Latest / Uncensored Objection / [Podcast] The President Declared War on Lawyers—And If You Don’t Fight Back, You’re Surrendering the Constitution

Transcript

[Podcast] The President Declared War on Lawyers—And If You Don’t Fight Back, You’re Surrendering the Constitution · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Hey, everyone.
• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Welcome back for another deep dive.
• 0:02
  SPEAKER_00: You know, we always try to bring you the most pressing issues.
• 0:04
  SPEAKER_00: And today, well, today is no exception.
• 0:06
  We're going to get into some some seriously concerning stuff
• 0:09
  about the rule of law
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_00: here in the U.S.
• 0:12
  And it all stems from this this article we came across on
• 0:15
  attorney Mitch Jackson's
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_00: uncensored objections sub stack.
• 0:19
  You know,
• 0:20
  you brought this to our attention and it's definitely something
• 0:22
  we need to unpack.
• 0:23
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, it's heavy stuff.
• 0:25
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, no doubt.
• 0:26
  What really hits you right away when you read Jackson's piece
• 0:29
  is just how directly
• 0:30
  SPEAKER_01: he calls out what he sees as a real threat,
• 0:33
  SPEAKER_01: like a real tangible threat to the legal profession.
• 0:36
  And and really,
• 0:37
  when you think about it,
• 0:38
  by extension to the very foundations of our democracy.
• 0:41
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:42
  SPEAKER_00: OK, so let's break this down a bit.
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_00: The article zeroes in on this pattern of behavior.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_00: It's about former President Trump and how he allegedly used,
• 0:51
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 0:51
  SPEAKER_00: basically weaponized executive power to go after certain law firms.
• 0:55
  SPEAKER_00: And it wasn't just about disagreeing on policy.
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:58
  I mean,
• 0:58
  the way Jackson lays it out,
• 1:00
  it seems like these actions were specifically aimed at.
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_00: Firms that represented clients that Trump didn't like or,
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_00: firms that took on cases that he opposed.
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_01: That's the heart of Jackson's argument.
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_01: He's saying and he's very clear about this,
• 1:13
  SPEAKER_01: that this was a deliberate,
• 1:14
  SPEAKER_01: unprecedented campaign of retribution.
• 1:17
  SPEAKER_01: And he doesn't hold back at all.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 1:18
  he even compares these tactics to stuff you'd see in like
• 1:22
  straight up authoritarian regimes.
• 1:24
  It's a pretty stark assessment and one that I think really
• 1:26
  demands that we take a closer look.
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_00: It is really stark.
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_00: And the thing is,
• 1:30
  what Jackson keeps coming back to and what really sticks with
• 1:33
  you is this idea of a
• 1:35
  SPEAKER_00: slow suffocation.
• 1:36
  He talks about the slow suffocation of the institutions that
• 1:39
  maintain the rule of law.
• 1:41
  SPEAKER_00: It's a powerful image and kind of a disturbing one, you know.
• 1:45
  SPEAKER_00: So let's get into the specifics here.
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_00: What exactly is Jackson alleging happened?
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_01: OK,
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_01: so the main point that Jackson's making is that the former president,
• 1:54
  SPEAKER_01: he was engaged in this deliberate,
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_01: sustained effort to punish law firms.
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_01: And these were firms that had,
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_01: in one way or another,
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_01: opposed him or maybe represented people who challenged him legally.
• 2:05
  And Jackson really stresses that this is unprecedented,
• 2:08
  like this is not how things are done.
• 2:10
  He sees it as a dangerous break from the norms and a direct
• 2:13
  attack on the integrity
• 2:14
  SPEAKER_01: of our legal system.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_01: It wasn't about governing legitimately, in his view.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_01: It was about using the power of the presidency to get revenge.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: And he names names.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_00: He names specific law firms.
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_00: So let's start with Covington and Burling.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_00: What happened there, according to the article?
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_01: All right,
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_01: so according to Jackson,
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_01: Covington,
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_01: and Burling,
• 2:31
  they ended up in the crosshairs after reports came out that
• 2:34
  some of their lawyers
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_01: were advising special counsel Jack Smith.
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_01: And the response, as Jackson details it, was swift and severe.
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_01: Like, boom!
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_01: They stripped security clearances from lawyers connected to the firm,
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_01: and then,
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_01: bam,
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_01: they canceled government contracts.
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson's interpretation is that this was a direct punishment.
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: A punishment for, as he puts it,
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_01: daring to support accountability.
• 2:56
  SPEAKER_01: It's like it's suggesting that just by providing legal counsel,
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_01: in matters related to investigations of the former president,
• 3:03
  that could lead to like massive professional blowback for the
• 3:07
  firm and the lawyers involved.
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_00: Wow.
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_00: That definitely sends a pretty chilling message, doesn't it?
• 3:11
  SPEAKER_00: Like even offering legal advice in certain areas,
• 3:14
  SPEAKER_00: certain sensitive areas could come back to bite you,
• 3:16
  SPEAKER_00: professionally speaking.
• 3:18
  SPEAKER_00: OK, now what about Perkins Coy?
• 3:20
  This one,
• 3:21
  from what Jackson says,
• 3:22
  seems to have played out a little differently.
• 3:23
  yeah it did so jackson explains that perkins coy was allegedly
• 3:28
  blacklisted because
• 3:29
  of get this past connections like way back connections to the
• 3:33
  steel dossier and the
• 3:34
  clinton campaign and the alleged actions were you know pretty
• 3:37
  serious they revoked
• 3:38
  security clearances and they basically barred the firm from
• 3:42
  getting any federal
• 3:43
  work jackson even says there was pressure to get clients with
• 3:46
  government ties to
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_01: drop them but here's the thing and this is really important
• 3:50
  SPEAKER_01: Perkins Coie didn't just sit there and take it.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_01: They actually went to court,
• 3:54
  SPEAKER_01: fought back against that executive order,
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_01: and they got a temporary injunction.
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_01: And Jackson highlights this as a key example of resistance,
• 4:01
  SPEAKER_01: like they pushed back against what he sees as executive overreach.
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_01: And this raises a really interesting point for us to think about,
• 4:07
  SPEAKER_01: could this legal pushback offer a way forward?
• 4:11
  Could it be a blueprint for challenging these kinds of actions
• 4:13
  in the future?
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_00: That's a huge difference, isn't it?
• 4:16
  SPEAKER_00: The fact that they fought back and actually had a temporary win,
• 4:19
  SPEAKER_00: at least,
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_00: it really underscores how important it is to resist,
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_00: to push back in these situations.
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, let's shift gears to Paul Weiss.
• 4:26
  SPEAKER_00: Jackson describes a situation there that had a very different outcome.
• 4:29
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, yeah, completely different.
• 4:31
  So Jackson lays out how Paul Weiss allegedly got targeted
• 4:33
  because of their
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_01: connection to the Manhattan DA's investigation,
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_01: the one looking into the former president.
• 4:38
  But their response,
• 4:39
  at least according to the article,
• 4:40
  it seemed to be more about appeasement.
• 4:42
  Like they reportedly got rid of their diversity programs and
• 4:45
  offered a ton of pro bono work.
• 4:48
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson says it was $40 million worth,
• 4:50
  all seemingly to try and smooth things over with the
• 4:52
  administration and what happened.
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_01: The order against them was relented.
• 4:56
  And Jackson points to this as a worrying example of how these
• 4:59
  tactics can actually work.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_01: His argument is that his threats work,
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_01: meaning that the former president,
• 5:05
  SPEAKER_01: by using executive power like a weapon,
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_01: he got what he wanted in this case.
• 5:09
  It's a picture of a firm feeling like they had to make these
• 5:13
  major changes to their
• 5:14
  internal policies and even their charitable work just to
• 5:17
  respond to this alleged
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_01: pressure from the executive branch.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_00: It's a really unsettling picture.
• 5:22
  This idea that someone in a position of power could use their
• 5:24
  influence to sway the
• 5:26
  SPEAKER_00: internal decisions of a law firm is pretty disturbing.
• 5:30
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, let's move on to WilmerHale.
• 5:32
  What was the basis for the allegations against them,
• 5:34
  according to Jackson?
• 5:35
  SPEAKER_01: So with WilmerHale,
• 5:37
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson says that their alleged defense was,
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_01: well,
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_01: basically that Robert Mueller used to work there.
• 5:42
  SPEAKER_01: You know,
• 5:42
  SPEAKER_01: Robert Mueller,
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_01: who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
• 5:47
  SPEAKER_01: That's it.
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_01: And the alleged retaliation, it was pretty harsh.
• 5:50
  They barred the firm from federal contracts and once again
• 5:53
  tried to damage their
• 5:54
  SPEAKER_01: relationships with clients by,
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 5:56
  hinting that they were national security risks just because of
• 5:59
  this past association.
• 6:01
  Jackson sees this as straight up retaliation for the Mueller investigation.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_01: And he implies that any link,
• 6:07
  SPEAKER_01: past or present,
• 6:08
  to people who investigated the former president could have
• 6:11
  serious consequences for
• 6:12
  SPEAKER_01: a law firm.
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_01: So you can see how these different instances,
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_01: when you look at them together,
• 6:16
  SPEAKER_01: like Jackson's arguing,
• 6:17
  SPEAKER_01: they start to reveal this bigger picture,
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_01: this pattern of a potential attack on the legal profession itself.
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_01: And I think that's a really important point to underscore here,
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_01: the potential impact on the legal profession as a whole.
• 6:27
  SPEAKER_01: It's not just about individual firms.
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_01: It's about the system itself.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: It's wild, right?
• 6:31
  Even just having an indirect association was enough to put you
• 6:34
  on the radar.
• 6:35
  SPEAKER_00: OK, last one, Jenner and Block.
• 6:38
  The article suggests that the way they were targeted was framed
• 6:41
  a bit differently.
• 6:41
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, that's right.
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_01: With Jenner and Block,
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson points out that the alleged attack was presented,
• 6:46
  SPEAKER_01: as he puts it,
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_01: veiled as culture war politics.
• 6:50
  SPEAKER_01: But his argument is that the real reason was probably retaliation.
• 6:54
  SPEAKER_01: Retaliation for the firm's advocacy for LGBTQ plus rights.
• 6:58
  and their connection to some former prosecutors from the
• 7:01
  Mueller investigation.
• 7:03
  SPEAKER_01: And what did this lead to?
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_01: Allegedly, federal blacklisting and all kinds of scrutiny.
• 7:08
  It's like Jackson's suggesting that even taking a political
• 7:11
  stance or having
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_01: certain associations,
• 7:13
  SPEAKER_01: even if they seem unrelated,
• 7:15
  could be used as an excuse to target law firms that are seen as
• 7:18
  disloyal or critical.
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_00: Man, the pattern that Jackson's describing is really disturbing.
• 7:22
  He keeps hammering on this point that these actions are
• 7:24
  transparent and alarming.
• 7:26
  SPEAKER_00: So what's his take on the underlying nature of these actions?
• 7:29
  SPEAKER_00: What does he think was really going on?
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_01: Well, Jackson doesn't mince words, that's for sure.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_01: He's convinced that this whole thing wasn't about national security.
• 7:37
  SPEAKER_01: It wasn't about protecting the integrity of government service.
• 7:41
  SPEAKER_01: In his view, it was purely about vengeance, plain and simple.
• 7:45
  SPEAKER_01: And he highlights the irony, right?
• 7:47
  SPEAKER_01: Here's a president sworn to uphold the Constitution,
• 7:50
  allegedly twisting the very powers of his office to go after
• 7:53
  lawyers for basically
• 7:54
  SPEAKER_01: just doing their jobs.
• 7:56
  He even draws this parallel to despots,
• 7:58
  to dictators who jail or intimidate lawyers.
• 8:01
  He says he never thought he'd see something like that happening
• 8:02
  in the United States.
• 8:04
  And then he points to the specific language used in these orders,
• 8:07
  doesn't he?
• 8:07
  SPEAKER_00: He does.
• 8:08
  SPEAKER_00: He focuses on that.
• 8:09
  SPEAKER_00: Jackson notes that the language was often really charged,
• 8:12
  SPEAKER_00: like it came from a place of personal grievance,
• 8:14
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 8:15
  accusing firms of undermining American principles or
• 8:19
  weaponizing the judicial
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_00: process or even calling them dishonest and dangerous.
• 8:24
  SPEAKER_00: And remember,
• 8:24
  these accusations are being thrown at firms that had just dared
• 8:27
  to challenge or
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_00: criticize the president's actions,
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 8:31
  SPEAKER_00: using legal means.
• 8:32
  SPEAKER_00: And Jackson argues that the scope of these punishments,
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_00: it was all designed to cripple these firms,
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_00: to really hurt them.
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_00: He sees the justifications, the reasons given as weak excuses.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_00: To him,
• 8:43
  the real intention was to erode due process and to chip away at
• 8:46
  the professional
• 8:47
  SPEAKER_00: independence of lawyers.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_01: So for Jackson, the implications for the rule of law are huge.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, really troubling.
• 8:53
  SPEAKER_01: What are some of the key arguments he's making there?
• 8:56
  Well,
• 8:56
  one of the big ones is that everyone,
• 8:59
  everyone has the right to legal representation.
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_00: It's a fundamental principle.
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_00: And that includes people that the president doesn't like.
• 9:05
  SPEAKER_00: He's warning that if a president can successfully bully lawyers into not
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_00: representing certain clients,
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_00: then those clients are basically denied access to justice.
• 9:14
  And what if those clients are the ones trying to hold the
• 9:16
  president accountable?
• 9:17
  SPEAKER_00: That's a whole other level of messed up.
• 9:19
  It's like Jackson saying that the president is putting himself
• 9:22
  above the law.
• 9:23
  And he brings back that chilling phrase from earlier that this
• 9:26
  is how democracy dies,
• 9:27
  SPEAKER_00: not in one dramatic moment,
• 9:28
  but in a slow suffocation of the institutions that maintain the
• 9:32
  rule of law.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_00: It's a powerful statement.
• 9:35
  SPEAKER_00: He believes that by going after all these different law firms,
• 9:38
  the former president was trying to rig the system to tilt the
• 9:41
  scales of justice in
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: his favor.
• 9:44
  And by doing that,
• 9:45
  to scare lawyers away from taking on any case that might make
• 9:48
  him angry.
• 9:49
  SPEAKER_00: Basically,
• 9:49
  Jackson sees this as a direct attack on the very idea of legal
• 9:53
  advocacy and a
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_00: serious blow to fairness within the legal system.
• 9:56
  SPEAKER_01: It's a pretty damning indictment.
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_01: And how have people been responding to these alleged actions?
• 10:02
  Jackson seems really critical of the fact that there hasn't
• 10:04
  been more outrage.
• 10:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's a major part of his critique.
• 10:08
  He's deeply disappointed by what he calls the muted response
• 10:11
  from people who he
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_00: thinks should be speaking out condemning this stuff.
• 10:15
  SPEAKER_00: He does give credit to a few strong, courageous voices.
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_00: He mentions legal ethics scholars,
• 10:20
  SPEAKER_00: some leaders in bar associations,
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_00: and the firm Williams & Connolly for representing Pukin's coup.
• 10:25
  SPEAKER_00: But to him, those are the exceptions, not the rule.
• 10:27
  SPEAKER_00: And he calls out some specific institutions, doesn't he?
• 10:30
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, he does.
• 10:31
  SPEAKER_01: He questions the American Bar Association, the ABA.
• 10:34
  He thinks their statements haven't been strong enough,
• 10:36
  haven't clearly condemned what happened.
• 10:38
  SPEAKER_01: And he expends that criticism to state bar associations,
• 10:41
  SPEAKER_01: too,
• 10:42
  SPEAKER_01: wondering why they haven't come out swinging,
• 10:43
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 10:44
  stating unequivocally that this kind of presidential
• 10:46
  retaliation is unethical and unconstitutional.
• 10:49
  He's basically saying that carefully worded press releases
• 10:52
  aren't going to cut it.
• 10:53
  SPEAKER_01: He also points to the scattered,
• 10:55
  SPEAKER_01: subdued responses from law schools and the fact that judges,
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_01: both active and retired,
• 11:00
  SPEAKER_01: have been relatively quiet.
• 11:02
  SPEAKER_01: And he thinks judges, they get it.
• 11:04
  They understand how important it is to have lawyers who can
• 11:06
  zealously represent their clients.
• 11:08
  But the thing that really worries him is the lack of a strong
• 11:11
  bipartisan defense of
• 11:13
  SPEAKER_01: the rule of law in Congress.
• 11:15
  He keeps saying that this shouldn't be a partisan issue,
• 11:17
  that everyone should be concerned.
• 11:19
  It makes you think about how these institutions have to walk
• 11:22
  the spine line.
• 11:22
  They have to speak out against things that are wrong,
• 11:25
  but they also have to stay impartial.
• 11:26
  SPEAKER_01: It's a tough balance.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, it is.
• 11:29
  And he mentioned some stuff coming out of Congress that's
• 11:31
  especially worrying,
• 11:32
  right?
• 11:32
  SPEAKER_01: He does.
• 11:33
  Jackson highlights these reports and he calls them incredibly
• 11:36
  concerning about Senate staff.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_01: And get this.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_01: They were allegedly circulating lists of the targeted firm's clients.
• 11:44
  They were trying to encourage people to avoid doing business
• 11:46
  with those clients.
• 11:47
  SPEAKER_01: It's pretty messed up.
• 11:49
  Jackson sees this as elected officials basically going along
• 11:51
  with the bullying of
• 11:52
  SPEAKER_01: private attorneys and he's not having it.
• 11:55
  SPEAKER_01: He also calls out the Supreme Court for their silence.
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_01: He says,
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 11:58
  SPEAKER_01: a direct statement from them might be unusual,
• 12:01
  but even just a general reminder about the importance of
• 12:03
  independent legal counsel
• 12:04
  SPEAKER_01: would have been something.
• 12:06
  SPEAKER_01: His main point is that all this silence, it sends a dangerous message.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_01: It makes it seem like these actions aren't a big deal,
• 12:12
  SPEAKER_01: like they don't threaten the rule of law,
• 12:14
  SPEAKER_01: when in his view,
• 12:15
  SPEAKER_01: they absolutely do.
• 12:17
  SPEAKER_00: So Jackson ends his article with a call to action.
• 12:19
  SPEAKER_00: What does he want people to do?
• 12:21
  SPEAKER_00: What does he want the legal community and the public to do?
• 12:23
  SPEAKER_01: He's calling for action and it's urgent.
• 12:25
  SPEAKER_01: He's urging lawyers,
• 12:27
  SPEAKER_01: judges,
• 12:27
  SPEAKER_01: legal scholars,
• 12:28
  even law students to remember who we are and what we stand for
• 12:31
  and to actively
• 12:32
  SPEAKER_01: defend the rule of law.
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_01: And he gets specific.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_01: He wants bar associations to condemn these actions loud and clear.
• 12:39
  He wants law firms to show solidarity,
• 12:41
  especially the ones that haven't been targeted yet.
• 12:43
  He wants law schools to teach their students about how
• 12:46
  significant this moment is.
• 12:47
  He wants judges to stand up for their oaths and strike down
• 12:50
  these kinds of orders.
• 12:51
  And he wants Congress to investigate and pass laws to protect
• 12:54
  the independence of legal counsel.
• 12:56
  SPEAKER_01: And it's not just about the legal community.
• 12:57
  He's also appealing to the public,
• 12:59
  to clients,
• 13:00
  to understand that this affects them,
• 13:02
  too.
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_01: It affects their right to representation.
• 13:04
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson's point is that we can't just be outraged.
• 13:07
  SPEAKER_01: We have to do something.
• 13:08
  SPEAKER_01: We need action and accountability.
• 13:11
  He finishes strong talking about the legal profession being the
• 13:14
  last line of
• 13:14
  SPEAKER_01: defense and the need to hold the line.
• 13:16
  SPEAKER_01: It's a powerful way to end the article.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_00: It is powerful.
• 13:19
  SPEAKER_00: This whole piece really gets you thinking about some fundamental stuff.
• 13:24
  SPEAKER_00: The independence of lawyers, the separation of powers.
• 13:27
  SPEAKER_00: It's all so important.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_01: Jackson's article over on his uncensored objection substack.
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_01: It's a must read.
• 13:35
  He paints a really troubling picture of how executive power was
• 13:38
  allegedly used to
• 13:39
  SPEAKER_01: target lawyers.
• 13:40
  SPEAKER_01: And he makes a convincing case that if we don't challenge these actions,
• 13:44
  they could really threaten the rule of law and even the basic
• 13:48
  right to legal
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_01: representation in this country.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_00: Couldn't agree more.
• 13:51
  SPEAKER_00: Listeners, we really encourage you to go check out the full article.
• 13:54
  Go to Mitch Jackson's uncensored objection substack and read it
• 13:58
  for yourself.
• 13:59
  SPEAKER_00: Staying informed on this is so crucial.
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_01: Second that.
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_01: And, you know, while you're there, why not subscribe?
• 14:03
  Share the article with others who you think should know about
• 14:05
  this and jump into
• 14:07
  SPEAKER_01: the comment section.
• 14:08
  SPEAKER_01: Get the conversation going.
• 14:09
  SPEAKER_01: That's how we're going to tackle these challenges,
• 14:11
  SPEAKER_01: by talking about them,
• 14:11
  SPEAKER_01: by understanding the issues and by working together.
• 14:14
  SPEAKER_00: I said it better myself.
• 14:16
  SPEAKER_00: So as we wrap up this deep dive, we want to leave you with a question.
• 14:20
  It's something to really ponder,
• 14:21
  something that came up in Jackson's article.
• 14:23
  What does it mean when key institutions stay silent in the face
• 14:27
  of such serious allegations?
• 14:29
  What does that say about the future of justice and the rule of
• 14:32
  law in our society?
• 14:33
  SPEAKER_00: It's a question worth thinking about, for sure.
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_00: Thanks for joining us.