DOJ vs. Trump: The Indictment That Never Came (with Glenn Kirschner)

Welcome to The Oath and the Office. I'm John Fuglesang, joined as always by the star of this show, Ivy League political science professor, author of The Oath and the Office and the Presidents and the People, and a man kicked out of Wu-Tang Clan for being too hardcore. I give you Professor Corey Bretschneider. Corey, hello. Hello from L.A., where I'm taping today. Yes, I know you're out there. And thanks for that intro. They get better and more ridiculous every week. So I look forward to that. And, you know, we have an amazing show today. Of course, we're going to talk about how to fight back using impeachment. We're going to talk about the Federal Reserve case that the Supreme Court's going to hear. And then we have this amazing guest. And Glenn Kirshner is going to talk to us about the attack from the DOJ, the weaponization of the DOJ as an insider, somebody who worked there for a long time. So a great show today. Terrific. And there's so much to get to. Hey, by the way, congratulations. No more fentanyl on tiny boats making its way to America. I mean, we've saved what? Like thousands and thousands of lives because there's no more drugs coming anymore. That's what Venezuela was all about, right? I understand. Now they're just talking about oil and that Trump's going to take the money from the oil and put it into an account over it. But it was about the fentanyl. I mean, the cocaine, not the fentanyl. I'm not sure. They kept changing the stories. And Greenland, you should get very used to the stories being changed. So it's been a crazy week, Professor. The DOJ is launching this insane prosecution of the Fed chair because he won't lower interest rates. They're still trying to fire Lisa Cook. Trump is threatening to send troops to arrest protesters in Minneapolis after Renee Good was killed by an immigration officer. and they are still covering that up, not allowing state law enforcement to investigate anything. Trump now says he will take a Greenland, whether Denmark likes it or not, and he's sending bizarre letters to the leaders of Norway indicating he doesn't know how things work. He's threatening war with Iran, declaring himself acting president of Venezuela. The DOJ just searched the home of a Washington Post reporter, and Jeff Bezos has decided it's not worth commenting on. And a federal judge this week compared Trump to an authoritarian on free speech, saying that he seeks to exclude from participation everyone who doesn't agree with them. This was a Ronald Reagan appointee, and the White House has accused him of being a left-wing activist. And for the first time, a president did not acknowledge Martin Luther King's holiday until about 8.15 p.m. at night. After 40 years, every president has done it. They got shamed into doing it before it turned midnight. And, oh yeah, Trump flipped off a union worker in Michigan who was heckling him. So we have a lot to break down, Corey, and I want to begin it with Minnesota. A federal judge just barred, as you know, federal agents from arresting peaceful protesters or using non-lethal munitions and crowd control tools against them. This is U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, and it's barring homeland security and ICE from using pepper spray or non-lethal munitions and prohibiting federal agents from stopping vehicles following them. Now the Democrats are openly discussing impeachment of Homeland Security spokesmodel, Kristi Noem. Over 50, reportedly up to 70 House Democrats are supporting these articles. Obviously, this won't happen with the Republican control of the House right now. But I want to ask a lot of questions about this, because we tend to think of impeachment as something reserved for presidents and judges. But now, I mean, up to 80 Democrats could be supporting this, constitutionally speaking. Professor, what does it mean to impeach a cabinet official? And why is this not some kind of like fringe or symbolic act here? Well, I think it's really restoring to a place something that has been in disuse, that really needs to be used. And that's the power of impeachment, as you say, not just as famously, of course, we've talked about impeachments of presidents. Donald Trump himself has been impeached, which is the formal procedure the House of Representatives uses to begin removing someone. In the Senate, a majority is only needed in the House, and then two-thirds are needed in the Senate for removal. That's never succeeded when it comes to a president, but Donald Trump has been impeached without being removed twice. But less understood, as you say, just to elaborate, is that that same procedure, 50% of members of the House and then two-thirds of members of the Senate, can be used not just to remove presidents or federal judges, but to remove also cabinet officials, top government officials, including cabinet officials. And, you know, that actually, in some ways, is more true to the origin of impeachment. One of the places really where impeachment comes from is the British system, is England. And in England, you couldn't impeach the king, of course, the king had a right to rule. In fact, if you criticize the king, you could be charged with sedition. But the idea was that even though the king couldn't make, could do no wrong, could make no mistake, couldn't be subject to indictment or removal, that his advisors could steer him or her, I should say, in the case of Queen's wrong. And that's where this main idea came of impeachment, of removal from office, because the idea was that the advisors to the king are charged with certain kinds of advice in the public interest. And if they fail, then remove them. So anyway, that's a long history lesson to get to the point that actually that's the original idea, that government isn't just the head of the government, it's also these other officials. And I think politically, too, it's such a smart thing to do because it puts pressure on somebody who's really at the center of the abuses that we're seeing. And it tees up the constitutional issues. I read the articles of impeachment, and there are a number of them. But one of the most important things that they do is they systematize all the abuses that we've talked about as an impeachable violation of constitutional rights. And the simple point that's made in the articles is that Noam, like a president, is also charged with enforcing the law and the constitution. And she's violating rights of free speech, rights of due process systematically. By the way, I just watched a local police chief in Minnesota talking about how his own officers are having their rights, their due process rights violated by randomly being approached on the street and being asked for papers. All, he said, actually, people of color, you know, these are systematic civil rights violations. So how do we tee that up? How do we make that the central story, not just the horrible killing of Renee Good, which we covered in depth last week, but the systematic abuses of ISIS? Well, impeachment does that. So yes, you know, this is one of those places. How do we fight back, I think the Democratic Party is exactly right. And yes, we don't have the votes for removal, but it starts the process. It puts it on the agenda, and it makes one of the central issues, although some Democrats don't seem to agree with this, what should be the central issue, I think, of this midterm election, which is the systematic constitutional abuses by the Trump administration. Yeah, I want to see a lot more articles of impeachment for a lot more members. I mean, they can just table them until January 2nd of 2027. I want to go through some of the specific grounds they're citing, but I just got to ask, because my job is to come here and ask the dumb questions that our listeners would be too prideful to ask, not me. What are the constitutional standards for impeaching an executive branch officer like a DHS secretary? It's like the president, right? I mean, it's high crimes and misdemeanors about criminal law, or is it about abuse of power and violation of constitutional norms? Oh, man, John, I'd say not only is that not a dumb question, it's about the most important question you can ask about how our government is supposed to function and how it's not functioning. And that's absolutely right. This phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors, is the same standard we're talking about a president, a judge, or one of these cabinet officials as we're talking about here. But what does it mean? It certainly sounds like, and this is why it's far from a dumb question, a great one, like what you need to show is that she committed a crime. And yet the things that I was describing are not crimes. It's not that she'd go to prison necessarily. It would be very hard to prove that she's guilty of a crime. Oh, maybe not. Not all of it. But we'll get to that in a second. Go on. We'll see. I mean, there are some, I should say. The contracting, for instance, and the notes about self-dealing are potentially criminal offenses. But the deprivation of civil rights, of constitutional rights, although they might be criminal, that's not the way they're outlining. And that's also very important to point out. It's not the standard that we use in impeachment to see whether or not to remove a public official. In a criminal trial, we have to show beyond a reasonable doubt. In impeachment, it's more like preponderance of the evidence that it's likely that they've done this. But most importantly, to go to your question, if you look at a criminal law textbook, there is no section of a criminal law textbook. And you take, for instance, first year criminal law in law school, almost all law schools require it. you're not going to see a section of that book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors because that's not a criminal category. It's more an idea, again, going back to England, that's where the phrase comes from, that the office was demeaned. That's the sense of misdemeanor that's being used or lowered. And that, in other words, that there was an abuse of power, a failure to do the duty of enforcing the Constitution and the law that all public officials take an oath, not just the president, all public officials take an oath to pursue. So no, it's not a criminal offense. It doesn't require the same standard of proof. And it's a different kind of category. And if I were to pick one way to describe the abuse, it's systematic violations of civil rights of exactly the kind that we're seeing from ICE. I was actually accused of diminishing the office when I was hosting America's Funniest Home Videos for a couple of seasons. So I know that territory. You were the host of America's Funniest Home Videos. I was young and I needed the drug money. So, I mean, the most common grounds Democrats are whispering about, I mean, obviously that she interfered with lawful congressional oversight of DHS, especially police detention facilities. Like, she's used policies like the seven-day notice before visits to deny or delay Congress people from getting into facilities where people are being held in cages. There's also, you know, obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust and constitutional rights with these wireless arrests, with this insane use of force, with the response and cover-up to the shooting. Because there is not just a cover-up of child rape now. There's a cover-up of the killing of an American citizen done by this administration. Misuse of federal funds. You mentioned the self-dealing and the DHS contract awards. And then just, you know, aggressive enforcement tactics. I mean, my question is, how does impeachment function as a tool when an agency like Homeland Security is really accused of systemic rights violations rather than just someone did one thing bad? Well, that was the idea at the founding that and, you know, talking about the generalized violations of civil rights. But then you rightly point to a more specific part of the articles of impeachment, which are about blocking members of Congress from doing their constitutionally mandated role of oversight. Part of what Congress's job is, is not just to pass laws, but to actually see that those laws are being complied with. And how did they do that? They do that through oversight, through making sure that the law isn't being violated by cabinet officials, for instance. So what Noam is doing is she's blocking the most basic kind of oversight, being able to, for instance, have members of Congress access facilities. She's just refusing. So what the framers did, you know, they were flawed people in many ways. We have a flawed system. I always point out its flaws, its weaknesses. They underestimated the power of Congress, but they gave it some major powers to enforce that oversight function. And impeachment was the main way to protect its more generalized powers. I mean, think about just how they laid this out. If you had a cabinet official that was refusing to allow oversight, well, then they can be, not just the president, even if you didn't impeach the president, you could impeach them. And that's why they designed this, I would call it a dormant mechanism, because it just hasn't been used. Because both parties care so much. Both parties care about these norms. You're right. Well, I think the Republicans have not cared much about them. And that was another flaw in the framers' thinking. I think they thought, you know, when you had a president or you had a cabinet official violating the norms of the Constitution, that they would really stand above partisanship. And they thought, you know, they didn't envision political parties, certainly not like what we had now. They worried about the danger of faction, but we didn't have political parties at the time the Constitution was written. They developed during Washington's term. But, you know, this is the flaw that they thought, well, if there's a violation of the law of the Constitution, people will transform. The Congress will actually transform itself from a political body to something that's not a criminal one, but it is a kind of quasi legal one. And let me just say how that happens. They take a new oath in impeachment, the Senate, to become a new body, looking only at the question of legal, not just legal violation, but violation of duty, of the oath of office, of abuse of power. By the way, our podcast is called The Oath and the Office. How do you ensure that the office is respected? It's through impeachment. That's what they thought. So, you know, maybe they were naive in thinking that that bipartisanship would be there. But, you know, we got to use the mechanisms that they gave us at minimum. And this is a major one. Before we move on, because we have to talk about the FTC on fire, but I mean, how do you see this, Corey? Is this really about, like, I don't want to be too harsh on Christy Noem because she brings lots of inspiration to many racist dog murderers. But I mean, is this really about her or is this about a Democratic Congress reasserting their role as a check on this increasingly insane executive branch? Well, you know, I should say more generally, there's a worry among some members of Congress, and we heard a little bit about it as we have had members on ourselves, which is that the midterm should really be about the economy. They should be about inflation. And let's not get mired in this impeachment stuff. And I think that's really a mistake. I agree with our guest, Raul Torres, that we have to think about how to combine thinking about the economy and thinking about the Constitution together. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. So I think it's just essential that members of Congress see that. Look, the main story here is not, as Jim Carball said, it's the economy, stupid. No, it's the existence and fragility of our democracy. That's really what's at stake. And so to think that shouldn't be front and center, it's just a terrible mistake. And that's why with these, you know, about 90 members of Congress, you know, I think we're moving in exactly the right direction. It tees up the issues. By the way, you know, Trump did lose an election after those two impeachments. Let's not forget that. And part of the mistake in thinking about impeachment is that because it failed in the formal sense of removing them, that it didn't work. No, I think it did get Americans talking about the constitutional threat that was Donald Trump. It did contribute to his loss in that election. And we've got to do that. We've got to learn from that again. He was impeached twice, both times for cheating in the same election. Once before the election, once after the election. Let's not forget. So I also want to remind everyone, Minnesota has taught us what MAGA Christianity's level is right now, which is, Corey, the killing of Renee Good is a tragedy. But she was also a terrorist, so it's really good that she got killed. That's the morality we're getting. I want to move it over to the FTC because we talked last week about Donald Trump's power that he believes he has, that he can fire the Federal Reserve because Jerome Powell, who represents a board, he doesn't change interest rates on his own. A board has to vote on it, but Donald Trump doesn't understand this. He wants to fire the guy who won't cut interest rates for him. And this week, the Supreme Court's going to hear arguments that could expand his power to let him fire independent officials, including potentially the Federal Reserve chair. I mean, at first glance, this looks like an obscure FTC case. Why is this anything but obscure? There are two cases, I should say, that are relevant to what we're talking about. One is the case that was heard a number of weeks ago about the firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner. And the question in particular was whether or not the law that says you can only be fired for cause in that case is constitutional. And under the theory of the unitary executive, which we've talked a lot about, the Trump administration is trying to argue that you can't keep the president from hiring and firing for political reasons and that this law passed by Congress that says that you need cause is unconstitutional. unconstitutional. So that's level one. And that's what the president's ultimately trying to achieve. And the reason he thinks, by the way, that he can fire a Federal Reserve governor, why he could fire the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, is because he thinks that these laws, like in the Federal Trade Commission or in the Federal Reserve, that limit the president's power to hire and fire for any reason, including political reasons, that those are all unconstitutional. But then we've got this second case that's going to be argued Wednesday, January 21st. So people will be listening to this after it's been argued. And what's going to happen on this case, this Wednesday case, we're recording this before the case happens, is a related question. It's directly about whether or not the president can fire at will for any reason the member of the Federal Reserve. But here he's saying he's got a reason that does fit with the law, that the law says you need cause or you need dereliction of duty, and that this Federal Reserve Governor, Lisa Cook, has engaged in a kind of mortgage fraud and that that the cause Now her response to that is This is Lisa Cook by the way This is Lisa Cook who is the first black woman to ever be confirmed as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by Joe Biden Go ahead. Exactly. And what she's saying is, well, first of all, I didn't do what you're accusing me of. But even if I did, this is an interesting part of the case. Even if I did, you know, sorry, that's not about my job. That's something that took place outside the course of my duties. In fact, it happened, I think, before she was on the Federal Reserve. But you see the general theme, right? I mean, the nuances, I think, are important. He wants to get rid of any constraint on political firing. But if he can't get rid of them, he wants to do an end run by pretending to find things like mortgage fraud to remove somebody. And she's saying, no, that's not what my – you're not saying I did a bad job. That's what this law requires. So we've got these two cases which are really about the same thing. the independence of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission and the ability of the president or not to fire people based on political reasons. Sorry, that was a thicket of information. No, but it's important. It's important because the Fed, we have to remember it's an independent agency. Unlike other agencies we know, you know, the Fed is funded through interest that's earned on securities at its own. Like that's how independent it is. It's not through Congress appropriating money for him. And as you said, it's got this seven-member board of governors. And for whatever reason, Donald Trump has decided to go after the first and only black woman to ever be there. Joe Biden nominated Lisa Cook for a new 14 year term in 2023. In the midst of all of this, you guys can go, listeners can go and Google the fact that Donald Trump is quite guilty of the very things he's been accusing Lisa Cook of doing. But Jerome Powell is really rallying members of Congress to defend the Fed's independence, which is something that Fed chairs in my lifetime have always avoided. What does that tell you, Professor, that Powell feels he has no choice? Yeah, I think that it's such an interesting dynamic. You know, we've got the legal case, and I'm not sure how either of these cases are going to come out. I think there's a very good chance, actually, that they're going to get rid of these requirements of independence, at least in the Federal Trade Commission case. I should say, too, that part of the argument for independence is Congress, that, you know, it's the same theme that we were talking about before. Congress has to find ways of asserting its authority and defending itself and its laws against a president who would destroy them. And one of the main ways it does that is the creation of these independent agencies, which includes both the Federal Trade Commission and, as you said, the Federal Reserve. So, you know, traditionally, courts were the answer. How are we going to fight? Well, fight in court. You can't do that. You know, that's the simple answer. And that's what I would have said, you know, when Trump was running the first time in 2016 and these issues first arose about can he fire the head of the Federal Reserve. But what do you do if courts aren't there for you? Well, Jerome Powell is answering that. He's politically savvy enough that he's been courting members of Congress. He has allies. And far from the tradition of complete independence in the sense of not speaking out against a president, certainly just doing the job, he knows that won't work. So he's slamming Trump. He's slamming the attack on him. Of course, one thing that we can ask Glenn Kirshner about is that now the Department of Justice is being used to investigate him. And we've talked about this, too, the supposedly supposed fraud that he's engaged in in construction. Complete BS, of course. So he's fighting back, you know, I think realizing the courts aren't necessarily going to be the place for vindication. And in the same way, to tie the themes together that impeachment is a way of Congress protecting itself. Powell is, in the most direct way, speaking out, using his own voice, his own status to slam this attack on, well, it's not just an attack on the rule of law or an attack on independent agencies. It is an attack on democracy. So before we get to the break, I want to quickly hit on Greenland because this story is not going away and I wish it will with the acknowledgement that Donald Trump is never going to actually invade Greenland. But let's talk about this trifling fool, because the tariff case might be decided this week by the Supreme Court. And suddenly the tariff case intersects with Donald Trump's threat to tariff people who block his takeover of Greenland, which he will never commit troops to do. This is getting messier and messier. People already know Trump wrote a deeply insane letter to the head of president of Norway, who he seems to believe is on the Nobel Committee, who he seems to believe has something to do with Greenland. And then Trump admits in a private phone call that his whole tariff blow up on the European countries might be because he was just given bad information about European troop deployments to Greenland. So, I mean, this is getting crazy. Constitutionally, how dangerous is this convergence that right when he's flirting with sending troops to invade another country that hasn't attacked us to take away their resources. By the way, you hear much about the drugs out of Venezuela anymore? It's just the oil. Greenland is not about anything but just stealing what's under their ground. I mean, how scary is this? And what are the limits constitutionally on a president using tariffs, not for trade policy, but again, to punish other countries for diplomatic resistance to his illegal trifling ways? Well, as listeners know, and you know, I've been involved in the tariff case. I helped write an amicus and file an amicus brief arguing that, you know, no taxation without representation means that the tariff power rests with Congress, not with the president. Now, why is that such a fundamental principle that Congress decides whether it's not that tariffs are unconstitutional, it just has to be deliberated on? It's because the main powers can't just rest with the dictator acting unilaterally. And if you were to allow the tariff power to combine with the president's ability to engage in diplomacy and threats of war, he's also not supposed to engage in, but we know that this president is doing that, well, it starts to give up all of the power of democracy to one person and to allow a kind of dictatorship, an imperial dictatorship, where you're using the power of tariffs, the power of economic sanction at will. And, you know, I think the framers didn't want that. They wanted in a democracy questions of war certainly to be deliberated upon by Congress and relatedly questions of tariffing or taxation in that sense to be deliberated by Congress. So what he's doing is this sort of realizing the worst fears of the framers, that these two powers, the tariff power and the war power, could be abused. And, you know, that's why we've got to reclaim both. Hopefully this tariff case will put a limit on his ability to unilaterally impose these tariffs at will. That's what we're arguing. Yeah, I don't want to keep Glenn Kirshner waiting in the lobby too long, but let me just ask you one more question. I mean, this whole thing seems to just, it's just pushing us closer to this pre-Constitution model of a monarch. I mean, the president just pursues territory and demands his tribute. And we seem to be watching that right now. What role, Corey, is the Supreme Court supposed to play when a president's impulses turn imperial and unconstitutional? Well, you know, when you add it all up, that's exactly the threat here that, you know, you have this case about tariffs. We talked about Lisa Cook. We talked about the Federal Trade Commission. We talked about Noem's abuses. Each one of them is not a threat to democracy necessarily, but if you add them up, it's a huge threat. And the role of the court, certainly the court is not going to limit the president's war power. Unfortunately, it has this political question doctrine. It's not going to get involved in military questions like that, even though it should, in my opinion. But I'm hopeful anyway, we'll see, I might be wrong that this court is going to protect the tariff power, because to me, no taxation without representation. We all learn that in seventh grade civics. That's like the core power of Congress. And so, you know, in that area, I'm still hopeful it will assert itself. As of January 21st, we'll see, I might be wrong. All right. Listen, folks, we got to take a break. I know it sounds bleak out there, but just remember the world is repulsed by this. Stocks just did a 2% dip, the biggest in a month over the Greenland fear. This guy's not getting more popular. His tirades are not getting more popular. Please, folks, stay calm. If you get stressed, Don't forget, stop and smell the train wreck. Quick break. Back in just a moment with the great Glenn Kirshner and the great Corey Bretschneider. And I'll be the guy telling jokes. This is the Oath in the Office. Don't go away. Hey, all. Glenn Kirshner 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. Quote, 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 in the Office. I'm John Fuglesang. Professor Bretzschneider, I am so excited that this next guest has returned to the podcast. In spite of his many reasons to want to avoid me, Glenn Kirshner is a hero to anybody in the Internet age who cares about justice in this country. He has taken the skills he learned as a military prosecutor and JAG to call out injustice, to call out real-time constitutional violations. in my opinion from a conservative point of view on our airwaves and it's a blessing anytime we can talk to him i was really blessed to have glenn do a uh a talk back with me at a special we did for my book in dc a few months ago and cory i just i i'm always excited anytime i can be around glenn because i look dumb next to you but i look extremely dumb next to him i love it and uh of course we've had a few return guests but not many and at the top of our list certainly was glenn Kirshner, who joined us very early on when we launched the oath in the office. And the issues that we've been talking about, the attack on our democracy, on free speech, on the very rule of law, far from going away, have just gotten more worrisome and more increased. And of course, Glenn spent a long period of time in the Department of Justice and is in many ways, as much as he is a renowned commentator and insider who knows the intricacies of the Department of Justice, a very different Department of Justice, I take it, from the one that we see now. So Glennon, just launching us, I mean, I really want to ask you about the weaponization of the Department of Justice and what we're seeing from the attacks on Comey and James, in particular, the resignations of a number of Department of Justice lawyers from the Civil Rights Division related to the attack on citizens in Minnesota. And to ask you the general question, I mean, what do you make of those who are there? I have a lot of former students who are in the Department of justice. I know you have a lot of colleagues. Where's the line of resignation? I mean, when do you send that letter in? When do you give up? When do you stop fighting from the inside for what's right? Yeah, so that's an intensely personal decision. I had lots of friends and former colleagues contact me really right after they received the fork in the road email from Elon Musk and his minions saying, you know, why don't you leave your low productivity government job in favor of a high productivity private sector job. Nothing could be more insulting to career public servants who were in that job, not for the money, but for the mission, because we were representing the interests of the American people. And I had so many friends call and say, you know, Glenn, can you talk through this with me? It's an intensely personal decision. Do you stay and fight, perhaps only to be unlawfully terminated and then have to spend the next couple of years fighting your wrongful termination in court? Or do you opt out? Do you say, I can't be part of this evil, lawless regime, so I am leaving? Everybody made the best decision they could. Of course, the ones who tried to stay, like people in the civil rights division, and I would love to talk about the abdication of the civil rights division's solemn duty to investigate officer-involved Thank you. Shootings resulting in death. But, you know, they made their own decision. So, you know, I understand not being able to work for the regime. I couldn't. I served under every president continuously from Ronald Reagan to Trump in his first term. And I got out about halfway through Trump's first term. I don't think I could have served in Trump's second term at the Department of Justice. So there are a couple of things. One, the hollowing out of DOJ is not so much a brain drain, but an ethics drain. And that presents real problems because you have these flunky lawyers who apparently, you know, have no concern for their license to practice law because they're going into federal courts and they're doing Pam Bondi and Donald Trump's dirty bidding. And the federal judges are calling them out and saying you're making misrepresentations. Do you gentlemen know that once a federal judge says that, you are automatically going to be referred to your state bar counsel for an ethics investigation, and it could result in sanctions up to and including disbarment? In normal times. But remember, every attorney who is a federal prosecutor holds a state law license. There's no such thing as a federal law license. So they will all end up being referred to bar counsel in their states. And generally, the state bar counsel are independent of the federal government and of Donald Trump. And they have a real interest in policing the ethics of the attorneys that are admitted to practice in their state. So that's how Giuliani ended up being disbarred in both jurisdictions where he held law licenses and Kenneth Chesbro and John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark and all of these people. So, you know, that is coming for today's batch of dirty DOJ lawyers. But the other thing is there are about one hundred and ten to one hundred and fifteen thousand employees at the Department of Justice. They've managed to dislodge or folks have self-selected about twenty thousand, twenty five thousand. You know, there are still great career public servants who are hunkered down. trying to do the work of the American people. And I hope that that will make the rebuilding mission when the rule of law comes back into the light of day, not easy, but at least possible. What do you think, Glenn, just following up on that point about disbarment, which I think is so important as we start to think about what the incentives and disincentives of doing evil are, and certainly a lot of the people, including those that we've been focused on, the Department of justice, I believe, are well-intentioned or career prosecutors. Many of them want to do their job. These heroes who resign, the five in regard to Minnesota exemplify that. We've seen others refusing to do the bidding of this administration. But Trump has figured out, and Pam Bondi has figured out, and Pam Bondi herself is an example, that if you really want people to do your bidding, look for people who care about loyalty and are loyal over the rule of law and caring about the rule of law. So that's what I guess I wanted to ask as a follow up question about the disbarment. I mean, is it that there's just a lack of awareness by Pam Bondi or by some of her, let's call them cronies, that they might face that in the end for doing things like attacking the president's political opponents in court? Like what's going on? Can you think your way into those who are less moral than the ones that we want to focus on? And what's the next thing? I think power and proximity to power is intoxicating. You know, maybe some of these people had some moral center, but they've lost their way. Maybe they never had their moral center. I will say over my 30 years as a prosecutor, I prosecuted a lot of folk who were just kind of bad to the core and ended up living a life of crime. I think some of these people are so drunk with the proximity to power. And they feel bulletproof in the moment. Why? Because Donald Trump has that pardon power that the Supreme Court has said is a core constitutional function that nobody can question. And I think the Pam Bondi's of the world fully expect to be delivered a pardon on Donald Trump's last day in office such that all of the crimes. And I do believe that they are violating federal law and violating the constitutional rights, for example, of the people of Minnesota at the moment. I think they believe they're going to get away with it. So they're willing to do things that they otherwise might not have been willing to do because they know they're going to get that pardon. They may already have the preprinted pardon in their bottom desk drawer ready to go. So let me ask you about that, Glenn, because this is not the DOJ to me. It seems like it's the Department of Presidential Protection and Retribution. Pam Bondi, from your vantage point, you've worked under a lot of presidents. You've also worked under a lot of attorneys general. What makes her tenure different from other biased partisan attorneys general you served under? And even with a full federal Trump pardon Pam Bondi can still be disbarred right or even prosecuted in the state of Minnesota Yeah So first of all any violation of state law is pardon proof It is beyond the reach of a presidential pardon. And as you say, pardons have absolutely no applicability to bar counsel investigations and disbarment of attorneys. So, you know, she's going to get got on some front, I believe for what she's doing. I don't know what makes Pam Bondi as as lawless as she is proving to be. But, you know, she really started early on when on day one after being sworn in, she said, now let me unroll and announce my enemies list. These people did Donald Trump wrong. And these are the people we're going to open investigations into. I didn't see that coming. I thought she would at least pretend to be a legitimate attorney general for some period of time and maybe do this kind of in closed closed door rooms but she was all in from jump so but i can't explain why if i if i may uh it was long before day one she personally solicit a 25 000 contribution from trump when she was florida attorney general 13 years ago while her office was weighing whether they would join the lawsuit against the scam Trump University. So she signaled, you know, early on, I mean, when Trump appointed her, he was letting the world know this AG takes bribes. And unfortunately, John, none of the Republican members of Congress really cared to perform their duty in confirmation hearings to make sure that we were only getting good quality, honorable, ethical people in Donald Trump's cabinet. So, you know, we have an entire political party that for whatever reason is willing to give away our republic. And they are proving that day after day as Donald Trump begins to ratchet up the dangerousness, the abuse of office, the abuse of military power. And yet we've got a Republican Party lying dormant in Congress. I continue to hope that changes, maybe hoping against hope. But, you know, that's one of the ways Donald Trump could be stopped. What do you think, Glenn, pivoting to the prosecutions of James and Comey and generally the president's desire for revenge and retribution. You know, one argument is regardless of what happens, there's already damage done. There's a chilling effect that comes from seeing these indictments in the first place, regardless of whether they get through. But in a normal Justice Department, we never would have been at this point. We would have had the attorney general say to the president, that's not how this works. The Department of Justice is technically within the executive branch, but it's independent. and you can't use it. It's meant to, it's not the president's personal retribution force. It's meant to be independent, devoted to the rule of law. We're past that because of the back and forth that you just had with Bondi. She did go along with this. He did get at least, at one point, indictments in these two cases. Now, there's been pushback and we have the judiciary itself and its independence. But I'm wondering, I mean, in these cases, do you think that we might actually see the successful prosecution even of some of these opponents? Or do you still have faith that the independence of the judiciary or other checks, including those that are remaining within the Department of Justice, might hold? So for a very long time, Donald Trump has been threatening to prosecute people. Who is the OG of Donald Trump's prosecutorial wrath? Hillary Clinton, lock her up, lock her up. And for a decade, we heard that. And he was always threatening his opponents with prosecution and with jail. That went on for 10 years before he finally found a consigliere at the Department of Justice in Bambandi who would do his criminal bidding. Because I'm sorry, under Jeff Sessions, they declared there was no case against Hillary Clinton and right wing media never reported this to the Trump fan base. I'm so sorry. Go on. You know, that's OK. So a couple of years ago now, John, I started saying I'm looking forward to the first vindictive prosecution Donald Trump actually has his Department of Justice bring because I have such faith in the judiciary that they will not stand for it. My words were, and this was a couple of years ago, I said it early and often, the judiciary will cram those vindictive prosecutions, figuratively speaking, down the throat of Donald Trump's dirty DOJ. And that is like a blind mouse bumps into a piece of cheese every now and then. That was a prediction I got, right? And I have I I do not believe for a minute that they will successfully resurrect these vindictive prosecutions against James Comey or Letitia James. And what has that done? It's exposed Donald Trump as the paper tiger. He is. He can threaten prosecutions all day long, but he can't follow through. He will not successfully prosecute Jerome Powell. He's got his imbecile hack U.S. attorney, Janine Pirro, who can indict a ham sandwich no matter how many condiments she throws on it. And the only one that I put in a different category is John Bolton, because the people who indicted John Bolton are career prosecutors at the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Maryland. It appears they have the goods on him, at least based on the indictment. If they can prove what they put in the indictment, it looks like Bolton probably violated the law, John, in much the same way that General David Petraeus violated the law. And he was prosecuted and held accountable for it. And I don't feel bad for General Petraeus. He served the country honorably. But if you're going to write a book, don't compromise classified information. And it looks like John Bolton did something quite similar. So he may be successfully prosecuted. prosecuted interestingly it will still be a vindictive prosecution i say that because the biden department of justice also investigated him ultimately decided not to bring charges maybe not because he didn't technically violate the law but because we don't prosecute every case where somebody violated the law if we did we would run out of resources in 24 hours so it was still vindictively brought but that doesn't mean there wasn't a factual basis to bring the prosecution so most of these vindictive prosecutions are not going to succeed, and that will weaken Donald Trump, not strengthen him. It is an interesting case in the Bolton case, which we've talked about as well, where you have independent prosecutors who are prosecuting what look to be problematic facts of crime, but you also have a motivation of a president pushing for these prosecutions simply because of political reasons. One question there, I guess, is whether or not there's a taint that comes from the fact that, you know, there are all sorts of crimes that aren't prosecuted. The fact that these are being pushed so hard because of the president's vindictiveness. I mean, so I invite you to respond to that. But also, I'm also wondering about another, just where the, I mean, I agree with you. I don't think that we're going to see James and Comey, the most purely political prosecutions go to prison. But I do think there's a puzzle about where it will stop. And I think, you know, years ago, you and I would have said, well, it'll stop with the attorney general. That's not happening. Maybe it'll stop with career prosecutors. Not clear because so many of them have been, some of them, I should say, have been corrupted. So is it the judiciary there that's doing the work? So that is a double question. Yeah. So first of all, the judiciary is the point of light amidst the Trump induced darkness. And we can talk more about that, including many of the Trump appointed judges who have ruled hard against Donald Trump. But, you know, to go back to the vindictive prosecution piece, you know, I'm sure the viewers know that the courts didn't even get to the motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution. They didn't even get to that far in the litigation. Why? Because Lindsay Halligan, who was no more U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia than was Bugs Bunny, left into the grand jury, having no lawful authority to set foot in the grand jury, twisted arms, I infer, because she walked out with indictments that no subsequent prosecutor has been able to get. And what happened? Well, the judge ruled that she was not U.S. attorney. She was not lawfully authorized to obtain indictments and dismissed the indictments before they ever got to the vindictive prosecution motion to dismiss. You know, Lindsay Halligan may have been one heck of a beauty pageant contestant, but somebody should have told her, you know, there's no swimsuit competition in the grand jury, Lindsay. Well, you don't know how she got the job, Glenn. Let's not judge. But can I ask about your career? Because I'm fascinated by the many years you spent as a federal prosecutor and earlier as a judge advocate general. And what drew you to public service? I'm curious, how did your experience in the military justice system shape your understanding of accountability, chain of command, the idea that no one, even powerful people, are above the law? In the military justice system, Glenn, how seriously is independence from political pressure taken? Interesting. Great question. Thank you for asking that. You know, I was always drawn to public service, and it started in the military back in the 80s when I joined the Army as an Army JAG. My pop had served in the army. And I always knew I had an interest in both military service because kind of serving a cause bigger than myself and trying to help others. And, you know, I was a little bit naive and wide eyed and red, white and blue. And we're the good guys for all reasons. Unfortunately, our government, we're now the bad guys, at least the leadership of the executive branch these days. But, you know, in the military, we didn't call it political pressure. We called it command influence. What does that mean? It means if the commanding general of the military unit or post or installation where I was a prosecutor had, I was going to use an indelicate term, had a bone to pick with a particular soldier because he or she committed some crime. It made the military look bad. It made the division look bad. The commander couldn't be in a position to say, I want that person. I want that soldier prosecuted. That was akin to a president saying, I want somebody prosecuted. That's not the way systems of justice, whether military or civilian, are supposed to work. So we had lots of safeguards in place to guard against what we called command influence, because we wanted to make sure if we were going to court martial the soldier, and I court martialed many a soldier, that we were doing it fairly. We were doing it without fear or favor. We were only doing it based on the law and the facts. And then it would be tried to either a jury, which we called a panel or a judge. And it was a people may not know this and they may find it hard to believe it, in my experience, is an extraordinarily fair system of justice that really honors the rights of the defendant. We don't call them the defendant. We call them the accused in the military. And I was so well trained as an Army prosecutor and Army JAG that I think that experience and that foundation served me really well when I decided to leave military service and shift over to the Department of Justice. I wanted to ask you, also drawing on your career and this part of it in the Department of Justice, about Robert Mueller. And one of the huge differences, and of course you worked very closely with Robert Mueller and know him extremely well, worked for him, as I understand, for a number of years. One of the huge differences between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is it's very hard to imagine the kind of rigorous investigation into wrongdoing in the interference in the 2016 election. But also, of course, as part two of the Mueller report talks about, the obstruction of justice, at least 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Even the fathoming within Pam Bondi's department, that kind of investigation happening is kind of hard to imagine. You see the difference, I think, between the hollowing out of the Department of Justice now and the more robust Department of Justice then. But I still want to ask you a main question that I think is still on a lot of our listeners' minds, which is, you know, what happened with Robert Mueller? So many people, you know, there were T-shirts and just hope that there would be an indictment, that there would be justice served for the wrongdoing by Trump. you know, 10 instances of criminal obstruction that looked like enough for prosecution. And so many of us were hoping for that. So what was it in his mind? Of course, you know, he testified before Congress, but that didn't, I think, go as well as he might have hoped. I mean, what was in his mind? Why wasn't there an indictment? Was there a worry about the Department of Justice and immunity, a thought that really impeachment was the right way to handle this issue? And, you know, I'm asking you not just as a commentator now, but as somebody, of course, who knows the person at the center of that moment so intimately well. Yeah, so I stand on Bob Mueller's shoulders. He was my chief of homicide. In many respects, I think it's fair to say I was kind of his right hand guy for many reasons. In the office, he not only taught me how to handle homicide cases, but he taught me how to run the homicide section because he was chief. But a couple of years after he left, I became chief of homicide. So responsible for supervising and overseeing all murder cases in Washington, D.C. So I think there are a couple of things involved in how the Mueller investigation and the Mueller report played out and ended up playing out poorly, in my opinion. But first, I want to start with I think Bob Mueller was such an old school guy. I mean, he was a war hero dragging injured soldiers out of enemy fire. I mean, he was the best and i've said this before the single best supervisor i ever had the honor of serving under i think he may have still been living in 1974 where he believed and he never talked about this with me but he believed that he if he delivered volumes one and two to congress the republicans in congress would do precisely what the republicans in congress did in 1974 they would have looked at it when the tapes were released in the Watergate era, they would have marched on the Oval Office, they would have said, Mr. President, you're done, your own party will impeach you and remove you. And I think he was living in that time when he believed there was still honor in Congress and in the Republican Party. And he was a Republican, right? That was a miscalculation. I don't think any of us knew that the Republican Party would walk away from not only their own constituents, but American democracy the way they have. I don't think we could have even envisioned that back then. I think that's part of what Bob Mueller was thinking. But here's the second thing. Because DOJ has an Office of Legal Counsel memo, with which I disagree, that says you can't prosecute a sitting criminal president. I can't think of anything better than prosecuting a sitting Thank you. Rather than let a criminal president run roughshod over the American people for four years. But that's just me. So because he could not be prosecuted as of the time Bob Mueller delivered his report to Congress, the next logical step is he gets prosecuted the minute he leaves office. Yes. And that couldn't have fathomed. Exactly. Job to do. And he didn't do it. I would have walked me. I would have walked into the federal judges chambers on day one and I would have sought, you know, arrest warrants or I would have already had indictments in hand for Donald Trump for the crimes he had committed. And I would have doubled down for the January six crimes we saw him commit with our own damn eyes. And he would have been held accountable criminally on both of those fronts. That's what should have happened if we wanted to deter tomorrow's dictator. But we didn't. So look at what we've got. Corey, this is why I'm going to run for president, just to make Glenn Kirshner my attorney general. I'm sorry, but can I just can I defend Robert Mueller for one second here? It's not popular, I know. And I'll always say, you know, Mueller's team hired a money laundering guy and then they didn't follow that that that lead. And if they had gone deep on Donald Trump's history and money laundering, I think a lot would be different right now. But I do want to say in Mueller's defense, he handed congressional Democrats 10 gift wrapped counts of obstruction of justice that no one's ever bothered on the Republican side to try to refute because they're irrefutable. There's 10 instances that Mueller gave Congress of Trump breaking the law, obstructing justice. And when the Democrats decided to impeach him over cheating by blackmailing Zelensky, what was it, two charges? They could have made it 12, but it was the Democrats, once they had the majority, who chose to leave Robert Mueller's gift and never use it. So as much as it's in vogue to say he didn't do what he was sent to do, the Democrats didn't do what he gave them the fuel to do. Yeah it was both a sort of hope and bipartisanship of a kind actually that the framers believed in too And that as you said Glenn that we saw during Watergate that if a president committed crimes that people would rise above party and they would you know dig in And not only did we not see that but as John says on the so much of the report really outlining the crimes, and my memory of part two of the Mueller report is that, but for those DOJ memos that you mentioned, talking about non-indictability of a sitting president, there would have been an indictment. In other words, yes, there was enough to indict. And yet even the Democrats, that's such a good point, did not dig in there. I take it, Glenn, I mean, just as a follow-up that you blame Merrick Garland, that all of this still did tee up because Garland did have the hindsight of seeing the failure of impeachment. And there hadn't yet been a case saying that there was immunity for a former president. And arguably some of that immunity might have been gotten around too. So is that right? I mean, do you think that Garland really is to blame here for having seen Mueller's, you know, well-intentioned way of doing things not work out? Or do you have a different way of seeing it? Yeah, no, I think he should have pursued the 10 obstruction counts. I think he should have pursued the attack against American democracy that Donald Trump launched in the harsh light of day. Go to the Capitol, fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore stop the certification stop the steal i love that he used the word steal because he knew the election wasn't stolen and that provides criminal intent um so i mean this it was a lay down winner in in this old prosecutor's opinion but then he waited until the senate finally had to put together a select committee to investigate the attack on the capitol on january 6th my friend tim heafy the chief investigative counsel had to put together what was essentially a rico investigation you know as a as a congressional inquiry and then presented to the american people before merrick garland said right wait a minute i guess we need to look into those crimes too that is that is the exact opposite of how prosecutors typically do business we don't want congressional committees touching a damn thing until we can first investigate those crimes And yet Merrick Garland. And again, I don't think Merrick Garland is a bad guy. I think, you know, he was well intentioned, you know, straight to the road to hell. Right. And I think his main focus, misguided though it may have been, was in enhancing, rebuilding and enhancing the reputation of the Department of Justice after what Bill Barr and Donald Trump did to it the first time around. And I would say, Merrick, look at where that's gotten us. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in the case of in the case of Mueller, you know, we have this way of thinking back into the way he was seeing it. We had the example of Watergate. But after we saw that failed, waiting for Congress to take the lead. I mean, I guess, too, by the time the January 6th report came out, it was there was really no choice. There was so much pressure. The evidence of a crime was so strong. And as you say, the American people had seen it. But it looks like the timeline was just too, well, it was, we know, too late. I think, too, it is an important point, Glenn, that I don't want to lose this, that although there was a real debate, and in fact, I think you and I and John talked about this when you were first on, about whether or not sitting presidents could be indicted. It was so out of left field when Trump versus the United States came down that they agreed that former president, you know, yes, when it comes to their official duties, but still former were immune. I mean, just one of the worst decisions, not just of the Roberts court, but of American history. And as you say, just to emphasize it, you know, the framers had a system that said, OK, you know, maybe impeachment first, but after removal, of course, indictment. I mean, I think one of the things that gets lost in the presidential immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, which couldn't have a more appropriate caption, Trump versus the United States. Isn't that what we've been living through? Yes. And but what people, I think, tend to forget or overlook is the Supreme Court. Yes, they, you know, ruled contrary to the express terms of the Constitution, like, yes, take care clause to faithfully execute the laws of the nation. Kind of the opposite of you can violate all the laws of the nation and victimize the American people and never be prosecuted forever. So it's a laughably unconstitutional decision. As Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar said, they ruled that the Constitution is unconstitutional. And you can't do that. But here's the thing. When that opinion came down, it announced that there were three categories of conduct. And the core constitutional function, like directing the military, absolute immunity. But official governmental acts, official acts of a president, presumptive immunity. But prosecutors can rebut the presumption and you can go to trial. And then private acts like of a candidate trying to unlawfully retain the power of the presidency. No immunity for you. And where were we when Donald Trump won reelection? We were in the process of litigating that issue in front of Judge Tanya Chutkin. How the presidential immunity case applied to the four felony charges that remained in the indictment. She would have ruled. I predict no immunity for those four crimes. crimes. Let's go to trial. Where were we in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with the classified documents case? The government had appealed it. Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal would have been overturned. It would have been remanded to the trial court for a trial on the classified documents crimes. That's where we were. And guess what? We're still frozen in time right there. Those cases are not dead. I'm not saying they're necessarily going to be successfully re-brought, but if we care about keeping our republic, they have to be. Yes, if Trump lives, there is a question about whether or not he can still be prosecuted. And on my view, and it sounds like yours too, Glenn, trying to subvert an election far from an official duty. Correct. The definition of acting in your private rather than in the public interest. And generally, the category of a crime that is also an official duty is a hard concept to get around. It's one of the problems with the decision. But it's certainly a narrow category. And I would think that the things Trump is accused of And two, we had Senator Whitehouse and spoke with him about possible legislation short of an amendment that might so narrow the meaning of what an official duty is that these crimes might still be prosecuted. So, yeah, I mean, we're always looking for hope. And that's really a great one to offer some. Glenn, it's such an honor to have you join us again. I just want to ask you one question in parting. And thank you for being so generous with your time and wisdom. We've seen waves of resignations by prosecutors and DOJ officials. And I know it takes a lot emotionally and professionally to to walk away from a career you believed in and gave years to. For those who are still inside the DOJ, what forms of resistance are even possible now, if any? Yeah, it's a great question, John. And the way to resist from the inside is to continue to represent the American people in every case assignment you're given and, you know, remain loyal to your oath. and that is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and most importantly these days, domestic. And do not do the bidding of Donald Trump or the dirty Trump administration. And if you suffer the fate of a wrongful termination, there is no shame in that. That's right. Keep doing the work of the American people. And, you know, if you feel the need to get out, you save yourself, you get out, but then you fight from the outside. And the most important way to fight from the outside, John. And I urge my colleagues who left DOJ to do this every day is speak out about what you saw on the inside. Amen. Because that will help bring this corrupt regime down. Boom. Oh, Mr. Kirshner, you always make me feel better about this whole Mishigas. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Glenn, for joining us. Thanks for having me, guys. Appreciate it. You've been a great return guest. And of course, what that will get you is another invitation to be a third-timer. We're really proud to give you our returning guest award, which Donald Trump will now demand you give him to prove he's done the show twice. So thank you, sir. Trophy drop off center is right there at the White House. Yeah, exactly right. Love it. What a pleasure. Thank you so much. We'll be right back in just a moment. This is the Oath in the Office. One million downloads. That's the listenership that Good News for Lefties has gotten since we started bringing you positive news stories for progressives every day of the week. These may be difficult times, and the headlines may seem bleak, but if you believe in justice, progress, and democracy, you are not alone. There are millions like you. And there is reason for hope in the news every single day. That's what we remind you on Good News for Lefties and America. Every day of the week, positive news stories for progressive listeners. Because no matter how disturbing the headlines might be, there's always hope that we can build on for a better tomorrow. One million downloads. And more coming. Good news for lefties and America. Listen on this platform at goodnewsforlefties.com or wherever podcasts are heard. Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fuglesang, Professor Brett Schneider. It's so good to be with you, and I want to thank Len Kirshner. I also want to point out that this week was Martin Luther King Jr.'s holiday, a day when we ignore most of his great activism on behalf of anti-militarism and for civil rights and for labor and focus on one line from one speech. But I wanted to ask you, while I have you here, and again, Donald Trump became the first president to almost not mention it for 40 years. Ever since Ronald Reagan was forced to sign it into law because there was a veto-proof majority, he did not want to do it. But ever since then, every president has marked Dr. King's holiday. I love his holiday. I can't believe it exists. I think it's more important than ever now that the civil rights pioneers are starting to die off and young people have no real tether to this period of our history. But I'm curious, you know, we quote him as a moral figure, as a religious figure, but you have written, especially in The Presidents of the People, about his evolution into a sophisticated constitutional thinker. Early on, he framed justice in very Christian natural law terms. And over time, he really came to see the Constitution itself as a moral document worth reclaiming. How did that transformation happen? Yeah, it was a privilege to spend a lot of time with King's original materials and to tell the story of King's constitutional thinking, because we often think of him as a civil rights leader, a political leader, and of course as a minister. But I think less understood is how much he did for the Constitution and what our podcast is about is citizens reclaiming the Constitution. And what I talk about in The Presidents and the People is the way that after the white nationalism of Woodrow Wilson and the legacy of segregation throughout the country, including in the federal government, that he played an instrumental role in recovering a very different, to my mind, actually closer to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause. But that was slow in the making. He was originally really a theologian. I've talked about actually my wife's grandfather, who he collaborated with on Christian ethics, and that was his background. He was writing really about theology. and he gets a letter after a debate in about 1960 from a student actually who's in his 20s named Hereford and I have the actual correspondence between them that says look in some ways what you're saying is too intellectual and it doesn't speak a common language and he's urging him to find a common language and what King writes and I have the the written correspondence in his own hand is anti-tyranny and this prompt from the student this you know it's not like the student He tells them what to say, but he says what he wants to see, which is this common vocabulary rooted in the Constitution. He returns to the idea that in the same way that the Declaration of Independence was a resistance to British tyranny from the outside, that what is segregation but a tyranny? And he starts using the language of the Constitution, so much so that in his last speech, he talks about the idea, somewhere I read about the right to protest, somewhere I read about the freedom of speech. this amazing speech right before his death as a protest from sanitation workers that he's aiding a union strike. And, you know, that to me really speaks to the idea of reclaiming the Constitution and that the Constitution isn't just what the courts say. It's a common vocabulary that all of us can reclaim for ourself. And that's really what I love about doing this podcast, John, that, yes, the Supreme Court, as you heard Glenn Kirshner say, says that a president is immune from crimes, the opposite of what the Constitution actually says. Or in the Federal Trade Commission case, that they might uphold the right of a president to hire and fire even for political reasons, fire for political reasons. That doesn't mean that that's really the meaning of the Constitution. And if we want to find heroes, there is no better hero of reclaiming the Constitution as an anti-tyranny principle, resistance to segregation and white nationalism than Martin Luther King Jr. So there's so much to celebrate, but that's in particular what I'm focused on. And I think what's directly relevant to the moment. I agree. His whole dealings with LBJ, and you document this so beautifully in The Presidents and the People. I mean, there really is a shift. He went from saying segregation is morally sinful to saying it's unconstitutional. I mean, I guess being arrested and going to jail that many times would turn you into a bit of a strategist. And it's amazing to watch his evolution as he learns about power and law and leverage. It was some side of him that, God, I wish I could have my dad read this chapter. It's great. What do you think he would say? I'll say too, John, that for your book, which has had now a real cultural impact, that it's such resonance between the way that he does things, because he does talk about Christianity, of course, and about the Bible. He never abandons that, and natural law, but he's always doing it hand in hand with the Constitution. If you think of what we're up to here, that is what we're up to. We're very much in his footsteps. So let me ask you my billion question. What do you think Dr. King would say today about politicians who, you know, my favorite subject, who invoke Christianity to undermine constitutional equality? Well, I think that he would certainly agree that that's a fake Christianity, because what he saw Christianity as is as a message of anti-tyranny, a message of equal protection, and the love in the Constitution as compatible, not with tyranny, but as the opposite. And yet, you know, what I love about him and, you know, so much of your book has spoken to non-believers and people who aren't in the tradition of Christianity. And that's what he was really trying to do with this constitutional language, to speak the language of Christianity. He was a minister after all, but also to broaden it out. And his method of his language of broadening it out was to talk about the 14th Amendment, about equal protection. and in that last speech in particular about the First Amendment, the right to protest. And, you know, was there a better exemplar of our constitutional tradition of reclaiming it? The only rival is Frederick Douglass, but I put them in the pantheon, certainly the two of them. I do think, Corey, and one of the things I've learned from doing this with you, if Dr. King were alive today, I think that he would see the Constitution as we do, both as fragile and as a tool still capable of saving democracy. That juggling act is always there. It is so perilous, and yet it is such a strong tool if we're willing to fight for it. And I want to thank you so much, Professor. We crammed a lot into the show today. All that and Glenn Kirshner, too. Everyone, please, please write to us, Corey. What do you want to tell the folks? And how can our listeners keep up with you and your good deeds, Corey, the other six days of the week? We're collecting questions. If you want to send them, corey.brettschneider at gmail.com. Of course, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe. If you're listening to us on Apple, leave us a review or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. We're very close to 500. You might be the 500th reviewer if you jump on it quick for Apple. And, you know, tell a friend, send it to somebody. We are growing so fast and there's so much interest in it. And that's due to the listeners, really, who are such a part of this community, this collective community of reclaiming our Constitution, as we just talked about. I do want to thank our listeners as well and remind everyone that I host the primetime programming on SiriusXM's Progress Channel every night, 9 to midnight on the East Coast, 6 to 9 on the West Coast if you don't have SiriusXM, we're the John Fuglesang Podcast, that's a free show every day, that's the highlights of last night's show, so you can hear Corey there one day a week as well, my book is called Separation of Church and Hate, a Same Person's Guide to Take It Back the Bible from Fundamentalist Fascists and Flock Fleecing Frauds we just went back on the New York Times bestseller list last week, Professor Brett Schneider, and to Amazon's Top Ten. So thank you to everybody out there who's done that. Thank you, Professor. And I can't wait till next week and to see how much insane malfeasance I stress out about and then you, Corey, can talk me off a ledge for. My therapist thanks you for all you're doing for me and my nervous system. I want to thank Wendy and Baywolf and everyone who puts the show together. And most of all, I want to thank you, the listeners, for joining us every week on The Oath and The Office. Thank you.