Transcript for Outrage BONUS – How the Indictment speaks to our political divide – Jon Marshall

Back to episode


[00:00:00]: Jon Marshall: Welcome

****: David: to Outrage Overload. A science podcast about outrage and lowering the temperature. This is a bonus episode about the Trump

****: Jon Marshall: indictments.

****: The indictment

[00:01:00]: David: of a former president for the illegal retention of secret documents, including top Secret War plans, is a watershed moment in our nation’s history. It brings to light the inherent tension between national security and the accountability of our leaders. Trump’s

****: Clip: lawyers say the indictment contains seven charges.

****: They include willful retention of information related to the national defense, part of the espionage act, and obstruction and false statements charges.

****: David: In the aftermath of a groundbreaking indictment that has rocked the nation, we should take a step back to examine the historical significance and long-lasting implications of this unprecedented case.

****: However, this indictment has taken a direction that is not surprising in our polarized times. It has divided the nation along political lines, overshadowing the crucial national security implications. It’s really

****: Clip: extraordinary. I mean, as Gml rightly said, you know, the kinds of secrets that are in these documents are among the most.

[00:02:00]: Closely held secrets the US government has. They are information relevant to ongoing preparations for military operations. They’re, uh, documents in here that relate to the mayor military capabilities of our foreign allies and adversaries US nuclear program. I mean, it’s really the most tightly held secrets US government has and information that really could do extremely.

****: Serious harm to US national security and the range of agencies are mentioned in this document. Just give you a sense of how extensive this information really is.

****: David: That’s Ona Hathaway, former special counsel at the Pentagon. Here’s former National Security advisor, John Bolton. The most

****: John Bolton: important secrets that the United States, uh, has, uh, directly affecting national security, directly affecting the lives, lives and safety of our service members in our civilian population.

****: If he has anything like what the complaint, what the indictment alleges, and of course the government will have to prove it, uh, then, then he has committed very serious crimes.

****: David: Unfortunately, the political lens has clouded the broader implications of this indictment. A plurality of Americans say they do see politics behind the charges.

[00:03:00]: 47% believe the charges against Trump are politically motivated, according to an ABC News, Ipsos poll. And of course, this is split along party lines with only 9% of Republicans believing the charges were not based on politics. While the lion’s share of Democrats at 71% believe the charges are not based on politics.

****: Just 7% of G O P voters said they have a worse view of the former president and 2024 presidential hopeful after the indictment, according to a C B S news u gov poll. The polarization surrounding this case reflects the deep divisions within our society. For some, it’s seen as a politically motivated attack, disregarding the alleged crimes and their impact on national security.

****: I

****: Clip: think it’s a bunch of bull. Trump ain’t done that. Wrong thing Trump done is it saved this country. They’re not gonna let it stop. Mm-hmm. They can’t stand the fact that he’s running for president. And I am a Donald Trump fan. It’s, uh, probably altered. Um, but it’s just typical, typical, uh, Liberal propaganda

[00:04:00]: David: Republican politicians are likewise downplaying the indictment.

****: Here’s Lindsey Graham.

****: Lindsey Graham: President Trump will have his day in court, but espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous whether you like Trump or not. He did not commit espionage. He did not disseminate, leak, or provide information to a foreign power or to news organization to damage this country. He is not

****: David: a spy.

****: Others emphasize the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability regardless of political affiliations. Here’s John Bolton again.

****: John Bolton: Well, I, I don’t buy that argument at all, but, but look, give, give, give those who are saying it some credit, assume, for example, uh, for the sake of discussion that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, hunter Biden, fill in the blank, uh, should, should be indicted, should be prosecuted, and the failure to do so.

[00:05:00]: Constitutes a double standard. Just assume that for purposes of discussion. Now look at this indictment of Donald Trump. Do those people who make that complaint say, therefore, the answer is not to prosecute Donald Trump, that the response to a double standard. Is to move to no standard at all. A absolutely not.

****: You know, Republicans used to believe that not prosecuting criminals led to more crime. The answer here is take the politics out of the decision, and in this case, proceed with the prosecution. Uh, and do the same for anybody else who does anything even remotely. Uh, uh, like it. I think it’s critical. Uh, for those who seek to be the Republican nominee to tell Republican voters the truth about this indictment, I wish the R N c uh, could email a copy of the indictment to every registered Republican in the country.

****: And I’d simply say, I’m not gonna make a lot of arguments with them. Just read the indictment and ask yourself if the government can prove what they allege here, shouldn’t this man go to

****: David: jail? Here’s former FBI general counsel, Andrew Weissman, that he’s being

[00:06:00]: Andrew Weissman: treated just like anyone else. And there are legions of cases of people who did far less, who are in jail because of this kind of conduct.

****: That is what it means to have a rule of law. That is what it means to not have a king, but to have somebody who, if they violate the law, will be treated regardless of their station, or in this case, their former station, um, in the

****: David: government. The politicization of this indictment has diverted attention away from the core issues at hand.

****: We must remember that the alleged crimes involve the illegal retention of secret documents, the indiscriminate sharing of highly classified war plans and obstruction of justice. These actions pose a significant threat to national security and strike at the heart of our democratic principles. The differing perspectives among the American public highlight the challenges in reaching a consensus on almost anything.

[00:07:00]: The divide further deepens as the media and political discourse become entangled in partisan debates, overshadowing the critical national security implications.

****: And that’s what we’re going to talk about on this episode of the Outrage Overload Podcast. I’m your host, David Beckemeyer, and our guest today is Medill School of Journalism, professor and historian, Jon Marshall, author of Clash Presidents and the Press in Times of Crisis. Listen in as we explore the impact of the politicization of this landmark case.

****: Provide some historical context and find encouragement amidst the challenges with Jon Marshall.

****: David: First of all, I wanna thank you for making time

****: Jon Marshall: to come on this show. Oh, a pleasure. Thank you for having me on it.

[00:08:00]: David: And like I said, I, so I don’t usually, I don’t cover a lot of news. Every once in a while I do, and I’ll jump in. I’ll, I’ll call that a bonus episode and I’ll wedge it in with my other featured episode, or, or not featured, but just regular episodes.

****: And this is probably what’s gonna happen here is this will probably be a bonus episode. And I, and I don’t usually talk about the news, but in this case, we kind of have this thing and I, and what I, what, and I think the, the re the connection back to what we talk about on the podcast a lot is this sort of connection to our division and the state of our division.

****: It seems like there’s enough evidence here to say we should maybe be coming together on this idea of maybe national security or something, you know? But we’re just not, the country is just not in a state where that works right now. You know? And maybe some moderates and independents might align with that, but you know, for the most part, you certainly see.

[00:09:00]: You know, we’re just not ready. Any attack on somebody like, like Donald Trump is just an attack on my tribe. And so I just dig in and I, and I fight back and, you know, it’s kind of an uncomfortable situa. The, the part that’s most uncomfortable to me, I guess, is that this is kind of just baked in now, that it should be a big deal.

****: Like even for people that aren’t. Necessarily Trump fans, but it’s sort of like no big deal. We’ve sort of been, a lot of people have been expecting it, expecting him to get arrested at some point, and I, I think for the Trump fan side, it’s kind of just fake news. It’s, it’s baked into the fake news, deep state story.

****: I. You know, and, and that to me is kind of disheartening, right? I don’t wanna completely have a downer episode, but it, but it kind of is, you know, and I think back to Nixon and, um, you know, and he was never actually prosecuted, but he responded to, to norms. And it just kind of feels like norms are like a quaint curiosity at this point.

****: I mean, It doesn’t seem like anybody really has to respond to norms anymore. And, and you know, and I guess with that kind of framing, you can go any direction there, whether you wanna talk about a little comparison to Nixon and Watergate, or whether you want to go another place with that.

[00:10:00]: Jon Marshall: David, uh, that’s a really interesting, um, and great question, and I think there’s a lot of, a lot of threads, uh, to that que question that, that we can explore and I’ll try to try to follow them.

****: Uh, to respond to your, your point about Nixon, I think you’re right, that he did respond to norms at least publicly, uh, and on the surface, uh, so his press conferences, uh, If you listen to them or read the transcripts, uh, which, which I have my students do at at Northwestern, you know, they’re struck by how polite it all seems and there’s not yelling.

****: Back and forth. Uh, and yeah, the language is usually has some sense of decorum to it, uh, even when reporters are asking very challenging questions. And, and Nixon would always give lip service, uh, to the notion of freedom of the press and its role in a democracy. And pretty much every president has done that.

[00:11:00]: Up to, uh, Donald Trump, who’s, who’s part of his really political strategy was to cast the press, uh, as an enemy. Yeah. But Nixon, while he was, he’s being generally respectful with a, with a few exceptions, uh, publicly about the press. Uh, If you listen to his White House tapes or read those transcripts, he’s, he’s anything but respectful in private about the press.

****: Uh, and he also actually had the, had the strategy, uh, of what his, uh, chief of staff HR Haldeman called, uh, making, uh, uh, the press a useful enemy. Uh, so he and Nixon talked about making the press a useful enemy, but they did it in a much more subtle, Kind of way. So they did, uh, starting pretty early in Nixon’s presidency, nineteen sixty nine, seventy, start wiretapping the phones of reporters who they didn’t like and whose stories they thought were damaging to the administration.

[00:12:00]: Uh, when the New York Times had a story revealing that the United States was secretly bombing Cambodia, which Nixon wanted to keep quiet, they started a whole series of wire taps. Uh, Of reporters as well as people on, on their staff. Uh, they had the i r s, uh, go after reporters and columnists they didn’t like and have their tax returns, uh, audited every year.

****: Instead of the, the normal, every once in a while audits that people would get, there’s investigative reporter, uh, Bob Green of of Long Island Newsday did a a tough, tough article about Nixon’s Beth’s friend Bebe Zo. So, Bob Green’s, uh, taxes got audited. Mary Mcw, who was a sort of popular liberal syndicated columnist, sh uh, she started to have her tax returns audited every year.

[00:13:00]: So they used the F fbi, I, uh, excuse me, they used the irs. They also used the F B I to try to secretly, um, follow, uh, reporters around and see if they, uh, could catch them in homosexual relationships, uh, which in that era would be a complete, uh, Career end, uh, if they were publicly known, uh, to be gay. And so they wanted to use that for blackmail purposes.

****: Uh, they used the Federal Communications Commission to try to go after the TV licenses of the Washington Post. And the post, of course, was the publication that most aggressively investigated Nixon on Watergate. Uh, so Nixon had some of his allies try to challenge the posts TV licenses. And the TV licenses were actually the.

****: The Prime Profit center, uh, for the Washington Post. So if those licenses had been denied, that would’ve been close to a death blow for the post. Uh, so that’s all that is to say that Nixon very much, uh, violated the norms of, of what was, was legal and respectful conduct, but he did it. Behind the scenes as as much as he could.

[00:14:00]: Uh, eventually all this stuff got revealed and, uh, it ended up being one of the, part of one of the impeachment counts, uh, against Nixon from the, from the House Judiciary Committee. But, uh, so. Trump isn’t the first president to violate norms and, and other presidents have done it in either way. You know, Nick Nixon’s one of the most egregious examples.

****: Another thing I think is worth talking about is you talked about the state of division, um, in our society and, you know, the media, which is what I, I study the most, the period in sort of the mid 20th century where there was less divisiveness in the media. Uh, there were three national TV networks that.

****: Was the way that most people got the news and there were large metropolitan and national newspapers that that might, you know, editorialize for the Republicans or editorialize for the Democrats. Uh, but there wasn’t kind of a, a lot of the nastiness we hear now, uh, on, on cable TV or talk radio, uh, or on websites or on social media.

[00:15:00]: There was sort of this. Sense that that bipartisanship was good, uh, in, in the middle of the 20th century. But that was kind of an anomaly in our media history. And if you go back to the very beginning of the United States, one of the, the first chapter in my book, uh, clash Presidents in the Precedent Times of Crisis is about John Adams and the.

****: The media as it existed then was every bit as nasty as it is now. It’s not nastier and, and, and more partisan. And they viciously attacked the opposing political parties. And the parties generally controlled the, the newspapers at that time. Uh, and they, the, the. Republican Democratic newspapers. The Jefferson Madison party went very hard after John Adams and, and John Adams allies in The Federalist Press went very hard after Jefferson and Madison, and there was a sense in the country that it could easily fall apart the very, very early days of the United States.

[00:16:00]: And there was fears that, that Adams and the Federalist allies were gonna restore the monarchy and try to be just like the king of of Britain, uh, on the part of the Jeffersonians. And then the Federalists thought that the Jeffersonians were gonna have like a, something similar to the French Revolution and there’d be bloody chaos in the streets.

****: And they’d allow all these immigrants in from France and from Ireland, and it would just totally destroy the country. So people felt like the. The country was, was at great risk. And I, I think we have a similar feeling among some people in the country today that if their side doesn’t win, everything’s, you know, we’re gonna lose everything.

****: Uh, and, and we hear that in the rhetoric all the time from both sides. Uh, then certainly, you know, during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and the presidents right before him, there was also that sense that the nation could unravel obviously with, with, with the Civil War. And, uh, Either you oppose slavery or you supported slavery and there wasn’t a whole lot of middle ground in between and.

[00:17:00]: The abolitionists were physically attacked and death threats all the time. And in fact, Elijah Lovejoy, who was an abolitionist editor, uh, was murdered, uh, for publishing, uh, an abolitionist newspaper in, in Alta Mrs. Uh, Illinois is outside of St. Louis. Uh, so the, the vehement, the partisanship, uh, the outrage, uh, was certainly around then as well.

****: And then we had sort of a, a more calm, bipartisan sense, I think. In much of the 20th century, but that kind of outrage and partisanship, as you’ve noted, has returned. And I think part of it, uh, is that in the past, people of opposing political parties, of opposing, um, of people of very different, Income levels, different backgrounds didn’t live that far away from each other.

[00:18:00]: They, they would, you know, their neighborhoods would be right next to each other. People, uh, would see each other. There were, were sort of more conversations among neighbors. Uh, and now we have people living in, in gated communities or in in towns where there’s very few people from with an opposing perspective.

****: And we sort of relive in our own silos. And we watch our own media. And I think that makes it easier to be outraged towards the other side when you don’t have day-to-day conversations with them.

****: David: Right. And, uh, you know, and we, we’ve come to the point where we don’t tend to have those conversations in person sort of very often.

****: And so the only place we’re seeing ’em is kind of online and you get this kind of skewed version of the world there as well. Yeah. I mean, do you, I mean, I, I think the. The tribalism stuff is, is almost like we’re in denial about it a little bit. We all think we’re sort of principled, and we’re not really tribal.

[00:19:00]: We’re just principled and we have these ideas and this party seems to be upholding our ideals. But, but, uh, you know, when you look at, like, we change with the, you know, with the wind when, when the party flips on a issue, we flip with them, you know, for the most part, and we stick with that party. Mm-hmm. So, you know, and I, you know, in this case, well, you know, I read the Constitution last night.

****: Not all the amendments, but I read the, the, the basic constitu uh, constitution. It, it took me like 45 minutes or something and I’m, and I’m a slow reader. And, and that was kind of, I read it in the, in the, with the frame, with the back mindset in the background of. If I was a bad actor, you know, and, and I’m sure this had to be on the minds of, of, obviously that was on the minds of the folks writing that as well, right?

****: That they were concerned about bad actors. And as you mentioned, it’s concerned, concerned about monarchy and tyranny and that sort of thing. Were a huge, what, very much part of what they were thinking. But you know, you sort of look at a lot of that and um, you know, there’s things like, okay, I have to take an oath.

[00:20:00]: What’s my punishment if I don’t, I mean, obviously they included impeachment and they talk about you can, uh, be kicked out of, out of the, the, the senate or, or the, or the, um, or the house. But, you know, for the most people, most part, you know, people now are waving around the constitution like a little symbol, and while they’re in the middle of violating it or, you know, I don’t know if they ever read it or know what’s inside there and, you know,

****: Jon Marshall: and, or, or, or they cherry pick a phrase here and there without, without the full context.

****: Exactly.

****: David: Yeah. And, and so it, it’s sort of like there’s no real, we have people in Congress that are basically calling for the tear down of things that are obviously, you know, basically destruction of the constitution, which they took an oath to sort, you know, to protect. And, uh, you know, and that’s not even a norm that we seem to worry about at this point because we’re so, we’re so caught up in the, well, they’re in the right tribes, so I’m gonna support them no matter, matter what they do.

****: And I, and I, and I feel like, you know, with this. With this indictment and potential others that may come up. This is, I’m, I think Trump sees this as, as pretty existential and I think his supporters. In some sense do as well, because I mean, they feel like if he goes down, we go down kind of thing. Um, at least that’s where they’re at now.

[00:21:00]: And you know, you would, you know, we always got, got told or have been told by, you know, social scientists, social psychologists, that, you know, if we had this sort of, um, Superordinate threat, we could come together, uh, uh, and, and do that more. And, and, you know, we saw that a little bit with, with nine 11, uh, you know, the September 11th attacks and we saw that a little bit.

****: It didn’t last very long, but we saw it for a little bit. Um, you know, and we don’t see it here like you would think national security would be. You know, an issue and you know, and I think things like, you know, the, the, the degree to which we can look the other way to things like, you know, Biden indicted Trump, well, no, Biden didn’t indict Trump.

****: You know, the government had to present a case and, and the citizens, you know, saw enough evidence there that that indictment was, was justified. You know, we’re looking at our, how our own system works and things like that. Like it’s not, you know, that there is. And of course you have the politicians who know it’s not political.

[00:22:00]: They’re out there saying it’s, I mean, some of ’em might believe it cuz you did see some stuff where I think some people have gone down these rabbit holes and they do believe it. But many of the people out there saying this is a completely political, um, process is are, um, they know it’s not, you know, they know that this, this is actually rule of law and, and, but they’re doing that anyway to rile up the base and, and to, and to stoke those fears and so on.

****: And, you know, and I worry with this situation that it seems like this is. For Trump, this means I have to win. He has to win, or a Republican has to win. He might be hoping if another Republican wins that he’ll be pardoned. But I think for Trump, he feels like his. Get outta jail card is being president. You know, that’s his only get, this is his best get out of jail card.

****: So I could, I could see, I, I don’t know what power he has, but there’s a lot of money. So you ki I kinda worry about this being kind of an existential thing, not only for him, but for his supporters. And of course he’s got this cadre of, you know, Terry, Terry, everything apart. You know, the, the, the general Flynns and the Steve Bannons of, of the world out there, kind of on his side as well, that, you know, they’ve, they’ve got some strange motives there, but their, their, their philosophy is sort of tear it all down and start over.

****: And so they’re right there with him if that, that’s the direction he goes in. So, I don’t know if you have any thoughts about any of that. I know it’s not exactly your specialty, but I wonder if you have any thoughts about that.

[00:23:00]: Jon Marshall: Yeah, that’s, that’s really, uh, It is interesting and you, you bring up nine 11 as a time when the country came together, which I think is largely true.

****: Uh, the, I can’t remember the exact statistic, but, uh, the support for President George W. Bush right after nine 11 as he’s trying to rally the country was, was through the roof in the polls. I think, I think it was some of the highest poll numbers that any president ever had. Excuse me. And, and we saw it. Uh, I think the parallel to that is, is Pearl Harbor in the start of World War ii, uh, where again, there was a physical, a physical attack on part of our country, and the nation pretty quickly rallied around the President and rallied around the cause of, of fighting the, you know, foreign threat.

[00:24:00]: But we also can remember that right before, The start, the United States entered World War ii. The country was actually quite divided about whether the US should support Britain and get involved in the war in Europe. And there was a very strong America first movement that opposed getting involved in the war in any way led by Charles Lindbergh, the great aviation hero, but also quite a few US senators and Congressmen governors as well, and the kind of.

****: Angry attacks on the President that, that we see now, we, we’ve seen in recent years with, with other presidents, uh, was certainly president present with Franklin, president Franklin Roosevelt, where William Randolph Hurst, who was the most powerful media mogul of the time, sort of, uh, You know, he, he, he controlled newspapers, he controlled magazines, he controlled movie companies and, and radio networks, uh, wire services.

[00:25:00]: Uh, he was dead set against, uh, Franklin Roosevelt and, uh, pillared him every chance he could get. Uh, uh, in my neck of the woods here, uh, the Chicago Tribune, Colonel Robert McCormick, who was the publisher of the Tribune, absolutely despised Roosevelt and would put. Cartoons of Roosevelt on the front page with, they would take turns comparing him to Hitler and to Sta.

****: And so sometimes there’d be a cartoon with a Hitler mustache, and then other times they would accuse, accuse, uh, Roosevelt of being a, a communist dupe. Uh, so they, they weren’t consistent about it, but um, they were quite nasty about it. Uh, so. Even. Even during the rise of Nazism and even during the rise of Stalinism, when the C, you could argue this country started to face some existential threats from abroad.

[00:26:00]: The country wasn’t united or close to United UN until there was that actually physical attack. Now we had with. January 6th, we did have a physical attack against the country. Our, our, the US Congress was invaded, basically. Uh, and our US capitol was attacked. And I, I think there’s a large segment of the country that did start to see that as an somewhat of an existential threat.

****: And I, I actually put myself in that camp, uh, that, you know, thinking that, uh, our nation’s capitol could be attacked. But because the attackers were US citizens, uh, and because the attackers had at least part of a, one of our two main political parties, uh, supporting or, or at least trying to excuse what happened.

****: Not, not everybody, not all Republicans by any means. We’ve seen examples of many Republicans who, who who’ve stood against it, but. Sort of a majority of the Republican party has, uh, un under Kevin McCarthy and others have tried to keep it quiet and, and were against impeaching Donald Trump over the, the January 6th attacks.

[00:27:00]: And then we had a part of the media ecosystem that downplayed it, uh, or excused it or ignored it, uh, on cable television and talk radio and, and, and online. So I think when the United States was attacked and. Pearl Harbor, uh, and the United States was attacked on nine 11. We would be very hard pressed to find any major media outlet that didn’t rally behind the president, didn’t rally behind, uh, the nation’s security and condemn the attack.

[00:28:00]: But we didn’t have that, uh, on January 6th. And I think, um, What you’re saying about the, the existential threat for Trump and his supporters is really interesting. I think you’re right. I think, I think Trump understands that probably the best way for him to avoid jail, avoid prison is to win election or to have a, a very close ally who’s gonna pardon him win election and you have.

****: Supporters, and maybe you’ve seen this before, I’ve, I haven’t seen it before. Even in, you know, since I’ve been alive or in what, in what I’ve studied, supporters have personified their cause to such an extent. To one person, to Donald Trump, and they waved Trump flags. I, I’ve never seen, like, I never saw an Obama flag or a George W.

****: Bush flag, or a Reagan flag, or a Clinton flag, or, and I’ve never seen any photos of those from, from history or illustrations of those from history. But now all of a sudden, on January 6th, people carried Trump flags and yesterday outside the arraignment, people were waving Trump flags. So there’s been this sort of, Embodiment of what they see as their cause in one person in a way that hasn’t.

[00:29:00]: I don’t think has existed before. And I think there’s a great fear that if something happens to Trump, if he’s imprisoned or, or if he just loses the election, that all their hopes and dreams, uh, will, will die. And all their fears will come to life because they’ve put their so much stake in one person rather than the political party itself.

****: And, and even the ideas, uh, That Trump, if, if Trump were to suddenly change his tune on a, on an issue, I think they’d go right along with him. You know, we see that on the left sometimes too. Uh, so it, it’s a cult of personality that I think puts us in danger in a way that we haven’t been in in a long time.

****: Cuz in the past people cared deeply about their causes, but it wasn’t so tied to the fate of one individual. Yeah, that’s true.

****: David: That probably is one aspect that that’s, that’s unique in history. I think, you know, it’s, it’s unique in general. I mean, it, it’s, he, you know, he’s got a power. It’s just, um, it’s just phenomenal.

[00:30:00]: I mean, you know, you have to give the guy credit. I mean, he knows how to. Reach in and grab onto people in some, some intuitive, deep way, you know? And I, I think in terms of that personifying things, I think, you know, there might have been a light version of it with Obama. Certainly nothing to like what we see now.

****: And I think there was kind of an ex-post version with Reagan a bit, but not at the time. Mm-hmm. Not at the time Reagan was

****: Jon Marshall: actually there. Yeah. I think you’re, I think you’re right. Yeah. I agree. But, um,

****: David: you know, it’s. Yeah, it, that’s a, that’s a great point because that’s what’s, so I think that may be one of the big unique pieces here is that, um, yeah, it’s kind of all wrapped up together.

****: You’ve, you’ve, because yeah, Trump is, other candidates can’t get away. You know, we talk, I opened up talking about breaking norms. Other candidates sometimes kind of try to break some of those norms and they pretty soon find themselves having to, oh, I better snap back in line. Right. They get actually called out for it.

[00:31:00]: Um, even, you know, other Republican candidates try to do the same stuff that try, it doesn’t work for anyone else. Like he’s mm-hmm. He is the only one that can sort of get away with this stuff and, and, and it works for him. Ev

****: Jon Marshall: everything works for him. He, he, he’s an incredible salesman. Yeah. Uh, I mean, he wasn’t his business career and, uh, he is his president.

****: He, he can really sell himself and sell his ideas in a way, uh, that I think even you, our previous presidents who were good communicators couldn’t quite match that.

****: David: Yeah, and I’ve been, you know, and that’s circling back to kind of the way we dilute ourselves and, and again, you’re, you know, I totally agree that you, you know, democrats often do this.

****: I think right now we’ve got this sort of example that’s really, you know, out there and flashing bright lights of, of kind of some, some happening more on the, on the Republican side, but this kind of thing happens on, on, yeah. I’m trying

****: Jon Marshall: to think, you know, if, if, if Joe Biden were indicted for something, I just.

[00:32:00]: You’re speculating here, obviously know, I think the Democratic Party would try to probably try to support him for a while. He’d have supporters who would, uh, speak out for him, but if there was, if he’s convicted, if there’s really persuasive evidence against him, I, I think the, I think the Democrats would just, you know, say, okay.

****: Bye Biden. We’re done, you know, done with you. Uh, shame on you. We’re gonna move on to somebody else, which some Republicans have with Trump, but, uh, at least the polls show not at a majority of Republicans.

****: David: Yeah, I, I think that’s true. I mean, certainly bi I don’t think Biden represents, you know, in that same way.

****: Uh, you know, everyone’s. Version of, of, of, of a Democrat, you know? And, and I think, like you say, if there was evidence that was convincing, I, I think people would let him go pretty fast. Both the populace as well as, uh, the elites. But, um, yeah, w w you know, and they’ve had ton of off-ramps with, with Trump really.

[00:33:00]: I mean, January 6th being like, you couldn’t have a, a bigger, clear, wide open off ramp. And, and they, some started to kind of take it and then immediately went back on the highway, you know? Um, exactly. And that was, that was interesting to see cuz we had a, we had sort of a glorious time for about three weeks where nobody was talking about him.

****: Jon Marshall: Right. Yeah. And I think, I think, um, sort of a down, uh, for the Democrats there, there’s sort of a a a and Biden especially, we’re entering at sort of a challenging period because so much attention is gonna be back on Trump. And news about him is gonna dominate the conversations, uh, and the media attention.

****: And it’s gonna be much harder for Biden, uh, and other Democrats, or for that matter, other Republican candidates to try to get their story out and their message out. So it’s, it’s, um, you know, I think we’re heading towards just sort of another referendum on Trump heading into 2024. Right?

****: David: I mean, he sort of takes, sucks all the air out of the

****: Jon Marshall: room.

****: Right.

[00:34:00]: David: You know, and the media, you know, loves it. All the, you know, they will, you know, it’s like, it’s frustrating because like, you know, it’s nonstop on the, on the, you know, sort of left leaning channels. It’s just like nonstop Trump. It’s all they, it’s all they talk about. It’s like,

****: Jon Marshall: You know, you, yeah. This was all, I think good news, especially for C N N, which had taken some hits lately.

****: And now they can just kind of go back to their previous mode of programming, which was kind of 20, uh, exaggerating slightly, but between 24 hours a day of, of Donald Trump news. Yeah, it’s

****: David: pretty close. You know, I think, uh, you know, to loop back to something you were talking about before that, to try to put some of this in perspective about, um, You know, we, we sort of have rose colored glasses when we think back above of, of, you know, how we weren’t divided this way and, and that kind of thing.

[00:35:00]: And, you know, kind of forgetting that, that, you know, and I’ve talked to social science and, and neuroscience neuroscientists and a lot of ’em say the question shouldn’t be, how did we get like this? The question should be, how did we not get like this? How will we ever not like this? Right? Um, because it’s such our, our human be, uh, it’s such our evolutionary biology to sort of tribe, tribe up.

****: And. And become tribal like that. And so, you know, we should not be surprised we’re here because democracy forces us to do things that are very uncomfortable, right? I mean, democracy is a compromise. Democracy is having those hard conversations, you know, when democracy’s working, right? Sort of no one’s happy, right?

****: Cuz nobody gets what they want and a hundred percent, um, you know, and now we’ve kind of got this sclera version of the world where it’s kind of. We get some, you know, we get this pendulum thing, you know, where one side is in charge for a while and they do a bunch of stuff and the other side’s in charge for a while.

****: And there really is almost never any co um, any cooperation. Um, and, you know, and I, I don’t, and I, you know,

****: Jon Marshall: I, I’m might push back a little bit on that. Yeah, please. Uh, that. There’s certainly plenty of examples of lack of cooperation and plenty of issues that seem like we’re never gonna compromise on such as, such as immigration.

[00:36:00]: But we have seen, you know, Biden during the Biden’s term and also during Trump’s term, some examples. You know, the infrastructure bill was bipartisan. The, the chips Act was bipartisan. The, uh, reforms in in federal. Sentencing that passed under Trump was, was, was bipartisan. And there’s many examples of much smaller bills where people do actually get together, but those don’t get quite as much attention as the ongoing immigration battle and, uh, some of the other.

****: You know, you know, gun, gun rights versus gun control battles or where there never seems to be any compromise, although there was a bill, you know, in, in the last year or so, that, uh, uh, a, a gun control measure that did pass. And I think part of it is that, uh, on talk radio, on, on cable news, on social media, you’re gonna get the most.

[00:37:00]: Comments the most likes, the most viewers, the most listeners, when you’re controversial, rather than, oh wow, everyone’s agreeing. Let’s talk about all the agreements. It’s, it’s, uh, much more dramatic when people are arguing and disagreeing. And I think that’s a unfortunate aspect of the meat environment today.

****: David: Yeah, that’s a good point. I’m glad you brought that up because that’s very true. Because we, um, You know, like if you go back to, you were talking about some of those debates, and I, you know, I was li listening to some debates from the fifties, you know, and they were just constantly praising each other and this kind of thing, and they kind of drone on about numbers and, you know, and it’s horrifically boring for an hour and a half compared to a modern, modern debate conversation.

****: Right. Um, and you know, and it’s the same thing. Yeah. You’re right that there are, there is, and, and, and to some extent, I think there’s a degree to which, yeah, there’s the media side that obviously they wanna, um, You know, kind of put out the stuff that’s going to be more exciting. And they’ve, they’ve gotta compete with, uh, real Housewives and things like that.

[00:38:00]: But also I think there’s a little bit of, you know, in some sense the neither ne the elites don’t really want to brag about. Bipartisan a lot of times because it’s bipartisan now is sort of seen as appeasing the other side in some degree to some degree too. It’s like they wanna, they want to sort of be loud about the things they disagree about.

****: Yeah. You’re,

****: Jon Marshall: you’re a sellout if you, if you have any sort of compromise. You know, we’ve, we’ve seen that in the past couple of weeks with the, with the debt ceiling. Agreement or actually was, was an agreement, but the, the Freedom Caucus considered Kevin McCarthy a, a sellout for finally having some sort of an agreement with Biden.

****: Yeah. And you see it, see it on progress. You know progressives too. Uh, yeah. The Democrats do that too. Yeah. They’re, they’re bailing against, against Biden for agreeing with McCarthy.

[00:39:00]: David: Right. Yeah. And I think that’s something we could, we could serve ourselves a lot better if we, if we, uh, championed the bipartisan and cooperation a lot more than we do, cuz we want to feel, you know, we, it, it, again, it comes back to this tribal thing that, you know, winning has become more important than, than actually doing something for our own communities.

****: We, we’ll, we’ll vote for things that. Harm our own community if it, if it means a win in some mm-hmm. Psychological way. Mm-hmm. Um, and that’s, that’s, that, that’s, but yeah. So I mean, to sort of circle back to the, the indictment and kind of what’s happening here, um, you know, I mean, do you have any, I mean, I know predictions and, and, and that kind of thing can be kind of dangerous, but I mean, uh, you know, I’ve seen this ramp up of, you know, we’re seeing this ramp up of, of threats of violence and, you know, especially in the sort of right-wing social media world.

****: That seems like it’s kind of a, a, something to be concerned about and you know, I I don’t know if you have any predictions on what might, how this might go.

****: Jon Marshall: Yeah, I, I’m always, uh, hesitant to, to predict as a story. I know most predictions usually don’t come Right. Necessarily turn out any yet anyway. But, um, I do think we can observe, um, some things.

[00:40:00]: You know, Trump talks about the, the justice system being weaponized against him, but I think we’re also seeing politics being weaponized by his supporters with, with threats of violence. Uh, if, if we don’t get our way, there’s gonna be violence. And I think that’s something to be very concerned about. I think that it’s, in some degree it’s gonna be a race against time.

****: Um, you know, Trump has a. Very, a strong history of being able to sort of slow down the proceedings against him with all sorts of motions and appeals and, uh, and, and I’m sure he and his lawyers are gonna try to slow down, uh, any kind of trial about the indictments that Jackson is people brought and, uh, With, with the hope that he or an ally wins election, and, and then the, the case will go away.

[00:41:00]: So in that ex, to that extent, I think there’s gonna be a race against time. I think you, there’s every possibility. There’s gonna be more indictments from, from the state of Georgia if what I’ve read in the news, uh, know, comes, comes true. Uh, and possibly another indictment from Jack Smith’s team involving January 6th, you know, in which case, um, It’s sort of gonna be Trump on trial all the time for the next year and a half.

****: But I think one thing that was very interesting yesterday, um, I was very concerned that there was gonna be violence. Um, I know I’m not the only one, but. There, at least from what I’ve seen and heard there was, was little, if any, real violence, um, outside the courthouse. Um, and probably that’s probably to the credit of, of Miami law enforcement, uh, being prepared.

[00:42:00]: But I think it’s also probably a result of, of people who might have been. Might’ve had, uh, motivations to commit violence. It might’ve done so, uh, three years ago in a similar situation. They’ve, they’ve seen all the people convicted because of January 6th. Uh, you know, hundreds of people who, who were violent then or are now in prison.

****: Uh, and so I think. I would expect that many of them maybe have learned a lesson that, uh, if I try this, um, I’m at great risk of spending a, a bunch of years in prison and I don’t wanna do that no matter how much I believe in Donald Trump’s innocence. So I’m, I’m hoping, I wouldn’t, unfortunately, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some violence.

****: Um, you know, my hope is it’s, it’s, it’s sporadic and, and not, not too serious. And not, and not deadly.

****: David: Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I hope so as well. I mean, I think one thing that January 6th had a lot of, of, of plan, uh, of time for planning. So there was a, whereas, I don’t know, maybe some of these other cases might have more time for planning as well.

[00:43:00]: Mm-hmm. Uh, but, but yeah, I think the indictment, I mean, the arraignment didn’t really have as much time for planning, so that might be part of the reason as well. But yeah, I think that, and,

****: Jon Marshall: and I think law enforcement. You know, they, they, to their shame, I think were taken by surprise largely on January 6th.

****: Yeah. Uh, and didn’t have adequate protection for the capitol. I don’t, I don’t think that’s gonna happen again. I think, I think they learned their lesson too,

****: David: right. I mean, it was kind of another one of those failures of imagination type thing. Right. Well, I wanna, um, sort of finish I guess a little bit of an upbeat, um, because I will say reading the Constitution, Did help me kind of remind me that, you know, I feel like I have some confidence in our institutions.

****: I mean, these were not, you know, just random things. They were thought out pretty, pretty clearly and you know, so I still have some faith in our pretty good faith in those, those institutions. And I think we have to be leery of. Wanting, flip everything upside down because we we’re worried about one new situation.

[00:44:00]: I mean, this will be a new challenge for us. I mean, we’ve never been here before, so it will be a new challenge, but I, I feel like, you know, I, I have some faith in the institutions and, and, and I, and I, and I’m hoping that they will hold. We won’t be, you know, we, no other democracy has made it this far before, so.

****: Jon Marshall: Yeah. You know, the, I, I don’t think our system’s perfect, but I think the founders did a pretty darn good job of, of trying to come up with something that was way ahead of, of its time in, in almost every way and has been able to endure. Um, so I think you’re right. We have, we have systems that have, have worked generally quite well through the years with some, with some exceptions.

[00:45:00]: And I also, you know, my hope is on the personal level of. People getting so frustrated with the tribalism and the deep partisanship and when they are able to connect on a personal level. You know, I, I, I’ve got it in my neighborhood where it’s pretty politically mixed, but people like we volunteered together in our, in our kids’ schools and, and on, you know, the sidelines of, of the soccer games and there’s block parties and.

****: Get along, you know, we like each other personally. And I know, you know, when my kids were young, I knew, you know, my neighbors, you know, my kid were, you know, fell off their bike and, and, and. You know, broke, broke a bone that, you know, one of my neighbors would be right out there helping ’em, you know, no matter what, what, you know, political party they were.

****: Uh, and I think when communities know each other, you know, they do that for each other when we realize, you know, hey, most of us really are, are are nice folks. Even if we might disagree on some things, uh, I mean, I’ll, I’ll close of an example. Going back to John Adams. Uh, despite all the. Intense partisanship when the nation’s capital was in, was in Philadelphia in the early years.

[00:46:00]: And, and Adams was there as president. Uh, there was, you know, one, one of the newspaper editors who was vehemently against him and constantly attacked him. And I’m, his name is slipping my mind. Uh, but that editor’s house caught on fire in Philadelphia was really kinda like a small. Town or small city at that time.

****: And, and Adams didn’t live that far away. And John Adams joined the, the brigade of people passing buckets of water, uh, to try to put out the fires of, of this opposition editor who’d, who’d in print been quite nasty to him, uh, and was a communal effort. And together with John Adams, the president helping out, they put out that fire.

****: Uh, so. I hope that kinda maybe serves as a metaphor for us moving forward. That, uh, even when we’re in opposition politically over issues that, that we can help each other when it comes to matters of, of preserving people’s lives and preserving people’s homes and preserving our senses of community.

****: David: Absolutely. That’s perfect. Carrying water to put out fire. Let’s, let’s all do that together.

[00:47:00]: Jon Marshall: Exactly.

****: David: All right. Well, um, John Marshall, thank you very much for making the time. I really appreciate all those insights. I, I really enjoyed our conversation.

****: Jon Marshall: I enjoyed it too, David, thank you for inviting me on.

****: All right, take care. You too. Bye bye. Bye bye.

****: That is it for this episode of the

****: David: Outrage

****: Jon Marshall: Overload

****: David: Podcast. For everything we talked about on this episode, visit outrage Before we go, I have a quick.

****: Jon Marshall: Favor to ask.

****: David: You know, reviews mean the world to us podcasters. They help us reach more listeners and continue bringing you thought-provoking content.

****: So if you have a moment, I’d be thrilled if you could head over to pod and leave a review. I’ve made it super easy for you. Just visit pod overload, and let me know what you think of the show. There’s also a link in the show notes. I read every review and your feedback truly matters.

****: And until next time, stay curious. Stay kind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *