Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of The Oath and the Office.
Speaker 1: I am John Fiebel, saying it is a pleasure to
Speaker 1: be with you, and it's my pleasure to welcome the
Speaker 1: star of this show, the man behind it all. They
Speaker 1: call him the Mac Professor Corey Bretschneider, author of The
Speaker 1: Oath and the Office. Hello, Corey, how's it going.
Speaker 2: It's going great.
Speaker 3: John, A really pleasure, of course to do this show
Speaker 3: with you. And today is a special show. You know,
Speaker 3: so often on The Oath in the Office, we're talking
Speaker 3: not just about the destruction of our democracy by Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: but how to fight back and how to pass laws
Speaker 3: that ensure that not only does it stop happening now,
Speaker 3: but that it doesn't happen in the future. And I
Speaker 3: can't really think of anybody more than Senator Ron Wyden
Speaker 3: who's led the fight on Pfizer reform, the fight to
Speaker 3: protect our First Amendment, to protect First Amendment rights to
Speaker 3: free speech, to protect our four Amendment rights to not
Speaker 3: be searched by unreasonable search and seizure. And so it's,
Speaker 3: you know, a really special episode. We'll talk in depth
Speaker 3: about what's happening about the assault on democracy, and we'll
Speaker 3: have this amazing interview with him about the hope for
Speaker 3: the future.
Speaker 1: What a great guest. Thank you so much, Professor. I
Speaker 1: got to say, there's a lot to cover right now,
Speaker 1: and it's been a bit crazy over here. But before
Speaker 1: we even dive into what's going on with the malfeasans
Speaker 1: in our government, you know, we hear this expression constitutional
Speaker 1: crisis all the time, and you have cautioned against using
Speaker 1: that phrase too loosely. How should conscientious, well intentioned, nerdy
Speaker 1: citizens distinguish between politics they dislike and actions that might
Speaker 1: be legally dodgy and then actions that genuinely threaten constitutional democracy.
Speaker 1: Where is the line where a constitutional challenge becomes a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis?
Speaker 3: You know, in normal politics, laws are proposed or actions
Speaker 3: are proposed that we argue, is this constitutional? Is that
Speaker 3: not constitutional? Is abortion constitutional or not? Is it constitutionally
Speaker 3: protected by the right to privacy? These are sort of
Speaker 3: classic debates. But what we're facing in our democracy now
Speaker 3: goes so far beyond that. It really is Donald Trump
Speaker 3: shutting down the opposition. If you think about what free
Speaker 3: speech is, the right to say what you think without
Speaker 3: being charged with a crime, without being put in prison.
Speaker 3: That's you know, more fundamental in some ways even than
Speaker 3: the right to vote. Without it, we wouldn't have a democracy.
Speaker 3: So when you have a president really attacking the fundamental
Speaker 3: rights of democracy, that's not politics as normal, that's not
Speaker 3: a debate about constitutional law. That is at minimum of
Speaker 3: constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2: I think that's an.
Speaker 3: Optimistic way to put it, because constitutional crisis suggests that,
Speaker 3: you know, there's some back and forth. I think, as
Speaker 3: I've said often on this show, that we're in the
Speaker 3: middle of an attempted self coup, and part of it
Speaker 3: is the assault on free speech.
Speaker 2: But it also is the use of so.
Speaker 3: Many of the powers that have been handed over to
Speaker 3: the executive branch in the hands of a want to
Speaker 3: be dictator.
Speaker 2: It's so dangerous. So in the War on Terror, for instance.
Speaker 3: And before that, we've handed over enormous power to the
Speaker 3: executive branch, to the president to fight the so called
Speaker 3: war on terror. Yeah, what happens when the war on
Speaker 3: terror when those powers, including the power of surveillance, which includes, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: and people will be shocked to hear this, the power
Speaker 3: to really read the emails without a warrant of domestic
Speaker 3: citizens if they're in conversation with those abroad if they've
Speaker 3: been caught up in the dragnet that wasn't aimed at
Speaker 3: getting them. There are all these situations in which the
Speaker 3: president has this power of surveillance, including over his enemies.
Speaker 3: That's what really makes this so scary that an attack
Speaker 3: on free speech, the use of these supposedly powers to
Speaker 3: provide for security in order to shut down our democracy.
Speaker 3: So we're way beyond politics as normal. I think we're
Speaker 3: beyond constitutional crisis. We're fighting against an attempted coup by
Speaker 3: a president.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we have to remember we get to thank
Speaker 1: both parties for that, right, Corey, when it comes to
Speaker 1: these visive uses. I mean, let me ask you about
Speaker 1: the president subpoening New York Times reporters, because this story
Speaker 1: has the founders screaming from their crypts. It involves federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors subpoenaing reporters from the New York Times over a
Speaker 1: national security story, rather than prosecuting an actual leak. Right,
Speaker 1: these government officials are treating anonymous sources like they're the
Speaker 1: biggest threat to national security, not corruption the people talking
Speaker 1: about corruption. But they're going after the journalists, not the leakers.
Speaker 1: This is another example of stochastic self censorship is a
Speaker 1: dot of just trying to intimidate the president of silence.
Speaker 3: You know, are they going to be able to get
Speaker 3: a conviction on these journalists.
Speaker 2: Are they even going to bring an indictment. It's unclear.
Speaker 3: But what they're doing, and we've talked about this often,
Speaker 3: is they're trying to induce they meaning the administration. And
Speaker 3: I'll call out in particular Jay Clayton, the US Attorney
Speaker 3: for the Southern District of New York. So we're getting
Speaker 3: we're getting about him, We're going to talk about him
Speaker 3: as as the nominee actually to be the Director of
Speaker 3: National Intelligence. Totally frightening stuff. But what he's done is
Speaker 3: he's taken this fundamental right in democracy, the right of
Speaker 3: the press to tell us what's going on with this
Speaker 3: corrupt regime. The receipt of this bribe plane and their
Speaker 3: story in particular about how it doesn't have any of
Speaker 3: the needed security that you did have on Air Force
Speaker 3: one and that you would need in order to protect
Speaker 3: the president. That's just a normal story in democracy that
Speaker 3: we need to have access to. That's being This isn't
Speaker 3: a national security concern. The national security concern is the President,
Speaker 3: and yet who's being attacked by the Southern District of
Speaker 3: New York. They're not investigating the president, They're investigating the reporters.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that really is an example.
Speaker 1: Reporting a threat to this president's safety and this president
Speaker 1: is sticking as dogs on them.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That's where it gets really weird, right, I mean, one
Speaker 1: of the positive side effects of all this awfulness is
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is forcing us all to have a
Speaker 1: lot of civics lessons and remind ourselves why norms got
Speaker 1: to be norms in the first place. Story, why have
Speaker 1: administrations of both parties generally been hesitant to compel reporters
Speaker 1: to reveal sources. We have to explain again why this
Speaker 1: is messed up.
Speaker 3: You know, it goes back to the First Amendment, and
Speaker 3: the First Amendment is in trouble, and it guarantees two
Speaker 3: specific rights that are both at issue here.
Speaker 2: One is the right to free speech. And I'll say
Speaker 2: something about that.
Speaker 3: A lot of times we think about free speech is
Speaker 3: just the right to say what I feel or what
Speaker 3: I think. But the right is the right of democracy.
Speaker 3: It's the right to hear arguments, to see information, because
Speaker 3: without access to that information, how are we supposed to
Speaker 3: decide as democratic citizens what to do. We won't even
Speaker 3: know what our government is doing. That kind of transparency
Speaker 3: is so important. And the related First Amendment right that
Speaker 3: is specifically in there of the right to the freedom
Speaker 3: of the press, that also is so necessary to democracy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, nothing says I support the First Amendment
Speaker 1: like subpeeding the people who are using it. Right, Like
Speaker 1: David mccrob the New York Times said that federal agents
Speaker 1: showing up at reporters' homes should shock the conscience. Is
Speaker 1: that flowery rhetoric or is this professor seriously an extraordinary
Speaker 1: constitutional moment?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think it goes I mean I like
Speaker 3: that phrase, but it doesn't even go far enough. Shocks
Speaker 3: the conscience is something unusual. This is really a threat
Speaker 3: to the entire system. And let's of course remember and
Speaker 3: listeners to this show no because we're covering it so closely.
Speaker 2: This isn't a one off.
Speaker 3: It is part of an overall assault on democracy in
Speaker 3: which Donald Trump has his minions the Department of Justice
Speaker 3: go after those he.
Speaker 2: Considers political opponents.
Speaker 3: And so the attack on Letitia James, even if it
Speaker 3: doesn't go anywhere, it makes people think, wow, you know,
Speaker 3: maybe they won't get a conviction out of me. I
Speaker 3: won't go to prison. But if you accuse me of
Speaker 3: you know, mortgage fraud, you know, I'm gonna think twice
Speaker 3: if you're.
Speaker 2: Willing to do that.
Speaker 3: Or how about James Comy eighty six forty seven, a
Speaker 3: pure example of let's get rid of the president we
Speaker 3: don't like. Now the guy is facing potentially criminal charges,
Speaker 3: you know, that insistence on shutting down the opposition, you know.
Speaker 3: And then if we go back to the historical and allegory,
Speaker 3: the analogy of John Adams who did shut down the
Speaker 3: opposition party, how do you do it? He went after
Speaker 3: what he considered the press that was revealing things that
Speaker 3: he was doing, like trying to his party, trying to
Speaker 3: steal the election of eighteen hundred. Now we're seeing that again,
Speaker 3: the bride plane, the reporting on this plane, which I
Speaker 3: know we'll talk about more.
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 3: It's just revealing the corruption that's part of this administration.
Speaker 2: And what do you get for that? You get a
Speaker 2: criminal subpoena. Now I should say, we don't know what
Speaker 2: these are for.
Speaker 3: It's just potentially some sort of criminal action, you know.
Speaker 3: The vagueness of it is part of what's so scary.
Speaker 3: So we don't know what the charges are. It's the
Speaker 3: ging really trying to shut up his critics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and by the way, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: knew this scory, but this is the anniversary this week.
Speaker 1: It was on the fourteenth of July seventeen ninety eight
Speaker 1: that President John Adams signed this Edition Act targeting false,
Speaker 1: scandalous or malicious writing against the US Government. America tried
Speaker 1: to do away with the First Amendment and pretended it
Speaker 1: was about keeping people safe. So happy anniversary to while
Speaker 1: out there who celebrate. But I mean, let me ask
Speaker 1: you about the founders. Because the Constitution never explicitly, you know,
Speaker 1: creates the press as an institution. But the First Amendment
Speaker 1: places freedom of the press alongside freedom of religion, alongside
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. Why was that so important to the founders?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, there really were two views at the
Speaker 3: Founding and often we hide from the fact. You brought
Speaker 3: up John Adams. I'm going to say something about him
Speaker 3: before giving you a full answer. There were founders, and
Speaker 3: John Adams was chief among them. Also the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: of the Founding period, including in seventeen ninety eight justices
Speaker 3: like Samuel Chase. What they believed was that we had
Speaker 3: a kind of constant titutional monarchy in this society in
Speaker 3: which the president couldn't be subject to criticism. That seems
Speaker 3: outrageous now, but they read the First Amendment, including the
Speaker 3: right of free speech and the right to the freedom
Speaker 3: of press is really not that different than the rules
Speaker 3: and protections, which were some that we had in England,
Speaker 3: but they didn't include the right to criticize the king.
Speaker 3: But what that Sedition Act crisis did that you're talking about.
Speaker 3: The Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize the
Speaker 3: president of the United States.
Speaker 2: By the way, it wasn't.
Speaker 3: A crime to criticize the vice president, who was Thomas
Speaker 3: Jefferson of the opposition Party.
Speaker 1: So what happened how that worked out?
Speaker 2: Huh?
Speaker 3: What happened in seventeen ninety eight was a battle over
Speaker 3: the meaning of free speech. And thankfully the Jeffersonians and
Speaker 3: Madison and the editors who were prosecuted use their.
Speaker 2: Own trials to put John Adams on trial.
Speaker 3: And the result really was this legacy that we're talking
Speaker 3: about now, that we have a right to dissent a
Speaker 3: right to criticize this president. But what Donald Trump and
Speaker 3: Jay Clayton would do is bring back before seventeen ninety
Speaker 3: eight to this authoritarian idea of the Constitution as some
Speaker 3: sort of system of monarchy. And wow, that couldn't be
Speaker 3: more dangerous for the very idea of democracy. By the way,
Speaker 3: the first three words of the Constitution, I'll just remind everyone,
Speaker 3: are we the people?
Speaker 2: That's what it's supposed to be about.
Speaker 1: And absolutely and you know the founders wrote freedom of
Speaker 1: the press. They didn't add unless the president gets embarrassed.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Can we talk about the actual plane?
Speaker 1: They call it air Force one, We call it Bribeforce one,
Speaker 1: but the maintenance crew called it maybe let's not This
Speaker 1: story is again so strange. Reports indicate the Secret Service
Speaker 1: advised Trump not to fly on the newer aircraft because
Speaker 1: their defensive systems were incomplete. And you know, when it's
Speaker 1: the people whose job it is to take bullets for
Speaker 1: you say hard pass listen, I guess. But imagine getting
Speaker 1: a free luxury jet and finding out it's still somehow
Speaker 1: the cheap option. Corey, doesn't this illustrate why independent professional
Speaker 1: agency have to exist to tell presidents know, when safety
Speaker 1: requires it. Right, we're talking about Trump at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court letting him do away with independent agencies. One of
Speaker 1: those just saved us life.
Speaker 3: We need civil servants, you know, in independent agencies also
Speaker 3: within the executive branch itself, to tell the truth. And
Speaker 3: that's why they traditionally have all sorts of protections to
Speaker 3: allow for that. And yes, this president has done away
Speaker 3: with so many of those protections. They've weakened the civil
Speaker 3: service protection. We've essentially, through the recent case that we
Speaker 3: talked about, overturning Humphrey's executive done away with independent agencies.
Speaker 2: The degree to which they exist anymore is really almost nothing.
Speaker 3: And you know, let's also just talk about the other
Speaker 3: you know, dynamic in all of this, which is that
Speaker 3: the Jay Clayton's of the world, the Donald Trump's, are
Speaker 3: saying that this is a national security issue and the
Speaker 3: freedom of the press, you know, is limited when it
Speaker 3: comes to national security. No, it's an issue about a
Speaker 3: bribe that was paid by a foreign government of violation
Speaker 3: of the Luman's clause, and also a national security threat
Speaker 3: that this bribe of you know, it turns out doesn't
Speaker 3: turns out to be the best way to, you know,
Speaker 3: create the plane that carries the president of the United States.
Speaker 3: Those are essential stories for the press to be reporting on.
Speaker 3: But what you always hear those who want to shut
Speaker 3: down civil liberties say is the phrase national security.
Speaker 2: National security.
Speaker 3: We'll talk about that with Ron Wyden, the fives of
Speaker 3: the law, the use of fear of security in order
Speaker 3: to shut down our civil liberties.
Speaker 2: That's what's going on here. But let's not lose sight
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 3: It's people of integrity who are reporting on the truth,
Speaker 3: and the New York Times journalists who are facing, you know,
Speaker 3: possible criminal charges for doing it. They're the ones defending
Speaker 3: our democracy right now.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you about Jay Clayton, because he
Speaker 1: is heading into the Senate confirmation hearing after authorizing subpoenas
Speaker 1: for the New York Times reporters over there reporting on
Speaker 1: Air Force one security. I guess it's kind of awkward
Speaker 1: right to explain your respect for press freedom while reporters
Speaker 1: are also their inboxes for subpoenas from you. Should senators
Speaker 1: view those subpoenas as a legitimate league investigation or is
Speaker 1: this a First Amendment issue that goes directly to this
Speaker 1: man's fitness for higher office.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I cannot wait to get into this,
Speaker 3: Senator Widen. Yeah, and he's going to be the person
Speaker 3: that is interrogating Jake Clayton about all of this.
Speaker 2: And one thing I'll push him on.
Speaker 3: Listeners can look for this is the question of whether
Speaker 3: or not the fact that this person who is supposed to,
Speaker 3: by the way, be the alternative to Bill Polti's clearly
Speaker 3: not qualified to be the permanent director of National Intelligence.
Speaker 3: This is supposed to be somebody who is confirmable. This
Speaker 3: is the former head of the SEC, for instance. So
Speaker 3: you know that was the assumption before. But you know,
Speaker 3: one thing I guess he's trying to do this is
Speaker 3: now just my surmise is kiss up to Donald Trump. Well,
Speaker 3: how do you do? You attack his opponents? You attack
Speaker 3: the journalists who are doing their job. And to my mind,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll just say it in a blunt way.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't think this is a hard case
Speaker 3: if you're subpoenating journalists, unless we're missing something in this
Speaker 3: story and he has some knowledge that we don't know
Speaker 3: about that's going to come out in the confirmation. If
Speaker 3: you're helping Trump shut down free speed, shut down democracy
Speaker 3: domestically as the US Attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 3: New York, an incredibly important part of our system, our
Speaker 3: Department of Justice. This is the position that pre Berarra,
Speaker 3: former guests on our show held, how can we trust
Speaker 3: you to get the reins of power that come with
Speaker 3: the Director of National Intelligence, including again the power to
Speaker 3: engage in surveillance that might wind up looking into even
Speaker 3: domestic US citizens.
Speaker 2: Phone calls and emails. If we can't.
Speaker 3: Trust you to protect our civil liberties as US attorney,
Speaker 3: I don't see how we can expect you to do
Speaker 3: that as the Director of National Intelligence. And so when
Speaker 3: he comes before this confirmation, and assuming that it is scheduled,
Speaker 3: assuming that Trump doesn't withdraw it, I expect very tough
Speaker 3: questions not just about what he would do as the
Speaker 3: Director of National Intelligence, but about this specific case.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, because I mean, I don't know, there's no
Speaker 1: federal shield law protecting reporters sources, right.
Speaker 3: You know, there's supposed to be a First Amendment, And
Speaker 3: this is another thing we'll talk that I'm going to
Speaker 3: definitely talk to Center Widen about. But so often you
Speaker 3: know that First Amendment has been weakened by this Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: And you know, there are really important precedents actually involving
Speaker 3: the New York Times, for instance, as listeners know, in
Speaker 3: my book The Presidents and the People, I have one
Speaker 3: of the last at length interviews.
Speaker 2: With Daniel Elsberg.
Speaker 3: Well, he is the source of one of the most
Speaker 3: important precedents about national security, upholding the right of the
Speaker 3: New York Times to even publish a secret history of
Speaker 3: the Vietnam War. This wasn't supposed to be released, and
Speaker 3: yet the First Amendment right was upheld here when it
Speaker 3: comes to this bride plane or bribe force one, of
Speaker 3: course there's a right in order to publish this. So
Speaker 3: you know, one of the things I think you're pointing to, though, John,
Speaker 3: is that we need legislation to build this up. And
Speaker 3: so it's one of the things that I'm going to
Speaker 3: talk about in this interview et cent Widen. What kind
Speaker 3: of laws do we need to pass in order to
Speaker 3: reinforce the First Amendment right of free speech, the right
Speaker 3: of the press, the things that the Court you know,
Speaker 3: should be doing, but I don't know that we can
Speaker 3: trust it to do so anymore.
Speaker 1: Should a nominee be asked whether he believes that Justice
Speaker 1: Department has an obligation to protect press independence, even if
Speaker 1: reporting is embarrassing or politically damaging to the administration. I'd
Speaker 1: love to hear that question asked.
Speaker 3: This is a nominee to be the Director of National Intelligence.
Speaker 3: One of the most important things that this person's tasked
Speaker 3: with doing is balancing civil liberties and security. And too
Speaker 3: much actually power has been given to this apparatus, including
Speaker 3: the Director of National Intelligence, and trying to show ethics
Speaker 3: in that balance. But if you can't even protect the
Speaker 3: First Amendment as a prosecutor as the US attorney, how
Speaker 3: are we possibly trust you to do that in this
Speaker 3: enormous role. And so, you know, the Constitution Thankfully we're
Speaker 3: not powerless.
Speaker 2: You know. We talk about hope, how to fight back.
Speaker 3: Confirmation hearings the requirement of them are the place for that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's what we need to you know, i'd
Speaker 2: make the whole hearing about that. Frankly, I don't want
Speaker 2: to hear his views about abstract subjects.
Speaker 3: I want to know how you get past the threshold
Speaker 3: question that you seem to be involved in the shutdown
Speaker 3: of free speech. How do you expect to be Director
Speaker 3: of National Intelligence?
Speaker 1: I'd make the whole thing about convincing democrats. The harsher
Speaker 1: your questions are, the better your fundraising will be this quarter.
Speaker 1: That's how I would do it personally, Corey, we are
Speaker 1: back to this administration murdering innocent, unarmed men in the streets.
Speaker 1: Of course, Ice has now ended two lives that we
Speaker 1: know of in the last week, one in Houston and
Speaker 1: one in Maine. In both cases, no body cameras. Again.
Speaker 1: We shovel billions and billions and billions into this organization,
Speaker 1: and wow, they can afford every kind of tactical gear,
Speaker 1: every kind of tank, every kind of electronics, but oh,
Speaker 1: they can't afford a go pro No body cameras again.
Speaker 1: The one profession Corey that insists everyone must be documented
Speaker 1: somehow keeps forgetting to document itself. It's really funny how
Speaker 1: the cameras always disappear faster than male dignity at a
Speaker 1: Trump cabinet meeting. But this is despicable. Ice has already
Speaker 1: been caught in lies, demonstrably saying that, as with Renee Good,
Speaker 1: that both of these men weaponize their vehicles. Of course,
Speaker 1: there is in the case of mister Arajo, there are
Speaker 1: three witnesses who say none of that's true, and they're
Speaker 1: trying to get them to sign deportation papers so they
Speaker 1: can never be interviewed in any investigation. According to their lawyer.
Speaker 1: I mean, what safeguards exist when federal agents use lethal force.
Speaker 1: There's never going to be any accountability for these men.
Speaker 2: You know, we haven't seen a lot of accountability.
Speaker 3: And in the same way that the Constitution gives enormous power,
Speaker 3: and I should say, legislation has hand over even more
Speaker 3: power to the National Intelligence Apparatus, to the Director of
Speaker 3: National Intelligence, to those who are you know, supposedly going
Speaker 3: after foreign terrorists but wind up sometimes violating the civil
Speaker 3: liberties of Americans. The other place that our legal system
Speaker 3: really has major holes in it is when it comes
Speaker 3: to immigration, and at least as I seize itself and
Speaker 3: the Homeland Security that when you're engaged in immigration enforcement,
Speaker 3: you know, they think there's no talk about the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: They think there's no right to free speech, so they
Speaker 3: can deport people for what they say.
Speaker 2: When it comes to.
Speaker 3: Those who are members of supposedly enemy nations, they go
Speaker 3: back to John Adams Law from seventeen ninety eight, the
Speaker 3: Enemy Aliens Act, and try to deprive them of habeas corpus.
Speaker 3: And now what we're seeing is domestically, you know, the
Speaker 3: impunity when it comes to assault and murder, including with vehicles,
Speaker 3: and the claim of impunity. Now we've got to just
Speaker 3: stop this. And the way to do it, I think
Speaker 3: there is a way to do it. It's for local officials,
Speaker 3: local prosecutors, and the absence of you know, the Jay
Speaker 3: Clayton's of the world of US attorneys. The federal system
Speaker 3: has its own system of prosecutors, and then there are
Speaker 3: prosecutors at the state and local level. But if you
Speaker 3: murder somebody, it doesn't matter if you're in Houston or
Speaker 3: in Minneapolis, you should be prosecuted full stop. There is
Speaker 3: no despite what the Vice President said, absolute immunity. Thank
Speaker 3: you for ICE officers, and I want to start seeing
Speaker 3: some of these prosecutions happening. My understanding is there is
Speaker 3: at least one investigation in Minnesota that's happening. We should
Speaker 3: see it as well in Texas and Houston. And you know,
Speaker 3: the pressure has that's going to happen on their own,
Speaker 3: but local people have to put pressure on their local
Speaker 3: officials to do these criminal investigations.
Speaker 1: Should all federal officers who exercise deadly forest be required
Speaker 1: to wear body gamras.
Speaker 2: I think absolutely.
Speaker 3: You know how in a democracy, the most dangerous moment
Speaker 3: in our democracy, the thing that really you know, where
Speaker 3: reason gets replaced by forrest, is arrest and policing and including, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: these ice lawless roundups. How are we supposed to know
Speaker 3: what goes on while so many local officers are required
Speaker 3: to record all their interactions. Yeah, and so if they
Speaker 3: kill somebody, or they assault somebody, if they violate the law,
Speaker 3: we see it. And that is how countless officers who
Speaker 3: have broken the law.
Speaker 2: Held to account.
Speaker 3: So if these prosecutions are to happen, a minimum thing
Speaker 3: that I'd like to see, and this could be done
Speaker 3: either through an administrative action that's not going to be done,
Speaker 3: but certainly through legislation, is to require body cams on
Speaker 3: all ICE officers.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yep, that's it. One last question on this, Corey. They're
Speaker 1: going to deport these three men who were in mister
Speaker 1: Araju's car. Obviously, the available surveillance footage shows he never
Speaker 1: weaponized his car and never tried to ram the agents.
Speaker 1: So we've already been lied to about this by the
Speaker 1: same government that lied to us about Renee Good being
Speaker 1: a terrorist. They're trying to deport these three men, according
Speaker 1: to their lawyer, before they can tell their side of
Speaker 1: the story. Doesn't basic justice require preserving witness testimony regardless
Speaker 1: of their immigration status, because this man's three children are
Speaker 1: all American citizens, And if my government was doing this,
Speaker 1: I'm just thinking about the lawsuit i'd have.
Speaker 3: You know, it's one of the horrible things about this
Speaker 3: moment that ICE has really been engaged in an attempt
Speaker 3: to strip all civil liberties.
Speaker 2: From non citizens.
Speaker 3: They've done it with the right to free speech, They've
Speaker 3: done it in the case of Venezuelan migrants, and when
Speaker 3: it comes even to the right to trial, and they're
Speaker 3: trying to do it here, to deny even court hearings.
Speaker 2: And you know, it's a good point.
Speaker 3: Sometimes one way to make the argument for non citizens'
Speaker 3: rights there should be in these cases, I think a
Speaker 3: matter of human rights. But another way to do it
Speaker 3: is to talk about those even if they're deported, the
Speaker 3: interests of the family in knowing what happened, and so
Speaker 3: that might be one way to go at this, to
Speaker 3: have the family sue for information as to what's happening,
Speaker 3: and you know, you have rights, you have civil liberties.
Speaker 3: They've been eroded. But there are ways to fight back.
Speaker 3: So yes, these are all ways to push forward. I
Speaker 3: don't want to miss what said two about Renee Good
Speaker 3: that we were told, you know, that this was some
Speaker 3: sort of.
Speaker 2: Terrorists the mast We know now that you.
Speaker 3: Know that couldn't be furthest from the truth, and even
Speaker 3: the Trump administration, of course, I had to back down.
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller literally said that Alex Freddy attacked officers and
Speaker 1: he's still allowed to be employed. Like there's no accountability
Speaker 1: in our government for lying about the murder of citizens.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, we're talking so often about the law,
Speaker 3: and that is important because it's the way we get accountability.
Speaker 3: We also have to talk about morality. Human beings are
Speaker 3: entitled to basic dignity, and that's what Ice.
Speaker 2: Is denying here in murdering people.
Speaker 3: This is supposed to be a country that holds up
Speaker 3: human rights as a beacon to the world, and what
Speaker 3: the world is seeing is anything but.
Speaker 2: And that's one of the great tragedies of the moment.
Speaker 1: We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: This is the oath of the Office.
Speaker 4: Hey, al clan Kershner here, so friends, I hope you'll
Speaker 4: join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. You care
Speaker 4: about ethics and government, criminal justice, reform, a conflict free
Speaker 4: federal judiciary. I thought so. On Justice Matters, we take
Speaker 4: on issues involving the need to reform our government and
Speaker 4: its institutions, and we talk about real, achievable reform. I
Speaker 4: hope you'll join us. Look for Justice Matters wherever you
Speaker 4: usually get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. Hey, Professor Pretschneider,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about what's going on with
Speaker 1: the Smithsonian right now. You know, it's funny this administration
Speaker 1: is criticizing them for studying history at the Smithsonian right
Speaker 1: because the Trump administration is here to edit history. They
Speaker 1: don't like that the Smithsonian is here to study and
Speaker 1: exhibit history that covers slavery, systemic racism, women's rights, LGBTQ,
Speaker 1: his immigration, and other subjects. They don't like museums covering
Speaker 1: subjects that might make the children of bigots ask uncomfortable questions.
Speaker 1: I think to me, this is the most noble thing
Speaker 1: a nation with a checkered past can do. Have its
Speaker 1: official museums tell the truth and give the correct record.
Speaker 1: But I mean, get a president constitutionally pressure federally supported
Speaker 1: museums to reinterpret history. I mean, this is Soviet level
Speaker 1: crap here, am I right?
Speaker 3: You know, one puzzle that we've had for a long
Speaker 3: time is why is Donald Trump so interested in history?
Speaker 1: This is not a why you know why.
Speaker 2: Part of it is the racism, of course, but the specific.
Speaker 1: Racists being the bad guys all the time. That's why
Speaker 1: they're going after the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you
Speaker 1: can convince people that the anti racist are the real
Speaker 1: bad guys, well, that all those white supremacists and Charlott'sville
Speaker 1: were probably wronged, right, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, that's their whole scheme, and you are seeing it
Speaker 3: all over as I think you know, and I've mentioned before,
Speaker 3: but I'll say it again. I'm working on a documentary
Speaker 3: series version of my book, The Presidents and the People,
Speaker 3: and one of the first places that we filmed was
Speaker 3: in Philadelphia at the President's house of George Washington and
Speaker 3: John Adams. And there there was an amazing exhibit that
Speaker 3: told the truth about the fact that enslaved people lived
Speaker 3: in that house all of a sudden that exhibit was removed. Well,
Speaker 3: why would you do that, because you're trying to erase
Speaker 3: the truth of slavery. And now there's even more frankly
Speaker 3: detailed reporting, even shocking reporting. Trump was given a tour
Speaker 3: of the Smithsonian by a high level official and showed
Speaker 3: no interest, of course, in the history of slavery, and
Speaker 3: he was called out for that. They didn't keep quiet
Speaker 3: that the Smithsonian official told the truth. He wanted to,
Speaker 3: evidently on the tour, of course, just talk about places
Speaker 3: in the world in which he was very popular. Wanted
Speaker 3: to talk about himself rather than one of the times.
Speaker 1: You know who doesn't like exhibits about slavery and segregation.
Speaker 1: Corey White people who his parents didn't raise them to
Speaker 1: identify with abolitionists. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yes, he was not raised right, and narcissism comes through,
Speaker 3: and you know that's part of what's going on here.
Speaker 3: It's partly, you know, as we saw in Philadelphia at
Speaker 3: the President's House and take down of that exhibit, pure
Speaker 3: attempt to erase the facts of history, the horrible crime
Speaker 3: against humanity that was American slavery to you know, because
Speaker 3: it makes people feel bad but it also is retaliation here.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's what's amazing about all these stories as
Speaker 3: you get into them. Of course, they have the white supremacy,
Speaker 3: but they also often have another element. And this is
Speaker 3: also a story about shutting down critics. So wow, Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: you know, knows how to basically hit easily a trifecta
Speaker 3: of constitutional violations, the white supremacy, the shutdown of free speech.
Speaker 3: And I'd add to that, the Smithsonian is not an
Speaker 3: executive agency. It's supposed to be independent. So what he's
Speaker 3: really doing is taking an independent agency again and trying
Speaker 3: to you know, his affect his will on it. And
Speaker 3: we've seen that so often with his attempts to what
Speaker 3: influence private companies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's trying to make history take a loyalty oath. Now, really,
Speaker 1: what you think about it? I mean, you know you're
Speaker 1: losing the argument when your big next move is rewriting
Speaker 1: the timeline, you know. I mean, but let's give their
Speaker 1: argument that the Smithsonian is publicly funded by taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1: Does that mean elected officials should get to dictate historical
Speaker 1: interpretation or should there be an expectation of some kind
Speaker 1: of scholarly independence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 3: Actually it is a harder case. For instance, in the
Speaker 3: CBS case. The CBS case and what we'll get into this,
Speaker 3: I know a little more before the interview and certainly
Speaker 3: in the interview with Senator Widen. When government is trying
Speaker 3: to commandeer and control a private company and tell it
Speaker 3: what to do or what to think, and when it's
Speaker 3: trying to really use, you know, often in secret force
Speaker 3: in order to do so, that's a violation of the
Speaker 3: First Amendment. But what you're bringing out, John, is that
Speaker 3: this is a more common, implicated issue because when government speaks,
Speaker 3: when it sends its own messages. Donald Trump, for instance,
Speaker 3: can get up and you know, say all sorts of
Speaker 3: racist things that the podium when he speaks before the
Speaker 3: American people, even though that podium is publicly funded, and
Speaker 3: even though the White House is publicly funded, he has
Speaker 3: a right as an attempt to speak on behalf of
Speaker 3: the government to say all sorts of things. So his argument,
Speaker 3: a constitutional argument, would be, well, the Smithsonian is an
Speaker 3: expression of my will, my idea is. But there are
Speaker 3: two problems with that. One is this really isn't the
Speaker 3: equivalent of his press office or even an executive agency.
Speaker 3: It's set up to be an independent, publicly funded but
Speaker 3: still independent entity. In fact, it's chair, it's Justice Roberts,
Speaker 3: and part of the reporting is about Justice Roberts's role
Speaker 3: in trying to mediate all of this. But the other
Speaker 3: thing that is, you know, sometimes even when there's not
Speaker 3: a free speech issue, there's an issue of the.
Speaker 2: Truth and not lying. And that's what with the Smithsonian.
Speaker 3: As much as there are issues about free speech, I
Speaker 3: think the real issue is.
Speaker 2: That government shouldn't lie to you.
Speaker 3: And when Donald Trump tries to erase the crime of slavery,
Speaker 3: that is a lie. And that's we've got to talk
Speaker 3: about that too, not just issues of free speech. But yeah,
Speaker 3: the problem with government not saying what it should say,
Speaker 3: not telling the truth.
Speaker 1: That's another hallmark of authoritarian regimes. It's like the Soviets
Speaker 1: airbrushing cosmonauts they don't like anymore out of old photos.
Speaker 1: But it's also another example of job owning, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is him using whatever leverage he has,
Speaker 1: you know, is like with the FCC, I mean against
Speaker 1: these agencies, and government officials say no, well, we're not
Speaker 1: forcing private companies to comply, you know, we're not forcing
Speaker 1: independent agencies to bend to our will. We're just making
Speaker 1: refusal professionally inconvenient, right. I mean, that's what we're witnessing here.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think it's a great transition. The
Speaker 2: Job Owning Act is nan.
Speaker 1: I was proud of that. I was proud of that myself.
Speaker 3: Going is trying to stop exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about that with Senator Wyden.
Speaker 3: Let me say what job owning is, and then I'll
Speaker 3: answer your question about the Smithsonian and definitely talk about
Speaker 3: the case of CBS and also talk about some complications
Speaker 3: with it that we'll get into. So job owning is
Speaker 3: the idea and First Amendment law. For instance, there's a
Speaker 3: case about booksellers in Rhode Island that were intimidated by
Speaker 3: the police and by government into banning certain books. Now,
Speaker 3: the First Amendment protects us against government censorship.
Speaker 2: Well, this is a private.
Speaker 3: Company that decided a bookstore to censor. Is that a
Speaker 3: violation of our First Amendment? If it was just a
Speaker 3: choice by the bookstore, it wouldn't be. But if it's
Speaker 3: a result of government threats, absolutely it is. And so
Speaker 3: job owning is the idea that sometimes secretly or through
Speaker 3: other means government puts pressure or even coercion on private
Speaker 3: companies in order to do the will of government in censoring.
Speaker 2: So what about the Smithsonian. It's complicated.
Speaker 3: I think you know, it's not obviously a private entity.
Speaker 3: It's not a purely executive agency, so there would be
Speaker 3: one to talk about. But here's what's not complicated. When
Speaker 3: the head of the FCC is exerting pressure on CBS
Speaker 3: to fire Stephen Colbert because he makes the president feel bad, that.
Speaker 2: Is really the kind of thing that should be stopped.
Speaker 3: It's not protected speech because the pressure from the FCC
Speaker 3: that part of it, and the more we find out
Speaker 3: about it, the more pressure we'll.
Speaker 2: See that crosses the line. But yet courts have not
Speaker 2: been great about this.
Speaker 3: Again, so that's why this legislation that's been proposed by
Speaker 3: Senator Widen is so important because in the same way
Speaker 3: that we need reforms to other laws to protect our rights,
Speaker 3: to protect rights of search and seizure, we need to
Speaker 3: re up the protection of the First Amendment free speech
Speaker 3: rights to press.
Speaker 2: And that's part of what it's going to do. John.
Speaker 2: I'm going to throw in just a complication.
Speaker 3: Because I don't want people to miss this one weird
Speaker 3: thing about this law. And the ACLU or a sponsor.
Speaker 3: I'm so happy to have their sponsorship. Yes, they are
Speaker 3: supporting this laws under Widen, but so is Ted Cruz.
Speaker 3: Uh oh, why is Ted Cruz supporting this law? That
Speaker 3: makes me instantly suspicious. And it's because he thinks there
Speaker 3: was job boning that went on in the Biden administration,
Speaker 3: pushing Facebook for instance.
Speaker 1: So now he's running for president, that's all. It means
Speaker 1: he needs something to brag about.
Speaker 3: Well, I think yeah, it's partly that I think that
Speaker 3: there are on the right is a sort of you know,
Speaker 3: myth that Biden was Well. I guess one thing that
Speaker 3: we'll find out is how much was this job boning
Speaker 3: and how much was it demanding, you know, not the
Speaker 3: spread of misinformation. So that's one of the complicated issues here.
Speaker 3: That we do need a law, no question, to protect
Speaker 3: against job boning, But where the where the line is
Speaker 3: between coercion and simply sending out important information, that's a
Speaker 3: hard question.
Speaker 2: This legislation. I've looked at it pretty closely.
Speaker 3: It's written in a way that's very careful, But that
Speaker 3: is something that's going to be interesting because different politicians
Speaker 3: are going to sign on to it, are going to
Speaker 3: support it for very different reasons, with very different cases
Speaker 3: in mind. One last thing about this, I think that's okay.
Speaker 3: You know, people have all sorts of re reasons why
Speaker 3: they might come to good legislation, and in the end,
Speaker 3: it's going to be up to well to the interpreters
Speaker 3: of those laws in order to enforce them, and I
Speaker 3: hope they do a good job of it.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, well, then let me ask you about FISA,
Speaker 1: because I need a little catch up on them. Well,
Speaker 1: Congress is again wrestling with one of the most controversial
Speaker 1: surveillance authorities in our law, and that is Section seven
Speaker 1: oh two right of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act seven
Speaker 1: oh two, which we're told by its supporters is indispensable
Speaker 1: for stopping terrorism and foreign espionage. But as we know,
Speaker 1: it has repeatedly swept up Americans communications. It's been misused
Speaker 1: in many ways that threaten civil liberties. And we're told
Speaker 1: we're just using against the Muslims, We're just using against
Speaker 1: the illegals. But it turns out, no, we don't know
Speaker 1: who you're using this against. And the debate is getting
Speaker 1: even fiercer now, you know, Corey I think every surveillance program,
Speaker 1: you know, it always begins with trust us and then
Speaker 1: it always ends with a congressional hearing somewhere. So for
Speaker 1: those who who've heard the term FAISA and who we're
Speaker 1: going to hear you and Ron White and talk about this,
Speaker 1: what exactly is seven Z two and why is this
Speaker 1: so controversial?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: Well, what the PHISO law does as it recognizes that,
Speaker 3: you know, we need to look into terrorism abroad and
Speaker 3: we've had different iterations of it over time, and that
Speaker 3: when it comes to terrorism, there is some secrecy that's required.
Speaker 3: So it creates a system of pies of courts that
Speaker 3: review various actions. But it also you know, this is
Speaker 3: the question now, has resulted we know, has resulted in abuse? Yeah,
Speaker 3: because you don't need a warrant to look into, say,
Speaker 3: suspected terrorists abroad.
Speaker 2: And you know, at first.
Speaker 3: Glance you think, oh, what does this even have to
Speaker 3: do with American citizens? But now ask this question, what
Speaker 3: if a suspected terrorists or somebody who's under suspicion abroad
Speaker 3: and there's a warrant. Without a warrant, we're reading the
Speaker 3: intelligence services, the CIA for instance, and are reading their
Speaker 3: emails and listening to their phone calls, but they call
Speaker 3: or email a domestic citizen.
Speaker 2: What about that?
Speaker 3: And as things stand now, even though normally the Fourth
Speaker 3: Amendment of the Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizure,
Speaker 3: you have to show that there's suspicion in seizing my emails,
Speaker 3: for instance, in a normal courts.
Speaker 2: This is a potential.
Speaker 3: Exception while it's in the service of investigating foreign affairs,
Speaker 3: of investigating terrorism. And you know, here's where it gets scary.
Speaker 3: It assigns a lot of power to those in the
Speaker 3: FBI and in the intelligence services to making calls about
Speaker 3: where it trusts us between including and here's what we'll
Speaker 3: get into with Senator Widen, including giving power to the
Speaker 3: deputy director of the FBI, who was just to remind
Speaker 3: folks the podcast Damn Bongina a conspiracy theorist. So not
Speaker 3: only trust, you know, it was one thing in the
Speaker 3: past when we said trust me, Can we trust the government?
Speaker 2: What if there's a dictator? No, it's not hypothetical. We
Speaker 2: have people in these positions, including person that we know
Speaker 2: who well.
Speaker 3: Dan Bongino, a total out there conspiracy theorist, making these decisions.
Speaker 2: And so that's why there's.
Speaker 1: A need pushed out of the emment so far. That's
Speaker 1: the first one, first one pushed out of the administration
Speaker 1: to Christina Marlin too yes.
Speaker 2: Being too whacking.
Speaker 3: You know, the situation is bad, and that's why we
Speaker 3: need reform. And so that's part of what Center Widen
Speaker 3: is working on. And I'm going to talk to him
Speaker 3: about the ways that we might protect ourselves against this abuse.
Speaker 3: One is to really through a law reinforce the idea
Speaker 3: that yeah, if it's a.
Speaker 2: Domestic citizen, you need a warrant.
Speaker 3: Another thing is to stop these fives of courts from
Speaker 3: being so secretive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's also calling out the language, you know
Speaker 1: when they say things like how our data is incidentally collected.
Speaker 1: You know, like, oh, it was incidentally collected, but usually
Speaker 1: we're the incident, you know, and like you're right. The
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us against unreasonable searches
Speaker 1: and seizures. The founders could not have imagined in this capacity.
Speaker 1: But it's strange, Corey, how the Fourth Amendment keeps being
Speaker 1: asked to make a few more exceptions all the time, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen administrations of both parties defend the
Speaker 1: surveillance that I gotta be fair about that. So doesn't
Speaker 1: that suggest that we've seen both parties defend this one
Speaker 1: in power, that it's less about partisan politics and it's
Speaker 1: just about the tendency of executive power to get bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger over time.
Speaker 3: I can't agree more, but I think, you know, there's
Speaker 3: a wake up call. And his name is Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: and and you know how when you're in the hotel,
Speaker 3: there's a wake up call, and then there's a second one.
Speaker 2: That second one is Dan Bongino.
Speaker 3: These are the people who are now in charge of,
Speaker 3: you know, deciding whether or not you need a warrant
Speaker 3: or not to search American citizens' emails and phone calls
Speaker 3: and phone records. And I think you know, yes, it's
Speaker 3: been bipartisan, this trust me theory, hand it all over,
Speaker 3: hand over the power. You know, isn't it time to
Speaker 3: rethink that? I think it certainly is that this wake
Speaker 3: up call is a time for both parties to stop
Speaker 3: pushing back against the tendency to get rid of our
Speaker 3: rights like the Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure
Speaker 3: in this trust me system that hands over so much power,
Speaker 3: not just to the federal government.
Speaker 2: But to the President and his cronies.
Speaker 1: I know you're right about everything. The problem is, we
Speaker 1: got a several million people in this country who would
Speaker 1: willingly buy fentanyl from RFK Junior like they don't care.
Speaker 1: They don't care that their data is being scraped as
Speaker 1: long as the scraper has an R after their name.
Speaker 1: We got to take a quick break. When we return,
Speaker 1: the professor sits down with the Senator on the oath
Speaker 1: in the office. Hey, I'm John Fugel sang. Do you
Speaker 1: ever watch these Christian nationalists and right wing fundamentalists on
Speaker 1: TV and think Jesus Christ. These people are the opposite
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ. You know, Christianity was supposed to be
Speaker 1: about love and service, but millions of Americans have grown
Speaker 1: up to find their nice religions been hijacked by this mean, authoritarian,
Speaker 1: tax free clique. I wrote a book about how these
Speaker 1: right wingers aren't actually on the side of Jesus and
Speaker 1: historically they never have been. Separation of Church and hate
Speaker 1: A sane person's guide to taking back the Bible from
Speaker 1: fundamentalist fascists and flock fleecing frauds. It's a very irreverent
Speaker 1: and biblically correct book for believers, atheist, agnostics, and anybody
Speaker 1: who's ever going to have to deal with a Christian
Speaker 1: extremist in your family, workplace, or government on all the
Speaker 1: issues that divide us, using actual verses from that book
Speaker 1: they claim to follow. They've got a First Amendment right
Speaker 1: to twist the Bibles to their liking. You've got a
Speaker 1: first Amendment right to call them out for it, and
Speaker 1: you'll be surprised at how good it feels.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. It is
Speaker 3: a real pleasure to welcome to the podcast. Senator Ron Wyden,
Speaker 3: who has represented Oregon in Congress for more than four decades.
Speaker 3: He's been a leading voice on questions of constitutional law,
Speaker 3: how to restore the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, topics
Speaker 3: like privacy, surveillance, press freedom, and executive power. So, Senator
Speaker 3: I'll say, just very directly, you're the ideal guest for
Speaker 3: this podcast, which is all about restoring our democracy, protecting
Speaker 3: our constitution.
Speaker 2: So welcome to the Oath in the Office. Corey.
Speaker 5: What an inflationary introduction. Let's have some fun and talk
Speaker 5: about what you're interested in.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, let's begin with the question of government surveillance and FIZA,
Speaker 3: and of course you serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 3: I want to talk in particular about what's wrong with
Speaker 3: FIZA and how it might jeopardize, as it stands now,
Speaker 3: our constitutional rights.
Speaker 2: So as I.
Speaker 3: Understand it, as it stands now, the government is entitled
Speaker 3: without a warrant to collect the communication of foreign targets.
Speaker 3: But when it comes to domestic citizens, to citizens of
Speaker 3: the United States, although the Fourth Amendment protects the right
Speaker 3: against unreasonable search and seizure, there's a way around it.
Speaker 3: So can you talk to us just in the beginning
Speaker 3: about what the problems with VIIZA as it stands now
Speaker 3: might be.
Speaker 5: So in English, Corey, because a lot of the doubledegook
Speaker 5: is hard to follow. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was
Speaker 5: passed to deal with foreign threats, and there was bipartisan
Speaker 5: support for it. I was all in for you know,
Speaker 5: the concept. What's happening now though is untold numbers of Americans,
Speaker 5: but we know it's huge or getting swept up in
Speaker 5: these searches. You know, it used to be that people
Speaker 5: had a measure of privacy just because there were things
Speaker 5: that the technology couldn't do. Now the technology can go
Speaker 5: almost anywhere, and so you've got a lot of law
Speaker 5: abiding Americans getting swept up. I think the bottom line
Speaker 5: here is, and it's what I've been working on with
Speaker 5: my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, is to have a warrant
Speaker 5: before you go search in all those Americans you know, records.
Speaker 5: It's getting particularly important because right now the government is
Speaker 5: using data brokers. It's another loophole to go out and
Speaker 5: buy people's records. And that's over the line as well,
Speaker 5: and I'm trying to curtail purchasing people's personal data.
Speaker 3: Great so important for the moment, and I did want
Speaker 3: to say something about the moment because I saw in
Speaker 3: your Dear colleague letter that you called out some of
Speaker 3: the obvious abuses that are happening. Can you talk to
Speaker 3: me about the role that Dan Bongino had in all this.
Speaker 3: One thing that scares me, I take it it scares
Speaker 3: you too, is that you know, conspiracy theorists, people who
Speaker 3: are really tending towards the worst impulses in American politics
Speaker 3: right now, are in this administration, or at least were
Speaker 3: and had a role.
Speaker 2: So specifically my.
Speaker 3: Understanding, and it would be great if you could explain
Speaker 3: this to us, is that Bongino had some role in
Speaker 3: deciding whether or not some of the Americans who were
Speaker 3: caught up and these warrantless searches had a role in
Speaker 3: deciding who was caught up and who might be subject
Speaker 3: to these searches. So that concerns me, of course, and
Speaker 3: just interested in his role and breaking it down why
Speaker 3: there's a threat right now, especially that might not have
Speaker 3: been obvious before I take it in past discussions of five.
Speaker 3: So there are a lot of abstract discussions about what
Speaker 3: if a dictator came to power, what if a bad
Speaker 3: actor came to power. But we're in a world now
Speaker 3: where that's not so abstract.
Speaker 5: Well, a couple of things. I mean, we've long been
Speaker 5: concerned about some of the FBI issues, and you're really
Speaker 5: talking about that. We're been concerned about some of the ICE,
Speaker 5: you know issues there are in terms of my being
Speaker 5: able because I'm on the intelligence committee, my older child
Speaker 5: off and calls up and says, hey, Dad, what's going
Speaker 5: on on? You're so called intelligence.
Speaker 2: Heller.
Speaker 5: But the point is, in a lot of these you
Speaker 5: know areas, you see these agencies don't really get what
Speaker 5: Ben Franklin was talking about Ben Franklin said that you
Speaker 5: could have a balance between liberty and security, and if
Speaker 5: you weren't interested in both, you didn't deserve either. And
Speaker 5: that's what I've tried to make my focus. And whether
Speaker 5: it's ICE, or whether it's the FBI or a variety
Speaker 5: of these agencies under the Trump administration, my own personal
Speaker 5: judgment is you've got a lot of these government agencies
Speaker 5: simply out of control, and they're targeting reporters and attacking elections,
Speaker 5: and you know, making limits on what people can talk
Speaker 5: about on TV. And that's what I'm trying to do,
Speaker 5: is get our liberties back.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to ask you some more about that.
Speaker 3: I mean, so part of the problem, as I understand,
Speaker 3: and tell me if I've got any of this wrong,
Speaker 3: is the Congress has handed over a great deal of
Speaker 3: discretion to the executive branch. Now, the hope had always
Speaker 3: been that they would respect that balance between liberty and privacy.
Speaker 3: But we have an administration now which, well, i'll put
Speaker 3: it lightly, that I don't completely trust when it comes
Speaker 3: to striking that balance.
Speaker 2: So part of what you're trying to.
Speaker 3: Do now is to pass legislation, to pass laws that
Speaker 3: reign in that power.
Speaker 2: So can you talk to me some about what we
Speaker 2: might do.
Speaker 3: I mean, we're, of course worried about so much of
Speaker 3: what's happening at this moment, but part of why I
Speaker 3: wanted to talk to you is that you really are
Speaker 3: one of the people out there looking for solutions crafting legislation.
Speaker 2: So what is it that we should do.
Speaker 3: Is should we just simply say that if you're going
Speaker 3: to search an American's phone, call or email, that you
Speaker 3: need to have a warrant full stop.
Speaker 5: But that's what my bipartisan bill talks about. So I
Speaker 5: think you got to start with that, and you've got
Speaker 5: to start with them not buying up people's you know,
Speaker 5: personal data. Now, they're different areas of policy. You know,
Speaker 5: the question of targeting reporters. This is horrifying what we
Speaker 5: do about Jay Clayton, yes, being considered for the top
Speaker 5: job and intelligence and the like. I mean, you can't
Speaker 5: have the head of intelligence, you know, basically have being
Speaker 5: up to their eyeballs in terms of getting subpoenas out
Speaker 5: and then sending people to people's houses. I mean it's
Speaker 5: almost like thugs showing up at the house. So you
Speaker 5: have that and then of course, I'm working to prevent
Speaker 5: the government from trying to attack people's personal information in
Speaker 5: terms of censorship, and that's what job owning is all about.
Speaker 5: Job owned would provide Americans with the ability to sue
Speaker 5: in the government illegally coerce the censorship, and creates transparency
Speaker 5: around government's requests to censor speech. The bottom line is here.
Speaker 5: The founding fathers thought that the First Amendment, many of
Speaker 5: them like Jefferson, was probably even more important than government.
Speaker 5: I mean, they thought the government was useful and would
Speaker 5: collect records and things like that, but the First Amendment
Speaker 5: was really sacred. And now we've got and you mentioned
Speaker 5: the probability that both challenges are faced with the question
Speaker 5: of people in the executive branch invading their privacy. This
Speaker 5: has gone on with Democrats and Republicans, and so my bill,
Speaker 5: for example, on job owning would limit the executive branch
Speaker 5: of any administration.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that, as you said, we want
Speaker 3: to stay away from the goblgook and get into the
Speaker 3: concrete and when we talk about people like Dan Bongino
Speaker 3: and Jake Clayton, we start to see what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: I did want to ask you about.
Speaker 3: Jake Clayton, because in the way he pulls together both
Speaker 3: the bills that we're talking about today want to restore
Speaker 3: our First Amendment right to free speech, which as you say,
Speaker 3: is absolutely necessary to our sovereignty. Is a democracy, how
Speaker 3: can we be a democracy without information and then also
Speaker 3: curtailing the ability of the government to search without warrants.
Speaker 3: So I take it that Jay Clayton was meant to
Speaker 3: be the more acceptable nominee for Director of National Intelligence.
Speaker 3: But I mean, how are you starting to have questions
Speaker 3: about him given that his role in serving subpoenas to
Speaker 3: the New York Times. We've been talking about that, of
Speaker 3: course on this episode, And I mean, how does he
Speaker 3: in particular relate to this story and what he's done
Speaker 3: in the Southern District of New York with these subpoenas
Speaker 3: on New York Times journalists for doing nothing else than
Speaker 3: as I understand that just looking into this plane, this gift,
Speaker 3: this emolument's violation that the president has received.
Speaker 5: Well, the first thing it really does, Corey, it tells
Speaker 5: everybody that this should be a wake up call about
Speaker 5: the importance of asking really tough questions. That it's come
Speaker 5: from me here as people said, well, this isn't the predecessor.
Speaker 2: Who was even worse.
Speaker 5: I mean, we need real questions since Jay Clayton, according
Speaker 5: to the reporting on this whole news story about Donald
Speaker 5: Trump's plane issue, to subpoena and to forced reporters to
Speaker 5: testify before a grand jury, Now that's not anything that
Speaker 5: you feel very good about if your dan with work
Speaker 5: on a pop job in terms of intelligence. And yes,
Speaker 5: there are things you can do. I wrote the Press
Speaker 5: Act to stop the executive branch from secretly scooping up
Speaker 5: on reporters mails, So there is things you can do.
Speaker 3: I guess I'm going to ask you a direct question.
Speaker 3: I mean, to me, you know, what Jay Clayton is
Speaker 3: asking for is to be the person making that decision
Speaker 3: between the balance between our liberties and security. And yet
Speaker 3: here he is basically engaging and regardless of whether or
Speaker 3: not there's a conviction or even an indictment, engaging in
Speaker 3: a limit on press freedom by pulling reporters before a
Speaker 3: grand jury. So I don't know, is that go too
Speaker 3: far to say that he's disqualifying or do we have
Speaker 3: to balance out the evils here? And you know, he's
Speaker 3: not as bad as the acting Director of National Intelligence.
Speaker 2: How do you think about that compromation.
Speaker 5: First, you have to assess what you think he did.
Speaker 5: And based on what I read all through the weekend
Speaker 5: as Jay Clayton was up to his eyeballs in sending
Speaker 5: intimidation subpoenas to reporters and sending people to folks houses.
Speaker 5: And I think that the members of the Intelligence Committee
Speaker 5: and the hearing is coming up, we ought to ask
Speaker 5: some tough questions. And this is not somebody who maybe
Speaker 5: people thought previously, oh, this is a decent client. Now
Speaker 5: tough questions are in order, and that's what I'll be
Speaker 5: dealing with.
Speaker 3: Great and I want to I mean, of course, you know,
Speaker 3: as was true when we were talking about FISA and
Speaker 3: the need for actual warrants and the way the executive
Speaker 3: branch has escaped that.
Speaker 2: There also is an issue that you raised.
Speaker 3: About the First Amendment, which is of course, guarantees the
Speaker 3: right to free speech in addition to the freedom of
Speaker 3: the press. And you have legislation this Job Owning Act,
Speaker 3: also bipartisan co authored. I take it with Senator Cruz
Speaker 3: to try to reinforce our First Amendment in issues in
Speaker 3: which private companies are forced by the government often in
Speaker 3: secret to violate our First Amendment, right, So I mean,
Speaker 3: talk to me maybe first about some of the concrete
Speaker 3: things that we're seeing, and then how this would solve it.
Speaker 2: So Brandon Carr, we've.
Speaker 3: Talked a lot about, of course of the FCC and
Speaker 3: his pressure on CBS is kind of call for sanctioning.
Speaker 3: Stephen Colbert, I mean, is that the kind of thing
Speaker 3: that you're worried about, and how would this act resolve?
Speaker 5: Well, you're describing for your people following the program an
Speaker 5: example that's concrete. I mean, Trump has been threatening TV
Speaker 5: companies because he doesn't like the late night shows, and
Speaker 5: Kim All has been getting at the view. Brendan Carr
Speaker 5: and the FCC have threatened broadcasters' licenses. And here's what
Speaker 5: we do in the jaw Boning Act, because people have
Speaker 5: been trying to follow it. The text of it says,
Speaker 5: we're making sure that if the government is illegally censoring
Speaker 5: information and limiting transparency with respect to speech, that those
Speaker 5: people would have a legal remedy. They would be in
Speaker 5: a position to speak up for themselves in terms of
Speaker 5: illegal proceeding, in the ability to sue in the government illegally. Course,
Speaker 5: the censorship. I think it's about time. And by the way, again,
Speaker 5: lots of people and lots of administrations have engaged in this,
Speaker 5: and that's why people are kind of surprised when I'm
Speaker 5: coming in with Conservative Republican ACLU, if you can believe
Speaker 5: it supporting our bill.
Speaker 3: So that's absolutely and I should say it's CLU a
Speaker 3: sponsor of this podcast and proud to have them as
Speaker 3: a sponsor. I want to ask a follow up question,
Speaker 3: just to get into it a little bit, So what
Speaker 3: the job Boning Act, as you explain extremely well, does
Speaker 3: is it you know, allows for the fact that sometimes
Speaker 3: private companies are pressured by the government to limit our rights.
Speaker 3: And that's not the same as when Jay Clayton says,
Speaker 3: subpoena's reporter before the grand jury. But it's obviously a
Speaker 3: problem and we're seeing that. I think, as you agree
Speaker 3: that Brandon Carr example with pressure media companies seems to
Speaker 3: be the prime example. But what do we do I mean,
Speaker 3: in the kind of examples that I love bipartisan consensus,
Speaker 3: but I want to ask you about the way that
Speaker 3: Senator Cruz might seeing this, because sometimes it looks to
Speaker 3: me a little bit like the Duck rabbit.
Speaker 2: I mean he's worried.
Speaker 3: I think about the Biden administration pressuring Facebook and other
Speaker 3: social media companies during COVID, But isn't there I mean,
Speaker 3: I take it in the First Amendment that there's a
Speaker 3: line between coercing somebody and simply saying your opinions. So
Speaker 3: what do you think about that? Did the Biden administration
Speaker 3: go too far? Or is that you know the kind
Speaker 3: of thing we just argue out in court. And you know,
Speaker 3: you both have different examples in mind. I did look
Speaker 3: at the legislation and it says very clearly this is
Speaker 3: about the protection of the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: So you know that a lot of it will come
Speaker 2: down to that.
Speaker 3: But what do you think about the Biden example speaking
Speaker 3: of bipartisan consensus.
Speaker 5: Well, what's important is a bill like this is not
Speaker 5: threatening legitimate government engage. Right In other words, Senator Cruise,
Speaker 5: iile certainly disagree. Right, Well, a lot of matters. I mean,
Speaker 5: it doesn't stop the government from warning social media companies
Speaker 5: about Russian influence campaigns enforcing the law. But if the
Speaker 5: government targets a company Corey specifically to try to censor
Speaker 5: First Amendment protected the speech, then the bill creates a
Speaker 5: remedy for individuals. So there's a lot here to kind
Speaker 5: of think through. And that's the point trying to demonstrate
Speaker 5: that what you're doing is really and that's why we
Speaker 5: got the ACLU support.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to the.
Speaker 5: Heart of the matter, that censorship is out of control,
Speaker 5: and we can say that both administrations may be dealing
Speaker 5: with it, and we're talking about abuse of government power.
Speaker 5: And this is a way for Congress and the country
Speaker 5: to fight back. And the way you get a remedy
Speaker 5: here is black live law.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I love that idea and I completely agree with you. Look,
Speaker 3: the fact that you and Senator Cruz might have different
Speaker 3: examples in mind or disagree about some particular case doesn't
Speaker 3: stop you from collaborating and protecting the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: And that's what this legislation does.
Speaker 5: And particularly on that point, for people who are just
Speaker 5: starting to hear about this discussion, i'd say, take a
Speaker 5: look at what the acl you's had to say about it. Yeah,
Speaker 5: they're really talking about what I really saw is central here,
Speaker 5: and that's things like Jefferson in the First Amendment being
Speaker 5: probably in many respects more important than government.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and when we see the FCC case, we know
Speaker 3: that we need legislation. I think too, you know, if
Speaker 3: people on the other side of the aisle are misrepresenting
Speaker 3: the fact that Russia did try to interfere with the
Speaker 3: election and that there were warnings about that with the
Speaker 3: violation of the First Amendment, well that's on them. The
Speaker 3: legislation protects us. I'll say one other thing too that
Speaker 3: maybe you have thoughts on. I think one common element
Speaker 3: in the Faiza discussion and in this one is the
Speaker 3: issue of transparency. That this by giving individuals the right
Speaker 3: to sue, it allows us to see what's actually happening
Speaker 3: and whether job owning is happening or not.
Speaker 5: You're being logical, Corey, in this that's a push out
Speaker 5: as much transparency, accountability, and opportunity to get out abuses
Speaker 5: of government in the speech area.
Speaker 3: I want to pull back and ask you some big
Speaker 3: picture question, which is you know, in doing this podcast,
Speaker 3: we're trying to do two things. One is to talk
Speaker 3: about the details of the abuses of power and also
Speaker 3: to do what we've been doing in this discussion to
Speaker 3: talk about how to resolve them. And of course, after
Speaker 3: I've spent a lot of time in the Nixon archives
Speaker 3: and writing about Nixon, but also about the aftermath in
Speaker 3: the nineteen seventies when we did have legislation to rein
Speaker 3: in executive power and abuses.
Speaker 2: I mean, how hopeful are you?
Speaker 3: That's really part of what we're trying to do is
Speaker 3: to talk about the kind of legislation that we've talked
Speaker 3: about and you know, in pretty good detail. Do you
Speaker 3: see it as a kind of a hopeful moment in
Speaker 3: which despite the frightening things that we're seeing, that the
Speaker 3: Congress is starting to push back or should we be
Speaker 3: more leery about the threat to our democracy?
Speaker 2: How are you feeling? Big picture?
Speaker 5: Well, certainly because of the technology. It is a challenge
Speaker 5: of dealing with new threats. As I told you at
Speaker 5: the beginning, there was just because technology couldn't go everywhere.
Speaker 5: But I had six town hall meetings at home in Oregon.
Speaker 5: I've now had over eleven hundred of them because I
Speaker 5: think that too, it's part of speech and ability. I
Speaker 5: think people are concerned about it. Back when I started,
Speaker 5: I blew the whistle on John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program,
Speaker 5: you know, years ago when he wanted to pay money
Speaker 5: for going out and assassinating you know, bets on assassinating leaders.
Speaker 5: We've come a long way, but there's a lot more
Speaker 5: to do.
Speaker 3: One kind of follow up to that, and this just
Speaker 3: relates to everything really that you've been saying. I mean,
Speaker 3: is there a sense in which given the abuses that
Speaker 3: you're seeing now, and then given your point that you
Speaker 3: just made about technology and the vastness of it, I mean,
Speaker 3: there was no AI when the Pizer Court was created.
Speaker 2: For instance.
Speaker 3: You know, have you gotten more oriented towards civil liberties?
Speaker 3: Do we have to be more distrust full of grants
Speaker 3: of power to the executive branch? I know, part of
Speaker 3: what your legislation does is create more transparency and more
Speaker 3: pushback frankly on the Pies accord.
Speaker 2: But I'm interested too more generally.
Speaker 3: I mean, are you seeing just a kind of mistake
Speaker 3: basically and handing too much power to the executive branch
Speaker 3: at this moment?
Speaker 5: Well, the way I summed it up on the floor
Speaker 5: of the Senate, and I've thought about it, is that
Speaker 5: new tools require new rules. And now we've got this
Speaker 5: big debate about AI and there hasn't been a lot
Speaker 5: of thought given to it, and AI data brokers and
Speaker 5: the like. That's a prescription for trouble and why I'm
Speaker 5: trying to direct as much attention to it as I can.
Speaker 3: Great, and one last question before we say goodbye to
Speaker 3: you and hopefully we'll have you back. This has been
Speaker 3: exactly the kind of conversation that we love to have
Speaker 3: on this show. Is there anything we've talked about job
Speaker 3: owning about pis of reform? I mean, coming back to
Speaker 3: Jake Clayton and coming back to these really direct threats
Speaker 3: to democracy that we're seeing from the depart Mean of
Speaker 3: Justice and the US Attorneys eighty six forty seven as
Speaker 3: a way of going after the former FBI director James Comy,
Speaker 3: I mean, what can we do not in these job
Speaker 3: owning examples, but where the government is really just directly
Speaker 3: trying to shut down speech And do you have any
Speaker 3: thoughts about that?
Speaker 5: Well, that's why the Clayton hearing is so important. I
Speaker 5: mean was kind of stunned at how a couple of
Speaker 5: days before his hearing he was out, you know, basically
Speaker 5: intimidating you know, reporters and doing something that I thought
Speaker 5: was way beyond what was responsible activity for somebody who
Speaker 5: wants to be on DNI heads. So I think before
Speaker 5: we saw all that over the weekend, a lot of
Speaker 5: people said, well, sounds better than the other guy who
Speaker 5: has just gone. But now it's time to ask some
Speaker 5: tough questions about what people heard about, and that I
Speaker 5: see is my job. You know, my dad was a journalist.
Speaker 5: I think I meant one of the things I'm very
Speaker 5: proud of. So he wrote The Bay of Pigs and
Speaker 5: there's a picture of him and Castro on the back
Speaker 5: of the book, and Castro, says Peter Widen knows more
Speaker 5: about this than we do. I do myself. As I
Speaker 5: was thinking about public service, I want to ask some
Speaker 5: tough questions like my dad didn't. He sort of showed
Speaker 5: me how to do it.
Speaker 2: Terrific.
Speaker 3: What a great discussion, Senator Widen, thank you for your work.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your work on these two issues, piser
Speaker 3: reform and also the Job Owning Act. And absolutely we're
Speaker 3: looking forward to you holding Jay Clayton and any other
Speaker 3: administrative officials that come before your committee Transparency Congress asserting
Speaker 3: its authority. These are the things that really matter at
Speaker 3: this dangerous moment, So thank you for joining us on
Speaker 3: the oath in the office.
Speaker 5: Let's also thank Wendy from Grant's Pass who helped us
Speaker 5: put together the show.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator.
Speaker 5: Thank you well.
Speaker 1: I want to give Ron Widen points for giving points
Speaker 1: to Wendy, so right on, classy guy and great conversation, professor.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, John.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, this is complicated stuff, and this
Speaker 3: interview and our discussion earlier went deep into the weeds.
Speaker 2: And that's what we've got to do.
Speaker 3: We have to understand what our government is doing when
Speaker 3: it violates our civil liberties. And you know, the most
Speaker 3: important thing though I think about this episode, about the
Speaker 3: conversation with the Senator, about our conversation, is we talked
Speaker 3: about some pretty frightening stuff, the shutdown of free speech,
Speaker 3: the shutdown of democracy, the elimination of our rights to
Speaker 3: the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. And
Speaker 3: yet there are ways to push back. Legislation can do that.
Speaker 3: Laws can do that, and that's what we're going to continue.
Speaker 1: Showing up to vote can do that too, Professor. What's
Speaker 1: the best way for our listeners to follow you and
Speaker 1: keep up with your brilliance the other six days of
Speaker 1: a week.
Speaker 3: You can find me on Blue Sky as Democracy Profit.
Speaker 3: You can find us wherever you get your podcasts. I
Speaker 3: should have said at the beginning of the podcast, but
Speaker 3: I'll say it now twice. Subscribe, Subscribe, tell your friends,
Speaker 3: send it out, and leave us a review.
Speaker 2: These reviews keep.
Speaker 3: Coming in, and wow, John, you know we're consistently hitting
Speaker 3: that number one spot on Apple Trending Podcasts after our
Speaker 3: episodes come out. It means that we've just got intense
Speaker 3: interest in what we're doing and nothing could be more encouraging.
Speaker 3: What a pleasure to do this with you every week.
Speaker 3: And yes, Wendy's so glad that you got a shout out,
Speaker 3: Wendy from Oregon, And what a.
Speaker 2: Pleasure to do this show with you every week. John.
Speaker 1: I also want to announce to our audience that you
Speaker 1: can now hear Corey and Me on Sirius XM at
Speaker 1: a different time. My show on Sirius XM Progress has moved.
Speaker 1: We are no longer the late night primetime broadcast. We
Speaker 1: are now going to be twelve noon to three pm
Speaker 1: on the East Coast, nine am to twelve noon on
Speaker 1: the Pacific Coast, and our first week's guests include Martin
Speaker 1: Sheen and Joey Reed and Congressman Glenn Ivy and Congressman
Speaker 1: Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Professor Corey Bretschneier will be joining
Speaker 1: me live taking your calls every Monday in the two
Speaker 1: to three pm hour on the East Coast. So Corey,
Speaker 1: thank you for making the transition you began with me
Speaker 1: in the daytime. We've been doing late nights for several
Speaker 1: years now on Sirius D and it's nice to finally
Speaker 1: see you in the daylight again.
Speaker 2: I love doing it.
Speaker 3: Congrats on the new Times thought, John, and I loved
Speaker 3: talking to you, of course and taking calls beginning your
Speaker 3: new show with the former President of the United States
Speaker 3: Martin Sheen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but he was your warm up. Aacked by the
Speaker 1: way you had Martin Sheen A you're opening Yeah.
Speaker 3: And I've got to say one last thing, John, which
Speaker 3: is congratulations. Woopy Goldberg named your book Separation of Church
Speaker 3: and Hate as one of the best summer reads.
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 3: Yesix is that on the View, which is not a
Speaker 3: small show, And of course that's well deserved and so
Speaker 3: glad to see you get that recognition.
Speaker 1: Listen, I was just glad that the View wasn't afraid
Speaker 1: to mention my book on the air At this point
Speaker 1: because a year ago it was pretty scary time for ABC.
Speaker 1: So it means, I guess if they can mention my
Speaker 1: show on the air, Kimmel's job is safe for now.
Speaker 1: That's that's how I'm measuring it. But thank you, Corey,
Speaker 1: and thank you Whoopy Goldberg as well, and thank you
Speaker 1: to Wendy and Beowulf and everyone who puts this magnificent
Speaker 1: monster together every week. Oh and one more thing before
Speaker 1: we go, last, but not least, let me talk on
Speaker 1: your code about something, Corey. Isn't today a special date?
Speaker 3: It is an unbelievably special date. We're recording this on Tuesday,
Speaker 3: July fourteenth, with a Bastille Day, And it also is
Speaker 3: my twenty fifth anniversary. I married my wife Ali on
Speaker 3: the Princeton campus twenty five years ago and the love
Speaker 3: of my life, and so I'm so glad to say
Speaker 3: happy anniversary to Ali, who listens to the show, talks
Speaker 3: to me about it, and has been such a great
Speaker 3: support in all walks of life and an amazing mom
Speaker 3: person in education and curriculum design and really in everything.
Speaker 2: So happy anniversary, Alley.
Speaker 1: Okay, that was totally not the date I was talking about.
Speaker 1: I met the early inns Edition Act of seventeen ninety eight. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what your anniversary is nice too, Corey. That's
Speaker 1: very sweet. We'll see you next time on the oath
Speaker 1: in the office