Okay, Well, I don't want to keep you all day, and we have so much to talk about, so let's get started. Should I call you ag Holder? Attorney General Holder, Your highness, your highness?
You? Hey? You? Eric is fun? Eric is fine? How about that?
Hi? Everyone, I'm Kitty Kuric and this is next question. You probably know Eric Holder is President Obama's Attorney General. But the question I have is how is he feeling watching the actions of the Trump administration unfold, especially given the fact he spent almost his entire career at the Department of Justice. There was no shortage of things to discuss.
The dismantling of the DOJ, the LA standoff between Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump, immigration, voting rights, the First Amendment, Barack Obama, the role of the media, the role of the public, and protecting democracy. We even waxed poetic about Eddie Haskell. Yeah, that's right and Lumpy. Hey. I warned you there was a lot to talk about. Here's my conversation with former Attorney General Eric Holder. Eric Holder, It's a real privilege to be able to talk to you
at this very important moment in our nation's history. I guess the question is where do we begin. We've seen so many things happen in recent months. I'm just curious on a personal level, how you have been able to process what we are all witnessing.
You know, it's a hard thing to process, and I don't think that we should process this as we process, you know, changes in administration, differences in policies that happen as a result of the outcome of elections. What's happening now is not normal. It's not normal. I've served in the Justice Department under Republican as well as Democratic attorneys general, and what's going on, for instance, at the Justice Department
now is unprecedented. And what you see this administration doing with regard to a whole range of things, attacking universities, attacking the media, attacking law firms. These are all the kinds of things that you would expect to see in a nation that is moving towards authoritarianism. And it's certainly inconsistent with who we say we are, you know, as Americans, and what our system of government is supposed to be like.
So it's a hard thing to process. But to the extent I've been able to, I put myself in opposition and I think that's where everybody has to be. Unless we are forceful in our opposition, visible in our opposition, this administration will run rough shot over that which defines this nation and makes this nation exceptional.
I want to ask you about the Justice Department because I think for most outsiders it is still kind of a mystery about how it works and functions and the people who were there. Can you describe what has been happening at the DOJ because I report on it piecemeal, But can you tell us sort of holistically what is going on there and the impact of what's happening.
Well, you only have to look at kind of, you know, some specific things to get a sense of what's going on there. The firing of career employees that never happens. You know. I started in the Justice Department when I got out of law school, in the thing called the Public Integrity Section, which investigates corrupt politicians, and I tried cases, you know, all around the country. At the end of the Bida administration, are about thirty people in that section
now there are four four. The voting section in the Civil Rights Division had about I guess about thirty thirty five employees lawyers. It now has about five these people have been fired, moved to other positions, meaningless positions, or encouraged to take early buyouts, and essentially kind of squeezed out. So the Justice Department is not doing things in a way that other justice departments under Republican or Democratic presidents
or Attorney's general you know, have ever done. The Justice Department has pulled itself away from cases that had already been filed in Texas with regard to some voting rights issues, just pulled itself out of a case that had already been filed and the Justice Department was participating in. Among the most disturbing things Katie is the fact that this Attorney General doesn't seem to understand that the Justice Department has to stand to some degree separate and apart from
the White House. She views herself as Donald Trump's lawyer and used the Justice Department as an arm of the White House. And the best ages are the ones who guard jealously the independence of the Justice Department, given the ability that the Department has to deprive people of their liberty of their property, and you can't make those decisions
on the basis of political considerations. And that's my biggest fear they will remake the department, they will move out people who are steeped in its traditions, and then simply do Donald Trump's bidding.
And all the King's forces and all the King's men will not be able to put it back together again even when he leaves office.
Potentially, that's a big concern. There's going to certainly have to be a rebuilding effort. But I think in some ways that is for me, the silver aligning. There's the potential here to not only rebuild, but to try to reimagine what government could look like, not only the Justice Department but the other agencies as well. What should a
twenty first century Justice Department look like? You're going to be coming in in twenty twenty nine, I hope a new Attorney General looking at the carnage that would be left, and so maybe you just don't put people back in the same places, in the same numbers, but you try to figure out, well, what is it that a twenty first century Justice Department ought to be about, and you staff it up, you prioritize it with you know, with that in mind, that is a That's what I try
to think of as a silver lining. But make no mistake between now in January of twenty twenty nine, there's a lot of damage that's going to be done not only to the Justice Department, but other executive branch agencies as well.
And it has already been done, right.
Has already been done. I mean, you know the kinds of things where you essentially dismantle, you know, the Agency for International Development. It's kind of like whoa what, you know, a congressionally mandated and funded agency that they simply close down. You know, the little knotheads that doge walking around and saying, for whatever reason, we're going to disband to this agency which projects soft power for the United States.
Also, the people who are monitoring waste, fraud and abuse, which is public enemy number one for the Trump administration. The people who are charged with investigating abuse have all been fired, right.
The inspectors general, you know, all but to let go. And so you can almost see how this is playing out. We'll remove all of the people who are supposed to monitor these kinds of things, all the folks who might be looking either outwardly or inwardly at potential matters of corruption, and so then we have a free hand to do that which we want to do.
You mentioned Pam Bondi's belief that she's Donald Trump's personal lawyer. I want to read a quote from The Guardian which sums up I think the current state of the DOJ. Some say that the Department has in effect become Trump's personal law firm. Since taking office the second time, Trump has relied on staunch loyalists Pam Bondi and an elite group of Justice Department lawyers to investigate critics from his first administration plus political opponents, and curb prosecutions of US
business bribery overseas. Ex prosecutors point to how Bondi and the department's top lawyers have halted some major prosecutions, fired or forced out laws who didn't meet MAGA litmus tests, and were instructed by Trump to investigate a key Democratic fundraising vehicle as examples of how Trump and Bondi have politicized the Justice Department. You know you were President Obama's Attorney general for six years from two thousand and nine
to twenty fifteen. You know, I think the Justice Department correct me if I'm wrong. Has often been accused of being overly political. If you think about you know, RFK being the Attorney General for JFK or Ed Meese right, and Ronald Reagan, and I think there's been criticisms that Merrick Garland was too careful and too a political and dragged his feet. But this is a whole new level
of the politicization of the Department of Justice. And as you're watching this, I just wonder what you're thinking and how angry you're getting and how you're figuring out what can be done, as you mentioned twenty twenty nine, but it's a long way until then.
Yeah, it's a harder thing to say politicization as opposed to what it is that they're doing, because they're politicizing the department and have done so relatively quickly. But they're not politicizing the Justice Department. They're weaponize the Justice Department. They're using the Justice Department to get at the perceived enemies of the president. And they're not necessarily enemies. There are political opponents. They're critics or people who potentially might
have the capacity to oppose him in some ways. And so this is unbelievably disturbing. I mean, this is a cornerstone of our our system of government, that you have a justice department that, although a part of an administration, still maintains a healthy dose of independence. Yeah, ags get criticized all the time for doing things that are perceived to be or said to be political, and most of
the time that's just political rhetoric. Justice departments that actually do do things on the basis of politics are the ones that get in trouble. Those are the ages who get indicted, are who are not looked upon favorably by history. History is not going to be kind to Pambondi. History's not going to be kind to the people who serve under her in the Justice Department now, because they're doing things inconsistent with the best traditions of a department, an
organization that means the world to me. I grew up in the Justice Department. I grew up in that place, you know, out of law school line lawyer, US attorney, deputy Attorney general, attorney general. Most of my career has been spent in the United States Department of Justice, and it tears me apart to see what they're doing and tearing apart that very institution.
Let me ask you about what's going on in Los Angeles if I could, because obviously that is dominating the headlines right now. After several days of protest against immigration enforcement raised by Ice. As you well know, President Trump bypassed Governor Gavin Newsom and called up four thousand National Guard troops and a battalion of seven hundred marines to the city of Los Angeles. Legally and historically, how extraordinary is this move?
Legally, it's an interesting case as to you know, I'd think California has sued, and it'll be interesting to see exactly how the case plays out. But historically this is something that runs counter to our traditions and counter to the practice that past presidents have used. You know, when a president has called out the National Guard without the
request of a governor. Well, you think back to you know, the sixties, when I guess President Johnson called out the National Guard to protect the Selma to Montgomery marchers out of concern that George Wallace and you know, the state troopers there who cracked John Lewis's head on the Selma Edmund Pettis Bridge might not have the marcher's best interest at heart. So you can see something like that happening here. There's no basis to believe that the state and local
authorities can't handle what's going on. I think this administration is itching for a fight. They want to do things that are going to antagonize people who are using their First Amendment rights to protest the immigration policies of the administration. They want pictures to show people in the streets doing you know, negative things. And to be fair, there are
people who need to be held accountable. You know, people who are throwing things at cops, people who are you know, saying negative things to cops, physically confronting.
Them, burning up cop cars, things like that.
Those people ought to be in jail. They're thugs, you know, they're hooligan. They need to be in jail.
They're exploiting the situation.
Right, So there is that, But the vast majority of the people who are protesting are simply doing so in a peaceful way. Now, so I don't, you know, countenance people who are doing things that physically harm cops, you know, block traffic on major thoroughfares. It's also that's counterproductive at the end of the day. And you know, people waving
flags of foreign nations think about this. I mean, how if you have you want to get the American people on your side and I think as regard to these immigration policies, the American people are appalled at what this administration is doing. But they're also kind of pushed back by some of the tactics that are being used by some of these demonstrators. But this is all political. This is all political. I mean to put you know, to
call up National guardsmen and then they call up marines. Now, these marines do a great job at what it is that they do. I would bet that crowd control is not something that the United States Marine Corps is trained to do. And so that's just an incendiary kind of thing that Whiskey Pete and Donald Trump have decided that they want to do.
Do you think they're intentionally trying to escalate the tension and create chaos instead of diffusing it asolutely.
They want to antagonize, escalate and get the pictures that they want, which is to show you know, people hurling things, setting cars of fire, blocking traffic, you know, doing all those kinds of things to try to convince people. As Steven Miller said that there's a war of civilizations going on, what the hell does that mean? You know, really, I mean, you're trying to you know, we got criticized. President Obama was criticized of being the deporter in chief. If you
look at what it is that we did. We use the courts to get people who have recently come to the United States, the immigration courts get them out, and then we went after people who committed serious crimes. We didn't take four year old girls who were in the potentially going to die and deport them to Mexico. We didn't take people who've been here. There was a waitress I think in Missouri, been here for twenty years, pull her out of her, you know, place of employment, and
try to send her back. This is an administration that views certain immigrants in certain ways. If these people we're trying to get in from Norway, from Sweden, from Finland, from Northern European countries, any problem with that, I bet you know Afrikaners. Yeah, we're letting those folks in from South Africa. But if you happen to be Hispanic, if you happen to be a person from Haiti, from you know, African countries, we don't want those people. They don't want
those people in this country. And that's what that's kind of the the underpinnings of their immigration policy, and that's why Miller talks about this clash of civilizations.
So you think it's racism pure and simple.
Not pure and simple. But there's a component to that, I mean racism, ethnicism. I guess that you might call it. Yeah, I mean you'd have to be reluctant to look at that, which is fairly obvious, you know. I mean, you send a plane to get I don't know, was it fifty sixty Africanas out of South Africa. You insult the President of South Africa.
In the show a photo from Congo, from Congo.
That's got nothing to do with South Africa. It's all laying up predicate for the kinds of things that they want to do with our immigration system, again inconsistent with how America has always said it is and by and large, how we've always conducted ourselves when it comes to immigration. At the beginning of the twentieth century, you know, it was Italians and Irish who negative things were set about, and they would try to try to keep them out
of the country. Chinese Exclusion Act. Now, these are not great moments in American history, and I fear that we're replicating that in the twenty first century under this administration.
Hi everyone, it's Katie Curic. You know I'm always on the go between running my media company, hosting my podcast, and of course covering the news, and I know that to keep doing what I love, I need to start caring for what gets me there, my feet. That's why I decided to try the Good Feet stores personalized arch support system. I met with a Good Feet arch support specialist and after a personalized fitting, I left the store with my three step system designed to improve comfort, balance
and support. My feet, knees and back are thanking me already. Visit goodfeet dot com to learn more, find the nearest store, or book your own free personalized fitting. What's frustrating to me is it shows the inability of our government to actually tackle a problem. There should have been comprehensive immigration reform long ago, and yet time and time again it never is able to gain traction. And we need a fair,
humane immigration system in this country. And why can't Congress, Why can't they come up with a better plan that is fair to people but also involves laws.
I mean, you know, President Bush, George W. Bush certainly tried, right.
Kennedy and McCain tried there.
You know, Congress Senator Langford from Oklahoma came up with a bill that you know, made people on the other side. Democrats swallow hard, but said, you know, we'll support that. And what happened. Donald Trump said, no, don't vote for that. He wants the issue. He wants the issue. This is a central part of his administration. It's been a central part of his campaigns. When he wrote down that old and escalated to announce his candidacy back in August twenty fifteen,
he talked about, you know, Mexicans are rapists. They're not sending us their best. This has been a part of his stick and he'd rather have the issue than the solution. But you're right. I mean, we have got to come to grips with the fact that we have millions of undocumented people here who have contributed, you know, mightily, who pay taxes, who pay Social Security taxes, who are part of the fabric of this nation. They need to be
treated fairly. But at the same time also recognize that borders mean something, and we can't take all of El Salvador and all of Guatemala and all Upondors into the United States. There are processes that people have to go through. If they don't follow those processes well as we did in the Obama administration, they need to be removed. But there is the need for and there has been the need for comprehensive immigration reform for decades.
At this point, having said that, this is not the solution to just in a very draconian an inhumane way, take people who have been in this country, as you said, who are paying taxes, you know, money's going into the Social Security system, who are actually really important for our economy. Forty eight percent of agricultural workers are undocumented, and you know, look at the nation's hotels and you look at all kinds of workers. I think I heard there are a
million undocumented workers in Los Angeles. You know, if all of these people are forced out of the country, it's going to have a huge impact on the economy, is it not.
Yeah, I'm going to have a huge impact on the economy. There are certain industries that rely a great deal on immigrant labor, from meatpacking in Iowa to people who are picking crops in Florida and in California. But you know, we're also turning our back on our immigrant past. And here's the deal. Everybody who's listening to this, watching this, You know you're an immigrant stock unless you are descended
from the Native American people. If you're the waspiest person in the world, if you can trace your roots to the Mayflower. Guess what those folks who came over here were immigrants. They were fleeing religious persecution. And it's just the question of how you got here and when you got here. And it's always seems to be that the latest are the ones who get villified and then they become, you know, assimilated into our society, and then you know
they're fine. And so you know, Trump and his folks are trying to recreate an America that really never existed in nineteen fifties America. You know where June Cleaver was was vacuuming in high heels and in pearls, their white picket fences, no gay people, no.
Black people, making an after school snack for Beaver Rally and Lumpy and Lumpy.
And Eddie Haskell is Eddie Haskells not.
Forgetting thank you, missus clean.
Missus clever. He's my man. I love that guy.
We're clearly the same generation.
Eddie was the man, definitely the me.
He was such a kiss ass. I couldn't stand him.
Oh I love that guy.
I was a lumpy girl.
Oh ump, lumpy Rutherford.
Okay, all right, anyway, we digress.
Oh there's important stuff, you know.
I wanted to ask you Eric about Kilmar Obrega Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year despite a court order barring his removal. So finally he comes home, right, and now he's facing these newly unsealed federal charges. I am so confused by this. Can you help me out?
Well, I think we're all a little confused by that. The administration was confused by that when they said that, well, we deported this guy whoops by mistake, and they.
They showed a photoshop picture of his fingers.
Right, Well, the supposed he had tattoos that tied him to a gang. You know. Trump looked at it and said, no, no, that's not that's not doctored. And it's like, uh, yes it is, but all right, So yeah, they were confused, and they removed him without due process.
Well, I wanted to ask you about due process, but first before I do, and jump ahead, what is going on with this man?
Well, he's finally back in the United States, there are now he's now facing charges that appear to have been uncovered relatively recently. I read that a prosecutor has resigned in the Justice Department as a result of the actions that have been taken against this now defendant.
Mister Garcia, is this a face saving measure in your review?
I don't know about the strength of the case, but it does seem a little suspicious that these charges are now brought and they use that as the basis to get him, you know, from that hell hole in l Salvador, back to you know, the United States, when they could quite simply have told, you know, President Mukeley, you know, give us this guy. And if the American government had said that, he would have shown up in in the
United States. So we'll see, I mean, we'll see what this how these charges go, and we'll have an ability to judge whether or not this was a pretext or whether there is a real basis to conclude that he violated the law in the ways in which the government has delineated in an indictment.
Why is due process so important?
Due process is one of the foundational parts of our society. Government power can only be used against individuals in prescribed ways. Due process means that you have the ability to challenge a governmental action that's directed at you, whether it's an attempt to take property from you, to imprison you. The government has to be put to its proof before it
can actually act. And what we've seen with so many of these deportations is that people have simply been snatched off the street, put on airplanes and then move to El Salvador, South Sudan, Libya, you know, without any ability for these people to say, well, wait a minute, what why am I being taken away? Proved to me, what's the basis for the legitimate basis for this action? And
people need to understand governments make mistakes, you know. I think about that, that that game makeup artist, that guy. I mean, it's best I can tell. He's taken because of tattoos that he had on his hands that apparently were misinterpreted. I don't know where this poor man is at this point, and I know got to El Salvador. I don't know what has happened, you know, to him, there's really no basis for his deportation, is best I can tell. And yet because he didn't have due process.
He didn't have the ability to challenge that which the government wanted to do to him. He was simply picked up, put on a plane and then taken down to you know, that that place in El Salvador.
And then I think about how sort of capricious it is when someone is is basically let go like that way in Missouri, when there was that community outcry, or the four year old girl who needed life saving medical care. But how many people are out there like them, who don't necessarily have a community or a citizenry rising up and defending them.
Yeah, I mean, that's both the concern I have. How many other people are like that? And that's also the thing gives me some degree of optimism and shows the power of the American people. When that community in Missouri said, no, you're not taking her. What happened? Lo and behold she reappears.
When the media does the great job that they did to publicize the case of that four year old, that poor four year old girl, cute as a button, cute as a button, what happens, Well, suddenly, okay, she can stay here, you know, for medical treatment that basically keeps her alive. The power of the media, the power of the American people cannot be underestimated, and you can't overestimate the power of government when those two forces are in opposition.
And that's why it's incumbent upon the American people to be conversant with what's going on, to be active, to be engaged, and be committed to defending our values. And the media can't be cowed. The media can't be coued, is it then? To some degree? I think so, you know, there's a desire, it's a human thing to look at situations and to try to look at both sides, normalize things, be fair, be fair, and sometimes you've got to, you know,
call them as they are. I mean, if I'm sitting here with you, I'm a Democrat, you're a Republican, and we're in the middle of a hurricane, and I'm a Democrat and I says, look, you know, it's raining outside, and you the Republicans say, no, it's sunny outside, but there's a hurricane going on. The reporters there has got to say. Can't simply say, well, the Republican said that there was no rain, the Democrats said that there was rain.
End of analysis. No, you got to say the Republican was unbelievably wrong because in fact, there was a hurricane out there, and I think that probably makes someone in the media a little uncomfortable.
Well, I think when you try to search for the truth, and I can talk about this, you know better than me, very personally, that you're often accused of being biased. And if you actually just want to present facts and you are searching for truth, that is not being biased. I have so many people saying to me, Eric, what happened to you? And I said, nothing happened to me. Maybe it's what has happened to our country.
Yeah, And that's the deal. You've got to be prepared to deal with those charges of bias if what you are carefully reporting is truth in the same way that I was talking about before. You know, those congressmen, you've got to be acting a way that's consistent with your oath, even if that means you're going to be charged with being disloyal. Time are you going to be I'm married, you're gonna be called a rhino or whatever.
Your musk is going to support your opposition. Although that's kind of a mess too now right.
I mean, in universities have got to be prepared, you know, to take on forces that are doing things inconsistent with the way in which universities are supposed to conduct themselves. And it may cost your money, you know. Okay, you got to be prepared for that. You know, opposition, effective opposition does not come without a price. The reporting of
truth frequently does not come without a price. We've seen this throughout our history, where you know, brave news gatherers have lost their lives reporting the truth, and we dishonor them. People in the media dishonor them if we are not willing. Members of the media are not willing to report truthfully now, and we've got to be supportive. We the American people, have to be supportive of people in the media. We have the guts to do exactly that focus on truth.
Getting back to Los Angeles, I wanted to ask you about this Posse Commatatis Act. You know, I feel like I've gotten a law degree in the last few days.
Eric.
It's an eighteen seventy eight law that generally bars the US military from engaging in civilian law enforcement, and a lot of people are saying, hey, Donald Trump, you cannot deploy the National Guard or Marines to do the job of law enforcement. This is not right. So does this law or this act not have any teeth.
Yeah, well, that's why they're trying to characterize it as the use of the military for national security purposes. I mean, the understand that Passecommatadis makes is a big problem if they are to be if the military is to be
engaged in domestic law enforcements. So they're trying to characterize it as anything but that, and so they have to you know, say negative things about the protesters, that they are not only protesting inappropriately, but they're also a threat to national security, and in that way they think they can justify the use of the military.
Are they also claiming that of the undocumented people who they're apprehending, that they're a threat to national security?
Yeah, I mean that's that's certainly the claim, and that's why they try to make use of the military there to the extent that they possibly can.
How did you like the fact that these protesters are being called insurrectionists, a word that was never used on January sixth.
Right, Yeah, you know it. There's a whole bunch of stuff here that's a little hypocritical. You know, you call these folks, insurrectionists, these protesters, and they're doing that which the vast, vast majority. Now they're exceptions, but the vast majority are simply doing that which is guaranteed by our First Amendment. The people who stormed our capital on January
the sixth were worthy of pardons. And when I hear people in this administration talk about how they want to protect the police, I think, well, wait a minute, what were you all doing when you pardoned all those people who beat the hell out of cops on the capital steps and in the Capitol on January the sixth, What we try to do with the blue theya, what we're trying to do with regard to police officers? When you decided that those true insurrectionists were deserving of pardons.
So is he using that terminology to set himself up to use the Insurrection Act? And can you explain what that means?
Well, that's a concern that I have that the possibility exists that that which we've seen now is really just a prelude, a foundation for the imposition of the Insurrection Act, which gives a president really broad ranging powers to do a whole range of things, but to declare an insurrection means you've got to meet a number of their number of requirements. I don't think those are met. I suspect they probably will not be met.
Will he use it anyway?
Well, that's what worries me, you know. I mean, if you'd ask me that question even six seven months ago, I would have said, you know, Katie, you're being a little alarmist here, hyperbolic. And now I can't dismiss that. I mean, I really can't. David from wrote a piece in The Atlantic, I think last week or so where he talked about the possibility that the Insurrection Act might be used to somehow tinker with the twenty twenty six midterms.
And again, that's the kind of thing that I would have read five six months ago and thought, you know, that's just nuts. And now I think we have to be prepared. I still don't think it happens, you know, I think that twenty twenty six elections will go on and they'll be fine. But I think we have to at least be prepared for the possibility, the possibility that some attempt might be made to fool around with elections
in certain parts of the country. And the fact that I even say that as a former Attorney general that we have to be prepared for. That possibility is something that's extremely alarming.
If you want to get smarter every morning with a break down of the news and fascinating takes on health and wellness and pop culture, sign up for our daily newsletter, Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. You talked earlier about the Justice Department being gutted, and I'm wondering who is there or who will protect the rights of these protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights, the
right to assemble, the right to free speech. If this civil Rights division of the Justice Department has been you know, dismantled essentially, who will stand up for these people?
Yeah? Well, I mean I think there are a couple of sources. You've certainly got state attorneys general and state lawyers who can protect the rights of these folks. And then there's the private bar, which is why you know, when law firms cut these deals with the administration, that's
why that was so troubling. It sends a chill out among other law firms who might decide to be the lawyers for these protesters, and now they know, well, if we get crosswise with this administration, maybe we will be the subject of an executive order, and so that is one of the reasons why you go after the law firms, because you reduce the possibility that your opponents will have
adequate legal representation. So, yeah, the Justice Department is not going to help an awful lot, but there are still lots of lawyers in different places, both in government and on the private side, that you can come to their assistance.
Having said that, is the legal system been effectively weakened or diminished as a result of Donald Trump's actions?
You know, I would say it's been diminished or weakened in certain ways. I worry about what's happened to big law firms and their reactions to some of these executive orders, and I think there's been some weakness shown there. I think the courts have generally been done extremely well. You know, he has lost the overwhelming number of cases that have been brought before federal judges, So I think the system
is held there. My concern there is that that's we're at the district court level, courts have held I think at the Court of appeals level, the courts will hold questions what ultimately is going to happen at the United States Supreme Court, and there I get a little concerned about with their view of their expansive view of executive power. And you know that you look at that immunity decision
from you know, from the last term. Will that view of executive power allow the Trump administration to do the kinds of things that they are trying to do? Will the Supreme Court give them, you know, the authority to do things that I think they are clearly inconsistent with our traditions, our norms, and and our laws.
Do you think the Supreme Court, I mean, have you got in any kind of encouragement by some of their decisions, by some of the justices seeming to not walk lockstep with the president?
Yeah? Yeah, I think I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. I mean, I think I'm concerned about and you know, see what the Supreme Court does. But I think that there is certainly a basis for hope that the Supreme Court will act in the way that Court appeals judges are acting, the way district court
judges have been acting. But it's not the sure thing that I think, you know, it ought to be that immunity decision can't be undervalued, you know, to make up out whole cloth the notion that an American president is above the law, is above the law, you know, can violate the law, can direct you know, people in his administration to do certain things without any kind of criminal liability. I mean that's where that come from. I mean, where's that.
You know, they talk about originalism, tech stualism. Where's that in any of the texts? You know?
And then the question is what will keep the administration from ignoring any decisions made by the courts. You know, I was disturbed to see that part of this budget bill there was a provision that would prevent judges from issuing contemptive court orders, forcing people to basically obey their decisions in essence, right, And that is in the small print of this budget bill. That is adding to this whole notion of immunity in a significant way, is it not.
Yeah, And that's why this well go. I think, well, the big beautiful bill has got to be examined page by page. You know. I have problems with, you know, the continuation of the tax cuts, which were I think unnecessary, but you also have to look at those those kinds of provisions though they're just kind of tucked away there. They recognize the power that the courts have and the power the district court judges have, and they're trying to
decrease that power. They're trying to systematically eliminate all those areas, all those places where they might run into opposition. And that's the thing that worries me. What's the endgame here? You know, if you take lawyers out of the mix, if you take the media out of the mix, if you take universities out of the mix, if you take power away from.
Judges, there's no guardrails.
This is all to what end at the end of the day. What is it that you are you're trying to do?
And that's uh, well, you tell me what do you think they're trying to do?
You know, I worry are they trying to find ways in which they perpetuate themselves in power in ways that are inconsistent with our constitution? Are they trying to make sure that, you know, elections can be conducted in such a way that they can guarantee result regardless of what the American people, you know, want to do. One of the things I've been fighting is this whole question of
racial and partisan jerrymandering. Do they want to somehow, you know, use jerry mandering knowing that they've flattened the opposition, and then gerrymander things in such a way so that they can guarantee Republican domination of our state legislature's Republican domination of the United States House of Representatives because they're no checks. So that's at least one of the ways in which, you know, I get concerned about what it is they might do.
Tell us more about the work you're doing to address your concerns.
Yeah, I mean, as Barack and I President Obama and I were leaving office, we tried to yeah, he's my good by, my good buddy bo. As we were leaving office, we try to figure out what is we want to
do in our post government lives. What is the thing that we thought was most pose some of the greatest problems that we had to confront, And we pointed to the issue of jerrymandering, and so we formed up with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that really looks at the way in which the lines are drawn for state legislative seats as well as the United States House of Representatives. And said, you know what, here's the deal. Let's just
make that process fair. Let's do away with jury mandering, which guarantees that Republicans are going to win in certain districts, Democrats are going to win in certain districts. Let's just make it fair so that politicians are not picking their voters, voters are choosing who their representatives ought to be. And so we've had a fair, a pretty good amount of success.
Well, how do you stop jerrymandering.
Well, there's a number of things. You bring lawsuits where you find jerry manders. You put in place these independent commissions to draw the lines instead of interested politicians, and then you also support candidates who will stand for affair process. And I mean to give you a sense kat of how bad it was. You look at the election right after the the jerry manders will put in place in
twenty eleven and twenty twelve congressional elections. Democrats got one point four million more votes for the United States House of Representatives in twenty twelve and ended up with a thirty three seat deficit. And it's all a function of the way in which the jerry manders were put in place. When we started out Democrats to have a fifty to fifty US House of Representatives had to overperform by eight percent.
Now we wiped that out, and we had the most fair elections in terms of jurymandering, the lack of jury mandering, I guess in twenty twenty two. But there's still, you know, a lot of work that needs to be done. Twenty twenty two, twenty twenty four. You know, we saw things much better than they were in twenty twelve, but there are still a lot of places Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, Florida, you know, Louisiana still places where his work to be done.
There's also a Supreme Court case, Louisiana versus Calais, which asks whether creating a second majority black districts, something ordered under the Voting Rights Act, violates the Equal Protection Clause. Critics say this case could gut what's left of Section two. Okay, I just said that, I have no idea what that means. Do you explain?
Yeah, I mean, you know, Section two of the Voting Rights Act allows private parties as well as Justice Department to challenge unfair voting practices, you know, on the basis of race. If you look at the way in which the lines have been drawn in southern states where there's a history of racially polarized voting, that's a critical thing. There's a history of racially polarized voting. Those parties that have substantial African American support have been discriminated against. That's
the Democratic Party, say in Alabama. And so we brought a lawsuit there. This very conservative Supreme Court said, you know what they make up. Black folks make up about twenty seven percent of the population. Based on a number of congressmanment you have, there should be two Black opportunities districts. There was only one. We won the case.
A Black opportunity district.
It's a district that is created so that the African American population in a particular area has the ability to express its political will, so that there's if you want to elect a black person as a congressman, as a congresswoman, you have that ability. The lines are not drawn in such a way that precludes that possibility and undermines the ability of that twenty seven percent of the population to
fully express their political desires. And so after our successful suit, that's a Supreme court upheld surprising to me, but got to give them credit they help we were. We have now for the first time, two black congressmen from Alabama, consistent again with the population demographics of the city of the state and also taking into consideration something people have to keep in mind that history of racially polarized voting without that Section two is not necessarily a tool that
we can use. And so we've used that now in Louisiana as well. And now the Louisiana folks who didn't like the result are claiming that white people are being discriminated against by the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five, and they wanted to have that declared unconstitutional, rip away from the Voting Rights Act, the constitutionality of section two, using some of the same arguments that we use when the Act was put in place back in nineteen sixty five.
You warned that what we're seeing in the US today is quote remarkably similar to what happened in Europe in the thirties, and you've drawn comparisons to places like Hungary and Turkey. Do you think Americans grasp what serious trouble we are in and how the future may in fact look. I mean, I worry about that all the time. Too.
Yeah, people don't get it to the degree that they should now, and that concerns me a great deal. But I think there's a growing awareness among people. As you see these demonstrations breaking out not only in Los Angeles but in other parts of the country, and you see the size of them growing. I think there's a growing awareness of that. The American people are generally slow to rouse, but once aroused, they are a mighty force, and that's
something that we can never forget. All the great movements in this nation came about not because politicians decided it was time for women to get the right to vote, it was time for a system of American apartheid to be taken down. It was because the American people said, you know what, it's not fair women can't vote. This system of segregation. That's just not fair, and that needs
to be torn down. That's the power of the American people, and I think there is a growing awareness that fundamental liberties, fundamental rights, fundamental notions of who we are as a people and how we should be governed are being trampled. And so I am optimistic that at the end of the day of the American people will get to the right place, and I think do so, you know, in time, that's that's the thing that gives me optimism.
There's no guarantee that democracies last, is there no? No.
Democracy is an extremely fragile thing. You know, if you look at Europe in the UH in the twenties and the thirties, fascism communism didn't arise because they were strong. They rose because democracy was weak. You know, the Weimar Republic week, Kerensky, you know, in Russia week, so Lenin
takes over, Hitler takes over. And I think unless we make sure that our democracy is strong, the possibility, the possibility that something similar to what has happened in Europe in the thirties, well more recently in Hungary and in Turkey, you know, could happen here in the United States as well.
Do you think your good friend Barack is speaking out enough and warning enough people? And what about former presidents like George W. Bush? He cannot be happy with what is going on, and yet he's been pretty much silent. And I know there's a great tradition of former presidents not criticizing or opining on current presidents. But have you been disappointed that Barack Obama isn't saying and doing more,
and that George W. Bush isn't saying much either. I'm not mentioning Bill Clinton because I think he's been speaking out a little bit more, but I'm not sure. But could they get together and in a bipartisan way talk about the dangers we're facing here?
Yeah, you know, in some ways that would be an ideal situation. But I do think that the criticism of President Obama is not necessarily well founded. I mean, he gave a great speech at Hamilton College. He's worked with us at the NDRC. I've gotten him to endure or candidates at the state and local level to try to make sure that the underpinnings of our democracy get the appropriate amount of attention. He has used the power that
he still has, I think in a judicious way. You speak out too much and then you just become part of the noise, and so I think he's got to pick his spots, and I think he has done so quite well. The thing that gets me, though, is that people always saying, well, why are the Democrats not doing this? Why is Obama not doing this?
People?
He dascy, where the hell are the damn Republicans? You know, they're the ones with the power. It's their president. They control the Senate, they control the House. They've got you know, you might argue control of the judiciary. Where are the Republicans here? Where's the opposition from the Republicans that I mean? I know, I know these folks don't think that the things that the Trump administration is doing, the things that
they're doing are appropriate, constitutional, consistent with our values. And it's crickets from them. You know, they're afraid, politically afraid, some say physically afraid.
Is it really that much fun to be a member of Congress that they just can't part with their jobs to actually do the right thing?
You know, it seems to me that you got to be take these jobs and be prepared to separate yourself from the job if it means that you're asked to do something inconsistent with your oath. When you're Attorney General, you get to put up the portraits of four of your predecessors in the big conference room, and one of
the people I put up was Elliott Richardson. Had him off to the left so i'd always see him, and he was there to remind me that, you know, you may have to do something that goes contrary to it didn't have I didn't expect this to happen, but contrary to what somebody in the White House wants you to do,
and it may cost you your job. But that's why Elliott Richardson was a hero to me, because when Richard Nixon told him, you know, to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, I'm not doing that, and as a result, you know, he lost his job. That's the kind of attitude that
people in Congress need to have. Take actions that may, yeah, may cost you your seat, but maybe it won't cost you your seat if enough of you come together and say, you know, we stand for principle over party, We stand for patriotism over the concerns of the Republican Party.
And maybe the American people appreciate and respect elected leaders who feel that they're doing the right thing. Maybe they'll actually, to your point, be rewarded for that, not penalized.
See. I think that's right. I think people underestimate the sagacity of the American people.
You know, I like that word sagacity.
Yeah, I hope I use it right.
I think you did. They are wisdom.
Yeah, there we go, there we go. And if it wasn't, we'll just do this part over. But no, I mean, you know, the American people I think respect authenticity, they respect strength, they respect people who are willing to take chances. And yeah, that's what maybe Republicans would have to do. But the chances they have to take our political ones. And that's not too much to ask. You know, you swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a man.
Eric Colter, I am so appreciative of your time. Thank you. This interview was a long time coming. We had a difficult time scheduling.
Well, your schedule was such, you know you you're a busy woman. Oh I'm like semi retired. I could have been here almost anything.
You know, our schedules just weren't aligning. But I'm really I'm so grateful that they finally have. Thank you so so much.
Thanks for having me. This was fun.
Thanks for listening everyone. If you have a question for me, a subject you want us to cover, or you want to share your thoughts about how you navigate this crazy world, reach out send me a DM on Instagram. I would love to hear from you. Next Question is a production of iHeartMedia and Katie Kuric Media. The executive producers are Me, Katie Kirk, and Courtney Ltz. Our supervising producer is Ryan Martz, and our producers are Adriana Fazio and Meredith Barnes. Julian
Weller composed art theme music. For more information about today's episode, or to sign up for my newsletter, wake Up Call, go to the description in the podcast app, or visit us at Katiecuric dot com. You can also find me on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hi everyone, it's
Katie Couric. You know I'm always on the go between running my media company, hosting my podcast, and of course covering the news. And I know that to keep doing what I love, I need to start caring for what gets me there, my feet. That's why I decided to try the Good feed Stores personalized art support system. I met with a Good Feet arch support specialist and after a personalized fitting, I left the store with my three step system designed to improve comfort, balance and support. My feet,
knees and back are thanking me already. Visit goodfeat dot com to learn more, find the nearest store, or book your own free, personalized fitting.