Harry Litman [00:00]: Welcome to Talking Feds, a round table that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Litman—I’m a former United States Attorney and the legal affairs columnist for the LATimes opinion page. We are at a significant inflection point in the country’s all-consuming struggle with COVID-19, and the country itself seems to be dividing along its seams.
In the last few days, states like Georgia and Texas have begun a process of ending their shelter-in-place orders. It’s not tied to any scientific or medical assessment—for instance, two weeks of declining numbers of cases—but rather comes down to people being sick of the restrictions and in acute need of resuming economic life. And like everything else in the country during the last 3+ years, the divergences among states track preexistent red-blue division and fault lines of support or opposition to President Trump.
So in other states where orders remain in place, we’re now seeing the breakout of demonstrations, typically by Trump supporters, and with organized support from deep pocketed far right activists. Much of the blame for the polarization lies directly at the feet of Trump and the White House, who, when not dispensing unvetted advice like maybe people should swallow bleach, continue to whip up the anti-government sentiments of the base and dole out critical equipment according to raw political calculations. It’s the same Trump playbook except here the botched and politicized plays pose serious danger for human life.
No aspect of the Trump Presidency is immune from Trump’s divisiveness and base self-interest. And that goes in spades (CAN ONE STILL SAY THAT?) for intelligence and homeland security, areas that need above all to run on candor and credibility. Talking Feds listeners remember that we’ve approached these areas in a special way, namely in complete unmediated discussion among the experts. And so again today, we are back as flies on the wall in the Double Agent Bar and Grill, the fictional watering hole where high-level intelligence officials and former officials gather in no-holds-barred back and forth discussion about what’s on their minds. So we return now to the table in the back where a phenomenal group is airing their frustrations at the Administration’s srong-headedness on the virus. They are Kate Brennan is the editorial director of Just Security and a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft center on international security at the Atlantic council. Frank Filgiuzzi who is NBC news national security contributor. Frank is the former FBI assistant director for counter intelligence. Juliette Kayyem a national security analyst at CNN. She's the senior bell for lecture in international security at Harvard Kennedy school, and she served as president Obama's assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. And Sam Vingorad, also a CNN national security analyst and the former senior advisor to the national security advisor under President Obama.
As we fade in to the table in the back, Frank is describing his appearance an hour before on MSNBC to discuss the president's declaration that whatever his intelligence officials tell him, he knows that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.
Frank Figliuzzi [03:51]: You know, it's funny how intelligence seems to intersect with just about everything. So, you know, just when I thought, well, I won't be on, uh, anytime this week, here comes the request to talk about Trump's, uh, assertion that he's seen intelligence, uh, indicating that this virus came from the lab and, uh, Wuhan. And so I was trying to deal with, um, you know, statements that the media is construing are inconsistent between the DNIS office saying, ‘Hey, it's naturally occurring virus. We don't see any evidence of enhancement or weaponization.’ And, and then the president is saying, “Well, I think, you know, I've seen something saying it came from a lab.” Those are not mutually exclusive, although there's virtually no evidence that it came from a lab, but, during the anthrax attacks, we learned that it was coming from likely Fort Dietrich, Maryland in a laboratory. So, they're not mutually exclusive. Do I think Trump is exploiting this for politics and finger pointing at China and we're going to get endless bashing of China until the election? You bet. But I was just trying to correct the record. That's something can be both natural and come from a lab at the same time.
Sam Venograd [04:55]: This is Sam and you know, Frank, your explanation makes a lot of sense. I think the president kind of, gosh, what's a polite way of saying this? Uh, make stuff up oftentimes, but in general, in terms of what the information could have shown. You know, oftentimes there is raw intelligence that may include a source talking about, um, you know, a particular issue, um, you know, a manmade weapon or this, this or that. I think the real issue here, and we saw this play out a little bit with the Kim Jong-un scenario, may be the difference between kind of raw intelligence and the low confidence assessments and a high confidence assessment by the DNI, by the intelligence community. That includes verified intelligence.
And I think oftentimes in the media, we mix this up and just talk about intelligence when I don't know what Trump's are or didn't see, but it is possible that there was some stream of reporting that did indicate that this was coming from the lab, manmade or what have you. The issue is that the ODNI issued a really unprecedented statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, Frank, I really haven't seen anything like that about an ongoing intelligence product as long as I can remember. But we have to kind of disaggregate between raw intelligence, low and medium confidence assessments, and then a coordinated assessment by the US intelligence community. Like, for example, what we saw in January 2017 with the Russian interference intelligence community assessment.
Frank Figliuzzi [6:24]: Yeah, I, I, you're right. Sam. And, uh, he could be seeing a nugget of information. I would assume, and I'm in the, I want to caveat this by saying I, I'm not in the community anymore, but I would assume that there's been some intercepts of interest or even human reporting, especially early on that would just for example, just have Chinese officials in the very early stages discussing amongst themselves, ‘Where did this come from?’
Could it have come from us from the lab, and I'm sure that's sitting somewhere on a shelf and maybe the president saw that and is taking liberties with it.
Kate Brannen [6:54]: This is Kate. I feel like with Trump, you don't even need to do this level of analysis. He could have just read, like, you know, there was a lab in Wuhan that handled these kinds of viruses and he could have just decided like, yeah, that's enough for me to go on. Like ok, that seems like enough evidence to assert this. So I feel like it could even be something we've all read in the newspaper that he's just decided is proof enough for him to make these wild allegations.
Frank Figliuzzi [7:18]: Yeah if Jared, if Jared mentioned it, it's good as gold. So it's probably, it's probably the case, but imagine how this, where this positions the intelligence community, they're really between a rock and a hard place as they've been throughout the tenure of this administration.
But they want to be honest brokers of the truth to the White House and tell them what they know. Tell them what they don't know. But everything they give him runs.--there's a risk that he twists it. It perverts it to his own cause. And the irony is at a time when the world needs China to be as transparent as possible, and scientists need to find out what this virus looked like from day one and who patient zero really was, our president seems really intent on pissing off China to the point where they're just going to close down completely.
Sam Venograd [08:01]: Yeah. And that's where, you know, that's where the politics come into play. But it's interesting, I think, Frank, you and I talked about this on a previous podcast, but Trump clearly has thrown the intelligence community under the bus multiple times and really cherry picked intelligence to suit political needs rather than, than policy ones. The interesting twist here is that currently the guy that he's appointed to serve as the acting DNI, the acting director of national intelligence is Rick Grinnell, a Trump loyalist. So it really goes to show that even when one of Trump's henchmen is leading an agency or department. He's not going to listen to that agency or department. But Rick Grenell, despite being a Trump pick, can't control him. Um, and with respect to what the administration is doing towards China right now, we have a reality here, which is that we are dependent on China for a lot of things right now. Whether that be medical equipment and other supplies related to coronavirus or just supply chains related to our economy more generally, as well as Frank, as you just mentioned, information about the virus. So this is kind of like the worst time to be ostracizing China.
We have had such an incoherent approach to China throughout the course of this virus. You know, we were. Placating Trump was placating China, and then we were calling it the Wuhan virus and the China virus. Then extensively, the Chinese may have threatened to cut off supply chains and we were back to a truce in the war of words. Like, I have intellectual whiplash trying to figure out what the national security team is going to do towards China next. And I think that really speaks to the lack of any national security. leadership coming out of the West Wing right now, save for whatever Trump views is in his political best interests. That seems to be kind of the compass for where Trump goes on China.
Kate Brannen [9:50]: It's so tied to November and them trying to come up with something to campaign on. Like, it's not, uh, keep America great cause the economy is rubbish. And, um, no one I think would be like, whipped into a frenzy about the wall right now. So, I think part of it too is clearly like coming up with a new enemy and I had someone to blame for this disaster that they've essentially allowed to unfold.
Juliette Kayyem [10:17]: Yeah. I mean, if you think, this is Juliette. You know, this is a White House that does Homeland security response based on elections. I've never seen anything like it where, I mean, I've never seen anything so obvious like it. I mean, obviously, you know, politics have been around crisis management since, since the beginning. But, you know, the idea that a president would based on a Republican senator, rather than a Democratic governor distribute ventilators or say that the Democratic governors are not going to have to, you know, be nicer to him for him to provide additional assets for the response. It's just, you know, this is not a straight shooter. This is not a person worthy of, of the title, as I would say. But we fight a pandemic with the president we have, not the president we want. So we move forward. And I think they're looking at the demographics of these women who, uh, are worried about their parents as well as their children. And elderly who are worried about whether this president cares whether they live or not, to the extent that his disciples seem to go on air and suggest that an 80 year old dying is perfectly fine because they were going to die anyway. Um, so I, I just, it's hard for me to think that anything that Trump does isn't laden with politics at the stage and the politics related to 2020. Including not just China, but the distribution of supplies and all the other goodies that are coming down the pike.
Kate Brannen [11:38]: The other problem is with all things Trump, they're like completely incoherent dueling narratives where this has been a huge success and everything's great, and they have really strong death totals. And also it's completely China's fault for everything that's gone wrong and the disaster that we're in.
Frank Figliuzzi [11:57]: And my concern is, you know, that we're going to, in a way, repeat kind of the Ukraine IG report scandal. But yet we're not. By that I mean, you know, you talked about the DNI issuing a statement that I think was rightfully designed to calm people down. Hey, there's no scientific evidence that this thing's weaponized and calm down.
And so now he appears to be at odds with Trump who wants to say, ‘Hey, it came from a lab and we'll figure this out.’ But Trump's removed the inspectors general largely. And not only the one that was Glen fine, who was supposed to oversee the stimulus money, uh, but, but also the intelligence community, IG. So here we are likely, there's, there's presidential daily briefings that clearly show this was brief multiple times by some reports a dozen times to the White House. And there's probably someone queued up and maybe multiple people queued up ready to make or have already made an IG complaint that says, ‘Hey, I briefed this and are we’--what do people think about whether or not we're ever going to see such a complaint see the light of day?
Juliette Kayyem [12:58]: I think, Frank, this is such a good point. I think this is worse than, uh, the intelligence leading up to 9/11. As we know from the books and the 9/11 commission, the Bush White House was guilty of nonfeasance, right? In other words, they just couldn't get their head around the fact that Bin Laden, you know, so he got the USS Cole that was in Yemen, right? This was a very different thing, would actually attack in the Homeland. This to me is so much worse because it's a, it's a president who's, who's getting the intelligence and performing malfeasance because he's actually going out to the American public and on Fox News and to reporters and saying the exact opposite of what he knows the intelligence is telling him. This is not, uh, negligence, right? This is a man who knew that this was not contained. That we had essentially nine or ten weeks to get ready. That did not get us ready, didn't prepare us, the American public, which is a huge part of pandemic preparedness. Like, didn't prepare governors and mayors who were having major events well into late February, early March, including Mardi Gras, where the governor of Louisiana said, “You know, no one told me.” So to me, this story is so reflective of why we are where we are right now. But also of the sort of stench that sort of comes out of President Trump in the sense of just affirmatively lying. We better be happy if it's just 75,000 dead, cause no one I know who's working this now believes that that number by the end of the year short of 200,000 is real.
Sam Venograd [14:37]: This is Sam. Just to Frank, on your excellent question about oversight. I think that really depends who's in the Oval Pffice and who's in the Senate next year. There, at an appropriate time, there needs to be oversight about exactly what Juliette is talking about, which is intent here. You know, during 9/11, the president didn't intend as far as we know, to put American lives at risk. It wasn't kind of a witting act to expose Americans to harm. Here, we know that the president had access to intelligence indicating the truth about the threat of the virus and disregarded it for, I guess, again, I'm not going to pretend to understand what goes on in the president's head, but. Because he didn't want to rile up the economy.
Even though, obviously the economy is in a much in much worse shape right now. He didn't want to get into it with China and he had other political things that he needed to take care of. So the president knowingly disregarding warnings, not just from the intelligence community -- from Peter Navarro, from health experts, from members of the media that were not on Fox News. There was a knowing disregard for information that could have saved American lives. And then to Juliet's point, there needs to be oversight over the politicization of preparedness and responsiveness. So, whether that oversight happens, whether the DNI IG is allowed to do his job. Whether the House and Senate Intel committees are allowed to do their jobs. I think, unfortunately, that just really depends whether Trump wins reelection, because under this president, the administration will do what they did during impeachment hearings. They'll stymie any oversight efforts and calls for documents, calls for witnesses, et cetera. Uh, so I think that's, that's unfortunately really what it depends on.
Kate Brannen [16:17]: On that point, Sam, I was remembering the other day that in the early days of this, the intelligence chiefs were supposed to go to the Hill and give their, the global threat assessment, which happens every year. And the Trump administration basically shut that down and said it's not happening. And whether or not they were going to brief on the pandemic threat, it would at least have been an opportunity for lawmakers who are paying attention to the news to ask about it. And an opportunity for the public to maybe just put it on their radar.
And it feels like such a classic example of, Trump shutting down access for Congress and to perform their oversight role. But also, like, clearly a real missed opportunity in terms of us becoming slightly more aware in February of what's coming down the pipe.
Sam Venograd [16:59]: I couldn't agree more, Kate. And from what I recall, there was reporting at the time that the DNI canceled that worldwide threat assessment, which is given every year, because they didn't want to upset the president. I remember being on air on this last year when the intelligence community, uh, talked about several topics which upset the president.
One was that North Korea was never going to give up their nuclear weapons because they were critical to the regime's survival. And then their assessment on Iran led president Trump to say that the intelligence community should go back to school and that the intelligence community was naive et cetera. So I you, we can all see why they're, the IC might be worried about upsetting Trump. The unfortunate part is that the intelligence community and I, I was not a part of it--just work closely with the IC--does not function based upon presidential emotions. Their job is to provide unbiased information, speak truth to power, and adhere to other ethics. So I totally agree. I think it is almost impossible that if this briefing had gone forward the Coronavirus would not have come up because we know that the IC was tracking this issue at the time. We also know that the intelligence community has been tracking the threat of a pandemic every year and has warned about this, but it kind of just all goes back to what unfortunately is the new norm under this administration. Is that intelligence and information is whatever the president says it is, rather than the unbiased product of experts that are seeking to advance national security.
Frank Figliuzzi [16:27]: So how many people think the next DNI between now and the election is a guy named Mike Flynn.
Sam Venograd [18:33]: Oh, God.
Juliette Kayyem [18:35]: That was so interesting. I mean, everyone thinks that elections are important. This one seems particularly important. We don't need to get too political, but I do want to raise a choice ahead, only for purposes of the world that I am in, which is not the intel world, but the Homeland security response world, which has its own challenges right now, obviously. The, the issue for the next president, I should just, place us where we are right now: We are opening up too soon. Uh, opening up in quotes. This country is opening up too soon.
Well, I do know where they're getting from that somehow we've succeeded. Um, uh, we are nowhere close to where any nation opened up. This is an experiment. We're living in a real time. And anyone who. Is arguing for opening upneeds to just state clearly that, that, uh, that there will be more deaths.
And so hiding behind, you know, all the, all the euphemisms that we hear people say about, you know, open up the economy and, um, and everyone's getting cranky is just, you know, I mean, let's just be real, we're just making a choice. And that's what countries do when it comes to security. I will say though, it's going to be a grim year and will continue to be a grim year. But the news of the day of is, of course both--or the news of the last 48 hours is of course--there's going to be more tools to fight the virus.
This gets to, you know, it depends on who the next president is that if you think that this only ends as I do really ends, um, uh, with the vaccine, you know, we're going to live funky, and we're just going to live differently and we have to accept that.
But if the vaccine is the ultimate sort of the viruses dead, uh, the next president will be overseeing the largest and fastest, uh, and probably most pressing vaccine distribution program in the history of mankind. I don't even mean in the history of the United States. People often ask me,you know, “What are you scared about?” I said I'm worried about a lot of things. I'm only scared about one thing, and that would be that thendecision for the vaccine is based on the same politics that the decision to ignore intelligence was, which is not any way to run a vaccine program.
So choices about who goes first, second, third, fourth, and last in terms of vaccine distribution are ones that only a federal government makes.
Frank Figliuzzi [20:41]: Juliette, are there models for, or plans for how you are supposed to look at distributing a vaccine? Is there something on the shelf?
Juliette Kayyem [20:49]: Yeah, as I, as I like to say, the plans were there, no one read them. I mean, we did this for H1N1 is very different. And, but I think that's actually a better model than Ebola, just because of its impact in the US. But we have a system that's called, called the pod system. It's, this is really wonky, but points of distribution, those exist in each state. It's delivered to the state. The federal government does prioritization standards. So because the vaccine, you know, it doesn't come in one box. It's just, you know, as a wave of manufacturing comes through. And so you always first as our first responders and our military, for obvious reasons, and border, uh, as the case with H1N1. And then you have to pick which states get it first.
And obviously they were, they were Republican States. But it was obvious that it was going to be the border states like in the, like it didn't even cross your mind. And this is the thing that scares me is those decisions are--have to be made by White House. Cause you, you've just got a supply chain, you know, in real time.
And you're just saying, ‘Okay, came in, where are we sending it to?’ And boy, what I've seen in the last 12 weeks, I have no confidence that those decisions will be made on science. You know, these are hard decisions. I mean, Frank, like the one I stay up late at night about is, you know, the decision that someone's going to have to make Is when once you pick which States and where, you know there's population choices. So do you pick elderly to go first because they're more likely to die. Or do you pick 30 and younger because they're more likely to be transmitters? You, you answer that question and you get to be president, right? I mean, these are not easy questions.
Frank Figliuzzi [22:21]: Boy. Yeah. You just, now you've got me worried cause I, you're right. If the president continues and wins reelection, I could see this turning into, just as he handled the PP, as you were saying, I could see this a free for all amongst the states who are bidding. Trying to get the highest bid in for vaccines from different companies and then the federal government confiscating those shipments. That would be a mess.
Kate Brannen [22:43]: I'm sitting here in Brooklyn. I've got three little kids all under the age of seven, and I've just got my eye on September and thinking about school and, you know, what, what about childcare? What about, school in September, what does this all look like? That's what's keeping me up at night. But I'm curious what other people have on their minds and probably a more security, um, intelligence, context than just who's going to take care of my kids?
Frank Figliuzzi [23:06]: So I got to tell ya, I, from where I come from, with the law enforcement/Intel background, I'm just continuing to watch protests unfold that are really getting troubling. And there's one that's going on in the LA area and, uh, it's out of control. What are they protesting? They want to go to the beach. And, we're seeing long guns and assault weapons showing up in state capitals. We're seeing people that have violent militia backgrounds. We're seeing symbols of hate. We're seeing, we're hearing hate speech by these, some of these speakers. This isn't so much about liberties as it is about looking for a cause and there's people looking for a fight. And I'm very concerned, um, that these are going to go violent and, and actually that can be contained by law enforcement, but quite frankly,, these are spreading the virus. There's no question about it. And so you've got, you've got that issue. And then if you start introducing, there's been some sign in the last 24 hours that counter protesters are showing up. Well, that's a recipe for disaster. And so I've got, I'm pretty attuned to that right now.
Kate Brannen [24:05]: This is Kate. I saw the protest. A photo of the protest that was in Albany, either today or, yeah, I think it was today. And it was like puny. It was really small. And, um, I was reassured living in New York City that that's the case, and I thought it must be tied to the fact that it's not an abstract issue here. It's certainly not an abstract issue in New York City, but I think across the state, I mean, it's more abstract, um, in the northern parts of the state, you know, versus Long Island and stuff. But it's not abstract here. And it just feels like that so many parts of this country are intent on experiencing this, like in person, they have to see it with their own eyes. And I would just implore-we don't have a president who's conveying this message, which is: take New York's word for it. Like you don't bring this to your, to your town or to your local hospital. And to believe to believe the science and to believe the scientists. And of course that's not the message coming from the White House. And it's just so depressing to think that other places are going to have to go through what New York went through. It's like if we've sacrificed as much and this many people for nothing, it's just hugely depressing.
Sam Venograd [25:12]: And this is Sam. I play the long game here, and for me, what I'm most worried about is the longer term national security impacts of this stuff. Like namely, I'm thinking about how other countries have gained in credibility while we've been weakened during this period. So whether it's through selling disinformation. the image of the United States is disorganized. Foreign governments, I think arrivals in particular feel like they've gotten one direct insight into vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and in kind of the US governance experiment. B) the image of the United States has turn is generally from a leadership and credibility perspective.
And then finally, the fact of the matter is that we had to grossly reprioritize resources to meet the emergency, to meet the coronavirus response. That's everyone from the intelligence community to the Pentagon, to the State Department, to USAID and humanitarian assistance. I am deeply worried about all the work we weren't able to do during this period.
You know, North Korea didn't stop producing nuclear weapons during this period. Terrorist groups didn’t stop planning. Iran's nuclear program is advancing the launch of a satellite into space last week that was more technologically advanced, the list continues. So we will mitigate this, this, this pandemic, eventually, Juliettw has a much better sense of when that will be, but then national security recovery from this could could take a generation.
Frank Figliuzzi [26:36]: This is a great point. From a counter intelligence standpoint, there has been so much that our adversaries and our allies can learn about us during this period. And watching a leader under crisis is probably the best way to evaluate his capabilities and his administration's capabilities.
So, if you're Russia, China, or for that matter, if you're in the UK or anybody, just sitting back saying, how is this guy Trump responding and what, how capable is his government? You're seeing things like, Oh, they removed a US Navy, captain of the, of the USS Roosevelt because he was trying to save his sailors.
Oh, okay. Um, then they got so confused. They ended up removing the guy who removed him. Oh, and the President is going to speak at the West Point graduation here, thereby endangering their leaders, their future leaders, lieutenants in the army who are going to have to fly back into a hot zone, New York City and then quarantine for two weeks so that Trump can deliver a speech to them. So the Commander-in-Chief will endanger troops’ lives for his own ego. These are learning moments, um, from a counterintel perspective for the world. And, they're not learning much good about us right now.
Juliette Kayyem [27:44]: I think for me, our supply chain is starting to show tremendous stress. So I think about it from a Homeland security perspective, not just for health and medical related equipment and gear and assets. But now of course, what we're starting to hear about meat and other critical infrastructure, Homeland security focuses its response on making sure our critical infrastructure holds up. And one of them is food, and food security. There's just too many people sick in this country. That's having an impact on everything, from the critical infrastructure of food and agriculture supply to also public safety is a critical infrastructure. You're seeing the numbers out of New York. At one stage, 25% of New York police department was either infected or had to be isolated. They've had more deaths then occurred on the day of 9/11. That does not include the later deaths related to, you know, the smoke and dust inhalation.
Kate Brannen [28:37]: I was going to return to it what Sam was talking about too, of just about leadership and American leadership and what's been lost. You know, thinking about the election and the analysis that was going on before any of this happened. You know, the world was sort of watching to see if Trump going to get reelected and if he doesn't, then maybe it was a not an anomalous event. And you know, the US can kind of claw its way back to a position of respect and leadership. But if he gets reelected, obviously it's, you know, it's time to sort of write off the United States longer term. I think that with the Trump administration's response to the pandemic and the extent to which, you know, we've had this out of control outbreak in this country. I think that's accelerated that process of just, you know, a diminishment of the United States in the world's eyes. And the way we're handling it now with the protests. You know, Trump continues with the ‘inject disinfectant into your lungs.’ I mean, it's just all like beyond parody. And I think that the world is sort of reshocked by it. What's going on here.
Juliette Kayyem [29:42]: I think there is going to be a narrative about the United States based on a response and that is of a society so polarized, and this could all change, right? But a sense that America does not operationally function either.
That's the thing that sort of gets me on the Homeland security. It's not just the intel, it's say, how the hell do we not have enough masks? I'm just asking a basic question here. I don't understand it. Like it's, it's a, it's a commodity that's easy to make and it's one that we knew we needed.
And I mean, I know I can answer that, right? We didn't invoke the right tools. We did not compel the companies.. We were selling it abroad in January and February as if we weren't gonna need it. But that to me is going to be one of the legacies. You know, that, that the pipes were working, so to speak, is going to be long gone.
Kate Brannen [30:30]: That's such a good point, Juliette. I think that this has exposed that we're in this mess partly because of him, but from our healthcare system to the inequality it is exposed to. Um, you who's dying, who's able to get healthcare. It's a country with much more serious sort of deeper problems that it has to solve before it can be taken seriously.
Juliette Kayyem [30:54]: Yeah, you know, the crisis hits a nation as it is, not as we wish it to be. Right? There's lots of things we wish right now, healthcare, better workers' rights, no racism as we're starting to see against Asian Americans and others. But those will be exacerbated over the months to come. And the problem with having a president who's guided this response as a sort ofnin the articles of Confederation fashion rather than in the United States of America fashion, is that how to get out of this is going to be 50 different ways. And so, you know, while states have been, I've been very critical of the sort of open up, don't open up dichotomy. I'm not happy that states are opening up. I think we probably have another month in us, but, I accept where things are heading, but I do think that Republican governors are opening up more carefully than they're giving credit for.
Democratic governors are opening up more carelessly than they are being criticized for. It's complicated, but most, not all, not all. I would say 45 of them are actually taking itt relatively seriously. The plans I've seen, um, are more thoughtful. I mean, you know, they're, but they're all based on this fantasy that somehow we have flattened the curve nationally and we just haven't. And so, whatever we see happening right now, I just worry about the months ahead. If you extend the death rate to the end of the year, which is, it seems to me the legitimate thing to do, all the modeling that the White House is doing ends in August, July, or August. There's no way we don't get above a hundred if not closer to two to one 50 or 200 and most people are now looking at those numbers. What does it mean for a nation?
Sam Venograd [32:31] : Well, I think also, you know, Frank, you touched on the counter intelligence aspect of this, but from a, from a direct level, foreign adversaries got direct insights into two related things.
One is how easy it is for this cookie to crumble. You know, you kind of assume that the most powerful nation in the world, it will take more to cause mass chaos, such horrific divisions and such panic. Here we saw kind of the breakdown of governments and we're still seeing it happen right before our eyes.
So that's kind of lesson number one. Lesson number two is, I think that foreign intelligence services have gotten, in addition to having kind of direct insights into the president's mania, not only because of his daily hour long press briefings, and I'm putting briefings in quotes, but also got direct insights into vulnerabilities in our infrastructure, like where our soft spots are.
And where it is easy to cause problems, disrupt supply chains and that sort of thing. And I think that's normally the kind of stuff that foreign intelligence services have to work a really long time for, to get access to that content. And that was, that was something that was very new and just kind of an added bonus for them during this period.
Frank Figliuzzi [33:41]: Yeah, I, you know, we, we thought we would have learned our lesson in the 2016 presidential election where a foreign nation interfered with our election process and did it very cheaply and it was on the cheap. It wasn't very sophisticated. You know, we've indicted a couple of dozen Russians, including a dozen Russian intelligence officers, and so for very little money, they messed with us and social media propaganda and hacking it.
Now, we're doing it all by ourselves. We've got people protesting at state capitals and beaches. I've got to tell you, the Russian Intel services must be just sitting back and going, ‘Wow, we didn't do any of this there. They're, they're killing themselves.’ And it's,you're right, it doesn't take much for this to crumble.
And we are still that vulnerable experiment. And this thing is an over, uh, we, we are likely looking at a resurgence of the virus. And I don't even know if it's correct to say a resurgence as, as many, many of you have said, we're, we're just at a plateau. So, I think if you're a fly on the wall in the Kremlin or in Beijing right now, you're going. Yup. They did this all by themselves.
Kate Brannen [34:46]: I also have to put myself in my shoes before this happened.I was looking at 2020, pretty freaked out because I thought, you know, that there's a contested election possibly in our future in the United States.
Um, and what's going to happen to this place when that happens? And. That's still sitting there emits this. So, it's crazy to think now we're going to layer a pandemic on top of that, but that still is,a real possibility.
Juliette Kayyem [35:11]: We're about to enter into a stage never seen before in American history or American crisis management, which is, we will be recovering while we are living with the enemy. And what I mean by that is most of the time a hurricane comes, a tornado comes, you know, you respond. That's what first responders do. And then the recovery happens after the tornado or the hurricane or the terrorist attack is done.
We're about to experience one, two, maybe more years, where we are living with the enemy and we're dancing with it, we're managing around it, we're whackamoling in it, we're socially distancing from it. And the good news is there'll be more tools to work with it, right? There'll be treatments and better testing and, and, uh, better ways that we live. But it's going to be a very, very interesting couple of years. And, I don't think this president has prepared the American public for what's in store. The way we live, the way we work, the way we play, the way we love, even.
So that's what I think about a lot. I think we can do it. I'm pretty optimistic. We we can do it. It's just, it would be nice to have a president who understood, uh, how different it is.
Harry Litman [34:46]: And there's an end, we leave for now. Kate, Frank, Juliet, and Sam with thanks for letting us eavesdrop on their conversation at the double agent bar and grill. Thank you very much listeners for tuning in to talking feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts, and please take a moment to rate and review this podcast.
You can follow us on Twitter @talkingfedspod to find out about future episodes and other feds related content, including our series of one-on-one conversations with prospective vice-presidential selections by democratic nominee to be Joseph Biden. And you can also check us out on the web, Talkingfeds.com, where we have full episode transcripts.
Submit your questions to questions@talkingfeds.com whether it's for our five words or fewer feature or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our sidebar segments. Thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the feds will keep talking. Talking feds is produced by Jennifer Bassett, Anthony limos and Rebecca lo Patton, this episode edited by Justin, right.
David Lieberman and Rosie Griffin are our contributing writers production assistance by Sarah Philippoussis and Sam Trachtenberg. Thanks as always to the amazing Phillip glass who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of LLC. I'm Harry Litman. See you next time. .