Title Trump’s FCC Pressures Late Night — Even as Resistance Wins

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