Speaker 1: Welcome to the Oath and the Office. I am John Fegle,
Speaker 1: saying it's so good to be back with you. Please
Speaker 1: welcome the star of our show, the pride of Brown University,
Speaker 1: the author of the best selling The Oath and the Office,
Speaker 1: and the Presidents and the people people of Earth. I
Speaker 1: give you Professor Corey Bretschneider.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, John.
Speaker 3: We're going to reprise our discussion about birthright citizenship, not
Speaker 3: because I want to live through Donald Trump's attempt to
Speaker 3: revoke birthright citizenship as he did, but because for real,
Speaker 3: we've got a sequel.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about.
Speaker 3: That, and of course we're going to talk about license plates,
Speaker 3: one of my favorite topics, and we'll get to nerd
Speaker 3: out about license You know.
Speaker 1: What you left your license plates story is actually one
Speaker 1: of my favorite First Amendment stories of the entire year.
Speaker 2: I had to learn learn for retreat.
Speaker 1: I had to split so many First Amendment hairs trying
Speaker 1: to understand this story. So I can be on a
Speaker 1: podcast with you, professor if that is your name, and
Speaker 1: I have to.
Speaker 3: Say just to get people ready, like if anybody could
Speaker 3: make license plates exciting, intellectually humorous.
Speaker 2: It is my friend John Fugel saying.
Speaker 1: Well, but here's the thing, though. Today we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about five stories that seem pretty different, but I
Speaker 1: think they all raise a similar question. We got a
Speaker 1: president who's trying again to reject birthright citizenship after the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court told him stop doing that, this really fascinating
Speaker 1: First Amendment fight over profanity or messages on personalized license plates.
Speaker 1: And then it is the seven year anniversary this week
Speaker 1: of the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Happy anniversary to all
Speaker 1: who celebrate. Todd Blanche gets hired to be in charge
Speaker 1: of the official cover up a federal court telling the
Speaker 1: president he can't build his four hundred million dollar ballroom
Speaker 1: without congressional authorization. And the Senate Committee is trying to
Speaker 1: have criminal contemporroceeedings against Anthony Fauci, not Trump, who deliberately
Speaker 1: lied to people during a pandemic. And it seems like
Speaker 1: these five different stories are all about what happens when
Speaker 1: executive power collides with constitutional limits, which seems to be
Speaker 1: the theme of this podcast.
Speaker 3: Ser that's right, you know, John, I wish that it
Speaker 3: turned out that we did a podcast on too narrow topic,
Speaker 3: because every week we had to struggle to figure out,
Speaker 3: you know, what does this have to do with the
Speaker 3: limits and danger of executive power. But every week, you know,
Speaker 3: it's just a challenge to narrow down the stories and
Speaker 3: these are the ones that seem most pressing this week
Speaker 3: because it is an all out assault on our rights.
Speaker 3: And that's what we'll talk about.
Speaker 2: And I have to add.
Speaker 3: One thing, which is if you are new to the podcast,
Speaker 3: if you've been listening, and many people have listened from
Speaker 3: the beginning, welcome back. If you're new to it, I
Speaker 3: just ask you to subscribe as we launch into this.
Speaker 1: Please, so let's dive into it. Supreme Court ruled six
Speaker 1: to three way back Corey what June thirtieth years ago
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump's executive order trying to deny citizenship to
Speaker 1: children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary
Speaker 1: status parents could not stand. The Constitution is the Constitution
Speaker 1: and a president doesn't get to overrule that with an
Speaker 1: executive order. I mean, John Roberts's majority opinion was all
Speaker 1: about the fourteenth Amendment. We went deep on it here.
Speaker 1: Trump thinks that he can get around that and defy that,
Speaker 1: and he's now signed two new executive orders trying to
Speaker 1: narrow approach, including targeting what they tried in front of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, birth tourism, and certain categories involving foreign
Speaker 1: government personnel or alien enemies. There will be many legal
Speaker 1: challenges about this, but I mean, Corey, I had to
Speaker 1: learn so much about this in the Fourteenth Amendment to do.
Speaker 2: A show that you're a dune exact. I was done
Speaker 2: with this.
Speaker 1: I thought I can delete that from the mental hard
Speaker 1: drive now. But June thirtieth wasn't that long ago. What room,
Speaker 1: if any, does this guy actually have to redefine who
Speaker 1: receives birthright citizenship post Supreme Court ruling?
Speaker 3: He absolutely does not, But we're going to get into
Speaker 3: the big why. And of course he's doing this because
Speaker 3: he wants to continue to tee up the issue. And
Speaker 3: I think I'll also say, just in the beginning, even
Speaker 3: though the Constitution couldn't be clear that this exist executive
Speaker 3: order trying to redefine and revoke really birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: And even though the Supreme Court has said, hey, we
Speaker 3: read this thing too, the Constitution, we know what it says,
Speaker 3: and presidents can't just rewrite it with executive orders, he
Speaker 3: wants to openly defy the Constitution. When you and I
Speaker 3: met I wrote a piece called Trump versus the Constitution
Speaker 3: a guide, and that's the theme here again. I should say,
Speaker 3: just as a way of starting, there are two executive orders.
Speaker 3: One I think likely is constitutional. It isn't desirable, and
Speaker 3: there are problems with it, but I don't think courts
Speaker 3: are going.
Speaker 2: To stop it.
Speaker 3: And that has to do with who gets into the
Speaker 3: country in the first place and stopping so called birth
Speaker 3: taurus from entering the country. But the other one, which
Speaker 3: is the one that we're going to focus on, really
Speaker 3: is a defiance of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
Speaker 3: said in its case about birthright citizenship, and we had
Speaker 3: the honor of hosting Cecilia Wang, who argued that case
Speaker 3: so brilliantly before the Supreme Court for our spawn for
Speaker 3: the ACLU, and what the Court said was essentially what
Speaker 3: she said, which is the Fourteenth Amendment says if you
Speaker 3: were born in the United States, full stop, you are
Speaker 3: a citizen. And when it says subject to the jurisdiction.
Speaker 3: Although Trump is trying to expand that in all sorts
Speaker 3: of ways, all that meant was these narrow, narrow exceptions,
Speaker 3: so ambassador's children, for instance, are not birthright citizens because
Speaker 3: they are not they're immune, they're not subject to the
Speaker 3: jurisdiction of the United States. But now what Trump is
Speaker 3: trying to do is rewrite history, rewrite the Constitution, and
Speaker 3: try to expand these narrow exceptions to try to blow
Speaker 3: them up.
Speaker 2: So one that he's.
Speaker 3: Really working with is this idea, especially that in the event,
Speaker 3: a kind of hypothetical, if there was an invading force
Speaker 3: in the United States and the invading force had children,
Speaker 3: then those children, assuming that they're both or part of
Speaker 3: the invading force.
Speaker 1: Baby army in this wild example.
Speaker 3: So he's trying to say, oh, well, that means, you know,
Speaker 3: he thinks this is they've said this for a long time,
Speaker 3: that the so called invaders, and let's just say upfront,
Speaker 3: how openly racist this is of people coming into this
Speaker 3: country who lack allegiances.
Speaker 2: Is another way that he argues that.
Speaker 1: You mean, like the same undocumented workers that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has hired himself in two different centuries, that kind of threat.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry, thank you.
Speaker 3: Horrific, you know, but part of again, you know, the
Speaker 3: theme of our show in general, on this show is
Speaker 3: his assault not just on our rights, but you know,
Speaker 3: all at once on the text of the Constitution, on
Speaker 3: the idea behind birthrights, citizenship, and I'd urge listeners too,
Speaker 3: in addition to listening to the episode with Cecilia Wang,
Speaker 3: the discussion with David French where we talked about the
Speaker 3: American idea that you know, we are all equals at
Speaker 3: birth as opposed to the idea that we inherit our
Speaker 3: rights based on who where parents are. He's really got
Speaker 3: that second idea that he doesn't believe in equality in
Speaker 3: the fundamental way of the United States Constitution.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I follow you. They're arguing the White
Speaker 1: House that these new orders are in a material way
Speaker 1: much more narrow than Trump's original order. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: know how much of this is them playing greatest hits
Speaker 1: for the racist at the state fair. I don't know
Speaker 1: how much of this is them just trying to act
Speaker 1: like they're doing something performatively so the good old boys
Speaker 1: back home will feel like the gas doesn't cost four
Speaker 1: dollars a gallon, or if they're just doing this because
Speaker 1: they want to get it in front of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court again and keep trying over and over until they
Speaker 1: eventually win. Right, But like, their focus has always been
Speaker 1: on what they call the original purpose of the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: It was protecting formally enslaved people and their descendants. And Trump,
Speaker 1: who knows nothing about this and loves the Confederacy, loves
Speaker 1: talking about that's what it was for. It was for
Speaker 1: the slaves. Will you live it as slaves?
Speaker 2: Corey?
Speaker 1: Why is it constitutional interpretation limited to just the circumstances
Speaker 1: that originally prompted an amendment hundreds of years ago?
Speaker 3: You know, there are examples in which the executive branch
Speaker 3: is told something is unconstitutional and then they come back
Speaker 3: and in good faith rewrite it and give a more
Speaker 3: narrow executive order to try to comply with the court's ruling.
Speaker 3: So having a sort of second executive order is in
Speaker 3: itself not necessarily a strange thing.
Speaker 2: But what is very strange.
Speaker 3: About this, and this picks up on a lot of
Speaker 3: you know, the points that you were making, is that
Speaker 3: the court's ruling was very broad. You know, it's said, essentially,
Speaker 3: if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen.
Speaker 3: And there are only a couple of exceptions I mentioned,
Speaker 3: for instance, the ambassador's example, and so you know, they
Speaker 3: precluded essentially what this Executive Order is trying to do.
Speaker 3: So why are they doing And it's partly politics, it
Speaker 3: is also, I think, yeah, trying to defy the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to just say we don't agree, and to try
Speaker 3: to assert executive power over it. I'll just say how
Speaker 3: I think it'll play out. The ruling should have been
Speaker 3: nine zero.
Speaker 2: It was six'.
Speaker 3: Three and it was six' three on this broad point
Speaker 3: that the children of the undocumented. Are citizens there was
Speaker 3: one Vote By justice kavanaugh for the idea that it
Speaker 3: Wasn't the constitution that. Said that there was a law
Speaker 3: Passed by congress that. Said THAT but i still think
Speaker 3: it's six', THREE to say i don't think so on
Speaker 3: this that even though You've narrowed the executive order to so,
Speaker 3: called birth tourism that's not one of the exceptions that.
Speaker 3: We're talking about and the main point is you're Born In,
Speaker 3: the united states. You're a citizen that's the idea of equality.
Speaker 2: Before, the law.
Speaker 1: Yeah but isn't the birth tourism just what they have
Speaker 1: to say to make it appear not quite? SO nakedly, racist, I, Mean,
Speaker 1: honestly corey like couldn't the government regulate fraudulent visa applications
Speaker 1: without having TO Change? The US constitution am i? Asking too?
Speaker 3: MUCH that's, right i mean there is nothing in the
Speaker 3: idea that if, you committed, fraud for instance that, you
Speaker 3: you know you.
Speaker 1: Someone, for fraud.
Speaker 3: Yeah you know that you might be subject. To CRIMINAL
Speaker 3: action but i think the idea you know that you
Speaker 3: would revoke because you came. Into the country this is
Speaker 3: what they're, trying to say that, you somehow, inherently you
Speaker 3: know because you did want your child to be Born In.
Speaker 3: The united states that is, not you know that might be,
Speaker 3: a policy idea but it's Not what. The constitution says
Speaker 3: it says if you're Born In, the united. States full
Speaker 3: stop it doesn't make. Exceptions for travelers you are a
Speaker 3: Citizen Of. The united states, and you know if you,
Speaker 3: don't like it changed the constitution or at least change the.
Speaker 3: Law to clarify but you can't just do this.
Speaker 2: Through, executive order.
Speaker 1: Well let's move on to something that affects all, of
Speaker 1: our lives and. That's license, plates you know when you
Speaker 1: first pitched, ME this story, i Was, like oh GOD what.
Speaker 1: What i mean i'm happy to Not Talk about todd blanch.
Speaker 1: For five, minutes god knows But this is this is
Speaker 1: one of those areas of CONSTITUTIONAL law that i think
Speaker 1: sounds kind of goofy until you realize, that this this
Speaker 1: this actually asks a. REALLY enormous question i. Love this
Speaker 1: story when the government gives you a little rectangle of
Speaker 1: metal and says you have to put this. On your
Speaker 1: car whose? Speech is that so The story Is Virginia
Speaker 1: evoked CURTIS whiteley's PERSONALIZED ftp and atf plate after an, Anonymous,
Speaker 1: complet o corey Correct me, If i'm Wrong. Professor of
Speaker 1: europe on, THIS kid's LINGO i BELIEVE ftp and atf
Speaker 1: stands For fuck the Police and The, Bureau of Alcohol.
Speaker 1: Tobacco and firearms, You, got.
Speaker 2: It, okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you sir, so You Know the fourth circuit ruled
Speaker 1: that personalized license plate text is private speech Protected By,
Speaker 1: the first amendment which is different from the government speech
Speaker 1: question that is presented by. Specialty plate designs THIS is
Speaker 1: something i had never actually, thought About it but.
Speaker 2: I've really gotten.
Speaker 1: Into this right but, YOU'RE right now i see why you.
Speaker 1: Like this topic. YOU'RE infecting, me i mean it's all
Speaker 1: about viewpoint discrimination and the state's ability. To regulate expression
Speaker 1: if not words that, some not all might. Be offended
Speaker 1: by and you've written about license, plate speech before you've
Speaker 1: described it as a form. OF mixed speech i love
Speaker 1: this issue because it's so serious and stupid at. The
Speaker 1: same time Why Should the first amendment care what somebody
Speaker 1: puts on?
Speaker 3: A license plate i have written about license Plates In The,
Speaker 3: new york Times and before, TRUMP was elected i was
Speaker 3: very folk on this really kind, of cutting edge Interesting
Speaker 3: Issue and. First amendment law i've moved on, to other
Speaker 3: things mostly because we are under threat of having all,
Speaker 3: of our Rights Including the first amendment revoked.
Speaker 2: By a president oh.
Speaker 1: The goofy POP culture stuff i used to cover on
Speaker 1: my show In The. BEFORE nimes, professor, I know yes,
Speaker 1: i will.
Speaker 3: Say you know but one of the things, and this,
Speaker 3: is you know just to kind of plead a listeners
Speaker 3: to get into, this with us to nerd out.
Speaker 2: On License Plates in first.
Speaker 3: Amendment law, and constitutional law sometimes the issues, are extremely,
Speaker 3: pressing you know can a president commit a crime and get?
Speaker 2: Away with it. The immunity question sometimes they're.
Speaker 3: More abstract and not obviously salient, in the instance but
Speaker 3: it helps us to think about the more general question.
Speaker 2: Of free.
Speaker 3: Speech, in, this so yes it's, about license plates but
Speaker 3: it's really a way of thinking. About free speech so
Speaker 3: just to, get into it the court in a case
Speaker 3: and this is, really you know my concern is about
Speaker 3: not just the idea of, protecting free speech but how
Speaker 3: is it that government can, combat white supremacy how can?
Speaker 3: It combat racism and it has to have the power.
Speaker 3: To do both that's, my central idea both of, protecting
Speaker 3: all viewpoints not being criminalized for, what you say but
Speaker 3: also having a role for the government in trying to
Speaker 3: well stop the history of white supremacy that we have.
Speaker 3: In this country and, THE best way i think one
Speaker 3: way for it to do that is when it sends. Its,
Speaker 3: own messages okay let's get. Into License plates So texan
Speaker 3: plates Texas and The walker Case Walkover versus texas division
Speaker 3: looked at the following facts and then we'll talk about.
Speaker 3: The new case texas has a Group called the Sons
Speaker 3: of the confederacy who wanted to have a Choice that all.
Speaker 2: Texans were given for.
Speaker 3: Their license plate this is known as a specialty plate
Speaker 3: when you're given a choice That had the confederate, battleflag
Speaker 3: on it and when they were denied That right, because
Speaker 3: TEXAS said and i think this.
Speaker 2: Is, common sense.
Speaker 3: Hey that's racist we don't want that on. Our license, plates,
Speaker 3: they said well it's our. Free speech right so now,
Speaker 3: here's the, question you know does The government does, texas
Speaker 3: in particular have the right to say we don't want
Speaker 3: racist materials on our? Own license plates and, the, COURT rightly,
Speaker 3: actually I think said. Texas wins this this isn't a.
Speaker 3: Free speech issue but now what's happened is we're in.
Speaker 3: A different question you have a right to, a bumper,
Speaker 3: Sticker for instance what about, an individual plate an individual
Speaker 3: SPECIALTY plate that, i choose myself not for other people
Speaker 3: that as part. Of A group do i have the right?
Speaker 3: To do that and THAT'S what this ftp?
Speaker 2: Plate?
Speaker 3: Is about right and now that's our NEW question that
Speaker 3: i think is a genuinely hard. And interesting question i've been,
Speaker 3: thinking About it and i'll give. You Some, thoughts but, john,
Speaker 3: go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah let me let me pull it back, just a
Speaker 1: second because it is so The sense of Confederate, veterans
Speaker 1: in texas this this, whole thing right they treated specialty
Speaker 1: plate designs. As, Government speech right why wouldn't that automatically
Speaker 1: mean all speech APPEARING on a stack eight issued plate is.
Speaker 1: Also government speech well that's.
Speaker 3: The, you know ultimately that is The conclusion that, i'm
Speaker 3: drawn to that they should just say it's just too
Speaker 3: dangerous when it's an official plate, to have, messages for instance.
Speaker 3: That are racist and although you do have a right
Speaker 3: to say racist things in your house and display them on,
Speaker 3: your you know lawn even and even on, a bumper
Speaker 3: sticker arguably that's, personal free speech the state is. A,
Speaker 3: different thing, SO you know i think that the, Conservative
Speaker 3: liberal breakdown i'm not sure how it's going.
Speaker 2: To play out this isn't a case in which conservatives
Speaker 2: and liberals are going to break down on.
Speaker 3: The NORMAL lines but i think a sensible solution to
Speaker 3: all this is to say it's just too dangerous to
Speaker 3: have Things like a. Confederate battle flag and if a
Speaker 3: state doesn't WANT to have ftp on your LICENSE plate
Speaker 3: that i think you still preserve enough free speech if
Speaker 3: you could put it on your bumper sticker and you
Speaker 3: don't have it on. A license plate so that's going
Speaker 3: to Come Before. THE supreme court i think that's. What
Speaker 3: they'll say and this is one of THOSE instances, Where,
Speaker 3: i think okay they're following.
Speaker 2: A sensible, path.
Speaker 1: I mean it's something constitutionally different about this idea of
Speaker 1: the state giving citizens this menu of twenty six letters
Speaker 1: and characters, you can use and then approving an individual's message.
Speaker 1: OR saying, no I mean IF I Put i love
Speaker 1: america on, my license plate everyone understands that. It's. Me
Speaker 1: SPEAKING right IF i put f the police on, my
Speaker 1: license plate people should still letter state it's me speaking
Speaker 1: And NOT the, virginia. DMV speaking, right i mean if
Speaker 1: the state is just saying that they have an interest
Speaker 1: in preventing, profanity and incitement that.
Speaker 2: Would.
Speaker 1: Be, ENOUGH right.
Speaker 3: Well i think that's an interesting way to. THINK about
Speaker 3: it i don't think that the profanity thing is going
Speaker 3: to get us. Out of it because there's a Famous
Speaker 3: case Called, cohen versus california one of the most famous,
Speaker 3: and constitutional law and it's Actually During. The vietnam, War,
Speaker 3: this individual cohen has a, JACKET that says i think
Speaker 3: it iss. F the war IT uses the f word
Speaker 3: and has an. Anti war message and the court actually
Speaker 3: has one of my favorite lines. In, constitutional history actually
Speaker 3: and we'll see if. You Appreciate this to john as,
Speaker 3: a Professional comedian the court in one of its few,
Speaker 3: Moments being funny but it's trying to ask the question
Speaker 3: of whether or, not that speech which, is you know,
Speaker 3: on his jacket not on, a license plate whether or
Speaker 3: not it is. Protected or not and they, consider, the
Speaker 3: possibility well we could just, say it's obscene and, then
Speaker 3: they say this. Is the line it is very hard
Speaker 3: to imagine anyone Becoming aroused by, cohen's, Tattered jacket right
Speaker 3: and part of PART of why i like it is
Speaker 3: the idea that somebody might, be aroused, by you know a,
Speaker 3: non tattered jacket or that that would. Be, the difference
Speaker 3: no it's because it's not, about. You know obscenity it's
Speaker 3: it's not about. Sexuality at all. It's about advice and,
Speaker 3: so here HERE here what i, here's my, point you
Speaker 3: know aside from my straying into Nerding out On, cohen
Speaker 3: versus california it is about political messages and whether or
Speaker 3: not they can be limited when the government wants. To
Speaker 3: do it and the government can't do that again when it's,
Speaker 3: A bumper.
Speaker 2: Sticker but what about when it's?
Speaker 3: A LICENSE plate, and, i think yeah, it is sensible
Speaker 3: especially when you consider this possibility. Of racist, MESSAGES you
Speaker 3: Know i, hate jewish, people for instance on. A license
Speaker 3: plate i wouldn't want. To see that and If There's
Speaker 3: a first amendment right, to do that you know we,
Speaker 3: might see it especially given where things are headed in
Speaker 3: this culture and other instances. Of RACIST speech so i
Speaker 3: think giving the government the, ability, to say okay if it's,
Speaker 3: a license plate it's not a zone of, total free
Speaker 3: speech that makes, sense to me even if it is
Speaker 3: picking the un choosing in the way.
Speaker 2: That you're suggesting but with the issue still.
Speaker 1: BEING viewpoint, discrimination i mean could, a state, conceivably let's
Speaker 1: say ban all profanity on personalized plates and make that
Speaker 1: a viewpoint neutral rule to get? AROUND that thing I guess.
Speaker 2: WHAT i'm, saying i mean just to.
Speaker 3: Introduce this idea, sometimes you, know for instance can you
Speaker 3: put somebody in prison the court applies a rule that it,
Speaker 3: calls viewpoint neutrality meaning it can't pick and choose based.
Speaker 3: On people's opinions it can't choose Based on viewpoint so
Speaker 3: canad engage. In viewpoint discrimination that's the technical way. To
Speaker 3: put it when it Comes to, and i'm, saying you
Speaker 3: know we'll see. What they say it's, a HARD case, but,
Speaker 3: i think yeah that's.
Speaker 1: Probably ask me one more. Question about this we got to,
Speaker 1: get a break or when he's going to. Beat me,
Speaker 1: up let's say let's say my Beautiful state of virginia
Speaker 1: allows license plates that Say, back the blue but they
Speaker 1: reject license plates that say. Fuck the police is that
Speaker 1: a neutral regulation of language or is that the government
Speaker 1: choosing which side of a political argument gets a. Government
Speaker 1: issued plate it's.
Speaker 3: A great question and just, to Be clear what i'm suggesting, would,
Speaker 3: allow that right the, government could, say you Know back
Speaker 3: the blue on, a license plate but it would Prohibit
Speaker 3: some other and that's that's an Argument against what i'm.
Speaker 3: Saying FOR sure but i guess, my view, is you
Speaker 3: know it's, a license plate and a license plate is
Speaker 3: different than. A bumper sticker and if government tried to
Speaker 3: pick and choose what kind of bumper sticker you could
Speaker 3: put on your that's regulating.
Speaker 2: An individual's speech but.
Speaker 3: When now here's the idea and my book, that's about
Speaker 3: this it is called when, the state speaks what? Should
Speaker 3: it say and that's what, we're talking about. When government
Speaker 3: speaks and if we're thinking that the license, plate is,
Speaker 3: government you know think of public, Holidays, for instance right
Speaker 3: We Don't have, bull connor Day We Have Martin luther.
Speaker 3: King junior day and the reason for that is because
Speaker 3: government is saying there are some viewpoints that are inimical
Speaker 3: to our Ideas of the constitution, and Some consistent and
Speaker 3: king stood for the Ones consistent, and connor no so we.
Speaker 3: Don't have, equality you know. That's government Speaking and what,
Speaker 3: i'm arguing for although you're, rightly pushing back is we
Speaker 3: should think about license. Plates that way who would have
Speaker 3: known that there's so much controversy and intensity.
Speaker 1: About, this, TAVERN well listen i just want to thank
Speaker 1: you for letting us do a whole segment where we
Speaker 1: didn't have To Talk. About, Todd bland professor are you
Speaker 1: ready to Go? Back to titanic because when, we come
Speaker 1: back let's talk about the most unfit of all the.
Speaker 1: Unfittious attorneys general that would be the president's private, criminal
Speaker 1: defense attorney who is now. You're top cop and that
Speaker 1: sound you here are the founders screaming. From their crypts
Speaker 1: this is the oath. In the office we'll be right
Speaker 1: Back The New John fugel sang show every day. At twelve, Noon,
Speaker 1: good afternoon john and welcome.
Speaker 2: Back TO afternoon here i.
Speaker 1: Have missed you now you're back. Into the, Daylight, Good.
Speaker 2: Afternoon john congraduations on, the new show loving congratulations on
Speaker 2: the changes happening.
Speaker 3: With the show, Excited for you excited, for, me personally like,
Speaker 3: OH my god i can.
Speaker 1: Call an Again The New John fugel sang show every
Speaker 1: day at Twelve NOON On Serious xm progress channel one
Speaker 1: twenty seven Or ON the Serious xm after welcome Back
Speaker 1: to the Oath, In The Office I'm John fugel Sang
Speaker 1: Alone WITH Professor Corey bretschnei republican senate had. Quite a
Speaker 1: Weekend They confirmed Todd blanche As America's Criminal defense attorney
Speaker 1: general at four point thirty, in the morning fifty. To
Speaker 1: forty nine and apparently that's the ideal hour to decide
Speaker 1: on who's going to be the next pedophile protector To
Speaker 1: run The. Department of, Justice. You know corey nothing says, rule, of,
Speaker 1: law like hey, Is everybody up let's hire the Attorney
Speaker 1: General before stephen miller gets Back. From feeding corey. They
Speaker 1: did it we said Last Week when SUSAN collins said
Speaker 1: i will not vote, FOR this, man i said they've.
Speaker 1: Got the votes she would not have Said This if john,
Speaker 1: thune didn't know he already. Had the Votes and now
Speaker 1: satan's Plot To make pam bondi look like a moderate
Speaker 1: seems to. Be continuing apace what should the public understand
Speaker 1: about the trouble we're in with this person fulfilling the
Speaker 1: constitutional role. Of, attorney general well let's just start.
Speaker 3: With his, history you know it's one thing to be
Speaker 3: the personal lawyer, of the president and we've heard that,
Speaker 3: commentary a LOT but what i was saying is most
Speaker 3: Significant About Now attorney general blanche's history is that he
Speaker 3: was the criminal defense lawyer. Of the president and that's,
Speaker 3: how he's, acting you know as somebody who's really Just
Speaker 3: trying to his main priority Is to get trump. Out
Speaker 3: Of prison the attorney general is supposed to. Represent the
Speaker 3: people think of the way that we frame the names,
Speaker 3: of criminal cases The People, versus, donald trump right the
Speaker 3: people As who The department of justice is. Supposed To
Speaker 3: defend The, DEPARTMENT of justice i should say two founded in,
Speaker 3: the nineteenth century it's not an eighteenth century institution as
Speaker 3: a way of Combating The. Ku klux klan that was
Speaker 3: its main purpose. And white supremacy how far we've come
Speaker 3: when its main purpose seems to be not only protecting,
Speaker 3: the president criminally but also to engage in the criminal
Speaker 3: aggressive action of trying to prosecute. Your political, opponents so
Speaker 3: yeah IT does, make i mean it's crazy, To SAY
Speaker 3: this pam bondi look, like a moderate but he really has.
Speaker 2: Just doubled down one other thing about the hearings that.
Speaker 3: Was so, disappointing you know he just lied and minim
Speaker 3: misrepresented about the question of whether or not this slush.
Speaker 3: Fund is, dead I'LL go but i refer back to
Speaker 3: our own Amazing Discussion, with sky perriman who will be
Speaker 3: back on the show actually in a few weeks when her.
Speaker 3: Book comes Out Her, group Democracy forward who i've had
Speaker 3: the honor of working with too on. The tariff's case
Speaker 3: they brought a lawsuit that stopped.
Speaker 2: THE slush, fund i mean it's a.
Speaker 3: Really amazing thing if you want to see, citizens fighting
Speaker 3: back how.
Speaker 2: It can work.
Speaker 3: They did that but now here's where. The misrepresentation happens
Speaker 3: if he really was dropping this slush fund and this
Speaker 3: was just to remind people to DEAL, with The irs
Speaker 3: that trump would drop his fake lawsuit with himself SINCE.
Speaker 3: He's the irs is part of the executive branch in
Speaker 3: exchange supposedly for this more than two billion dollars slush
Speaker 3: fund To reward the january sixth criminals and those.
Speaker 2: Who convicted criminminals you know that slush.
Speaker 3: Fund was dead he promised that to senators who are
Speaker 3: worried about it or about this, from self dealing but
Speaker 3: he didn't. Drop the lawsuit. It still continues and that's
Speaker 3: what We, heard from perryman and that's the evidence that
Speaker 3: this guy was not telling the truth.
Speaker 2: IN these, hearings i mean.
Speaker 1: Where to, Begin You know bill cassidy was the, deciding
Speaker 1: vote here and he didn't look happy to. BE that,
Speaker 1: VOTE i mean i don't understand what's going On with
Speaker 1: these republicans who o trumpe nothing and they're on their
Speaker 1: way out the door and they're going to vote. For
Speaker 1: this guy because, To, your point professor, as we've discussed
Speaker 1: the Very Fact that todd blench would even present this
Speaker 1: slush fund as an idea in public in, the first
Speaker 1: place does that not render him unfit. FOR the office,
Speaker 1: i mean literally he tried to pitch this bribery scheme
Speaker 1: to guys who beat up cops. For a Lie And
Speaker 1: so bill cassidy is the deciding vote after being the
Speaker 1: Deciding VOTE. For Robert f kennedy junior Last year because
Speaker 1: Kennedy Promised him senator kennedy that if he confirmed him
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't go, out After vaccines. And, kennedy lied cassidy,
Speaker 1: who's a doctor voted for. HIM right away rfk. Broke
Speaker 1: his Promise trump gutted cassidy. In the primary this guy's career.
Speaker 1: Is just crushed and then on his way, out the door,
Speaker 1: owing them nothing he confirms the most unfit attorney. General
Speaker 1: in history and now it seems like we can't deny
Speaker 1: the fact that we have a president with complete Control Of.
Speaker 1: The justice department is that? Fair to say and what does?
Speaker 1: That even mean presidential Control of The department.
Speaker 3: Of justice's such, an important. Topic You know after Nixon's
Speaker 3: Disaster And Nixon attorney general mitchell was convicted convicted of
Speaker 3: crimes Connected to the nixon presidency, and election campaigns there.
Speaker 3: Was a reform and now there was a reform that
Speaker 3: really could have gone in one. Of two directions one
Speaker 3: was to try to legally impose Separation of The department
Speaker 3: of justice from, the president himself and, the other idea
Speaker 3: which is one that largely has prevailed and continues, to
Speaker 3: this day was supposed to be based On Norms, that ed,
Speaker 3: levy for instance who was The president Of university Of
Speaker 3: Chicago and Attorney General, during gerald ford a real, person
Speaker 3: of integrity instituted a Culture in The department of justice
Speaker 3: that people, who work there Including Our, friend glenn, kirshner
Speaker 3: you know. Really exemplified, that you know you weren't working.
Speaker 3: For the president you weren't even supposed to communicate with
Speaker 3: People Within, the white house, and you know even a
Speaker 3: conversation on a tarmac.
Speaker 2: Wasn't wasn't allowed that.
Speaker 3: Was the norm but the problem with doing it based
Speaker 3: on norms rather than legal separation is that what's Happened
Speaker 3: Is that Donald trump And todd blanche now have. Just blown,
Speaker 3: through you know if, there's just norms what's. To, STOP it,
Speaker 3: SO i mean i really favored the idea that there
Speaker 3: should be a more concrete and my various ways of,
Speaker 3: thinking about this a. Concrete legal separation one last, thing
Speaker 3: about this which is. AT the founding i know that
Speaker 3: listeners love it when we, talk about history and this
Speaker 3: is an important place to do that there was a
Speaker 3: real debate about the question of whether or not if,
Speaker 3: the attorney general and this Is before The, department of
Speaker 3: justice but the office of the. Attorney general existed if
Speaker 3: the attorney general is within, the, president's cabinet well then
Speaker 3: what's to prevent that person from being co opted by?
Speaker 3: A bad president and the framers Said what ed levy
Speaker 3: and others Said during, the ford administration The people Like, madison,
Speaker 3: and hamilton well we won't have, people, like that well.
Speaker 3: People of virtue but the anti federalists who really warned
Speaker 3: us about the danger of the constitution that actually urge
Speaker 3: us not, to, ratify it, said you know. This is
Speaker 3: crazy it's fine if you have, people of virtue but what,
Speaker 3: if you don't then all of a.
Speaker 2: Sudden it changes and there.
Speaker 3: Were other models here's, One Of them new york's model
Speaker 3: To teach a james the Attorney General in new york,
Speaker 3: is independently elected we wouldn't have the same problem. That
Speaker 3: we have so there were structural fixes.
Speaker 1: To ALL this can i ask you a couple of
Speaker 1: just abstract questions Loosely Relating. To todd lanch can a
Speaker 1: president ever lawfully tell the attorney general who?
Speaker 3: THEY should investigate, i mean again in terms of the Ideas,
Speaker 3: of the constitution THE ideas that i, was talking about
Speaker 3: of the Norms of The, department.
Speaker 2: Of justice the answer is supposed.
Speaker 3: To be no but when you're, talking about legally what's
Speaker 3: to Actually Prevent a, todd blanche's argument And Unfortunately the
Speaker 3: supreme court has built up this area of law is
Speaker 3: and this will sound familiar because we've talked, about it
Speaker 3: often the theory of the unitary executive that if because they
Speaker 3: didn't choose to have an executive branch that divided up
Speaker 3: the prosecution power with an, independently elected prosecutor because the
Speaker 3: founders put it that power. Under, the president yeah the
Speaker 3: president can do. Anything he wants the same way that,
Speaker 3: he can, tell YOU know the epa what, he wants
Speaker 3: done he can Also Tell the attorney general what.
Speaker 2: He Wants Done that's.
Speaker 3: Todd, blanche's stated view and that's why we're. IN such
Speaker 3: danger i think that is just a horrific assault on
Speaker 3: the idea of the. Rule of law and that's why
Speaker 3: we need legislation that would actually separate that make that
Speaker 3: criminal illegal and separate out the attorney general and the
Speaker 3: power of prosecution from a president's ability to use it, For,
Speaker 3: personal vendetta.
Speaker 1: Corey if a convicted child rapist and child sex trafficker
Speaker 1: was suddenly upgraded to a much nicer prison not normally
Speaker 1: associated with child sex traffickers who've been, Convicted by Juries
Speaker 1: do the american people have a right to know why
Speaker 1: this would happen within our? Criminal justice system and can
Speaker 1: you think of any reason why this might happen where
Speaker 1: we the people might? Not be, told you.
Speaker 3: Know part of the problem with this arrangement Where Again
Speaker 3: the attorney general works for the president and now with,
Speaker 3: the court's help they've undermined the idea of the rule
Speaker 3: of law by making this essentially. A loyalty relationship And,
Speaker 3: now THE congress and i want to say something Too
Speaker 3: about why congress might, Have done This but the congress
Speaker 3: has affirmed somebody who's just told us, openly that yeah
Speaker 3: he is essentially the criminal defense any. Of the president
Speaker 3: he hasn't, using these words but that's been the. Gist
Speaker 3: of it so much of the, problem is secrecy and
Speaker 3: not just in the example, that you give, but more
Speaker 3: generally there's just not a lot of transparency. ABOUT what's
Speaker 3: transpiring i think, in the future people like me, Will
Speaker 3: go in, We'll use foya we'll try to. Get the
Speaker 3: documents they're journalists who are, doing that now but that
Speaker 3: takes a, lot of time and so so much is
Speaker 3: going to be, hidden from us, and you know one
Speaker 3: way round it, JUST you know i we're always looking to,
Speaker 3: tell the truth but also have HOPE will be i
Speaker 3: think these are. Certainly impeachable offenses the fact that the
Speaker 3: president has gone after and so the Subpoena power of
Speaker 3: congress once, impeachment kicks in that might be a way
Speaker 3: to start finding.
Speaker 2: Out, WHAT'S happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah i don't want. TO seem nihilistic i think The
Speaker 1: Smartest thing todd blanz could have done would have been
Speaker 1: to run as Far Away from donald. Trump as possible
Speaker 1: now by signing, ON for this i wouldn't Trade places
Speaker 1: with todd. Blance, For ANYTHING professor can.
Speaker 3: I say something YOU know that i certainly. AGREE with,
Speaker 3: that i mean, He's really solidified.
Speaker 1: He's he's punched. His OWN ticket now, i, should say
Speaker 1: too he's going to have a lot of stuff in
Speaker 1: it that is obituary wouldn't have had if he had.
Speaker 3: Just walked away when, people say too you're on the wrong.
Speaker 3: Side of, history you know people like me get to.
Speaker 3: Write THE history And i guarantee i'm going to say
Speaker 3: this guy who was on the wrong. Side of history
Speaker 3: one puzzle, which YOU raised which i want to come
Speaker 3: back to if, You, don't mind john is you know
Speaker 3: why Is it that cornyn and other senators who, had
Speaker 3: the Ability especially as trump We covered week trump dropped
Speaker 3: so far. In the polls why do they why? Do,
Speaker 3: they not well the answer could, Be Future Jobs rob
Speaker 3: but i've got. TO say something i heard this from
Speaker 3: A really noted i can't, give THE name but i will,
Speaker 3: say you know my source is a noted Journalist Who,
Speaker 3: covers capitol hill and the surmise was that, this person,
Speaker 3: thinks you know based on their experience doing, this every
Speaker 3: day that it's, fear OF violence of maga attacking even
Speaker 3: killing them.
Speaker 2: From DOING that and i think that.
Speaker 3: Sounds too, real you know the violence that then threats
Speaker 3: that come with opposing this. President are extreme and AS
Speaker 3: much as i, want, to say well you signed up,
Speaker 3: for this, job you know and death threats are a
Speaker 3: horrible part of. Our current culture but you don't give
Speaker 3: up on your obligation to the constitution because you're worried.
Speaker 3: ABOUT death threats I do think i've come to, believe
Speaker 3: you know and you. KNOW we do i have conclusive
Speaker 3: evidence and, bucle YET no but i think that, what
Speaker 3: we have with so much circumstantial evidence that shows they are,
Speaker 3: receiving these threats they.
Speaker 1: Are way up you're much kinder than me.
Speaker 2: From.
Speaker 3: PREVIOUS time now i think there is real fear. OF
Speaker 3: being attacked i also think they. Care, ABOUT jobs yeah i.
Speaker 1: THINK they're compromise i think they've got, the improv yesay
Speaker 1: maybe they've either got stuff on them and Compromise is how, Epstein,
Speaker 1: did it compromise how it's. Always been, done that's How
Speaker 1: that's how. Putin likes it or they are awaiting lobbyist.
Speaker 1: JOBS or whatever i mean the amount of humiliation that
Speaker 1: these three men in particular are faced for telling The Truth.
Speaker 1: About DONALD trump and I WAS on ms now With
Speaker 1: Our friend alli velshi two weeks ago when, this IS
Speaker 1: happening and, i, was like sorry Forgive me if i'm
Speaker 1: not going to go out and get the collector Plate
Speaker 1: From the Bradford exchange Of tillis and. Cornyn saving democracy
Speaker 1: this is. All theater again they're hemming and Hawing Over
Speaker 1: whether todd blanch would put in writing that. Will never
Speaker 1: do the Very Fact that todd blanche tried to make
Speaker 1: this the law shows he's unfit. For the job and they.
Speaker 1: All know it these guys Know how. Evil TRUMP is
Speaker 1: and i don't really remember A time when Cornin put
Speaker 1: the constitution above his own comfort, In, His Career professor
Speaker 1: so i'm much more cynical than. You on this i've come.
Speaker 1: To expect, it And Again when susan collins came out
Speaker 1: and said that she was going to, VOTE against him
Speaker 1: i went on the air That day, And i'm like
Speaker 1: fune has The Votes because susan collins would never have
Speaker 1: come out and said that unless it was safe for her.
Speaker 1: To do it and, BY the way i don't think
Speaker 1: The voters of magnan are going to be. All that.
Speaker 2: IMPRESSED so amazing.
Speaker 3: I have to just hit that point again because she
Speaker 3: just has a way, of.
Speaker 1: You, know surviving no she has, A. Rear disorder corey,
Speaker 1: every six years her. Body turns moderate it's really she can't.
Speaker 1: Get help it, every six years.
Speaker 3: He's a moderate, And, come on maine we have to
Speaker 3: get rid of her this time because that routine that
Speaker 3: she does over and over again including Somehow believing that.
Speaker 3: Roe was safe so the main main thing that she's,
Speaker 3: done to, us.
Speaker 1: He said Does She? Believed brett kavanaugh.
Speaker 2: She's.
Speaker 1: The reason yeah she is the master of clutching her
Speaker 1: pearls while also handing over the keys at. The same,
Speaker 1: TIME all right i got to talk to you. About
Speaker 1: the ballroom obviously they. Got this thing they want to.
Speaker 1: Build this ballroom where they used To Have, a white
Speaker 1: house they tore that down to build this ninety thousand.
Speaker 1: Square foot ballroom and of course the president. Has been
Speaker 1: stopped there have been many conflicting rulings, and emergency APPEALS
Speaker 1: But a dc circuit panel previously allowed construction, to continue
Speaker 1: temporarily but now it's been. Shut down again is this
Speaker 1: a separation of powers case disguised as? A construction dispute
Speaker 1: because the headline this Week was the president's, just a
Speaker 1: tenant he doesn't. Own this place does it come? DOWN to,
Speaker 1: that i mean What does the constitution say about the
Speaker 1: president's authority to? Alter, FEDERAL property say i Don't Know
Speaker 1: the kennedy center off the top.
Speaker 3: Of my, head You know the constitution does, speak About
Speaker 3: this and congress has put added its voice to Affirm what,
Speaker 3: the constitution says and what it says is that when
Speaker 3: it comes to the Property Of, the united states and
Speaker 3: Of Course the white House Is not donald, trump's personal
Speaker 3: mansion although he.
Speaker 2: Thinks it is he thinks that.
Speaker 3: All of it is the Property Of the united states
Speaker 3: is under the Control. Of the congress and then there
Speaker 3: is a Law passed By congress, where congress, said and
Speaker 3: hey we want, to emphasize this we are in control of.
Speaker 3: Things like renovation and so That's what The court of
Speaker 3: appeals has now said is this is not up to
Speaker 3: the president to do. What he, wants and, that you
Speaker 3: know is a way of preserving not just the rule of,
Speaker 3: law and legislation but the constitutional idea that. NOT just
Speaker 3: property i should just, frame this too and it connects to.
Speaker 3: Things like tariffs when it comes to the financial Resources Of.
Speaker 3: The united states the president isn't just given the power.
Speaker 2: Of the purse It's.
Speaker 3: Given to congress and the related idea of the parallel
Speaker 3: of the purse is power over the Property Of. The united,
Speaker 3: states and, SO you know i think, he thought, too
Speaker 3: you know in This Sort of silicon, valley immature way
Speaker 3: like let's just break it and then it'll.
Speaker 2: Be too late it's, Not Too.
Speaker 3: Late donald trump and that's what you're this nice thing
Speaker 3: called the judicial injunction is.
Speaker 1: LETTING you, know i mean there is a meaningful constitutional
Speaker 1: difference Between Redecorating the oval office and putting a lot
Speaker 1: of ugly gold shit in and then just demolishing an
Speaker 1: historic Portion Of the white house to build a ninety thousand, square,
Speaker 1: FOOT structure.
Speaker 3: Right i mean certainly there's some Discretion Within. The white,
Speaker 3: house you know how do, you decorate it what's.
Speaker 2: In the rooms where you can?
Speaker 3: Move furniture around what can you redo a, historic landmark,
Speaker 3: building you know not just, landmark iconic, building you know
Speaker 3: talking about the Property Of. The united states if there's one,
Speaker 3: symbol of It It's. The white house And thankfully the pramers.
Speaker 3: Thought about this they did not, want a king and
Speaker 3: as much as they might have been naive in ways
Speaker 3: they thought could stop somebody who wanted to, be a
Speaker 3: king they did put some stuff in there that said
Speaker 3: you are. Not a king and one of those things
Speaker 3: is the Property Of the united states is under the Control.
Speaker 2: Of, the congress thankfully.
Speaker 1: So if a president, wanted to Say Demolish the east
Speaker 1: wing and build a casino and construct. A swimming pool i'm.
Speaker 1: Not even kidding and the president wanted to put his
Speaker 1: name in giant gold letters, on the building he couldn't Do.
Speaker 1: It without, congress.
Speaker 2: You know things that permanently.
Speaker 3: ALTER the building i, think the answer and that's what this,
Speaker 3: lawsuit is about, is clearly no can you do things
Speaker 3: that are temporary to sort of you know. Part of,
Speaker 3: it you know we were talking about the idea. Of
Speaker 3: Government expression donald trump can express, his political views he
Speaker 3: can have, his aesthetic taste as horrible, as it is
Speaker 3: and so things like gold in, the oval office that's.
Speaker 2: Up to him what portraits he Wants in. The oval
Speaker 2: office those things were main Property In. The, united states again.
Speaker 3: Bring them home but he can display them or not.
Speaker 3: As he wants but when he starts to, alter the,
Speaker 3: property you, know you know he, is a tenant he is.
Speaker 3: Not the landlord and that's what, he judge said.
Speaker 2: And that's what the.
Speaker 1: Judge's point was, before, OUR break professor i keep meaning to,
Speaker 1: Ask you this why should ordinary citizens with stuff to
Speaker 1: do care about a damn fight? Over a ballroom what's the?
Speaker 1: Larger constitutional principle, let's take.
Speaker 3: Here you know and that's a nice theme for all.
Speaker 3: Of these discussions when something, seems, you know huge like
Speaker 3: war or the shutdown, of free speech the shutdown, of
Speaker 3: the opposition it's clear what the stakes are and why
Speaker 3: we have to think. About the constitution, and you know
Speaker 3: we on this podcast we're talking, about the law but
Speaker 3: we're also often talking about the principles behind the.
Speaker 2: Whole system of law that we have.
Speaker 3: Of constitutional democracy and you know that's. True here, too,
Speaker 3: you know yes there are more important issues, than the
Speaker 3: ballroom but it's a symbol of. The wider issues and
Speaker 3: if you give ground on, any one issue he's going
Speaker 3: to take it on the, even bigger issues and. So
Speaker 3: that's important i'll, add one thing which is the reporting
Speaker 3: SUGGESTS this is o occupying a huge portion of his.
Speaker 2: Time and brain This.
Speaker 1: Is what oh he cares about this. In, a lot yeah.
Speaker 2: We're ever going to get this.
Speaker 3: Constitutional lesson through it's not that he's going, to learn
Speaker 3: it but we're not going to stop trying.
Speaker 2: To teach it this is a good one for him.
Speaker 1: To learn on aren't you glad we didn't have a
Speaker 1: woman president building ballrooms and wearing? Too Much, makeup all
Speaker 1: right we got to take a quick break back in.
Speaker 1: Just a moment This is the Oath. In the, office.
Speaker 4: Hey all. Clink, KERSHNER here friends i hope you'll join
Speaker 4: me on, My Audio. Podcast justice matters we talk about
Speaker 4: not only the legal issues, of the day but we
Speaker 4: also talk about the need to reform ethics. In our government.
Speaker 4: Here's One example the, oath of, office you KNOW the
Speaker 4: one i do solemnly swear to support And defend the
Speaker 4: constitution against all enemies. Foreign end domestic let's add twenty
Speaker 4: two words to, that OATH quote and i will promptly
Speaker 4: report any instances of crime and or corruption by government
Speaker 4: officials and Employees of which. I've, become aware friends our
Speaker 4: democracy is. Worth fighting for join.
Speaker 2: Us, in this fight.
Speaker 4: Because justice Matters Look for justice matters wherever you ordinarily.
Speaker 4: Find your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Welcome Back to the Oath. In The Office, I'm. John
Speaker 1: fugelsang professor Finally We. Have anthony fauci Let's Talk about
Speaker 1: rand paul's desperate public attempt to have a focus group
Speaker 1: to see if he can run. For PRESIDENT again because
Speaker 1: i think that's the only. Reason This happened rand paul
Speaker 1: would like to run. For president again has not gotten
Speaker 1: around to any significant legislative achievements or anything that's made.
Speaker 1: People's lives better and he doesn't really have any policies
Speaker 1: that would help, the middle class but he can beat
Speaker 1: up on. Twenty twenties boogeymen And So The senate Homeland
Speaker 1: Security And governmental affairs committee voted To hold doctor fauci
Speaker 1: in contempt after He Invoked the fifth amendment. During, Congressional
Speaker 1: Questioning again donald trump deliberately Lied to the american people
Speaker 1: hundreds of times willfully during a plague that Took a.
Speaker 1: Million American Lives but rand Paul's arguing that fauci's presidential
Speaker 1: pardon means that he should not be allowed to invoke
Speaker 1: the fifth and so he's trying to Refer This to
Speaker 1: todd blanche At The New. Corrupt justice department the committee's
Speaker 1: Own website identifies rand as Chairman And lists fauci's july
Speaker 1: twenty ninth testimony. Before, THE committee, so i mean this is.
Speaker 1: Insane to me What Does the fifth? Amendment actually protect
Speaker 1: and can you not be allowed to use it because you?
Speaker 2: Got? A pardon WOW you know i really have more than.
Speaker 3: The other stories i'm having trouble even wrapping my brain
Speaker 3: around this because the idea seems to be let ME
Speaker 3: see if i can put this AS clearly, as i
Speaker 3: can that because a pardon gave, immunity from prosecution we need.
Speaker 3: To prosecute him that's essentially. WHAT they're, saying i, mean it's,
Speaker 3: like you're immune so we have to put.
Speaker 1: You in prison but again they're saying like he, lied
Speaker 1: to them because they're saying he lied, to them wilfully, because,
Speaker 1: he's like well you don't, Need masks now oh you
Speaker 1: do need mask now because. The science changed but they're
Speaker 1: defending the man. Who deliberately lied so we know they don't.
Speaker 1: Care about lies we know they don't care about. The
Speaker 1: public health we know that, going, into, it right, PROFESSOR.
Speaker 3: You know i think that there's a huge CONTROVERSY obviously.
Speaker 3: About covid policy did he, do something right did he?
Speaker 2: Do it wrong?
Speaker 3: Was he perfect was he that's irrelevant to the question
Speaker 3: of whether or not somebody who obviously was trying to
Speaker 3: do things in good faith should be put in prison
Speaker 3: for being a civil servant in one of the most
Speaker 3: Difficult times. In american history and even if, he wasn't
Speaker 3: perfect even if he did things that you, DISAGREE with
Speaker 3: you i think they were going, to imprison him and
Speaker 3: they we're going to trip him up by and for
Speaker 3: what what?
Speaker 2: Is the crime It's.
Speaker 3: Invoking, the fifth amendment which is the right. Against self
Speaker 3: incrimination you're going to prosecute somebody for bringing, up you
Speaker 3: know and it, DOES you know i try to stay away,
Speaker 3: from overwrought analogies, but you know during, the McCarthy era,
Speaker 3: all the time these were the kind of things that
Speaker 3: they were trying to do to essentially punish people.
Speaker 2: For their speech and this is a political enemy.
Speaker 1: And they don't.
Speaker 3: Care, about belluted no it, doesn't make sense but they're
Speaker 3: trying to to find a way, to imprison, him you know.
Speaker 3: Given the, pardon and ironically the fact even the pardon
Speaker 3: was given is the way that they're.
Speaker 1: Trying to justify this Shows exactly why biden knew the man.
Speaker 1: Needed A pardon And I guess hunter biden's, gotten too
Speaker 1: popular so it's not fun for them to. Do That,
Speaker 1: anymore hillary clinton this is. What they do they have
Speaker 1: to have a whipping boy that. They beat up they
Speaker 1: got no policies, to help you and they Don't Care
Speaker 1: that donald, Trump deliberately lied but they're going to go
Speaker 1: back to the well and it's like playing. THEIR greatest,
Speaker 1: hits i mean a pardon.
Speaker 2: The While confirming todd blanche.
Speaker 1: Let's FORGET right but i mean a pardon doesn't eliminate
Speaker 1: the possibility, of SELF incrimination, like i Mean what would
Speaker 1: congress have to establish before holding a witness? And contempt
Speaker 1: right what would they have to prove?
Speaker 2: To do, that.
Speaker 3: You know if you, don't show up that's usually one
Speaker 3: of the plastic ways that you can hold. Somebody in
Speaker 3: contempt and if you, REFUSE to come i. Could understand
Speaker 3: that but the idea that invoking your right is going
Speaker 3: to lead to, THE contempt charge i don't see. COURTS
Speaker 3: upholding this i don't think that the pardon sort of
Speaker 3: Takes Away your.
Speaker 2: Fifth amendment right.
Speaker 3: I'LL say, Something i mean i'll lean into the arguments
Speaker 3: just to try to start to.
Speaker 2: Think through it as bizarre. As it, is you.
Speaker 3: Know, for one thing he might be prosecuted, for some
Speaker 3: things including it turns, out for contempt And So the
Speaker 3: fifth amendment right, is you know let's just go back.
Speaker 3: To the basics the idea is that, MY own words
Speaker 3: i can't be forced to give them to you to
Speaker 3: then use them against me in order to put. Me
Speaker 3: in prison that's. A fundamental issue is he in danger of?
Speaker 3: Being in prisoned obviously they're trying. To prosecute him we
Speaker 3: have an attorney general who is going to do the
Speaker 3: bidding of a president who now regards this man who
Speaker 3: was his ally and now regards him. As an opponent
Speaker 3: the reporting Too about how fauci was In Touch with
Speaker 3: stephen miller's wife WHEN. She had, covid you know the
Speaker 3: personal element of destroying your enemies and then trying, To
Speaker 3: you know Trump, versus the constitution that theme that we've.
Speaker 3: Been talking about you see. It here, again you know
Speaker 3: it's just trying to come up with these clever legal
Speaker 3: arguments in order. TO wiggle around i should say a
Speaker 3: lot of the senators doing this and, thinking about this who,
Speaker 3: are participating, it you know, they know better they're, trained
Speaker 3: in law and yet they're trying to use this silly
Speaker 3: idea that the pardon gives them the right to demand
Speaker 3: that he basically give up his rights. Against self, INCRIMINATION
Speaker 3: you know i.
Speaker 1: DON'T think, so i mean we were talking about birthright
Speaker 1: citizenship here today and license plates and this corrupt attorney general,
Speaker 1: in the ballroom And, now doctor fauci and it seems
Speaker 1: like the common denominator is. Limits on power SO that's what.
Speaker 1: I take away And something that i've always thought, About,
Speaker 1: your work professor Is that somebody i've, learned from you
Speaker 1: is that democratic institutions don't always collapse because somebody. Abolishes
Speaker 1: a constitution they erode because, people in power over a long,
Speaker 1: period of time gradually. REINTERPRET the, limits i mean is
Speaker 1: that what's happening when we see constitutional boundaries suddenly become
Speaker 1: just matters. Of, POLITICAL convenience.
Speaker 3: Yeah i, mean you know there are ways that democracies end.
Speaker 3: That are dramatic you, have a coup a military coup,
Speaker 3: from the outside you. Have an invasion democracies can. End
Speaker 3: that way but in, the modern world not Even Taking,
Speaker 3: the united states when, you look abroad that's not. How
Speaker 3: they end they end through slow evolution or through elections
Speaker 3: that result in autocrats. Coming to power and that's what's
Speaker 3: happening here that we are seeing democracy being eroded every
Speaker 3: single week that we, do this podcast and each Of
Speaker 3: These issues, birthright citizen issue The, attack on fauci The,
Speaker 3: attack on komi The. Attack on james if you were
Speaker 3: to take any of these, as individual stories, He, would
Speaker 3: think ah it's not that. Big a deal, but you
Speaker 3: know when you take, it to together you see it for.
Speaker 3: What it is it is the equivalent of a slow
Speaker 3: moving self coup by the president and destruction of. The
Speaker 3: other branches and it's not as dramatic as the guns
Speaker 3: that would be fired in, a military coup but it
Speaker 3: is no less impactful when it comes to the result,
Speaker 3: for our democracy which unfortunately still could. Be it's destruction
Speaker 3: as much AS you and i and many other people
Speaker 3: are guests that we, have every, week you know we're
Speaker 3: not choosing them just because you. Know they're interesting we're
Speaker 3: choosing them because they're at the forefront of the fight to.
Speaker 3: Defend our democracy and you know that's because we have
Speaker 3: to first of all recognize that it is under attack
Speaker 3: in this subtle way that, you point out and then
Speaker 3: also that you know there are things we can do
Speaker 3: to fight.
Speaker 1: BACK and, Win, i mean Corey Your book the Presidents
Speaker 1: and the people is, a great one and it's all
Speaker 1: about citizens who fought back against presidential. Abuses or overreach
Speaker 1: but what do is fighting back constitutionally mean for an
Speaker 1: ordinary citizen up AGAINST all, the i mean it's fun
Speaker 1: to watch this. Guy self destruct but a lot of
Speaker 1: people want to fight back. Harder and.
Speaker 3: SMARTER you know i think that it means, first of
Speaker 3: all doing what we're doing every week on this show
Speaker 3: and talking to your friends and, colleagues about it because
Speaker 3: there are a lot of people who think this is
Speaker 3: just politics As usual or. I'm you know the other
Speaker 3: thing that YOU hear is i don't get. Involved in
Speaker 3: politics it's too destructive, and you know sort of headed in.
Speaker 3: The sand approach the first thing is to recognize it for.
Speaker 3: What it is this isn't. A normal presidency it is
Speaker 3: a presidency in which our rights.
Speaker 2: Are under attack once we as.
Speaker 3: Individuals start, to see that we can start to build
Speaker 3: a movement around the idea that we don't just Need To,
Speaker 3: defeat donald trump we need to reinstitute rules that are
Speaker 3: going to. Protect our Democracy and so i'll just SAY
Speaker 3: one that i think. Is so pressing, if you know
Speaker 3: before the, idea was abstract what do we do with
Speaker 3: an attorney general who acted as the criminal defense lawyer
Speaker 3: of a president.
Speaker 2: Or enabled criminality. It's not hypothetical, we've.
Speaker 3: Seen it not just Now, but during nixon and so
Speaker 3: that's one of the kind of things that we need
Speaker 3: to do as we fight back to institute laws that
Speaker 3: insulate an attorney general from a president law does that
Speaker 3: make it illegal to order the?
Speaker 2: Prosecution of opponents.
Speaker 1: So thank you know this.
Speaker 3: Could happen again it's not just Getting.
Speaker 2: Rid of trump that's not what this.
Speaker 3: Podcast is about it's about restoring the rule of law
Speaker 3: and our democracy.
Speaker 1: And enjoying and savoring every moment asaious it Gets, Rid, of.
Speaker 1: Trump Yes exactly the lord's going to make his arteries
Speaker 1: Do what the lord's going to make, His Arteries. Do
Speaker 1: professor bretschneider what's the best way for our listeners to
Speaker 1: follow you and keep up with your brilliance the other
Speaker 1: six days.
Speaker 3: Of, the week well be sure to follow us or
Speaker 3: subscribe wherever you. Get your podcasts we're on, all Audio,
Speaker 3: platforms on apple where we're usually on, the top three
Speaker 3: often number one when It comes to, apple trending podcasts
Speaker 3: and we're, also on YouTube so subscribe where if you're
Speaker 3: listening to us, or watching us you also can check
Speaker 3: out the oath and. The office substack and what a
Speaker 3: pleasure it is to join you.
Speaker 2: Here every, week.
Speaker 1: THANK you sir i Want to Thank wendy and beywolf
Speaker 1: and everyone who puts. This monster together you can hear
Speaker 1: me Every DAY On Sirius xm progress channel one twenty
Speaker 1: Seven On The John fugel saying Show twelve noon eastern. To,
Speaker 1: three pm yeah that's a twelve noon To three. Pm
Speaker 1: eastern nine and it's nice to work, In. The daytime
Speaker 1: corey i'm starting.
Speaker 2: To nice t see you during the.
Speaker 1: Day, way in yeah not catching on fire AS much
Speaker 1: AS i thought. I would have thank you all, for
Speaker 1: joining us and be sure to join us next Week
Speaker 1: on the Oath. And the office