Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boxton's Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. That is
Speaker 2: up to the minute score on the Red Sox game.
Speaker 2: I can attest to that, but hey, you know, it's
Speaker 2: not what you call a big offensive night for either
Speaker 2: team in Milwaukee. Now let's get back to the issues
Speaker 2: at hand. I have tried. We spoke on Friday night
Speaker 2: a little bit about this, but the more I've thought
Speaker 2: about this, the more I am perplexed. Normally, I can
Speaker 2: figure the motives of most politicians because I've covered politicians
Speaker 2: for a long time. So if you remember, the Trump
Speaker 2: administration sent a letter to Harvard in April, they've been
Speaker 2: in they were in communications with them and the Harvard
Speaker 2: lawyers who are outside council. They're not Harvard lawyers per se.
Speaker 2: They are lawyers hired by Harvard, including Robert Herr. He
Speaker 2: was the for assistant US attorney who interviewed President Biden
Speaker 2: in October of twenty twenty three. The interview was about
Speaker 2: the papers, in large part about the papers that had
Speaker 2: been found in the president's the former president's garage and
Speaker 2: near his corvette that he was so proud of. And
Speaker 2: if you remember, her was criticized by Democrats because he
Speaker 2: had basically said that Biden didn't understand a lot of
Speaker 2: the questions and gave on responsive answers to the deposition
Speaker 2: the questions that were asked by her special council her,
Speaker 2: and he came away with the conclusion that he referred
Speaker 2: to Biden, I think as a confused older person. He
Speaker 2: used pleasant language, but essentially said that there was no
Speaker 2: way that then in twenty twenty three, President Biden would
Speaker 2: be capable of standing any sort of a trial. So
Speaker 2: basically her in effect shut down the investigation of what
Speaker 2: did the president know and when did he know it?
Speaker 2: About the papers that he had kept going back to
Speaker 2: his days in the Senate, And of course that all
Speaker 2: came out of the investigation that the Biden Justice Department
Speaker 2: had conducted, the doubt with the raid of mar A
Speaker 2: Lago and the boxes of documents that President then former
Speaker 2: President Trump allegedly had in his possession that he kept
Speaker 2: that he should not have kept, et cetera. But so so,
Speaker 2: Her is not somebody who is unreasonable. He's sort of
Speaker 2: he's a he's a good lawyer for for Harvard to hire,
Speaker 2: and the other lawyer I do not know William Burke,
Speaker 2: that both lawyers deep deep in Washington law firms. So
Speaker 2: here's here's a little bit of the letter. Here's my
Speaker 2: bottom line. My bottom line is that this letter was
Speaker 2: in effect a letter that said, look, you're right on
Speaker 2: many many items, and we have we have changed our ways.
Speaker 2: We're representing Harvard, but we are telling you, on behalf
Speaker 2: of Harvard, that we have changed our ways and we
Speaker 2: realize that we need to do more. So I want
Speaker 2: to read just some of thesements that were made. Now,
Speaker 2: this obviously did not satisfy the administration, and now they're
Speaker 2: trying to prevent Harvard, trying to knock out their five
Speaker 2: oh one C three status, which would have a real
Speaker 2: impact on Harvard because that would mean people who contribute
Speaker 2: to Harvard would no longer be able to take those
Speaker 2: contributions as tax deductions. And in addition, if Harvard was
Speaker 2: earning any interest of dividends on their fifty three billion
Speaker 2: dollar endowment, they then could potentially lose their tax exempt
Speaker 2: status and be taxed on that. So that would mean
Speaker 2: that the fifty three billion dollar endowment would diminish quickly
Speaker 2: because of two things. One of some contributions would dry up,
Speaker 2: and then taxes would have to be paid on interested dividends.
Speaker 2: And I would suspect that on fifty three billion dollars,
Speaker 2: all of that is invested by Harvard University. So this
Speaker 2: is the letter, and just let me start off with
Speaker 2: a couple of them, just to show you the tone
Speaker 2: of the letter. The tone is not confrontational. The tone
Speaker 2: is concessionary. So this is the letter Harvard. It's addressed
Speaker 2: to the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service to GSA,
Speaker 2: the Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health
Speaker 2: and Human Services, and the Acting General Counsel of the
Speaker 2: US Department of Education. We represent Harvard University the lawyer's right.
Speaker 2: We're writing in response to your letter to April dated
Speaker 2: April eleventh. This letter was dated April fourteenth, and that
Speaker 2: letter was addressed to Alan Garvin, the Harvard's president, and
Speaker 2: Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the group
Speaker 2: that actually runs Harvard. Quote, Harvard is committed to fighting
Speaker 2: anti Semitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Speaker 2: Anti Semitism and discrimination of any kind not only are
Speaker 2: abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard's value, but also threatening its
Speaker 2: academic mission. Goes on to say, to that end, Harvard
Speaker 2: has made and will continue to make lasting and robust structural,
Speaker 2: policy and programmatic changes to ensure the university is a
Speaker 2: welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues
Speaker 2: to abide in all respects with federal law across its
Speaker 2: academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a
Speaker 2: pluralistic community, free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,
Speaker 2: whatever their source. Okay, a little bit of lingo there.
Speaker 2: Over the past fifteen months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy
Speaker 2: and programmatic measures. Fifteen months takes us back to December
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty three, when the former president of Harvard,
Speaker 2: Claudie Gay, had that disastrous appearance in front of Congress
Speaker 2: which cost her her job. She resigned as president. It
Speaker 2: meaning Harvard has made changes to its campus use policies,
Speaker 2: adopted new accountability procedures, imposed meaningful discipline for those who
Speaker 2: violate university policies, enhanced programs designed to address bias and
Speaker 2: promote ideological diversity and civil discourse. Hired staff to support
Speaker 2: these programs and support students, changed partnerships, dedicated resources to
Speaker 2: combat hate and bias, and enhanced safety and security measures.
Speaker 2: All as a result, Harvard is a very different place
Speaker 2: today from where it was a year ago. That's an
Speaker 2: acknowledgment right there that Harvard all of those things have changed.
Speaker 2: And these are things that the Trump administration could point to,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, with great pride and say, look what
Speaker 2: we've accomplished. Our pressure has accomplished this. The paragraph continues,
Speaker 2: these efforts and additional members measures the university will be
Speaker 2: taking against anti semitism not only are the right thing
Speaker 2: to do, but also are critical to strengthening Harvard's community
Speaker 2: as a place in which everyone can thrive. I'll read
Speaker 2: more of the letter when I get back, But the
Speaker 2: point that I'm trying to make, and I hope the
Speaker 2: point that I'm making clear to you, is Harvard has
Speaker 2: made concessions. Now. I don't understand why the Trump administration
Speaker 2: feels it has to continue to go after Harvard. Colombia behaved,
Speaker 2: and Columbia's professional staff and their faculty and their students
Speaker 2: behaved much worse than Harvard did. In the wake of
Speaker 2: October seventh, there's no question about that. And in for example,
Speaker 2: the entire last academic year, for some reason, President Trump
Speaker 2: is not willing to take the victory. I think it's
Speaker 2: a huge mistake. He has bigger fish to fry right now.
Speaker 2: The economy, the border Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, the tariffs.
Speaker 2: These are huge issues. The failure which of any of them,
Speaker 2: could do irreparable harm to his legacy and to his administration.
Speaker 2: If you can explain to me what makes Donald Trump tick.
Speaker 2: They have put in fine bold print that they have
Speaker 2: changed policies. And I'm sure that if the Trump administration said,
Speaker 2: please break down for us in a second follow up
Speaker 2: letter the specific changes you've made, I'm sure Harvard would
Speaker 2: be very happy to do that. What is the president
Speaker 2: and his staff thinking? At some point public opinion will
Speaker 2: swing from the president to Harvard, whether he realizes.
Speaker 3: That or not.
Speaker 2: Six one seven, two five four ten already six one seven?
Speaker 2: Is the president incapable of taking a victory lap? I
Speaker 2: don't understand it. Uh? It is. It is certainly dumb politically, UH,
Speaker 2: And I think it's counterproductive. I'd love to get your take.
Speaker 2: We're coming back on Night Side. Maybe you can figure
Speaker 2: it out, I shore Kan.
Speaker 4: It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: All right, So I want to continue here just for
Speaker 2: a moment, and then we'll go to phone calls. Be fact,
Speaker 2: I'm going to phone. Let me go to phone calls
Speaker 2: right now. You know the point I'm making up. I'll
Speaker 2: have to re emphasize it here. But you know, Harvard
Speaker 2: has made concessions. This this I just don't get it.
Speaker 2: Let me go to Sam and Medfid see what Sam thinks.
Speaker 2: Hey Sam, welcome to Nightside. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 5: So I'm doing great, So hellout you and thanks for
Speaker 5: taking my call.
Speaker 2: You're very welcome. Thanks for thanks for joining us. My
Speaker 2: You know, my belief is that Harvard has actually made concessions,
Speaker 2: has has said this is what we've done. Why would
Speaker 2: the president not turn around and declare victory and say
Speaker 2: him now I'm moving on to other things. What's wrong
Speaker 2: with that strategy?
Speaker 5: Ah? I don't know, something stokes his ego or something.
Speaker 5: I mean, why kick the dead house? They already made concessions.
Speaker 5: You got to make the lab focus on Ukraine. Those
Speaker 5: rare minerals deal who work with Putin and focus the
Speaker 5: energy is where you get more buck for the bangrad
Speaker 5: than beating all the good institutions in your own country. Right,
Speaker 5: it does not you got what you wanted, they changed
Speaker 5: and just move on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, even if even if let us say,
Speaker 2: a year from now, he felt that they did not
Speaker 2: follow through, he can always go back and resurrect his
Speaker 2: war against Harvard. But with he could quote from this
Speaker 2: letter and say Harvard has acknowledged they've changed. They can
Speaker 2: use He could use Harvard's words against them, And if
Speaker 2: a year from now things that aren't going as well
Speaker 2: as he wants them to go, he could say, look,
Speaker 2: I was I was a gentleman, I walked away. I acknowledge,
Speaker 2: but they have not followed through, and now we're really
Speaker 2: going after I don't it's mystifying to me. I guess,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Maybe maybe Harvard in the past never called him for
Speaker 5: some graduation ceremonies or something, so that must have stalked
Speaker 5: to the ego. But he should let it go. He
Speaker 5: should take the high road.
Speaker 2: I guess. Yeah, Uh, are you a Trump supporter or no?
Speaker 5: You know, I think I'm told in the past, then
Speaker 5: I'm a big believer for whosoever is doing the right
Speaker 5: thing for the country.
Speaker 2: I believe more in Yeah.
Speaker 5: I believe more in actions than words. Everything else is
Speaker 5: words are cheap.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm with you on that. But my question, I
Speaker 2: guess what my question is.
Speaker 5: I'm independent dependent.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what I'm saying is, you're not somebody. There
Speaker 2: are a lot of people who love him and he
Speaker 2: can do no wrong, and then there are people who
Speaker 2: don't like him and he can do no right. But
Speaker 2: if you're an independent.
Speaker 5: Good He's done good things about immigration. I'll have to
Speaker 5: give him that. But I mean everybody has good in that.
Speaker 5: Some things are good, but some things are not good invited.
Speaker 2: I think he's making a mistake. I think he's spending
Speaker 2: political capital here that he doesn't have to spend on
Speaker 2: a fight that he could easily claim. Hey, I'm right,
Speaker 2: they can. They made concessions, Sam, Thank you much. I
Speaker 2: appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, thank you. Thanks, thanks for taking
Speaker 5: me pleasure talking to all.
Speaker 2: Right, let me go to Ed in Worcester. See what
Speaker 2: he thinks. I think Ed is kind of favorably inclined
Speaker 2: generally to Trump. I hope I haven't mischaracterized you, Ed.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, I'm I'm completely in favor of this.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's an unwise political move at all,
Speaker 3: not not.
Speaker 4: For his base.
Speaker 3: I think his base is very enthusiastic about it.
Speaker 2: So's his basis thirty eight right, you got to get
Speaker 2: more than your base in twenty twenty six to hold
Speaker 2: the House or increase your your membership in the House.
Speaker 2: You heard what I read in the letter that was
Speaker 2: written that was written to him on August fourteenth. Why
Speaker 2: would he not take those words and say, hey, I've won.
Speaker 3: Well, two things, don't. I don't think they're sincere. I
Speaker 3: don't believe that they're sincere about making any meaningful concessions.
Speaker 3: And secondly, you know, he's he's only got a short
Speaker 3: time in office, and he's got a even shorter time
Speaker 3: till the midterm elections. If he wants to do important things,
Speaker 3: he has to frontload them. And I think he knows
Speaker 3: that and that's why he's giving everything, especially this such
Speaker 3: a priority. I mean, I just don't. I don't take
Speaker 3: these people at their word, don't. I don't trust them
Speaker 3: anymore than I would trust Latimer. There's another that's something
Speaker 3: I disagree with Trump on. I wish you wouldn't trust
Speaker 3: that guy.
Speaker 2: Well, look, uh what, Look, he's got so much on
Speaker 2: his plate head, you know, nothing.
Speaker 3: More important than this, nothing more important than this?
Speaker 2: Oh really okay? I would argue, I would argue that
Speaker 2: dealing with Iran and the whole Middle East, a boiling
Speaker 2: pot of whatever, is pretty important. I would argue that
Speaker 2: the tariff, the fights on the fight on tariffs, as
Speaker 2: it might impact for better or worse than national economy.
Speaker 2: I think he's he's done well on the border, and
Speaker 2: I think that from his perspective, he pretty much can say, hey,
Speaker 2: I closed, I closed the border as I promised I would.
Speaker 2: But I don't know that getting Harvard to you know,
Speaker 2: he can't micromanage Harvard. He can't micromanage any of these places.
Speaker 2: Do you think that the Supreme Court as currently constituted
Speaker 2: is going to give him the right to tell Harvard
Speaker 2: whether or not they can or any of any college
Speaker 2: in America whether or not they can admit foreign students.
Speaker 2: Do you think the Court as currently composed will support
Speaker 2: him on that.
Speaker 3: I think they'll support him that he can cut off
Speaker 3: their funding, and I certainly think the Republican majorities in
Speaker 3: Congress want to cut off their funding, but they can
Speaker 3: do what they want, but they can't do what they
Speaker 3: want with taxpayer money and with a tax exemption. And
Speaker 3: I think he should go beyond that.
Speaker 2: I think, how do you how do you remove the
Speaker 2: tax exem status of any company that has the tax
Speaker 2: exempt status? You know as well as I do. You're
Speaker 2: a lawyer. The concept of the burden of proof is
Speaker 2: upon him in this situation, or upon the administration to
Speaker 2: remove tax exem status. If they're going to focus on
Speaker 2: Harvard and Columbia, it would be an easier task if
Speaker 2: they wanted to get rid of tach, get rid of
Speaker 2: five or once three across the board, but that would
Speaker 2: have to be done by Congress.
Speaker 4: And that's I think they should.
Speaker 3: I think I said that before on your show. I
Speaker 3: think they should.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, so, okay, you think that's a political winner
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3: If you don't win the culture or nothing else matters. Well,
Speaker 3: if you don't win the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2: Okay, I hear you. I guess you and I are
Speaker 2: going to see it fundamentally differently. I look at this
Speaker 2: letter and I think to myself, there is an intermediate
Speaker 2: victory that he could declare. He could say these are
Speaker 2: the words that the Harvard lawyers have written to my administration.
Speaker 2: I accept the words as written. I take them at
Speaker 2: their word. I assume they will follow through on their words.
Speaker 2: We will check back in a year to see if
Speaker 2: they're followed through.
Speaker 3: Okay, right, yours? I want to I want to be
Speaker 3: the first. I want to be the first one to
Speaker 3: announce on me or something I've been saying for I
Speaker 3: don't think we're moving their tax exact is enough. I
Speaker 3: would go into these colleges and universities. I would nationalize them.
Speaker 3: I would confiscate all their property.
Speaker 2: That's that's good.
Speaker 3: That's got you know?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, uh, that you know. I guess I'm flabbergasted
Speaker 2: by that. By what right? By what right? Now? We
Speaker 2: are now we are talking about state fascism for real.
Speaker 3: Well, any any any government on earth has the right
Speaker 3: to nationalize property if it gives compensation.
Speaker 2: Wait a second, Wait a second. You you got what
Speaker 2: the government might have a right to do doesn't mean
Speaker 2: it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 3: Ed you're serious, I said earlier, if you don't win
Speaker 3: the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think you win the culture by overreacting,
Speaker 2: and and and and and putting arm beans on people
Speaker 2: and putting them in funny little uniforms. I don't think
Speaker 2: that America or maybe five percent of the country would
Speaker 2: support that, but but that would be the that would
Speaker 2: be the extent of it. We have reached a fundamental disagreement,
Speaker 2: my friend. As always, thank you for your call. Thank
Speaker 2: you very much. Okay, I said that I thought that
Speaker 2: Ed was supporting I. And by the way, Ed is
Speaker 2: very intelligent, lawyer out of Worcester, very intelligent. But I
Speaker 2: think that is way over at the top, way over
Speaker 2: the top. Back on Night's Side, right after the news.
Speaker 2: If that doesn't light it up, I don't know what will.
Speaker 2: We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1: It's Nightside, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Well. I think Ed was an interesting caller. I think
Speaker 2: le we go to Donna in Northborough. Hey, Donna, welcome
Speaker 2: next on Nightside.
Speaker 6: Hey Dan, happy to be here. How are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing just great? Where where do you stand on
Speaker 2: this great debate? I I just sometimes you gotta you gotta,
Speaker 2: you know, when you go to Las Vegas and you've won,
Speaker 2: sometimes you take the money and you walk away.
Speaker 6: Well sometimes, but I believe it's the country at stake
Speaker 6: at this point, so you might need to let that
Speaker 6: ride a little bit. I have been fascinated by what
Speaker 6: President Trump is doing. I'm an independent I go where
Speaker 6: I think the country will do best. Okay, and and
Speaker 6: I thought Trump was the right choice. I think most
Speaker 6: people did with So yeah, that's more than more than fifty.
Speaker 6: So I'm thinking the wax on wax off. You know,
Speaker 6: like in the beginning of the Karate Kid, nobody knew
Speaker 6: why he was doing wax on wax off, but when
Speaker 6: it came, when it counted, then you found out. So
Speaker 6: I'm seeing that that Trump is uh revealing himself in layers.
Speaker 2: Okay, I don't get the karate kid metaphor, but that's
Speaker 2: our analogy. But I'm not a karate kid guy. But
Speaker 2: that's well.
Speaker 6: I think that we don't know what he's doing. I
Speaker 6: don't think anybody but him and the people that he
Speaker 6: has doing this are aware of, you know, where where
Speaker 6: the bar is and if he's.
Speaker 2: Trying to test, if he's trying if what your argument
Speaker 2: is that he's trying to test the powers of the presidency.
Speaker 6: No, no, no, what my argument is is that I
Speaker 6: don't know, and you don't know where he's going with this,
Speaker 6: Where he's going with this, well, right.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying right, but but I think that ultimately
Speaker 2: we're talking about the powers of the presidency. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't think the president has the power to prevent
Speaker 2: universities from uh enrolling students foreign students. I don't see.
Speaker 2: I don't see where that power exists anywhere.
Speaker 6: In my opinion, I don't think that's his goal. I
Speaker 6: don't think that's his goal at all. I think that
Speaker 6: he's using that as a chip to gain what he
Speaker 6: ultimately wants, which is fairness. You know, you're looking at
Speaker 6: fairness and sports, and women's sports in particular. You're looking
Speaker 6: at fairness with regard to race, cultures, ethnicity, sexuality. All
Speaker 6: of that fairness is in question, you know, in different areas.
Speaker 2: And guess what in many of those areas, I might
Speaker 2: agree with where I think he's going. But I don't
Speaker 2: think it's fair to try to tell Harvard, as a
Speaker 2: university that's been around since sixteen thirty six and a
Speaker 2: fairly successful, one private university, that they can or cannot
Speaker 2: accept students who happen to be from outside the United States.
Speaker 2: I think that is way beyond any power that the
Speaker 2: founders imagine. I agree the president would have, so I
Speaker 2: just and I just.
Speaker 6: I agree with you, But I honestly don't think that's
Speaker 6: where he's trying to go. I think he's just using
Speaker 6: that as a bargaining chip. Look at the letter from her,
Speaker 6: Look at he's gotten somewhere. And I agree with you.
Speaker 6: In some cases, maybe that would be, you know, you
Speaker 6: take all the chips off the table because you're winning.
Speaker 6: But I don't know where he's going with it.
Speaker 2: Well, I just I guess I don't know where I want. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't know where he's going either, But I will
Speaker 2: tell you this. I think I think the strategy that
Speaker 2: he's currently employee employing is going to be dangerous to
Speaker 2: his u to his presidency, and dangerous to him electing
Speaker 2: more Republicans in twenty twenty six. That's the point I
Speaker 2: was trying to make that your're sometimes in politics. Politics
Speaker 2: is the art of compromise, and as smart politician will say, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to get everything I want, but I'm
Speaker 2: going to get something, and I do have something in
Speaker 2: this letter from her, And he could he could go
Speaker 2: on and say, look, we're making progress admitted. You know,
Speaker 2: he's not claiming her is admitting, and the other lawyer's admitting.
Speaker 2: I think that's if he was smart and not a maglomaniac,
Speaker 2: because he's beginning to me looking like a meglomaniac that
Speaker 2: he somehow wants to run the admissions office at Harvard.
Speaker 5: Does huh?
Speaker 6: I don't think he does. I really don't think he does.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you, well, when you figure out where
Speaker 2: he's going, I want you to call me back, because
Speaker 2: I think you're going to figure it out before me.
Speaker 4: Together.
Speaker 2: Thanks, don appreciate you call.
Speaker 5: Have a good one, all right, Take care.
Speaker 2: No one knows Harvard University better than my caller, Harvey Silver.
Speaker 2: Gleat Harvey, if you can bring some clarity to this situation.
Speaker 2: I know you you were not a fan of Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: but just from a strategic point of view, I don't
Speaker 2: understand the strategy.
Speaker 4: I think I do, Dan, Okay, what is it? He
Speaker 4: wants to subject gate the richest, the most powerful, the
Speaker 4: oldest university in the nation because it refuses to heal
Speaker 4: to his commands. Colombia folded like a cheap suit.
Speaker 2: Well, I think Columbia. I think Columbia had a lot
Speaker 2: to be responsible for it. To be honest with you,
Speaker 2: I think Columbia is a different situation than Harvard, to
Speaker 2: be honest with you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 2: And I think that I think that they're they're what
Speaker 2: they allowed to happen on their campus, the Jewish students
Speaker 2: and what they allowed to happen on their campus. And
Speaker 2: some of the comments that were made there was that
Speaker 2: one professor from from Columbia who was quoted on camera.
Speaker 2: He was saying that that October seventh exhilarated him.
Speaker 4: I mean, I agree with I agree with all of that, Okay,
Speaker 4: but Harvard has decided to draw the line. And what Trump,
Speaker 4: what's bothering Trump is not anti Semitism. I don't think
Speaker 4: he gives a damn about yous about anti semitism.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, Okay, I'll accept that for that. I'll accept
Speaker 2: that for the that argument go ahead.
Speaker 4: What bothers him is that Harbor has stood up to him.
Speaker 4: Alan Garber the provost, and Jehan Manning the provosts, and
Speaker 4: Alan Garber the president have said no. And that is
Speaker 4: what bugs him the most.
Speaker 2: Okay, you heard me. Read that last paragraph, and you're
Speaker 2: more familiar with the Garber letter because you talked You
Speaker 2: talked to Garber, and I don't yes that that last
Speaker 2: that para in which they said, over the last fifteen months,
Speaker 2: Harvard's done this, They've done this, They've done this, they
Speaker 2: had there was a litany of things that they have done.
Speaker 2: If you were Donald Trump's lawyer and you've defended people,
Speaker 2: you know who you weren't necessarily fond of, let me
Speaker 2: put it like that, as any good lawyer would what
Speaker 2: advice would you give him? Would you tell him at
Speaker 2: this point? Would you tell him what I'm what I
Speaker 2: would say to him. Look, you have statements from Harvard
Speaker 2: here which support that support your position. Take the victory,
Speaker 2: say that you'll check back a year from now, but
Speaker 2: walk away from it from now. Would you would you
Speaker 2: not advise your client if it were if it were
Speaker 2: Donald Trump to do that?
Speaker 4: Of course I would. But that isn't what Donald Trump wants.
Speaker 4: Fair Enough, he doesn't care about any of these issues.
Speaker 4: He cares about subjugation.
Speaker 2: He at at the end of the day, as his lawyer,
Speaker 2: don't you have to say to him you're going to
Speaker 2: lose on this. You you might you might win in
Speaker 2: on uh some issue here or there. But on most
Speaker 2: of these issues, you're going to lose. You're not going
Speaker 2: to be able to take away their five or one
Speaker 2: C three status.
Speaker 4: Dan, Yeah, what makes you think he's going to obey
Speaker 4: a court order?
Speaker 2: I think it's I think it's called I think it's
Speaker 2: called the Justice Department. I think it's called the US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. I think it's called, if necessary, the US Military.
Speaker 2: I think that he would be insane if if if,
Speaker 2: I mean absolutely certifiably insane, if we ever got to
Speaker 2: the point that he was going to defy a court order,
Speaker 2: which would be then backed.
Speaker 4: Nobody, nobody ever accused Donald Trump of being sane. Let
Speaker 4: me point something out.
Speaker 2: I think he's more sane than people realize. To be
Speaker 2: honest with.
Speaker 4: You, let me let me, let me let me point
Speaker 4: something out. You talked about the law firm that represents Harvard.
Speaker 4: Is that the firm of Wilma Hale Washington.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no. Wilmahale does not. And
Speaker 2: you know as well as I do, that will Mahale
Speaker 2: made some concessions, et cetera. No, these these are two
Speaker 2: individual lawyers, William Burke with un Emmanuel your car and Sullivan,
Speaker 2: I'm unfamiliar with that firm. And then Robert Hurt, who
Speaker 2: I'm very familiar with King and Spalding, and he was
Speaker 2: the guy that did the depositions with that deposition with
Speaker 2: President Biden in October twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4: I'm very samated with Quinn Emmanuel, a partner who recently retired.
Speaker 4: Captain Sullibum was dean of the Harvard Law School for
Speaker 4: many years.
Speaker 2: Yes, sure, her name's on the mastead YEP. Okay, so well,
Speaker 2: I just look, I think that if you know, if
Speaker 2: people really believe that, I find it impossible to think
Speaker 2: that even if he has hired and is now employing
Speaker 2: some bad people, that's he's smart enough to know. I
Speaker 2: just think it's impossible to think that he would defy
Speaker 2: a US Supreme Court order. That's all. That's all. I
Speaker 2: think that.
Speaker 4: Nobody ever accused him of being smart. He's wiley.
Speaker 2: He's wiley. He's also been able to come back and
Speaker 2: done something that no other president other than Grover Cleveland
Speaker 2: had done to be able to come back. And I
Speaker 2: never thought that he would be re elected after I
Speaker 2: never thought he'd be elected in twenty sixteen, and I've
Speaker 2: underestimated Donald Trump many times. Okay, I will admit to that,
Speaker 2: and I will acknowledge that, but I mean, yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: we'll see.
Speaker 4: It. Say have harbored cry uncle. He wants to win
Speaker 4: this battle.
Speaker 2: I think that cried uncle already. And I think that
Speaker 2: if he was smart, he would he would accept win
Speaker 2: and then say I will continue to monitor them. And
Speaker 2: he's got other things on his plate right now, which
Speaker 2: in my opinion, how much more important taris the economy,
Speaker 2: the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine whatever. Anyway, Harvey as always,
Speaker 2: thank you for your wisdom, Thank you for your wisdom
Speaker 2: and your and your perspective. It's it's well needed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: On a break, Gotta get to a break. Coming right
Speaker 2: back on Nightside.
Speaker 5: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna go next to Matt and Franklin. Matt, you
Speaker 2: were next to Nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm a tough time trying to figure out what Trump's doing.
Speaker 1: It seems like he's tearing the DOJ into his like
Speaker 1: frivolous lawsuit department, and he's kind of like all over
Speaker 1: the map on like what he is trying to accomplish.
Speaker 1: In his second term, and uh, it's like he's not
Speaker 1: gonna win. And my question for you is, like, could
Speaker 1: some of not necessarily trauma because some of his cabin
Speaker 1: people get sued civilly from Harvard after this all over.
Speaker 2: No. No, most people who are UH in official public
Speaker 2: offices either immune from any sort of a civil lawsuit
Speaker 2: or they are they're indentified. I mean, if there was
Speaker 2: a a cabinet official who went out and and and
Speaker 2: held up a bank tonight, could he be he or
Speaker 2: she be prosecuted, of course. But if in the course
Speaker 2: of their uh actions as as a public official, you know,
Speaker 2: took an action that they they might lose that action
Speaker 2: in court, but that they cannot They're not going to
Speaker 2: be sued then in a civil fashion. No.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, like breaking the law with some of these things
Speaker 1: they're doing.
Speaker 2: No, if you talk about breaking the law, Uh, that's
Speaker 2: that's a criminal statute. Okay. But these are primarily policy questions.
Speaker 2: Now Trump can say, well, Harvard hasn't gone far enough.
Speaker 2: That's a policy question, okay, So he's fine there. Or
Speaker 2: if someone if he directs someone in his in his
Speaker 2: administration to file a lawsuit or to to file a
Speaker 2: motion for this or for that. That's he's trying to
Speaker 2: impose policies, so he would be that's not a problem.
Speaker 2: But but politically there comes a point in time where
Speaker 2: as you said, he's doing things that might appear to
Speaker 2: be frivolous. Look, you've got tariffs, You've got Russia Ukraine,
Speaker 2: you have a big, beautiful tax bill that is in
Speaker 2: front of the Senate, which maybe is really a lynchpin
Speaker 2: of his administration. You have all of these important battles,
Speaker 2: not to mention the border, uh, as well as his
Speaker 2: ability to send people out of the country who are
Speaker 2: here for no good reason, are here to cause problems,
Speaker 2: and in many cases to send people out of the
Speaker 2: country who have been convicted of criminal behavior. Those are important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I agree on that's up, but it
Speaker 1: seems like it's all right, I'm gonna get rid of
Speaker 1: the Department of Education, but while I'm doing that, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have a Department of Education, get rid of Harvard
Speaker 1: and then oh, I'm going to get rid of the
Speaker 1: I R S, but I want the I R S
Speaker 1: at the same time to uh get rid of the
Speaker 1: tax um status. And then while I'm doing this, he's.
Speaker 2: He's not going to get rid of the I R S.
Speaker 2: And I also don't think that he can. I don't
Speaker 2: think he can say to Harvard. You know, if Harvard,
Speaker 2: for example, tomorrow said we have decided we are no
Speaker 2: longer accepting students of a certain racial category uh to
Speaker 2: to come to our school because we hate people who
Speaker 2: are of this racial category, then that is when he
Speaker 2: could pu vely probably withdraw the five A one seed
Speaker 2: free status. But that's not what Harvad's doing. Harvard might
Speaker 2: be admitting, in Donald Trump's opinion and in my opinion,
Speaker 2: too many students from overseas. But but that's a decision.
Speaker 2: That's Harved's decision, not my decision, not Donald Trump's decision,
Speaker 2: not your decision. That's the that's the point I'm trying
Speaker 2: to make.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just think he is going to have a
Speaker 1: miserable time with the midterms, and it's gonna be like, well,
Speaker 1: like you're going to just stick around.
Speaker 2: Truly, he'll be truly a lame dock. He's going to
Speaker 2: be a lame duck president after the midterms because he
Speaker 2: won't be able to run for a third term despite
Speaker 2: his musings. No Supreme Court is going to say Oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: we'll overturn. We'll allow you to run for a third term.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's I've always looked at that as he's
Speaker 2: trolling people. He's in their head, rant free. But to
Speaker 2: pursue Harvard after Harvard has made what I would construe
Speaker 2: with concessions. This is boilerplate language that he could use
Speaker 2: to say, Look, Harvard did bend. I forced Harvard to bend.
Speaker 2: It was a great victory for the Trump administration. And
Speaker 2: now we're going to make sure that they continue with
Speaker 2: these policies the promises that made. Let's move on. That
Speaker 2: would be the smart thing to do, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: but obviously I'm not in the majority at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just think it's gonna drag on for like
Speaker 1: the whole year, and then well we're gonna get what
Speaker 1: We're gonna get closer and closer to the mid terms
Speaker 1: without accomplishing anything, and then he will pay.
Speaker 2: A price and the Republicans will pay a price. Thank you, Matt,
Speaker 2: appreciate your call. Here comes the Ted. We're gonna stay
Speaker 2: with it. The only line we have one line at
Speaker 2: six months, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty, and
Speaker 2: we have one line at six months, seven, nine, three, one,
Speaker 2: ten thirty conversation has been a little longer than I
Speaker 2: want them to be. We will pick up the pace
Speaker 2: starting with Tom, Lou and Jim, and we have room
Speaker 2: for you coming back on Nightside.