The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
More on the Phone Call Between Trump and Alito
On Wednesday, I wrote about the ABC News Story on Trump's phone call with Justice Alito. On Thursday, the New York Times offered a far more in-depth, and frankly confounding story. No, not confounding for the reasons you might think. I was confounded that multiple people in Trump's orbit are leaking information to the New York Times to sabotage an Alito clerk from a position in the administration, and in the process creating problems for the Justice.
The story begins:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida. . . .
Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account. . . .
The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
I had to read that last sentence three times to figure out what was going on. (I am a fast writer but a slow reader.) Six people (six!) in Trump's orbit spoke to the New York Times (of all publications!) about an effort to block an Alito clerk from obtaining a high-level appointment. Six is a stunning number. Articles usually cite "several" unnamed sources, but I can't recall seeing a specific number, especially one that was so high. But in the process of talking to New York Times about this internal squabble, these conservatives dragged poor Justice Alito into the maelstrom. Why? Why? Why?
The article continues to describe the situation of William Levi, who clerked for Justice Alito and has a sterling resume:
The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito's who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a "traitor" by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump's advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.
Again, the sourcing here is very precise. Six people spoke about the "totally perfect" phone call. And three of those six were aware of Levi's employment situation.
As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump's former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a "Pompeo guy" or a "Haley person" is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump's inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.
This last part is important. The reason why President Trump, and not a subordinate had to make the call, is that Trump himself had to personally sign off on the hiring. The ethical guidelines provide that "there would be no impropriety in a judge answering an inquiry from a screening committee or appointing authority with respect to the judge's knowledge concerning the qualifications and other relevant factors of a nominee for appointment to any public office." Trump was the "appointing authority" so Justice Alito was allowed to receive the call from him. If Trump was not the final decision maker, I'm not sure that he could have made the call.
People on Team Trump said that Alito requested the call. But Alito said Levi facilitated the call:
Tuesday's phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.
The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi's role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.
This path seems probable. Levi told his former boss about what was going on. Alito said he would be willing to talk to Trump. But Alito did not reach out to Trump. Instead, Levi suggested to Trump that Alito was open to a call from him. And Trump called Alito. This part the sources think "was not clear."
The story continues:
During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito's call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.
Trump, apparently, was a bit confused about what was going on. Maybe he was affected by the "relatively insubstantial" burdens imposed by Judge Merchan on what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett referred to as "the President-Elect's responsibilities." Yes, Trump has a lot legal proceedings this week, on top of President Carter's funeral and changing the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. I think we can cut him just a bit of slack if he was confused.
Nothing about this story makes sense to me.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It beggars belief that one “Trump loyalist” would speak off the record to the NYT, seeing as that would place his cojones (or equivalent) in a jar on a shelf at the NYT. Never mind six.
Which makes me doubt that the story is true.
Um...6 leakers to the NYT on an issue that is going to make lots of enemies. There can't be 6 morons in Trump's inner circle that are trying to destroy their own credibility. I agree with Lee Moore. My inclination is to disbelieve this story is based on reality.
In other words, the NYT is making shit up again. No surprise.
Well other possibilities include - the FBI or some other agency is bugging Trump team communications, or the "people in the know" who are leaking are the guy who fetches the coffee and his dog.
Or perhaps the NYT has hired six willowy supermodels to O'Keefe Trump staffers and scoop up pillow talk.
What would you expect of a "newspaper" that still has a "Pullitzer" based on reporting that said Stalin was doing a great job.
“Pullitzer”
Heh
The best part of this mostly garbage comment section is when you overly partisan dipshits egg each other on to greater and greater flights of absurdity. Do it more!
The NYT does not make up shit. Does it have a liberal bias in choosing what stories to cover? Sure. Does it cover them through a liberal lense? Yeah. But it's not The Federalist or Breitbart or OAN; it doesn't make up stories.
(Yeah, yeah, Jayson Blair. Which was not "the NYT." It was one guy who deceived the NYT.)
Evergreen.
There's just no way Trump could have lost the election...
The difficulty of being a Trump true believer is that Trump is so mercurial and narcissistic that he is easily swayed toward alternate courses by flattery or a good shtick. So the true believers have to include in their job working behind Trump's back to prevent him from subverting his own agenda or working against his own interests. Fortunately, Trump is generally ineffectual (as is often though not always true of highly impulsive actors), so there is little risk that he will find or punish leakers. I mean, is there really anyone who believes that he is canny or competent enough to identify the six leakers and punish them?
I think we can cut him just a bit of slack if he was confused.
Yes, Trumpists are famously understanding if/when the President is confused.
Yep...because being confused regarding the impetus of a phone call with a Justice is exactly the same as not knowing if a friend is dead after attending the funeral, shaking hands with a ghost, meandering and looking confused about how to exit a stage, and being utterly incoherent on a debate stage.
Same diff, really.
The story makes perfect sense, matches what I speculated yesterday, and just underscores how inappropriate the call was. Trump wasn't "checking references" or whatever silly euphemism people like Josh came up with. Trump was calling Alito to find out whether Levi would be personally loyal to him, rather than an ethical government official. Even if Trump weren't a criminal seeking relief from Alito's court, it would be inappropriate for Alito to be answering this. Alito can legitimately say (under ordinary circumstances), "When he clerked for me he demonstrated a brilliant legal mind, creative and hard working; he'll be an asset to anyone who hires him for his legal skills." Alito cannot legitimately say, "This guy will be a reliable MAGA partisan that will help you steal an election if you need him to." (That, after all, is Trump's beef with Barr — that even though Barr was totally in the tank for Trump, he wouldn't outright fabricate claims of fraud to help Trump overturn the 2020 election.)
But of course Trump was a criminal seeking relief from Alito's court, so it would have been inappropriate for Alito to have a secret call with Trump even about an otherwise innocuous topic.
Unlike you I cannot divine what was actually said on the call. But I do know it wasn't Josh who "came up with" the checking references line. NYT quoted Alito as saying it. I guess it is possible Josh called the Justice and told him what to say. It seems highly unlikely. And if true, would drastically change my opinion of the kind of pull Josh has. I mean how great would that make Josh? He can get a Justice to lie so he can write an article defending Trump and Alito.
"Trump was calling Alito to find out whether Levi would be personally loyal to him, "
assuming something not in evidence
Not only was it the only logical inference — there was no other information about the guy that Alito might have insight into — but it's exactly what the post above says.
Think it's time to bring back the in the People Willing to Work for Trump taxonomy I wrote a year into the first Trump administration, and updated during the 2020 campaign.
For context, proposed DoD General Counsel William Levi slots neatly into category 3) TRUMPPARATCHIK, and the shared Alito/Trump goal we're talking about today is to confirm Mr. Levi is also fully bought-in to 1) CULT OF TRUMP.
As is common to sorting exercises of this type, most people share characteristics of more than one category. For example many of Trump's most loyal sycophants are a blend of #1 and #2. Again, Trump's overriding goal is that, unlike his first term, every hire of whatever category be also infected with a sufficient viral load of #1.
So, understanding #1 is a given for all, here are primary categories for some of Trump's projected current nominees:
1) CULT OF TRUMP: FBI Director Kash Patel; UN Ambassador Elise Stefanik
2) DIM & DISGRACEFUL: SecDef Pete Hegsith; NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker
3) TRUMPPARATCHIK: Dep AG Todd Blanche; Labor Sec Lori Chavez-DeRemer
4) STRAIGHT GRIFTER: Sec Commerce: Howard Lutnick; Navy Sec John Phelan
5) STONE-COLD TRANSACTIONALIST: DOGE Elon Musk; OMB Dir Russ Vought
6) TRUE BELIEVER: HHS Sec RFK Jr.; DNI Tulsi Gabbard
2020 version (I will eventually update with final appointments):
Every administration has its cowardly traitors. That is a fact.
Why does the law not go after them too. I think it depends on only one thing: do the lawyers agree with the leakers. Despicable
What is cowardly and traitorous about these six leakers is that they value personal loyalty to Trump more highly than loyalty to the country and its well-being. I'm guessing you find them cowardly traitors because they aren't sufficiently loyal to Trump.