At the end of the day, it’s still a group of lawyers: “Everyone also knows that everyone’s headstrong. A bunch of egomaniacal lawyers, no one’s going to be like, ‘Yes, sir.’ … Everyone’s on their own. Everyone’s a free agent, more or less.”
Do some of the people on the call align their positions as a result of their discussions? Yes, probably. That can sound nefarious, but it is also the natural result of a group discussion that is working properly. People refine and clarify their positions. They find points of agreement that might surprise them. Their areas of disagreement become narrower, more precise.
The conversations, though, could also spread dubious analysis, or perhaps lead to wish-casting. The effort to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment never really had a chance, but many commentators — including some who participated in the calls — publicly argued otherwise. Far too many commentators have also tried to defend the Biden Justice Department’s gallingly slow approach to the criminal investigation into Trump’s efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. (There was only ever one correct answer to what should have happened, despite what you may have heard — incorrectly — about how prosecutors always work from the “bottom up” in situations involving large numbers of potential criminal offenders.)
If you follow the coverage closely enough, though, it’s also apparent that there are material points of disagreement that members of Eisen’s group have been more than willing to air publicly. Honig and Conway had it out on air about the Trump disqualification litigation. The disagreements over Bragg’s prosecution have been evident in the legal commentary as well.
Indeed, Litman recently hosted a subset of the group for “a very different, special episode” of his podcast where they discussed Trump’s criminal cases. Eisen, Rubin, Mariotti, Toobin, McCord, Dean, Ornstein, Agnifilo, Vance, Wu and Honig were all in attendance. It was a lively exchange of views with some limited points of disagreement — and it was also, with all due respect to everyone involved, instantly disposable.
After all, perhaps the greatest obstacle to coordinating any sort of party line on Trump’s legal problems is that they are constantly in flux, and that the metabolism of modern media encourages people to develop views quickly — perhaps too quickly — on novel and complex issues.
One of the guests invited to speak to the group told me that they appreciated the opportunity to talk with media figures who were clearly interested in what they had to say and were eager to learn more. “What was probably going on a lot of the time,” this person told me, was that “they were uncertain of what they had been writing, and this call gave all of us an opportunity to discuss that uncertainty and flesh it out.”
Others told me that they appreciated the opportunity to speak to the group but found it largely unmemorable — another conference call, perhaps, in a sea of conference calls.
The same guest positioned them as a natural fit for our strange political moment. “This is really the first time in American history where the Constitution and laws are front and center at the same time that the politics are front and center in the nation,” they said. “And so for me to get there and be able to talk to them about what you and I are talking about right now, was just a privilege for me.”
Perhaps.
My fellow outcast — the prominent legal commentator who regularly appears on television — suggested to me that we might be better off on the outside of this semi-exclusive gathering of our fellow analysts and pundits. We all talk enough for our jobs, both publicly and privately, and as many well-connected Washingtonians can attest, off-the-record sessions involving political commentators can be as tedious and uninformative as what you can easily get on television and in podcasts.
The commentator was both amused and unfazed by the possibility that we might be missing out on some valuable insights or inside information. Was it worrying — maybe even offensive — to have been excluded?
The commentator looked me straight in the face — eyes wide, eyebrows raised, with a slight smile — and quickly offered a crisp, declarative response.
“I’m fine with that.”
