Trump Cornered Amid Epstein Panic

Welcome to another edition of the oath and the office starring Professor Corey Brechtneider. I'm John Fugelsang. If you're just joining us breaking news, Judge Bosberg just ruled that meta is not a monopoly. I can confirm this because I just read it on WhatsApp and on Instagram and on Facebook. I get all my news from those three places, so I can confirm this. Folks, would you please welcome the star of our show, the pride of the Ivy League, Professor and author of the oath and the office, Corey Brechtneider. Welcome, Professor. Thanks, John. We're going to talk about some dark topics today, including the Epstein files and our real failure of a system to deal with the criminal at the top, namely Donald Trump because of his control over the Department of Justice. But I love starting with a surprise and a joke. I don't have to go to comedy clubs anymore. I just do this show with you and what a pleasure it is to speak to you every week. I think it's really sad if you think my joke at the top of this show means you don't have to go to comedy clubs anymore. Corey, I want to begin by just saying, unlike a lot of other podcasts that you might hear, in the top five of podcasts this week, in the government section, unlike a lot of other podcasts, we're not going to come out and say that Donald Trump just did a 180 on the Epstein files. Everyone's saying, oh, Trump just did a 180. Now that 100 Republicans are standing up to this man, what have I been saying every week, now 100 Republicans are standing up to this guy to release the files and he knows he's trapped. This is not a 180, friends, because remember, this whole Mr. Goss is happening right now. We're talking about this. Corey's an Ivy League professor and we're talking about this right now because as a candidate Donald Trump couldn't let sleeping pedophiles lie and he kept promising over and over again to release the files. We're doing this because he did. He didn't have to promise to release them. The case was closed. The accused was dead, but no, he promised to release them. And so the 180 came when he started calling this a Democratic hoax a few months ago. The flip flop on the flip flop actually makes this a perfect 360. And Corey, I know you care about getting the facts right on this show, so it's not a 180. He's done a 180 twice on this after months of screaming hoax, hoax, witch hunt professor. Democrats did it. And then over the weekend to say, well, it's a hoax and we have to investigate all the Democrats who perpetrate, who are guilty, but it's also a hoax and there's guilty Democrats. He now says we have nothing to hide. Vote to release the Epstein files. I don't care. He literally said in all caps, I don't care. This is a man who cares more than any carbon based life form has ever lived. This guy, Corey, has been fighting to bury these files like they're his ex-wife on a golf course. And the flip, it clearly came because the GOP house leaked enough emails to reveal that Trump was much closer to Epstein than he was to the first lady. So this is not a rebellion. This is a church schism. This seems, professor, tell me if I'm wrong. One hundred Republicans set to defy him. This is like 95 theses stapled to the door of Mar-a-Lago. What do you make of this incredibly strange act of disobedience by such a large number of Republicans? Well, for so long, we've lived in two factual universes and they haven't met each other. In one, in the MAGA universe, there is a conspiracy of pedophiles that are entirely made up of members of the prominent members of the Democratic Party. And Trump isn't a part of that. And somehow the fact of all these pictures of these videos of he and Epstein didn't seep through to that universe, but it certainly has seeped through now. And as they see it, whether because they can't hide anymore or because some of them really were naive, they're starting to see that we really do have a criminal precedent at the top of our government and the Oval Office, somebody who was deeply involved with a sex trafficker. And just to be clear to what's in those files includes one email from Epstein talking about the fact that Trump spent a lot of time with one of the victims. And so if we don't have the evidence that shows he's guilty of sex crimes in this case, we certainly have a lot of evidence that he was very close to somebody that is a convicted sex criminal. And so that's part of it, is that the information universe is breaking through. And then I just want to say one other thing about your point, which is so important that it's both a hoax and yet he wants to prosecute people. The fact that that's even possible has to do with the complete breakdown in our system of government. After Nixon, the Department of Justice had independence. It was seen as essential that the people in charge of prosecution isolate themselves from the political decisions of the president. And yet Trump's collapse that. And the fact is that yes, he does have control over this completely dysfunctional Department of Justice and his orders to investigate, not himself of course, but others might be carried out. It's one of the places in which this really flawed theory of the unitary executive, which sees the president as in control of even law enforcement for political reasons, for whatever reasons he wants. We're starting to see the danger of that idea, the end of the post-Nixon consensus that questions of prosecution should be independent from a president. I mean, there's a lot to unpack here in terms of the law, a lot to unpack in terms of American political history. And somewhere in hell, Jeffrey Epstein must feel so stupid killing himself for a hoax. I'm sorry, being murdered for a hoax. But Corey, this is going to be picked apart for ages and as unsavory as this story is and as click-baity and awful as it is. We have to acknowledge a couple of things. Number one, this story is not going away anytime soon. And number two, this is already, if no further information comes out, one of the greatest presidential scandals in the history of this country. The most famous sex trafficker in America having this kind of relationship and based on the emails that have already been released by the House Oversight Committee. And that's Republicans. We already know that if these emails are real evidence that Trump was in contact with Epstein while serving as president and that he was very much aware of what was going on with these underage girls and making the choice to not notify law enforcement. So you have said the Epstein scandal is a perfect storm revealing all the worst dysfunctions in our politics and legal culture. And I agree, but you're the Ivy League professor here. Can you explain what you mean by that? What, what specifically about the reactions, particularly from Trump and the shifting reactions from his circle that illustrate this dysfunction? Well, I think, you know, there are multiple things to say. One is that it really is regimes that are at their end that are so corrupted that individuals who are mixing blackmail and finance and power are and that's part of what we're seeing here, not just that Trump is connected to Epstein, but that there are Harvard professors, leaders of government and, you know, all in this web that connect to this sex criminal who is using manipulation and blackmail. That says something about the state of American politics and the rot really that is within it. There was some truth to the conspiracy theories of Marjorie Taylor Greene and others in that they were suggesting that there was a mass conspiracy at the top of American politics. Now, now they and QAnon got it wrong in thinking that Trump was somehow a hero, that he was combating all of this. The thing that they got wrong is that he's at the center of it. As I said, that not only did he know and the emails to my mind, looking at them, make it clear that he did know certainly a lot of what was going on, but that he was likely complicit in it. What is he doing with one of the victims for hours the way the email puts it? That does not look good. It's certainly enough to suggest that there should be or should have been a criminal investigation into his role there. The other thing I'll add though. Now, that's not fair. I'm sure he was just giving her New York real estate advice for several hours while they were alone in Jeffrey Epstein's house. And that's why she came out and said that, well, and again, they're spinning so hard saying that this was the tragic misju-fray that he was alone with for several hours, because misju-fray has already stated publicly that she never saw Trump do anything in particular. So again, there's no concern for the victims here. It's all about keeping Donald Trump clean. And I think the evidence already shows before the files are released that it's a little bit late for that. But go on, Professor. I'm sorry to interrupt. Well, I was going to just go to the, I mean, I think that's one part of the rot is the content of what we've been talking about and the mixing of crime and power. But there also is a dysfunction structurally within our government, which is that over time, the idea after Nixon was supposed to be that really we didn't have people of virtue in Nixon. And that's why Nixon, for instance, threatened to fire Archibald Cox and did fire, actually, Archibald Cox, the prosecutor looking into his wrongdoing. But you did have people of virtue standing up like Elliot Richardson and Ruckel's House, the attorneys general who refused to do that firing that was finally carried out by Robert Bork. But after Watergate, there was a question, OK, how do we fix this? And one theory was we just need norms, norms, norms, norms. And we see that that was absolutely the wrong fix. It's not that norms of independence have any meaning if there's not legal guarantees of them, because this president couldn't care less about norms. I don't think he's aware of them, much less care about them. And, you know, using the Department of Justice as a sort to just go after your opponents without any compunction about the fact that, of course, if anyone's going to be investigated, it should be him. That just suggests how not just how rotten the system is, but how little prepared we are to protect ourselves against what we have a criminal president. Now, he's indicated, this said criminal president. And by the way, that's not editorializing. He is a criminal. Right. Yes. Thirty four time convicted felon and adjudicated rapist. And you'll never hear anyone call this guy an illegal. He's the only person of color who's broken the law and not been called an illegal by Fox News. But he's indicated that he really does believe he can order the DOJ to investigate people close to Epstein, just not himself. Right. I mean, then what's the guess that might this is he started the history books will show. He said, oh, no, you own it's a hoax. Now investigate the hoax, but only investigate my enemies. If anything, they did. I mean, this is the most distorted extreme version of the unitary executive theory since I first learned it from you. It is. And it's a cautionary tale about how dangerous it is to think that there isn't an independent civil service and that the president really controls the entire federal government, including the people who are in charge in the just most important question of who to prosecute or not. And of course, it's one of a piece along with the prosecution of Comey with Letitia James. The Bolton prosecution is more controversial, but I would argue that, you know, the reason why that's happening is that Trump's behest. And so all of it is really just him seeking vengeance on his enemies. And he's not hiding it anymore by coming out and saying when we all know that there's evidence that if anyone should be investigated, it's him that you shouldn't investigate me because I'm the president. I'm the king. You should investigate my enemies. What he's doing is revealing the rot of the system on so many levels, not just the moral rot, but the failure to have legal checks on the most powerful person who turns out to be a criminal. That is something that really needs to be addressed as we recover. We did have a moment in history, I should say, where we had an independent prosecutor. We had a system. People like Walsh, who looked into Reagan's Iran contra dealings and did the job precisely because they didn't work for a president. But that law was destroyed by none other than Bill Clinton, who I guess it's not a mistake turns up in the Epstein files as well. And, you know, really destroyed our system of independence. The thought that Ford had that we should just trust people was replaced by a real legal check. And we got rid of it and we're back to the idea that norms are supposed to protect us. And guess what? They're not. Oh, no, Bill Clinton could be in the Epstein files. I must do everything possible to protect and shield him from the consequences of his actions. Said no Democrats ever. Corey under under constitutional norms, that quaint term that it is. Here's the big question. Is there any legitimate scenario in which a president can personally order criminal investigations of private individuals? I mean, it's happening and, you know, should they be able to? Are any legitimate scenario under the constitutional norms? We've come to expect where a president can personally personally top down order investigations of private citizens. Here's the problem, John, that certainly the way our system is supposed to function, the way the framers imagined it, they imagine people of virtue and they meant a very specific thing by that, which was people guided by the norms of the rule of law, by norms of equality, of respect for the fact that only people who have done wrong should be prosecuted, that things shouldn't be done to self advantage of people in power. All of those norms that the framers believed in are not in trying in law in any obvious way. We have protections, we have grand juries, we have judges, and we're going to talk about the Comey case and a judge who's fighting back there. But when it comes down to it, there is just such enormous power in the executive, in the specifically, not just an executive branch, but in one person, the power of the president. That's the idea of the unitary executive, the whole branch is subservient to one person. So when Trump was running both times, and it's one of the reasons I really desperately wanted to start this podcast, I was so concerned to point out this isn't any politician, it's somebody with really unchecked power. And with the immunity case, which we'll talk about, and with increasingly the Supreme Court enabling this criminal president to act in ways that are certainly contrary to legal norms, but he's going to get away with it. And yes, he can order the investigations of his political opponents, and he's figured out the way to do it that he failed to in Trump 1.0. There were all sorts of lawyers around who had integrity in Trump 1.0. And when he told them to do things that were illegal, the check was, they said, that's illegal. And they cared about their reputation. These people that he surrounded himself with, he's a pambandi, is the purest example, do not care about the law. They care about their loyalty to him. So we've essentially, in the most important place, the Department of Justice, eviscerated all of the protections that are supposed to ensure that we have a rule of law. And instead, what do we have? We have loyalty to the king and no kings. You know, yes, that should be the norm. What do we have now? We have somebody who's very much acting like a king and might get away with it. I want to get up this topic desperately, but that'll never happen, of course. But I do have a couple more questions right now. I know. Well, I mean, he broke up with Marjorie Taylor Green, Corey, my God. I never thought that would happen. She was as loyal as they come. I mean, a year ago, she was saying Democrats control the weather. Democrats, space lasers, Democrats couldn't control Joe Manchin. And Larry Summers retreating from public Larry Summers. Like that's how weird this is. I have jokes about Larry Summers, but you know, they're all they're all seeking dating advice from Epstein. It's got to be the worst decision, you know, of any. And, you know, the professors make bad decisions, but I think I've seen one that bad. I mean, look at you working with me. I'm about to tell my Larry Summers joke, which is that all my jokes about Larry Summers are sadly kind of derivative. But here's a real question. Trump is claiming that he's I mean, he's implying, suggesting that he's immune from any prosecution related to anything involving Epstein, because the crimes would have occurred before his presidency. I don't understand any legal doctrine that supports that. I mean, we all know he is not immune from prosecution for acts before assuming office. I recognize that the odds of him ever being prosecuted for anything here are very thin and the calendar probably shields him. But can you explain the constitutional logic behind that and why some commentators still seem uncertain about this? He could. You know, and all those caveats are important. There might well be statute of limitations that make prosecution impossible, even if we were to have some district attorney or member of the federal government willing to do it. But it is important to think about the limits of the immunity case. So what he's, you know, alluding to is the Supreme Court's decision and Trump versus the United States, which does give him unprecedented immunity. And as I've said many times on this podcast, it's a horrible decision that was pulled out of thin air with no real precedent behind it. Certainly no text in the Constitution. But even given its flaws, it's limited. It talks about immunity for a former or sitting president is implied, I think, in the ruling for official acts. And it parallels the civil immunity that during the Nixon, Nixon's ex-presidency, after Nixon was president, that the Supreme Court gave in a case called Fitzgerald. And in the same way that civil immunity exists only when it comes to the president's official duties. So, too, there are there is immunity when it comes to the president's official duties. But that doesn't include things that happened before he was president, because those are not his or her official duties. And in fact, we have a case speaking of Bill Clinton. Paula Jones, when she sued Bill Clinton, Clinton argued that sitting presidents have immunity for everything, absolute immunity. And the Supreme Court emphatically rejected that when it comes to civil suits, when it comes to suing for money damages. They said, no, Paula Jones suit can go through because this isn't an official act of the president. And so whatever protections there are, don't carry through to that. And they allowed the suit to continue. And that, I think, should be the basis for any criminal decision about Trump's actions before he was president. These cannot be official acts. He was just a private citizen. So there's a question even about whether he could be prosecuted while in office. And certainly, I would say the Supreme Court's disastrous decision, one way to clearly limit it, which they haven't cut off by any means, is to say, yes, sitting presidents could be prosecuted for non-official acts. Say it slower. Say it slower. Oh my gosh. Considering John Roberts only cares about how he looks in the history books, that would be a very nice course correction for him. But Corey, I have to also point out that amidst all of this, Donald Trump's very busy defending Tucker Carlson, platforming and normalizing noted child Nazi and Simeon human, Nick Fuentes. You know, no, no, of course, Trump has met Fuentes, Kanye West and Fuentes both came to Trump's All You Can Nazi Thanksgiving a couple years back. But Tucker got a lot of heat. Heritage Foundation came out of supporting it and then realized what they had just stepped in, because Nick Fuentes, again, is what we call a god damned Jew hating Nazi who praises Hitler every chance he can get and denies the Holocaust. You name it, this little chimp has done it. So Trump is defending Tucker, normalizing this air mac, but people have to decide that's what Tucker does. And you know what he's right, Corey, platforming and normalizing a Nazi is definitely what Tucker does. That's Tucker's version of charity work. So Nick Fuentes is now thanking the president for his support. Steve Bannon is getting all excited. Nothing's more revolting than an excited Steve Bannon. Corey, the rights flirtation with anti-Semitism is not new, but the Nick Fuentes interview and Trump's defense of him feels especially dangerous in this moment. This is at a time when we are seeing Twitter overtaken by anti-Semitism. I'm called the word Jew as a pejorative. Several times a week by trolls on that site, I was never called the word Jew as an insult my entire life until Elon took over. I mean, the normalization of hatred of Jews is what's getting me really concerned. What to you makes this moment of Trump brushing off any concerns of Tucker, giving a Nazi a platform? I mean, this is uniquely pernicious. Is it not? It is. And I think we've seen anti-Semitism on the right for a very long time, going back of course to the 50s. But it always was the case that mainstream conservatives didn't give it air in the way that they are now. I mean, really propping it up. So think of Spencer from Trump 1.0 and his Hitler salute. I mean, people couldn't run away from him fast enough. Trump did say there are good people on both sides about Charlottesville, but then it's not like he's leaned into that in an explicit way. No, no, no. I'm sorry, Cory. I'm sorry. But what happened? He said there's people on both sides and the right has developed a narrative that the mainstream media hasn't challenged that it's called the Charlottesville hoax. Right. I know. Trump wasn't talking about the white supremacists. And every single person that went to Charlottesville for Unite the Right was a white supremacist. Yeah. And that person there was there to defend maintaining monuments to white supremacist Confederate generals who took up arms against the United States to keep black people as a white man's property. Every person there was there in the cause of serving white supremacy. And I'm sorry to get flipping a table about it, but you know, you know, the mainstream media has allowed this hoax about a hoax to the semester for many years now. Yeah. And I think, you know, as we're in heated agreement about what was going on in Charlottesville and his failure to condemn the racism and the anti-Semitism and the white supremacy, Marx's presidency and chose him to be complicit in all of this. But I do think this is a next level up in that, you know, he's taking a known anti-Semite and celebrating him, Trump. And this major figure on the right, supposedly mainstream right, but he certainly is nothing of the sort, Tucker Carlson, has done an interview in which, and I listened to this, unfortunately, and it is nothing less than shocking and upsetting because what he's doing is not just giving this guy a platform, but helping him. And so the two of them, they'll just lay out some of what they talk about. They begin with the idea that, and they're not subtle about this. They don't say some Jewish people, but that all Jews around the world see their loyalty to Israel first, Tucker doesn't challenge that. And then they go on to talk about how Jews can't be good citizens. It is really the protocols of the elders of Zion, a sort of old Russian anti-Semitism attempt to destroy the Jewish people by just suggesting that, what, that we're devious, that we're unable to be honest and that our loyalties lie to a foreign nation. And, you know, he uses that to just blow it up. And with each piece, Tucker's just sort of listening and curious. And that is nothing less than aiding and abetting in an attempt to stoke one of the world's oldest hatreds. I'll say something else about it, too, which is that a democratic society, in the same way that we were talking about the corruption of Epstein, a democratic society cannot survive if it's rooted in its culture in hate. And that's exactly what Fuentes is trying to do. And for those two don't know, because a lot of people don't know Nick Fuentes. This is somebody who says that he's on Team Hitler, who denies the Holocaust and simultaneously, to my mind, seems to think that he wishes it would happen. He is a true figure of hate and leans in to any suggestion. JD Vance, he criticizes because he's in an interracial marriage. Any opportunity to stoke white supremacy and hatred of non-white people as he sees it, he will take. And here's Tucker Carlson just leaning in. I mean, it's no different than David Duke. The difference is that David Duke wasn't mainstream by figures that were wrongly considered mainstream. And let's point out that Nick Fuentes used the racial slur to describe JD Vance's wife. And Donald Trump has excused Nick Fuentes and JD Vance has said nothing. JD Vance defends his wife so hard, he's going to get promoted to being Ted Cruz. So we have to get a break in here, Corey. But before we do, I just want to ask one more question about this, because it's getting scary. And again, this is a movement that is built on cruelty and self-interest and grievance. And it's beginning to hit the natural end stage. But what is the difference between legal protected speech and speech that signals authoritarian intent? I mean, is there a legal line with Fuentes and those who platform him? I think he has every right to defend Hitler all he wants. I think Dushbag should be allowed to have zero filters. And it saves us all a lot of time knowing who's a monster from the get-go. But I mean, what is the line for you with Fuentes and those who platform him? Well, I've written a lot about free speech and I have what I think is a unique take on it, in that I defend the way the law is right now, which is extremely protective of free speech, including that interview with Carlson. I think all of it actually is certainly protected under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, because the only exceptions to the right to free speech are speech that is directed at imminent, immediate, lawless violence, or speech that directly threatens somebody, a direct or true threat, as the cases call it. So the Supreme Court distinguishes, for instance, in a case called Virginia versus Black, between protected speech that includes like a clan rally where a cross is burned, and burning across directed at a specific family in retaliation for an altercation earlier in the day. Direct threats aren't protected, but generalized hate speech is protected. We have, in a sense, a right to hate speech. Now, how can we square that with the values that you and I are talking about of equal protection? And in my view, the only way to square it is that government has a dual obligation to protect the speech that we hate, including Holocaust denial, hate speech like Fuentes, but government as a whole has to condemn it. Do the opposite of what Trump has done. We need to have our schools teaching about the evil of Nazism and of hate speech. We need to have our public officials criticizing it. We need to have monuments and holidays that make that clear. We celebrate Martin Luther King Day after all. We don't celebrate Bull Connor Day. And we've lost that second part of it, that we are as a nation supposed to defend democracy by condemning hate speech. That's, we've lost our way, and that's one of the things that we have to get back. Without that idea, as I talk about what the state should say in order to defend liberal democracy, without that role, we risk a culture in which what the norms of equality, of multiracial democracy just collapse into the noise of the Tucker Carlson's and the Nick Fuentes's. This is a cult whose leader is 79 exhausted corners, shedding allies, and screaming into the wind like a racist open-robed grandpa in the Home Depot parking lot. We've got to take a very quick break. Back in a moment, let's talk about the Comey indictment next on The Oath and the Office. Here's what you've been missing on the Stephanie Miller Happy Hour podcast. I do have a question. I tried to get an answer out of you on radio. Okay. The question is, when did you notice Joe Biden's cognitive decline? And don't, I don't, don't change the subject and the flag. When did you really notice it? Well, I, I think it was through all of the times that Donald Trump has fallen asleep in public and talked about, you know, magnets getting wet in the last few, you know, my mom had dementia, so I recognized it. This is not, it's a very good deflection. Your professional radio talk shows very good. Biden's, Biden's decline is that Trump is all over the Epstein files, and I'm wondering if they're going to release those. Are you covering that tonight? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Those may be, this may be the last few words. I speak Bella before Black Hawk helicopter, you know, Soops down. Yes, some people propel in here and snatch me away to El Salvador. Thank you everybody. Good night. I have accomplished my once every 10 years goal of getting thrown off Fox news. I will never, ever be back. Thank you. Subscribe to the Stephanie Miller happy hour podcast on Apple podcasts, StephanieMiller.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Welcome back to the oath and the office. I am John Fugelsang, who Professor Corey Bretchneider is still inexplicably slumming it within these parts. And Professor, a lot of us were really hoping that we'd be finding out what was the, the real merit to the Comey indictment. I mean, we know it's petty. We know that Trump is just trying to hurt the guy anyway he can because it's petty vindictive mean girl crap. But we thought, well, let's find out what really is behind it. Maybe they've really got a case, you know, it seems like it's all going to fall apart and discovery. And we've talked on the show how Trump's whole game is just blackmail. I mean, just, just putting his enemies on trial to try to, to bleed them financially with legal costs. But I don't think we're going to find out too much more because in a written order this week that required Lindsey Halligan to turn over grand jury materials to Coby's defense team, Judge Fitzpatrick really suggested that the Halligan had stepped on at least two landmines that could blow up the entire indictment. The purpose of the handover was basically to let Coby's team have the chance to make the motion. And, and now it seems like they're going to really want to go for it. Are we ever going to arrive at the merits of this trial? I mean, at this point, Corey, the judge is now examining possible Justice Department misconduct in the Comey case. Were you expecting this kind of judicial pushback this soon? What does this say about the health of the rule of law right now? Because I'm kind of thrilled. Yes, we should be thrilled. And then we talked in the first part of our conversation about how much control Trump has over the Justice Department, but that's not the same as having control, thankfully, over conviction. What makes us not at least technically a monarchy is that we have an independent judiciary and they're charged with, you know, all sorts of insuring against irregularities. And we also have grand juries and we also have juries. And so that legal system, the judicial branch is starting to protect us here in this horrible attempt to simply have Trump convict and imprison his political opponent the way that an absolute monarch would. So let's get into it. I mean, one of the things that happened here is, you know, when you have a hollowing out, this seeking of loyalty over competence, you have horrible lawyers. And this judge is really going after this prosecutor who has no idea what they're doing. And here are some examples. In the grand jury, the prosecutor said to the grand jury that trust us, essentially, that you don't have to just look at the evidence presented or the indictment itself, just assume that the government has a lot of material and reasons for doing what we're doing. And what this judge is saying is, trust me, that's not how law works. If you're going to indict somebody, if you're going to try them, that you have to have real evidence against them that can be seen by others. And the idea that there's sort of private knowledge of the monarch is completely far into our system. So there were other violations, potentially, of the Constitution that were pointed out here. But this was a big one. And it shows, you know, an incompetence in how you actually do this. You know, I mean, he keeps hiring people who are really attractive looking models to make legal cases for him. This is a man who watches a lot of TV. And Miss Alligan brought this goofy indictment against Comey just under the wire for the statute of limitations. So it seems like there could be some real consequences here for the DOJ, if that's even possible. But is this dressed down as a sign that the judiciary still does have strong guardrails against political abuse? Or should we view this as a warning of how fragile those guardrails really are? Well, I think that the sign of why we are in the verge of what I keep calling again and again a self-coup, a destruction of the other branches, is the fact that you have all the norms of the rule of law gone from the Department of Justice, certainly. And the fact that these charges, this case could be brought, despite a lack of evidence, is itself worrying. You know, I said, and have said many times, I'll say it again, that I think if any of these cases, including Comey's or Leticia James' in particular, get to trial. Bolton, as I said before, is different. There is a lot of evidence there that makes it different in kind. But in those cases, I don't see a jury convicting. But how frightening is that, that we have to get to that risk, that it'll be up to jurors and I think that another thing that I'm happy to see here is that at these early stages, where well before a jury trial in the Comey case, that the judge is calling out these prosecutions for what they are, which is a lack of evidence and revenge. And I'm hoping that we'll see these cases, both of them, tossed well before we get to a jury verdict. I'm curious, Corey, what does a judge actually look for when investigating misconduct by the government like this? I mean, what could the possible outcomes even look like with a DOJ that would never police itself or this administration? Well, in some cases, we've talked for instance about the Abrego Garcia case, in which Judge Bosberg, who we mentioned earlier, said literally turn these planes back of sending deportees to Gulag in El Salvador. And the Department of Justice quite consciously refused to do so and it looks like that order came from pretty high up in the Department of Justice. And in that case, which I was, Bosberg was looking to do and Judge Bosberg, by the way, is facing possible impeachment for this, is to look into the possibility of criminal condemn. You could be disobeyed court order in that direct way. You might get prison time even, you might be convicted of criminal charges, certainly you could be disbarred. Now this case, I don't know what to make of it because it doesn't seem willfully, very well could be just pure incompetence. So in that... Corey, how is it not willful? How is it not willful? Yeah, that's true. The entire thing is a weaponized DOJ against the president's enemy for a personal grievance. Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it, you know, and I take that back that it has... Yeah, I'm learning enough about misconduct from you, sir, and know this is. I mean, what's weird about it though is it's just so much about ignorance and that you have this lawyer who just seems to know nothing. It says if you pulled somebody off the street and told them to fill out this paperwork, then place them in front of the judge. Welcome to the Trump era, Corey. Yes, the evil and incompetency have been going hand in hand since 2015. It's good to have you here, Professor. Yeah, the banality of evil, I think, really strikes here rather than the sort of evil evil. The stupid always outweighs the sinister. I call them dim shady. Was the same thing under... Yeah, they have to know what they're doing is wrong, that there's no real evidence. But they don't even know how to fake it. That's the difference. I think in some of these other cases, there's enough confidence to fake it. But they're messy. These mediocrities always turn to the quick and easy path. Haven't you watched Star Wars, Corey? The dark side is the quick and easy path, that these mediocrities never have a good plan that always crumbles in the end. But here's my big question about this before the break. Let's say that misconduct is confirmed. Could that legally call into question other politically charged DOJ actions from the Trump Bureau? I mean, could there be something resembling a precedent on this? Yeah. If people go back to two episodes, this was when you were on the nation, working on the nation crews. Of course, we had Dalia Lithwick. She and I talked about an interesting thing, which was that there has been for just decades a presumption by judges that when the Justice Department says something, it's true. And so there is a kind of deference to lawyers in court from the Department of Justice. And more and more judges are saying, and this case is an example of it, we're not doing that anymore. Because as we start to look at what you're saying, the presumption seems to be that it's not true. So it's really upended the way that courts work, that the government is doing so much, that there is a presumption of its integrity. And that's just disappeared at the most extreme level to go back to the Beausburg case. And it could be true here. If there's massive misconduct, and there's lying, for instance, or just extreme negligence, contempt is possible. And so we might not just see these cases be tossed, which I predict and hope they will be way before we get to a jury trial. But we might see, yes, an attempt of the judiciary to bring contempt charges against some of these lawyers. I'd love to see that. I think that is what we need to see. I think we need to see more legal accountability, more use of the rule of law against ICE agents who are beating people up on the streets, for instance. Now, who's going to bring these charges? That's the complication, because the federal government is so lost. But judges themselves have maneuvers they can use. Local government, in the case of ICE, might do it. And of course, there's a subsequent administration. That statute of limitations won't be over. And that's realistically where we might finally see accountability. That's not going to be revenge, by the way. That will be a restoration of the rule of law. And that's going to be getting in January of 2027, by the way. Oh, well, I'm choosing to find major hope in this, that the courts under incredible partisan pressure still seem to understand that they are the last line of constitutional defense. We got to hit another break. Want to come back one more time and discuss Supreme Court. Now is going to be setting a case threatening asylum rights. And the last member of Nixon's enemies list has left us. We'll be back in just a moment on the oath and the office. Hey, all. Glenn Kirschner here. Friends, I hope you'll join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. We talk about not only the legal issues of the day, but we also talk about the need to reform ethics in our government. Here's one example. The oath of office. You know the one. I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Let's add 22 words to that oath. And I will promptly report any instances of crime and or corruption by government officials and employees of which I become aware. Friends, our democracy is worth fighting for. Join us in this fight. Because justice matters. Look for Justice Matters wherever you ordinarily find. Your podcasts. Welcome back to the oath and the office. Corey, I want to hit this really quick. This Supreme Court case, the Washington Post is reporting that this could further erode protections for asylum seekers. It's a case that could further gut the rights of people at our border trying to legally seek asylum, which again, folks, if you're standing on American soil, you're legally allowed to seek asylum. That's the law. Can you summarize what's at stake in this case and why this is so consequential? Well, I'll start with what you just said, which is there is federal protection for asylum seekers. And it talks about the fact that if you are basically within the U.S. borders, if you're in contact with the U.S. government, that you have a right to apply for asylum. Now, what's been happening is the Trump administration is saying, well, if you're just at the border, you're not subject to these protections and you can be pushed out while you're waiting and wait, essentially, in Mexico. And that's not what the law says, but that's what Trump's saying. And now here, we're going to see what the Supreme Court says, because they've taken the case. My worry is that they've taken it to once again, push back on the rights of those outside the borders of the United States. In the travel ban case, there was a similar dynamic in that those who want to come in were saying, well, we're having our First Amendment free exercise rights denied and our establishment clause rights to religious freedom. And the court, essentially, in the travel ban case, and Trump versus Hawaii said, well, if you're outside the United States, you're in a kind of law-free zone. I mean, they didn't say exactly that, but something pretty close. And my worry is they're going to do that here again. Yeah, does an international law factor in there? I mean, don't we risk violating our obligations under the Refugee Convention? We do, but international law isn't self-reinforcing. So you have to find something in US law that takes the principles of international law and guarantees them. Now, there is legislation that guarantees rights to asylum. So now here's the hope. I think that what I said, unfortunately, is what's likely to happen. But as in the tariffs case and as in other cases, you get justices like Gorsuch who are very concerned about the text of laws, textualism. And when you read the text of these asylum guarantees, it seems to me very clearly that if you're in contact with the United States, if you're at the border, you get the protection. So Gorsuch will have to, and that might be true too of Coney Barrett, it might be true of Roberts, they'll have to decide. Are they really care about this idea of textualism, of reading the law, or are they going to continue in this grandizement of presidential power, especially beyond the borders of the United States? That's why it's going to be an interesting case. I'm skeptical, but we're going to follow it. We're going to talk about it because I think that the law might win out here. Same way I do think in the tariffs case it will. This court though keeps narrowing asylum rights while Congress is gridlocked on this, of course. I mean, are we looking at a system moving ever more towards this place where the president can effectively shut the door to almost any specific refugee population he wants unilaterally? I mean, we're always going to say to South Africa, give me your racist, your white, but it seems like this is trying to give the president even more kingly powers to deny the Constitution's moral commitments and just not let in the people whose looks he doesn't favor. I think there's no question that that's what's going on. And when you and I met, if you would have told me, which was during the Obama administration, that the Supreme Court was going to uphold a law that essentially excluded Muslims, a Muslim ban, I would have said no way. First Amendment has a clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. It has another that guarantees equal protection. Government can't do that regardless of who it's interacting with. And yet in Trump versus Hawaii, they said the opposite. And they well could say the same here too. I should say in this case, it's not a failure of Congress. Congress spoke. It gave a generous and righteous asylum law. It's the court in their way of reading laws to undermine them that's risking in this case undoing what Congress did. And this is a bigger point that you and I should return to when we see it in the tariffs case too, where they're undoing the restrictions on the president's power and tariffs that's in the International Emergencies Act. The court is reading laws to undo them. And that means that we don't have a democracy if they are allowed to do that because you can pass all the laws you want, crap them as perfectly as you can. And if they read them in this horrible way to undo them, what are we supposed to do? That court turns out to not be the weakest branch, but one of them may be the most powerful. You know, Corey, long term, looking at this from a historical perspective, Donald Trump could be the best thing to ever happen to law school curriculums. Because boy, you're going to have so many great examples of norms being challenged and stretched and broken. Before we go, I want to just mention the passing of Sid Davidoff, who's a legendary figure in New York City politics. He's been mourned by everybody from Letitia James to the New York Young Republicans Club. And of course, he's famous for having played a bit part in the Sopranos at one point. He's a tough New York lawyer. He actually married Linda Stasi, who wrote for The New York Post in the Daily News, Mayor de Blasio married them. This guy was 86 years old in a real fixture in New York politics. But he was on the enemy's list of Nixon too, wasn't he, Professor? He was, and I should say personal know, which is that I knew Sid very well, actually. He was one of my uncle, Lane, who listens to this podcast, one of his best friends. And my uncle is in mourning as are many of Sid's close relatives, including Linda. And so I had the opportunity to know him for a number of years. And when I was writing The Presidents and the People, I spoke to him at length because, as you know, I interviewed Ellsberg. And a lot of the book is about Daniel Ellsberg and his fight against Nixon. And I didn't wind up using what Sid told me, but I'll pass some of it on because it was quite incredible. He, after Ellsberg died, about a month, I think, after our interview, Sid Davidoff was the last living person on the enemy's list. And I wanted to know why. And the story he told me is quite incredible, which is that Lindsay, who he worked for, Mayor Lindsay, was a Republican, but was against the Vietnam War. And Sid, Davidoff, had organized many young people for the Lindsay side, anti-war Republicans. After Kent State, Lindsay would help lower the American flag to half-mast. And students from around New York gathered to, this is after the massacre at Kent State, to protest not just Kent State, but the increasing violence that we were seeing from American society, including the murder of these fellow students. Now, here's what happened next, which is really a wild story. A police officer climbed out onto the roof and raised the flag to full-mast. And Sid, being this young whippersnapper, climbed back out onto the roof and lowered the flag and goes over to the side of the building and gives the peace sign. And the students went crazy. This was like the energy the crowd needed. And now what followed next is truly wild, which is that construction workers who had surrounded the students descended and proceeded to beat very severely these protesters. Now, one of the things I show in the book, I just get to mention, is that that incident known as the hard hat riot was under investigation at the time of Nixon's pardon, because the guy who was organizing the hard hat workers became Nixon's secretary of labor, was welcomed into the White House. And one suspicion was, it was never proved, but it was a credible suspicion, was that Nixon actually ordered this second attack on students. And what a moment, you know? And David Off himself, by the way, was on the enemy's list and was harassed by the IRS as a result. And, you know, it made all of this stuff that we're going through and talking to him really real. Like people are declared enemies. They are attacked. There is violence. And in my kind of story of hope that I'm always trying to say, we'll get through this, we've got through Nixon, we've gotten through Andrew Johnson and John Adams. You know, I think about this, you know, it wasn't an abstract person, it was somebody that I knew really well. And being able to think about that, and, you know, this was a tough New York guy too. And I kind of, you know, take strength in that too, that these guys were able to stand up to Nixon and weren't afraid of him, despite the fact that he was such a disaster and such an authoritarian. It's important to remember the heroes then, because we got to inspire the heroes right now. Professor Brechenauer, thank you so much, as always, for another great episode. Wow, burning up the charts, Corey, over there in the government charts. What is the best way for our noble audience to follow you and your brilliance the rest of the week? Well, we have a YouTube channel. If you want to watch our show, in addition to listening to it, we also have a sub-stack, The Oath in the Office, where we have a newsletter about what we're talking about every week with links and some of the quotes of what we're talking about. And you can follow up and go deeper into some of those stories. And thank you for all these amazing reviews that, of course, subscribe on Apple or Spotify, or wherever you're listening or watching us, leave reviews. Those really have been helping generate. And we are growing so much. This community, John, that we formed a few months ago is really on fire. I'm hearing from so many listeners with questions and comments. And it's really a pleasure to do this with you every week. Oh, it's an honor, Corey. I want to thank all of our listeners. And I want to thank everybody who came to the Big Show in Washington, D.C. last week that I did for the Separation of Church and Hate Tour. We've now had seven weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Thank you, guys, for being so helpful. Thank you. And so we did a big show. We filmed it with Glenn Kirschner. It's like an hour of my insufferable stay up. And then Glenn comes out and he's brilliant. And we'd have a great conversation about the law and the scripture. And that was a paper view that I have this past weekend. You can still see it. If you go to Meathook.Live, that's M-E-E-T. Get it? Meathook.Live slash J-F. And you can catch our special. In the meantime, I'm on SiriusXM five nights a week or the John Fiegelstein podcast. If you don't have SiriusXM and folks, Professor Bret Schneider and I want to thank everyone who puts the podcast together, Wendy and Bay Wolf and the guy who's trying to kill me for the insurance money. And I just want to close by saying I know a lot of you were very distressed to hear the president of the United States say quiet piggy to a female reporter. If this is triggering or upsetting for any of you, I just want you to remember, next time it upsets you, that quiet piggy are the exact words that St. Peter will be saying when Donald Trump shows up before him. I want to thank all of our listeners and of course, Corey Bret Schneider. Thank you as always. We will be back next week on The Oath and The Office.