Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to write us here at
the show, please do so at radio at The Federalist.
We love to hear from you.
Speaker 2: How are you, Molly great, How are you doing.
Speaker 1: I'm doing great. I'm excited that the deportations have begun,
especially Mahmoud Khalil, a Colombian, a Colombian, a graduate, a
former graduate student at Columbia University, and i'd say a
ring leader of a lot of the quote unquote protests
that went on recently, is being hopefully deported from the
United States. It's a Trump administration moving on the president's
executive order to what I forgot that was worded maybe
stop anti Semitism or whatever it was.
Speaker 2: To put this in context, after October seventh, we started
to see this growing student movement, particularly at elite colleges,
of opposing Israel's response to the October seventh massacre. Is
that the context that's needed here.
Speaker 1: I would say that that's right, except that in places
like Harvard and probably Columbia. I don't remember. The protests
began before Israel even responded to it. They were basically
rationalizing and justifying the resistance of Hamas and they viewed
October seventh the rape and killing of innocent civilians as
part of that movement. I think that's fair to say.
Speaker 2: So it's been an interesting story to me because we've
had a lot of left wing student movements, including ones
that have the support of this same group of people,
that did not result in a great deal of attention
from high Republican leaders. So, for instance, and if you
went to the BLM site on Day one of the
BLM protests and riots, you saw that they had as
one of their key beliefs opposition to Israel and support
for Palestinian like complete takeover from the river to the sea,
as they say. And yet you had like met Romney
marching with BLM, and as these groups did so much
damage on campuses for years, if not decades, nobody really cared.
And then when they went after Israel for its response
or even as you note, really they just started going
after Israel almost like to celebrate what had happened on
October seventh. Is that too much to say, or kind
of felt like they were celebrating it.
Speaker 1: I think they were in all of them, but many
of them all of a sudden.
Speaker 2: You see, like Republicans spring into action and say we've
got a problem on our campuses. Is a little weird
that they waited until that point to do anything about it,
but it's just heart So I've seen some I think
you and I are both pretty strongly free speech.
Speaker 1: Right, I think so. I think I'm yeah.
Speaker 2: And so I kind of want to talk just like
about that part of it, because I've seen some free
speech people being really upset that the Trump administration is
deporting a guy with a green card over his speech.
Do you agree that that's what's going on, or do
you think there's more to it, or do you think
that even if that's true, that is a problem.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let's take a step back on the BLM
aspect you just mentioned. This is not an excuse for anyone.
I think when BLM broke out, the world was still
a bit of a different place, right, and Republicans are
very nervous and have always been been nervous of being
portrayed as being racists or white supremacists or whatever. So
they've always been cowardly when it comes to racial issues,
even clearly racialist identitarian issues like BLM. But it seems
to me like BLM is dead now. That's why I
think it's different. Whereas when you see people championing terrorists,
that's something a lot easier frankly to stand up against.
I mean, you'd think it would be, but not that
everyone does. As far as the free speech issue, free
speech is protected by the First Amendment, and it's also
I think you and I agree on this a virtue
right that we believe should be virtue or an ideal
that should be protected no matter where people are. I
think it's a natural So I support Khalil's right to
free speech in Algeria and Syria. I hope it goes
unfettered and he can say all the things he wants
to say. But you don't have a constitutional right to
be in the United States. And not only is it
illegal for you to support a terrorist organization here while
you have a green card. And by the way, the
green card system, the entire immigration system, and the levels
of protection. Green card is the highest level of protection
before you're citizen. We're created as a vetting process to
give us time to see if you're a good citizen.
If you are an insurrectionist and you are stoking bigotry
and you are supporting a group that is on the
DOJ terrorist list, we would be insane to give you citizenship.
It's like inviting a fifth column to live in the
United States. No country should ever do that. So I
think speech should be protect but your right to be
here is not protected. And he broke the law. Now
is it constitutional to have a law that says you're
not allowed to espouse support for certain groups. I guess
we can take that to the Supreme Court. But sorry
to be ranting here, but one last thing. You know,
I've told you many times my parents were defectors from
Eastern Europe, right or Central Europe, a communist country. When
they got here, they had to renounce communism. They had
to promise not to be involved in insurrections and not
to undermine the constitution. Does Khalil meet any of those standards? No,
we you know, So I just don't even understand why
we would want someone like this here in the first place.
And one more thing. Khalil also was the ring leader
of groups that targeted Jewish students on the Columbia campus,
that took over buildings, vandalized them, destroyed buildings. He was
the negotiator for the Colombia Divest from Israel organization whatever
it was that had taken Hamilton Hall. He led protests
where they put up big signs that said death to America.
Now that's a speech issue. And the thing is that
a lot of Democrats claim that he was not convicted
of a crime, thus he has done nothing wrong. First
of all, you can lose your immigration status over things
that aren't, you know, without criminal conviction. But more than that,
Alvin Bragg will not convict anyone in New York who
does this sort of thing. He let rioters out of
jail without any charges. So what are we supposed to
do because there's a socialist DA now who allows these
graduate students and others to target Jewish students. Now, so
what We're just supposed to sit here and let a
bunch of anti Semites come into this country into schools
that are already propped up by Katari money. I mean,
it's it's just insand it it's suicidal, I think.
Speaker 2: So I'm about to see so if that happens. I apologize,
but yeah, I have a few different thoughts on this,
and they largely align with yours. I do care that
people are not punished for their speech, and I believe
that freedom of speech is a natural right. I also
don't think that means that foreigners, whether they are here
like on this status or another status, have the same
right to be free from government action in response to
speech that American citizens do. And it's a privilege to
have a green card. It's a beautiful privilege. It's like
an amazing, wonderful privilege to have a green card. And
people who are guests in a country that is not
their own should be respectful of that, I think, And
I was thinking about this, like, let's say, you know,
someone came in from Scotland and they were a pro
life activist that was causing problems, or that they were
associated with a group that was engaged in some terrorist
activity against abortion clinics. Even though I'm pro life, not
that I would ever support any violence and defense of that,
but even though in pro life, I wouldn't say that
someone who was coming into our country to do this
kind of protest that they should be free from many
repercussions that the government wouldn't have a right to deport.
You know, I always try to come up with something
in my mind that's more sympathetic than a Hamas supporter,
And it surprised me somewhat how many people like Ann
Coulter was saying how this was a violation of free
speech rights. I think, I just I don't see it
that way, and I don't care about the issue at
the level that some other people do. I saw that
over at the Voloch Conspiracy. Iliashman was also talking about
the importance of protecting the First Amendment, or like making
sure the First Amendment protections extend to people who support Hamas,
and he was quite He's Jewish and an Israel supporter
and not in any way sympathetic to this guy. But
it's just I ultimately didn't find I did not find
it as compelling it as I thought I might.
Speaker 1: I mean, Ilia Soeman's argument was and I like him
very much as a commentator, and he's a lawyer and
all that, but it was propped up by the idea
that we shouldn't really even have borders at all. I mean,
he's a full blown libertarian. I'm pretty libertarian guy. But
I think the only way we're going to preserve freedom
is by actually having borders and not letting him people
who want to destroy them here. I think that's part
of defending liberties. But more than that, I think people
should read Ilia Shapiro's piece at the Manhattan Institute explaining
the legalities of their He's also a libertarian lawyer, and
I think he made a more compelling case.
Speaker 2: We're only going to let men named Ilia debate this
for well. So Glenn Reynolds also said that he didn't
think that people should be deported for speech reasons, but
that he just didn't think this was a speech issue.
He thinks this is a support for terrorism issue. Yeah,
I think definitely I agree on that part about how
support for terrorism is is a different category than your
normal free speech stuff. But I actually I'm not even
sure if I would extend First Amendment protections to people
who are here on green card status.
Speaker 1: If why do we even have green cards? Then, I mean,
why do we have this vetting process if we're supposed
to allow everyone in. Now, if it was nineteen forty
and some German Nazi type was here and there were
Nazis here, and they had big events at Madison Square Garden.
But a German is here saying that the United States
needs to be destroyed, the West needs to be you know,
the anglosphere needs to be destroyed, and this and that.
Will we give him citizenship? It's just insanity. I am
for protecting the First Amendment rights of people or here,
even people like Khalil. But if you're going to, you know,
create insurrection here and side with America's enemies that are
literally America's enemies, I don't think we should give you citizenship.
And I don't know. I hate to even say these
this phrase, but it's just common sense, right, isn't it.
Speaker 2: So there's another angle that I think is interesting about Well,
there are multiple angles that I find interesting about it.
And one is something else you just referenced about Alvin
Bragg will not hold people accountable for crimes committed as
part of these pro Hamasi anti Israel protests, and that
is true. And also true is that Columbia should have
done more to make sure that their Jewish students were
protected as they went to classes. I mean, Columbia is
the worst of all the schools. I think they are
threatening the operation of the school. They're not protecting students.
There's been violence, there's been major disruption to the classes
themselves in a way that I don't think we would
tolerate for a different group that was targeted. And had
the schools done a better job of creating sure places
for people to protest while also protecting the rest of
the students, I don't think we'd be seeing this deportation.
And it is a big incentivizer for other schools, including
Columbia and other schools to think about whether turning their
campus over to the worst fringe elements who disrupt the
proceedings of the school, whether that turned out to be
such a good idea. I mean, Columbia has lost some
obscene number of grants worth a lot of money as
part of their support of these protests, and now their
student leader has been deported, and you know, it's just
maybe their strategy of how to handle it wasn't so great.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. I saw. I can't remember
the school, some school you know, had shut down some
forthcoming you know, so called protest. Losing four hundred, three
hundred million dollars is not nothing even for these institutions. Honestly,
I don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing these schools. With
these giant bank accounts of billions of dollars, they could
give free tuition to everyone if they felt like it.
Another angle of Trump mentioned masks, and everyone's like, what's
he talking about? Well, I don't know. Before COVID, I'm
not sure people realize this, most or many cities had
anti masking laws because people who wear masks, like the
Klan and the Kafias of the pro Hamas people, they
do it to intimidate other people minorities. Usually they do
it because they want to engage in criminality. Now, we
suspended a lot of he's lost during COVID when the
government forced us to wear masks. But this is not
some outlandish thing that Trump just dropped in. I'm not
saying it doesn't drop outlandish things sometimes in his tweets,
But this actually had a basis in law, a.
Speaker 2: Huge basis in law that's going back like one hundred
and fifty years. I don't know exactly how I feel
about that either, like, but it was done for definite
common good, public interest reasons. The Ku Klux Klan was
intimidating people and engaged in you know, bad behavior, violence,
property damage with its protests and riots and so there, Well,
I forget what it was called. It's like I want
to might even be called like thekk Act. It's right
after the Civil War that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, like in eighteen seventy one, I think the law.
I forgot what the law was called, but yeah, it
was about the Klan.
Speaker 2: But yeah, and yeah then and so there are reasons
why cities don't allow that. Cities and other municipalities don't
let people wear masks as they commit violence or engage
in right.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I don't know if that's constitutional. Like,
I don't know why I shouldn't be able to wear
a mask if I want to. It seems like a
free speech issue. But we understand why people wear masks.
We understand that they're going to be involved in something
that they don't want to be identified being involved in anyway.
So there's also a larger issue that I think is
quite interesting. If Khalil is not deported and there's a
chance he's going to go in front of immigration judge,
he has lawyers, there's due process here, then shouldn't we
start thinking maybe we don't let so many people in
from places where liberalism is so popular, where people who
want to destroy this country, who hate the West, who
still bigotry in our schools of higher education. Why are
we letting them in? If I can never say you
can't be here for the things that you're doing, then
why are we letting you in in the first place.
I think that's something we should think about.
Speaker 3: New York State has a new recruitment process for Democrat voters.
Speaker 4: The Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 3: After DOJ's purge of the federal workforce, Governor Kathy Hochel
is recruiting federal workers to move to New York. Does
she really want employment or just more votes?
Speaker 4: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: And just tied to that, I saw see an end
poll this morning that had Trump on the right side
of immigration policy for the first time ever. Why Because
it's clear now that the Biden administration wanted to allow
anarchy at the order because crossings have plunged since the
day Donald Trump became president, So clearly Democrats didn't want
to secure the border, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Actually, one thing that's interesting about border crossings is
that you see the change happen usually before a certain
individual becomes president. So the moment Biden won reelection in
twenty twenty, you start seeing a big increase in the
numbers of people crossing the border. Likewise, the moment Trump wins,
not when he takes office, but when he wins, you
start to see a decrease because people understand that different
enforcement means different things. And while it is a good
and notable that you've seen crossings drop to a trickle
under Trump, there are so many millions of illegal immigrants
here improperly that we were told would be deported, and
you have to deport a really large number each day
each week to stay on top of the promise to
deport all of the like twelve million illegal immigrants from
Biden's time, don't plus all the others, and they're just
not meeting those numbers. That's a little bit of a
side topic. But before we talk about what it means
to be American and what it means about who should
be given this great privilege of being able to be
part of our country, whether as a citizen or as
a Green cardholder or otherwise. I do want to just
point out one thing that you mentioned about legal representation
and due process, so everything is proceeding according to how
you would expect it to when they are deporting someone. Actually,
that reminds me of one thing they did. Apparently when
they grabbed him, they didn't like immediately say where he was,
but you kept hearing people on the left say that
he'd been disappeared, and it was a matter of hours
before people knew where he was. A disappearing is a
different thing than you know, not knowing exactly what facility
he's in for a brief period of time. I mean,
I totally believe he has or you know, the way
that the system is set up that we have said
that his lawyer should have access to that, and I'm
not downplaying that. But the other thing I want to
point out is that we had our Department of Justice
engaged in what, by its own admission, was the biggest
attack on any protest group ever in the history of
our country with the J six protests and when that happened,
and you know, hundreds and hundreds more than thousand people
were rounded up and were overcharged according to the Supreme Court,
And we're dealing with horrible conditions for protesting in a
manner that's roughly similar to how like left wing protest
movements have been allowed to proceed with barely any oversight
for decades. No lawyers, no lawyers, and by the way,
no lawyers on the right, like none of our prestigious
conservative legal community stood up to defend these largely poor
or not like wealthy people who were rounded up by
an absolutely out of control Department of Justice. Here we
have a terrorist sympathizer who is facing deportation, and he
has a veritable who's who of top shelf left wing
attorneys ready to defend him every step of the way.
And I don't know exactly who I'm angry at here,
but because I think legal representation is good. The left
is very good about defending its people, whether they are
terrorist sympathizers or terrorists. Like when everyone was being held
at GIMO, every major left wing law firm went to
bat and took their cases all the way to the
Supreme Court defending people who had killed Americans and or
who were involved in plots to kill Americans. And when
j six protesters were rounded up, where the bleep was
the conservative legal community. And I think it's going to
come back and haunt them that they were so not
there because people help people who help them and not
having helped at the time of greatest need, when Democrats
were just doing law fair against Trump, against entire Republican
Party establishments in Georgia and other states, against the voters,
they did nothing to help these people. And now they're like,
but please make sure you vote for us so we
can get our judges or other people in It was
a really bad strategy on the part of the conservative
legal establishment, and I'm kind of curious to see how
that will play out. Sorry, that was a little bit
of a no.
Speaker 1: Could we also talk for a second about this ridiculous
idea that Democrats are super and Chris Murphy, one of
the leaders of the Mahmud Khalil Defense Front, care about
free express political free expression. I mean that's a joke, right.
They've spent years trying to censor political speech. They've spent
years undermining the idea of neutrality and speech. They wanted
to weaponize the government to shut people down constantly through
pressuring big tech, working with big tech, etc. It's a joke.
Speaker 2: I was thinking about that when people were attacking Supreme
Court justices houses or you know, going to their homes
to protest them and their kids, and Joe Biden and
Merrick Garland were like, there is nothing we can do.
These are free speech protests, and it was like, you
people hate free speech. You have organized large cabals of
censorship organizations that all operate to suppress speech, and yet
when it suits you, you say, oh, this is a
free speech issue.
Speaker 1: There are laws, aren't there that say you have to
stay a certain distance away from judges not to intimidate
them or something. I don't know what the law says,
but abortion clinics you can't even be nearby, and as
you know, and they're fine with that. I mean, they
have such a loose, inconsistent defensive speech that you start
to think that maybe the only think one side should
have free speech.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because a lot of people get very angry when
their cases don't grow the way that they want, and
sometimes they take it out on judges. Or their spouses
or their children. There are all sorts of laws and
regulations like according to each state, and then also in
the federal according to the federal government of not protesting
judges with the intent of getting them to change their
minds on a certain topic or to otherwise interfere.
Speaker 1: And one last thing I wanted to talk about was
immigration and everything you mentioned the yeah you have something
to say, Okay, I was just going to say, sometimes
you think the Democrats believe the only American ideal is immigration, right,
that's all they talk about. They're quoting New Colossus poem
from the Statue of Liberty and so on. But yet
they're willing to just hand this sacred right, this citizenship
that you you know, protect you and your natural rights
to people who hate this country. It tells me they're
not actually serious. In the same way they're not serious
about voting. Voting in democracy the most sacred thing ever,
but yet they don't even want you to have an
ID when you do it. So it tells me they're
not serious about these things.
Speaker 2: So that's what I lit up, because you had previously
made reference to allowing people in from countries where maybe
their values don't align with ours, and I do think
that is an issue that Americans are realizing is more
important than they ever did before. That there are cultural differences,
for instance, support for Hamas that could come into play
based you know, different people should be screened for whether
they support that terrorist or movement or other terrorist movements,
and whether people who do support things like that, whether
they are good matches for a country that really does
have tolerance for different viewpoints built into it. Yeah, like
it only works if it isn't just that, like anyone
can come here. It's like, well, anyone could come here
who adopts our approach and our constitution.
Speaker 1: Like I mentioned my parents and thousands of others who
came from Eastern Europe and communist countries. They did not
want to import those ideas into this country. They were
escaping those ideas in that I liberalism. So yeah, we
can ask mak M Khalil when he's being interviewed, do
you support Hamas and he can lie, he can say no,
I don't support Hamas or anyone like that. That's why
we have the green card process in the process of
getting your citizenship. If you say that and then you're
here putting up signs and saying that you believe telling
the New York Times Times your organization telling the New
York Times that they believe in resistance, armed resistance and
global antifada. Then we sent you home. You remember, I'm
sure you do. In January, a Isis inspired terrorist rammed
his car into a New Orleans crowd and killed fifteen
people that day. That day there was a giant protest
in Times Square with people with huge signs that said
globalize the Intifada, and one of the groups there was
the Columbia Divest group, which this guy was a leader
of the day fifteen Americans were killed. Is this really
who we want here? I mean, I don't not me,
I don't yeah, thank you. No.
Speaker 2: So I mean I wish that I was disagreeing with
you more, But I just I cannot be made to
care that much about this particular case. I'm not saying
that I wouldn't monitor restrictions on speech or other speech
related activity, but I think that Columbia should have done
a better job. The City of New York, the State
of New York should have done a better job managing
these things, and that had they done that, you wouldn't
be seeing this, so they really only have themselves to
plen I.
Speaker 1: Am sympathetic to the argument that there is a slippery
slope here that we have to be careful about, because, yeah,
one day a Democrat is going to be present and
they're going to start deporting people who say things they
don't like. Perhaps I am not saying that that can't happen,
but it's also a slippery slope to just let anyone
come here who hates this country. We have to have
some kind of immigration process where we're making this a
better country, where we're bringing people here who like there's
a big movement to say we should only bring people
here who we need, who have degrees, who have money, whatever.
I don't think so. I think we should be bringing
people here who are going to make good Americans because
a lot of people in the world don't have opportunities
to succeed because they live in terrible places or is
Donald Trump had a different name for those places. But
that doesn't mean we just allow anyone to come here.
We don't let them define, We don't let them tell
us who's coming. We decide who's coming. And this is
a perfect example of that.
Speaker 2: Yes, people make it so much about economic growth, and
they should care far more about cultural identity and the
strength of the country going forward based on shared understanding
of shared.
Speaker 1: Values, because it's that culture that makes the economic part happen.
It's the stability is.
Speaker 2: Just because of that though. I mean, yes, wealth is important,
but no, no, I'm not saying that I'm wealth that matter
even more than financial wealth.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that the
culture that we have that doesn't think about money first,
despite what people think, is what even allows you to
take the risks to have a career that you know
you love, not just that makes you money, that allows
you to make money if that's what you want to do.
I mean, it's the culture that allows that.
Speaker 2: We should move on. But I just want to have
two more quick things that I was thinking of while
you were talking. One is that the mayor of Washington,
d c. Removed the Black Lives Matter paint on the
street in front of the White House and the plaza
that had been erected there to obstruct traffic, so that
Black Lives Matter would be forever honored for what it
is in our nation's capital. And she did this, or
maybe it was a City Council. I don't know. They
were not asked to do it. They just did it.
And it's kind of like what we're talking about with
border crossings or how New York didn't step up like
they should. They're just worried they're going to lose home rule.
So DC constitutionally is under the federal government and they're
allowed to govern themselves, and they do a very bad
job with it. So Congress is always thinking about taking
it back, but they're just so terrified of that they
were like, Okay, we'll just take down. We'll take this
down right away. The other thing is that Chris Murphy,
like so many members of Congress left and right, sadly
Republican and Democrat, has left his wife for a younger woman.
And the younger woman that he's left his wife for
is a censorship proponent who also runs actual propaganda news sites.
I forget what they're called, but she runs like a
series of propaganda news sites that are all about spreading propaganda,
like they pretend they do local news just so that
they can spread Democrat propaganda. And he's with her. Now
it's everyone's like, why are we seeing so much of
Chris Murphy? And it's because he's now with this Tara McGowan,
dark money operative lady who runs propaganda sites, and she's
made him her number one project.
Speaker 1: Don't even get me started on that guy. I'm going
to lose my bleep. I cannot handle that guy. He
is such a fraud. But I want to take a
step back. I suggest that DC renamed Black Lives Matters Plaza,
All Lives Matters Plaza, and just write all lives matter.
But what makes makes me laugh is that you said
that the denizens of DC can't govern themselves or govern
themselves poorly. These are literally the people governing the whole country,
and they cannot govern their own city. They do not
deserve home rule. It should be taken away constitutionally. I
think this should be under Congress's purview and they should
be making laws in d C. It's not supposed to
be a state, it's not supposed to be its own
city in this way, and it was a big mistake
home rule, I.
Speaker 2: Think at least yeah, I think they should just do
what they did with the Virginia portion of Washington, d C,
which is just hand the actual land back to the
state or commonwealth that it came from and then let
Maryland have whatever another congressional seat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, keep it really, maybe just keep it super small
right around where you know, from around the mall maybe. Yeah. Now,
speaking of d C, there was a kind of a
little bit of a kerfuffle or a little anger, I
would say, last week at Amy Coney Barrett who I
guess it was a five to four decision against the
Trump administration that dealt with.
Speaker 2: I can't there are more than one hundred cases, so
forgive me if I get some of this wrong. But
this particular situation dealt with two billion dollars in grant
funds that the Trump administration had put on hold, and
it was related to USAID funding, and some of the
people who are beneficiaries of this taxpayer largess filed a
claim in the d C. Cir I think it was
d C Circuit Court, saying that they needed to be
paid these moneies. And it's a legitimate case. You know,
when Congress appropriates funds, they're supposed to be paid by
the executive branch. There's some leeway and how and when
they do that, and usually such cases are actually handled
in like the in a federal court of claims rather
than the d C Circuit. The judge I think it
was d C Circuit. Forgive me, I'm so sorry that
I don't remember which circuit it was. It could have been.
I'm like, in my mind, it's not the d C Circuit.
The judge who was not not d C Circuit. Sorry,
it was a district court. I don't remember which district court.
The judge who was handling it, just like an individual
judge had been on the bench about two weeks and
is a crazy left winger, and he instituted some global
injunctions against the Trump administration right away that they were
appealing like he basically, I think, said that they had
to continue operations, that there would be an injunction against
a pause of the funding. And then he felt like
they weren't following his ruling as much as he would
have liked them to, and so he then said that
they had to pay up everything in thirty six hours. Now,
many people had a problem with these temporary restraining orders
because they were so much more than what should be
done by a district court judge. And the Trump team
immediately appealed this to the Supreme Court. And so I
think a lot of people thought that the thing to
do when a judge is kind of out of control
is just to put a pause on everything while the
case gets worked. You know, it'll he'll make a ruling
at the district court level and then it will be
reviewed by wherever his circuit is, and then it will
go up to the Supreme Court. It was like a
normal procedure, and instead the Supreme Court said, like in
a five to four decision, with the four people who
didn't agree all putting their name to the dissent, so
you know who the five were, or you know, they
said they had an order I should say that said no,
let this district judge run wild. Basically I'm leaving out
a bunch. And technically they kind of chastised the judge
a little bit or encouraged him to reign in. And
it was just shocking to people, including Justice Alito who
wrote the dissent, because there were so many ways around
what they did, and what they did was not one
of them. So it was alarming to a lot of observers.
And Amy Cony Barrett and Justice John Roberts were both
part of that.
Speaker 1: Right, so she got you know, there was a lot
of anger directed to her online I saw comparing her
to like Suitor or other judges that were nominated by
Republican presidents who went native. I guess you'd say, I
think it's incredibly premature to start talking that way. She
has been great on a ton of huge cases, including
overturning Row affirmative action, gun rights, you know, pro gun right.
The idea that a lot of people were spreading was
that she's basically antagonistic toward Donald Trump engineer's decisions to
undermine him. I just I don't see that at all.
And then I think CNN broke this story, and it was,
you know that that she had arranged for someone to
sing songs from the show Broadway Show Hamilton when Kaitanji
Brown Jackson first came in as a welcome party. And
who does that? You know, she's this was supposed to
tell me that she's a crypto, you know, leftist or something.
I just don't buy it. That just seems like a
normal thing that a nice person would do for someone
who's starting work, you know, who's going to be a colleague. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The defense of Amy Cony Barrett on that last point
is even stronger than what you say, because the Supreme
Court has had has long had a tradition. Okay, let's
see and back it up a little bit. The Supreme
Court operates with seniority. The Chief Justice is always senior,
whether he got there yesterday or he's been there for
twenty five years. Other than that, it goes by length
of time at the Supreme Court. So the junior Justice
goes through a little bit of hazing in different ways,
Like they have to serve on the cafeteria committee, and
they have to go to monthly meetings to see how
the cafeteria operations are being run. There's a cafeteria in
the Supreme Court that feeds the justices, their clerks, the
permanent staff, and visitors, and so it needs to be
run well. And the junior Justice, i think, chairs that committee.
And when they're in conference, which means when it's just
the justices and they're discussing things alone inside the inner sanctum,
if someone knocks on the door because someone lost their
glasses or you know, someone needs a filing somewhere, someone
knocks on the door, the junior justice is the only
person who can get the door. The junior Justice speaks last.
I mean, there are all sorts of weird traditions associated
with being the junior justice. Now, when a new junior
justice comes, the previous junior justice always throws a party.
They organized the party. It's a dinner, dinner and entertainment.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: I can't remember what they all were like. When Justice
Kavanaugh came on the court, Justice Gorsich threw him at dinner,
and the entertainment was that the racing presidents, the Washington
Nationals have this thing, racing presidents who come out and
compete with each other, and they showed up at the
court and they did a race down the hallway of
the Supreme Court. So that's like an example. Or when
Justice Alito came on the court, Justice Brier had the
Phillies fanatic. Why are these all baseball? I don't know,
but the Phillies fanatic burst into the room and started
like hugging Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito. And it was
because Justice Alito loves the Philadelphia Phillies. It's not that
Justice Bryer loved Justice Alito. You can read his memoir
and he doesn't really say much about him, but he
followed this tradition. And so when Amy Coney Barrett was
put on the court in twenty twenty. She was the
junior Justice for a few years, and when Katanji Brown
Jackson came on in twenty twenty three, she throws a
party and it involves Hamilton, not because Amy Coney Barrett
loves Katanji Brown Jackson, although she might, or because she
loves Hamilton. It's because Kaitanji Brown Jackson loves show tunes.
We know this that she just appeared on a Broadway stage,
which was a lifelong dream of hers, and so it
was very specific. Oh yeah, when Kavanaugh hosted the dinner
for Amy Coney Barrett because she's from Louisiana, I think
they had Cajun food and they had like a Marty
Groth type theme. I think so my point just being
the idea that you would attack Amy Cony Barrett for
participating in the same process that everybody else does is ludicrous.
Or Another ludicrous thing that you saw was that people
were trying to say that she glared at Trump at
the State of the Union. I don't think that's accurate.
Can I say a little bit on that?
Speaker 1: I don't want to be Yeah, no, I saw that video.
I don't think that's accurate at all, but gone, yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you met her, she's kind of a
reserved person. All the many of the justices at least
attempt to have some type of judicial temperament in their interactions,
and going to the State of the Union is a
thankless awful gig. You might have noticed there were only
four justices there, well five if you count Anthony Kennedy
coming back to reclaim some former glory that knew, did they?
Speaker 1: I think they all used to show up, right? Is
it new that they're not showing up anymore? Am I wrong?
Speaker 2: You're wrong? It's not true that they all used to
show up. Many justices have always had a problem with it,
and I'm talking about justices who are long dead now.
Interestingly enough, Justice Alito was confirmed the day of the
State of the Union, so he went to his first
State of the Union in two thousand and six and
sat there. But it was during Obama's presidency that Obama
gave a State of the Union address where he lied
about the Supreme Court. He said that they had he
mischaracterized the results of the Citizens United decision, and I
mean nobody disagrees with that. Linda Greenhouse who's a communist,
agreed that Obama mischaracterized what he was talking about.
Speaker 1: It was also unprecedented to attack justices who are sitting
wear in front of you during the State of the Union.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so already a lot of justices just didn't
like it, Like, you know, they'll say, what are you
supposed to do? He you know, the president praises America,
you clap, then he attacks the opposing party, and you
sit on your hands like you'd sort of it. Just
it's just not a very fun experience to know what
you should should support and what you shouldn't and then
if you just sit there solemnly the whole time, everyone
thinks you're a stick on a log, bump on a log.
But when Obama did that, Alito says, he mouths the
words that's not true or simply not true, something like that.
And of course the cameras are all on the justices
because they know that Obama is talking about them, and
people thought that was rude. I think that was the
last time Alito went to a State of the Union.
But Clarence Thomas doesn't go, and it's not a partisan thing.
Plenty of Democrat nominated justices don't go, you know, obviously
didn't go last night or that night. And so I
think it's a difficult thing when the president comes up
to shake your hand, like what are you supposed to do?
Are you supposed to be really like effusive? And then
you rule against him the next day and it looks
like you're a phony? Or do you just try to
be reserved, which is I think what Amy was doing.
Justice Barrett was doing, And I think it's there's so
much to criticize her about her decisions that I think
it's foolish to criticize on the stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean if a justice is like hey, buddy,
you know, and hugs the president, I mean, you don't
want that. This is their separation of powers, you know,
it's it's it's ridiculous for them to appear to be
buddies and best friends, don't you think.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I feel like a Justice Scalia would
have been able to be jovial with everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, with everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, make his decisions the way he wanted to.
So I don't have a problem, but I just I
do want to say, though there is simmering discontent with
Amy Coney Barrett for good reasons, and I think that
people are allowed to notice that. For instance, on that
decision to let the District Court judge run wild, what
did Alito write? He was stunned, I mean, and for
justices signed on to that statement that they were stunned
because it was so weirdly inappropriate and there were so
many other things they could have done that would have
caused less dam image than the permanent immediate payout of
two billion dollars in a case that's not even really
begun to be litigated. Or I think a good example
that explains or so I'm, you know, writing this book
on the court. I've spoken with many people, and these
are people who generally like her, but they are frustrated
with how she's handling the position she's in in terms
of her understanding of what needs to be done and
how quickly it needs to be done. So I want
to give an example of this. Are you familiar with
Employment Division B Smith, the nineteen ninety case authored by
Justice Scalia.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think so. Yeah, I don't know that
nineteen ninety case.
Speaker 2: Well, it's one of the most famous decisions in part
because it's like controversial it's not Rovy Wade level controversial.
Speaker 1: But perhaps once you tell me what it was about.
Speaker 2: People who love Scalia widely consider it his worst decision,
and that pretty much from the moment it was signed,
people have been looking to overturn it. So the way
that religious liberty cases have been handled over time has
changed a bit. In the Supreme Court, I mean, first off,
Bill of Rights never used to be understood to apply
to the States. Then after the Fourteenth Amendment is passed
quite slowly, case by case, it starts getting applied to
the states. And when it gets applied to the States,
there were different standards that they used to judge something,
and that has kind of changed over time as well.
Do people who are making a religious liberty claim have
an advantage with that claim, or, as it said in
Employment Division v. Smith, if there's a generally held law
that doesn't have a religious exemption, that is not seen
as necessarily a violation of religious liberty. So it gave
a huge advantage against religious liberty claims, and people were
so outraged by it that on left and right they
disagreed with it. Within a few years, they passed the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was authored by Chuck Schumer,
signed by Bill Clinton, got nearly unanimous support in both chambers,
which said which sort of restored this privilege that was
given to religious liberty issues. Still, though, this has been
a contentious issue that keeps on bubbling up in the court,
and people have been trying to overturn Employment Division v.
Smith since nineteen ninety so for thirty five years. A
couple of years ago, the Court gets a case called
Fulton versus the City of Philadelphia, which is about a
general law that Philadelphia said that if you don't place
children in gay homes, then you can't participate in the
foster care process. And the Roman Catholic Charities said that
that was a violation of their religious liberty. So the
court ends up holding in favor of the Roman Catholic Charities,
but they don't do it. They don't overturn Employment Division v. Smith,
even though they were asked to look at it, and
they should have had five votes to do so. And
Amy Cony Barrett was one of the people who didn't
vote to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, and she's like, well,
I just don't know how that would work out, and
we can leave that for another day. And I think
that's a great example of her and the frustration that
people have with her, that she's reluctant to have the
best court in the history of the United States actually
do things. And I understand she's a young lady. She
might be there for decades, and so she might think
she has all the time in the world, whereas these
like old guys Thomas and Alito have been building the
case for doing some of this stuff for decades and
they know that time is mysterious and they either of
them could die or you know, whatever could happen, and
that the Court could fundament that there could be a
major change the composition of the Court. And so you're
seeing that bubble up, that frustration with her, just like
no one can really name a case that she authored
that's super impressive, and she's only been there for a
few years, and that's fine, but there are so many
examples of her being a little more reluctant than the
other justices to do things that should be done, and
she was prompt I think the problem is, like John
Roberts was on the wrong side of this decision too,
write but everyone has known since the first Obamacare case,
these kind of not to be trusted and will come
up with weird ways to come to the wrong decision,
whereas with Amy Cony Barrett, we were promised the best
justice in the history of the world, and so I
think people over promised what she would be and so
the disappointment is greater. Does that make sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not saying she's perfect, though I reading about
this last case and others, sometimes I'm suspect of you know,
I don't understand what she's going for, though I've read,
you know that people who defend her talk about how
she is very skeptical, for instance, of emergency dockets. She's
she doesn't like to rule on big cases unless there
is a really clear understanding of how it's going to
affect other laws. It's not like anarchy, it's not partisan,
it's just a philosophy. Maybe Do you agree?
Speaker 2: I totally agree. I mean, I think that she has
not done well, okay, except when her right up of
some of these censorship cases where she actually got some
of the facts wrong about censorship, but again was reluctant
to have the court do anything to protect speech. She's
like reluctance can be phrased as judicial restraint. Or it
can be something worse. And I think every single one
of her things is somewhat defensible, Like a declining to
overturn Employment Division v. Smith in nineteen ninety two is
a little different than in twenty twenty two or whatever
that was twenty twenty four. I'm losing track of time.
I think she's yeah, she's hesitant, and there is a
case for it. And the one thing I wish that
people would I mean, I'm going to naturally defer to
Alito and Thomas. I think they've kind of built up
their credibility and done it under difficult circumstances. So when
they say this is frustrating, you know, or they're shocked
stunned by some of her decisions, I think that means something.
But I also wish people would think, even on the
issue of Chief Justice John Roberts, he is certainly not
as good of a Chief Justice as William Rehnquist was.
Fine many there have been many not great chief Justices.
If you look at it a different way, he's the
new swing vote on the court right, and sometimes he
can drag Kavanaugh or bear it with him. Wouldn't you
rather have a John Roberts as the swing vote than like,
he's still pretty good. He's always voting in the majority.
That's that's that's how you know he's the swing vote
still much more.
Speaker 1: I worry about him because he tries he is in
the majority quite often. But maybe he's tempering those decisions
in a way that they shouldn't be tempered, you know
what I mean, that's all he's doing. Yeah, so I'm
not sure how great that. It's definitely better than having
Mary Garland as Chief Justice or whatever, right so, where
they just grab philosophies out of the ether and make
them part of the constitution.
Speaker 2: We just remember Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Rosburg.
They're both actually really good on statutory interpretation there. I've
said something nice about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think it's
through no fault of her own that she was not influential,
meaning she served on the court at the same time
as Anthony Kennedy. Your influence depends completely on who else
is there. And so because Kennedy was the middle just
at that time, he has this outsize importance and kind
of undeservedly right, he doesn't he writes all these like
this purple.
Speaker 1: Prose Carna mc kennedy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of his decisions, they're a muddled mess, whether
it's the Casey decision that re established abortion in a
way that made no sense, or a Bergafell, which is
just like a romantic description of his own thoughts as
opposed to based in the law. Like if Ruth Bader
Ginsburg had written Obergefell, it would have actually had some
basis in law.
Speaker 1: That's fair enough, you know. With Roberts, I mean we
know for a long time that he is shy about
involving himself in democratic decisions. I'd say, right, he just
doesn't think. He just restrains the court from being activists
in a way, right, And I don't always agree with it,
because I think the Court's job is to pull the constitution,
not worry about that sort of thing. But he is
worried about that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: I think the chief Justice has special needs there. He does.
You know, every chief justice sort of cares about the institution.
You see Ranquist even tone it down after he becomes
chief Justice. Like he used to be the loan dissenter,
the lone wolf who would be out there explaining why
the court was full of it. And then when he
becomes Chief Justice, his tone changes, but his rulings didn't.
And I think the problem with Roberts is he claims
to not want to He claims he wants to be
deferential to the legislative process. He's not. Like the Obamacare
rulings were about him being like a personal legislature of
one redrafting a law to make it constitutional. That's not
deference to Congress. That's usurping its role. And then the
other thing is when you place institutional concerns a head
of the law, you actually don't. Again, if you show
that you're willing to be bullied by public pressure and
you are not letting the not letting the law just
work its way, you make the Court more susceptible to attack.
And I think some of these attacks we saw on
the court after the Dobbs decision, there is kind of
a straight line between succumbing to the pressure Obama put
him under with the first Obamacare decision, you know, and
to remind everyone, he changed his vote on the Obamacare decision,
and a lot of people think it was in response
to a massive public pressure campaign.
Speaker 1: Did you know I was in the court that day? No? Yeah,
I was in the court working at human events when
it was not what it is now covering it and
I was so happy when he started talking, and then
all of a sudden it took a u turn and
I was like, this is the worst.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it must have been very confusing. Yeah, it starts
off great, right like it for the first time ever,
establishes that Congress can't force people's participations. I can't force
people's participation in an area of commerce. So you're thinking, well,
Obamacare is over.
Speaker 1: And then he's like, but if.
Speaker 2: You rewrite the law, then we can preserve it.
Speaker 1: I have to say, you've always you know, you've always
been interested in the court and known a lot about
the court, and you wrote a book about the court
and it was fantastic. But now your knowledge is like
up here like you are, You're an expert. The way
you're speaking, I'm very impressed. Sorry, sorry, you like the
nineteen nineteen decision Jackson v. No.
Speaker 2: But okay, so I do love the court. Like you said,
you're not a constitutional scholar, but you're interested in it.
That's how I would describe myself as well. And it
is so fun to write about it because sometimes you're
interviewing these really high profile, people like deans of law schools,
and they'll use some legal jargon and you don't know
what they're talking about, and you get to just say,
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. And
then they're like giving you a personalized tour through case law.
It's like going to law school without having to incur
the debt. It's so awesome.
Speaker 1: Are we done with that? You think?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: I'm sure that your lesson will be appreciated by many
people listening. I was interested last topic before culture or
just touch on it. Did you? I know you did
because we spoke about it. But Ruth Marcus, who was
a longtime columnist and reporter before that at the Washington Post,
resigned because the op ed editor, the new op ed editor,
I'm not sure, would not run her column, which basically
was critical of the newspaper for UH owner Jeff Bezos's
UH dick tod that that the paper defend free markets
and individual freedoms, which offends lots of people for some reason.
And she quit. What'd you make of that?
Speaker 2: I don't understand when people think that they can write
pieces against the person who employs them and that it
won't be a problem.
Speaker 1: But aren't you. Aren't you the least bit impressed that
she walked away, that she took a stand.
Speaker 2: I am unable to be impressed by anything related to
Ruth Marcus, and I'm so sorry, but she lost me
forever when she said that she would have killed any
of her children if they had down syndrome. It's just
hard to listen to someone like that about anything, or
view anything they're doing as ethical when they have openly,
proudly said they would kill a child if the child
weren't perfect according to their perverted understanding of what perfection is.
Speaker 1: I have to say this, I am. I read her
column that was killed. It ran in the New Yorker magazine,
along with a piece by her explaining herself, and I
thought the column should have run. I am a big
fan of free markets and personal freedoms. I think it's
a weakly argued column. It could have sparked a debate
on the editorial page, and it could have even allowed
Jeff Bezos to come and write and defend his position.
I get why someone wouldn't want to put up put
up a piece criticizing their boss, but it wasn't very
barbed or anything. You know, it seemed fine to me.
But anyway, your husband Mark had tweeted out something I
thought was quite interesting. He noted that since Trump won
the election, Ruth Marcus, Jim Acosta, Nora O'Donnell, Chuck Todd,
Andrew Mitchell, Joy Reid, Jonathan ka part Lester Holt were
all gone from their perched, you know, their purchase in
big media. I'm not sure if you mentioned another one.
I just thought it was Paul Krugman, who left The
New York Times because it wasn't left wing enough for him.
He doesn't like to be edited, apparently. I read his
piece on why he left. Welcome to journalism. But why
do you think all that happened? Why do you think
all these people have gone? Is it an economic reason
that these outlets are like, you know, we need better journalists,
or what's driving it?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, it is good that some
of these people are gone. Like Chuck Todd was materially
bad at what he did, and he was unethical and
a big promoter of the Russia collusion hoax and a
daily promoter of that conspiracy theory and was allowed to
stay on air. So it's good that he's gone, But
I haven't really seen a material improvement from any of
these or it seems like the level of change that's
happening in a lot of these newspapers just isn't sufficient
to what's needed. And I wonder if it isn't just
that both owners and participants employees at these outlets are
seeing the weakening of their power, and so it's not
the worst thing in the world for these employees to leave,
although and do they lose a voice when they leave?
Like Chuck Todd is kind of like an unhinged Twitter
user ex poster, just saying some crazy stuff. You didn't
realize that he was checking himself, and he gets very
little engagement, which I just find interesting. But I don't know.
I also have to imagine that there was just a
grind involved, like maybe Ruth Marcus is happy to retire
or you know, she's been doing this for a long time.
Speaker 1: Oh, same thing with Jim Acosta. I see him now,
you know on he has some kind of YouTube show
or whatever where he's just completely unhinged, not very bright,
though he was not exactly a bright guy. I think
someone like Paul Krugman is wrong and misleads people, but
he's a you know, he's not a dumb man like
Jim Acosta. I don't think any of these people who
left were particularly talented. Joy Read, for instance, I think
is an insane person. I mean the thing. She's an
a racist, you know, and just a terrible human being.
But you're right, I've not seen an upgrade in the
newer people they're hiring exactly. So I do wonder what's
going on. Maybe maybe it takes a long time to
fix these things. I don't know, maybe it's an evolving situation.
Speaker 2: Do you want to I do want to thank Ruth
Marcus for Something, which is the first book that I wrote,
which I co wrote with Carrie Savarino. I did because
of Ruth Marcus. So after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings,
which I'd covered extensively for The Federalist, she announced that
she was going to do a book about him. And
it just seemed wrong that someone who had been a participant,
you know, the Washington Post was kind of the purveyor
of the of the Brett Kavanaugh hoax, and it seemed
wrong that someone affiliated with that paper would be running
that would be writing a book about it. It's kind
of like Jake Tapper writing a book about how the
media covered up Joe Biden's dementia. You know, it's a confession,
but it's inappropriate to be making money off of it.
So I thought that the real story should be written accurately,
and it was because I knew she was going to
write what she ended up writing, which I have right here,
Ruth Marcus supreme ambition. And it ended up being like
a long, actually pretty well written book, but it didn't
go anywhere or make any didn't have the sales that
our book did.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so I followed Ruth mars Yeah, I followed
Ruth mark. I mean, I honestly give an earnest, good
faith effort in trying to understand the people, you know,
the oppositions, arguments, and it feels like there are few
and fewer people that I can read aren't just unhinged
on the left. And I think that mir that's mirrored
in the Democratic Party itself, where they're out there defending
Mahmud Khalil and not Americans were taken hostage by how Mus.
I mean, there's something demented about that. There's something demented
about people can't stand up for a kid with brain cancer,
but can stand up for a pro terrorist graduate student
from Syria, you know what I mean, or wherever it's from, Algeria. Yep, Right,
we're done with that. Let's talk about culture. I am
on a Gene Hackman kick, just so you know. So
I was when he passed away. I went to Amazon,
a Prime or whatever it is, and the other streaming services.
I'm looking for Gene Hackman movies. They were none on
But one day, like last week, Prime had all like
every single Gene Hackman movie and I watched Hoosiers, which
we spoke about last week. I watched it with my wife,
who didn't remember if she'd seen it or not. It's
such a such a great movie, such a great movie,
in a timeless movie. It takes place I think nineteen
fifty one maybe, just great great movie. Then I watched
The Poseidon Adventure. Have you ever seen The Poseidon Adventure?
Speaker 2: Nineteen something in a long time. My mom used to
talk about it all the time. I think that movie
really stuck with her.
Speaker 1: It stuck with me too. It scared me when I
was a kid. It's about a boat capsizing, like a
crew of what are called luxury cruisers or whatever cruise ship.
It's funny. One thing about it is that the cruise
ship looks so tiny compared to the ones they have now,
which are like twenty stories high or whatever. But it
I believe maybe it wasn't the Poseidon Adventure, but the
movie Airport, which kind of spark this slew of disaster
film which I was like, towering Inferno Airport. I think
they have like seventy one, seventy two, seventy five, seventy
six earthquake, avalanche, meteor. But anyway, the Pside Adventure has
Gene Hackman, and what really cracked me up is that
he is They don't say which church he is a
priest with exactly. I think it might be the Catholic Church,
but he's a complete heretic. In the beginning, they have
stripped his priesthood away. He's going to Africa and he's
like so no. Then I'm like, no, wonder this wave
hit the boat like he's splaspheming against God. Yeah, so
it was probably him. It has Shelley Winters in it,
who great and Ernest borgnine and Jack Albertson, who is
the grandfather in Willie Wonka and it's just about these
people trying to get to the hull of the ship
to escape. I'm sure most people know you know, we're older.
No spoiler, Yeah, no spoilers. So that was really fun.
That was really fun to watch you.
Speaker 2: Nothing, Okay, I'm so sorry. My cousin came into town
from Texas and I asked her seven year old son
what his favorite color was and he said red, white
and blue like that. But I spent some time with
them on Sunday. But other than that, it's just been.
Speaker 1: Work, work, work, So red white and blue. Got to
love that, all right. Just a reminder, if you'd like
to email us give Molly some suggestions, you should watch
one of your suggestions at radio at the Federalist dot com.
You can also, if I may add a sign up
for my substock where I send out this podcast and
other things that I'm doing. So it's great seeing you, Molly,
and we'll see the rest of you next week. Until then,
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the phrase.
Speaker 2: It's got to be a morning off
Speaker 1: If we can hold on