Latest / The Oath and The Office / Title Trump’s FCC Pressures Late Night — Even as Resistance Wins

Transcript

Title Trump’s FCC Pressures Late Night — Even as Resistance Wins · The Oath and The Office

• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of The Oath in the Office.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: I'm John feel Sang, proud and thrilled to be joined
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: by author and IVY League Professor Extraordinaire, Professor Corey Bretschneider. Hello, Professor,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: thank you very much for being here. I have many,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: many questions about a democracy in trouble. We had a
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: great show planned today this controversial Senate confirmation hearing that
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: shows just how white supremacists some of this administration really are.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: A federal judge blocking the White House's attempt to rescind
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: hundreds of millions in public health funding, the FCC pressuring
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: CBS over a Stephen Colbert interview, and an honor of
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: President's Day, We're going to look at five times American
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: presidents threatened the Constitution and how the American people saved it. Corey.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: It's been pretty crazy, and congratulations on the podcast getting
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: so popular. I want to thank all of our new
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: listeners for all the great reviews.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: Just great, and I believe we were I tweeted out
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Apple ranking, so I think we were three last week
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: and just you know, more and more we build and build,
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: and as people listen to this show, what they repeatedly
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: say is It's informative, but it also gives us hope.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: And in addition to the stories that you talked about,
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: will discuss Minnesota and the way that ICE has actually
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: been pushed back by exactly the kind of citizen action
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: that we are always praising and talking about. It's important.
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: So this is not over by any means. Donald Trump
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: has not become the authoritarian leader that will shut us
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: all down. We're still speaking out and will continue to
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: do so, and as people subscribe and spread the word,
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: that helps our voice be amplified. So thank you to
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: the listeners and John, what a pleasure to speak with
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: you every week. I'm really looking forward to this episode.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Well, thank you, professor, And you know what an amazing
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: thing to witness the people of Minnesota. I mean, for
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: weeks and weeks I just prayed, please nobody throw a
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: rock at an ICE agent please, and nobody did. I mean,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: there's a reason why folks are saying the citizens of
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Minnesota should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. This
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: grassroots resistance to this federal immigration enforcement surge and ordinary
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: citizens pushing back against this overreach of federal power. The
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Trump administration deployed thousands of federal agents. The state only
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: has about one hundred thousand undocumented humans living there, as
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: opposed to Texas, which has over two million. But they
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: didn't get a terror surge. But this intense community pushback,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: including the protests and the lawsuits and the civil organizing
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: in the wake of the murders of two American citizens, Professor,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: this appears to have forced a de escalation, hasn't it.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: They are pulling out of the state. What are your
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: thoughts on this and what should this tell us about
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: the power of local resistance to federal enforcement actions.
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: You know, it's a brilliant way to put it. It is
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: local resistance. It's people seeing the injustice and standing up
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: for it. And one thing that I hear again and again,
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: and I want to cite my amazing colleague Nancy Rosenbloom's
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: book on Neighbors and the High Eyes of Neighborhoods and
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: how that gives us a kind of link into politics
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: and a kind of empathy. And so many of these
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: people are talking about how they're coming out to defend
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: their neighbors. And of course this is also part of
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: a wider resistance that links to the attempt nationally to
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: recover our democracy. And when you see these brave individuals
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: out there, as you said, non violently documenting what's happening,
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: using cameras, protecting their fellow protesters and protecting their vulnerable neighbors,
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: is what it's about. I just think that, you know,
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: I'm inspired that, you know, the national resistance, the marches,
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: all that is important, but what was happening on the ground,
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: and as we see it, it's not only courageous, but
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: it's infectious. And I think that all of us are
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: feeling it, and you know, I don't want to hide
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: from the bottom line, there's great reporting documenting that this
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: really has worked. That in the Republican Senate, even the senators,
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: not all of them, but they really see this is
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: a losing issue for them and the fact that citizens
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: are resus think peacefully is not working on their side.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: The country's split around seventy thirty in favor of the protesters,
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: and then, of course the horrific murders of Renee Good
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: and Alex Preddi and Alex Pretdi as well. Those two
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: murders have galvanized people because we could see them happening
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: in real time, and you see that this is just
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: an act of using our most basic democratic rights. So
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: it inspires people locally, but it also is part of
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: the national resistance, and it is working. You know. I'm
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: not naiveough none of us are naive enough to think
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: that Trump has somehow changed his mind. I think he's
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: livid at how successful this resistance is, but at some
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: point politically he sees the calculation that it's hurting him
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: and that wouldn't happen if people weren't out there. I
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: think he would have succeeded with his national stormtrooper for
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: US and shutting down descent.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: You know, professor, learning about the civil rights movement, I've
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: always been very skeptical and suspicious when people talk about
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a federal intrusion into state sovereignty. But that has been
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: an argument here, and a lot of critics have said,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: we've discussed whether this was a federal intrusion into state sovereignty.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, from a constitutional perspective, how should we understand
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: that tension between federal enforcement and local authority, especially when
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: community members feel endangered. Again, this was very different from
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: US sending in the troops to say you have to
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: let black folks vote, but can that argument be made.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Is that an argument that you subscribe to.
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, the idea of local resistance and the constitutional equivalent,
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: which is citing the idea that we live in a
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: system of dual sovereignty, that the federal government has given
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: some powers, limited powers that you know, they include powers
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: to in my view, do all sorts of things, to
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: recognize unions, to create a minimum wage, but it does
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: not mean a right to create a federal military force
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: that can come in and shut down protests. Part of
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: the First Amendment guarantees against it, but also the idea
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: of limited federal power. And if you go back to
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: the founding, those who really warned against rat find the
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: Constitution were worried that that idea of state sovereignty would
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: be swallowed up. And you've seen it work before. Of course,
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: I don't want to hide what you said, which is
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: that during the Civil rights movement, the mantra of states'
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: rights got corrupted by races. And you know, it can
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: be used for good or for bad. It's a tool.
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: But in seventeen ninety eight, I'm foreshadowing what we'll talk
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: about later on in the discussion, it was used successfully
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: and importantly by those resisting adams attempt to shut down
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: free speech. So there's a much earlier tradition, much earlier
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: than the race is taking over. Where the resistance of
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: the Sedition Act and adams prosecution of one hundred and
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: twenty five opponents, what was the way that it was resisted.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: It wasn't just claiming the right of free speech that
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: was sort of a slogan. It was refusing to cooperate
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: at the local level with his attempt to arrest journalists
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: and to arrest political opponents. And you know, that's spirit
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: in which there's a lawsuit file challenging ICE's entire actions
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: in Minnesota, and it cites the Tenth Amendment, and it's
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: in that proud tradition, not the racist tradition, states rights
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: and defensive liberty rather than in defensive white supremacy.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: That's really it. I mean, the whole administration was just saying,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: this is about we're going after criminals and criminal networks.
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: And again, the people of Minnesota kept their protests so
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: nonviolent that the rest of the world saw this broad
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: brutal enforcement with so much collateral harm the communities and
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: then essentially just rounding up round folks I mean, this
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: was Sheriff Joe Orpio all over again. And of course
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Trump parton Sheriff Joe Opio for his civil rights violations.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: But what lessons, if any Corey can other states take
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: from Minnesota's resistance. I mean, what does this show us
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: about citizen mobilization influencing national policy, Because God bless Tim Walls,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: the hero here has been ordinary people. It hasn't been
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: any leaders coming to save us.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: Well, I think part of the strategy which is working,
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: and we have to look at empirically on the ground
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: what is actually working and do more of it. And yes,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: the local resistance has been some of the best way
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: to do it, even beyond many of the federal lawsuits,
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: as important as they are. And one of the techniques
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: which you're alluding to is to really let local officials know,
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: you know, we elected you, and we elected you not
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: to be complicit in this administration's authoritarianism, but to resist it.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: And you saw that in Minnesota, from the mayor of
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: Minneapolis to the governor really saying no, we are not
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: complying with what you're doing. We're not going to cooperate,
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: and our citizens on the ground aren't just resisting you.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: They are prevailing upon us successfully to push back. There
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: are other corollaries. I mentioned seventeen ninety eight in the
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: Sedition Act. But if you look in the nineteenth century
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: in the battle over slavery in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, there
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: are very famous cases where there is a refusal to
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: cooperate with federal officials who are coming in to recapture
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: enslaved people, and you see local resistance on the ground,
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: very much like what we're talking about. How are you
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: going to You know, there is no federal police force,
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: and as various attempts, including this one that I'm talking about,
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: in the nineteenth century, to use what are commonly called
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: slave catchers, or really the attempt to shut down enslave
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: people's rights by kidnapping them. That's a better way to
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: put it. Local people said, we're not going to stand
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: for it. But particularly the resistance in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: was so strong there were lawsuits about it. They prevailed
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: on local officials often to support them. And that's a
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: model for us. You know that we're not just doing
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: this out of the blue. We know local resistance works.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: We have the law on our side, and we've got
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: to use that tool effectively. It's not just about courts
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: and court battles. We can't just trust, certainly the Supreme
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: Court to defend us. We've got to take action at
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: the local level. And the most important thing is it's
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: not just a symbolic thing. It works. That's what I
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: really think. The lesson of Minnesota is here. And you know,
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: we talked about the Springsteen song of course, and you
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: know that that helps to capture, you know, the heroism.
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: I want to just highlight what you said, John, Yes,
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: you know, why not give the Nobel Peace Prize to
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: these reasons. That's been the most important moment, and what
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: a great rebuke it would be for Donald Trump, who's
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: essentially trying to steal the prize from this Venezuelan politician.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: Another well, Corey, moving on this is of course Black
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: History Month, which to Maga means it's white guys are
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the real victims month. And we had quite an amazing
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: display on our televisions about the form that white supremacy takes. Now,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: the mediocre, inarticulate, deeply stupid form that white supremacy takes
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: within the Trump administration. I want to play just a
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: little bit of this Donald Trump State Department nominee Jeremy
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: carl As he faced some rather pointed questioning over his
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: social media posts and his endorsements of conspiracy theories and
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: his what's the word I'm looking for? Offensive freaking racism?
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: Give a listen.
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: Tell me how you define white identity and what you
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: think is being erased about white identity.
• 10:58
  Speaker 4: Certain types of angle derived culture that comes from our history.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: There's what.
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: Let me think about this, you know, Senator, I would
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: say if you were to look at the book by
• 11:14
  Speaker 4: one of your former Senate colleagues born in Fighting about
• 11:17
  Speaker 4: the sort of Scotch Irish military culture and certain you know,
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: pride that went with that, that would be one example. Obviously,
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: you could have sub elements of that culture. You could
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: have Italians, you could have Irish, and those are in
• 11:29
  Speaker 4: many ways more.
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: But you're worried about white culture. You're not worried about
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: you're you're you're now retreating to ethnic identity. You don't
• 11:37
  Speaker 3: speak about ethnic identity. You speak about white identity. So
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: tell me the values that stitch together white identity and
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: that make it different than black identity.
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: I would say that the white church is very different
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: than the Black church in terms of its tone and
• 11:51
  Speaker 4: style on average foods, food ways could often be different.
• 11:58
  Speaker 3: And those us it could be for those are being erased.
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: Music could be different. Well, if you look at the
• 12:02
  Speaker 4: super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English.
• 12:04
  Speaker 3: This so our ability to access white churches, or white
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: food or white music is being erased.
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: I am concerned with the majority common American culture that
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: we had for some time that, through particularly mass immigration,
• 12:21
  Speaker 4: I think has become much more Balkanized than I think
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: that weakens us. And again, I'm not running away from
• 12:26
  Speaker 4: that comment. I'm not apologizing for it.
• 12:28
  Speaker 3: Well, I'm way over my time. I think you're struggling
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: to answer this question right because underlying your beliefs is
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: a sentiment that white culture is just simply better.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: So, Corey, I'm thrilled about this exchange because I think
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: the sooner we start having a national debate about great
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: replacement theory, it's already been mainstreamed, and I'm just glad
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: that we see this kind of pushback. But what is
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: bipartisan pushback, even from within Republican ranks signal about the
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: Senate's role as a check on controversial nominees. Still, I mean,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: it's reasonable to believe that most Republicans will clear this guy,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: but I'm not so sure all of them will.
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: Wow, I sure, hope not. I mean, this is one
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: of the worst nominees that I've ever seen, and you know,
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: white supremacy in the most naked form. Maybe in a
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: more subtle firm we will work for a lot of Republicans,
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: but I can't believe this is a winning issue for anyone,
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: certainly not from a state that's you know, god, a
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: majority of people who endorse this kind of crap, and
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: I you know, I don't.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: That's why I hope you in a way that if
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: the Republicans do confirm him, because I want this guy
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: to be the face of the Trump administration in history books.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: I want history to know that this racist mediocrity is
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: who they wanted in the State Department. I mean, it's horrible,
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: but they've already got guys like that in there. Let's
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: have an obvious case of it. But please go ahead.
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: Sorry, Yeah, I mean, you know, it's nice to see
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: the constitutional checks working, and it does in this hearing.
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: You know, not just the Senate alone has to confirm
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: high level officials, and this is of course, a high
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: level state department nominee by the President. I don't believe
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: he'll be confirmed. Part of it is what I think
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: is instructive about it. To go to your point calling
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: a mediocre I think he's a compliment. You see how
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: moronic this guy is and how moronic the idea of
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: white supremacy is. And the part of the hearing that
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: really spoke to me the most is when they just
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: ask him like, well, what do you mean by the
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: idea that white people and white culture are under attack? Like,
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: give us some examples, and then he starts saying, well,
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: you know, I gives some random example about Scottish warrior
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: culture or something. Yeah, and then he gives another example
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: and that all the examples are ethnic you know, discrimination
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: is italiency mentions, and you know, senators just point that
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: out to him, like what are you talking about white people?
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: All your examples are actually examples of ethnic discrimination, and
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: he has no response. So this is somebody who's really
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: staked his claim. He wrote a book about you know,
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: the anti white racism is in the title the idea,
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: Well what do you mean by white And he just
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: has no no theory, no idea, And it's some more,
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: you know, just getting up there and you know, this
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: is your wonderful theory that you've spent your career on,
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: and you can't even define what this anti white thing
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: is that you're talking about it. So, yeah, he is
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: a moron and the theory of white supremacy is moro
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: on it.
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but Tucker Carlson may be running for president in
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight on this theory. And so I'm really
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: pleased that we're taking the time to rebuke it and
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: ridicule it, because I mean embracing the great replacement theory, which,
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: for those who have a life and don't know, is
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: this theory that democrats. Well, in its purest form Jews, right,
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: the Jews, see, they really hate America, so they're trying
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: to import lots of non white immigrants into the country
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: and then give those people voting rights immediately. In other words,
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: the Jews want illegal immigrants to flood this country and then,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: even though no one wants to do this, make them
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: all citizens right away, because of course they'll all vote
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party and that will help the Jews and destroy
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: Why it's so stupid, Correy, my god, It's like a
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: chip trying to explain Star Wars to a dog. But
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, how does the rise of conspiracy theories like
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: this among political elites, How does this threaten our constitution?
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: How does it threaten our democratic norms? The fact that
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: what used to be the lunatics in the comments section
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: are now facing Senate questioning to get jobs in the
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: State Department.
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: And you know, the other thing that's instructive for the moment,
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: and this comes out in your explanation of this really
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: horrific white replacement theory, is how anti semitic it is
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: at core. And that's total times missed. And you know this,
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: he apologized for some of his anti semitic statements because
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: I guess he realized that this administration, at the same
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: time that they're nominating this fool, are also claiming that
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: universities like Harvard are anti Semitic and that's why they're
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: trying to take away their funding. Well, the real anti
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: semitism comes from your nominee, Donald Trump, who has a
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: theory of you know, the Blues Brothers often summarizes this
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: philosophy the best. You know, they have that scene before
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: the Blues Brothers drive through the Illinois Nazis protests and
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: they uttered that great line, my favorite, I hate Illinoi Nazis,
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: Sir John, you could perform that in a way that
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: you could deliver that line in a way I never could.
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: You know, they're shouting the jew Is using the black
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: man as a tool against you white man, like you know,
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: it's that simple. That is what these people are saying.
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: And the idea that this administration is any way opposed
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: to anti Semitism as opposed to through its disgusting so
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: called white replacement theory promoting it, and this guy at
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: the center is doing and that's part of why he's
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: stumbling so much. I think too in the Senate that
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: he doesn't want to say what the real theory is,
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: which you and I just laid down, and so he's
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: got to say this nonsense about Scottish people and Italians and.
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: He'd never been questioned on it. This is the bub
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: This is the bubble mentality. When you spend all your
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: life at the right wing bubble and no one has
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: any critical thinking about these sort of things. When you
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: go in front of it, a grownup who ask you
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: to explain it, and you realize, wow, it's really hard
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: to explain this without revealing myself as the mediocre racist
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: I am. And I want to just thank this guy,
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: because white supremacists are always the ones to disprove any
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: theory of white supremacy. But like Corey, I just remember
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: that it used to be important for nominees to international
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: diplomatic roles to reflect competence, to reflect the values America
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: wants to uphold, and it seems like we're post that
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: now because really the only way you can possibly not
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: become part of this government is if you're a little
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: too racist than an embarrassis strump. If you're racist enough
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: that it doesn't embarrass him, you're fine. But that's where
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: we're at right now. I mean, still been rooted in
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: conspiracy theory or racial nonsense like this. This does affect
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: our credibility abroad, and too many white people in this
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: country don't appreciate that.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: I mean, the idea that this is a nominee, high
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: level nominee to the State Department, which is our voice
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: in the world, Like what is it? You know, goes
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: to the fundamental question what are our values? What do
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: we want to be promoting? And the traditional idea in
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: the twentieth century for decades now has been democracy, multiculturalism,
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: anti racism, and of course when you nominate a white supremacist,
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: anti semi to that role, you're doing anything. But I
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: do think the third rail here that destroyed them is
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: the anti Semitism. That's what a lot of the Republican
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: senators are mentioning. And he tried to hide that, but
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: his statements minimizing the Holocaust openly anti semitic at the
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: core of the white replacement theory. You know, you can't
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: simultaneously stand against anti semitism and nominate neo Nazi, which
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: is essentially what's happened. I should say too, He's not isolated,
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: and this is part of the story I haven't seen
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: reported in mainstream media. He's part of the Claremont Institute.
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: I've spoken to Vanity Fair in a long interview about
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: who these people are. They include John Eastman, the architect
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: of the January sixth attempted coup, and you know, Jade
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: Vance said about them, it's a very telling line that
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: these people make me look moderate, and that really tells
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: you something. And so there is a network of so
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: called intellectuals, really pseudo intellectuals. I went to Pomona College,
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: which is in Claremont, where the Claremont Institute is, and
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: these wackos used to write to the student newspapers about
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: sodomites coming to destroy Claremont. It is a kind of
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: the worst sort of paranoid John Birch society way of
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: thinking about the world. And as you say, I don't
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: want to lose this. These are not noted scholars. This
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: is not anybody who anyone respects in academia. They are
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: seen as rightly as just out there loons. And if
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: you cross examine them, if you subject their views to
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: any sort of questioning, and that's what the Senate hearing did,
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: and we heard a bit of it with that clip.
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: It exposes it for it literally nonsense. It is vacuous,
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: it has no value, and what it is is just
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: naked racism and white supremacy.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and they are not trying to hide it. And
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: you know, I used to sell bumper stickers that said
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: make racist embarrassed again. And this was a really beautiful
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: moment in Congress because this stuff is just Sunlight is
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: the best disinfectant. And when it comes to these revolting nationalists,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: let's let their views be broadcast wide. Of course, Donald
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: Trump's extensive history of racism and anti semitism did not
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: keep him from getting the White House. But I want
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: to talk about a good news story. Federal judge just
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: blocked this plan to cut six hundred million in public
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: health funds to several states led by Democrats. This was
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: petty and punitive on the part of the White House,
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: and the judge called this arbitrary and potentially unconstitutional, which
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: is thrilling. It was nakedly unconstitutional on the surface. But
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: what precedent does this set cory for judicial review of
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: clearly politically motivated funding cuts.
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: Well, this is another feel good story. It's a complicated one,
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: but I'm going to explain it a little bit. I
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: think it's so important for our system. I used to
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: afford them law school teach a class on legislation and regulation,
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: and a large part of that class was about this
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: one law, the Administrative Procedures Act, that really creates in
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: many ways the administrative state, but also limits what it
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: can do and what the federal government generally can do.
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: And now here's the phrase that's so important for that
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: area of law, arbitrary and capricious. You cannot have administrative
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: action generally that is arbitrary and capricious. Now what's the
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: definition of that. It's trying to just go after your
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: political enemies on the worst, nakedly partisan way to withdraw
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: funds that are allocated for purposes like healthcare. And you
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: know what's happened here is the recognition that that's all
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: that there is. And so the judge, again the heroes
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: in many ways of this moment, the federal judges below
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and this law from the nineteen forties,
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: which really recognizes that, you know, to tie to the
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: previous theme animus or racial hatred is paratamatic example of
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: things that are arbitrary and capricious, and so is just
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: naked partisanship. And that's rightly what this judge said.
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, obviously this was politically motivated retaliation
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: for states that we're opposing this draconian gestapo immigration policies
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: we've been seeing. And I want to ask how significant
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: is this judicial finding by this one judge in terms
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: of just protecting states from punitive federal action because you
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: know he's going to do it again. I mean, could
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: this service precedent if it holds, to keep him from
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: trying to punish states that he doesn't like.
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, the first thing to say is what
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: is so important about the decision And I'll get to
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: the power politics a part of it, but is that
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: it states the law. And that's why I took the
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: time to explain what this Administrative Procedures Act is. It
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: creates and essentially limits the administrative state and many of
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: the actions of the federal government that lie within it.
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: And it prevents the President of the United States legally
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: makes it unlawful to use the administrative state as a
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: tool for his own either bigotry or partisan retaliation. And
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: in the same way that his criminal cases against his
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: political opponents Letitia James and James Comy have been stopped
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: on the grounds that they're illegal. So two, this is illegal.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: This is the corollary. Now other federal judges are taking
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: note of this. Of course, this isn't the final say.
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: There can be an appeal. Ultimately the Supreme Court will
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: decide this. But if arbitrary and capricious, which is textually
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: part of this law. We know the Supreme Court and
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: the Conservatives love to talk about text if it means anything,
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: it means not taking funds and trying to withdraw them
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: based on your hatred of your opponents.
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: So once again, I think, if there's anything we've learned
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: from this, these stories, the guardrails we're waiting for are
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: going to come from the judicial branch and ordinary American citizens.
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: We are not waiting for Batman or Gandhi or Democrats
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: to come save anything. It's coming down to us, and
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: it's coming down to the judicial branch. We got to
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: take a quick break, but when we come back, they
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: are messing with Stephen Colbert again. Corey and I have
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: many questions about what the FCC is trying to do
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: and why they're trying so hard to do it, because
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: they're really making themselves look bad in the history books.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: And then when we come back at the later in
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: the show, some of the worst presidents or worst presidential
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: decisions of all time, and how citizens save the republic.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: This is the oath in the office.
• 25:10
  Speaker 5: Here's what you've been missing on the Stephanie Miller Happy
• 25:13
  Speaker 5: Hour podcast.
• 25:15
  Speaker 6: I'm going to put this on threads right now. One second,
• 25:18
  Speaker 6: white identity, and my thread is losing white identity would
• 25:22
  Speaker 6: essentially mean shutting down all the Chuck E cheeses in
• 25:24
  Speaker 6: the country.
• 25:29
  Speaker 5: So I have to ask, have you seen the Kid
• 25:31
  Speaker 5: Rock Bobby Junior workout video?
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: Yes? I did.
• 25:34
  Speaker 6: I thought with Lendsy Graham last night and we were
• 25:37
  Speaker 6: in a hot tub.
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: Who it's right.
• 25:39
  Speaker 5: Somebody asked if the volleyball scene from Top Gun was
• 25:41
  Speaker 5: in there. No, but every other gay thing in the
• 25:44
  Speaker 5: world was in there. So, in case you haven't seen it,
• 25:47
  Speaker 5: a bizarre new video. It starts. I've teamed up kid
• 25:50
  Speaker 5: Rock to deliver two simple messages to American people. Get
• 25:53
  Speaker 5: active and eat real food Kenny, of course, in jeans
• 25:56
  Speaker 5: and a no shirt. Subscribe to the Stephanie Miller Happy
• 26:00
  Speaker 5: Hour podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stephaniemiller dot com or wherever
• 26:04
  Speaker 5: you get your favorite podcasts.
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Oath and the Office. I'm John Fiegel,
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: Sengalo with Professor Corey Bretschneider. So Corey. Two kind of
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: related developments that are raising serious questions about government influence
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: over broadcast media in an election year. They're already taking
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: Stephen Colbert off the year, They're already ruining the reputation
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: of CBS News, and now there's reports that the FCC
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: has pressured CBS regarding an interview between Stephen Colbert and
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Congressman James Tallerico, who is also running for the Senate,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: who is also, i think, along with Pete Buddhajeedge, one
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: of the few progressive Christian all stars in the Democratic Party,
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: which makes him a great threat. And the FCC is
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: we're visiting how the equal time provisions of broadcast law
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: might apply to political interviews on late night or daytime
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: TV talk shows, which could make things kind of icky.
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: This is a lot of First Amendment freedom's questions and
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: comment regulations questions, and can you just briefly explain what
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: is alleged to have happened with the FCC and the
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: CBS interview between Colbert and Representative.
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: Taller Rica Well, Colbert told us, and I'm thankful for that.
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: I guess I could say thank God for that. That's
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: what James Terrilico is all about, bringing religion in, so
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: I'll use that phrase or thanks Stephen Colbert certainly for that.
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: What he said was pretty basic is that he had
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: this interview. They recorded it. You actually can watch it
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: on YouTube, and his show put it on their YouTube channel.
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: It's a great interview. And he was told you can't
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: air it.
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: I want to pause here for a second and throw
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: to a clip of Stephen Colbert.
• 27:44
  Speaker 7: You know, you know who is not one of my
• 27:46
  Speaker 7: guests tonight. That's Texas State Representative James Talerico. He was
• 27:51
  Speaker 7: supposed to be here, but we were told in no
• 27:53
  Speaker 7: uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly,
• 27:57
  Speaker 7: that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then
• 28:02
  Speaker 7: then I was told in some uncertain terms that not
• 28:04
  Speaker 7: only could I not have him on, I could not.
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: Mention me not having him on.
• 28:10
  Speaker 7: And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk
• 28:13
  Speaker 7: about this, let's talk about this. On January twenty first
• 28:18
  Speaker 7: of this year, a letter was released by FCC chairman
• 28:22
  Speaker 7: and smug bowling pin Brendan Carr. In this letter, Carr
• 28:27
  Speaker 7: said he was thinking about drop in the exception for
• 28:29
  Speaker 7: talk shows because he said some of them were motivated
• 28:32
  Speaker 7: by partisan purposes. Well, sir, you're chairman of the FCC,
• 28:38
  Speaker 7: so FCCU because I think, because I think you are
• 28:49
  Speaker 7: motivated by partisan purposes yourself, Sir, smelt it, because you
• 28:55
  Speaker 7: had delt it. You are Dutch ovening America's airway.
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: Let's just call this what it is.
• 29:02
  Speaker 7: Donald Trump's administration wants to silence anyone who says anything
• 29:06
  Speaker 7: bad about Trump on TV because all Trump does is
• 29:09
  Speaker 7: watch TV. Okay, he's like a toddler with too much
• 29:13
  Speaker 7: screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load
• 29:16
  Speaker 7: in his diapers.
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're trying to control the media.
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: Now we know why he was told you can't air it.
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: Because Donald Trump is worried that Charlico is going to
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: help flip Texas. And there's a real worry that this
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: is a threat to his core constituency of a deep
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: red state or even a purple state. I guess Texas
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: is somewhere in between those flips. That shows that this
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: agenda is being denounced where Trump thinks his constituency is
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: strong enough. It's that simple. It is part of the
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: overall plan to shut down the opposition. We saw that
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: in the last story. We saw that in the prosecutions
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: of political opponents. And he has this ally the FCC commissioner,
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: supposed to be an independent agency. It's anything bad. He's
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: acting as a tool of Donald Trump's worst instincts. This
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: is somebody, by the way, who was a staffer a
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: to FCC and then a Commissioner and now the head
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: of the FCC, and he's using this huge agency well
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: in the most arbitrary and capricious manner. To go back
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: to what we were saying before that he's trying to
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: simply shut down opposition. Now he has a way of
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: doing this, which is what you mentioned. There was a
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: rule in the nineteen seventies called the Fairness Doctrine, and
• 30:26
  Speaker 2: it said essentially that all shows had to have balance,
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: that if you had one view, you had to have another.
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: That was revoked because Republicans said it was a violation
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: of free speech. The Supreme Court had actually upheld it
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: and said, no, you can't have these kind of regulations.
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: But what remains, even though that fairness Doctrine is revoked,
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: is this idea of an equal time rule that if
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: you have one candidate in a race, you have to
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: allow another. Now, if that was fairly enforced and the
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: usual way that we did things, fine, But the FCC
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: for a long time said, you know, there's an exception
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: for talk shows like Colbert. So here's the problem. It's
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: not with the equal time idea. Great idea, fine, let's
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: do it. It's the idea that you're going to selectively
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: pick and choose when you're going to enforce it. And
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: that's the arbitrary and capricious part here. You know, if
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: you're just like, oh, I care about equality, and you
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: only bring it up when it's Democrats that are being interviewed,
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: and you couldn't care less when Trump is on Jimmy Fallon,
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: for instance, I didn't hear them saying anything about equal time.
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: Then he has brought it up before when he was
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: a commissioner. He didn't like the idea. If Kamala Harris
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: was interviewed on a talk show, he'd object. But you
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: know he's only objecting and did then when it's his
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: side that's being criticized. And so if the motivation here
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: is an equal time, which it's not, but it's the
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: attempt to shut down the opposition, it's clearly illegal. It's
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: clearly arbitrary and capricious, and it's a shutdown of the
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: First Amendment.
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, let's just say they're not going to
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: be interfering with Fox News to force Gutfeld to put
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: on more Democrats, right, Like you know the FCC distinguish,
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: which is news events and interviews and other programming. How
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: does that classification currently work, And it doesn't really seem
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: like it matters right if late night or daytime interviews,
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: because they're doing this to the view as well. It's
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: about Colbert in the view. I mean, if that's now
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: going to be subject to equal time obligations, even though
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, how's that
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: going to change the nature of political discourse on mainstream
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: entertainment platforms. It seems like they're still trying to do
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: what they tried to do to Kimmel. They are trying
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: to scare broadcast into submission. They're trying to control the media.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, when he tried to steal the White House
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, we all said, oh, you're not Hitler.
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: Hitler had the media on his side. Look how far
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: he has come in five years.
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: It's got a whole network on his side, CBS through
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: sixty Minutes and through the shutdown of Colbert. He's prevailing
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: on them to go after his opponents, to not allow
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: criticism of the president. And we'll talk later about again
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: about the Sedition Act, which was all about shutting down
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: criticism of John Adams. Now we have not through a law,
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: but through using these various administrative techniques a shutdown of
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: all criticism. You know, I should say too, we don't
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: want to get into a debate about the equal time
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: rule with Republicans because to my mind, you know, all
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: these I'd love to bring back the fairness doctrine. I
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: think that would be healthy, fascinating. I would bring back
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: to Fox News.
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: Would be such an interesting place, wouldn't it.
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: We wouldn't have Fox News as we know it, and
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: that would be a good thing. But that's not what
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: we're talking about. This is a ruse to try to,
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: you know, justify the shutdown of the opposition. And as
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: you said, it has to be understood in light of
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: their general attacks on Colbert and their attacks on Kimmel,
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: and the fact that the president somehow believes, in his
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: warped mind, the criticism of him is illegal, and that
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: he has the ability to do this, he'll look for
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: any technique he can to shut it down. And the irony,
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: of course, of using a pro democracy idea like equal
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: time to shut down the opposition, it's just the height
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: of irony. But they don't care. And you know, I
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: got to say, Brandon Carr what a that's just nasty person.
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: This is this isn't Yeah.
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: I got a better word than irony for this guy, Cory,
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: I got a better word than irony for him.
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: But go on and a tool of this administration. He
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: just deserves to be denounced, and you know, I hope
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: there is never a return to public life for this person.
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: Is there a line between ensuring fairness and broadcasting and
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: government overreach into editorial content? I mean, clearly it's been crossed,
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: but is there a line?
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: Well, you know the Reagan idea. This was around Reagan
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: Edwin Mees and his Justice department. They really hated the
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: fairness doctrine and just to illustrate it for people, right,
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: this famous SNL skit where dan Ackroyd and help me
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: out here, it's dan Aykroyd and they're arguing with one
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: another on the what's the sketch? Oh, Jane Jane Curtin. Yeah,
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: it was also on Kayden Alley, right.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: Yes, Jane kurt I love that.
• 34:47
  Speaker 2: Show that I really did. That's a kid that was
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: one of my favorites that you know, they would have
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: these insane arguments that would erupt into serious anger and
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: they were mocking the fairness doctrine where you if you
• 34:59
  Speaker 2: had one viewpoint, you had to have another. Now, what
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: that did was it prevented the existence of anything like
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: a Fox News. It provided for a kind of balance.
• 35:07
  Speaker 2: I think in retrospect we could have a debate about this,
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: but it was a good thing. The Reagan administration's argument is, no,
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: this is a violation of free speech. They tried to
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: There was an attempt to challenge in court in a
• 35:17
  Speaker 2: case called Red Lion. The Supreme Court said, no, you know,
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: this isn't a shutdown of free speech because we're not
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: telling people what to say. We're just saying that there
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: has to be access to the airwaves of different views,
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: and that we don't want basically Tucker Carlson kind of shows.
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: We don't want rush Limbau. We don't want over our
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: airwaves anyway. And this doesn't apply to our show, which
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: is a podcast, but at least over the public airwaves,
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: we don't want to have just this extremism. And so
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: I agree with that decision. I think that we can
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: demand things like a fairness doctrine or equal time, but
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: what you can't do is use these good ideas to
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: shut down the opposition. That's what's happening here, and it's
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: totally insincere. And you could see that too in the
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: idea that it's always a republic, and so we're opposing
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: these well meaning rules.
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: Well, and the other thing you can't do is go
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: after comedians. I mean, I mean, Kimmel started his career
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: on win Benstein's Money and the Man Show, and now
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: he's going to get a Presidential Medal of Freedom someday
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: because of the way they have messed with his show
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: and with ABC. I mean, historically, comedy and satire have
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: always played very vital roles in political critique, going back
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: to the Middle Ages. Should comedy or satire be treated
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: differently under broadcast regulations and traditional news?
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: Absolutely not. I mean, you know, there's an argument about,
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: you know, about cursing and whether obscenity, but when it
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: comes to actual criticism or mocking the President of the
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: United States, it's to me the core of the First Amendment.
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: And I can't resist previewing our next discussion. In seventeen
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: ninety eight, the Sedition Act was aimed at satire. That's
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: what was going on. That editors were mocking John Adams
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: and they were ironically mocking him for being a monarchist,
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: and then what did you do shut down their right
• 37:01
  Speaker 2: to criticize them as a monarchist. And that's what's happening again.
• 37:04
  Speaker 2: We're reliving that problem.
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: Well, that hold that thought, because when we return, in
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: honor of President's Day, we're going to talk about your
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: other book, The Presidents of the People, and discuss five
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: presidents who jeopardized America as we know it and how
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: it was the strength of the people themselves that thwarted them.
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump, in many ways, friends, is nothing new. He's
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: just a more egregious version of something back in just
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: a moment. This is the Oath in the Office.
• 37:35
  Speaker 8: Hey, Al plan Kershner here, so friends, I hope you'll
• 37:38
  Speaker 8: join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. You care
• 37:42
  Speaker 8: about ethics and government, criminal justice, reform, a conflict free
• 37:47
  Speaker 8: federal judiciary.
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: I thought so.
• 37:51
  Speaker 8: On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need
• 37:54
  Speaker 8: to reform our government and its institutions, and we talk
• 37:58
  Speaker 8: about real, achievable reform. I hope you'll join us. Look
• 38:03
  Speaker 8: for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts.
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: Piegel saying, you know, democracy doesn't only survive because of
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: the presidents. Sometimes it survives in spite of them. And
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: I learned that from Professor Correy Bretschnetter's excellent book The
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: Presidents of the People, which tells the story of five
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: American presidents who threatened our democratic principles and the citizens
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: who resisted and helped preserve them. Corey, I love this
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: book of yours. From the Sedition Act to Watergate, this
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: is a history not just of presidential overreach. It's really
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: a history of citizen pushback. And I love that you
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: wrote this book. Instead of celebrating presidents as guardians of democracy,
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: you focused on moments when they endangered. It is our
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: system more dependent on civic courage than we like to admit.
• 38:56
  Speaker 2: It's a great way to put the thesis of the book, John,
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: I'm grateful for you to introduced that that way. The book,
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: of course, is called The Presidents and the People. Five
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: leaders who threatened democracy and the citizens who fought to
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: defend it, And that gives you a sense of what's
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: going on in each of these episodes, but it also
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: shows you a kind of structure and a structural danger
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: of the American Constitution. And the danger is this that
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: the presidency is extremely powerful. It's not a normal office.
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: That's why we call this the oath in the Office,
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: because we're trying to hold one person in particular to account.
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump, the most powerful person in the country, arguably
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: in the world. And why is that. It's because, you know,
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: just think of the structure of the federal government, especially now.
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: I think this has always been true about the danger,
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: but it's especially true now. More than two million people
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: not counting the military, are in the executive branch. It
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: dwarfs any of the other branches. And Patrick Henry and
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: I talked about this in the book really brought out
• 39:50
  Speaker 2: the danger in the following way. He says, if you
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: have the president also his commander in chief of the military,
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: that doesn't even include the two million If you had
• 39:58
  Speaker 2: a president like George Washington problem and that everybody at
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: the Constitutional Convention knew Washington, who was presiding, was going
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: to be the first president, and great, you have a
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: person of virtue, and they use virtue in a particular way,
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: meaning respect for the law. Washington, of course, in the
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: second inaugural talked about if I violate the constitution, criticize
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: me or upbraid me, subject me to constitutional punishment the
• 40:19
  Speaker 2: laws above me. But now here's the thing that Henry
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: pointed out. Patrick Henry is known for give me liberty
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: or give me death. He was a patriot or revolutionary.
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: But he also gave this warning. And the warning said,
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: what if you have a bad president, what if you
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: have a criminal president? What is there to stop? This
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: is his quote, this force such a person will start
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: with small crimes, and then as they increase the crimes,
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: as they get more intense, they'll become embolden because they'll
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: realize that despite what we've been taught in civics class,
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: that the courts are often going to be corrupted to
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: by such a person. That they'll use powers like the
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: pardon power meant for good to pardon coke conspirators, and
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: that Congress is going to be taken and over by
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: their allies too, and in such a circumstance, there's nothing
• 41:03
  Speaker 2: to stop them. Now, he used that to say, let's
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: not ratify the constitution. The point of the book is
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: that we've seen citizens this is the way you brought
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: it out, who have succeeded. And he didn't anticipate this
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: in rescuing our constitution. That's what the book is about.
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: That's why it's not just a book that senecal like,
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: oh man, we're screwed. It's a book about hope. And
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: that's what we're doing every week on this podcast.
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, John Adams is not someone we normally
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: think of as being authoritarian, but he signed the Sedition Act.
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: What did that law actually do?
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: He was really one of the biggest proponents of what
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: I refer to as the authoritarian as opposed to the
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: democratic constitution, the authoritarian corruption of the constitution. And although
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: Paul Giamatti plays him brilliantly, and you know, he's portrayed
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: as this learned person, people always say he's one of
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: the most learned presidents. That's how we do presidential history.
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: We pretend that all these guys were great. He was
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: not great. D Act, which is not a small blip,
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: used to be thought. Actually, and I point this out
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: in the book that there were thirty five prosecutions and
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: political opponents. We now know the number is more like
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty five. It included a sitting Congressman,
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: Matthew Lyons, and it included most importantly satire and criticism
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: of the president for his authoritarianism. That's the irony I
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: mentioned earlier. And it was designed to shut down the
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: opposition party, just to illustrate this, and made it a
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: crime to criticize Adams, the president, but it left it
• 42:28
  Speaker 2: perfectly fine to criticize Adam's opponent, the Vice President, Thomas Jefferson,
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: the leader of the opposition party, So Jefferson could actually
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: go to prison for criticizing Adams. Adams was free to
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: criticize Jefferson all he wanted. And what that essentially is
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: is showing you that even in the text of the law,
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: it was an attempt to shut down the opposition and
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: it worked. Jefferson worried about his own prosecution. And the
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: only reason why we have a democracy, why we have
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: free speech, is because these editors, as we're seeing now,
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: refused to back down. They turned their own sedition trials
• 43:02
  Speaker 2: into a sense a trial of metaphorically of John Adams,
• 43:06
  Speaker 2: and they used the election of eighteen hundred to defeat Adams.
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: Jefferson did very little campaignings, so that's right. Accept these editors,
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: unknown people like Thomas Cooper and William Dwayne actually Benjamin
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache. These were the heroes of
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: the moment.
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the editors and the journalists prosecuted under
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: the Act to of enormous risks, and I think our
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: modern media figures can draw a lot of inspiration from
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: how they resisted. You write also in the book about
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: James Buchanan's role our fifteenth president, the only bachelor who
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: you know, When I was a kid, it was always
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: a race, right, Everyone would always say who was the
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: worst president? James Buchanan or was it Warren Harding? That
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: was long ago the only debate. But you write the
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: book about Buchanan, who was by many given a lot
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: of credit for causing the Civil War and his role
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: in influencing the dread Scott decision. What exactly you can do?
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: And for those who weren't around, why was Dred Scott
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: such a catastrophic blow to democracy? Professor?
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I call it, and I think it's not really
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: an argument the most evil decision in American history. We've
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: had a lot of bad ones, and just to say
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: what it says, it's about the question. The court turns
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: it into the question of whether or not Black Americans,
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: not just enslave people, and this is often missed, have
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: any rights under the constitution? Are citizens even under the constitution,
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: And the evilness of dread Scott comes in saying, no,
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: Black Americans are not citizens under the Constitution, and then
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: also missed, therefore there is a national right to slavery
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: because if they are not citizens, and there is an
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: ownership over property, not all black people, but any enslaved person,
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: even if they leave an enslaved state, remains property because
• 44:47
  Speaker 2: if not a citizen, then property. That's the argument. And so,
• 44:51
  Speaker 2: among other things, struck down the Missouri Compromise, giving Congress
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: no power to limit slavery in the territories as they
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: were admitted into the United State. Congress had some power
• 45:01
  Speaker 2: to limit the growth of slavery. It just stripped it out. Now,
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: how would they come up the court which is after all,
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: remember they have no military, they have no control over funding,
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: They're a relatively weak branch. Where would they get the
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: strength to do something like this. Frederick Douglass in real
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: time called this out. He suspected it. We now know
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: it was true. Secretly, James Buchanan lobbied the court to
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: say exactly that he pretended to be neutral on the
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: idea of slavery, to leave it to the court, but
• 45:25
  Speaker 2: he was secretly telling the court, do this evil decision,
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: do it in this extreme way, decide it that way.
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: And it's hard to think of a more serious crisis
• 45:34
  Speaker 2: of democracy than the denial based on race of citizenship nationally.
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: Now, how did Frederick Douglass argue that the Constitution should
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: be read as an anti slavery document because he's really
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: the hero of this story.
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I should say too, You know, these heroes
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: aren't just heroes because they stood up. It's that they won.
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: And I'm really trying to draw inspiration from their victories.
• 45:54
  Speaker 2: So what the editors did in that story about Adams
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: is they made sure that Jefferson wasn't just the elected,
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: but elected on a platform of free speech. And when
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: he said we're all federalists, we're all Republicans, he was
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: vindicating them. And when James Madison the War of eighteen
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: twelve refuses to shut down the opposition even in war,
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: he's really still honoring that idea that he and his
• 46:15
  Speaker 2: allies were elected to replace Adams, and we wouldn't have
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: a sedition act the parallel with Frederick Douglas, formerly enslaved person,
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: who becomes, to my mind, still the most important interpreter
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: of the Constitution, the true founder, even though he's a
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: nineteenth century founder of American democracy. What he says is, look,
• 46:35
  Speaker 2: most abolitionists think this decision proves the Constitution is a
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: pack with the devil or an agreement with hell. Is.
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: What Garrison said is former mentor, let's scrap it, get
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: rid of the Constitution. And Douglas said something very different. No,
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: let's see it for its principles. It doesn't say we
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: the white people that was considered in the preamble. It
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: says we the people. It has bans on inheriting the
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: crimes of parents. What is that but a ban on slavery?
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: He read it for its prince inciples. And eventually Douglas's
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: victory comes because he pushes Lincoln. Although Lincoln really has
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: to view very different from his I show in the
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: book that through their dialogues and through various pressure campaigns,
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: he brings Lincoln to this understanding of the Constitution, a
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: phrase that he uses throughout his battle with Buchanan. Equal
• 47:18
  Speaker 2: protection gets enshrined in our fourteenth Amendment two of the
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: most important words in the Constitution are his words absolutely.
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: And you know, to me, Frederick Douglass really taught us
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: about refusing to accept the Supreme Court as the final
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: moral word. Is that fair to say absolutely?
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: You know, I think all of these citizens show it,
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: and Douglas does it, you know, perhaps in the cleanest,
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: most elegant way. But you know, Douglas is writing at
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: a time where the Supreme Court is saying black people
• 47:45
  Speaker 2: aren't even people under the Constitution, They're not persons. And
• 47:50
  Speaker 2: here comes Frederick Douglass, a formerly enslaved person who they're
• 47:53
  Speaker 2: saying is not a person. He not only disagrees, he
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: comes up with an idea of how you read the
• 47:58
  Speaker 2: Constitution that is at the court of our common understanding. Republicans,
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: by the way, often cite Douglas, at least moderate Republicans,
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: because he was a Republican, right that was the Democratic Party,
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: that was often the party of white supremacy in the
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: nineteenth century. Really that was. And so it's not just
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: that he resists the decision, it's that he shows citizen
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: interpretation to be the way forward by in contrast with
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: this evil Supreme Court rescuing our constitution. So absolutely he
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: is a model. He is the inspiration in many ways
• 48:32
  Speaker 2: for this podcast, because it shows that citizens, even when
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: courts are destroying our constitution, can recover it.
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: Let's skip ahead because after Lincoln's murdered, Andrew Johnson, who
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: also used to be considered the worst president of all time,
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: he tried to undermine reconstruction. How did Andrew Johnson threaten
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: multiracial democracy?
• 48:52
  Speaker 2: Well after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ends
• 48:55
  Speaker 2: slavery but also was meant to add all the vestiges
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: and institutions of slavery, sometimes called the badges and incidents,
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: he tried to prevent that. He didn't try to bring
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: back legal chattel slavery, but he tried to institute and
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: this was, in his own words, a system of white
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: supremacy with second class citizenship. He was opposed by Douglas
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: and some of his allies in the Senate, the so
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: called radical Republicans. And really this is a moment in
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: which democracy is threatened again, even in the midst of
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: a recovery, and his impeachment actually plays a role in
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: ensuring although he's not removed, and that impeachment is often
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: seen as partisan. It really was about fighting against white supremacy.
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: He's so destroyed by the impeachment and by Douglas and
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: others criticisms that he doesn't even get the nomination of
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: his own party. I mean this one term President.
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: Douglas confronted Johnson directly. How much do we know about
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: what happened in that meeting.
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: It's a kind of crazy meeting that early on Douglas
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: believes that maybe he can work with this guy. He did,
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: I mean, he had a reason to think this. He
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: had taken Lincoln, who really had a you, although slavery
• 50:00
  Speaker 2: was wrong, the Constitution didn't prohibit it, and got him
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: to begin to see that the Constitution needed to be
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: clarifying through an amendment, through the thirteenth Amendment, to be
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: anti white supremacy. Lincoln doesn't come all the way along,
• 50:13
  Speaker 2: but he certainly by the end of his term, sees
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: the war as about slavery. That's the great victory that
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: Douglas's view that the morality of the war is of
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: a morality opposed to slavery. Lincoln had always been talking
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: about union, and then he begins to see it that way.
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: He comes to Douglas's view in Gettysburg that the Declaration
• 50:31
  Speaker 2: of Independence's declaration of equality is what consecrates the holy
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: ground in Gettysburg. That isn't originally Lincoln's view at all.
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: It's the opposite view, and he comes to that. So
• 50:42
  Speaker 2: you could see how somebody would have had all that
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: success with the previous president, would think through dialogue you
• 50:46
  Speaker 2: could bring him on, and he meets with him, and
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: in this crazy meeting, and we have the transcript of it,
• 50:51
  Speaker 2: Andrew Johnson says that he's the Moses of black people
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: and that Douglas should essentially be silent and be grateful
• 50:58
  Speaker 2: for even giving Black Americans second class citizenship. And you know,
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: Douglas realizes pretty quickly, this is not an ally at
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: somebody that you're going to have to oppose with all
• 51:07
  Speaker 2: your might.
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: You know, I've always been fond of saying that Donald
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: Trump is our most pro Confederacy president since Andrew Johnson,
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: although some might make a case for Woodrow Wilson being
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: the other most good. I mean, I'm so glad that
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: you covered Wilson in this book, because we have to
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: point out twentieth century democrats. Things changed a lot by
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: the civil rights movement and Woodrow Wilson resegregated the federal government.
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson Democrat. God how Teddy Roosevelt opposed him. He
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: normalized white supremacist policies. How dramatic was that reversal in
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: the twentieth century as we look and see so many
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: norms upended in this century. How radical was Wilson's overturning
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: of norms one hundred years ago?
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean Douglas's success after the Johnson presidency just
• 51:56
  Speaker 2: has presidents Jefferson and Madison took the views on of
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: the editors. General Grant becomes President, Grant at the behest
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: of Douglas and his constituency behind him. I talk in
• 52:07
  Speaker 2: the book about how it's not that these citizens just
• 52:09
  Speaker 2: do this on their own. They get groups behind them.
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: I call them democratic constitutional constituencies that throw their weight
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: around presidents who will recover our democratic constitution. And Grant
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: does that. Now, all of those gains are essentially destroyed
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: in the Wilson presidency. They had been eroded by the
• 52:26
  Speaker 2: court in other ways, but Wilson really destroys them. And
• 52:30
  Speaker 2: it's not just that he is a white supremacist it's
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: that he's also a white nationalist. He's not the first
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: white supremacist president. I say he's the first white nationalist president.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: And in the federal government, the post Office, for instance,
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: is one of the most important things at the time,
• 52:44
  Speaker 2: growing he resegregates it. He resegregates the military after its desegregation.
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: And it's not that these are just individual actions, it's
• 52:53
  Speaker 2: that they really reflect And this is one of the
• 52:55
  Speaker 2: really I think important and original contributions of the book
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: tutional law Philosophy. I was actually married in Woodrow Wilson's
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: house in Princeton, really is and why he lived there. Yeah,
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: that's where our wedding was. At the time, we knew
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: so little about Wilson. I was actually proud of that fact.
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: Now it's not something to say.
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: My dad took us to Woodrow Wilson's house. We went
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: to every president's house as kids, and this was one
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: of the best museums there. But my dad made sure
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: I understood who Wilson was after we left the museum.
• 53:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there was, you know, I think, not the strong understanding.
• 53:27
  Speaker 2: There was an idea that he was a racist, but
• 53:29
  Speaker 2: not that he really was a white nationalist. And I
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: think what the book does too, goes beyond any previous research,
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: and that what I did was I went into Princeton,
• 53:37
  Speaker 2: where I had been a student, actually only a few
• 53:39
  Speaker 2: feet from where my seminar met, and as a graduate student,
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: and I found and I'm the first person to look
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: at this. I keep saying this. I haven't found anybody
• 53:48
  Speaker 2: else who's challenged it or has looked at these before me.
• 53:51
  Speaker 2: His notebooks, notebooks more specifically of his students that document
• 53:55
  Speaker 2: his lectures. Well, he was a constitutional law professor like me,
• 53:58
  Speaker 2: teaching under graduates, and what he was teaching them was
• 54:02
  Speaker 2: the following that our Constitution is devoted to and he
• 54:06
  Speaker 2: was getting this actually from Bismarck and from Germany. But
• 54:09
  Speaker 2: he was devoted to stability and was against what he
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: called friction. Now, what was the most serious cause of friction?
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: What they says in the lectures, it's integration, and so
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: white supremacy is the only way to uphold the main
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: value of the Constitution, which is stability. And what does
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: he say about the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth of amendments
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: that Douglas had fought so hard for. He said they
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: didn't add a single right to the Constitution. He just
• 54:34
  Speaker 2: disparages them in the lectures. So I show all this
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: that what he was doing in his philosophy as a
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: constitutional law professor was aggrandizing the presidency as a way
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: of securing white supremacy, and that really hasn't been understood.
• 54:47
  Speaker 2: And he does things too like, even in the midst
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: of red Summer, as there are massacres of Black Americans happening,
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: He's giving these speeches about hyphenated Americans hyping up the violence.
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: He refuses to call out the military and Washington d C.
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: Even in the mets of a multi day massacre of
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: black Americans. So this, you know, has a lot of
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: Trump Like qualities to it and its devotion to white supremacy,
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: to nationalism, his use of rhetoric too far from quelling
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: violence to stoke at a pretty bad moment and it
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: will take decades to recover.
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: And WI. Yeah, sorry, commanded so much, but just how
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: he commanded so much more respectability. He wasn't a racist
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: reality show cloud wearing too much makeup. He was as
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: elite as they come at the time. But I mean,
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I.
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: Have a point on that. John. I think that's such
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: an important point in the book, and you know, you're
• 55:35
  Speaker 2: I'm grateful to have readers of it like you. You know,
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: the thing about Trump is he's uneducated. He doesn't know anything,
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: he's just randomly speaking. But sometimes the more educated the president,
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: the more dangerous. So John Adams one of the premier
• 55:47
  Speaker 2: constitutional thinkers of his time. There's a serious argument to
• 55:50
  Speaker 2: be made that Wodrow Wilson wasn't just learning that he
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: was the most serious constitutional thinker of his time, but
• 55:55
  Speaker 2: they were defending a deeply authoritarian, anti democratic constitution. Again,
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: and citizens who weren't necessarily regarded as scholars, who are
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: using common sense to recover the idea of the people.
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: That's what the book is really about.
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: Well, that will bring us back to Nixon, then, because
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: I'm so not as surprised, No, not not as much.
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: But Nixon's Nixon, who might seem kind of quaint now,
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: I mean, in so many ways, you know, Nixon is
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: such a dichotomy when compared to Nixon. Young Nixon would
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: have read bathed old Nixon for talking with China, like
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: there's just so much there with this guy. But I mean,
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: in the presidency, his abuses were vast from the Enemy's
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: list to Watergate. What made Nixon's presidency uniquely dangerous? Core.
• 56:43
  Speaker 2: You know, it's hard to write a book about Nixon
• 56:45
  Speaker 2: because everybody A lot's been written, and people know a lot,
• 56:48
  Speaker 2: But what they don't know, I think is the main story.
• 56:50
  Speaker 2: That's what's unique and what I told and I should say,
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: I have the last interview with Daniel Ellsberg that I
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: talk about in the book. He really did not like
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: to talk about Watergate. He spoke out on public issues.
• 57:00
  Speaker 2: But I have a very in depth interview with him
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: that really unfolds the story that we've missed, which is
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: that what Nixon believed, and he did say this in
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: the interview with David Frost, is that America was in
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: a civil war led with I mean, he was a paranoid,
• 57:14
  Speaker 2: of course, led by Elsberg was his opposition. And then
• 57:17
  Speaker 2: in war, like Lincoln, he had the ability to commit
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: crimes in order to save the republic. Now, the most
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: famous of those crimes is Watergate, the tapping of the
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: Democratic National headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington.
• 57:29
  Speaker 3: D C.
• 57:30
  Speaker 2: But it's just a small small part and I explained
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: this in the book of the vast crimes committed by
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: Nixon were connected to Watergate. Most of the horrific crimes
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: were connected to the attempt to shut down in this
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: civil war the opposition, and in particular Elsburg. So I
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: tell this story unknown story that was being investigated by
• 57:50
  Speaker 2: the Department of Justice and would have been brought I
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: think as a case if the pardon hadn't happened. The
• 57:56
  Speaker 2: attempt to kill Elsberg on the Capitol steps. I tell
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: that story breaking at Elsburg's psychiatrist's office, things like the
• 58:03
  Speaker 2: hard hat riot, which looked like they very well could
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: have been ordered by Nixon. Where after Ken State students
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: were attacked in city Hall. We talked about that in
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: a previous episode. There were a vast network of crimes
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: that we never found out about because, unfortunately, and this
• 58:17
  Speaker 2: is part of the argument, the pardon failed to allow
• 58:20
  Speaker 2: for Nixon to be convicted. And the citizens who fought
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: back in that moment who tried weren't just Elsberg. It
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: with the citizens of the grand jury eye profile, and
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: two of whom I spoke to on the phone were
• 58:31
  Speaker 2: still living who voted to indict Nixon. Now they were
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: stymied in a variety of different ways from doing so.
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: Convinced to delay, and the pardon came before they can
• 58:41
  Speaker 2: do this indictment. But they did try to indict him
• 58:43
  Speaker 2: while he was president. They demanded and got many victories,
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: including the agreement from the prosecutors to hand all their
• 58:49
  Speaker 2: investigation over to Congress, which was used in the impeachment
• 58:52
  Speaker 2: to force Nixon to resign. But what I say really
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: in the book is, unlike these previous examples where citizens
• 58:59
  Speaker 2: fought back in Juan, we still haven't recovered from the
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: Nixon presidency. We have a road map, but the immunity
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: decision is almost the epitome of the shutdown of holding
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: presidents to democracy, democratic principles that no person is above
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: the law. We've lost that idea. So we're still in
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: the midst of the Nixon crisis. Really, we're still in
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: the midst of all of these crises.
• 59:20
  Speaker 1: You know, we talk a lot about the role that
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: journalists played in whistleblowers and ordinary citizens enforcing Nixon's resignation,
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: But I mean, do you view Watergate, do you view
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: Nixon as a triumph of democratic accountability or did it
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: leave unresolved damage. I mean, I've always said that if
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: Nixon had Fox News, he would not have had to resign.
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: Barry Goldwater would have knocked in the White House door,
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: and Nixon wouldn't have even seen him if he had
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: Fox News.
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: Oh, and Trump has said that, you know, he looks
• 59:46
  Speaker 2: at Nixon as weak, and that he's proven that if
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: he would have been strong, he could have lasted, he
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: could have won. And why is he backing down to
• 59:52
  Speaker 2: these people the great tragedy I think of the Nixon presidency,
• 59:56
  Speaker 2: And to answer your question, we have not recovered. It
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: wasn't a victory. It was an attempted victory. We did
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: get rid of him, but we lost, you know, we
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 2: won the battle and lost the war. And the pardon
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 2: is really responsible for that. If we would have seen
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 2: Nixon's crimes, all the crimes that I'm talking about that
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: aren't you're not hearing on some obscure podcast in a book.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: The book, thankfully is not obscure, won the American Bar
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 2: Association's Silver Gavel. It's gotten a lot of coverage, So
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 2: I think these stories are getting out there and now
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 2: people are learning about them. But it would have been
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: so much from the beginning, more known, way more than
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: I you know, this book could do. If we had
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 2: watched these trials. If we had seen him convicted for
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 2: the attack on Ellsberg at the Capitol steps, if we
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: had seen the attack, the indictment and trial of him
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 2: for the hard hat ryet, America would have realized that
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: the presidency, as Patrick Henry warned us, is a danger
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 2: and that citizens need to ensure laws that are going
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: to hold these presidents to account. Instead, what we got
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: was not just the pardon, but the belief that this
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 2: had never happened again, and this insane and it really
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: is ridiculous and insane immunity decision that essentially granted Trump
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: immunity from a clup, we would have never seen any
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 2: of that story. I think if the pardon hadn't happened.
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an incredible time to be alive, and it's
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: an incredible time to be healthy and stay alive to
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: see what happens after Trump is gone. Corey, I'm so
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: glad that we got to talk about the presidents and
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: the people, because we talked about the oath in the
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: office all the time. But I'm just as big a
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 1: fan of your more recent book. I guess my follow
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 1: up question for all of this is does democracy depend
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: less on good presidents and more on active aware citizens.
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. I'd say if there's one message of that book
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: and of our podcast, it's that, Yes, he learned in
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: seventh grade Civics that we have three branches of government
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 2: and each checks the other. And Madison says that in
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: the Federalist papers, Oh, the president gets out of hand,
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: he'll be checked by either Congress or by the judiciary.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 2: If it commits a crime, it'll be you know, be indicted,
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: he'll be impeached by That's not the way things work,
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: so instead into the void. And it's never worked that way.
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 2: In all of those cases that I talked about, the
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: traditional checks Congress, they made it worse rather than checked it.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: Maybe in the Nixon case they helped a little bit,
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 2: but as I said, we never recovered from that instance.
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: And in Adams, the Supreme Court Samuel Chase sits on
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 2: the trial of these editors, he lobbies for the Sedition Act.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: He's an ally of the authoritarian president. The Supreme Court
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: in dred Scott obviously is teaming up with the President
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 2: to deny all rights to black Americans. The Supreme Court
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: and the Johnson era often does much more harm than
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 2: good Woodrow Wilson is basically taking Plessy versus ferguson the
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 2: Court's doctrine and spreading it like wildfire. So no, the
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 2: branches don't check each other. What happens is citizens fight back.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 2: And when they fight back with the goal of constitutional
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: recovery and they formed constituencies around it, they win. And
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 2: that's what my aim every week is to do with you, John,
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: to recover our democratic constitution.
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: Well, Professor, I want to thank you for reminding me
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: that the story of America is not just about power.
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: It is always been about resistance. What is the best
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: way for our listeners to follow you, Corey and keep
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: up with your brilliance the other six days of a week.
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: You can certainly buy The Presidents and the People in
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: paperback and subtitle is five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 2: the Citizens who fought to defend it. You could buy
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: it online or in your favorite bookstore. You can find
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: me on Blue Sky as Democracy prof Follow me there.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 2: I've been interacting with a lot of you. We have
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: a substack the Oath in the Office substack. Check that out,
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: and of course, wherever you get your podcasts, you can
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: leave us a review. Certainly subscribe if you haven't tell
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: your friends and well beyond I mentioned five hundred and
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: twenty five reviews before. We'll well beyond that now and
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 2: add your voice and spread the word.
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: I want to thank Wendy and Beywolf and everyone who
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: puts the show together every week. Corey, I want to
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: thank you. I learned a lot today and I feel
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: a little bit less like sticking my head in the
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: oven than I did this morning. Most of all, I
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: want to thank our listeners. Thank you guys so much
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: for subscribing. Please tell your friends and keep on listening
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: to the Oath and the Office. Y