Latest / The Oath and The Office / Supreme Court Checks Trump — 2025 Year in Review

Transcript

Supreme Court Checks Trump — 2025 Year in Review · The Oath and The Office

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the final episode of The Oath in the
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Office for twenty Did I say final, I mean welcome
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: to the first episode of The Oath in the Office
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: for twenty twenty six. I'm John Fugel Sang along with
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Professor Corey Bretschneider. We have a lot of ground to
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: cover for a year that doesn't want to stay buried. Today,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: we'll talk about some of the good news at the
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: end of the year, as well as the most egregious
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: violations of law and constitutional norms and basic human decency
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: by this administration. We're going to cover due process abuses,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: illegal military deployments. We're going to talk about questionable executive
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: actions and unqualified, corrupt crony cabinet members and endless dreary
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: lies and racism, public corruption, bribery in the open, and
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: serious humanitarian and legal red flags. And there's no one
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: better for that than the star of this humble podcast, us,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: the man who built this thing from nothing into one
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: of the top government podcasts recognized in the nation in
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: less than a year, Professor and author Corey Bretschneider. It's
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: good to see you, Sarah.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: Happy New Year, Happy New Year, John. What a pleasure
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: to do this podcast. The beginning of the year is
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: a great symbol of what we're trying to do on
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: this podcast. It's both a moment of optimism to talk
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: about the future and hopes new Year's resolutions, but also
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: to be honest about what we just faced in Project
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty Five's a year at twenty twenty five the
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: attempt to destroy democracy, and so I'm looking forward to
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: looking back and looking forward to Well, we have a.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: Lot to look back on, and I'm really glad you're here.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: But I want to begin the show by ending twenty
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: twenty five on some good news, and that is President
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: comover Caligula's ability to use the National Guard as playthings
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: has been put in check. I know this could push
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: him later to use the Insurrection Act, but for now,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: this is good news, right, Professor. Can you can you
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: walk us through what has happened in blocking or at
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: least limiting Trump's ability to unilaterally deploy the National Guard
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: to majority black cities when he feels like it.
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I should say too.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: In terms of the stories of twenty twenty five that
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: we've been covering, we talked a lot about the idea
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: of a soft coup, that the president's usurpation of the
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: other branches in various things like using DOGE. But then
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: we also talked about this moment where he started to
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: use the military as the transition to a hard coup,
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: because when you use the military to usurp the power
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: of the states, that's nothing less than what's associated with
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: the destruction of democracy through the use of force, a
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: hard coup. And so finally we have the Supreme Court
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: standing up to him and saying, no, you can't do
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: this now. They're not cutting off any possibility, as you
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: just said that it might be the Insurrection Act in
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: the future that's invoked, which he hasn't yet, but the
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: statute that he's tried to use to say that there
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: is a federal ability to use the military even against
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: the wishes of governors like the governor of Illinois, the
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court said no, not permanently, but they have put
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: a stop to it for now. That might change, and
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: the reasoning is really interesting for the purposes of this podcast.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: They went and they looked at this statute that President
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: Trump is using to justify the use of the military,
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: and they said, no, it doesn't say one two four
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: o six. It's interesting, like, usually they give the name.
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: This thing isn't being given name. It's usually just being
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: called the statute and then by number. But it's a
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: source of authority that the president's relying on, and they're saying, no,
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: it's not there that And let.
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: Me just give a slight setup.
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: The usual default is you cannot use the military domestically.
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: As we've talked about on the.
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: Podcast, that the Possi Coomittatis Act from the nineteenth century
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: was passed with the idea of limiting the use of
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: the military for police purposes domestically. So you need an exception,
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: and the government and this statute is claiming they had
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: an exception. In this Supreme Court of the United States
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: is saying no, that it doesn't actually work. And it's
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: an interesting sort of argument that we'll get into of
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: what specifically the words say that the court interpreted not
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: to give him this authority.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, what the words say was my favorite part of
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: this ruling, because Trump argued that he had inherent authority
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: to federalize and deploy the Guard in Illinois because he
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: hosted celebrity Apprentice. I don't even know that, but he
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: was the Star of Celebrity Apprentice and the Emmys were
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: rigged year after year. So the court said that his
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: claims were essentially, and I'm going to quote them directly here,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: untethered to facts. Now, I know that we don't really
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: know what John Roberts means from hour to hour, and
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: things that seem like a narrow procedural win could be
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: better than it appears. But I mean, what does that
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: phrase mean to you in constitutional terms? They essentially said
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: that his claims were untethered to fat They called him
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: a liar.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they also, I mean, there's an interesting
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: two things that are going on. They're claiming that if
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: you look in this statute, there are these two words
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: that are used regular forces, that don't mean what the
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: president said that they mean.
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: So what is regular forces? There's a law.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: This is kind of one of these wonky instances where
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: law professor amicus briefs, and you and I have talked
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: about amicus briefs that I've done in the past, and
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: sometimes they matter, sometimes they don't. Here are a law professor,
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: Marty Lederman from Georgetown Law School entered one of these
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: they called amicus or friend of the court. Briefs, and
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: the court really said no. This guy actually figured something
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: out that nobody else had seen, which is that the
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: term regular forces which allows the president to use this
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: specific statute as an exception to posse commatatis when regular
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: forces are ineffective. So what is regular forces? That's what
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: the court said. The administration was saying, well, it means
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: that we're unable to use the FBI or police forces
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: or the immigration services. And of course what they're claiming
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: is that I is under attack in places like Illinois
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: and the federal government can't do its job and that's
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: why they have to deploy the National Guard. But the
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: court said, no, that's not what it means. Regular forces
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: doesn't mean a force. Is regular force is the military.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: So what it means essentially is before you invoke the
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: national Guard and you take the governor's power to control
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: of the National Guard and assign it to the president,
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: you've got to show that actually the military is unable
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: to take it job. So this is a kind of wonky,
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: but thing that mattered from a Georgetown law professor.
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: So a shout out to Marty Liederman for doing this.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: Another word, they called him out for lying. I mean
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: because yeah, regular forces means the standing military. Now, this
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: ruling block Chicago, but it also of course cast out
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: on the similar creepy BS deployments in la and Portland.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Is this particular court at least, you know, three of
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: the Dirty Six quietly warning Trump that the military is
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: not his personal police force. Is that what we're seeing?
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: I'm not sure.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: I mean, you know, you always want to temper the
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: good news with the bad news. So on the one hand, yes,
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: it was six justices that said that the president was
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: beyond his authority, can't use the military in that way.
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: And as you said, and I want to emphasize this point,
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: we're not just talking about Illinois, because this is the
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: kind of argument that they're using in all these other places.
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: By the way, I should say two, like, I'm.
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: Not giving the administration too much credit, but this argument
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: that Leaderman came up with, I don't know that a
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: lot of people had even thought about whether or not
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: this was this regular forces idea was a reference to
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: the normal federal government or to the military. So I
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: think it is an instance where like this law professor's
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: research and history gave us an insight into this legal controversy.
• 7:46
  Speaker 3: That we might not have known about.
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: And the impact is so big because it's not just
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: in Illinois, it's in these other places too. When it
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: comes to the justices themselves, yes, there's good news. There's
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: six people, six justices, who stood up for the right thing.
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: And I should say, you know, the whole structure of
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: the federal government, the Posse Comitatus Act is all about
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: not allowing the military to be used as a police force.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Our whole system of government is designed on that idea.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: So we've got six decent justices in this moment. Kavanaugh
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: writes a concurrence just on this, this.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Fast, decent, generous professor. I hate to push back on you,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: but maybe three of them back, three of them, backed
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: by circumstance and history into a rare moral corner. I'll
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: go with that, but continue.
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: I like that. I like that way of putting it.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: But it might for Kavanaugh, who I'm always the most
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: skeptical of because he's in this group of six, Like,
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: what is he doing there?
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: And my thought when I read his concurrence was he's
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: kind of sending a message to the President to just
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: use the Insurrection Act and that that will be a
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: cleaner way of doing it, so that, of course we
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: could wind up so much.
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: Worse than we started off with.
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: And yeah, us, let's not be too optimistic about this moment.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: Well, so let's let's end a dreary year with this
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: theory aspect of it, because I mean, essentially, what we're
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: looking at here is man baby saying if I say
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: there's chaos, I get total control. That seems to be
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: the presidential argument here. If I say there's chaos, I
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: get complete control. The elephant in the room is the
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Insurrection Act, and you just mentioned it. This might be
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: what they do now because this was too illegal before.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: So maybe this ruling could push him towards invoking the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Insurrection Act instead. Let's refresh people's memories on what is
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act and why does it scare the complete
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: living hell out of constitutional scholars so deeply?
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: Well, it's an enormously powerful statute, and exactly the fact
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: that the president hasn't used it yet doesn't mean that
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: he won't, And it sounds like he has some moral
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: quandary about using Yeah, I don't think he could care
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: less about what the statute is, so probably the lawyers
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: have convinced him not to do it. This is supposed
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: to be an extraordinary statute that allows the president to
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: take control of the National Guard over the objection of
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: governors in instances in which there really is fundamental instability
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: in the society and you know, a danger to public
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: safety more generally, and so that the examples in which
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: it's been used successfully are primarily the Little Rock, the
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: Eisenhower example of using it over the objection to ensure
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: the compliance with the court mandated integration. And you know,
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: that's sort of the ultimate instance of heroic instance in
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: which people think of it nationalizing the Guard to protect
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: civil rights. It was also used during Bush and the
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: Rodney King example. But to come back to your phrase
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: on tethered to reality, I mean, the idea that in
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: any of these instances there is some instability in the
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: society that requires this is just wrong. And yet Kavanaugh
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: seems to be hinting that that might work, that the
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: Court would just defer to the president. The facts don't
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: support it. But my hope is that the Court would
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: say that that even though it looks like in some
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: instances there is this legal authority, we're not at that moment.
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: We don't have.
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: That instability and you know, there's some hope that we've
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: got the six of these justices doing the right thing
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: in this case.
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: See, I view Roberts, and I view Cony, Barrett and Gorsich,
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: and I view Kavanaugh as aristocrats story aristocrats who protect
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: their own class first, and I only do that based
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: on everything they've ever done in their legal careers. So
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: I just see this as much more of a broad
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: authoritarian pattern that they're going to test one lever of power,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: and if they lose on that, then they're going to
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: reach for a more extreme one. I mean, is this
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: going to bring us closer to the same kind of
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: emergency hitlerific powers we associate with illiberal democracies or outright
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: authoritarian states. I mean, I was so happy about this
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: for a couple of days until I was reading up
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: on what the whole scheme could be of using and
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: abusing the Insurrection Act. And obviously, irony is the one
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: religion that I'll never let you down, this clown using
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act against law abiding Americans, I mean, the
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: comedy rights itself.
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: I think you know, that's the million dollar question that
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: we've been struggling with all years since we began the
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: podcast since Trump took office, which is that we have
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: these moments where the district courts are willing to track
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: the administration, where the Supreme Court in this example at
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: least has checked the administration.
• 12:18
  Speaker 3: But that's not the end of the story.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: You get this back and forth and when you have
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: a want to be authoritarian in power, he's going to
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: demand among his loyalists. I think in the past there
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: would have been people there who said, no, you can't
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: do that. The insurrection acts totally inappropriate. The Court has
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: spoken that's the end of it. But those people are gone.
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: The adults in the room aren't there, and the Stephen
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: Millers aren't going to be urging restraint. They're going to
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: be urging more and more action. And what's the Court
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: going to do. I'm not sure you know, we're reading
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: Tea leaves. They did stop him here, they didn't go
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: along with it, they didn't defer.
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: They found a way, you know, to focus on.
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: I should say too, a lot of members of this court,
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: including Kavanaugh, love to focus on the text of legislation,
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: and part of what they're always trying to do is
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: justify their own actions, their own power, and their own
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: methodology for interpreting the Constitution a very narrow one by saying, look,
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: we care about the words and the law, and so
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: this definition of forces is you know, we're being honest.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: Now are they going to do that when it comes
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: to the Insurrection Act? It might be go the other way.
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: They're going to say, look, you know Eisenhower could do it,
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: Bush could do it, We're going to allow it. That's
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: my worry that they're not thinking about the principles of
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: liberal democracy, the principles of the Constitution.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: So this brings us to the year we just survived, Professor.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, I want to thank you for this podcast
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: for helping me get through the year. It's been a
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: pleasure to cheat off your paper, as it were. But
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: I mean, in thinking back on twenty twenty five, you know,
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: what do you consider to be the most egregious violations
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: of the Constitution by this White House? I know that
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: this could add another hour onto our episode. I mean,
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: on the top of my head, between the extra judicial
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: deportations to Well Salvador torture prisons and these due process
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: obligations that have been just ignored all the way to
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: these escalating military strikes without any clear legal basis, first
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: on these poor bastards in the water with no evidence
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: at all that their boats were carrying drugs. And now
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: we just bombed Nigeria on Christmas Day because Trump cares
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: about the Christians. Never mind the fact that he bombed
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: the village that had nothing to do with any of
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: these killings, and never mind the fact that Donald Trump
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: has killed more Nigerians than anybody else this year with
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: the cuts to USAID. I mean, professor, where do we
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: begin in cataloging the maufeasances of just the last eleven months.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: You know, this podcast would go on for hours today
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: if we were to really go through it all, I
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: will say one of the real Yeah, I guess I
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: would call it a pleasure. It has been a pleasure
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: doing this with you. Because we're surviving this assault on
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: democracy together. There's solidarity in it and the fact that
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: we have so many listeners increasingly coming and listening with
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: us every week, you know, and I had a friend
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: who a longtime listener and friend from the beginning of
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: the podcast. You know, that is part of what this
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: is about. That it's a kind of solidarity and the
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: humor makes it bearable. But what we're doing is documenting
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: history that we are living through. This has been a
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: year of not a normal presidency, but one that really
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: is devoted to the destruction of constitutional democracy and even
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: the rule of law.
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: And what we.
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: Have I think in our archive is documentation of the
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: attempt to have and I'll use this phrase again as
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: self coup to destroy from the inside, the use of
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: the executive branch, the other branches. So as we go
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: through them, it's too many cases to mention, but as
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: you started to do, I'll catalog the general assaults.
• 15:39
  Speaker 3: This is what I've come up with.
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: You know, you've had my home. I have a long
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: list I want to tell you.
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: I mean the use.
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: The first thing to say is this story that we
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: just started with, which has been an ongoing part of
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: what we're talking about, the deployment of the military to
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: America's cities in contradiction to laws limiting that, and finding
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: these loopholes and ways around it, and various legislation to
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: ignore the posse commatatis law. That's the stuff of the
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: hard use of the military to destroy democracy. So I
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: put that near the top.
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: It was in Los Angeles when he what are thousands
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: of marines and National Guard troops into these civic protests.
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: A federal judge explicitly found that that violated the Passi Coommatatus.
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: Act, and that, you know, this has been going on
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: since the first administration, where he was threatening even then
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: to use the Insurrection Act to shut down protests.
• 16:30
  Speaker 3: And let's not lose sight of that.
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: This really is about not just control, but the attempted
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: destruction of free speech. And so that's one of the
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: themes that we've been covering. And I'd add to that,
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: you know, the destruction of free speech on campus. So
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: when it came to the case of a graduate student
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: organizer in the protests at Columbia Khalil, they claim he
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: didn't even have the right to free speech because he
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: was a non citizen.
• 16:56
  Speaker 3: And so just in the same way, so.
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: We've also got a hate intral We've also got to
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: point out the Secretary of State lied about this young
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: man and said that he was anti Semitic, and it
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: said anti Semitic statements, which was no evidence, and there
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: was never any evidence he had broken a single law.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: And yet because he was Muslim, they had complete confidence
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: that they could rendition this man and take him away
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: with no due process, and they got away with it
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: for a long time.
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: It is very hard to rank these stories, I was saying,
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: because they're also egregious, you know, in the same way
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: that the military is such a threat to democracy. Obviously,
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: free speech is the lynchpin of democracy. If you can't
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: speak out against your government, in what way are you
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: living in a democracy? It's almost as the Brown professor
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: Alexander Micklejohn, my favorite free speech scholar, says. You know,
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: his book is called Free Speech and its Relation to
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: Self Government. It's as important as voting, and so when
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: you restrict people's ability it also, by the way, mickel
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: John's famous for saying, it's about the rights not just
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: of the speaker, but the listener. For us to be
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: able to hear Khalil's critique of Columbia, of whatever he's
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: saying about American foreign policy, whether you agree with it
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: or not, the right to hear it, that's part of
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: the right of American citizens here.
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: So I could keep going.
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: And there's the Gulag case, as we keep calling it,
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: the deportation. This one is like, you know, you could
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: trump one point. Oh, I think people said, well, at
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: least we don't have, you know, rounding up and putting
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: people in torture camps. Well, that's no longer true. They
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: are doing that in the case of Venezuelan nationals who
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: have been rounded up and sent to a third country,
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: El Salvador, where the president's ally has put him and
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: other Venezuelans.
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: This is Abrego Garcia.
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: Of course was the first case that we covered in
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: this torture prison and of course we had Mike Zaymore
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: giving us the details as it was happening, as they
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: were arguing this, and the ACLU has a new case
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: now too that the same judge, Judge Boseburg, is it's
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: not over. You know, we're still pushing back the boat strikes.
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: You mentioned the the use of the war power without
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: consent of Congress, the deprivation of due process, and that's
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: true in the should say two in the Gulag cases
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: as we've been calling them, the administration is using a
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: seventeen to ninety eight law, the Enemy Aliens Act, to
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: say there is no due process, no rid of habeas corpus,
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: no requirement the government even tell us why they're holding people.
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: And one of the things that Boseburg said in this
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: new case, thankfully, and this guy really deserves you know,
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: when it comes to the heroes of the year.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: Oh, we're gonna we're gonna praise Bosburg in the second second.
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: Oh yes, I know we're coming up. So anyway, I
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: don't know, I could keep going out.
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: What else abody missing? John?
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: Okay, Well let me talk about you know again, we've
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: we've murdered over one hundred and seven people in these
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: extra judicial drone strikes on boats and foreign waters. I mean, we,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: the taxpayer's cory, are going to be shelling out billions
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: in class action lawsuits to the victims of these crimes
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: long after Donald Trump's arteries have done what the Lord
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: wants his arteries to do. I mean, We're going to
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: be paying for all this for a very long time.
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: But I'm thinking about the executive overreach starting with this,
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: the Protecting the American People against Invasion Executive Order fourteen
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: one point fifty nine, if one of his first actually
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: did that, pretty much, he built this entire house of
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: crap on significantly expanding his immigration enforcement powers and torturing
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: people and just not having to follow the law. That
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: order was enjoined because parts of it were violating federal law.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: But it's this this whole pattern that you've discussed so
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: ably about, this broader pattern of presidential overreach, from the
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: birthright citizenship controversy to these judicial lawsuits against judges, like
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: the White House filed a lawsuit against fifteen federal judges
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: in Maryland because they called the White House out for
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: breaking the law. I mean, that lawsuit was dismissed, but
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: this is the amount of contempt they have for the
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: judicial branch.
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: It is just dizzying.
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: And you know, I'm trying to, of course, you know,
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: order all of this and to see how it all connects,
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: because I do think that just providing the list feels
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: exhausting and how we're going to fight back. But when
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: we start to see it for what it is, it
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: is that these are all organized assaults on democracy, we
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: can start thinking about both the danger that we're in
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: but also the way to resist. So on that theme
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: of immigration, which has been so much of the usurpation
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: of democracy, one of the things that I'll just note
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: from the beginning in a common theme is that we
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: had all these dangers sitting there waiting in ice.
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: If I were to pick one example.
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: Of it is is it is that danger, and he's
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: activated in this just frightening way and built it up,
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: and so he's created this deportation for us, this federal
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: rights violating, frightening agency that seems to have no constraints
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: on it. And this is one of the areas where
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: I would have thought that, as ICE is kidnapping people
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: and really violating civil liberties committing crimes, that we would
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: have seen arrests of some ICE officers. But it's been
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: one of those areas where we just have not seen
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: a lot of pushback. And then I don't want to
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: miss birthright, citizenship, man, I just find it impossible to
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: rank these things because this is a place where the
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: Constitution says so clearly in the fourteenth Amendment, and this
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: was part of the after the Civil War, to remind listeners,
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: we've done whole shows on this, but after the Civil
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: War an attempt to demand equal protection and the Thirteenth
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: Amendment ending slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, the
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: Fifteenth Amendment a right to vote regardless of race, at
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: least for men. Not fully there yet when it comes
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: to democracy. Part of that whole post bellum amendments system
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: included a just clear rule to make it symbolize all
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: of this, which is, if you are born in the
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: United States, you are a citizen. That we're not going
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: to rank people based on who their parents were, and
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: parentage isn't going to be the basis of how we
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: think about democracy. And here the court, you know, it's
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: faced with this question of whether or not the administration
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: can revoke it. They haven't answered that. You know, we'll
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: hear that answers at some point. But what they did
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: in the meantime, just to remind listeners, is they got
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: rid of the ability of the district court judge this
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: is obviously unconstitutional, imposed a national injunction. And what did
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: the court said. They got rid of national injunctions. They
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: got rid of the ability of judges to enforce the law.
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: It's white supremacy, professor, it's white supremacy. I'm sorry, but
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: these chalky race people look like me are going to
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: become a minority in this country in twenty forty five,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: and it's getting harder for me to deny that. That's
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: driving a lot of policy choices. They're trying to just
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: push the date off till twenty fifty twenty fifty five.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: But the reality is forty years of trickle down has
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: made it a lot harder for white people to keep
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: pumping out those babies. And they don't want to get
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: rid of their trickle down. They don't want to stop
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: squeezing and destroying the middle class. But now they're panicking
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: because the birth rates have changed, and they know what
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: the numbers are, and they know that Caucasians will dip
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: below fifty percent in twenty years. And I think we
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: should be very ready to see that drive a lot
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: of policy. It'll never be admitted. But one last thing
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: I want to throw in your face before we get
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: to a much needed break. What a year for bribery
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: in the open? What a year for just beating the crab.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: It's like he got away with everything with the Emolument's clause.
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: I said this many times to you. They could have
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: impeached Donald Trump in the first minute of his inaugural
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: address for violating the Constitution's emoluments clause, for not just
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: making money off the office, but now in this term,
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: the bribes, the bribes from his crypto hole, and how
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: he's made literally billions with a be This president has
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: personally enriched himself by billions of dollars off the office
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: in eleven months to this four hundred million dollars Boeing
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: seven forty seven from those champions of democracy, the Katari
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: royal family for his personal use. Corey, I know there's
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: so much malfeasans out there, but I've given up hope
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: on the Democratic Party ever doing a thing about the bribery.
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: It's just normal now.
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, when we began this podcast, I did
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: a series of kind of on location videos to try
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: to promote and just to let people know that we
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: were doing this, and one was it Fact Hall, and
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: I went down there because Washington and his first inaugural
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: adjust what does he talk about. He talks about this
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: issue that you're raising emoluments. What is an emolument? It
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: means basically the Washington pledges that he'll take no emolument.
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: The Constitution has two clauses about this topic of emoluments,
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: one banning domestic emoluments and the other banning international And
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: what it means essentially in a molument is using the
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: Office for profit, and the Emolument's clauses that you can't
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: do that. And what has Trump done. Washington thought this
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: was so important because kings and queens and monarchs that
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: had always, you know, as a matter of course, done this.
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: They settled foreign wars to profit. They used the country
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: in order to benefit themselves with the history of colonialism
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: is largely about the profit of monarchs. And this country
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: said so clearly, you know, putting it in twice, No,
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: you can't do it. In case you were confused that
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: you can't do it by profiting from foreign relations, you
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: also can't do it domestically. They had to say it
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: two times. There's a great quote of my one of
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: my favorite flowserhers Isaiah Berlin, who was asked to speak
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: more slowly once in a seminar, spoke very rapidly, and
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: he said, well, I won't speak more slowly, but I'll
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: say it twice. Well, that's what the founders did.
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: They didn't have a way of.
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: Speaking more slowly or putting it in print, but they
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: had to say it twice to get the idea out.
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: And here Trump is in all those examples that you
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: just listed thing after thing, and yet you know, as
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: bad as it is, I don't know where it is
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: on our list, but we are getting to it.
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: Towards We've gone through a lot already.
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean again, George Washington defined the office by
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: not doing this thing, and Trump again and again from
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: the Trump Hotel in the first term where he was
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: having dignitaries staying there to you know, charging the Secret
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: Service all sorts of money for still doing that. Now
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: he's at a next level of doing it.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: The rickety guardrails that are remaining in place, I'll be
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: forever grateful for. And I think it's just another reminder
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: set up before, but there are no adults in the room,
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: although there may be a few adult film stars in
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: the room. We'll find out when Michael Wolfe publishes several
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: dozen books about this year. Okay, we got to take
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: a break where Wendy's going to collapse back in just
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: a moment. With the oath in the Office.
• 27:13
  Speaker 4: Hey all, clean Kershner here, friends, I hope you'll join
• 27:16
  Speaker 4: me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. We talk about
• 27:21
  Speaker 4: not only the legal issues of the day, but we
• 27:23
  Speaker 4: also talk about the need to reform ethics in our government.
• 27:28
  Speaker 3: Here's one example.
• 27:29
  Speaker 4: The oath of office, you know, the one I do
• 27:32
  Speaker 4: solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies,
• 27:36
  Speaker 4: foreign and domestic. Let's add twenty two words to that
• 27:41
  Speaker 4: oath quote, and I will promptly report any instances of
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: crime and or corruption by government officials and employees of
• 27:50
  Speaker 4: which I've become aware. Friends, our democracy is worth fighting for.
• 27:58
  Speaker 4: Join us in this fight, because justice matters. Look for
• 28:04
  Speaker 4: justice matters wherever you ordinarily find your podcasts.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office, January first,
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty sixth edition. I'm John Fugel, saying alone with
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: Professor Corey Bretschneider. Corey, I gotta say, Judge Bosberg has
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: become a real, unlikely resistance hero. I know he was
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: a Republican nominee, but he's sort of becoming a folk
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: icon for people who are worried about democracy. He's refused
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: the arguments that would say those deported to Venezuela have
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: no due process because of the Enemy Aliens Act, and
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: he's not gonna say it's too late because they've left
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: the country. I mean, he's not just standing up for
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: the rule of law. He's actually standing up for basic
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: humanitarian ideals, which I'm old enough to remember Republicans not
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: considering woke what's most striking to you about Judge Boseberg's approach.
• 28:57
  Speaker 3: Well, a shout out to Judge Boseburg. I love this.
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: You know, it's like a one if I had the
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: big one Judge who was just again and again refusing
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: to give up, even though in many instances he could
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: have just let this go from the contempt investigation that
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: he's continuing against those just to remind people from an
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: earlier broadcast, and we first reported on this and talked
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: about this with Mike Zaymour of the ACLU.
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: If you remember months ago when.
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: Bosburgh got this case, the deportation of Abrego Garcia to
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: the gulag in El Salvador, claiming that he was a
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: member of this gang without any evidence, and they still
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: haven't proven it. And you know, they tried all sorts
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: of things to get away with it, and the main
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: one was just refusing the order and sending people abroad.
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: And now there's a new case that the ACLU has
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: brought different group of people, a group of Venezuelans who
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: were deported to this gulag in El Salvador, and the
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: administration is saying, well, they're already there, so it's too late.
• 29:57
  Speaker 3: It's moot.
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: And by the way, they don't have due prime anyway
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: under the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act. And to
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: remind people about this law kind of you know, always
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: mixing history and what's happening. But in seventeen ninety eight,
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: it was an awful year for American democracy. It was
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: the year John Adams and his party passed the Sedition Act,
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: making it a crime to criticize the president of the
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: United States, but not the vice president was.
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: Thomas Jefferson, his opponent.
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: One of my favorite details of American history and past,
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: this crazy statute, the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act,
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: that essentially said if you are and this is how
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: the administration is claiming to read it, that if you
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: are a member of an enemy nation and they're claiming
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: Venezuela is you have no right.
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: To do process.
• 30:42
  Speaker 2: What does that mean that we don't have to say
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: what the charges are against you, We don't have to
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: prove that any of the things we're saying about you
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: are true in court. That's their argument that it really
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: is a revocation entirely of the rule of law and
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: a kind of monarchical power over those of supposed enemy nations.
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: And this judge is saying, first of all, I mean,
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: I'll put it clearly, he's saying, in a way, I
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: don't care what this law from seventeen ninety eight says.
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: I'll tell you what the Constitution says. You have a
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: right to habeas corbus, to know what the charges are
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: against you, a right to do process, and the Constitution
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: is above this law. And no, I'm not going to
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: accept it as a fact that because you've already sent
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: these people to the Gulag, that you know they have
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: no right are You're not going to get away with that.
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: That's why he's been, you know, in a horrible year
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five, a real hero throughout.
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: Well, I want I want to ask about the Alien
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: Enemy Zact, but first I just want to talk about
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: this this other point that we just touched on briefly
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: because I don't think it's been mentioned really enough. But
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: this whole too late argument, right that Donald Trump's lawyers argued,
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: after these people were illegally kidnapped and renditioned to way
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: to torture prisons, oh it's too late. They're already gone.
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: So the court can't help Listen, I'm just a mukoway
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: at the public school, but even I know that that's
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: corrosive to the rule of law. Corey, if our courts
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: accepted the idea that government can evade any kind of
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: review just by acting fast enough. If you're fast enough government,
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: you can get around the law. What would that do
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: to the constitutional protections across the board? If this Supreme
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: Court were that insanely corrupt?
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that what Bozburg sees, and he's saying
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: so clearly, is that I'm not going to create a
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: situation that incentivizes government to disobey me fast. Because if
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: you know what he's you know what he was righteously
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: up in arms about was the fact that he said,
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: do not send these planes to this Gulag prison in
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: El Salvador. He gave a very clear order in court,
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: and using these like ridiculous arguments that the order was
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: spoken rather than written, the administration defied him and sent
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: people there anyway. So the idea, you know, you could
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: see him just steaming thinking about it. It's it's on
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: the page that he's going to reward this by saying, well,
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: it's too late, because you disobeyed my order. I don't
• 33:04
  Speaker 2: think so that's his messages. You know, you're not going
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: to get away with disobeying the law by saying it's
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: too late, no way.
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And as far as the Alien Enemies Act, I mean,
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: this is another example of what you've warned us about before, Corey,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: using old laws ripped away from their historical context just
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: to justify modern authoritarian power grabs. I mean, at the
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: end of the day, this whole fight, to me as
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: a layperson, just seems like whether due process applies to
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: people powerful white folks don't like.
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: Well, I will say, you know, as much as that's
• 33:42
  Speaker 2: often true, that they're taking laws out of context and
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: abusing them when it comes to this specific law, the
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: seventeen ninety eight Enemy Aliens Act, I think in some
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: ways the historical context is as frightening as what we're
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: facing now, as you know, John. But I'll remind some
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: of our new listeners that in my book The Presidents
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: and the Peace People a Five Leaders who Threatened Democracy
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: and the Citizens who fought to defend it, which was
• 34:04
  Speaker 2: written before this second Trump term but is unfortunately extremely relevant,
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: I talk about what happened in seventeen ninety eight, and
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: it is a tragic year, a lot like twenty twenty five.
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: Fact that if I had to pick one year that
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: had a parallel, I would say that's it. And that
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: was a year that John Adams definitely want to be
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: authoritarian president, who saw the president as a kind of monarch.
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: In fact, he thought the British king was too weak
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: and needed to be stronger, and the US president had
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: to be stronger than the British king if you could
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: believe that. Saw to it that a series of laws
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: that shut down democracy were passed, and they succeeded. They
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: prosecuted one hundred and twenty five or so political opponents,
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: and then they also revoke the rights of due process
• 34:49
  Speaker 2: for non citizens. So what Bozburg's got to struggle with
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: here is it's not as easy as saying, well, seventeen
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: ninety eight, you know, it was a different circumstance.
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: No, it was in some ways the same circumstance.
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: So his argument is, well, it doesn't matter what John
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: Adams thought. The Constitution stands above any law, and the
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: Constitution and its right to do process is what's in
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: play here. And that's why what he's doing is so important,
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: because he's really acknowledging. I think that you know, maybe
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: this law would allow it, but that the law isn't
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: the final say.
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: The final say is the Constitution.
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: Well, then let me zoom out a little bit to
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: the great State of Florida featuring the world's worst Donald
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: Trump impersonator, and that would be Governor Ron DeSantis. I've
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: seen some bad Trump impressions and comedy clubs in my life, Cory.
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: No one does a worse Trump impression than DeSantis, except
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: maybe next year when we start watching JD. Vans doing
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: his impression of DeSantis doing his impression of Trump. But
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: this attack on New College by DeSantis in Florida, it
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: seems to be a blueprint for this entire right wing
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: movements war on education. Anything that they don't like that
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: is not geared towards Caucasians and power, they call it
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: woke and they replace it with some kind of crypto
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: fascist nonsense, or they'll pretend that Charlie Kirk was not
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: a lying, racist bamboozler. May he rest in peace and
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: trying to shoehorn worship of a podcaster, Worship of a
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: racist podcaster who lied about the Bible into our public schools.
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: Corey I mean, is this just a one off culture
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: war fight? Where do you see this as the blueprint?
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, the New College situation was, by all accounts,
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: this very serious academic institution with serious scholars, and it
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: became under attack because in the words of the new
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: president and the view of the administration, including the World
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: Wrestling WWE is it or it used to be WWF
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: when I followed it, World Wrestling Federation Department of Education
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: person Linda McMahon.
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: This was also who also helped cover up sex abuse.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: So she is qualified to be in the cabinet. I
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: want to point that out. She has qualified. Yeah, I
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: grew up thinking that pro wrestling was going to destroy
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: American education. I didn't know it was going to be
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: this literal, but yeah, go on, please.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: I was just going to say that the story of
• 37:10
  Speaker 2: New College, you know, is you see what they're trying
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: to achieve. And you're referring, of course, to their decision
• 37:16
  Speaker 2: to put a statue of Charlie Kirk there as some
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: sort of champion of free speech despite his many odious views,
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: and again, may he rest in peace, we can be
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: respectful and still acknowledge that this was not a hero
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: of free.
• 37:29
  Speaker 3: Speech in any way.
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: And you know, I think that what we've got to
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: see too, is that the administration, it's not just about
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: New College, has this idea of the compact that they've
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: offered to several universities. Originally it was just a few,
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: and then they've expanded it. And I just want to say,
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: what's in there. It says that, you know, you'll get
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: a priority for grants from the federal government if you
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: prohibit the disparagement of conservative ideas on campus. Now, that
• 37:58
  Speaker 2: word disparagement, you know, what does that really mean?
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: What does that mean?
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: Mocking and criticizing and doing the stuff critical critical thought.
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: And so if you want to claim to be a
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: champion of free speech, you can't create a compact that
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: essentially gets rid of it. And you know New College
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: has embraced that, and you're seeing that in real time.
• 38:17
  Speaker 3: What that really means.
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: It means an ideological task of whether or not you'll
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: show loyalty to this administration. The theme throughout that that
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: has nothing to do with free speech or academia or
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: free inquiry or critical thinking.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: You know, whenever I do any of these shows or
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: on TV, and any one of these folks leaves the
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: right wing bubble and uses the word woke or wokeness.
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: Outside of the bubble, I always drop what I'm doing,
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: and I asked that person, will you tell me what
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: that word means, because woke used to mean a word
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: that anti racist used as referring to awareness of institutionalized racism,
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: you know, like just you're aware, and now it's a
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: word that racists use to slur and mock anyone who
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: is anti discrimination, any anti discrimination policies. Again, this is
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: what you have to notice with the right. They never
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: get angry at racism or police brutality. They get furious
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: at protests against racism and against police brutality. They don't
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: get menet discrimination. They get furious at anti discrimination laws
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: or policies in a workplace. They say that they're eliminating wokeness,
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: which again means empathy, an awareness of injustice and wanting
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: to correct it. What they're really doing, it seems, is
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: replacing basic academic freedom and critical thinking with blind ideological loyalty.
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: I mean, is that a fair description there? They're they're
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: honoring Charlie Kirk, a partisan, dishonest activist who was not
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: a christ follower. If you want to get really technical
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: about it. In Fife for anythings Jesus talked about, but
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: use Jesus's name to grift for power an extensive history
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: of nakedly racist, bigoted statements. While they're purging faculty, well
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: they're purging programs. I mean, I don't know where to
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: begin with this great What role does the control of
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: education play in authoritarian movement throughout history?
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm thinking the first thing is if you believe
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: in free inquiry, you believe in critical thinking and serious thinking,
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: don't use a word like woke to cover some general
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: ay thing.
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: That you're against.
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: You have to define your terms, talk in specifics, be honest,
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: and engage in real intellectual back and forth. So, you know,
• 40:29
  Speaker 2: what does that mean that they're against what? It's just
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: unclear that they don't like certain beliefs, I think is what.
• 40:35
  Speaker 3: It comes to. Its code word.
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: We're saying, you know, we don't want people around who
• 40:39
  Speaker 2: are too much in favor of anti discrimination whistle. And
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: so it's really a defense of ideology. And what's so
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: upsetting to me, as somebody who studies as part of
• 40:48
  Speaker 2: my you know, academic work free speech is to claim
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: that somehow in opposing woke, quote unquote that you are
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: defending free speech and at the same time having this
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: compact which is incentivizing the shutdown of free speech, getting
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: rid of professors essentially who are critical of this administration.
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: I should say, let's just start with the basics when
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: it comes to free speech. Congress shall make no law
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: abridging a freedom of speech. In Congress, there is a
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: stand in for the government and including the federal government,
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: including the president. And part of the framing of the
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: First Amendment was worrying about the presidency and the monarch
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: having what a shutdown of free speech and monarchs, of course,
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: if you criticize them, you could be murdered, a tried
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: for sedition and exec So what are they doing here.
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: They're trying to set up a system where again you
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: cannot criticize the monarch. They can't do it. They're not
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: doing it through the criminal law. They're using incentives. And
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: at the same time they're pretending to be free speech defenders,
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: and that there are evidently people who have some academic
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: credentials or at least working in academia, that are enabling
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: them and doing that.
• 41:56
  Speaker 3: I'm so proud of Brown.
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: I have to say, and we've been through so much
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: this year, with this horrible attack on the university, the shooting,
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: the murder of two of our students, who beloved by
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: all accounts, And yet there was a moment too that
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: we can look to for pride despite this awful, tragic event.
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: We can look to pride certainly in the way that
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: we have recovered, that we fought back, that we've come together,
• 42:21
  Speaker 2: that we've honored what's happened. But there also was a
• 42:24
  Speaker 2: moment where the administration was phased. We were one of
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: the original schools that was offered this compact. And one
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: thing that I'm proud of this was before the tragedy
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: of the shooting, was that the administration said so clearly
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: in a letter to the federal government.
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: In fact, we had agreed in a previous settlement that
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: the administration would respect the academic freedom and independence of
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: the university as part of the fundamental idea, and in
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: offering this compact, they were essentially saying that they don't
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: believe in academic freedom at all, and in free inquiry
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: and the idea it's all couched in terms of free speech.
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: Is part of what's so absurd about this year part
• 43:02
  Speaker 2: of an authoritarian shutdown. That's the same way that in
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: the other cases that we talked about of free speech.
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: But again it's no different than their claims of Christianity.
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: They don't follow any of the teachings Christ fought for it,
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: and they don't follow the Constitution. These are words they
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: use to cloak their selfish dealings in some sort of
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: respectability or institutionalized integrity, when in reality, I mean, if
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: this model that the Santus is trying in Florida, because again,
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: this guy's always running for president, right, if this model
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: spreads nationally, Professor, what happens to higher education and civic
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: literacy and just democracy in general. Because you know, they're
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: not going to stop in Florida. They're going to try
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: and have statues of Charlie Kirk and teach people that
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: wokeness blows your legs off in all fifty states.
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: I love that way of putting it. It really gets
• 43:50
  Speaker 2: the heart of the matter. They are trying it, they
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: are doing it, and they have this method, which is
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: the compact. The federal government has an enormous amount of money. Universities,
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: some are cash dropped. Even those that are not want
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: this money, and so using this incentive to agree to
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: not disparage conservative ideas core part of the compact in
• 44:09
  Speaker 2: exchange for preference and grants. That's how they're going to
• 44:12
  Speaker 2: do it. And New College has done it. New College
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: is exhibiting it.
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: What does it mean.
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: It means that your faculty become subjects, not citizens, that
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: they're not capable of independent thought because they're worried about
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: their jobs. And by all accounts, the curriculum, the critical
• 44:26
  Speaker 2: inquiry that might have characterized New College in the past
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: is being destroyed. And you have a president and his
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: quotes were outrageous, the opposite of what a president with
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: integrity would do. Who's cheering this all on? And so No,
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: the New College is just the first example of what
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: they're trying to do nationally.
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: And you know it's important too.
• 44:45
  Speaker 2: You know, they're very aware of what happened with Victor
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: Orbon for instance in Hungary, that university professors are one
• 44:52
  Speaker 2: of the places, not the only, but one of the
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: places where you get a lot of pushback against authoritarian power.
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: You have people in those universesities who have studied the
• 45:01
  Speaker 2: nineteen thirties, the fascist takeover of so much of Europe,
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: the attempt of it to take over the world, and
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: see the comparison in modern authoritarians.
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: They've got rid of Hannah Rent, whose book.
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: Onto Threat define the threat to democracy of much of
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: the twentieth century, because you know, they think it's safer
• 45:20
  Speaker 2: to read Homer.
• 45:21
  Speaker 3: That's what this article talks about.
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: And you just don't want the administration, the Trump McMahon
• 45:27
  Speaker 2: Department of Education to be dictating what's taught to students,
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: to be doing free inquiry because they don't care about that.
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: They want and to go back to the theme of monarchy.
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: They want subjects, not citizens.
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: I do want to point out, though, in fairness, that
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: every time jd. Vance speaks in public, the estate of
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: Hannah Arent gets a royalty check for the expression the
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: banality of evil. So at least there's that. We got
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: to hit another break. But let's come back and talk
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: about the year to come. Corey, what that was a.
• 45:55
  Speaker 3: Great political theory joke? Really?
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: Oh thank you. Let me tell you. Normally I open
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: with my hat material at the college shows, but for you, well,
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: I'll say that here. Thank you.
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: Among my college Oh.
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: You should hear my jokes about Larry Summers. My god,
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: they're a little derivative. All right, So whien we come back.
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about this power without accountability healthscape we're facing
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: for the next year, and what to watch for. Next
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: to this is The Oath in the Office.
• 46:24
  Speaker 5: Are you tired of the same old, boring political chatter.
• 46:27
  Speaker 5: Are you craving some smart, insightful and hilarious takes on
• 46:30
  Speaker 5: the day's news, Then get ready for America's original sexy liberals,
• 46:33
  Speaker 5: Stephanie Miller.
• 46:34
  Speaker 3: She's now delivering her.
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: Signature blend of politics and pop culture five.
• 46:38
  Speaker 3: Days a week in podcast form.
• 46:40
  Speaker 5: Dive into the day's headlines with Stephanie Miller Out of
• 46:42
  Speaker 5: the Gate and unwind with hilarious conversations on Stephanie Miller's
• 46:45
  Speaker 5: Happy Hour podcast. Don't miss a single laugh or incredible moment.
• 46:49
  Speaker 5: Subscribe to Stephanie Miller Out of the Gate and Stephanie
• 46:52
  Speaker 5: Miller's Happy Hour podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stephanie Miller dot com,
• 46:55
  Speaker 5: or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to the first twenty twenty six episode of
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: The Oath in the Office. I am John Fegel, saying
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: so grateful as always to be here with Professor Corey
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: Bretschneiter and Corey. I just want to thank you for
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: a great year. I'm going to ask you what your
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: favorite albums or films of the year were. But I
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: want to just begin the end here by talking about
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: the common threat that we witnessed in the year that
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: just wrapped. And it seems to me, if you can
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: reduce it to anything, it's evil power without accountability, you know,
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: whether it's the National Guard, the deportations, universities. I mean,
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: what do you see as the common constitutional threat that's
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: tying all of this Michigas together.
• 47:39
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think in Trump one point zero,
• 47:42
  Speaker 2: there was a big debate among not you and I
• 47:45
  Speaker 2: we were agreeing about this, but among pundets, among academics
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: who studied fascism. Is Trump really an authoritarian or is
• 47:53
  Speaker 2: he just a normal Republican with conservative ideals? And part
• 47:58
  Speaker 2: of why that debate was allowed to happen, I think
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: is because so many things were being stopped. You had
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: the lower courts and even the Supreme Court at least
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: temporarily stopping things, you know, forcing Trump to change his mind.
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: You had civil servants.
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: That were in place that were limiting even people we
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: wouldn't have expected within the Department of Justice. And no,
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: nowhere was that more apparent than the refusal of the
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: Department of Justice as a whole to go along with
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: the attempt to take over the government in January sixth.
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: So it's not that that was smooth sailing, but you know,
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: things were. I think it's fair to say less dangerous
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: than right now. But what's happening now is a simultaneous
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: attempt to destroy democracy and to declare a kind of
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: dictatorship with the weakening of the Czechs by the Supreme
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: Court of the United States and the birthright citizenship case
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: despite what happened now, and allowing the military deployments up
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: till now, in the eviseration of universal injunctions, the power
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: of courts to stop the federal government, the use of
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: the shadow docket or emergency orders.
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: Without reason to allow all of this.
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: So you have, you know, those two branches working together,
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: the Court enabling the president, and then you have Congress
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: really just giving up its own power, of course, controlled
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: by the Republican Party. So things are much more frightening now.
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: It is an attempted self coup. I'll stand by that
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: idea still and you know, although we have moments of
• 49:20
  Speaker 2: hope and pushback, it's it's working in a much stronger
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: way than it did in Trump one point zero.
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: Is this I worked on this question. Are we witnessing
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: a shift from the rule of law to rule by loyalty?
• 49:33
  Speaker 3: I think?
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: So. You know, I've been watching asking about what what
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: television I'm watching. I watch too much television, as people
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: who know me would tell you, but I'm also learning
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: from it.
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: And one of the getting fun anything fun, I think.
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: So I'll tell you The Victoria, which is about Queen
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: Victoria on Netflix, is so good. I mean, I don't
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: know if you have seen it, Yeah, yeah, I mean,
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: And part of what I'm amazed by is the constraint
• 50:00
  Speaker 2: on her power. Like even in the nineteenth century. You know,
• 50:04
  Speaker 2: this kind of story of the eighteen hundreds in England
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: is of a pretty weak monarch who you know, defers
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: to Parliament largely, who has moments of intervention. But compared
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: to what Trump is trying to do here is again
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: to make himself stronger than a monarch. That's what John
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: Adams thought of the presidency, although he still had you know,
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: he was.
• 50:25
  Speaker 3: A serious scholar.
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: This is just somebody who combines narcissism with his desire
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: to destroy democracy, and he's succeeding in large part. That's
• 50:33
  Speaker 2: what's so frightening about this moment. So I don't know
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: if that answers the question fully, but I guess what
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: I was going to say about Victoria. Sorry, I did
• 50:41
  Speaker 2: have a bigger point, which is, you know, the British
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: really have this idea even within monarchy, even without a
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: full democracy, and early nineteenth century England, there isn't universal
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: voting by any measure.
• 50:56
  Speaker 3: There's limits and you know.
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: Property owners and although Parliament is pa but they have
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: a rule of law. And one of the scenes that's
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: most powerful in Victoria is that there's an assassination or
• 51:06
  Speaker 2: multiple assassination attempts on her, but the first one. And
• 51:09
  Speaker 2: I went and fact checked all this, so it isn't
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: just in the show that the assassin who tries to
• 51:15
  Speaker 2: attack her, tries to murder her, is tried in court,
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: and of course she wants to see or her life
• 51:22
  Speaker 2: was threatened. She wants to see this person convicted. But
• 51:24
  Speaker 2: they find him to be not guilty by reason of
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: insanity and he's not given the punishment of death, which
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: you would get for an attempt to kill a monarch,
• 51:34
  Speaker 2: and you know she honors it. She says, the courts
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: have spoken. That's how it works. I'm not getting to
• 51:40
  Speaker 2: decide the fate of people, even the people who attack me.
• 51:43
  Speaker 2: The law does that, the rule of law. So even
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: in monarchy, you have this idea of the rule of law,
• 51:48
  Speaker 2: and what do we have here? We have really an
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: attempt to destroy it. What is that whole story that
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: we just talked about in depth about the Gulagan al
• 51:57
  Speaker 2: Salvad or the Enemy Aliens Act, but an attempt to
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: destroy even the constraints on the monarch. And that is
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: what John Adams was trying to do.
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: Did you make it through and Door season two? Corey?
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: Did you get through and or season two?
• 52:08
  Speaker 3: We did? Yeah? Okay, oh yeah, which the whole thing awesome.
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: At some point.
• 52:14
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, any any films professor that that caught your right
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: doesn't have to be constitutional. Although I've said on the
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: show before, to me, one of the greatest lines of
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: dialogue of the year is in James Gunn Superman, where
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: Superman is told the Constitution doesn't apply to you because
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: you're an alien, and I'm like, how did this guy
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: know writing this script in two thousand and two, how
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: prescient that line would be. Were there any films that
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: really turned you on this year?
• 52:38
  Speaker 3: There were a lot.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: I mean I have to single out one battle after another.
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: Leonardo DiCaprio's amazing film. I mean, just the way that
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: so much of it, you know, with this is the
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: DiCaprio film that was directed by all the time, and
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: the way it depicts this frightening world that is in
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: some ways, you know, I think before this Tooy twenty five,
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: we would have said that this is a dystopian world
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: in which there don't seem to be many rights, and
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: where you have this, you know, kind of authoritarian power.
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: Sean Penn in it as a frightening sort of ice
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: leader the equivalent device. And yet when you watch it
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: it's dystopian. It is dystopian, there's no question about it.
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: And you have heroes pushing back.
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: Along the way.
• 53:21
  Speaker 2: It resembles our own society in such a frightening way.
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: So is it a pleasure to watch? I mean, it's
• 53:26
  Speaker 2: a great film, great acting, but it's eerie in the way.
• 53:31
  Speaker 2: While in the way you were suggesting with Superman, the
• 53:33
  Speaker 2: parallels with the current moment. I mean, I just have
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: to believe. I know that was in production long before
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: Trump took power, but there was a sense that this
• 53:41
  Speaker 2: could happen, and it is happening. And you know, this film,
• 53:45
  Speaker 2: I highly recommend it. How about you, John, I.
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: Mean, you know, I loved many films this year, but
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: I loved Superman, I loved Sinners. One battle after another
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: has a lot of lovely moments. I mean, I think
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: Del Torros, Frankenstein is great, and I love Trained Dreams.
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: If you want to sob for hours, I mean, it's
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: actually in the last year we've had, I would argue
• 54:05
  Speaker 1: the best Superman movie ever, the best Frankenstein movie ever,
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: and last December with nos Vatu, the best Dracula movie ever.
• 54:12
  Speaker 1: And I've never needed non political entertainment more than I
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: needed it this year, Corey. But I want to thank
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: you as well, because my book and this podcast were
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: my project twenty twenty five, and it's been such a
• 54:25
  Speaker 1: pleasure to build this thing up and watch the audience
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: find it and watch it take off. And so I
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: have to ask you about the year to come now.
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: I mean, what should we be watching for next? Legally politically,
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: what do you think we should keep our eyes open.
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: That would signal a real escalation.
• 54:42
  Speaker 2: I do want to say a shout out to your book,
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: John and all the success of Separation of Church and Hate.
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: And you know, one of the pleasures of doing this
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: podcast was talking to you about that as it was
• 54:51
  Speaker 2: being written, and then seeing it come out, and then
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: seeing the way it took off. And I you know,
• 54:56
  Speaker 2: it is one of the things about twenty twenty five
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: that gives me hope because I know from our own
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: listeners and hearing from many of them, that so much
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: of your audience, you know, is curious about how to
• 55:08
  Speaker 2: fight back against hate being co opted by the theocrats,
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: and to show that even within the tradition of Christianity,
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: that there's so many resources we're pushing back. So that
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: really did give me so much hope, not just that
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: I liked the book and that I loved our interview
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: right around the time that it came out, but that
• 55:27
  Speaker 2: people are responding to it in the way that they are.
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: I think that just shows you that the culture, as
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: much as we're facing this authoritarian crackdown, that there is
• 55:35
  Speaker 2: this deep culture of democracy and culture of pluralism that
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: doesn't want to see religion co opted and used as
• 55:42
  Speaker 2: a vehicle of hate, and that's what your book does
• 55:45
  Speaker 2: so well, and that's why you're getting this wide response.
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: So that really just was such a pleasure to be
• 55:51
  Speaker 2: you know, a part of it, to hear from listeners
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: in terms of hope. You know, I think that that
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: leads us to the deeper idea, which is that the
• 55:58
  Speaker 2: culture has so many resources in it.
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: It has history in it, it has the law.
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: Let's not forget that it's still there even if it's
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: being usurped. And yes it is under attack, but it's
• 56:09
  Speaker 2: also there, as Judge Boseberg shows us, and you have decency.
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: I think that in this society we have people who
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: you know, throughout American history have fought back in these
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: authoritarian moments. And that's what this has been about for me,
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: this podcast, it's been a pleasure. It has this element
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: of solidarity, hearing from listeners, watching it grow from you know,
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: a modest beginning to one of the top podcasts, as
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: you said, in the government category, usually top three when
• 56:37
  Speaker 2: the episodes come out. You know that there's lots of
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: hope in that. For me, in our small corner, any
• 56:42
  Speaker 2: way of resisting this authoritarian shutdown of democracy.
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: A lot of that is because I threatened to sue
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: the Apple Charts and they back down and gave us
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: a better replace trick I learned this year threatening people
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: with lawsuits to make them bend the law and obey
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: with you, obey you. It's a whole thing. But I mean, like,
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: let me let me ask, like, what would to you
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: signal a real escalation that we should be worried? What
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: should we have our eyes open for that legally or
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: politically that this guy is going beyond what he tried
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: this year as the decades of untreated syphilis nestle in
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: his brain even more. I mean, what are you the
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: most scared of opening up the paper and seeing Corey Well?
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: Really, you know, every week we get an example of it.
• 57:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, the idea that we would begin this podcast
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: and then it would turn out that Trump was just
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: another president and there wasn't an authoritarian shutdown of democracy.
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: You know, if you want to see proved that that
• 57:35
  Speaker 2: didn't happen, look every week that these stories are ongoing,
• 57:39
  Speaker 2: and I think all the dangers that we outlined when
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: we were going back over the past year are going
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: to continue.
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: None of them are over, So.
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: That Gulagh deportation, use of the Enemy Aliens Act. You
• 57:50
  Speaker 2: have one judge fighting back, but the Supreme Court of
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: the United States hasn't opined on it, and certainly hasn't
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: given that judge's view Boseburg's view victory. So that continues
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: the deprivation of all rights to this gulag in Al Salvador.
• 58:04
  Speaker 2: And we could keep going with all the other examples.
• 58:07
  Speaker 2: The use of the military domestically. Yes, the Court's pushed back,
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: but that possibility of the Insurrection Act being used is
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: extremely dangerous, and the emoluments violations the grift is going
• 58:18
  Speaker 2: to continue.
• 58:19
  Speaker 3: He's not satisfied with any amount of money.
• 58:21
  Speaker 2: He wants to be, I think, the wealthiest person in
• 58:24
  Speaker 2: the world, and he has the entire United States government
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: that he can deploy. So any of these stories that
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: we've talked about, the shutdown of free speech and universities,
• 58:33
  Speaker 2: all of those are ongoing threats, and you know, one
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: of them I'm getting a first hand view at because
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: I'm teaching in one of the places that he's targeting.
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, eighteen hundred souls are missing from this
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: Alligator Alcatraz prison, right and ice and vcp of I mean,
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: like Ice may have lost three thousand immigrant arrestees in Chicago,
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: was reported by NBC. I mean, thousands of people kidnapped
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: by our government. I mean, and there miss nineteen hundred
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: people have not just been disappeared to a prison, they've
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: disappeared from the prison. Like I fear that we're going
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: to spend the rest of our lives watching all this
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: investigated for human trafficking and god knows what else. I mean,
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: do you have any confidence still that the judiciary as
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: an institution can hold the line for one more year?
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: Or is this just a race against time, a race
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: against Donald Trump's arteries.
• 59:32
  Speaker 2: Well, we're seeing you know, you asked the question about
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: do we still have a rule of law, and there
• 59:35
  Speaker 2: are semblances of it. You have these lower court judges,
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: and let's remember it's not just the non justices of
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, but the large number of judges on
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: the district courts, the first level in the federal system,
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: and the appellate court's courts of appeals.
• 59:49
  Speaker 3: We also have the role of the states and fighting back.
• 59:52
  Speaker 2: So there are a lot of resources to try to
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: check this power. It isn't a completed coup. It's an
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: attempted one, and you know, the story of next year
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: is going to be whether we can push back a
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: reference to you know, one of the things that I'm
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: very hopeful about is that at the end of this year,
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 2: in November, I'm hoping that we're going to see a
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: Democratic Congress elected and people like Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator white House,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 2: who we had on the show recently, will become the
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee chair, and or Ted lu on the House side.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 3: Who we had.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 2: These are people deeply concerned as we are, and that's
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: why we've had them on the show, and we'll have
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: them again about the authoritarian attempted take over by Donald Trump,
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: and they'll have the tools of Congress to push back.
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 2: So it won't just be these district court and Court
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 2: of Appeals judges on the federal system. You'll have Congress
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: as well. And that's why I'm hopeful that no far
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: from being over. This is a fight that we're in
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: the midst of, one battle after another.
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: To quote, yeah, I'm with you on that. I mean, like,
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: I'm not an optimist, I'm a recovering cynic, but I
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: just there's so much to be proud of and I
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: think as more and more people wake up, Look, Donald
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: Trump is not going to become more popular. He's not
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: going to have more people who are on the fence
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: before suddenly start liking this agenda. So I keep telling
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: everyone it's going to be hard, a lot of folks
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: are going to be hurt, But don't forget to stop
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: and smell the train wreck, Corey. Looking back over all
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: of this, I mean, it's easy to see why some
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: of our listeners would feel overwhelmed and powerless. From the
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: deployment of the military forces without any legal grounding, to
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: the murdering people overseas and bombing people without any legal grounding,
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 1: the deportations without due process, these executive orders that just
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: nuke the idea of restraints on presidential power, the judicial
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: clashes over separation of powers and civil liberties. I mean,
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: it's overwhelming to me. And I know a constitutional law
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: professor who talks me off the ledge. For your thinking, professor,
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: let me end it with this, what does constitutional resistance
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: actually look like right now? For people outside the courts,
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: for those listening who don't have law degrees, I mean,
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: what does constitutional resistance look like? And how should the
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: rest of us approach the coming year.
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 2: Well, I love that phrase constitutional resistance. It's one that
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: we've used before, but we have to keep using them.
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: It's what this discussion this podcast is all about, is
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 2: inspiring people to see that, and this is true throughout
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 2: American history, that you can't rely on the President, certainly
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 2: in this current moment, to defend the Constitution, even though
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 2: the oath of office requires him to say that that
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: he's going to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. This
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 2: is doing the extreme opposite of that. The Supreme Court,
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 2: despite its good moments, is going to have a lot
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 2: of bad moments, and certainly this year is full with them.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 2: Probably chief among them, which I don't even think we
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: mentioned in our rundown it's so ingrained in US, is
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 2: the Immunity case that just essentially declared the President and
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 2: king when it came to the ability to him to
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 2: get away.
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 3: With crime literally.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: And so the idea that I'm trying to get at
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: is we never have been able to just simply trust
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: our public officials. They're going to fail us at different moments.
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 2: But what we can trust in is that in a democracy,
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 2: citizens can claim the Constitution and can claim the law
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 2: for themselves. And when the government is being used to
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 2: shut down the constitution, we can resist in the name
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: of the constitution. So that's what I mean by this
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: phrase of constitutional resistance, and that's what this whole podcast
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: is about, using the Constitution to resist authoritarian attempts to
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: take over. And you know, if you need inspiration, as
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 2: I say, in the presidents and the people, that's so
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 2: often what happened when John Adams was challenged not by
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: the courts which enabled him, but by the newspaper editors
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: he tried to prosecute. They used their own editorials to
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: put the president on trial, their own trials, they advertised
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: them to show the authoritarian takeover, the Frederick Douglas wing
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: of abolition that used the Constitution against the denial.
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 3: Of all rights to all black people.
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 2: During that period, in the dread Scott case, and so
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 2: again and again, we have these moments of inspiration throughout history,
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 2: and we're living through it now. And that's what I'm
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 2: I wanted to start the podcast to do, and I
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 2: think we're succeeding in that into showing people into inspiring
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 2: them that just because the Constitution is being shut down
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: by the people in power doesn't mean that we have
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: to let them, we have to resist.
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 3: What a great phrase, John, Thank you for raising them.
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm here to help out, professor. What is the
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: best way for our listeners to follow you and to
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: keep up with your brilliance the other six days of
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: the week as we might need it this year?
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: There now is the oath in the office substack. I
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: urge you to subscribe to that and to find it
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 2: on substack. We also have a YouTube channel if you
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 2: want to watch this show, not just listen to it,
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 2: and of course continue to review us on Apple Podcasts
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, you'll find
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: us and be sure in your favorite app that you're
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: using to listen to it or watch it to give
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: us a review. We're at four hundred and seventy five reviews.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 2: It keeps growing, and they're all five stars somehow. So
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: I don't know, John, if all of them are you know,
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 2: friends of ours or my mom, but we've got really
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 2: great listeners out there that seem enthusiastic. They're writing great things,
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 2: they love this dynamic, and you know, I'm so grateful
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 2: to hear from so many of you. I'm continuing to
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: collect comments and questions. But this idea of constitutional resistance,
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 2: this isn't just a podcast. It's meant to create a
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 2: kind of community in this moment and a record of
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: what's happening. And I think in the long run, you know,
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 2: despite the honesty that we're bringing to what we're facing,
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: that in the long run we're going to recover and
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 2: we'll have this these shows as a record of our
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 2: fighting back.
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: Well, I just want to thank you again. I want
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: to thank Wendy and Beowulf and everyone who puts this
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: thing together, and most of all, I want to thank
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: our deeply attractive listeners. And you can hear me every
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: night on Sirius XM Progress or the John Feugel Sanging Podcast.
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: If you don't have Serious XM, I have a substack.
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: My book is called Separation of Church Ed Hate, and
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: I'm on all the socials at John Fugel Saying, And
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: I just want to thank you again, Professor. It's going
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: to be quite a year. I hope everyone got some
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: rest over the holidays. It's going to be a lot
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: of resisting, a lot of mouth seasons, and a lot
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: of devil talking. Joe, we have to deconstruct, and I
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: just want to thank you again for helping us make
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: sense of a moment where our constitution is very much
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: on trial. I'm John Fugel Sang. We look forward to
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 1: having you join us for the rest of the year.
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: Let's talk each other off some ledges and keep each
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: other sane, and keep fighting for the oath and the Office.
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 3: Peace,