you know, if you look at some of the folks, if you look at some of the folks that were kind of drafting this or written the [00:19:00] project 20 20, 20 25, they’re, they sort of. The, they, they talk about how the reasoning for this is that the Trump, the first pass on the Trump administration, they, they didn’t do a very good job, like out of the gate to really have things ready to, to, to populate all these appointee positions and stuff like that.
So agenda two, I mean, um, project 2025 has a number of things about how to be ready for that. So you’ve got all this queued up and, and part of that is the Schedule F. And so Trump had an executive order in 2020 called Schedule F, that the idea was to reclassify civil servants as political appointees, and that would enable ’em to fire those without, you know, without cause or without due process or, I don’t know, due process is the right word.
Without, without any process. Yeah. Right, right. And so, and that was revoked by, by Biden. Um, and uh, Trump says in agenda 47 that he plans to re reimpose it. So, um, you, you know, I guess. We, we talked about this a little bit. You were saying that this would be, [00:20:00] this will be, even if he does it, it might be challenged and, and as he tries to fill these spots, he may not be able to find qualified people.
I don’t know if you wanted to add more to that.
Sean Evans: Yeah. I mean, we have to remember that the Federal Bureau bureaucracy is governed by the Civil Service Act as it has been amended and there are limits on what the president can do. Just ’cause he wants to do schedule left does not mean that he can. And then even if he, uh, fires these 10,000, the idea is can you find 10,000 people who are competent and supportive of your agenda to leave everything, come to Washington, do why you want, and then here’s what I’ll say.
Most importantly, the Civil Service tries to work with every administration that it. Has. Um, and what you see across presidential administrations is when people are there, they gain greater respect for the civil service. Now, does this mean the civil service might [00:21:00] say, okay, uh, I don’t think you can do this.
Because of that, they’re pushing back and saying, here’s what we think the law says that that gives the political pointy something to think about. It’s also the idea, they may say, this may not be the way to do it. Here may be a better way to do it. The thing we have to remember is that the civil service to the best of their abilities is going to try to work with the administration because they know a heck of a lot more about how the agency works than the political appointees because they’ve been there for a long time.
And political appointees last about a year and a half to two years. And so for many of these people, they come in, they got these great ideas or these big ideas, but they don’t know how to implement them. That’s how these civil servants job is to help them, and they walk them through the [00:22:00] process. So by the time they leave, people have a greater appreciation for them.
So I don’t think they’re going to have quite as many problems as they would think, but just because the admission wants to do something also doesn’t mean they can do that. And that’s why guidance from the civil service. From attorneys, from even judges and cases becomes important.
David: Well, yeah, and you know, it’s funny about the civil service ’cause it’s probably, if you asked almost any president, they’d sort of feel like somehow all these bureaucrats are getting in their way.
Right. So it’s, you know, and I think you, you mentioned it in your, in your, in your doom loop, um, piece about how on the Republican side, that’s one of these things. Like they feel like there’s just this big, sort of left, owns all that. And, you know, and I, I find that hard to believe. I mean, the civil servant in particular, or the civil service in particular is pretty much drawn out of the population.
So I would assume it, it’s a fairly good representation of the population. I, I don’t know, I might be wrong. I don’t know if anybody, any study on [00:23:00] that, if they lean heavily left or right as individuals, but as you say,
Sean Evans: well, yeah. Well actually there are studies on that. Uh, they’re, they’re, they’re more, they’re closer to the.
Split, but they’re actually tinted toward, uh, tilted toward the left. But here is the thing, it all depends upon what agency you’re talking about. If you’re looking at health and human services, surprise price, it’s filled with elected. If you look at defense department intelligence agencies and things like that, it’s probably doesn’t surprise you.
It’s filled with more people from the right. The idea is that people tend to apply to agencies that reflect their views in the hired and promote promoted by their promotion of the agency point of view. So I think what you’re going to find is Republicans are probably more concerned more about the social welfare agencies while [00:24:00] Democrats are more concerned about law enforcement, economic, and intelligence and defense.
Departments because they think they’re less likely to agree with them.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah, that makes sense. And you know, it would also be, it would seem to me like if you had 10,000 people getting fired, that’s gonna be potentially 10,000 like false firing, you know, lawsuits, you know what I mean? Uh, it seems like there’s gonna be maybe not 10,000, but there’s probably gonna be a lot of people that raise and probably with the help of like an A CLU or other organizations.
Yeah. You use some of those as, you know, test cases for some of these laws to see if, see if it would work too. And I guess we’d find out as that runs through the courts how that would play out.
Sean Evans: Right. And if you look at the groups that are preparing for this, they are doing a lot of training of college kids in recent grads.
Now, uh, I love my students, but I’m not, there’s very few of my students who I’m going to put [00:25:00] into a high ranking position right out of college. In major agencies and tell them to, um, pursue the administration’s agenda. In fact, I would think they would be more susceptible to influence from civil servants because they have less experience in the first place.
David: Mm-hmm. Right. Um, and I guess, you know, a lot of the other, you know, sort of things about this kind of tail off into other things like, uh, using the acting designations for, uh, I suspect, you know, he, he liked to do that before. He is probably gonna continue to do that. Um, but it’s just kind of the way things work.
I don’t think there’s a lot we can really, anybody can really do about that. Is there,
Sean Evans: well, well, when we look at the act, the acting designations, what we have to remember is first someone has to be confirmed before they can be. Name acting. Second. When [00:26:00] someone is an acting official, they have less power than a Senate confirmed one.
So if an acting official tries to do too, too much, the courts have already said, you can’t do this. And this is why a conservative Supreme Court said, uh, during Trump’s shear, they put limits on what acting officials can do. Is there a time limit on, on an acting if they don’t get approved by the Senate?
Um, six months, I believe
David: so. So there is a time limit of some kind.
Sean Evans: Well, uh, okay. So, so here, here’s how I think that’s true. Uh, Biden, uh, wanted to name the Deputy Secretary of Labor, secretary of Haber. So when the Secretary of Labor resigned, she became acting secretary. But the Senate has not confirmed her.
In fact, they will not confirm her. [00:27:00] And so, uh, she’s, she’s, she’s in a wim position about what she can do as the deputy secretary. She’s next in line, but the fact that the Senate won’t confirm her, uh, presents certain obstacles to what she can actually
do.
David: Mm-hmm.
Um, so I guess on a, on a sort of scale, I mean, Trump’s obviously gonna try to put more loyalists in. I mean, who, who wouldn’t, right? I mean, what, what kind of, uh, so what kind of success do you think you’ll have? I don’t know, scale of one to 10 or something?
Sean Evans: Um, I’m gonna gonna say two or three. And, and I, I’ll, I’ll say for this reason, the present has like 1200 people that they have to appoint.
It takes them over a year or so to even nominate all [00:28:00] of the people to fill the Senate confirmed spots. If they struggle to do this to confirm Senate confirmed spots, I think they’re gonna also have a lot of trouble confirming all of these other, or are find, finding people to do these other spots because you still have to go through the civil service system to be hired by the federal government and everything else.
And this takes time. Even these Schedule F people, my guess is cannot be hired day one. Uh, I’m, I’m not sure on all this, but that would be my guess if they’re taking positions in the federal government.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Okay. Well let’s move on to, I think one of the ones I’m probably most concerned about personally, and I think a lot of people are worried about is kind of the weaponization op opportunities or ideas of weaponization of the DOJ.
I mean, Trump has used a lot of rhetoric about going after enemies and things like that. Um, [00:29:00] and that has heated up actually since, well over the last few years. Um, so how realistic are, are, are some of these ideas?
So the, there’s the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, uh, which was kind of as part of that, that came about as Nixon, uh, I believe, to prevent abuses like those Nixon did.
I, I think is where that comes from. And, um, and sort of, uh, isn’t that also where the special counsel, you know, kind of rules come from and sort of to, to try to, uh, ensure this degree of independence from the DOJ and White House and so on? Agenda 47, he talks about kind of wanting to tear a lot of that down and, and, and do these direct retaliation.
So what are your, your thoughts on that?
Sean Evans: Well, oh, okay. So there, there are a couple things, uh, with that, a lot of the special counsel stuff is in Department of Justice regulations, so they could rewrite those regulations on some level. Uh, second thing is, if you follow [00:30:00] Justice Thomas’ can concurrence and what Judge eLink can, and his ruled is special counsels are unconstitutional.
So, I mean, you’ve got that thing where he’s saying, yay, big victory for America. Can he go around and change that? Now consistency isn’t something that Trump has ever been a big, uh, so, so, so something that has guided him in things. But the other thing is you would still have to have a. If he did not do that, he could have appoint someone as a US attorney who could then prosecute some someone.
But the thing is, a US attorney is going to be skeptical of bringing something that they think they have no chance of winning. And the other thing you have to remember is there are other checks outside of the Department of UH, justice. So if you’re going after Biden for something he’s done as president, well, [00:31:00] the person who has to prosecute this is the US attorney in the District of Columbia, which means he has to get an indictment from a grand jury in a city which voted 90% for Biden in 2020, and which will draw a jury from a venue which voted for Biden 90.
10. So the idea is I think there are some other checks along the way. And I also think with Trump, a lot of things are bravado. Uh, he says something, I don’t necessarily sure he’s gonna follow through on them. He talked about walking hill up, but never followed through. And I think, um, he’ll get put, put, pushed back, uh, from there, the media, the media will rip into him on this.
Uh, there will be other things that come out. I mean, the simple [00:32:00] fact is look at the House Government Oversight Committee investigation of Biden. It’s fought. And so the idea is, is a Justice Department investigation going to find something out? If there was a smoking gun of a. Check being deposited into Biden’s bank account, we would’ve found that by now an investigation can actually clear Biden, uh, this.
And so I’m s skeptical it will occur. Political pressure will respond to where he has little incentive to do this. Um, and there are checks on an overzealous prosecutor in the grand jury and the jury system.
David: Yeah, I mean, you do have some history here too as well, right? I mean, he was certainly talking about Lock Hillary up for his whole campaign, was that, and then he never really did anything with that.[00:33:00]
You also had, uh, John Durham, the John Durham case. Yeah. And Durham, you know, ended up, I think he tried one case and then lost it. Um, yeah. And then didn’t really, and then wrote a thing about how everyone’s terrible and they broke all these laws, but didn’t actually charge anyone with any crimes.
Sean Evans: Exactly.
So, so I mean, I, I, I think that may be the model of what you would see is someone investigates they write a report, but they decide not to prosecute. Yeah. One of the, now, now to say, say that that’s still difficult for the person who’s being investigated. Their name is, is dragged through the mud. They’re spending money on attorneys and other things.
So I, I, I don’t want to say that, uh, it’s easy. I think it’s something that, uh, PE people would have a very difficult time going through on a personal
level.
David: Yeah. He probably could make somebody’s [00:34:00] life kind of miserable.
Sean Evans: Yes.
David: Um, you know, and one, but one thing that’s in there too is also this kind of discussion of sort of selective prosecution.
Um, and they certainly accused, they sort of accused Biden of that. But what’s interesting about that, if that was true, then why, what about Hunter Biden and what about even Bob Menendez who was found guilty if you had, if, if, if, if, if Biden was doing that and he could say, Hey, we can’t, we have to delay this because we need him to vote, we need Bob Menendez to vote, you know, on something important.
So let’s not prosecute him for now. Right? I mean, and, and Biden didn’t do that, right? Sa same with Hunter Biden. He didn’t, he hasn’t inserted him. No. Now, if it was, if Don Jr I’d certainly would believe Trump would try to slow walk or get that prosecution killed. He’ll probably kill the prosecutions against himself, the investigations against himself.
So,
Sean Evans: and there is no probable to it. He will, uh, on day one.
David: So, I mean, that there is a significant difference there, and that isn’t, that is an important difference. That Biden, I mean, uh, Trump could [00:35:00] certainly have, if he had, if he had basic, um, you know, some folks in the Senate that were being investigated for crimes, assuming they don’t break state crimes and it was all federal, he would have control over those crimes, potentially with a, with a compliant DOJ.
So he really could either slow walk those investigations or move up other investigations of, of the people that he, you know, there were some democrats being investigated. He would move those investigations up. So I think that’s a real possibility.
Sean Evans: Well, a little pushback a little here in that most people thought Hunter Biden originally got a sweetheart deal.
And so people say that that played a role. And with Senator Menendez, he’s from a blue state with a Democratic governor, if he resigns, which hopefully he will, after his conviction this afternoon, uh, a. Democrat will be appointed in his place. And so there’s no real loss there. But yeah, I, I think that there is a fear that there might be some red attribution, whether they’ll [00:36:00] go after Democrats or not.
Only time will tell.
David: Well, and so what are some of the backstops there? What do you see? Do you see some, you know, people withstanding that could bring lawsuits in those cases?
Sean Evans: In, well, in, in terms of ch uh, challenging the prosecution
David: or, well, let’s say it was a lack of prosecution. There’s not much anybody can really do about that.
Right?
Sean Evans: Right. Uh, in terms of No, uh, there, there, it’s a cancel an investigation or something. There, there’s not, because, uh, prosecutors have what’s called prosecutorial discretion.
David: So the only case with there is if there were any state crimes violated, potentially some State Attorney general could get involved.
Sean Evans: Correct. Which, which is why you see the New York prosecutions, uh, to where they’re, they’re saying, all right, he, he escaped federal, uh, uh, justice [00:37:00] will give him a form of justice at the state level.
David: Um, do you see any other, you know, I mean, like we said before, Trump has talked a lot about all these enemies.
He almost has kind of an enemy list of it’s all over the place. But I mean, how, how realistic, I mean, how much do you, do you see him doing some of this? He, he’s obviously talked about things like, uh, treason accusations and the death penalty. I think a lot of people feel like that would be, that would be a challenge to do, and, and it’s not even really.
I don’t know. It’s kind of the thing that, the kind of thing that even Trump, you know, the odd thing about Trump is he likes being liked. So if he has too much pressure, you know, it feels like it’s gonna be not that popular. I could see him, I could see him sort of being reluctant to do it. We saw that in his first term.
Sean Evans: Right, right. Yeah. He may feel a little bit more empowered this time, but I think there’ll still be put pushback he may give given. And the other thing we have to remember is even if there’s a political [00:38:00] prosecutor, they’re going to rely on the civil servants and the Justice Depart Department and the US Attorney’s office to do the investigation and the grunt work.
And there can always be pushback from those individuals also. And those people also have civil service protection.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah. So part of, um, this tamping down some of these fears is a. What you were saying earlier about even with this immunity clause, um, it’s not a six three Supreme Court. It’s more like 3, 3 3.
Um, so maybe they’re not totally, you know, kind of, um, in, in, in bed with Trump on every issue. Um, so he might have some pushback there. I think that’s a big one to a lot of these fears kind of depend on the Supreme Court being completely partisan.
Sean Evans: Yeah. And uh, I I, [00:39:00] I don’t think that’s, uh, something, it, it’s not as partisan as people believe.
And, and the other thing we haven’t talked about is who wins the Senate because it also depends upon can Trump get the people he wanted confirmed? And we also have to remember there are actually moderates in the Republican party, like a, um. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who have stood up to Trump and have been reelected.
And so I think there’re going to be a break on him. Also, I wouldn’t also be surprised if Mitch McConnell, uh, wouldn’t want to get a little revenge on, uh, Trump for some of the things that he has said about him as he leaves office, uh, in 2026.
David: Yeah. So I, I wanted to, this is something I’ve been really struggling with, um, [00:40:00] and, and I think it, it’s even more so with these recent events that, you know, you, you talk about how, you know, part, part of the, as examples of the, um.
Doom loop. You talk about how Democrats see Trump and mega voters as a threat to democracy because Trump lied about winning in 2020 and tried to prevent the transfer of power. And Republicans are suppressing the vote and the Supreme Court is taking away rights and protecting Trump. Um, and I, one thing, I mean, I wanna say about, and, and you call these hyperbolic claims, but I mean, Trump did lie about 2020.
Yes. And I, I don’t wanna feel like we can’t talk about these things ’cause they are real.
Sean Evans: No, no, no. I mean, and, and as we’ve discussed before, uh, Trump is, uh, he lied. Everyone know, know, knows it well. Not everyone know knows it. If people do the research that they know it, he said four years to prove it, he can.
That is a legitimate concern. In terms of things like a compliance Supreme Court, I think I’ve cast doubt on [00:41:00] that in terms of suppressing the vote. The research is clear. Voter ID doesn’t do anything at all to the turn out. Um, and uh, so I I, I think that while some cases are legitimate, some complaints are legitimate, but that doesn’t mean all of them are.
I think we have to take each claim and judge it on its own merits. And I think part of the problem is when you are on one side, you don’t always look at things objectively. I think we have a little Trump derangement syndrome on both sides to where people on the left think he can do nothing right. And people on the right think he can do nothing wrong, and they’re both mistaken.
So to when someone does something wrong, it should be [00:42:00] pointed out. But because someone does something you don’t agree with, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong and abuse of power or immoral and, and that’s kind of what I wanna push back against. I think there are plenty of reasons that you can give why Donald Trump should not be president, but I don’t believe everything people say is accurate.
I think they’re thinking emotionally more than with their rational part of their brain. And it’s scaring themselves and it’s scaring others. And I think this is when people are thinking. We can forego institutional forbearance because this other side cannot win. And, and, and I’m going to say one other thing I think which is problematic.
Historically, we have [00:43:00] attacked other leaders. We are now attacking other groups of, of Americans. And I think that’s a slight to difference. So I think there’s one thing about saying I dislike Trump. I don’t think MAGA supporters are a threat to democracy. Do they have some, uh, strange ideas perhaps? Do they believe things they shouldn’t?
Yes. But I believe if you talk with them. Learn more about them, you’re not going to be as scared of them as you are.
David: Well, and, and right. And it can be, um, um, destabilizing moment when you do that and you talk to folks that you know, you feel like you’ve, you’ve sort of been, the narrative is that they must have all these traits.
[00:44:00] They’re crazy, they’re dumb, they’re racist, they’re all these things. And when you talk to them and you, you find that’s not true. It, it can be very destabilizing. Right. Um, and it’s, and, and those destabilizing moments are, are important to us. But I still struggle with this, the right balance of how. I, I guess I, what I wanna do is way lay, see if we can way lay some of these concerns.
Like you were mentioned in the beginning that you don’t want Trump to win, but you feel like if he does we’ll, we’ll get through it. And a lot of people don’t think that’s true. And, and I know that’s a bit of an, that’s, that’s not an exaggeration to say people don’t think that’s true or, or, or think that’s, we won’t get through it.
But let’s talk about, you know, why we think we, we, our institutions will hold and that kind of thing. So, you know, I mean, last time, a, a lot of his behavior up until the election was kind of Trump. He’s Trump, he’s doing all these things, but from the time he lost the election too, when he left, boy, there was a lot going on there that was extra legal.
I, I would be, I, I would say it’s extra legal and I would say is, is anti-democratic and, and, [00:45:00] and, and anti rule of law. And those are the things that concern me the most, that when he got in that mode, he, he really turned, turned it up. So. In the end, why did some of that not work? Well, you had some of those, I, I don’t know if civil servants even the right word, but in some cases that, but you also had appointees and others, you had state people in at the state level that even, you know, a lot of Republicans, um, you know, that, that were backstops to a lot of the stuff you wanted to do.
Um, so in some sense, will those state people be there? Hopefully, um, uh, again, if that something like that happens, but so what do we think? I mean, do we a a he’s demonstrated that he was willing to do that one time, you know, with a second term. You know, you certainly could see him wanting to do that is kind of what that means.
Like what that means for a second term. I mean, you know, and, and obviously the real hardcore Trump people would say, well, it’s not gonna be second term, it’s gonna be forever. He’s gonna be president for life. And, you know, so what are some of the things that he, that would be the biggest ways that would [00:46:00] kind of keep him in check?
Sean Evans: Okay, so, uh, the, the thing. I, I think the best argument that people make in terms of, uh, why he would be a threat is in his first term he had traditional Republicans around him who constrain him. He will not have that, uh, if he wins in 2024. I think that’s a legitimate concern. However, these people will also be constrained by courts, congress, all the ticks, public opinion, um, and everything else.
I mean, so what we have to remember is if they go too far, our system is designed to kick in. What, what we notice in politics is the public changes its mood based on whoever wins. When a conservatives elected, the mood becomes more liberal. When a liberals elected the cons, the mood, the [00:47:00] public move becomes more.
Conservative. And so there’s always these counterbalancing forces that are there. There are plenty of democratic state attorney generals who, who will sue. There are plenty of liberal nonprofits that will sue, just like we had for wrote tests in his first term. We will have protest his second term. There will be a press that will be very skeptical of him and will report skepticism of him.
Um, and the simple fact is our nation has enough people on the other side and moderates to where any president will always have low approval, which then makes partisans who are in swing districts concerned. And they also put a break on the administration because they say, Hey, we’ll lose our [00:48:00] seats if we do this.
That gives them a incentive to not go as far as they want.
David: Yeah, and I guess that’s a little bit of, we’ve talked before about this, that, uh, one concern I have is there’s so few, there’s some, so there’s a lot less, um, uh, competitive districts anymore. I mean, so many of these districts are safe now that you don’t have as much pressure there.
Sean Evans: But, but, but the fact that our margins are so close, what that means is just a few people to effect and things go nowhere. I mean, look at the past two years of house Republican rule. This is a game that can’t shoot straight. Are they all of a sudden going to be coherent and organized and vote straight down the line as Trump wants?
I think that’s somewhat doubt for. Unless they get a large majority, in which case they [00:49:00] can ignore, um, those, uh, PE people. But then in the Senate, you still have the filibuster. And I can tell you right now, Republicans will not eliminate the filibuster. They see that as a break on large government and there are enough institutionalists in the Senate to prevent that, which means Trump will not be able to enact the most conservative legislation that he wants.
David: Right. I mean, they see that as a, as definitely a sort of avoidance of sort of majority, a simple majority rule kind of problem.
Sean Evans: It’s
exactly because their, their view is if it, if they do it, the other side will do it, and they’re afraid of what the other side will do. So they actually have a little institutional or barr.
That way. And there are a lot more Republicans who are skeptical of [00:50:00] being robust reform than Joe mentioned in Kirsten Sinema, among sinning Democrats.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Um, I, I, I would say, you know, one, one thi Yeah, and I, I guess I’ll finish with this. Um, one thing that I think a lot of people are upset about, um, and, and why I think it drives some of these, you know, more, more extreme or, or maybe a lot of anxiety and, but potentially Dr.
Some more extreme actions are, you know, that, that basically we haven’t had any, we haven’t really been able to see any closure on these Trump cases. Like Trump’s not going to be, um, we’re not gonna see an accountability for, for either the, the documents case or, or any of the January 6th related stuff. Um, you know, certainly before the election and maybe never.
Um, and I think that really frustrates people and also, you know, feels like, and I would say that the Supreme, you know, you could, you could make a case that the Supreme Court was protecting Trump in, in those situations, and maybe you can check me on that as [00:51:00] well. But I feel like by them, you know, slowing down the, the January 6th pro, and you, there’s a lot, we’ve talked about this before, there’s a lot of blame ordering to go around on this too, because, you know, if they had brought those cases in 2021, we may not be here.
This kind of thing. So there’s a lot of blame to go around for this. But, but it, I could see people making that argument that this, this is a case where the Supreme Court did protect Trump just by slow walking though. So that’s probably enough. Just,
Sean Evans: I, I mean, my argument to that is that it typically takes the case to reach the Supreme Court in two to four years from the, from Judge Kin’s decision in December to the Supreme Court decision in July, it took seven months.
That’s white speed for the Supreme Court.
David: And that’s something a lot, lot of folks don’t really realize. Like, you know, we have this kind of TV version of these cases that are settled in 17 and a half minutes on a TV show when in real even, and even if it’s a documentary, you’re getting the documentary in 25 minutes, but the actual thing was 12 [00:52:00] years or something, right?
Sean Evans: Yeah. And I mean, and, and so, uh, I, I understand those con, con concerns. I’m not a fan of Trump. I think he needs to be prosecuted for, uh, uh, interfering in the election. But I also know how the Supreme Court works in general. And so, I mean, that’s kind of, uh, my big takeaway for this and, and how I look at this now.
Now I study poll politics. I understand how the gov the government works. I think what we need to think about is look at how our system has worked, look at the basic checks and balances. Think about what’s probable, not what’s possible. Once you start making that distinction, you start seeing that many of these things that Trump may want to do isn’t very probable, which [00:53:00] makes me think I don’t have to fear as much what he wants to do, and I hope other people would look at this possible versus probable because I think that changes things and also why.
David: Mm-hmm. Yeah, for sure. And I, and I think, you know, something I’ve been really, a message I’ve been really trying to drive on, you know, more recently with a lot of these tensions is no one’s saying, you know, not to be an advocate, you know, for whatever causes that you’re interested in. Um, you know, but I think we have to be realistic.
I, I, I think the idea of being realistic. That you’re not gonna win every time. Like, like, yeah. Even if you say, well, Republicans could take advantage of this immunity thing someday. Yeah, guess what? Republicans are gonna win someday no matter what. If it’s not Trump this time, they’re gonna win eventually.
You can’t win an election forever. So we’ve gotta get used to the idea of losing. I think it goes along with what you were saying is, but you don’t just support democracy when you win. You’ve gotta support these institutions when you lose. And I think people are really struggling to kind of come up with what are the ways that I can do [00:54:00] that?
And so, you know, that’s a big one, big one there too. But we have to just get comfortable with that, that, you know, losing is part of this.
Sean Evans: Well, and, and the other thing I say about adv advocating, that’s something you should all do, but you need to advocate to people who don’t agree with you. When you advocate to people who already agree with with you, you’re not changing anybody’s minds.
And so you need to talk to people who disagree with you, listen to them. See what they’re saying. If any of their points have any merit to them and respond based upon what they’re saying, not what you think they’re say, saying when that happens, you may have a different view of that person. You may also be able to change their minds because you talk at some, someone, you never change someone’s mind.
You talk with someone you can, [00:55:00] and you might have your mind changed. Yes. And your mind might change and re remember. You may not win this debate, but you may win the next one. So keep on trying.
David: Right. And well, and so do you have any id, uh, any, any advice for like. I’m not encouraging people to say, well, just give up and your side’s gonna lose, but if your side’s gonna lose it, it’s gonna lose someday.
Yeah. So when your side has lost, what do, what, you know, what are some sort of beyond political violence and things like that? What, what are some, some like good ways to go still support the, these democratic institutions and things like that?
Sean Evans: Yeah, so I, I think things that you can do is you can, uh, uh. Work for or donate to a non-profit that’s doing good work in your community.
You might actually find people on the other side who’s working at that same one. Uh, I think there’s nothing wrong with voicing your support on social media, writing letters to the [00:56:00] editor, working for a party, donating to a party or a candidate. There are all sorts of things that we can do, which we are called to do as citizens, but we’re also called to do them in a certain way, uh, not under the idea that we’re right and they’re wrong, but we have to go in with the understanding with a certain amount of humility that you may be right.
Uh, Senator Howard Baker, uh, served in the senate. From 66 to 84 Rose v. Senate, uh, Republican leader in the minority. And the majority. And the majority. And when he was trying to convince people, he had a simple thing that he was known for saying, well, you may be right. And so by signaling that he said, I don’t have all of the answers and I’m listening to you.
And that led people to be open to [00:57:00] listening to him, to the things that he had to say, which allowed him to find the compromises necessary to get things done. And I think that that’s the key thing. The other side may be right, and if we go in with that certain amount of humility, I think that’s a very important first step.
The o other thing I’d say in terms of, of, uh, fearing if the other side wins the other side is one in the past and what’s happened, I’m pretty sure. Our country is still here. I’m pretty sure people are still able to vote. I’m pretty sure people are still condemning John Donald Trump each and every day.
There’s still a free press. Everything is still working, not quite as designed, but pretty close to it. Uh, to where our freedoms are not being taken away. We still have means of [00:58:00] petitioning and influencing the government.
David: Yeah, that’s a huge one because it’s so easy to, for lose sight of that, of, of how, like from a real perspective and, you know, sometimes that means traveling to another country or seeing what, what, you know, if you’re gonna throw around a term like fascism, go into a place and see what that really looks like, you know?
Sean Evans: Yeah. Or, or even read about what fascism is. I mean, and once you do that, it’s a little bit more difficult to wind that up with a Trump presidency.
David: Or Biden presidency either. Right?
Sean Evans: Yeah. Yeah.
David: Because people call Democrats fascist too, right?
Sean Evans: Exactly.
David: Yes. You know, and same thing with the free press, right? I mean, you can complain about our press and, and that kind of stuff, but I mean, yeah.
Go to a place that actually doesn’t, you know, only has state run media or has a very controlled press. I mean it’s, you know, there’s a difference. There’s a big difference. So, I mean, you can’t even, and you couldn’t and or go to a place where you can’t criticize the government, right? I mean, even just complaining about the government, like you, that’s a right, right there that you may not have
Sean Evans: and you’re not [00:59:00] being thrown in jail.
David: Exactly. I mean, not everybody has that, right? Um, yeah. So it’s easy to, it’s easy to lose, lose sight of all. I think another aspect there that comes across is, you know, we talk about it’s working more or less intended the way it, it it’s meant to. I mean, we have to remember that it’s meant to sort of not work, right?
I mean, it’s kind of meant to be difficult to get things done. That’s kind of the way our government was designed.
Sean Evans: Yeah. Our, and, and that’s why. I am very supportive of our system of, because our founders, they had flaws, but I think they put together a good system because they were realist who realized that people are self interested, they will pursue what they think is good for them.
And so they created a system to try to constrain that self-interest and instead turn it into a way to where it can work for the public interest.
David: Exactly. Well, Dr. Evans, I really appreciate you making the time for us, and, [01:00:00] uh, I hope people sleep better at night with this information.
Sean Evans: I do too. We, we are blessed to live in the country.
We have. Uh, blessed with everything that we are able to do each and every day, and I’m thankful for that. And if I reflect on that each day, it makes me feel a little bit better about our country. And even when I see people say things that I disagree with, I still respect the fact that they are willing to stand up and talk about what they believe in.
That’s a good thing. That’s part of what makes
David: America great. That’s awesome. Well, thank, thank you again.
Sean Evans: My pleasure.
David: That is it for this episode of the Outrage Overload Podcast. For [01:01:00] links to everything we talked about on this episode, go to outrage overload.net. The outrage machine can leave us feeling drained and hopeless, but remember, you’re not powerless. There are ways to break free from the negativity spiraling.
Let’s combat negativity with positivity. We all need a good dose of hope these days, so head over to our social media pages, Facebook or Instagram at outrage overload, and share a positive news story that inspired you. Scroll down in the show notes and find the, send us a text message link. It could be anything big or small.Let’s create a community that uplifts and support each other in staying off the negativity spiral. Thanks for joining me on this journey. Until next time, take care of yourselves and each [01:02:00] other.