Brown Shooting Fallout: Lies on X — Epstein Redactions

Welcome to another episode of the Oath and the Office podcast. I'm John Fickle, saying happy Christmas and happy Hanukkah. Happy everything to all y'all. So great to have y'all with us and it's so great as always to welcome the star of our show. Professor Corey Brecht Schneider is a constitutional law scholar, a political philosopher, the author of the Oath and the office and the presidents and the people and he was kicked out of both KISS and the Wootang clan for being too hardcore. The professor focuses on what democracy requires of those in power and what happens when leaders actively violate those requirements. Corey, it's so good to see you. Happy holidays to you and your family. Thank you, John. Happy holidays to you and your family and of course to all the listeners and what an intro was an aspiring. I loved old school rap as a kid and still do. And so I've only all that was true. I mean, it's the best intro yet because the end part, you know, far from it. Well, like I always like to say, hyperbole is worse than Nazis. Okay. So we have a lot we have to cover on today's episode of special holiday mouthfees and edition between corporate power and the 60 minutes crisis. Of course, the Epstein files and inherent contempt, which I thought was just how my wife's family viewed me and we have to talk a bit about dishonesty and how used we've all become to disinformation because this was the week where we found out who was the perpetrator of the Brown University shooting. Of course, we lost Ella Cook, 19 years old, a sophomore from Mounting Brook, Alabama. She was the vice president of the Brown College Republicans and a musician, Muhammad Aziz Amersikov was 18. He was a freshman from Virginia. He was an Uzbek American and aspiring neurosurgeon. Their deaths were completely senseless and their deaths were manipulated as seems to be the norm now by actors looking to place blame and stereotype large groups of people, professor. Let's start with what we actually know with already say that the Brown University shooter was Claudio Nevis Vellente, Portuguese immigrant acting alone, later found dead by suicide. No one else was involved. And as you know, while you and your fellow faculty were grieving almost immediately, right-wing social media blamed a transgender student and framed the murder as ideological. And I'd like to begin, professor, by just first asking how you and your colleagues are and what does this reflex tell us about how disinformation is functioning as usual after mass violence in the Trump era? Because I don't think anyone was surprised that transgender students were blamed. I don't think anyone was surprised that that was a lie. Yeah, I think in some ways it wasn't surprising, but the whole tragedy, you know, when it happens to you and your community, it just hits in a different way. And we talked about this last week as the investigation was ongoing and part of what was happening. Then was really an immense fear on campus from students from faculty. And so there is some relief now that we know who did this. And we know that it was, you know, just a hard to comprehend, clearly very disturbed individual who had very little contact with the university ever. In fact, 2001 was the last time that he was involved with the university. He was a graduate student in physics. And he's the same person I should say to who murdered the MIT professor. What is it? He knew from Portugal, where he was from, Portuguese national. And I suppose they were rivals and one of the two thrived in physics. The MIT professor and the other ad of resentment took his life. And then the Brownsbury is very hard to comprehend. He returned to the building and I guess the room that he was often in, where he thought, I think he was murdering physics students. Now that, of course, is completely senseless. But they weren't physics students even. They were students in a review session in economics and in the hallway. So it is just an immense tragedy. There is some relief that we caught this person. The two students who were murdered, horrific violence, horrific senseless young deaths, as all my colleagues and us, the entire Brown community. We grieve for them and for their families and their friends. Many of my colleagues knew them and it's been an enormous tragedy. And then to go to your question in the midst of all of this, to watch the internet blame transgender student who had absolutely nothing to do with this, because they claim that they had the same body type as the person that was being looked for. But just jumping to conclusions as if there was some conclusive evidence about this. And then another right wing conspiracy that this was somehow an ideological attack, because the female student who was murdered was a member of the young Republicans. And neither of those are based in any fact. And yet the internet went crazy with them. So we were seeing the connection between the horrible storm of misinformation, of really anti-democratic politics, not anti-democratic party, but against democracy that we're seeing online, the misinformation with it and the kind of views that go with it, lack of reason, just turned into a weapon against the Brown community community I've been part of for 24 years. So it was just tragedy upon tragedy. And now there is a new victim, who's this transgender student who was targeted for absolutely no reason without any evidence. I know that slowing down and establishing facts before assigning blame is woke. But professor, this podcast, I guess if we have a theme, it's about something that's present in your work, democratic norms under pressure. I mean, how dangerous do you find it when entire communities say transgender people, say immigrants, say Muslims become default suspects every time violence occurs? Well, I mean, that's the unfortunate reality of the world in which we're in, that there is a narrative of who's to blame for all of our problems that's not based in facts. We talked last week about the real problem, which I think is gun regulation and a lack of gun regulation in the United States. We compared New Zealand and Australia and the massive progress that they made when it came to mass shootings and mass killings compared to the United States. That's a real issue. But instead because the conservatives, the Republican Party, the president don't want to do anything about that real issue, they've got to manufacture fake issues. So blaming transgender people with, again, zero evidence can't say that enough. Having non-citizens, permanent residents, green card holders, students from abroad, that's the playbook that we're watching unfold. And here's where the personal tragedy intersects with the tragedy of our politics. Yeah, Corey, I mean, let me ask you, is this less about truth and more about permission? Like just the permission structure to punish groups the right already hates and already likes the target? Yeah, they clearly have an agenda, which is the shutdown of immigration into the United States. The belief in this phrase, horrible phrase that I keep hearing of herdeed, American, referring essentially to white Americans who have been in this country for generations as the true Americans. Nothing could be further, I should say, from the American idea, which is essentially that America is based on principles of freedom, of commitment to equality. Because are the ideals of American democracy. And this is a nation based on ideas of freedom, that ideas of blood. And yet this idea of heritage Americans is trying to change that. And so any time that this can unleash itself with facts in the news, it doesn't matter how tangential they'll do it. And this anti-immigrant narrative that's being attached to this tragedy is probably inevitable, but horrific to see, especially when it's about your own community again. It's strange how our friends on the right always have to believe in what's that word again, supremacy to other roots, right? Christian supremacists, American supremacists, and Jesus' whole mission was about humility. It's a good thing they don't read the Jesus parts. But you know, Donald Trump's response was not targeted law enforcement. And this is why I really wanted to open with this story today, as opposed to sexier stuff, like Barry White's burning down, CBS News. But Donald Trump is turning to collective punishment, suspending the diversity visa lottery, imposing more immigration restrictions that will affect and hurt millions. So this is what I wanted to ask you about, because this is what the bad guys always do throughout history. Professor from a constitutional standpoint, how does collective punishment of entire groups fit into authoritarian history? Well, the American ideal is supposed to be that we don't blame individuals for the supposed characteristics of other individuals. And the biblical ideal too. And yet what we're seeing, I think, increasingly, is not only the stereotyping and grouping of people, but the desire to punish certain individuals as responsible for the eels of society. It is the worst example of prejudice and stereotyping coming together to fail to deal with our real problems. And I can't help but think about this documentary. There's a amazing thinker about the history of Nazi Germany named Professor Het. And I'm going to have him, we're going to have him on the podcast in the new year. And if you watch on Netflix, the documentary based largely on his work, Hitler and the Nazis, things don't start off with the Holocaust that comes later in the war. What starts off is this idea of collective punishment of the punishment of the Germans for the Reichstag fire, which by the way might have been set by Hitler himself. But the idea that you'll blame collectively an entire group for an individual action that the group, of course, can't be responsible for. Now we're not seeing the Holocaust or any of the horrors that we saw later in Germany, but what we are seeing are the foundations for that way of thinking, blaming groups, for instance, for the actions of individuals. This Portuguese professor was in a unique situation. He was clearly disturbed person. He had been a graduate student for just a few months, evidently a promising one who didn't work out for. That's not an example of somebody that you can then generalize into green card holders or permanent residents generally. And the idea that they're trying to do that and really to blame people, absolutely nothing to do with this tragedy at Brown is horrible. And yet that's what they're trying to do with new immigration restrictions. And historically collective punishment, I mean you said they've used it against Jews, they've used it against indigenous folks, they've used it against political dissidents, against enslaved Africans. We've seen it in our lifetimes, used against Muslims in many ugly ways in this country. I mean, Trump's logic seems to collapse under the slightest bit of scrutiny professor. Lee Harvey Oswald was American. Timothy McVey was American. No one said, hey, we should go after white veterans or go after the areas they come from. Selective punishment seems to be one of the clearest tells of radicalized authoritarianism. Is that fair to say? I think that's exactly right. And if you think of the opposite of collective punishment, it's the entitlement in our constitution, the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment to do process. That's a right of individuals to be accused of crimes, to face legal proceedings, to know what the charges are against them, to face courts of law. On an individual, not a collective basis, there is no consistent group punishment that's consistent with the due process clauses of our constitution. And yet increasingly, you're seeing the eroding of those values and favor of values of collective punishment. You don't have to look very far, and I know we'll talk about 60 minutes later, which is directly on point. But to the handling of the supposed animation of Venezuela, the handling of individuals who are often fleeing, by the way, the dictatorship in Venezuela, those people were denied due process by this administration under the claim that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act revokes due process. Even though the constitution says the opposite, that's what this administration is saying. That fits into the idea of group punishment, the punishment of an enemy nation, regardless of whether any individual and many of those who were shipped in particular to the Goulog and El Salvador that we're going to talk about, we're not guilty of any crime. And in fact, the more investigation, including the 60 minutes show shows that a huge percentage of those who were removed committed no by the crime or no crime at all. And let me point out study after a study after a study shows that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are far less likely to commit violent crime than native born Americans. I'm going to repeat that, Corey, so people can hear it in the back. Illegal immigrants and legal immigrants both commit crimes at lower rates than natural born American citizens, the reason fear of deportation, which kind of makes me think we could, you know, put some fear into the hearts of homegrown criminals. If we began shipping them off like Donald Trump does all over the place, but he doesn't want to do that to Americans. And we see authoritarian movements persist in pushing these narratives that directly contradict empirical reality, because it serves them politically. It's not helping the economy. I mean, Trump's own family immigrated from Europe, Professor. So let me just put a button on this by asking you. I mean, how central is racial hierarchy rather than law or safety to the way this administration is defining deserving immigrants versus dangerous immigrants? They really are trying to rewrite the idea of America based on an idea of freedom into one that looks like it's based in blood and heritage. Now, when you look at the actual United States, including many of the members of this administration, including JD Vance, you know, what are you talking about? Their families like my family don't fit some story that, you know, the 18th century is the origin of their families. Steven Miller certainly does not have anything like that story. His story of his family is much more like mine, as his uncle has reminded us in a kind of heroic way. And yet they keep having this fantasy that there's sort of this blood that goes back to the founding of America. Steve Bannon also his family doesn't fit that profile. And, you know, I guess they're doing it either out of some mix of fantasy or, of course, political expediency, because othering people making this tapping into the unfortunate narrative that there is in the United States. The United States has two realities. One is the aspirational one that I keep talking about. America is an idea of freedom. And the other is, of course, the deep history of racism and nativism that runs throughout the United States. And that that kind of awful counter narrative is one that they're tapping into. And that isn't what America is supposed to be, but it's what they're trying to turn it into. Well, let's take a very quick break because when we come back, I want to bring us to another moment where law and power and selective transparency collide. And that would be the Epstein files and everybody's favorite new words to learn for the Christmas season inherent contempt. We'll get to CBS as well, just a bit. We'll be right back. This is the Oath in the Office. Hey, it's Corey. If you're like me, you may need to take a break from the 24-hour news cycle to recharge and renew your mind, which is why I recommend listening to How Too with Mike Pesca, the longstanding advice show and an ambinominated, best personal growth podcast. Back for a new season with a new host, How Too with Mike Pesca, finds answers to your most pressing questions. I'm a fan of Mike and you might recognize him from being a recent guest on the Oath in the Office, or from his award-winning reporting, or from his role as host of the longest running daily news podcast, The Gist. Each episode of How Too follows the curiosity of a listener invited guest to tackle a real problem, with help from world-class experts who actually know what they're talking about. Think of it as ease-dropping on someone else's therapy session without the copay or awkward silence. You've got questions. They find the answers. Follow How Too with Mike Pesca on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and tell them, I sent you. Hey all, Glenn Kershner 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 far and end 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 Fugel saying, well, professor, you know what I can say about Jeffrey Epstein is I like it when dead rapists destroy the careers of living rapists. So I plan on enjoying every step of this once the files are finally released as was required by law last Friday. Congress voted to release the Epstein files and every single page of grand jury testimony, 119 pages was redacted. I mean, just stunning. Page after page it was I haven't seen that many blackouts since my three way with court de love and Liza Manelli. So in constitutional terms, Corey, we expected this and there's going to be a lot going back and forth. A lot of protest about it. I think that by continuing what could be the greatest cover up in our lifetimes in presidential history, it's just creating a festering wound in this white house that will continue to make it bleed all over the midterms. But in constitutional terms, I've wanted to ask you this since I tried to read the report. Corey, when does redaction stop being legitimate privacy protection and turn into obstruction? Where is the line? What a great series of questions, the stuff about Liza Manelli. I'm pretty sure we're the only constitutional law podcast. It has a lead in like that. I'm going to keep on pushing the limits of your tenure, sir. I'm just going to keep on seeing how far I can take you into danger. So thank you for that. So going to the redaction part of the question, you know, look, there is a purpose, of course, of redaction and they're not doing it. It's to protect the privacy of victims. And there was one victim that CNN has reported today who hasn't been identified until now. And the files are releasing her name, even though she's requested and had been given anonymity. So that's what redaction is supposed to be about. Now, redaction is supposed to protect the person who, by the way, the law, not by the way, that's the main point. There's a law that was passed demanding the release. The administration isn't doing this out of the kindness of their own heart. The whole purpose of it, the point of the legislation was to find out more about Epstein and his crimes, but equally important, maybe more important, is whether or not the president was complicit or involved in those crimes. That's the reason this legislation was passed. So the fact that they're redacting so much of the material that would implicate Trump, and they release some more today. And there is information, including a letter from Epstein talking about the president and his similar attraction to underage girls and potentially implicating him in the crimes that are associated with Epstein. That's the latest. But the idea that we'd be redacting, the Department of Justice is trying to walk a line here, which is to release as little as possible, but not find themselves in violation of the law. And that's where we are. Now, the good news, just to get to the headline here, is that there is legislation here that demanded this release. And so they can go to court. And in fact, the Charl Schumer leading the Senate, minority bringing in case and Thomas Massey and others in the House are suing in court to get the full files released in a way that is not hiding what actually happened. That's right. Then again, like Kilmar Brigha Garcia, Pam Bondi's DOJ in the White House had to be forced into doing this. It took a nine nothing supreme court last summer to force Pam Bondi to comply with the law. And now it took an active Congress passing a law. And Trump is still not complying. Pam Bondi is still not complying. And as the non-academic on the show who has no credibility to project, let me remind you at the very best case scenario, friends and neighbors, Donald Trump knew about the abuse of children for years and didn't pick up the phone to call the cops. Okay, that's best case. Best case magazines who are listening to this to get angry and get your heart rate up because that counts as cardio. Best case, Donald Trump knew and did nothing. But Corey, the files that mentioned the president were briefly posted, then quietly removed the same night from a rule of law perspective. How alarming is that sequence? Or should I say how comical? I can't decide whether it's bitterly hilarious or deeply scary? Well, you know, I think the million dollar question is what does the law say? And the law's purpose, as I said, was to demand release of the documents that potentially implicate the president. And what they are doing clearly is editing these files, redacting not with an interest of protecting victims, but with the interest of doing the opposite of what the law requires of protecting the president. You mentioned the idea of inherent contempt. One real question now is what are we going to do? We the people to try to demand that the law is followed and that the files are released. And Thomas Massie and others have talked about this inherent contempt power. I think that really is a red herring that the inherent contempt power, which goes back hasn't been used by Congress since the 1930s, talks about the idea that violating the will of Congress can be a crime. And there actually was at one point a jail in Congress that could be used for this purpose. I think they still have the jail, but it has a new certain idea. All of the sergeant of arms can lock them up if you want to. We've learned that many times. Yeah. But it hasn't happened since the 1930s and I don't think it will. But the good news is there is this legislation. And so going to court and getting court orders that demand the release. Now, of course, the administration could refuse to follow a court order as it did in the O'Brega Garcia case, but that would trigger not inherent contempt, but the kind of normal process of criminal and civil contempt that would happen in the courts. And that there is no kind of hard question about it's used all the time. So yes, Pam Bondy and refusing to release these documents, if she really goes to the point of refusing a court order to release them, might find herself in contempt. So now we're hearing really interesting bipartisan support, including you mentioned Thomas Massie for inherent contempt charges against a future disparate attorney general, Pam Bondy. Cory, can you please explain what inherent contempt is? I think we're going to need to learn a lot about this in the next few weeks. And why does this exist as sort of a constitutional backstop? Well, the origin story is that Congress really needs a way of protecting itself. And so if the branch is being attacked, and I think the idea too was that rather than relying on another branch, the legal process that should have its own powers to enforce say subpoenas to testify or defiance, perjury, for instance, at a congressional hearing. Anyway, the theory is, and again, it hasn't been used since the 1930s, that Congress has its own power inherent in Congress's power that's the inherent part to defend itself. But I just think as much as the media is covering this, Thomas Massie likes this idea, it does stand for a nice symbol of Congress trying to reassert itself. We're not going to return to the 1930s. We're not going to return to this kind of an agronistic power. But there are other ways to do it. And Congress's normal legislation, and just to lay this out even more, Congress passed a law, passed both houses, and the president signed it. The president signed the law demanding the release of the Epstein files with the thought that, of course, he will tell his attorney general to not really do it. But that's not how legislation works. If there's a law in the books, no one is above it. Everyone has to follow it. And that's why these court cases are the place to watch. I wouldn't watch this side show of inherent contempt. I think that's not, it's a red herring. It's not really going to work. But this legislation could work. These lawsuits could work. And I think actually will work. And that's why I'm optimistic. We'll eventually see these files unredacted. Well, Rokana says fines could reach up to $25,000 per day until there's compliance. What do you make of that? Is that, is that Congress in a last-ditch effort to prove they still have teeth? Or is that Congress actually reclaiming authority? I'm not seeing that again, the fines, I think all of this are an interesting way of thinking about it. But what's really going to do the work is when there's a court order from one of these two lawsuits that says release the files. And now the Department of Justice is going to hear from its lawyers, Pam Bondy, despite what she heard the last time, you can't defy a court even if you don't like the order. That's the way American law works. You're not above the district court. Now they are going to use a lot of rhetoric and have that says, well, courts can't tell the president what to do. But they see what they're facing in the case of Judge Bozberg and the Abrego Garcia case, which is potentially that some of them might go to prison. Now, are they going to be charged right now? That was a, we had to listen to a question about this. No, but it might be that they're charged after this administration. Or if you get a very aggressive judge, like Judge Bozberg, that he will insist on moving forward with an investigation. And so, you know, there's a danger in defying a court order. I don't think they're going to be willing to do it again, although they did do it in the case of Abrego Garcia, just to protect this president. I mean, the president is not in fact being investigated for child molestation. There is no ongoing investigation. This is just evidence in the trial of the dead guy that the president promised to release campaigned on releasing. And once achieving power has tried rather publicly to distance himself from and in the most clumsy and stupid of ways, trying to cover it up. I mean, the second batch had more information on Trump. It's all damning. And it just seems cori like the longer they go on with this, the more it's going to hurt them, even Bill Clinton's former press secretary is now demanding full disclosure. And the Clinton statement warned selective releases create insinuation without accountability. I got to say it feels like the 90s watching Bill Clinton finally get in front of a scandal with his name on it again. But I mean, can you explain why selective transparency is almost always more corrosive than just outright secrecy? Well, I think in this case, especially there was transparency of a specific kind that was demanded. And that's the demand that we release information about the president's lack there of or involvement with Epstein. That was a whole purpose of the law. So it's not just that they're being inconsistent in targeting Bill Clinton, which they are doing. You notice that a lot of the photos of him have been released, but not the photos of Trump. It's not just a question of inconsistency. It's that the target of the law was not Bill Clinton, and after all, hasn't been involved in politics hasn't been president in quite some time. The purpose of the law was the release to find out, you know, what was the president's involvement or lack thereof. So it's not just inconsistency. It's that they really are defying the purpose of the law. That's how I'd put it. Right on. Well, let's let's move it then to the story on everyone's lips as well. This fully vetted, legally cleared 60 minutes investigation into the brutal L-Salba or prison where people have been renditioned to was spiked. Not allegedly for political reasons, deeply transparently, obviously for political reasons. I mean, this is the legacy of Barry Weiss. This is what she promised. I mean, we used to watch 60 minutes to see the powerful held accountable, and now it seems like that tick, tick, tick is the sound of CBS counting down to its own funeral. With these fascists and shills and billionaires who confused journalism with obedience to Donald Trump, I mean, they didn't just spike the story, Corey. They spiked the credibility of CBS news. The legacy, they spiked Edward R. Murrow's grave. This, again, was approved by standards and practices, promoted on social media. The story was screened five times, but Barry Weiss, whose newsroom experience is right-wing op-eds, decided the story needed more context, like maybe a cameo from Stephen Miller. So, I mean, there's a lot to unpack here, and it's very depressing from a democratic theory standpoint. What happens when journalism begins deferring to government silence? Because the structure of this was really quite diabolical. The White House gave no comment, and so Barry Weiss's decree was, well, we can't do this without commentary from the White House. So essentially, the government is now allowed to censor and stop investigations. Yeah, I think, you know, what a horrible moment. I should say, too, that I had an opportunity to watch the bootleg version as many of our listeners have. It's available online. Canadian television did post it at some point or allow it to be viewed. It was on Canada. Canadian television, it turns out those people are able to record it and share it with us. Right. And somebody clearly leaked it from CBS. So I can say, the story is great. And important, it shows what was happening in this prison in El Salvador that you have prison guards bragging about the fact that they leave the lights on for 24 hours that there were stress positions used to essentially torture individuals that the isolation rooms are beyond cruel. They were able to get all this information partly by looking at footage film by independent podcasters and media figures and content makers partly through investigations that were conducted by a team out of Berkeley, California. And it verifies our worst fears and shows the details of what was going on there. Now, why did they spike it? Because they don't want us to know the truth, because Barry Weiss is clearly complicit in Trump's agenda. And they're unwilling to let us know the truth. Now, she's not going to say that. She's going to say something else. And what she's been saying is, oh, she wants a more balanced version. We'll see it eventually. I guess she wants Stephen Miller to be able to edit it so that it makes him look good. And, you know, that's not journalism. That's something else. And it is, of course, not censorship in the sense of putting people in prison in the way of the sedition I, but it is a form of corporate censorship that in some ways is more pernicious. Yeah. And by the way, I think I'd rather be married to Stephen Miller than be the person in charge of making him look good. I mean, whoo, I mean, you know, he's okay after he goes out at night to feed, but generally. So this is the rule now, right? If the White House refuses to comment, the story dies, which means the White House gets a kill switch over journalism. I don't know if you read the memo that Sharon Alfonci, the producer, wrote to the staff, but she warned us really well, written that if government refusal becomes a veto, then journalism is just stenography for the state. Would you say, Professor, that's an accurate description of the battle that's happening more broadly in American media right now? Stepping over the grave of the Stephen Colbert show to ask this question. Yeah, I think that it's a brilliant way to put it. And I will say it's a form of censorship that I find particularly difficult to deal with because, you know, if there was a law passed, the Sedition Act, or even in the case of Trump prosecuting his opponents, there's a legal process that we could clearly use to stop it. And the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech. And so if Congress were to do that, or the President were to do that, Congress is a stand in for government. That's what the First Amendment was meant to stop. The Sedition of the British King or British monarchs who put their opponents in prison. And although we went through a period of time, the Sedition Act in which that was done by John Adams, as you know, from the Presidents and the people, that was stopped, not in court, but by citizens over time refusing to accept that. Now, here's the problem. What if the censorship is coming through influence on corporate media, on CBS in this case? What's the legislation? What's the court process for stopping that? There isn't one. It isn't clear that we can use the legal process. In fact, I think it would be very difficult to do that. In fact, CBS, with the Turn on First Amendment lawyers, will say, well, we have the right to spike a story that we don't like. We have the right to endorse the President. We have the right to do what we like. And so it still is censorship. It still is dangerous for democracy without this information about the cruelty that's being done in this gulag, this prison, and Al Salvador, this deprival intentional depravation of due process. We can't know what's being done in our name. And yet, because it's being done in this way through pressuring and putting somebody in charge of CBS, who is sympathetic to the President's agenda, it's very hard to know how to stop it. I mean, this is CBS's parent company, Settle the lawsuit with Trump that was complete rubbish over 60 minutes having their own editing of a Kamala Harris interview. They eliminated DEI policies. Got Colbert fired, appointed the right wing on Budsman, installed Barry Weiss as editor in chief despite no newsroom experience. To me, this is what establishment control of media looks like. Not Jack Boots, not book burnings, just polite emails, spike stories. And let's get to what is really going on here, because it's what is at play with Colbert. Just hours after the story was killed paramount, magically sweeten their bid to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. Larry Ellison is personally guaranteeing 40 billion. So that's it, right? It's just journalism committing ritual suicide at the exact moment the company really needs Donald Trump's blessing for a merger so billionaires can get more billions. This is a tribute offering. Ellison is courting Trump support for a major corporate acquisition professor. When media decisions align with political interests of owners, how close are we to a soft authoritarian press system? I'm not going to say it's state-run media, but it seems to be state-run media via bribe. Well, in some ways, I think it's worse than state-run media because if you were getting punishment of media organizations who failed to comply with the administration, as I said, I know how to handle that. There's the first amendment right to freedom of speech. There's a related right to the freedom of press. When government is forcing the hand of media, that's not allowed. I can't do that. But now, what do you do when media is complicit? When there's an incentive system, and in particular, the mergers of end acquisitions incentive to go along with the administration is done, not because you're afraid of the stick, but because you want the carrot of the approval of deals, that's much harder. It's not censorship, any of the less. It's not any less authoritarian, although we might call it soft authoritarianism to just symbolize the idea that it's not doing in the most straightforward way. But in some ways, the less straightforward way is more dangerous. Let me say just an analogy. So you see that it's not just an immediate landscape. One of the real puzzles was why are so many of these law firms going along with Trump when it comes to his authoritarian agenda? Remember that moment where some of the firms essentially agreed not to take a stand against Trump, or even to provide pro bono services for his hour, some of the most noted firms. And we covered this when it happened. Well, it turns out a lot of those same firms, a lot of their businesses, through the administrative approval process of mergers and acquisitions. That's where the bottom line comes from. So, you know, this puzzle of why so many people, 60 minutes, many of these huge law firms, storied firms are going along with the authoritarian agenda. It's because they want the reward system that comes from from this administration. Northwestern, I'm hearing two universities made a deal with the Trump administration is going along again. So they're able to use incentives. Don't forget a few weeks ago, Brown rejected this so-called compact that would have given us advantages in grants. These are all their way of doing things that they've realized that using the power of the incentives of the federal government might be the quickest road to authoritarianism. And that word that I keep using self-coo, it can happen in a variety of ways. It can happen through the stealing of the power of the purse, through the shutdown of civil servants and firing of them. And it also can happen. You're seeing this here through the use of incentives and approval of mergers and what a frightening moment it is. I mean, in her memo, Sharon Alfonci referenced the Jeffrey Wigan scandal, which some may remember the whistleblower for the tobacco industry played by Russell Crowe in a Michael Man film The Instider, which I've been talking about. Yeah, because I love Al Pacino. Hello, I'm lone, bargaining of CBS lose. But it's a great film. It brought back from me why 60 minutes mattered in how 60 minutes earned their credibility. I mean, I'm convinced this is why John Dickerson is just being the anchor over there. Edward R. Murrow confronted McCarthy and Mike Wallace confronted Nixon. And today, CBS is confronting its own reporters. Corey, I'm curious, you know, we think about the great figures in journalism who stood up to power in the name of democracy. For you, who's doing that now? Who's that CBS is that 60 minutes is trying to do? I think, you know, unfortunately, Walter Cronkye or that moment in which Murrow stood up to the Red Scare to Joseph McCarthy. That might not be where we see the resistance coming from. And there's pressure certainly now on all the networks on CNN, which I appear on regularly, but the reality is they are also facing huge pressure. MS now, of course, has been spun off from NBC so far, so good. But, you know, there's a sense in which these very few outlets that are speaking out against Trump are vulnerable, especially the more powerful and wealthy they are. But I think one of the going back to the issue of disinformation and diffusion of information that as much as that's a danger of what, podcasts, of independent shows and independent media popping up, it also is a resource. And so one of the reasons why I wanted to start this show with you and I've been so glad to do it every week is because nobody owns this except for us. And we can say what we want. And that is a great privilege. We're not reporting to any corporate masters. And so we can tell the truth. And there are others out there like this podcast. We're not as big, of course, as MS now or Fox News, but we can tell the truth. And that's what I want to keep doing. And that's the entire reason for doing that. And if you look throughout history, there have been small media organizations, small newspapers that spoke out at different moments in time that made a difference. Frederick Douglass's paper or the North Star his two publications influenced to my mind abolition more and especially the pro constitution wing of abolition more than anyone else. And yet when I looked at his numbers in the 19th century, we're talking in the thousands. So you know, it is possible that independent media might play a role in holding this president to account. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's what we're doing. And that's what we do at Sirius Ex and Progress. And you know, and I think that my hope is that more Democrats in the party will realize that the future is with independent media and they'll be reaching a lot of people. That's no slam on corporate media. I just think a healthy diet. I mean, I watch Fox two. You try to consume as much as you can. I do take a lot of comfort professor from a theme that I discuss with you quite frequently that America's saving grace in the 21st century has been that our fascists have been so damn dumb. The stupid is always worse than the sinister. I call them dim shady, bush and shainty. And this guy as well, because think about how stupid they are by by actually getting together and trying to cover up this story. And by the way, it's a terrific segment about the atrocious abuses committed in our name at the cell Salvador in prison. The lawlessness and cruelty and evil of this administration and Corey so many more people are going to see it now because they tried to cover it up. This is the strife and effect. And now millions of people who wouldn't have even watched 60 minutes on Sunday night are looking to clip up and seeing it and getting an even greater education as to the unholy things this government has done that I just can't praise the producers of the actual segment enough. I think that's such a great point. You know, 60 minutes of course has a large audience, but it's habitual and it's limited. And so much of the modern audience YouTube more than my understanding is that if you combine all the television stations out there on cable, that basically YouTube is still bigger. And so it's a massive thing that's happening online. And this is starting to spread like wildfire online. And so maybe that's a good thing that they tried to spike it because it's getting Americans to say, hey, what are they trying to hide? And it's a theme that also fits with our other story. I mean, what is in these Epstein files that they are so intent to defy the law to keep us from seeing it? Well, it likely implicates the president. That's what we're going to find out about. So, you know, the more they use their authoritarian repression, the history as you well pointed out shows that Americans start to get suspicious of suppression of information. They want it. And as much as we might have an authoritarian moment in the in the success of the suppression of corporate media, the the co-bearer situation attempt to spike this story, the result in the long run might be a demand for information and a rebellion against this attempted coup. Correct. And I have to just close this out by saying I don't blame Barry Weiss. She was not hired to commit journalism. She was hired to censor journalism at the pleasure of men in power. She's just doing the job she was hired to do. Okay, let's take a very quick break back in just a moment with some more. I have some end of the year questions for you, Professor. This is The Oath in the Office. These are difficult times. And if you believe in justice, progress and democracy, the news you read and listen to can be pretty depressing. And that's why there's a new podcast called Good News for Lefties and America. Get this every day it features positive stories for progressive listeners. Because no matter how disturbing or horrific or soul-crushing the headlines might be, there's still always hope that we can build on for a better tomorrow. We've seen it happen before. Good news for Lefties and America. Listen on this platform at GoodNewsForLefties.com or wherever fine podcasts are heard. Welcome back one more time to The Oath and the Office podcast. I am John Fiegel sang Longer Professor Cory Brecht Snyder. And by the way, in the words of FBI director, Cash Patel, smash that like button bra. You know Cory, that we're in the same profession as Don, Bangeino and Cash Patel. Well, we are again, Dan Bangeino's back on our side of the Red Rover Dubai. Cory, somewhere in hell, Jay Edgar Hoover is wearing a dress and he's furious at what Cash Patel has done to his beloved bureau. But I do want to thank everyone for making our first year on the podcast so wonderful and special and so surprisingly popular Cory. What are we looking to top five again this week in political podcasts? More. We are in the Apple government section number three. And I'll say too, you know, if you haven't subscribed, certainly do it. And it's been our subscribers that are driving this amazing success and amazing growth really every month. We're seeing massive growth, people telling friends sending it to one or two people. That makes a huge difference. But just to clarify what we're doing, you know, when we have guests like amazing guests, like Senator White House, that's terrific. But the people still tune in John when it's just the two of us going in depth on these stories, taking them seriously, doing commentary that goes beyond service analysis. And so last week, we didn't have a guest. We don't have a guest this week. And last week, we were number three. Yeah, actually, I actually told everyone on serious XM, the Taylor Swift was going to join us. So that's on me. That's very thankful for the numbers by the way. That's going on. Thanks for the clicks. Thank you. But please, everyone, do subscribe and give us reviews and tell your friends and share our humble musings on your social media walls. Corey, I mean, it's been quite a ride. We're now still in the first year of come over Caligula's second term. From your perspective, what constitutional guardrails have definitely been breached and are in the rear view mirror? I do think there's a huge difference, unfortunately, between Trump 1.0 and this current Trump 2.0. And the difference is that I had this piece when the two of us met when Trump was running called Trump versus the Constitution. And what I thought would happen in the first term is he would propose a shutdown of Muslim immigration into the country that his proposed Muslim ban. And the Supreme Court would teach him a lesson each time and say, no, you can't do that. You can't do that. Now, in the first term, a lot of that did come to pass. The court stopped a lot of what he was trying to do. Lower courts certainly did, even if the Supreme Court eventually approved it. We had two impeachments that were really on a moment where, although he wasn't removed, he was impeached, voted majority impeachment charges in the House of Representatives twice in January 6th. And the attempted quid pro quo to get information on his opponent, Joe Biden, in return for giving benefits to the Ukrainian president, Zelinsky, who people had to heard about. But, you know, so that was working in many ways, the constitutional system in Trump 1.0. This is very different. It's much more scary. He's figured out how to hire and fire, put loyalists over people who care about the law. And that creates a precarious situation. And when you compound that with the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly handed over power to this person, including most dangerously in the immunity case, saying that he can't be prosecuted, well-president, or even as a former president for his official duties, with possibly some exceptions. That's a scary moment for democracy. So a lot of what I'm hearing from listeners, from friends, for instances, you know, this is a scary time, but it's, you know, there's a solidarity in going through it with the two of us and hearing the truth and also hearing about the hopefulness. But that's my bottom line. This has been a scary nine months. This attempted self-coup feels and is very different than what we saw in the first term. And the court is partly to blame. It's a, I hate to tell you, Professor, it's 11 months. Maybe you're having more fun than me, but it's going to be 11 months. We never forget. We inaugurated the racist on MLK day. I live for irony in this world. Corey, we talked about this on this pod. Authoritarianism doesn't succeed by itself. It requires enablers. Professor, to your view, who have been the most consequential enablers this year? Is it the courts, the corporations, the media, the Congress? Well, I certainly start with the Supreme Court of the United States. And while it's not the worst Supreme Court in history, not the worst chief justice, I'd say that's Justice Tani. Because I sent you an article, Largery, the Robert Chistikov, or Stavar, saying the opposite. And, you know, the Dred Scott decision denying all rights to all black Americans. I'm going to put that to the thing that helped to ignite the civil war. I'll put that worse. But this is frightening. You know, and they, I'll put them still as number one in the complicity question that handing over that power. And a close second is Congress. You know, the Congress should be fighting back. We should see the framers imagine that when it came to assaults on the Constitution, we wouldn't see the kind of partisanship that we're seeing. And yet we are far from there even being a possibility of impeachment. We want, even though they're so deserved, we won't see that until Congress switches parties and at least the House of Representatives that might happen. So Congress, and then, you know, the civil servants, the people who are supposed to be civil servants who have been replaced with the worst loyalists, the Pam Bondis, the Kashpitels, who care not about the obligation to law, but the loyalty to the president. I'll put them right in there too. You know, in some ways, it's more expected that they'd behave that way than the supposed independent two other branches. But they have really made their too dumb to know. I think they're too dumb to know they don't have immunity professors. I mean, Donald Trump doesn't have to worry about getting disbarred after he leaves this administration. But there's some other folks that I really can't wait to see them get their moment. I mean, we've seen that this is for the first time in our history, a president who is in no way constrained by law. I mean, he literally gets felony convictions and he still walks away. This is someone testing how much law can be ignored before it breaks and then stepping over the pieces. I do want to ask you where have you seen the most meaningful resistance? We've talked about a few people in media and politics, but I mean, in the legal world, in the institutional world, in the civic world, who are you looking to in 2026? Who are you expecting to give us all hope? Well, I think, you know, it's not clear who the leaders in the resistance will be, but there have been moments, certainly, in which I felt hardened at the resistance. And so when you think about the No Kings rally with that simple slogan, No Kings, the resistance to authoritarianism, this wannabe dictatorship, it sums up what we're facing. And we had millions of people in the streets throughout the United States. I went out. It's on our YouTube channel and speaking to people. I was inspired by that. Those who are fighting back in court really are making a difference. We've profiled some of our best episodes. I think I'm hearing from listeners. A lot of people know what the ACLU does. They're work, but now a lot more people know because they listen to Mike Zaymore. They heard about the details that they're going out and finding these cases. Somebody had to find a braggogarcia and defend him in court to see that this was something that needed a national spotlight to see in the Khalil case, Columbia University student who was facing deportation and still is for nothing more than his beliefs. The idea that you don't have a First Amendment right to free speech if you're not a citizen, even though it doesn't say that. There were litigant groups that that fought back. And of course, in the terrif case, which I got involved with recently, Neil Cateal, Paul Wilson and his team at Democracy Forward, working hand in hand with these groups was really, they're solid already in that too and doing the podcast, but also in seeing those we're doing the really difficult work of litigation trying to save our Constitution. Now, what's going to happen in that case? I'm not sure. As you know, I'm skeptical of the Supreme Court, but we've got to fight on all fronts. The citizen front, the legal front, and of course, the political front as the elections come up. And I was inspired by Sheldon White House, who spoke with us at length and might be the chair of the Judiciary Committee. If you haven't heard that, listeners, go back and listen to Sheldon White House. And you know, hear his power and his strength in recognizing that this president doesn't get to determine what this Constitution is. And we'll have more guests like that, legal journalists like Dahlia Lithwick, who every week are writing about this assault on democracy, on covering what's happening. They all inspire me. And I'll add not to mention this amazing segment by 60 minutes, which we did get to see, despite the fact that their corporate masters were trying to destroy it. Not only was Senator Sheldon White House brilliant on our show, that was, of course, professor the first time I've ever in my career done an Zoom interview from the front seat of a rental car, Carc and L.A. somewhere. We're in a suit. And trying to convince the United States Senator, I was really in a real room with my green screen background. So yeah, I apologize for all the honking and gang sounds and confused national guardsman telling me to move my vehicle. I'd be remiss to John if I didn't throw the question back to you because we are at the end of the year. We're celebrating an amazing first year together doing this podcast. I mean, who's inspired you? This year. I mean, that's a great question because there's, I don't even know where to begin. You know, it's not so much in famous names. There are real heroes out there. I mean, there are true resistors and most of them are people who aren't well known. And I mean, I've got my favorite people. I've got my, you know, activists and artists and comedians and political people that I like. I'll be cheering on Jasmine Crockett and James Tallahuretko and all these good people in Texas and no Kings protesters and, you know, I think it's going to be in all of the above movement, right? Cory Booker doing a 25 hour speech in the US Senate. Okay, maybe that didn't do anything, but that has to happen. We got to throw that up there. Gavin Newsom learning how to read the room and stops sucking up to fascists and start calling them out and clever original ways like that's going to do it. But I think I got to be honest. My biggest heroes right now are people who walk away from this. Christians who actually read the Jesus parts and say, my God, what have I been doing? It's going to be very hard for a lot of us to handle this. And I say this in my books, too. Right wing people growing beyond their programming is not to be met with smug liberal I told you so. So I think as more people decolonize their own minds as more mega folks think, okay, well, covering up child rape, that's my line or slaughtering innocent people in the water with no evidence, no due process, that's my line. It's hard to imagine, but I think every day, more and more folks, especially military and law enforcement are reaching their limit with this. I don't know how this thing sustains for a few years, but of all the many people in our desire, I just want to give some special gratitude towards the conservatives who walk away from this with all the negative energy and peer pressure that they're going to face because this isn't authoritarian cult of personality movement. And boy, oh boy, obedience has rewarded an independent thought is punished. So God bless everyone who, especially the young people who still love their parents, but can't pretend to go along with this nonsense anymore. I want to ask you, Corey, if future historians look back on this year, what do you think will determine whether they call this a turning point or the year we fail to stop the slide? Is it too soon to tell? I'm not an optimist, I'm a recovering cynic, but I don't see this ending well for the Trump movement. I think if Marjorie Taylor Greene is committing political Harry Carey out of pure self-interest, it's a pretty good bellweather, but I mean, what do you think? Is this the year that this thing began to end or is this the year that this thing really took root? I'm loving this conversation, John, and I just want to emphasize that you're great point two about finding those MAGA individuals who, whether it be through the Epstein files or some other story, are starting to realize that they were complicit in something extremely dangerous for the country, beginning to turn and not chastising them, but welcoming them into the movement for democracy. That's such a profound point. On the other question of where we are and hoping that there are more of these people, I take solace in history as you know, and I'm glad that I wrote this book and did this deep dive into history because I really do get a lot of reassurance from the pattern that I see in American history that we've seen these dangerous moments before knowing that during Adam shutdown of the opposition party, it felt like America wasn't going to recover. We talked about Dred Scott, President Buchanan, of course, urged the court to deny rights to all Black Americans. It couldn't have very hard to be optimistic in a moment like that, and the same is true with Woodrow Wilson and his re-segregation of the federal government, his nationalism mixed with white supremacy. Nixon, as he was reelected in 1972, if you were living in those moments, it looked frightening. And yet we recovered in each of them because citizens fought back. That's what I think is going to happen now. I think that is where we are that we're starting to see the tide turn because there's an awareness, and that's the first step in recovery. Yeah, Bush Cheney and the Iraq War and their re-election in 2004. I mean, it was exactly like this one. We knew that this president had lied to the people and that Americans had died. In Bush's case, it was a war in Trump's case, it was a plague. And yet folks went for the authoritarian, they knew we're lying to them. And it seemed like the end of the world at the time. It seemed like the end of America. And yet we persisted and things got better. And I'll point out that since we drove Bush and Cheney from office, we've gotten marriage equality. We got the first black president. We're not throwing people in jail for cannabis anymore. In so many ways, we are getting better. But Corey, I want to close it with this. I mean, your work and this show, we talk all the time about what democracy demands of office holders. With the new year on the horizon, let me ask you, what is democracy now demand of citizens? I think we've got to do more of what you and I were celebrating. More talking to your family, more insisting on facts. So much of the problem in the assault on democracy is misinformation, calling people out when they lie about what's happening without any evidence. And then most of all, you know, there is a practical thing that needs to be done, which is as we start to look to the midterms and this show will be a force, I think in the midterms, we're hosting people running for office, people who already hold office. We're going to have some amazing announcements about people from the judiciary at a very high level who are going to be speaking to us. And that's all for a purpose. You know, this isn't just a show that's meant to provide information. We want to do that. We're very careful with our fact checking. But we also are trying to see the self-coo, this attempted destruction of democracy for what it is. And the root to recovery and part of that is going to be the midterms. So that's a lot of what I'm looking to people to do to get involved as this election approaches. I want to express so much gratitude to you, Professor, and to all of the deeply sexually attractive listeners of this podcast. Wow, the brilliance of the people who subscribe to this show, who like us, who give us good reviews, who share it on their social media, is matched only by the deep sexiness and benevolent brilliance of Beirut and Wendy. And everyone who helps put this show together, it really has been a great pleasure for me. I feel like every week I get to be the kid cheating off the smart kids paper, thanks to you. And I hope you and your family have a wonderful holiday season, Professor. And a great holiday to you, John. And just to all our listeners, thank you so much for making this first year such a pleasure to do. We're facing a real crisis and real danger. And yet the solidarity that comes from doing this show every week is giving me a lot of optimism and hope. And I just want to say I'm not going to miss Nikki Manage, enjoy MAGA, Nikki, Nikki, they'll love you over there. Oh, it's going to work out so well for you. You have so much in common with those folks. And like Kid Rock, they really love your music. So so good on you. And thanks to everybody who listens to this show, who bought my book this year, the separation of church and hate, and helped drive it to the New York Times bestseller list. I'm so grateful to everyone who would take a chance on that book. And it's just very humbling to have had it be so successful. And I look forward to getting to work on the follow up in the new year. So thank you once again. And I wish a very happy holidays to everyone on behalf of Professor Gory Brecht. Now you're this is the Open the Office. Peace.