This podcast is important. Shadi and Damir first discussed the possibility US constitutional breakdown (too dismissively, I worried back then) in the first Trump Administration. Here we go again -- older, wiser, and more afraid.
I feel compelled to add that you don't have to believe it's impossible that Mahmoud Khalil "aligns" with Hamas (to use the administration's term) or even for him to connected to it in some way that violates American law to see this episode as an obvious and intended-to-intimidate violation of basic rights. And you don't have to believe that the Venezuelan are necessarily pure as the driven slush to see as hideous the government's application to their case of a truly awful 1798 law that widely decried at the time and -- along with its accompanying "Sedition Act" -- which arguably led to the demise of the Federalist Party.
Also. There is a chuffed site that is the official fundraiser for Khalid's defense:
1) I've always thought that Shadi, since WoC was spun up and even before (in his books), has had a hard time coming to terms with how much non-elite American voters don't care about foreign affairs. Recent intensifying evangelical support for Israel has put a dent in this indifference, but it's the only dent.
2) But if we broaden the issue, Shadi suddenly has a lot of company. I think many of us underestimated and continue to underestimate how much non-elite voters don't care about "institutions", and that includes "democracy" in an abstract sense and maybe even in an immediate one. I think Trump does understand this -- and is relying on it.
Anyone interested in exploring this second point (and who can tolerate major wonkishness) would do well to watch Ezra Klein's interview with David Shor of a few days ago. Shor's breakdown of what does and doesn't matter to 2024 Trump voters is something to be reckoned with. Though it comes out as cynicism, Damir has a great sense of this. Shor adds fact and nuance.
I can’t help but notice a “vibe shift” on this podcast. Shortly after the election there was a sense of almost giddiness at the open possibilities represented by Trump’s re-election. Now “things are bad.” My only thought is I want whatever you guys were smoking two months ago.
I'm really confused why Shadi and Damir both correctly pointed out the problem of an executive who ignores judicial rulings like what happened with the Venezuelan deportees and then went on to talk about what this might mean for future Democratic administrations.
This is a president who, mafia boss-like, asked a state government official to "find" just enough votes for him to win Georgia and denied he lost the 2020 election. If he has decided he can wantonly ignore judicial rulings, and if no part of the American political system will stop him, what reason do we have to believe that we will have free and fair elections in 2028?
If you game this out, continue the line of reasoning into the future by a few years, having another real presidential election where a Democratic could plausibly win would be a miracle. It's far more likely that a dictatorship has begun its long slog.
Great discussion as always, thank you! I had several thoughts, but the one I wanted to call out relates to the part of the conversation where Shadi brings up the hate that seems to drive Trump administration.
While I agree with Damir's that tribalism is an explanation, I also think Shadi underestimates how progressive agenda, and its impact on transforming society, enrages large swathes of people. Progressives are always trying to improve societies, which is a good thing in principle, but in practice it impacts long-standing traditions. Many who just want to live their lives like their parents did feel threatened and so on.
Damir, I think you are grossly mischaracterizing Jack Smith's Jan 6th case against Trump. Firstly, he did not charge him for insurrection. Second, it was much more expansive than the attack on the Capitol. The only reason the case was dropped was because you can't try a sitting president.
The answer to all three of your questions are "yes" for pro-palestinian protestors. #2 is "yes" for the Cubans and Venezuelans with temporary status. #3, he kicked the AP out of the white house for not going along with the "gulf of america" bit.
"In less fancy terms, Trump looks like he’s becoming a dictator. "
Well, is he, or isn't he?
Has Trump authorized his AG and the FBI to persecute dissenters? Are any of those Hamas supporters rotting in jail right now, constitutional rights ignored? No.
Is Trump deporting LEGAL immigrants? No.
Is Trump using federal power to intimidate media into censoring any person or group? No.
Trump is taking a weedwhacker to the federal government. If you are dependent on the federal government for your livelihood, you might see that as a problem. Just remember that, in the real world, no one is guaranteed a job for life. When a department becomes outdated or otherwise of little use, it is closed. Employees receive unemployment or perhaps a buyout. Employees may not like it, but that's the way it is. Welcome to real life.
Trump has directed the new FBI ladership to fire everyone involved in investigating the crimes he committed during and after his first administration. This does not even rise to the level of ideological persecution; he's simply firing people for obeying orders and doing their jobs.
Green card holders like Khalil are legal immigrants, so yes he is deporting legal immigrants. One of his aides just disclosed that reopening naturalization in order to expel even naturalized citizens who "support Hamas" (i.e., oppose Israeli barbarism) is imminent.
You may not think you have much use for the federal government, but without it millions of people who receive Social Security would be indigent, millions more children would be below the poverty line, tens of millions of people would lack medical care, and you would probably be dead either from ozone radiation or smallpox, both of which the federal government had a major part in controlling. Also, without government-financed vaccines, another four or five million Americans would have died of COVID.
Are you just mad about having to pay taxes? They're the price of civilization.
1) He tried to persuade the Georgia secretary of state to tamper with that state's election results. ("Just get me 11,000 votes.")
2) He obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with both of his impeachment investigations.
3) He removed highly classified information from a secure environment and disregarded many directives from national security authorities to return it.
4) He sexually abused Jean Carroll. (The judge called it "rape.")
5) He paid a prostitute (Stormy Daniels) hush money and then claimed it as a campaign expense.
His most serious crime is the least clear-cut legally: he tried to overturn a valid presidential election with completely fabricated charges of voting fraud, and having whipped up a crowd of supporters on January 6, sent them off to the Capitol, where they rioted while he watched on television for three hours without calling them off, which he could have done simply by picking up the phone. The whole phony "Stop the Steal" campaign did more to promote political polarization and mutual mistrust in America than anything else in recent history. Whether or not this was illegal, it seems to me criminal.
Ah, yes, a perfect regurgitation of Pelosi's talking points.
1. No, there were indeed 11,000 missing votes. Democrats claim it was a clerical error, and perhaps it was. But at the time, all anyone knew was
that there were 11,000 missing votes.
2. The two impeachments were Pelosi politics. You have no idea of the facts behind either one of them, right?
3. He removed documents that were HIS documents, just as every president before him.
4. He 'sexually abused' her in a dressing room that she acknowledges inviting him into. No witnesses to what happened. Just once in your life, THINK, instead of believing the propganda.
5. No, the PROSECUTION claimed it was a campaign expense. Get your facts straight. If you think any of the above is legitimate, you might want to read Alan Dershowitz's book, "Get Trump.' Dershowitz is opposed to Trump, but he is disgusted with what the democrat cabal has done to the judicial system in this country.
You are making false claims in your summary. EVERY presidential election is disputed, especially close ones. You bought the Pelosi narrative that contesting elections is illegal or improper or something. No, it is not. it is normal. Hilary STILL claims that the 2016 elections was stolen from her. Contesting results during the Senate certification process is also normal and legal. That's why they HAVE a certification process.
No, Trump didn't watch the riot on TV for three hours. Who told you THAT lie? And why aren't you calling the riot an insurrection? EVERY major media called it that, as well as Pelosi and most other democrats, for several years. They quietly let go of that lie, because too many people were catching on that they're liars. How many times did you call it an 'insurrection', until you were retrained to it call 'riot'?
The fact is, Trump was still giving his speech to tens of thousands of supporters over a mile away when the riot began. He wasn't even aware of it. As he finished his speech, he told his supporters to march PEACEFULLY to the capital building. When he was told about the rioting, he tweeted twice that they should not be rioting, and that they should support the police, not attack them. In fact, very few cops were attacked, none very seriously. And of course, Trump did suggest supplying 10,000 national guard troops, which were rejected by both Pelosi and the DC mayor.
The only side I take is the side of the truth. You should try that.
Thank you, Ri, very interesting response. I don't agree, though. Very briefly:
"Pelosi talking points"? Every non-MAGA outlet in the country reported essentially the charges I described, and unlike the MAGA ones, like Fox News, they don't take their talking points from a political party.
The Electoral College is a travesty. States do not have interests. Only individuals do -- democratic individualists know this. And individuals from Wyoming have 40 times as much representation in the Senate as individuals from California and ca. 10 times as much representation in the Senate. The Founders did not contrive the Electoral College for the sake of fairness; they did it (at the last minute, with many members objecting) to corral the slave states into the Union.
"Every President before him"? Hundreds of classified documents, many Top Secret? And ignored numerous requests and directives, including a subpoena, from the authorities to return them?
"Every Presidential election is disputed"? Does every losing candidate go to court sixty times and fail even to have his case taken seriously enough to review, in some cases by judges he appointed? And then repeat thousands of times to his deluded base that the actual winner of the election is not their legitimate president?
I haven't read Alan Dershowitz's "Get Trump," but I've read a lot of Dershowitz over the years, and I know to take him with a very large grain of salt. More specifically, I've learned that he's prone to take the side of whoever he thinks will be more supportive of Israel domination of the Palestinians. And besides, this is the guy who got Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson off. You may see a champion of the innocent; I see someone who's not too discriminating about who he defends.
This has been informative. I especially your "Individualists Unite" substack. I'll leave you the last word.
Thank you for a rational response, although I also don't agree with you.
I don't want to get into the weeds, with both of us just rephrasing previous points.
But I can't let the part about the states go by. It is the states that created the federal government, not the other way around. The idea is, the People control the states, and the state control the federal government. It's a very good idea.
Also keep in mind that there is no equivalent to our top-heavy federal government anywhere else in the world. People compare us, unfavorably, to Europe, saying that our federal government should be more like Europe's. That's a stupid thing to say, given that Europe doesn't have a federal government. Twenty-seven Indvidual, autonomous countries have formed the EU for many of the reasons that the autonomous American states created the United States. That's states, plural, not singular.
The EU has no authority concerning healthcare, education or retirement within any of the autonomous 27 member states. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be like that here.
So, how did it get this way, in complete violation of the constitution? Two reasons: the democratic party and the republican party. Neither has ANY governmental authority whatsoever, yet they control every government in America, federal, state and local. That condition does not exist in Europe.
So, what about the electoral college? The states created it specifically as a check against individual states being overrun by an out-of-control central government. And it works.
Let's consider political (not constitutional) realities today. If a president wins both the popular vote and the electoral college vote, there is no issue. It is only when the elected president does not win the popular vote that anyone makes an issue. And who is that 'anyone'? It is the members of the political party that got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote. But, once again, neither party has any governmental authority whatsoever. So, we have a political party with no authority, challenging the authority of the constitution, which was legitimately ratified by all of the states. Every state that has come into the Union since then has pledged to abide by the constitution. None has pledged to abide by a political party.
In a nutshell, in my considered opinion, both parties can just go straight to hell.
This post absolutely does not reflect real life. The FBI absolutely is persecuting dissenters, The administration is deporting legal migrants, and arresting Latino US Citizens, and believe me you depend on the federal government more than you realize -- from the food on your plate (farmers rely on federal government) to how you get around, and for your safety and security.
In fact, the share of federal workers relative to the population is the lowest it has been in history. Over time, the federal workforce as a percentage of the total American population has shrunk. In absolute numbers, the federal workforce is slightly smaller than it was 50 years ago, even as the U.S. population has increased by nearly two-thirds during that time period.
This podcast is important. Shadi and Damir first discussed the possibility US constitutional breakdown (too dismissively, I worried back then) in the first Trump Administration. Here we go again -- older, wiser, and more afraid.
I feel compelled to add that you don't have to believe it's impossible that Mahmoud Khalil "aligns" with Hamas (to use the administration's term) or even for him to connected to it in some way that violates American law to see this episode as an obvious and intended-to-intimidate violation of basic rights. And you don't have to believe that the Venezuelan are necessarily pure as the driven slush to see as hideous the government's application to their case of a truly awful 1798 law that widely decried at the time and -- along with its accompanying "Sedition Act" -- which arguably led to the demise of the Federalist Party.
Also. There is a chuffed site that is the official fundraiser for Khalid's defense:
https://chuffed.org/project/justice-for-mahmoud-khalil
I hope Damir doesn't get deported 🙏🏼
A second comment:
1) I've always thought that Shadi, since WoC was spun up and even before (in his books), has had a hard time coming to terms with how much non-elite American voters don't care about foreign affairs. Recent intensifying evangelical support for Israel has put a dent in this indifference, but it's the only dent.
2) But if we broaden the issue, Shadi suddenly has a lot of company. I think many of us underestimated and continue to underestimate how much non-elite voters don't care about "institutions", and that includes "democracy" in an abstract sense and maybe even in an immediate one. I think Trump does understand this -- and is relying on it.
Anyone interested in exploring this second point (and who can tolerate major wonkishness) would do well to watch Ezra Klein's interview with David Shor of a few days ago. Shor's breakdown of what does and doesn't matter to 2024 Trump voters is something to be reckoned with. Though it comes out as cynicism, Damir has a great sense of this. Shor adds fact and nuance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html
I can’t help but notice a “vibe shift” on this podcast. Shortly after the election there was a sense of almost giddiness at the open possibilities represented by Trump’s re-election. Now “things are bad.” My only thought is I want whatever you guys were smoking two months ago.
I'm really confused why Shadi and Damir both correctly pointed out the problem of an executive who ignores judicial rulings like what happened with the Venezuelan deportees and then went on to talk about what this might mean for future Democratic administrations.
This is a president who, mafia boss-like, asked a state government official to "find" just enough votes for him to win Georgia and denied he lost the 2020 election. If he has decided he can wantonly ignore judicial rulings, and if no part of the American political system will stop him, what reason do we have to believe that we will have free and fair elections in 2028?
If you game this out, continue the line of reasoning into the future by a few years, having another real presidential election where a Democratic could plausibly win would be a miracle. It's far more likely that a dictatorship has begun its long slog.
Great discussion as always, thank you! I had several thoughts, but the one I wanted to call out relates to the part of the conversation where Shadi brings up the hate that seems to drive Trump administration.
While I agree with Damir's that tribalism is an explanation, I also think Shadi underestimates how progressive agenda, and its impact on transforming society, enrages large swathes of people. Progressives are always trying to improve societies, which is a good thing in principle, but in practice it impacts long-standing traditions. Many who just want to live their lives like their parents did feel threatened and so on.
Damir, I think you are grossly mischaracterizing Jack Smith's Jan 6th case against Trump. Firstly, he did not charge him for insurrection. Second, it was much more expansive than the attack on the Capitol. The only reason the case was dropped was because you can't try a sitting president.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf
The answer to all three of your questions are "yes" for pro-palestinian protestors. #2 is "yes" for the Cubans and Venezuelans with temporary status. #3, he kicked the AP out of the white house for not going along with the "gulf of america" bit.
"In less fancy terms, Trump looks like he’s becoming a dictator. "
Well, is he, or isn't he?
Has Trump authorized his AG and the FBI to persecute dissenters? Are any of those Hamas supporters rotting in jail right now, constitutional rights ignored? No.
Is Trump deporting LEGAL immigrants? No.
Is Trump using federal power to intimidate media into censoring any person or group? No.
Trump is taking a weedwhacker to the federal government. If you are dependent on the federal government for your livelihood, you might see that as a problem. Just remember that, in the real world, no one is guaranteed a job for life. When a department becomes outdated or otherwise of little use, it is closed. Employees receive unemployment or perhaps a buyout. Employees may not like it, but that's the way it is. Welcome to real life.
RI: I think you're wrong on all couonts.
Trump has directed the new FBI ladership to fire everyone involved in investigating the crimes he committed during and after his first administration. This does not even rise to the level of ideological persecution; he's simply firing people for obeying orders and doing their jobs.
Green card holders like Khalil are legal immigrants, so yes he is deporting legal immigrants. One of his aides just disclosed that reopening naturalization in order to expel even naturalized citizens who "support Hamas" (i.e., oppose Israeli barbarism) is imminent.
You may not think you have much use for the federal government, but without it millions of people who receive Social Security would be indigent, millions more children would be below the poverty line, tens of millions of people would lack medical care, and you would probably be dead either from ozone radiation or smallpox, both of which the federal government had a major part in controlling. Also, without government-financed vaccines, another four or five million Americans would have died of COVID.
Are you just mad about having to pay taxes? They're the price of civilization.
What crimes? State what Trump did, and what law he broke by doing it.
1) He tried to persuade the Georgia secretary of state to tamper with that state's election results. ("Just get me 11,000 votes.")
2) He obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with both of his impeachment investigations.
3) He removed highly classified information from a secure environment and disregarded many directives from national security authorities to return it.
4) He sexually abused Jean Carroll. (The judge called it "rape.")
5) He paid a prostitute (Stormy Daniels) hush money and then claimed it as a campaign expense.
His most serious crime is the least clear-cut legally: he tried to overturn a valid presidential election with completely fabricated charges of voting fraud, and having whipped up a crowd of supporters on January 6, sent them off to the Capitol, where they rioted while he watched on television for three hours without calling them off, which he could have done simply by picking up the phone. The whole phony "Stop the Steal" campaign did more to promote political polarization and mutual mistrust in America than anything else in recent history. Whether or not this was illegal, it seems to me criminal.
Ah, yes, a perfect regurgitation of Pelosi's talking points.
1. No, there were indeed 11,000 missing votes. Democrats claim it was a clerical error, and perhaps it was. But at the time, all anyone knew was
that there were 11,000 missing votes.
2. The two impeachments were Pelosi politics. You have no idea of the facts behind either one of them, right?
3. He removed documents that were HIS documents, just as every president before him.
4. He 'sexually abused' her in a dressing room that she acknowledges inviting him into. No witnesses to what happened. Just once in your life, THINK, instead of believing the propganda.
5. No, the PROSECUTION claimed it was a campaign expense. Get your facts straight. If you think any of the above is legitimate, you might want to read Alan Dershowitz's book, "Get Trump.' Dershowitz is opposed to Trump, but he is disgusted with what the democrat cabal has done to the judicial system in this country.
You are making false claims in your summary. EVERY presidential election is disputed, especially close ones. You bought the Pelosi narrative that contesting elections is illegal or improper or something. No, it is not. it is normal. Hilary STILL claims that the 2016 elections was stolen from her. Contesting results during the Senate certification process is also normal and legal. That's why they HAVE a certification process.
No, Trump didn't watch the riot on TV for three hours. Who told you THAT lie? And why aren't you calling the riot an insurrection? EVERY major media called it that, as well as Pelosi and most other democrats, for several years. They quietly let go of that lie, because too many people were catching on that they're liars. How many times did you call it an 'insurrection', until you were retrained to it call 'riot'?
The fact is, Trump was still giving his speech to tens of thousands of supporters over a mile away when the riot began. He wasn't even aware of it. As he finished his speech, he told his supporters to march PEACEFULLY to the capital building. When he was told about the rioting, he tweeted twice that they should not be rioting, and that they should support the police, not attack them. In fact, very few cops were attacked, none very seriously. And of course, Trump did suggest supplying 10,000 national guard troops, which were rejected by both Pelosi and the DC mayor.
The only side I take is the side of the truth. You should try that.
https://open.substack.com/pub/individualistsunite/p/the-myth-of-honest-elections?r=z324w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thank you, Ri, very interesting response. I don't agree, though. Very briefly:
"Pelosi talking points"? Every non-MAGA outlet in the country reported essentially the charges I described, and unlike the MAGA ones, like Fox News, they don't take their talking points from a political party.
The Electoral College is a travesty. States do not have interests. Only individuals do -- democratic individualists know this. And individuals from Wyoming have 40 times as much representation in the Senate as individuals from California and ca. 10 times as much representation in the Senate. The Founders did not contrive the Electoral College for the sake of fairness; they did it (at the last minute, with many members objecting) to corral the slave states into the Union.
"Every President before him"? Hundreds of classified documents, many Top Secret? And ignored numerous requests and directives, including a subpoena, from the authorities to return them?
"Every Presidential election is disputed"? Does every losing candidate go to court sixty times and fail even to have his case taken seriously enough to review, in some cases by judges he appointed? And then repeat thousands of times to his deluded base that the actual winner of the election is not their legitimate president?
Pelosi did not refuse National Guard coverage. Another Trump lie: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/16/fact-check-no-trump-request-10000-guard-troops-jan-6/8929215002/. (Did you know there were 30,000 Trump lies, according to the impeccably truthful Washington Post? You can read their list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/.)
I haven't read Alan Dershowitz's "Get Trump," but I've read a lot of Dershowitz over the years, and I know to take him with a very large grain of salt. More specifically, I've learned that he's prone to take the side of whoever he thinks will be more supportive of Israel domination of the Palestinians. And besides, this is the guy who got Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson off. You may see a champion of the innocent; I see someone who's not too discriminating about who he defends.
This has been informative. I especially your "Individualists Unite" substack. I'll leave you the last word.
Thank you for a rational response, although I also don't agree with you.
I don't want to get into the weeds, with both of us just rephrasing previous points.
But I can't let the part about the states go by. It is the states that created the federal government, not the other way around. The idea is, the People control the states, and the state control the federal government. It's a very good idea.
Also keep in mind that there is no equivalent to our top-heavy federal government anywhere else in the world. People compare us, unfavorably, to Europe, saying that our federal government should be more like Europe's. That's a stupid thing to say, given that Europe doesn't have a federal government. Twenty-seven Indvidual, autonomous countries have formed the EU for many of the reasons that the autonomous American states created the United States. That's states, plural, not singular.
The EU has no authority concerning healthcare, education or retirement within any of the autonomous 27 member states. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be like that here.
So, how did it get this way, in complete violation of the constitution? Two reasons: the democratic party and the republican party. Neither has ANY governmental authority whatsoever, yet they control every government in America, federal, state and local. That condition does not exist in Europe.
So, what about the electoral college? The states created it specifically as a check against individual states being overrun by an out-of-control central government. And it works.
Let's consider political (not constitutional) realities today. If a president wins both the popular vote and the electoral college vote, there is no issue. It is only when the elected president does not win the popular vote that anyone makes an issue. And who is that 'anyone'? It is the members of the political party that got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote. But, once again, neither party has any governmental authority whatsoever. So, we have a political party with no authority, challenging the authority of the constitution, which was legitimately ratified by all of the states. Every state that has come into the Union since then has pledged to abide by the constitution. None has pledged to abide by a political party.
In a nutshell, in my considered opinion, both parties can just go straight to hell.
This post absolutely does not reflect real life. The FBI absolutely is persecuting dissenters, The administration is deporting legal migrants, and arresting Latino US Citizens, and believe me you depend on the federal government more than you realize -- from the food on your plate (farmers rely on federal government) to how you get around, and for your safety and security.
In fact, the share of federal workers relative to the population is the lowest it has been in history. Over time, the federal workforce as a percentage of the total American population has shrunk. In absolute numbers, the federal workforce is slightly smaller than it was 50 years ago, even as the U.S. population has increased by nearly two-thirds during that time period.
Government workers make more on average than in the private sector. It didn't used to be that way.
This country, collectively, is broke, and sinking into monetary failure. Trump didn't do that. I didn't do that. So, who did that?