ICE Kills Renee Good: Can Minnesota Charge? + Trump’s White-Grievance Politics

Welcome to another episode of The Oath and the Office featuring Professor Corey Bretschneider. I am John Fugelsang, Professor Bretschneider's evil henchman, and I am so honored to welcome the star of our show. You know him and love him from the Poli Sci Department at Brown University. Perhaps you were lucky enough to buy a copy of The Oath and the Office, a guide to the Constitution for future presidents. Professor Corey Bretschneider, it's been quite a week. It's great to see you. Thanks, John. I mean, wow, just when you think maybe we've got one story, which is the fact that the president is engaged in an imperial colonial quest to take over a Latin American country. That would be the story. You know, things just shift so continually. And unfortunately, there is a theme of this self-coup, the takeover by the president of the other branches that both has to do with the war powers abroad and then also domestically the violation of civil liberties. So we've got a huge amount to talk about this week. I think you're talking about the ancient history of America's illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Venezuela to loot them for their natural resources. And oil companies are terrified of having Iraq all over again. So no one wants to invest after Trump bought it and broke it for the rest of us, but that's eight days ago, Corey. That's really old history. When we last taped an episode, we had no idea that events in Minneapolis would draw the attention of the world away from the attention to Venezuela. And can I just say, if you're a young person who feels like you missed out on some of the authoritarian leaders of America's recent past, in one week, Corey, we got war for oil and Kent State. Of course, the murder by an ICE agent of Renee Nicole Good. We know that ICE has a bigger budget than the militaries of most countries on earth, and yet, Professor, they're also petrified of unarmed women sitting in their cars with the windows down. Now, there's a lot to unpack about this, and we'll be talking about it for a very long time, and there's going to be repercussions for this story for many, many years to come, but I just want to begin by saying to you, Professor, the amount of lies that Donald Trump and Christy Noem and J.D. Vance have already told about the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good. Before any investigation happens, the amount of demonstrable falsehoods they've put forth guarantees that this tragedy is going to be recorded by historians as a government cover-up of the murder of a U.S. citizen. And I just wanted to ask you, how has your response been, Professor, for the past week watching these sad events unfold? Well, just terrific. Of course, I've seen the video and the multiple angles. And what looks to me like certainly at least some of the shots were fired from the side of the car. The response from police to asking, you know, pointing out that this was in no way a skilled stop or interrogation. The fact that he was in front of the car at all. That's one of the first things that evidently police learn is not to step in the path of the vehicle. and then the fact that she was you know her last words seemed to have been to say to him that you know words of compassion and she wasn't angry with him uh and that you know clearly she was trying to drive away from the situation and there's reports of course that she was given multiple instructions and although she was told to to stop and get out she was also told to to leave and so you know in that moment it's clear certainly that she wasn't trying to to my mind to to murder him or run him over and experts have verified this wasn't any kind of ramming. But to go to your point, the fact that in the midst of all this horror, and there's a lot to be said about it, that the president of the United States and Kristi Noem just attacked this protester. That, you know, Kristi Noem talking about her in the first seconds as a domestic terrorist without any evidence. And what I'd add to that is not only will it go down in history, but one of the topics that we've talked about, but I think we need to talk about more, is the idea of fascism. And fascism isn't just an ideology or a set of ideas. It's a set of tactics that are really against reason, against truth, and all about demonizing the opposition. So when you see that instinctual reaction from the president, from Kristi Noem, to attacking their enemy, that is the tactic of fascism. That's part of what's going on and why, if you try to view it through the lens of democracy, of reasons, of truth, none of it makes any sense because they are just looking at politics in a completely foreign way. And yes, it is a fascistic set of techniques that they're using. You know, you are so right, Professor. The president took the truth social right away to talk about the ICE officer who was viciously run over. And he wasn't. He was jogging back and forth like he had just finished a CrossFit workout. This guy was fine. The president lied and said he was in the hospital. The president said that the deceased was an agitator, probably a paid agitator. She was not normal. And not normal means, I guess, you deserve a bullet to the face. Kristi Noem called her a terrorist, domestic terrorist, before any investigation. Of course, we know that ICE would not let medical personnel on hand treat this woman, and she was allowed to die in her vehicle. Kristi Noem declared the agent was blameless before there was any investigation whatsoever. And then J.D. Vance shows up to run for president and pretty much implies that she was funded by some shadow network and said that the agent was protected by something called absolute immunity. He was just doing his job. Corey, am I right that that sentence should terrify every American? Because if ICE agents have absolute immunity, doesn't that mean they can never be prosecuted for any crimes they commit on the job? Not excessive force, not murder. I mean, it's state violence with no consequence is what they're talking about. That's right. And, you know, let me just say it plain as day, although the vice president attended Yale Law School and evidently was given a degree from them, he is either completely misinformed about the state of immunity for ICE agents or outright lying. And I tend to think he's lying. And, you know, again, it's this tactic of I mean, especially what's so pernicious about this is from somebody with a law degree who's claiming to, you know, from this position of authority to tell us what the law is. And as somebody who knows better, you know, I am telling you in the most straight up way, that is simply false. And so he's either lying or he's really, you know, negligent in the lack of ability. ICE officers do not have absolute immunity, meaning, let me just say what that means because it's a phrase you hear a lot, meaning that they cannot be indicted for crimes. They don't have absolute criminal immunity. They do have some qualified immunity in civil cases, and there are some limits to the defenses and the kind of prosecutions that you can bring against them. But there is not, there's what's sometimes called qualified or some degree of immunity. But the idea that an ICE agent could go out on the street and just murder somebody, you know, say they're doing their job, that is false. And we'll talk about the ways to overcome the protections. But to skip to it, I certainly think local prosecutors have the ability, not only can, but should bring charges here after an investigation if it shows what we think it does, which is that this is not just an unjustified killing, but a crime. I want to remind everyone to remember that back when J.D. Vance was confronted with his outright racist lie about Haitian immigrants eating dogs in Springfield, because J.D. Vance is a racist liar. His response was last year, it's totally fine to lie about something as long as it gets the media talking about it. So that's the philosophy. And that philosophy has a body count now. But Corey, what's interesting to me is when they released the agent's video footage, which the agent shot with his cell phone, holding it up until he had a gun in the other hand. And you can see that this man was humiliated by this woman, Ms. Good's partner. And then, of course, after he fires three shots into the head of this unarmed woman who was trying to drive away, if she wanted to run him over, she would have run him over. She was turning to the right to get away. Here's what's fascinating to me. You hear him on tape. Why they released this, Cory, I have no idea. Say effing bitch about the woman he just killed. The woman whose child he just made an orphan, you hear him say after he's humiliated by a woman, you can tell he's angry. He's not scared. He's acting out of rage and swearing an epithet at women, right? So we find out yesterday the Justice Department Civil Rights Office is refusing to investigate this killing. And to me, it's kind of a huge deal because that's the specialized unit responsible for investigating and prosecuting law enforcement misconduct, including excessive force. And wouldn't saying effing bitch after murdering a woman, kind of make it seem like it could have been a hate crime, could have been a bias incident. He wasn't scared for his life. He was mad at a lady and he expressed it. Exactly, John. And when you hear that, and I did hear that on the video, and you contrast it also with her basically telling him that, you know, she wasn't angry with him, the sort of act of forgiveness in the middle of protest and trying to make it clear that, you know, this has nothing to do with him as an individual. She's protesting ICE and the policies of the Trump administration and trying to protect her neighbors. And then he, with this really viciously unprofessional, is the most extreme understatement, with this vicious response showing his, well, bigotry, his misogyny, that really shows you what we're up against. And it isn't just about that one utterance. It's, of course, about the fact that ICE are horribly untrained, that in the massive buildup of this organization and the desperation to create a military force for Donald Trump's will. That's it. You know, the idea that there's professional training, the kind of restraint, crowd control, any of the things that a normal police force would do, you're not getting from these people. These are, you know, they're not police in the sense of, you know, the highly trained individuals that exist on many police forces. Now, not to say that police forces don't have their own problems, but not like this. And, you know, there were reports, for instance, that ICE agents have been even failing the minimal licensing, or not licensing, but minimal qualification tasks that were usually required because they're just trying to staff up. And that's what you're seeing here. You know, this particular agent was on the force in a longer way. But, you know, it's as if, and I'd love to see research of documenting this, but my sense is that, you know, many of the people who might have gravitated towards the Proud Boys, as there are massive recruitments going on for ICE, that this is attractive for white supremacists, for misogynists, because you're seeing enacted this kind of bigotry and, you know, violence. And who's going to be attracted to that? It's people who really don't have democratic ideas in their heart. And, you know, that's why to continue with my theme, you know, one of the, there was a real argument about whether or not Donald Trump was a fascist. I believed his ideology, his statements, his anti, not just constitutional, but antipathy to the rule of law made him one from the get-go from when we met in 2016. I wrote my piece, Trump versus the Constitution. But one of the big counter arguments to people like me was, well, you know, where are the stormtroopers? Where are the troops on the ground, you know, using violence domestically? And now we have an answer to that. You know, if it wasn't clear in Trump 1.0, it's clear now, and it's ICE, and to some of the recent PP, too. I mean, I've always thought his movement was fascist, but you have to believe in something to be a fascist. He just believes in me, me, me, I want this, this, this, this, and this, that's mine, give it to me now, which I don't think qualifies him as fascist, but he makes a great hood ornament for a fascist car, if you know what I'm saying. And with all these officials, with Noam, with Vance, with Trump, their essential argument, Professor, since the death has been, it's been this. It's really tragic that she's dead, but she was also a terrorist, so it's really good she's dead. That is the line they're trying to walk, and it's not going to work. So Minnesota and Illinois have this week filed federal lawsuits challenging the administration's deployment of thousands of these ICE and DHS officers. They're alleging constitutional violations of state sovereignty, the 10th Amendment, unconstitutionally excessive force and political retaliation, which is actually quite fascinating. Illinois asked the judge to block Customs and Border Protection from conducting civil immigration enforcement on the state without congressional authorization. The Minnesota lawsuit asks a judge to block the feds from implementing the unprecedented surge in Minnesota. What do you think, Corey? What are the strongest constitutional foundations for these state lawsuits? We're looking for people to fight back. And in this case, it's state attorneys general before its judges or Democrats. Yeah. And, you know, we've been highlighting the role of states attorneys general since we began the podcast. and one of our very early guests, I urge people to go back and listen to him, was Raul Torres, the New Mexico attorney general. And what you're seeing in these lawsuits are exactly what, you know, if I had to pick one of the main ways that we can fight back, it's through putting pressure on our public officials to say that in our system, and this is what the lawsuits say, delving into what you referenced, the 10th Amendment, it's not that we have one national federal government. And there's a reason for that. The framers, thankfully, of the Constitution realized that consolidated power was dangerous specifically to civil liberties. And that if you just had an all-powerful federal government, and worse, an all-powerful president at the head of that federal government, they could just squash civil liberties at will. So among the protections, this is even before the Bill of Rights, in the structure of the Constitution is the idea of dual sovereignty, that there are some powers granted to the federal government. And this is what the 10th Amendment says in plain English. Those powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and to local government. And so what's going on here to break down these lawsuits is they're saying if ever there was an example of the use of the federal government to violate state sovereignty, it's states that are charged, one of the main powers they're charged with are the police powers, which includes the obligation to provide for the public safety. That's not the role of the federal government. And that is, you know, far from, by the way, the excuse that somehow they're coming in in the absence of public safety protections, or that they're engaged just in limited immigration removal of undocumented people. That's false. You know, they are creating chaos. They are undermining the public safety. So the 10th Amendment case here is so strong. And shout out to the framers, you know, many, many problems with many of them. But one thing they really got right was that worry about oppressive federal government that would use something like a federal force to come in and oppress local government. And the very, I can't emphasize this enough, it's actually the, if I had the big one foundational structure, dual sovereignty is it. And that's what these lawsuits are about. They're also about, by the way, the idea that when the federal government acts, it can't act in an arbitrary way. And yet that's exactly what's going on here. And, you know, it's beyond arbitrary when the president says, you know, he thought that he said this in a recent interview, that the victim here was, you know, acting in a disrespectful way. If that justifies anything that's going on. So, you know, that was a little bit of a wonky law professor kind of discussion. discussion, but if you want to know where your rights come from, the 10th Amendment is up there, maybe more important in many ways than the Bill of Rights. So these attorneys general are leading the way They doing exactly what needs to be done By the way it worked at least temporarily And that when we were talking about the military and the federal use of the military Part of the argument was about state sovereignty And you know those arguments prevailed in the end The federal government didn't have the ability to deploy troops at will, at least in the California case, for instance. And so, you know, I think that strategy is very powerful. The ability of states to defend themselves in this way in court is a real possibility here. So there's some hope. That does seem like the Supreme Court's weighing in. What about the federal supremacy clause doctrine? I mean, would that complicate a state's ability to bring any kind of civil charges against federal agents who are murdering people if they're acting under almighty federal authority? I don't think that will work. They will say that. And there is an idea that federal law reigns supreme over state law. But that's subject to a lot of caveats. We're going in to my first year constitutional law class, which, you know, I teach in law schools. I'm going to teach it at Brown next semester. It's a good time for it. But what the Supremacy Clause actually says when you break it down is, look, if there is a specific authorized constitutional federal law, then that does take precedence over some specific state law. But here's the question with the Tenth Amendment. We're at the foundational level. Are there laws that authorize ICE to come in and shut down protesters? No, of course not. It's lawless action. And so in the absence of any justified law like that or any justified power, which there is not a police power of the federal government, the state sovereignty idea, the 10th Amendment takes over. And so they'll try to say that there's authorization in law, that there's a supremacy clause. But I don't think that's going to work. My favorite take so far comes from Congressman Wesley Hunt of Texas, who you may have seen on Newsmax hearing his curiously evil opinions. This Congressman, Corey, he said that citizens have to obey ICE or risk death. I quote, the bottom line is this. When a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them, and then you get to keep your life. That's it. He explained authoritarianism, right? Freedom's optional. Survival's optional. But, Corey, obviously any party that thinks that survival is something the state grants you has no business calling itself an American. If just obey and you don't get killed with a law, we wouldn't need laws or trials or courts. But here's what gets me. And I want to ask you about this. This whole thing, as you know, happened about four blocks away from where a different law enforcement officer murdered private citizen George Floyd in the great city of Minneapolis. about four blocks away. And it's kind of the same exact playlist we saw already. I mean, defaming the murdered person, you know, and telling people don't believe the footage you actually saw with your own eyes. And again, different agency, same arrogance, same lie, smear the dead, blame the victim, daddy government knows best. But this is Minnesota, where we saw for the first time ever a chief of police testify against one of his own cops in the Derek Chauvin case. Minnesota put Derek Chauvin away, and you get the feeling Donald Trump wouldn't mind pardoning him, but he's not allowed to. So here's my question for all of this. I mean, under the current Supreme Court precedent, let's say that Pam Bondi says this guy has full immunity, whatever, blah, blah, blah. Could local prosecutors or a state attorney general like Keith Ellison still successfully bring charges against a federal agent, like an ICE officer who, you know, murdered people? I mean, what legal hurdles would exist in that case for a state charge? Yeah, I just say in the most blunt way, absolutely, that what follows from the sort of abstract discussion that we're having about the 10th Amendment is that local government is charged with enforcing laws like murder. And that means that even if somebody who, you know, is a federal officer engages in murder, it's not just the power and right of a local prosecutor to bring murder charges. They are obligated to do so. They are the people under the Constitution that are charged with protecting the public safety. Now, if the federal government wanted to intervene here and police their own, fine, but that's not what's happening. And part of the idea, by the way, of federal versus state authority is that there are checks and balances. The local government has the ability to check, in some instances, including this one, federal authority. And that means bringing charges. I have a colleague who teaches criminal law, John Pfaff, somebody who I know well, great colleague, and he has a piece in Slate that really goes through, this is a true expert in this kind of area. I recommend that to people, we'll put a link up to it. But what he's essentially saying is, yes, there are hurdles. And there are things, of course, the federal government and Trump and Bondi might try to do to get it out of the hands of local prosecutors. But in the end, it's common sense that murder is a local crime that can be prosecuted by a local prosecutor. And from what I understand, there is in Minnesota an investigation that's ongoing that might result in a criminal charge. It's so important to do it, not just for the principle of giving the victim justice here, but in deterring ICE, which seems to believe, and they're being encouraged, of course, by the vice president and the president, that they have some sort of 007 license to kill. And they don't. And so now how are they going to get that message? How are we going to undo from their brains the idea that they are these secret agents with masks on that can kill people? And certainly people like this congressman are just stoking that, what, as you said, not democratic, but almost like the quintessential authoritarian belief. We've got to have pushback. And now these lawsuits partly doing it, trying to get ICE out of there. But it also, I think, even if they succeed, we need to see this prosecution, assuming that the investigation reveals what common sense seems to suggest happened here. I think you're exactly right. Let me ask one more question about this, and then we'll get to the Fed being burned down. Minnesota's complaint, and here's my dumb question, Professor. Minnesota's whole complaint is about how the government surge was retaliatory. How significant is it constitutionally to frame it that way, to frame the federal enforcement as being just politically motivated rather than pursuing some neutral law enforcement objective? I mean, it seems like the right way to package this. Well, I think that is obviously what's going on, and it raises a number of issues. We haven't talked at all about the First Amendment. And when the Oregon protests broke out during Trump's first term, the military was deployed. One thing I wasn't seeing from a lot of analysts was there was a lot of discussion, for instance, about if he invoked the Insurrection Act, whether or not that might overcome the constitutional problems. By the way, you know, in the military case that we're dealing with now, that also is a question whether the Insurrection Act can be successfully invoked. And he hasn't done it yet, but he might. But even if they invoke the Insurrection Act, or no matter what the argument, including the arguments here, we still have a First Amendment. We have a right to free speech. We have a right to protest, despite what the president said that he was somehow, that the victim was being disrespectful. Ms. Good was being disrespectful by telling this officer, you know, kind words and at the same time protesting his actions. The First Amendment guarantees that right to protest. And if the idea, the basis of the policy is to shut down protests, it's not just arbitrary and capricious, which is a limit on government action, cannot have that characteristic. It's a shutdown of the First Amendment as well. So all of these arguments, you know, work together in constitutional law, the Tenth Amendment, the First Amendment. because our Constitution, thankfully, and this is why I'm a fan, was designed to protect the individual against an authoritarian state. And I love that this happened the day after January 6th while they're canonizing Ashley Babbitt. So the message we're getting is if you're taking part in a violent terrorist attack to overthrow our election at the U.S. Capitol and you're beating cops and a cop shoots you to protect others, that's murder. but not wanting to let a mass government thug into your car means you deserve to be murdered. Now, I have to ask you about what's going on with the thing. I just throw something in there, which is I saw Kristi Noem asked about that on CNN. Yeah. And her word salad response, I guess it's no surprise you got word salad. You know, she had no words. I mean, the argument is that those cops of January 6th should have just opened fire on all violent protesters or protesters they thought might be violent if they turned their wheels the wrong way. So anyway, let's bring it to Putin's wet dreams. Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve Chair, just did something unthinkable in Trump's administration. He told the truth. He put out this remarkable video, everyone needs to see, where he talked about how Trump has been pushing him to lower interest rates, to hide the effects of the tariffs, because Trump is losing the war on math. They've already tried to censor the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, so we don't know. You can't rely on any unemployment figures until three months later now, when those figures get revised. they're desperately trying to hide the reality of Trump's economy from the rest of us. And Jerome Powell said, I'm not going to lower interest rates because this guy's threatening me with criminal prosecution. It could trigger hyperinflation. It could destroy the economy. Corey, we've talked about this. Trump wants Powell gone. He doesn't seem to realize it's a board that votes on all these things, not just one guy. But he wants a new guy, and he wants the Fed to be an ATM for billionaires and a slot machine for dictators. We've discussed, Professor, the Federal Reserve is supposed to be insulated from political pressure, not explicitly in the Constitution. But why has judicial and institutional independence been treated as so important to American governance? It seems like the sort of thing we would take for granted our whole lives until it was finally threatened. Yeah, and I should say, you know, we've been talking since we launched the podcast about the fact that Trump has a multifaceted goal to go after the independence of the Fed. and we've seen his attacks on the Federal Trade Commission and its independence as sort of a precursor to this. But what I don't think any of us had on our bingo card when we started almost a year ago is the idea that there would be a prosecution here and that they would use the power to not just go after his enemies but to go after somebody who's just doing his job. So to take a step back to answer your question, the Federal Reserve is created by legislation that gives the chairperson of the Federal Reserve independence in a specific form. You can't fire that person for political reasons or for any reasons. They're not subject to for-cause firing. They don't serve at the pleasure of the president. They're protected unless they're doing a really bad job, unless they're fired for cause. So Trump, of course, as an authoritarian, sees that and can't stand it. I'm sure he's asking his lawyers all the time, let's just fire him. That's it. And they say, no, you can't do that. not just the Constitution upholds the structure, but the legislation that even creates the Fed, the reason it exists, it's embedded with an idea of institutional independence. And the reason for that is to protect our economy and to protect citizens. There are dual worries. There's a dual mandate of the Federal Reserve. It fights inflation on the one hand, and it also fights unemployment. That's its purpose. And Jerome Powell, in doing his job, is trying to balance those two things. One thing that he doesn't have on his agenda is making Donald Trump rich and making decisions that are going to juice the economy in a short-term way, as you said, that helps Trump and his billionaire friends. So when he gets this pressure, he says, you know, I'm independent. That's the way the law protects me. So what is Trump going to do? Rather than try to win in court, and by the way, the way things are cashing out is, although a lot of independent and agencies will disappear. The court has really indicated that when it comes to the Federal Reserve, it's going to protect it. It's not going to go that far. So he's got to find a way, another way. And here it is, the prosecution of the head. By the way, Wall Street and the oligarchs and probably most of the Republican Senate will defend it as well. I mean, man baby's just going too far here. And again, he keeps insulting Powell, calling him dumb. Trump hired him. Trump appointed Powell, Right. So you appoint the guy and now criminally investigating him. It's like firing your own doctor for diagnosing you correctly. But when when federal power is used like this to investigate a public official. And again, it's all BS. The alleged crime is the building renovation for the new building. For the like like like Jerome Powell is the Ocean's Eleven of drywall. You know, like, oh, it's the Home Depot conspiracy at the Fed. It's all a lie. But when the federal power is used to investigate, A public official, for acting on his economic judgment, not any criminal behavior, that's not legally defensible, right? That's a clear constitutional abuse. I mean, it's funny, you know, when you talk about the drywall, it's like it's so obvious that this is a political attack and a political investigation and attempted a political prosecution that the facts are like, what? You know, what is it that he's going after? Right. He's going after a supposed fraud of this Fed building. And I saw a kind of amazing exchange on camera between Jerome Powell and Trump where Trump was trying to accuse him of mismanagement and, you know, I guess eventually fraud. And Powell had the receipts. This guy is a careful, educated person who is ready with facts. That video is brilliant. Everyone should watch the video. That video of watching him just, you know, with their construction hats on, like, I'm watching this project. There's no fraud. And showing the details of what Trump claimed was fraud and why it wasn't. Now, you know, but Trump doesn't care, you know, and neither I should say does Pam Bondi in this horrific Justice Department. I mean, when it comes down to, you know, certainly disbarment of Pam Bondi, this is exhibit A. You can't go after political opponents for no reason. Now, they've done that, of course, in the James case and the Comey case. But, you know, here it seems like a different level because he's not a political opponent in the way that the others, you know, might be seen that way. He's just somebody doing his job. And here you go. He's going to be subject to a criminal probe. Yeah. I mean, Trump attacking Powell for being independent. It's literally like attacking the referee for not letting you win. That's what we're witnessing here. That's it. And it's so bad you got Bernanke and Greenspan and Yellen like the Fed chair Avengers are uniting against this. Not to mention Fed chairs around the world. Yeah. We talked about checks, you know, and we haven't really talked about the market as a check because Trump is trying to, you know, he sees the stock market as the way that he's graded. And so he's always trying to juice it. But here, you know, part of the point of the Fed is to ensure that citizens' welfare is protected in the sense of fighting unemployment and inflation. But markets also look to the independence of the Fed and kind of trust it. And so as he starts to meddle with it, the idea that Donald Trump is going to be in charge of the world's largest economy. All right. We have to take a break. This has been a very long first act. But don't worry, when we come back, wow, Donald Trump says the racist part out loud again. Corey, every time they take the mask off, there's a hood underneath. Turns out that Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were really, really hard on white people. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with the oath at the office. I'm John Fuglesang. Hey all, Glenn Kirshner here. So friends, I hope you'll join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. Do you care about ethics in government, criminal justice reform, a conflict-free federal judiciary? I thought so. On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need to reform our government and its institutions. and we talk about real, achievable reform. I hope you'll join us. Look for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts. Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fuglesang, along with Professor Corey Bretschneider. And Professor, this week Donald Trump said the quiet part so loud, it echoes back to 1957 According to the reality show performer who the president of the United States the civil rights movement you remember that modest attempt to stop lynching and segregation and legal humiliation The civil rights movement, Corey, was really hard on white people. It turns out the real victims of Jim Crow were the people doing Jim Crow. And Trump is saying that white people were very badly treated, which is incredible because, as you know, Professor, the Civil Rights Act didn't hurt white people. It just stopped them from treating other people like garbage. And to a racist, that feels like persecution, right? This is white supremacy in its most pathetic form. Once I couldn't discriminate anymore, I was discriminated against. And we saw this with marriage equality. We saw where they're saying, if you let gay taxpaying citizens marry who they love in a free country, it'll lead to the breakdown of the family system. Like, again, you getting what I've got means I lose something. To Trump, equality isn't justice. To Trump and people like him, equality is theft. Because when you're used to being handed everything, fairness feels like robbery. So let me ask some really dumb questions we shouldn't have to ask in this century. But how does constitutional equal protection under the 14th Amendment actually work in practice? They have this expression they use, reverse discrimination. The stupidest expression. Doesn't reverse discrimination mean be nice to people? I think that's what reverse discrimination means. I mean, it's discrimination, these idiots. But how does that square with the notion of reverse discrimination and these recent presidential remarks with the equal protection of the 14th? You know, I can't help but go wonky professor in the setup to this because it's so monumental. That's why I'm asking this wonky question. Please. I will say, too, you know, citing my mom, as I often do, there are no dumb questions. And this is definitely, I mean, if I had to single out one of the smartest, definitely not dumb question. That's the one that you're asking right here. I mean, it's one that all Americans have to ask. You know, the Constitution is obviously fundamentally important, and after the Civil War, if I had to pick two words that are the most important in the whole thing, it's equal protection. That idea enshrined in the 14th Amendment as a way of reversing not just slavery, but the subordination that came with it. Now, you know, that wasn't enough. We need legislation in the 20th century, and the civil rights movement resulted during the Johnson administration at the behest of not just Martin Luther King Jr., but generations who had fought throughout the 20th century to make that equal protection clause real in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. is as important, really, as the Constitution itself. And I'd add to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And what you have in Trump in this interview is just repudiation of all of those gains and the suggestion that really white supremacy is the thing that ought to govern America. What it does is it rips the Band-Aid off the debate that you're referencing. In polite constitutional circles, there has long been a debate about the meaning of equal protection and the meaning of discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Is it color conscious in the sense that it's fighting subordination the way I view it? Or as my conservative opponents often put it, is it color blind? And they cite Justice Harlan's dissent in the Plessy versus Ferguson case from the late, very late 19th century, which used this word color blind. Harlan, you know, this is a big debate, you know, use that phrase. That's not what he meant, but at least, you know, that's their argument, that the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act are colorblind, so they ban, for instance, affirmative action. And the Supreme Court has certainly been moving in that direction. But here's the thing about this interview. You know, long conservatives have been accused. You're saying colorblind, but really you're hiding a kind of white supremacy. Well, Trump just said, yeah, that's what I believe in. I don't believe in civil rights. He's not trying to give you an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. I don't think he knows what that, I'm sure he doesn't know what that is, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which maybe he's vaguely aware of. He just disregards them all and says, you know, really, it's about white rights. That's what we should be concerned with. And that's what this interview with The New York Times said. I was glad CNN didn't cut me off today, but I spoke to them about the Supreme Court. And that's what I said, that he really has come out as a white supremacist. So I'm hoping mainstream media, not just our independent podcast, is covering it that way, because that's the story, that this debate about the meaning of these clauses has just been ended by a president who embraces white supremacy. He doesn't like any of them. They cut me off the other day, by the way. They did? On the way, oh yeah, oh yeah, they do that. That happens sometimes. I've been watching you, John. There have been some great performances. You know what, I didn't do cable news for so long, and now I had a book, and I came back out of the crypt to start doing them again, and already. You don't get to have as much time with MAGA people as I do. But Corey, what is the... Do you debate on CNN sometimes? Scott? Scott Jennings, yes. He seems to reduce by several inches after any time he encounters you. Oh, man, the stuff I wish I could tell you. I will say that guy's always been very polite to me. I'm always very polite to him. He's running for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat. Every one of his beliefs is geared towards, will he get that power? That's his whole shtick. But let me bring it back to this rhetoric of Trump and the racism, because, Yeah, I mean, it's just, it's crazy. And we've heard idiots on the internet say this, and now idiots in the White House are saying it. I hate to ask such a dumb question. This is the dumbest question I will ever ask you. But I realized, I said this last night on the radio with you. What are the dangers, constitutionally, socially, morally, what are the dangers of framing civil rights laws as somehow punitive towards a majority group? This is what they do. Other people get equality, and it means we've had something take it from us. Why is that dangerous legally and socially? Well, again, it's a profound question, not a stupid one in the sense that what you're putting here, it feels unreal, I think, is what's happening. Because we've so long had a debate about how to interpret these laws, how to interpret this fundamental constitutional part of the Constitution. Which, by the way, the thing that really makes it democratic is its claim of explicit equality. Frederick Douglass had said, look, those ideas are in the preamble, which says we the people, not we the white people. But, you know, it needed to be made explicit. And it was. So for a long time, you know, I guess I'd call it polite or mainstream debate, including what I thought of as extreme right. Nobody challenged the fact that we need a 1964 Civil Rights Act. Actually, Rand Paul did once. And you never heard him mention it again. It was so outrageous. Well, yeah, but I'm not going to unpack that for days, but yeah. But he at least backed off because the norms were so strong in favor of the fact that we need these laws. And I don't want to poo-poo them either in the sense that even in the hands of conservatives like Justice Gorsuch, they were used, for instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect transgender rights in hiring in the Bostock case. So they have power. But the shift, the seismic shift that you're sensing is when the president of the United States comes out for white supremacy. That's really the opposite of trying to interpret the laws. It's trying to go back to and, well, I'll say where it goes from the presidents and the people in my book, Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. That's Woodrow Wilson, you know, Woodrow Wilson's idea of a white nationalist society, not just white supremacists, but white nationalists. That's really what Trump is in the tradition of. Well, Corey, let's shift now to the most important issue that affects all of our lives more than anything we've discussed, and that is transgender children playing sports. Clearly, this is where the nation's future lies, and the Supreme Court is going to be debating two appeals dealing with state bans on trans girls playing on women's teams. Now, it's a delicate balance to talk about this subject because we need to protect vulnerable, marginalized minorities. I'll also point out that transgender girls are the only group that take drugs to be physically weaker. But we have to balance the care for marginalized groups with respect for the integrity of girls' sports with the fact that this issue is what fascists use to smear the entire anti-fascist movement. Kamala Harris never talked in her entire campaign about transgender kids playing sports, and it's all they think she talked about. So every time we actually wade into the arena and preach compassion to a marginalized group within a marginalized group, we have to be very aware that this is ground zero for the disinformation campaign of the right. But the case is coming forward, and I think even the plaintiffs understand that this particular 6-3 Supreme Court with the dirty six conservatives is not exactly warm to transgender rights in a society based on equality, liberty, and freedom. One thing that's really interesting and why I'm not going to predict what's going to happen here because it's really unclear is that when it comes to transgender rights, you would think it's a 6-3 issue. But we have this one case, and this is what I was actually foreshadowing and alluding to before in our previous discussion. You have this one case that really perplexed people at the time. I was surprised by it. I teach it. It's not what you would think. And in the Bostock case, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the court, took a strong stand in saying the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its text. And for Gorsuch, you know, he's always looking for ways. I opposed his nomination, wrote a number of pieces when he was nominated in New York Times and elsewhere, talking about the fact that when it comes to the Constitution, he's going to try to strip gay rights out of the Constitution. Now, I still believe that. But one thing he has to do in response, because he says it's not written in, but he's got to show, too, his devotion to the text when things are written in. And one of the things that's unique about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, especially Title VI, which protects against discrimination in employment, as opposed to the Equal Protection Clause, is it explicitly protects against what the statute calls, what the law calls sex discrimination. Now, here's the surprising thing, John. What Gorsuch says in the Bostock case is, what is transgender discrimination? It is literally discrimination based on sex. And so he says, yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits job-based discrimination against transgender people. And in this case, maybe he'll say a similar thing. They did more recently in the case a few months ago, uphold a ban on transgender medical care for minors. So that cuts the other way. But there still is this case that I'm like, wow, Gorsuch, you know, has this, he's sort of the most unlikely hero of transgender rights. And actually, when I taught that case at Fordham Law School, but also when I teach it at Brown, a lot of transgender kids, activists in that area are like, wow, this is not what I thought. And yet they want to grab onto it. And, you know, he's making a common sense point. Is sex-based discrimination, discrimination apply? Is it extend to discrimination against transgender people? Is the protection against it also one against anti-trans discrimination? And the answer is, yeah. He says it plain as day. Alito, of course, doesn't like it, who is a complete hack, but at least, you know, he had enough integrity to see that. So, well, they say that here, too. You know, what's at issue is a different provision, Title IX, but also the Equal Protection Clause. And so he might come around. We'll see. That's the question. I guess it will have been argued by the time you're hearing this. This is where we should remind everyone that the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, the American Society of Pediatrics, all support gender affirming care for transgender kids. And they all acknowledge that gender dysphoria, which not all transgender people have, is a real thing. It's hard to guess which way this is going to go. the Idaho law that came out under Judge David Nye five years ago talked about a dearth of evidence in the record to show excluding trans women from women's sports supports sex equality, provides opportunities for women, increases access to college scholarships. But a Donald Trump judge blocked that a year later, saying it's unconstitutional. It seems that this will be the Supreme Court deciding, maybe if not once and for all, for the time being until a new challenge pops up. Yeah, I mean, and I, you know, in some ways, even this discussion should be encouraging because nobody on the court is saying, hey, we shouldn't have an equal protection clause, or we shouldn't have a 1964 Civil Rights Act, or let's disregard it. That's what Trump is essentially saying. They're saying, look, these are monumental pieces of legislation in the 1964 Act, or when it comes to Title IX, the equal protection clause. And they're trying to, you know, engage in a debate about how to interpret it. That's normal constitutional law. What scares me is that that's all taking place in the backdrop of the court allowing this full-on white supremacist assault on on civil rights and you have a president who in a sense proclaimed himself the white nationalist leader in the new york times the other day exactly all right we need to take another break we'll be back in just a moment there's much more to cover cory how do you feel about uh about stealing greenland huh they're they're i'm against boy we don't have the money for health care anymore, but we sure can bribe every person in Greenland to steal their resources. I think I'm a no on attacking Greenland. Oh, they seem to think they can buy it out from under them. We'll be back in just a moment. This is The Oath in the Office. Here's what you've been missing on the Stephanie Miller Happy Hour podcast. He said Iran's looking at freedom, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help, meaning bomb them. The White House confirmed Trump is weighing whether to bomb Iran. Caroline Levitt said he certainly doesn't want to see people being killed in the streets of Tehran. Streets in Minneapolis, fine. But unfortunately, that's something we're seeing right now. I mean, this is all... It's insane. Yeah, it is insane. He's going to bomb Iran because they're killing protesters. Right. Let that sink in. Well, you know, who do we get to bomb to stop what's going on in the United States. Right? No. This is the difference. He's terrified, all right? He's terrified of the United States having a color revolution. I have people who come on my Twitter feed and they go, you're that guy who's advocating a color revolution. Yes, a people power revolution where we all rise up and through our numbers. Look, we got to get some organizers from France or South Korea or something. Those guys know how to do it good, right? They will have a million people in the streets. But you know what? Now it's starting to move. But we shouldn't have to have a Boston massacre to have this occur. We bombed Venezuela, killed, I don't know, 80 civilians, kidnapped their president, and now the oil executives are like, no thanks, we don't want to steal the oil because it's not even, it's uninvestable. And now he's talking, he's saber rattling, of course, about Greenland every day. We've got Germany, for those of us that have read any history book, trying to help to protect the rest of the world against Americans. I mean, in World War III, we're going to be the bad guys. Subscribe to the Stephanie Miller Happy Hour podcast on Apple Podcasts, stephaniemiller.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fuglesang, along with Professor Corey Bretschneider. Let's talk about Greenland, known for reindeer, being cold, and not wanting to be invaded by the United States. Corey, this is, once again, resource extraction. This is the doctrine of discovery. This is what our indigenous friends tell us about all the time. It the oldest story in the book How did our X Y and Z get under their ground Somehow our oil is under Venezuela ground and our natural minerals is under the ground in Greenland So this has been going on for over a year, and our good friend Ted Lieu, the congressman, has publicly warned that ordering any military action without congressional authorization, like we just saw last week in Venezuela, would be illegal and unconstitutional. I guess that's why Trump's being impeached right now for Venezuela. But, Corey, from a constitutional standpoint, how clear are the limits on presidential authority to use military force without congressional authorization? Because it seems to be get away with whatever you can get away with. The Democrats aren't going to chase you down. Well, you know, that's what we talked about in depth last week. And I'll urge people, if you want to deep dive into all of this, to listen to our episode from last week on war powers. But the bottom line is that, yes, Congress is given the power to initiate war. and the president as commander-in-chief is, or declare war, and the president as commander-in-chief has the ability to carry it out. But the reality, as we talked about last week, is if Congress stays quiet, that authority is going to disappear. Courts aren't going to intervene. They're not going to stop a presidential attack on Greenland. So really what has to happen is that Congress needs to step up. It has to assert and clear its throat and reclaim that power. One way to do it is to say there is no authority to attack Greenland. And Congressman Liu, who's been on this podcast, if you didn't hear it, go back and listen to our discussion with him about this issue, about the war powers, about his bill to ban a first-strike use of nuclear weapons, which with this unhinged president is a very real worry, I think. But, you know, what he's saying is, first of all, there is no authority. He's among the group in Congress pushing, and they did have a procedural victory in the Senate, to get a vote on war powers. And the president, J.D. Vance, are, of course, lying and seem to be saying that, you know, Article 2 solves all of this, meaning the president has complete authority as commander in chief. The opposite of what, as we explained last week, the Constitution says. So this is movement, you know, in doing what we were calling for. And, you know, I feel great that somebody we've had an extensive conversation will have Congressman Liu back as taking a leadership role. The other thing that Congressman Liu said that was so important was if you engage in planning an attack that's illegal on Greenland, you are violating the law because this isn't a legal use of power. I thought that was an amazing thing to be saying. You know, I just saw some wacky video that said troops are allowed to decline illegal orders, Corey. I mean, everything comes back to Mark Kelly. And I think they attacked him for saying the truth. Yeah, exactly. But let me ask you this. In what situations in history have courts or Congress reigned in this kind of unauthorized military action? And how could that apply to hypothetical actions like stealing Greenland? Well, you know, on the courts, unfortunately, the answer is almost never. They really don't want to intervene in this area. They have this doctrine. They call it the political question doctrine when it's come up, with a couple of exceptions, one during Vietnam and one actually that a friend of mine who's a professor, constitutional law professor, was able to, for about 24 hours, stop the first Gulf War in the Kuwait case. So presidents don't want to go to Congress, but at least in the past, what they've done, And I think that case actually helped pressure Congress. At least what they've done in the past is that they've had votes. And even if they've authorized war, they've taken it upon themselves to engage. So even in the Spanish-American War, for instance, which was a colonial war of an explicit kind, you know, although it was horrific, that history, there was a recognition that the responsibility rested with Congress to have that debate. So I don't think here that any debate is going to result in an authorization of the use of force for Greenland. And unlike many of these cases where, yes, there was a debate, but force was authorized, I think what would happen is the opposite. And, you know, then at least the constitutional lines are clear. No, he has no ability to move forward. Is it even worth talking about how restrictions on military action in American law intersect with international law obligations and treaties? or is international law just woke at this point, Professor? You know, I would hope so, that they would both matter. And we talked about both last time. The Nuremberg trial set the precedent in one of the things that came out. You see it especially in the cross-examination of Goring. I recommend the film that's out, Nuremberg, where you see this reenacted with Russell Crowe. I really want to see it. In the role of Goring. But they were prosecuted for not just crimes against humanity related to the Holocaust and the horrors of the evil of the Holocaust, but for the violation and the setting of precedent that one nation cannot unprovoked attack another. And unfortunately, that norm is just disappearing. And the idea that, you know, we have the moral authority to criticize Putin about Ukraine and still engage in this Venezuela adventure and in the possible attack on Greenland that that's even being discussed. It's really just so cut into the idea of international law. I do think it still matters. I think it's important to talk about. But when we're talking about what we often are, like where's the hope come? That's not really where I'm finding the hope right now. I'm finding it more in the U.S. Congress, in the constitutional limits on the president's war power. Boy, I do hope that's the case. That's what I'm hoping for that as well. But I mean, look, we've discussed this. I think that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have a plot. My belief is that they hate J.D. Vance so much they want to see Mark Kelly humiliate him for the presidency in 2028. Because I swear that's the only I mean, they are trying so hard to make Mark Kelly look presidential. and to make Mark Kelly look like a real leader here. And God bless Ted Lieu for getting on board with this. I mean, we have to keep on saying it is accurate that service members are legally obligated to disobey orders they believe to be unconstitutional. I mean, pundits aside, how do legal standards evaluate such a choice, Corey? I mean, the law is clear on this. Yeah, I mean, to remind listeners who maybe weren't following it, But Senator Mark Kelly said something that is, it's a truism. It's so obviously true. It's not something I need to prove. It's just the basic of military law. And it's in all the manuals. It's what you learn in officer training school or in West Point, which is that there is an obligation to not follow an illegal order. And if you want an illustration of that, to go back to the film Nuremberg and the Nuremberg trials. That is exactly what the Nazis on trial tried to say, that they were just following orders. And you see that in the Eichmann case as well. And what all the precedents in international law suggested was no, that that is no way an excuse. If it's an illegal order, you have an obligation not to follow it. Now, you know, that's something that's so embedded in U.S. law and the military code, in the norms, that Mark Kelly must have thought, you know, he's not going out on a limb. by just saying this truism that you're not supposed to follow an illegal order. And Hegseth, who I think I have it at 80% that I was his teaching assistant, what was the class at Princeton? Civil liberties. Yeah, you don't need to brag. You don't need to spread that around, Corey. You really don't need to spread that. I don't know what your tenure situation is, but you don't need to be advertising that, Corey. Just letting you know. Okay, I think I'm fine with the tenure situation. I mean, you keep talking. It kind of seems like, oh, you have the evil Padawan who fell to the dark side. Keep on pushing the story if you want. I think he did pretty well in that class. In the long run, there's some failure of teaching that I must have engaged in. Going after Mark Kelly for saying something that is so obviously true. What is it? It's again, all these things look so strange from the standpoint of democracy. But to continue with my theme from the standpoint of authoritarianism, or yes, I'd go so far as to say fascism. you know that is a fascistic argument just following orders obey it all like not that is the nazi argument in nuremberg yes and in the eichmann trial and you know this is just uh what they want and uh that that's why from the lens of democracy the lens of the world that we're all want to occupy it looks so strange and yet they're trying to bring about a different world when in which you do obey an illegal order which well the president i think let's get to what authoritarianism says. If the president says it, that's the law. That's it. That's how these fascists work. And I can't wait to see the Nuremberg movie. I don't think it's going to make me forget Judgment at Nuremberg, Corey, but I have this real thing for a middle-aged Russell Crowe, like Brando, eating the scenery roles. Like Russell Crowe in Pope's Exorcist or in playing Zeus in the fourth Thor movie just showing up. I mean, what's he wearing? It looks like Goering's wearing a smock in that movie. My God, he was the best-fed Nazi on the front line, it appeared. For me, I'll just be there to watch Russell Crowe come and overact at this point. He is good. He plays it. I have no doubt he's great. I'll watch him overact in anything at this point. To me, it's that middle-aged Brando period where he just shows up, takes a check, and overdoes it. I love it. Watch that Exorcist movie. My God, the man's hilarious. All right, Corey, we have to bring this thing home. Across these issues we've discussed, the ICE deployments and the Fed independence and the civil rights rhetoric and the racism and the unauthorized military actions. I mean, I asked you this on SiriusXM, but what unifying constitutional principles are at stake? Or is it just everything? Well, I mean, the way that I've been summing it up, and listeners have heard me talk about this, John, you have, because I think it's the useful framework for this period of time that we're living in. We're living through a historical moment. It is a threat to democracy. So how should we understand it? And often it's by analogy. And the analogy in particular with what's happened in many Latin American countries that also follow our presidential systems, systems around the world are based usually on the parliamentary system of the British Parliament or of the United States and its separation of powers, including its creation of an independent president, Congress and judiciary. But what you've seen in so many models in which the presidential system has been used is that, in fact, there's one study that suggests in every instance it's collapsed, except two, the United States and Costa Rica, is the consolidation of power within the presidency. Yes. The courts, if you think about it, they're often called the least dangerous branch because they don't control the power of the purse. They don't have a military. The Congress does have the power of the purse. But as we saw with Doge, that can be usurped. The president, with the control of the military, now with the control of this frightening domestic terror force in the ICE, can collapse the other branches and can collapse even the other tier, the power of the states to resist. If that succeeds, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a dictatorship. That's what's being attempted here. That's transparently what's happening because you hear the president say it all the time every week. And that's what ties together all these stories, the attack on states' rights that we talked about in the first instance and the states trying to fight back, the attack on the independence of the Federal Reserve, the power of Congress to protect the Fed chair. And then in this adventurism of colonialism and wannabe imperialism in the third act, they're all about the consolidation of power within the presidency and the destruction of democracy. That's the attempt. But yet we've also talked about the ways in which the states have fought back. Jerome Powell himself is fighting back members of Congress, including some Republicans, war powers. So it's not over. You know, we're in a constitutional crisis, that's for sure. But that's a good thing because it means that we didn't lose. You want a constitutional crisis when there's an attempted self-coup, not not a successful self-coup. And they're not all crises. Some of them are just constitutional challenges as well. Some are crises. Some are just challenges. They're not all hair on fire. But I mean, I'm listening. You say all this. And, you know, my job is trying to keep my head up and encourage people. But let me just finish the show by asking one last dumb question. I mean, all these controversies, do these to you reveal structural weaknesses in the Constitution that the framers just failed to plan on? Or are we instead just witnessing the existing norms being tested beyond their historical application? Well, you know, the founders were of two minds. They all believed in the Declaration of Independence at the time the Constitution was written. But there was a real debate that took place between the pro-constitutional forces, the Federalists, and the anti-Constitutional forces, the anti-Federalists, who said the following thing. This is a dangerous Constitution. It pretends to have all these checks and balances. Congress checks the president. The court checks Congress and the president. The states check the federal government. But in the end, don't sign this thing. Don't ratify this because it's not going to work. The checks are so weak, it's going to all collapse into the presidency. That was the argument of revolutionary heroes, even like Patrick Henry. Don't ratify this thing. Now, those who came back said, no, we have so many levers here. We have separation of powers. We have the courts. We have the states and their ability to protect civil liberties. And then I'd add, too, what you see throughout American history is you have the ability of citizens like our listeners, like this hero, Good, who really has become a martyr for the cause of democracy. taking the Constitution into their own hands and fighting back even when all the branches have abandoned it. And, you know, that's the period that we're in now. We've seen that before. The newspaper editors who fought John Adams' tyranny or Frederick Douglass who fought Buchanan and Andrew Johnson and Trotter and Ida B. Wells who fought back against the white supremacy, which now we're seeing reflected in this president of Woodrow Wilson. So there are real checks over time. Now, it's not inevitable that the checks will work. It's not what you learned in civics, that seventh grade civics, that we have these checks and balances. Don't worry about it. No, worry. But yeah, I'm hopeful in the end that the anti-federalists were wrong and that we will prevail. Professor Brettschneider, you are the best at what you do. What is the best way for our listeners to keep up with your constitutional brilliance the other six days of the week? Well, we have so many reviews out there on Spotify. Oh, my God, the reviews. Thank you, people. Thank you. Five stars. They're so enthusiastic about this dynamic, about precisely what we're doing, trying to be honest about what's happening in this country, but also about the hope of pushing back. That's what's resonating in our amazing guests, which we'll continue. We'll start announcing them. So keep leaving those reviews. Tell your friends. We have a sub stack. Subscribe to that, a newsletter of what's happening every week as we talk with links to the stories that we're referencing. So check that out. And of course, if you want to listen to us, or you can also watch us on YouTube, you can do both. And I just want to tell everyone I'm on Sirius XM Progress every evening, 9 to midnight East Coast, 6 to 9 on the West. We're also a free podcast called the John Fuglesang Podcast. If you don't subscribe to Sirius, I got a sub stack and my book is called Separation of Church and Hate on sale right now at every non-evil website you buy books that. Corey, I want to thank you, as always, for talking me off a ledge with just reason. And that's a gift at this point. I want to thank Beowulf and Wendy and everyone who keeps this train on the tracks. And most of all, thanks to all of our deeply sexually attractive listeners here for keeping the show going. And please, write to us, Corey. We read your letters, please. We'll do a whole bunch next week. But let us know your questions, your complaints, your thoughts, your threats, your terrible jokes. Send them all to us and we'll share them here on the show. On behalf of everyone, thank you so much. And Corey, thank you for doing what you do. Thank you, John. What a pleasure. We'll see you guys next time on The Oath and the Office.