“You’re a f**cking Senator!” Nicolle EXPOSES private Republican texts as Trump “OBLITERATED” norms

[0:00] We're not fighting within the 40-yard lines. We're not even within, like, the 20 and the 20. [0:05] Like, what Donald Trump wants to do is transform the country in a way that will make democracy no [0:13] longer function in the way it needs to function. And therefore, to me, it becomes an existential [0:20] fight. Hi there, everyone. My guest this week is someone we never get enough of on the television [0:28] show, so he is back for the pod. He is a one-man Ghostbusters squad in the fight to save our [0:34] democracy, which at this point is a race against time. Whenever and wherever there is voter suppression [0:40] or a challenge to ballot access or an attempt by Donald Trump and his stooges to meddle in our [0:45] elections, who do we call? Mark Elias, of course. His enthusiasm for the fight and his grit and [0:51] determination have never been more needed than they are right now. With less than 100 days to go, [0:57] Donald Trump and his party are facing a potentially historic low in the midterm elections. And so the [1:03] attempts to meddle are multiplying seemingly by the hour. In just a one-week period, the Trump [1:09] administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to create lists of eligible voters and has sent [1:15] poll monitors to Michigan, a state where Donald Trump has falsely claimed for years now to be rife [1:20] with voter fraud. And Donald Trump is still pushing for Republicans to pass a bill that would make [1:25] sweeping changes to how we vote in our country. That's why in this critical moment, we're bringing [1:31] Mark back on the podcast. So this is the best people. This is one of them, lawyer and chair of [1:36] the Elias Law Group, founder of the news outlet Democracy Docket. Mark Elias is back. Thank you for [1:42] being back with us. Thanks for having me. I feel like on the show, we get to like two of the 37 things I [1:49] want to ask you every day. So, um, I'm glad to have more time with you here. [1:54] Yeah. It's interesting. I always think on your show for the regular viewers, it's like we start [2:00] a conversation one day and then a few days later we pick it up. [2:03] Well, and, and, well, for me, the, the one where we really need you is political retribution. [2:08] I mean, I think you were on our air when Trump gives the speech at DOJ where he name checks you. [2:14] And I remember saying, ask him if he like, only if he wants to be on today, but you've never shied [2:22] away from the public facing part of the retribution story. And I wonder how you do that. [2:28] Look, I think it's really important. I think that Donald Trump wants us to live in fear. [2:34] Donald Trump wants us to back away and to go quiet and let him do what he wants to do. [2:40] And I think that we have too many people who are doing that. We have too many institutions that [2:47] are doing that. And I just made peace with myself at the beginning of this term in a way that I had [2:52] sort of done in his first term, but really, uh, that I was going to stay solidly in the pro-democracy [3:01] camp and I was not going to let him force me into the shadows. [3:05] Why do you think so many others have made a different choice? People with tons of money, [3:09] tons of privilege, people who could easily step into the, people who privately agree with everything [3:16] you and I both say publicly. [3:19] Yeah, I think, I think there are two reasons and I think it's two different groups. I think [3:22] the, the worst of the two, the group for which I have nothing but contempt, and that comes through [3:28] in our conversations regularly, are the people who frankly have nothing really to worry about [3:35] other than making money, right? Like the, like the only thing that Brad Karp at Paul Weiss had to [3:40] worry about was making money. There was no chance that a federal judge was not going to block the [3:46] executive order targeting law firms. You know, Jeff Bezos has nothing to worry about other than making [3:51] money, right? There's a, there's no risk to him personally. And for them, it's just greed and [3:58] opportunity. And I think that the distinction between those two, uh, between, you know, [4:05] capitulation and collaboration is one that I think doesn't get aired enough that for a lot of [4:10] these folks, it's not the fear. It's actually the opportunity. It's the opportunity to go in with [4:15] Trump. Then the second group are folks I have more sympathy with, but I disagree with, and they're [4:21] genuinely afraid. Like they're worried and they, they just are looking to keep their head down and not, [4:26] and not speak out because they are afraid that they will become bigger targets. And, you know, [4:31] I think that's unfortunate. I understand it, but I, but I, but I don't agree with it. [4:36] Let me deal with the group separately. I mean, the first group, I guess all that I would push back [4:41] and say is there's no risk of making no money. There's just risk of making in Brad Karp's case, [4:48] fewer tens of millions of dollars in Jeff Bezos, this case, fewer billions of dollars. I mean, [4:53] it's not like either one of them would, would, would live on the streets or lose their third, [4:57] fourth, or fifth homes. [4:58] No. And you could say the same thing about Disney. You could say the same thing about the, [5:04] you know, the Redstone family and the Ellison family, right? Like with CBS, you could say the [5:08] same thing with the other nine law firms that followed Brad Karp's lead. I mean, you could, [5:13] you could make the argument that right now, the bravest people are the people with the least [5:20] and the most cowardly people are the people with the most. And I'm sure there is some sociological [5:26] reason why that's the case. Uh, but it's pretty despicable. And you know, what I, what I try to [5:31] remind folks when they call me privately and I get calls from them asking me either lay off them or, [5:37] or, you know, to understand their circumstance. What I say is that, you know, what their children and [5:46] their grandchildren are going to remember about this era is not like what merger acquisition got [5:50] done or, you know, who owned CNN. What they're going to remember about this era, like is what [5:56] we remember about all historical errors, kind of the big arc. And the big arc is going to be the fight [6:00] for democracy and what Donald Trump was threatening. And they're going to want to be remembered as [6:06] someone who stood up in that moment and fought back rather than they capitulated and made a little [6:11] more money and bought another home. I mean, I feel like president Obama got at this in his very first [6:17] interview after Trump wins where he says, you know, maybe the universities don't do the, the renovation. [6:24] They live off their endowment. You know, he seems to be, he seems to have tried at the beginning to [6:29] have willed people against capitulation. And what I think is amazing is you now have a political party [6:36] whose own voters despise the Trump economy, despise Trump's war with Iran, have no appetite for [6:43] relitigating 2020 because by and large, all of the Republican members of Congress were sent back, [6:48] only Trump lost, and they still go along with him. Where do you, where do you put them in terms [6:54] of capitulation and appeasement? I mean, the thing about the modern Republican party is that it is [7:02] nothing but Trump sycophants. And I think that this has two consequences that sometimes get [7:09] overlooked. The first is that there is sometimes a hunt for the non-sycophant and they are not to [7:17] be found. I mean, I think actually I was on the air with you when I said that Tom Tillis and Cornyn [7:23] were going to cave and that you, that if you had to take the wager, always bet against courage in the [7:28] Republican party. So we see this with Cassidy occasionally. We see this with Collins occasionally. [7:32] We see this with Cornyn and Tillis, which is that they pretend that they are not just entirely in [7:39] the pocket of Donald Trump. And they do something very symbolic for a very short period of time at [7:45] the end of which they basically capitulate like everybody else. And so I've oftentimes said like, [7:49] I don't care whether you are scared MAGA or proud MAGA, like the outcome is the same. So that's like [7:55] one group. The second is actually something you raised, which I think is like really worrisome for [8:00] this fall. I sometimes feel like I am swimming against the tide of, oh, the election officials [8:07] are all heroes. And like, no, they're not all heroes. Like Tina Peters was a local election [8:14] official. And we need to recognize that as MAGA has taken over the Republican party, it has also taken [8:24] over the election officials. It has taken over the secretaries of state. It has taken over the county [8:29] election officials. It is, they have replaced, the Republican party, you know, replaced the Wayne [8:33] County board of elections after they defied Donald Trump in 2020. They replaced the Michigan state board [8:41] of canvassers. Same thing. And so I sometimes feel like one of the places where I'm most out of step [8:48] is there is an effort to treat the election officials as different, prosecutors as different, [8:54] and I just see them all kind of the same. As in on the Trump project. [8:59] Yeah. Like, look, here's the thing. Like, you know, I can be told, well, you know, a federal [9:04] prosecutor, you know, they need a job and they have to put food on the table. I understood that for like [9:08] the first few months of the Trump administration. At this point, if you're a federal prosecutor [9:13] working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., like you're bringing bullshit indictments [9:20] against people that then have to get dismissed. And you can justify it in your head [9:23] any way you want. But like to David Hearn, you're just the prosecutor who did what Todd [9:30] Blanche wanted. And so I think we need to stop romanticizing, whether it is, like I said, [9:35] the election officials or the prosecutors and understand that, yes, there are some really [9:40] good ones, but they're also really bad ones. And it's not a marker. It's not a marker anymore [9:47] to say, well, if it is said by a local election official, if it is said by a federal, a career [9:52] or federal prosecutor, we should have confidence in it. Like, no, like maybe we have confidence [9:56] in it or maybe we don't, depending on what they're saying. [9:59] Well, and this is where the judiciary has arrived at very publicly. Federal judges appointed [10:04] by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Donald Trump's appointees, now no longer view [10:10] the Department of Justice as good faith actors. They no longer take their word for it or give [10:15] them the benefit of the doubt. It is a precedent-bursting moment that, because most of us don't deal [10:23] with federal courts, don't appreciate. [10:25] Yeah. So look, in May of 2025, I think it was May 5th, I wrote a piece for Democracy [10:31] Darkness on the website. People can go see it. In which I said, this is not a regular president. [10:37] And what I wrote about was the presumption of regularity. The idea that federal courts should [10:44] treat decision-making by an administration as in the normal, in the ordinary course, [10:50] in good faith, for good reasons. And therefore, when a federal prosecutor comes in and says, [10:56] we had a reason to do this, the presumption is that they're telling the truth. When they say [11:00] that the person we're deporting to a foreign country is the worst of the worst, the judge starts [11:05] with the proposition they're the worst of the worst. So it's a presumption that the government [11:10] is telling the truth and is in good faith. And I argued then, we needed to get rid of it. Like, [11:15] not limit it. We needed to just jettison it. And I do feel like it is better. But I'm sure, [11:22] like, you experience this more than I do, because you're constantly interviewing people. There is still [11:28] kind of a throat clearing among many on the left and in the Democratic Party that still wants to start [11:34] with the presumption that there is good faith of some sort going on in some places, whereas I just [11:41] don't buy that. Yeah, let's deal with that. I mean, the Democratic Party is the only party in our country [11:50] that is committed to the things that keep us a democracy, right? And the vast majority of Americans [11:56] want to stay a democracy. How is the party still sort of looking over its shoulder in the vibe space? [12:06] Look, it's a really good question. And I think that some of it comes from just the fact that they, [12:13] that the Democratic Party lost the 2024 election. And I think some of it comes from losing after we had [12:21] an administration in which it didn't feel like they had taken Donald Trump's first term seriously. [12:29] You know, I mean, some of the decision making about what to prioritize, what not to prioritize, [12:35] what the Department of Justice would do and wouldn't do, what kind of tactics to use to fight, [12:39] just didn't feel like they were, they saw Donald Trump as an aberration rather than the building of [12:48] a Republican Party that was much more dangerous. Yeah. So where I feel hope, optimism, swagger is that [12:59] the country is so, I'll quote Carrie Bradshaw, so over Donald Trump, we need a new word for over. [13:04] Like, he's a dud, he's a out-of-touch blob of a rich grifter. He's like every caricature of sort [13:13] of a Palm Beach gazillionaire, you know, stealing from people with less than. So to me, the piece of it [13:22] that I don't get is that Democrats have available to them all of those people, right? Because they [13:28] know better. And I feel like Democrats still act like they have apologizing to do for the past. How [13:33] do you reorient the Democratic Party toward the future? Look, I think it is reorienting. I think [13:40] it will reorient a lot more in 20, as we head towards 2028, and you have a fresh group of presidential [13:46] candidates. I think it's really hard for people to talk about the Democratic Party when you're not in [13:51] power. And this is why, you know, I don't typically engage in the, like, who is doing right and who's [13:57] doing wrong. I mean, it's really hard. I don't either. And I, and I, and I don't, I don't know the [14:01] answer, but I'm, I'm just trying to understand the injury, right? Because, because, because it still [14:08] feels like there's an injury there. Yeah. Look, I knew a lot of people from the 2016 campaign who still [14:15] feel guilt for losing to Donald Trump. I, and I am sure there are people in the 2024 campaign, [14:22] in the Biden world who, who still feel that, but I agree with you. Interestingly, the person who was [14:29] most eloquent about this was actually Hillary Clinton in her speech, her concession speech, [14:35] which is basically like, everybody's got to stand up and fight and like, got to keep going. And like, [14:39] so I, I very much, you know, when I look back at like how I transformed from what was a relatively, [14:50] I was always a partisan lawyer, but I had good relationship. I mean, you know, [14:53] I'm going to call out a bunch of names now and like ruin their careers, but like Michael Toner was a- [14:57] And Ben Ginsberg, right? Ben Ginsberg, Michael Toner, Don McGann. [15:00] Yeah. Like, these are all lawyers that I worked with back when George Bush was president, you know, [15:05] back when, you know, I was representing John Kerry, back when, you know, Ben was representing, [15:11] you know, the Swift Blood Veterans for Truth, an organization that I thought was pretty despicable. But, [15:16] you know, like there was, but I transformed from that into someone who is very clear-eyed that this [15:24] is not, this is not like George Bush wants to privatize social security. And I don't think we [15:30] should privatize social security. Like, this is not like, we're not fighting within the 40-yard lines. [15:37] We're not even within like the 20 and the 20. Like, what Donald Trump wants to do [15:41] is transform the country in a way that will make democracy no longer function in the way it needs [15:50] to function. And therefore, to me, it becomes an existential fight. It is. And so I don't engage, [15:56] you will never find me in like a, I don't do bipartisan panels. I don't do talks. I don't chum it up. [16:06] You won't find me clapping for the president or laughing at his jokes. I don't go to events. [16:12] I understand the stakes. And I understand that this is seriousness. And I don't, and I don't drop [16:17] that. Like that's no different in my personal persona and my professional persona and my public [16:22] persona. And, uh, and I think that, that, that, that is what is so dangerous in this era is that [16:31] too many people actually just think this is just business as usual. [16:35] I, I'm the same way. And I've lost friends, a lot of friends because of it. [16:40] And in some ways, um, the clarity is super liberating. Um, but it's also painful to feel so [16:51] much distance from people that I've been, I mean, I'm, I'm in my fifties, I've been doing this since [16:56] I was in my twenties. And there are a lot of people that are not only not friends anymore, but that [17:01] probably view me as the, the, the sort of radical democracy hawk. [17:05] Um, it's interesting because I think that the people who were Republicans who came over, [17:12] uh, either to be independents or to the democratic party or the pro-democracy movement, use whatever [17:17] phrase you want. I think they actually tend to view these things in clearer terms often than when I am [17:24] sometimes talking to people who I've worked with for 20 and 30 years. Like talk about people who in [17:29] their private persona are the same in their public persona. It is that group. Like they, [17:34] they have the least tolerance for kind of the, the, the, the Republicans who, you know, say to you [17:43] in private, I feel one way versus another. You know, I, I sometimes ask when I interview on my [17:49] podcast, democratic elected officials, I'm like, do the Republicans know better? And they were like, [17:53] yeah, they come up to me in private sometimes and they'll say X, Y, and Z. And I always think of [17:56] people like you and Tim and, and Sarah Longwell, like you guys have no tolerance for that. [18:01] None. None, because that's how we got here. And I, in the first Trump term, I had a very [18:06] different job at NBC and at MSNBC. And I, I covered these guys and I had, um, on Signal and WhatsApp, [18:16] all manner of Republican senators who would text me and say, keep swinging away. Way to go. I'm good for [18:21] you. And, and like the switch flipped and I was like, what do you mean good for me? Like, [18:26] you're a set, like you go to, like their camera, like you can't go to the bathroom without walking [18:31] by a camera. What do you mean good for me? I'm, I'm like, I'm a cable host on MSNBC. You're a [18:36] fucking Senator. And that was when I, and, and it happened again after Charlottesville. And then it [18:40] happened again. I remember when Jim Mattis quit for cause. Um, and I got another flurry of notes [18:46] because Republicans really felt like Mattis and Kelly were really sort of holding the line [18:50] around, around stability in the military, something that's totally gone in a second [18:54] term and they're silent. And, and I was so appalled that these, these people who were [19:00] normal Republicans or Bush Republicans had nothing to say about Trump's obliteration of democratic norms. [19:07] Right. Which is why I don't go hunting for the, the Republican Senator who is doing the right thing. [19:14] Like I, I don't spend my time trying to contort myself there. Like what is the operational [19:20] difference between Bill Pulte, how Tulsi Gabbard and Jay Clayton, like operationally, like, [19:28] so when, when, when people are like, Oh, Jay Clayton, you need the Jay Clayton's of the world [19:32] on the inside because they're more reasonable. Like how, how exactly does that manifest itself? [19:38] You know what I mean? Like what, what policy is he going to not implement that Donald Trump wants? [19:43] What, what lie is he not going to support that Donald Trump wants to tell? [19:48] Right. And I think it's, it's the most stark perhaps at DOJ, right? Like, like the story about DOJ [19:55] is actually the one Trump story that isn't about Donald Trump. He's wanted to prosecute Jim Comey [19:59] since 2017. Donald Trump didn't stop wanting to invite, indict Comey and Clinton in those, [20:04] through those four G's. They just had people who were like, no, Pam Bondi comes. And even Pam [20:10] Bondi thinks it's too much. And then what he gets in Todd Blanche is someone so sycophantic and weak [20:15] that he says, yes, DOJ is not actually a Trump story. It's a Todd Blanche story. [20:20] It is absolutely. And the fact that the Republican senators are going to confirm him, [20:28] and Tom Tillis waxed eloquently on his behalf, you know, is like where, where the Republican Party is. [20:35] And I do think that the risk moving forward is, um, this is the normal, right? Like this is not, [20:45] like Todd Blanche does not represent an aberration of the normal. He is going to be the attorney general. [20:50] He is defining normal for like the next two years. And we're not going back. Like, this is the other [20:58] thing. I think that we need to spend time thinking not how do you go back, but what does it look [21:05] different going forward? So like after the Watergate scandals, they did go back. Like FOIA was a new law. [21:12] The presidential records act was a new law. The civil service protections were all new laws. Like, [21:18] it wasn't a restoration of like Bobby Kennedy being the attorney general. Like it didn't go back, [21:25] it went forward. And I sometimes worry that people want to have a nostalgia and think it can be restored, [21:33] as opposed to saying, you know what, we shouldn't have a presumption of regularity. I don't care who [21:38] the attorney general is. The Department of Justice should not walk into courtrooms and get the benefit [21:43] of the doubt. And maybe we should have transparency with the grand juries. And maybe there should be, [21:49] you know, the ability of, of defendants to, to have greater access to records to prove political [21:55] motivation. Like, I think that, that we need to be proactive in looking forward rather than denying, [22:02] you know, what their new reality is. Well, it's the whole frame around how we [22:07] understood how to protect ourselves from physical attacks after 9-11, right? We acknowledged a failure [22:12] of imagination. The political parallel seems necessary, that we had a failure of imagination [22:18] about what political corruption would look like in the Oval Office, because since our founding, [22:23] we've, we've not had to fathom it. But someone who makes 2.3 billion dollars in 13 months [22:29] seems to suggest that the norms and the, the, the restraints on that kind of self-enrichment are [22:36] inadequate. We can't delude ourselves into thinking that it's impossible that a president would come in, [22:42] purge the FBI, fire career people from the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice [22:50] and the military. I mean, now that we know it is possible, now that our eyes are open, how do you fix [22:54] it? I think that when it comes to executive power, um, I think part of the way to fix it, [23:02] uh, is to reconstrain the office. I mean, one of the, there's a statistic out there that I haven't seen [23:08] for years about the growth of the White House staff relative to the congressional staff. Like, [23:14] one of the ways you fix this is you put in place barriers that, that prevent [23:23] the, the White House from taking over basically every federal agency. Um, and so that's one way [23:30] that I've thought about fixing it. The other way is, uh, to put in place greater transparency laws [23:36] around not just the, the staff. I mean, you know, how, I don't know when you were in the White House, [23:42] how much stupidity you had to deal with around, can I go to this event? Can't I go to this event? [23:49] Am I going to be standing up or sitting down when I eat? Is it going to be a cracker and cheese or is [23:54] it going to be more than that? We couldn't do anything. Richard Painter was my ethics advisor [23:58] and I couldn't have, like, Mike Allen was a White House reporter in gym. I couldn't have a cup of coffee [24:02] paid for by them. Correct. So, like, literally the Watergate reforms that, like, and, and not just the [24:08] Watergate reforms, the federal gift rules were reformed in the 1980s at the Executive Branch [24:13] Congress in the, in the 1990s. Like, we're just thinking about this conceptually all wrong. I, [24:19] I say this sometimes to people about the Supreme Court when they're like, we, these, these justices [24:23] should have to disclose their trips and gifts. I'm like, why do they get to take trips and gifts? [24:27] Why are they going on trips? Right, right. Like, part of the reason they stay forever is because [24:31] not, it's not just because they don't have to disclose the trips and gifts, it's because they get [24:35] trips. Like, why, why are these jobs that people want forever? Like, like, no one's dealing with [24:39] the root cause. Why does, why do people want to stay in the Senate forever? Because it's cushy, [24:43] because it's grifty, because it's become corrupt. Yeah. And look, I think the other thing, [24:48] other reform that I have that will, you know, that is pretty unpopular in Washington, DC, [24:53] is I thought that George Bush made a fundamental mistake in bringing Karl Rove into the White House. [25:00] Like, people ask me why I've never served in government, and I tell them largely because people like me [25:05] shouldn't serve in government, right? I've spent my career winning, you know, helping Democrats win [25:10] campaigns. Now I've focused in this part of my career in helping voters vote and voting rights. [25:15] But like, what I've not spent my career in is like, complicated tax policy or health care reform. [25:22] And I think fundamentally, people who, who do campaigns shouldn't be running policy. And I'd say [25:29] the same thing about Stephen Miller. Like, that's another reform. Like, I actually don't think that [25:33] the White House should be stocked with people who, who's Kellyanne Conway, the pollster. Like, [25:39] I don't actually think we should have media consultants, pollsters, direct mail consultants [25:43] doing policy. I think that like, the American people deserve to have policy people doing policy. [25:48] And it can be people who are very ideological, by the way. But it shouldn't be people who are [25:54] political in that way. Look, whatever, it's a good debate. And like, I think that, [26:00] what I hope for the Democrats is that they can have a radical departure from what's happening right [26:08] now as their big raging debate, as opposed to having a radical debate about, about policy ideas. [26:15] Because you don't get to do anything unless you make these radical changes. Like, like, what I hear [26:20] from people is that nobody thinks that anybody goes there and, and does anything for them. I was [26:26] thinking about this because I'm, I'm, I'm sort of heading into, um, like election season. But if I [26:31] think about politics, I think that you can either be responsive or voters will be reactive. And so the [26:40] things you're talking about may feel uncomfortable to people who've been in the White House and on [26:45] campaigns and back in the White House. But you are either going to be responsive to the voters feeling [26:50] that it's all rigged and corrupt and grifty, or they're going to react and they're going to throw [26:55] everybody out. And I wonder how much you think about where the voters are, which seems so often [27:00] to be ahead of where the politicians are. I do. I think about it a lot. Um, and in part because, [27:06] like I said, I, I come from a background of representing political campaigns, you know? Um, [27:12] and so I never lose sight of the importance that you cannot govern if you don't win elections. [27:17] For voters, they are less, um, in the weeds about exactly what this policy means or that. I mean, [27:26] sometimes I, I kind of laugh when I'll hear Democrats say, well, I'm in favor of this version [27:31] of healthcare and I'm in version, in favor of this version of healthcare, as if somehow the voters are [27:37] processing the different iterative versions of, of this debate. Um, and I do think they get a couple [27:44] of things. The first is I think they generally have a sense of like, are you for me or are you not for [27:49] me? Okay. The second is I do think that they have a sense for whether you want a government that works [27:56] for people like them or doesn't work for people like them. And those are two slightly different [28:01] things. And it's that second one where you get into issues of like corruption and like just [28:07] fundamentally who, who is it that government is working for or is government not working for anyone? [28:14] And so I do think that that is really, uh, central to what Democrats need to sort out. And I do [28:21] think that these democracy issues are critical to that. Like it's, I, I get it. It is hard for people [28:27] to understand the, the difference between, you know, photo ID to vote, proof of citizenship to vote, [28:37] uh, photo ID that is unexpired to vote, ID that is required to vote that doesn't have to be photo ID. [28:43] Like I get it. Like it's hard for people to, to, to like figure out the exact differences. Uh, but I [28:50] do think they understand that there is one party that is just trying to make it harder for them to [28:55] vote. And I think Democrats need to be the party that is fighting corruption is fighting the restriction [29:02] of the franchise is fighting for people to be able to influence their government and voting is a [29:08] critical way of influencing their government. Not having a corrupt system is a way that they can influence [29:12] their government. And I, you know, I've spent the better part of the last decade trying to [29:18] center these ideas from, you know, in the public debate and also in the political debate. [29:23] Well, why not champion like a, a 2028 voting rights act? I mean, all of the voter suppression [29:30] laws are predicated on a lie, a lie that Bill Barr told us was quote, bullshit. And we actually just [29:36] had John Solomon say that the 2020 election wasn't rigged that quote, no foreign power flipped a vote. [29:41] So we now have Bill Barr and John Solomon attesting to the fact that no, indeed there was no voter [29:46] fraud. Why don't, why would, would you be interested in seeing a Democrat run on rolling [29:53] back all the voter suppression? Absolutely. And look, I, I'll give you an example [29:59] of where I feel like Democrats should be playing offense. So right now Republicans are beating the [30:07] crap out of New Jersey for what may be, maybe at most 400 people who were erroneously registered, [30:18] uh, who checked the box that said they were not us citizens did not try to register to vote, [30:22] but who were registered and then voted. Okay. Not great. Not, not going to defend it. We don't know [30:27] the exact numbers, but we're, we're talking in the, in the low hundreds in the California primary. [30:33] Okay. And I'm picking on California on purpose because it's a democratic state. So I don't want anyone [30:37] saying all you do mark is bash Republicans in the California primary. There were, I believe 150,000 [30:45] voters who cast mail-in ballots who were eligible voters, eligible voters. These are U S citizens. [30:51] These are people who should, who should have their ballots counted, but their ballots were rejected [30:55] because they arrived too late because the postal service is delayed or because some person thought [31:01] their signature didn't match. And the question is like, shouldn't we be having a debate about what we [31:07] are willing? How many lawful ballots are we willing to sacrifice chasing, chasing the illusion of fraud? [31:14] Like how many are we willing to sacrifice a million voters? Because it was almost a million voters in [31:19] 2024 who had their ballots rejected for precisely the reasons I just said, either because their ballot [31:25] arrived too late because the postal service was slow or because their, their signature was found not [31:30] to match when everybody knows that science is junk science. And so, yeah, I think Democrats ought to be [31:37] less apologetic about this and say, look, no, those 400 people shouldn't have been registered to vote, [31:41] but, but we have to make trade-offs here and we're not going to disenfranchise a million people [31:46] in chasing Donald Trump's fever dream of non-existent fraud, which as you point out, [31:51] John Solomon of all people. It's such a big story. And, and I mean, this is where I know that like, [31:56] I'm, I'm, I've been staring at this stuff way too long that I think like one of the biggest things [32:02] that's happened in 2026 is that John Solomon on the white house lawn told Vaughn Hilliard that [32:07] there was no fraud. Like, I mean, I, I feel like Maria Bartiromo should get her brain back. Like, [32:13] like, like, like the, all the people who like, whose brains were broken and bent around Trump's lies, [32:18] like John Solomon, who's one of them just blew up the lie that there was any fraud in 2020. [32:24] Yeah. Yeah. And did it the night of Donald Trump's speech. [32:28] Which was such a bomb. I, I, I want to ask you about a whole of society approach to debunking lies, [32:34] because I, I was thinking about, you know, like if Trump said the earth is flat, like we've got 29% [32:40] of the country who would be like, yeah, fuck you and your globes. Like the earth is flat. And I, and I [32:44] wonder, you know, and it came, it reared its head in the Fauci hearings. Like, how do you fight for a [32:50] politics that are just and fair, or at least fact-based when you've got a third of the country that'll [32:57] believe the lies willingly? Look, I think it is not enough to say that the candidates and the [33:05] politicians need to do more. That, that's fine. That's, that's fair to, fair critique and criticism [33:10] of Democrats. But I think your phrase, a whole of society is right. You know, the truth is the large [33:18] corporations could help solve this because they could speak out. And honestly, if they spoke out, [33:25] they are trusted messengers, whether it's good or bad, their employees, you know, listen to what [33:30] they have to say, their customers listen to what they have to say. And if you had some of these [33:35] large corporations say voting by mail is not rigged. In fact, one of the ways we know voting by mail is [33:40] not rigged is that we Walmart are going to undertake a process of educating people, but also helping people [33:49] make sure their ballots get delivered to the mail, the mailbox and get sent to FedEx. We will deliver your [33:53] mail, uh, your ballot for free. Amazon, voter registration should be easier and it's not a [34:00] problem. And the way we're going to help is we're going to register people when they go to amazon.com [34:05] and we already have all their information. The problem is there's not an all of society [34:11] commitment to this. I mean, we started this discussion by talking about Paul Weiss. I mean, [34:16] I can't express to people how damaging it has been to the rule of law and to the fight for free and [34:23] fair elections. I, I every day get people who thank me for fighting and I really appreciate it. [34:31] It's touching, but like I've got 60 lawyers at my law firm. Paul Weiss could dedicate 600 lawyers to this [34:40] and not miss a payment to any of their partner's 14th house or whatever. [34:47] Why doesn't the brand damage from capitulating to a president at 32 percent override the sacrificing [35:00] of democracies? And in the case of Paul Weiss, causes that have been associated with Paul Weiss [35:05] since its founding? So this is what's really interesting. I think it does. And I think that [35:10] they, they learn that it does, but it doesn't seem to ever like transfer from one to another. So like, [35:19] you don't have to agree or disagree, but like the Washington Post has suffered brand damage [35:25] from what, what, what, what's gone on there. Yeah. No, I agree. I think CBS has suffered brand [35:30] damage by Barry Weiss and what's gone on there. I do think that, uh, that, you know, these large [35:38] corporations that are a lot less popular than they used to be might've done themselves a world of good [35:44] if they had been seen as being stalwarts of democracy. Like, let's be clear, these consume, [35:49] big consumer brands, these big, um, uh, public facing brands, they've suffered, uh, you know, [35:57] maybe if tech, if, if AI companies were not as, you know, shoveling money and crypto companies [36:03] shoveling money into super PACs for Republicans, maybe they wouldn't be as so unbelievably unpopular [36:08] that they get, they get booed by, by name whenever they come up at a graduation. Yeah. [36:13] So I'm not sure that there hasn't been damage and among the law firms, I think it's too early to [36:18] tell. Like, I think that what's going to happen as, as oftentimes happens in politics and you've [36:24] seen it as well as I do, there's like a haze that people walk through and then a moment of clarity [36:30] hits and all of a sudden everybody's like, whoa. And I think that that moment is going to be when [36:35] Donald Trump leaves. When Donald Trump leaves, I think there's going to be a whole lot of law firms [36:39] and others who are going to try everything they can do to get healthy. And all of a sudden you're [36:43] going to see them pivot back. And the question's going to be, what do we do then? What do we do [36:48] then? So look, I wouldn't make it easy for people who in this era were on the wrong side to get [36:54] healthy. Like, that's me. Like, to me, Paul Weiss made their decision. And as far as I'm concerned, [36:58] if I were a presidential campaign manager or the, the person running a future White House, which I [37:04] won't be either of those two, um, I'd say no. I'd say if you worked to Paul Weiss during this era, [37:09] you're, you're not going to work in a democratic administration. You're not going to, you're not [37:12] going to get, you're not going to be involved in debate prep for the next presidential, uh, [37:17] nominee. You're not going to launder your reputation through us. It's like, it's one of [37:20] the reasons why at my law firm, you know, we don't take on, uh, corporate, most corporate clients, [37:27] like really almost any corporate clients, because I don't want to help launder the reputation [37:31] of a crappy corporation by having them say, oh yes, Mark Elias is our lawyer. Like, I'm not saying [37:37] I'm the be all end all. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination, but I think we have to avoid [37:42] the things that allow crappy and shitty people to launder themselves back into, into good graces. [37:49] I'm just thinking like Trump wants reparations for January 6th insurrectionists. You could imagine [37:54] like a private sector, self-regulated, like reparations for firms that work for Boris. Like, [38:01] you don't even have to say everyone that did a deal. Just the ones that like agreed to let Boris [38:05] Epstein determine what pro bono work they do for Donald Trump. Those firms owe as many hours as [38:10] they gave Boris and the Trump Department of Commerce to the ACLU or to a democracy firm. Like, because, [38:17] to your point about the first Trump term, Merrick Garland, I personally don't believe had any intention [38:23] of investigating Donald Trump's crimes that took place on television until the January 6th select [38:28] committee made it impossible for him to continue to ignore it. And the second Jack Smith is appointed, [38:33] he pursues the facts and follows the facts where they take him. Like, has no equivocation. So, [38:38] like, he simply saw the facts as they were, pursued them and indicted Trump in two big cases. [38:43] Those facts were available to Merrick Garland if he started investigating them on, on February 1st of, [38:48] of 2021. Like, Jack Smith didn't, didn't unveil new facts and he didn't unveil facts that didn't exist [38:54] in January of 2021. And, and that is the history of, of the Biden presidency and the, and the Merrick [39:00] Garland reign at DOJ. Like, full stop. Look, I said this earlier. I think that there was a lot [39:05] premised in the Biden administration on the idea that Donald Trump was an aberration and that his [39:13] four-year term represented an unfortunate part of American history, but it could quietly go into, [39:22] you know, the, the, and go into history and be forgotten. And that, therefore, they wanted to [39:30] reestablish norms and reestablish kind of, you know, practices that they viewed would have been [39:40] inconsistent with going after Donald Trump. He, he sent his supporters to hang Mike Pence. [39:48] I think the norms were like beyond dead at that moment. I obviously never agreed with that. [39:54] Uh, and I was pretty outspoken and, you know, you can, there were any number of, um, uh, of, [40:02] of news accounts, uh, based on anonymous sources in the White House about what they thought about my [40:07] approach, uh, uh, to this, uh. What did they think? What did they say? Look, uh, people can go look up the [40:14] Axios article itself. I, you know, in, in retrospect, it kind of aged okay for me. It was that essentially, [40:20] you know, the White House thought I was too aggressive. I was too outspoken. I was too, uh, [40:26] uh, litigious against Republican voter suppression and that they preferred a, a more low key strategy [40:33] that was less confrontational. Um, and this was portrayed as a stylistic differences and it [40:39] explained why, according to them, the White House didn't, didn't appreciate me or my work, [40:45] uh, which is their right. I said to people who've asked since then, I think in retrospect, [40:51] I think I got the better of the argument. This is the 60, the 60 cases you won? [40:57] No, this was after that. So I represented President Biden in the DNC and winning 60 plus cases, [41:03] uh, uh, in 2020. This was really 2022 and 2023. When I was saying, I believe Republicans are going [41:14] to try to undermine the, the elections in 2022. Uh, and they passed a bunch of voter suppression laws. [41:21] They tried to not certify elections. And in 2023, I said, I think Donald Trump is going to win the [41:27] nomination. I think he's going to try to do this again. And that was a point of view that I had. [41:33] And there were, I think some people in the White House who thought, you know, that, um, [41:39] I was being overly alarmist about, uh, about Donald Trump, uh, and that, uh, it was better [41:46] not to litigate, uh, as aggressively around it. And, and look, I think that in general, [41:55] people have underreacted to Donald Trump, not overreacted. [41:58] Yeah. And, and where we find ourselves is, um, I mean, I, I hate the expression elections have [42:06] consequences. It's like the expression, it is what it is. And, um, Brian Driscoll, the, the, the fired [42:11] former acting head of the FBI for 31 days talks about how it is what it is, is, you know, just this [42:18] resignation, something that people say who used to fight, but no longer fight. I, I think that's weak. [42:24] I think that's giving up. I mean, I wonder if you feel confident that enough people are sort of [42:32] rested, um, staying corrected about the threat Trump faces and ready to sort of take the country [42:39] to the other side of this in 2026 and 2028. I'm not sure there are, I hope. Um, you know, [42:45] one of the things that always causes me some concern is people will say, um, you know, [42:53] we are heading towards dot, dot, dot. Yeah. No, we're there. And I'm like, we're there. [42:58] Yeah. Like Gary, like there's a, there's a, there is even now in many quarters, a, [43:03] like a, a, an emotional need to suggest that we are not yet at the point. Yeah. [43:08] We're there. And I'm like, no, no, we're there. I don't know. It's maybe it's my disposition, but I, [43:13] I certainly hope that, uh, we, that we are able to rally enough support against not just what Donald [43:23] Trump will do around the elections. Cause I think there, I do think we will, we will beat back the [43:27] attacks on free and fair elections. It'll be a little messy, but I think we'll do it. I'm actually [43:32] worried more about the second two years of his term. And the question at that point is, is, are we [43:40] able to continue to keep people, um, vigilant and engaged when political prosecutions become really [43:49] routine? And it was, and this question came up about like, whether people are just getting kind [43:55] of a nerd to it all. Are they? On some things for sure. I mean, there's a lot less outrage now than [44:05] there was. I mean, you know, the, the, the treatment of immigrants is still pretty deplorable and like, [44:10] that's not, that's not dominating the news. Um, you know, we, we, we won a case, um, the other day, [44:19] literally just a couple of days ago in which a federal judge found that the Trump administration [44:27] had intentionally discriminated against new citizens, uh, by prohibiting nonprofit organizations [44:39] from registering them to vote. Now, think about this for a second. If you wanted to be sure that [44:44] the only people you were registering to vote were in fact, U S citizens, would there be a better place [44:49] to go than literally the naturalization ceremony when you are registering the people who have just [44:55] raised their hand and taken the oath and have become U S citizens? Like literally at that moment, [45:00] like by your government, by your, by your government, like literally at that moment, [45:04] you could be certain that the people you're registering are citizens. Right. [45:08] And the administration banned nonprofits from doing that, including, um, our clients. So we went to [45:14] court and we won. And I kind of think maybe, maybe I'm wrong. I kind of think there was a time, [45:22] certainly in the first Trump presidency, maybe at the beginning that would have been big news. [45:27] And now I think people think, oh yeah, well, of course, of course, of course, [45:31] they're trying to disenfranchise newly sworn in citizens. So I do worry about it. [45:36] I worry that people, I think people appreciated what a big moment Minneapolis was. I feel like it's [45:42] the moment when people woke up, when people recognized like you, you kind of have to be [45:46] a lawyer to understand the impact of big law, sitting this out that they created so much of [45:51] that legal infrastructure for the, um, I mean, the first line of that Paul Weiss story is about [45:56] how Brad Karp had a picture of a family that Paul Weiss lawyers had helped reunify. I didn't know that [46:01] big law firms did that and you've educated me as well. But I, I do think that when the people of [46:08] Minneapolis and Chicago and LA sort of stepped into the breach where, where, where big law and where, [46:14] where, you know, university protests had decided to take, not just take a pass, but capitulate, [46:20] I think people thought, oh, well, the people have it. Well, that has to be sustained. And, and I worry [46:25] that, you know, people are still being hurt and denied access to legal representation and healthcare, [46:33] children are being separated, children are being detained. And there is a, um, there is a numbness [46:39] to it. And I worry about that a lot. And I think, by the way, so we talk about an all society approach. [46:45] I think Minneapolis is actually a really good example. Uh, one of the, one of the oddities, [46:51] I'm sure the, uh, soon to be governor of, of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar will correct me. She will [46:57] say it is not an oddity, but one of the, uh, one of the things about Minneapolis and about Minnesota is it [47:02] has a very large number of fortune 500 companies. I mean, for given the state's population, it really, [47:08] it punches well above its weight. So you can say, look, why wasn't Paul Weiss [47:13] in Minneapolis? Why, why weren't the other big new law firms? What about the corporations [47:18] headquartered in Minneapolis? Like what about General Mills? Like what about Target? You know, [47:24] what about 3M, right? These are all like, you know, or the medical device companies like there, [47:28] there are enormous companies headquartered right there. And I mean, were they doing anything? [47:35] Did Target like offer free supplies? You know, to general bills, make packages of food, [47:41] like where the legal departments in those companies, like, were they doing anything? [47:45] And so I, I think that we oftentimes throw our hands up and think Donald Trump is all powerful. [47:53] The federal government's all powerful. And sure, maybe if these really large law firms did something, [47:59] that'd be great. And maybe if these really, you know, gigantic media conglomerates did something, [48:05] that'd be great. But like there, there are people who can take action. I don't mean the individuals, [48:11] I mean, you know, multi-billion dollar corporations that could be doing so much more right now that are, [48:17] that are just not. Do you think that changes after the midterms, [48:21] if Democrats take control of the House and Senate? No, I, I, I think that it will not because Donald [48:27] Trump will still be in the White House, which is why I'm worried. Like, the thing is, um, I had [48:31] someone on Capitol Hill say this to me once, uh, about McConnell, when Democrats were saying, you know, [48:38] why don't Democrats just shut down the Senate? And the answer was, this was in the first Trump [48:43] administration, is Donald Trump doesn't want to pass any laws. McConnell just wants to do judges. [48:49] And you actually shutting down the Senate floor doesn't do away with nominations. Like it doesn't, [48:54] it doesn't solve that. Right. Donald Trump losing control of Congress, like, [48:58] what law does he want to pass? Other than the Save Act, which he can't pass. Like, [49:02] Donald Trump's not into the whole legislation thing. Right. And doesn't, doesn't care if the [49:06] military goes unpaid. Like we've done this already. Yeah. It doesn't care. So I think the, [49:10] the thing I'm worried about with Donald Trump is people think, okay, Democrats have the House, [49:13] Democrats have the Senate, uh, and Donald Trump's a lame duck. And they will not be paying as close [49:19] attention to all of the terrible things he is doing. What gives you hope? Look, Nicole, I, I, [49:27] I told you this story the last time I was on your podcast. When I was 13, I was studying for my bar [49:36] mitzvah. One week we had a guy who was not in fact, um, a Holocaust survivor. He was actually [49:42] an American citizen, a U S citizen who had served in the military and had been captured by the Nazis. [49:51] Uh, so this was a Jewish soldier who was a prisoner of war, literally held by the Nazis in a Stalag. [49:59] And so the Jewish soldiers, him and some others got this idea that what they were going to do [50:03] was go to the perimeter of the camp and get a piece of little pieces of barbed wire. And they [50:09] were going to poke holes in the produce so that it would rot. And I remember him saying that, [50:16] you know, one of the worst things was potatoes because they're really debts and that he would [50:20] poke holes in these potatoes. And so I, I think I always, I think about this every day, like here is [50:26] this kid who's like 19 years old. He is being held literally by the Nazis. And he comes up with the idea [50:34] that what he's going to do every day is to poke holes in food, including potatoes till his fingers [50:41] are bleeding because it's going to starve the Nazi war effort and the Americans are going to win. [50:49] And so what gives me hope is like, I don't think that I am going to solve the problems of democracy, [50:55] but every single day I am poking holes in the potatoes, like every single day, whether I win [50:59] in court, whether I lose in court, I'm just going to poke holes in the potato. And I'm going to take hope [51:05] in that if we do that, it will be enough to save democracy. Now I know more, uh, when I'm in my [51:14] realistic moments and my dark moments, I don't think that that's going to have any more success [51:19] than the poking than the, than the POW, but what else are we going to do, Nicole? Like what else am [51:24] I going to do other than try? I think that's it. We're going to keep poking the potatoes. [51:30] Yeah. Mark Elias, thank you so much. Thank you.