MAGA Is Blaming the Judges (with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse)

Welcome to another episode of the Oath and the Office podcast starring Professor Corey Brecht Snyder. I am John Fugelstein. It's great to have you with us. We are celebrating 70 years of Rosa Parks, a seamstress and an activist refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama and reshaping the entire civil rights movement because she wasn't a tired lady. She was a trained activist who knew she was going to shake the world. And it is my honor to welcome the star of our show, Professor Corey Brecht Snyder. You know and love his work in the Polyside Department at Brown. Maybe you've caught his stuff in the New York Times, MSNBC, Time Magazine. You should own the book, The Oath and the Office, a guide to the Constitution for future presidents, Professor Brecht Snyder. It's very good to see you, sir. Thanks, John. We have, you know, each week delivers a series of topics just teed up for us to talk about a president who's supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And he and, of course, his cabinet are doing anything but. So we'll talk about his abuse of the pardon power. We'll talk about the war crimes that were likely committed by the Secretary of Defense and the way that he's trying to avoid responsibility. And of course, we'll have an amazing guest on today's show. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who is really helping to lead the fight against Trump against his cronies attempt to impeach Judge Roseburg and others who are simply doing their duty and who's fighting the fight to take dark money out of politics and think about our more long term recovery. So this is going to be an amazing episode, what a pleasure to do this show with you every week. I'm so excited. Sheldon Whitehouse has joined me on Sirius XM before. That guy is the real deal and I'm thrilled that he's going to be here with us. I've got to say though, I'm just as excited to discuss Donald Trump's foreign policy doctrine with you today, Professor, because I think I figured out what the Trump administration's foreign policy doctrine is. It's a murder of the poor, pardon the rich and blame Joe Biden for both. Now I want to set this upright. We know now that Defense Secretary and Secretary of Yeager Meister Pete Hegseth, the only matter of things called of duty as a documentary. We know this guy allegedly told Navy Seals, Kill'em all, right, Cory? Not detain them, not arrest them. Let's check and see if there are any drugs. Just Kill'em all, including a couple of people clinging to the wreckage in the water like Jack and Rose without the door. Now if the US can do whatever we want, murder whoever we want with no regard for human rights or the Geneva Convention or US law or UCMJ, then we're no different from Vladimir Putin. Maybe that is the whole idea. While this is happening, and Professor, I've been looking forward to this conversation, while we are literally watching a president commit murder by drone strike, on people who might have been smuggling nothing more dangerous than sunscreen because there is no evidence. Trump is busy pardoning the president of Honduras, who trafficked 400 tons of cocaine, 400 tons, Cory. That's more than you and I go through in a whole year. Trump is running random brown people to their deaths and boats because they might have drugs. Then turning around and pardoning the Narco president of Honduras, a guy who used the national treasury as a loyalty program for the Sinaloa cartel. Professor, the drug war has been so stupid my entire life under Republican presidents, under Democratic presidents. But it seems like they're slaughtering poor brown men in boats based on lies and suspicion. And pardoning the elite brown man who actually trafficked 400 tons of cocaine. Cory, under article two, what was the original purpose of the presidential pardon power? And how did the founders imagine it being used in a healthy republic? Well, I'm eager to get to the pardon power and to talk about it in depth. And of course, also about the Hegseth illegal attack on these boats. But I also just want to highlight your, your, your I was laughing from the beginning because the idea of course that there is any foreign policy theory or policy, which implies consistency and principle is there's nothing here. I mean, what there is instead, it seems to be willy-nilly attempts to grandize the president and his friends and allies and some random acts. It's hard to figure out what's going on exactly in the pardon of the former Honduran president, but it's certainly not based in principle. And yet at the same time, he's, he's freeing somebody who really has done enormous damage to the United States in terms of drug trafficking involved in it in a deep way. He's claiming to fight this obscene so-called war on these boats. And we have no idea who's in these boats. So the idea that there's some consistency, some policy, certainly some principle, no way. There are just random acts that seem to, in each moment, to challenge our constitution. Let's get to the pardon power because I think it really does help to go back to first principles. And you had a debate at the founding about the idea that the president would be given this power, which he unfortunately does have to pardon. And what those who were in favor of the constitution, the defenders of ratification, who we often refer to as the framers of the founders, they really did think of it as this harmless thing. It was the benign power of paragat of, that's what they called the pardon power. And the idea of Hamilton and others where you could trust that the president would use it for good. But there was a very different idea of the founding, the anti-federalist, so I've often talked about who are so important right now. And what they told us was, no, you were imagining a good president. What about the pardon power in the hands of somebody who was corrupt? And what that person might do is use it to pardon co-conspirators to help their friends. It's a dangerous power. And I've got to say on this one, the anti-federalist seemed to have the edge right now. I mean, have we ever seen an American president pardon a foreign head of state convicted of massive narcotrafficking? This is a really new thing in the history of crime, right? I mean, it just seems outrageous to me that, of course, you'd want to hold the people at the top responsible for drug trafficking. And imagine President Bush or any president pardoning Noriega, who was, of course, brought to trial for his involvement in the drug trade. The idea that this is happening, it just strains creduity. How do you understand what's going on? He heard, I think, really, let's get into it. I do have a theory, of course, as to what's going on, which is that he's so opposed to what happened before him to Biden, that anything that happened during Biden is something he wants to undermine. And what Trump has said is simply the fact that the Honduran president was convicted during Biden's tenure is enough reason to undo it. And that's the reason for the pardon. And so it's not based in reason. It's just based in spite. One other thing, which is one of the many horrible ironies that are happening right now, is that people who are in the United States, Honduran's, who are escaping the drug war that was heightened by this president, who fled, are now being deported back to that country. And so the idea that you have really punishment being dalled out to the victims of the drug war and a Honduran president being rewarded is just an enraging part of what's happening right now. I mean, I'm just, Trump commuted the seven-year sentence of David Gentile, the investment manager, convicted last year of securities and wire fraud. Charges, that guy served less than two weeks of his sentence before the commutation. In January, he pardoned Russ Ulbrich, the founder of Silk Road, which is an online marketplace for Coke and heroin, and then Changpeng Zhao, the binocle, who's done all kinds of money laundering for drug traffickers and other crimes. So I mean, clearly it seems like there may be a risk that these pardons are being used to obstruct justice, for instance, professor. Pardons to prevent testimony, pardons to reward loyalty after illegal actions, or pardons used to circumvent courts. I mean, it's reasonable to assume that we'll see a book at some point that'll tell us how money was being exchanged for this. Yeah, and I think what you and I have often talked about the need for a truth commission, not to replace possible criminal trials and indictments, but to at least in addition reveal what happened, and certainly shining the light on this dark area of presidential power of the pardon is so essential here, we need to know what was going on. You know, I think, too, the idea that these are co-conspirators in some way brings out this worry that I was suggesting the anti-federalist ad, because if you think about it, the president, and this is part of Patrick Henry and others who oppose ratification, they say this power, the pro-constitution forces are saying to us that the founding, it's benign, but think of how you could use it. If you were committing a crime with someone and you wanted to enable them to continue the crime, then the president was involved in the crime. The pardon power is a great way to go, because it essentially extends the immunity that they were worried a president has, and now we know what president has, to the president's friends. And wow, that's a frightening thought. It is, in many ways, the same danger as presidential immunity comes with the pardon power, and now you see it really in the extension of the pardon power to the foreign president of Honduras. I mean, again, we're pardoning actual convicted drug kingpins and murdering people with no evidence at sea, saying they had drugs. Please believe us. I mean, I know James Madison did worry that an unchecked pardon power could somehow be used for tyranny or corruption. Do the founding fathers' quarry give us any kind of guidance on what to do if a president's use of pardon's undermines justice rather than supports it? Do they have anything to say on the matter? Well, I think there's unfortunately not a lot. The main people who did have something to say were the anti-federalists, and of course, in many ways they were the losers of the Constitution, but there's this one phrase in the Constitution that might help us. And it's the phrase except in cases of impeachment, and Professor Brilliant, Professor of the presidency, Jeff Toulous and I have written some pieces about why that phrase might be something that, although, and I should say, this isn't a widely shared view, it's a view that's really distinctive to us and some have started to endorse it. But what we've said is, look, we could read that phrase. Why would they put that in there except in cases of impeachment? And the history is unclear to a large degree, but our theory is a good way to read it is to say, well, at least in cases in which the president's committed an impeachable offense and has been impeached. For instance, in the January 6 case, there might be a limit to the pardon power. So if you think of how the president has abused this power, you have to connect it to other cases, not just this one with the Honduran president, but the co-conspirators, those who were involved in the attempt to steal the election in January 6th, who rioted on the Capitol, were given massive amounts of part. Despite the fact that there were a huge number of cases brought more than a thousand, I believe, by the Department of Justice, there have been these massive pardons. What is that but an attempt to undo the impeachment? And so the phrase, accepting case of impeachment, seems to us, and I don't see judges doing this in the near future, I'll suggest what the real implication is. But that's a way to see that at least the framers left some room in their text. And what could be done? Well, how about legislation that says no pardons of co-conspirators? The Supreme Court might strike it down. You think? Yeah, you think. The Supreme Court might strike it down, but we need to at least try. Constitutional amendments are very hard to get, but I think no pardons of co-conspirators. I mean, it's important enough that it would be worthy of an amendment as well. You would think any crimes committed for a president's benefit are crimes that the president can't pardon. I would think so, but what other options could be there for pardon reform? Like, could there be a pardon review board or prohibiting any kind of self-partons, which I don't really understand, or congressional reporting requirements? I mean, what reformists would you prioritize, Professor? Well, I think self-partons in stopping them is certainly a priority. And I would say pardons of co-conspirators and I'd add, or of the president's close associates, let me start with the idea of the self-parton. The idea is the pardon power is supposed to be other regarding if it's an act of mercy. You can't really show mercy to yourself. But if you're pardoning a close relative or you're pardoning, and I will mention Hunter Biden in this context too, which I think was not a great decision. I understand why the president Biden did it, but I think that from a constitutional perspective, it's problematic in a similar way to the pardoning of co-conspirators as in the January 6th case, because it's not other regarding. So that's the kind of legislation that I'd wanted to see, to extend the idea of a ban on self-partons, which arguably is there already, to pardons of co-conspirators and close family members. And, you know, we're not going to see that with this Congress, but part of what we're doing on this show is talking about longer term reforms. And that's what I'd like to see. Well, let's talk about everyone's favorite game show starring Pete Higgseth, murder or war crimes. The Senate and House Armed Services Committee's professor, both Republican led, are now calling for investigations over Higgseth, allegedly issuing this illegal no-quarter order, kill them all during the Caribbean anti-drug operation. Again, survivors in the water were targeted by a second strike, consistent with this directive. Now, we've already seen what happens when they were survivors. Last month, there were two survivors, one from Ecuador, one from El Salvador, and they were both returned home, which means either the government knows they're killing innocent people or they're letting dangerous narco terrorists go free. But, professor, for the audience, what is a no-quarter order? And why has that been banned under our laws of war for over a century? Well, I'll start with the most recent reporting on this, which is that Higgseth is now trying to run away from the possible war crime and the order, as you said, that he's given. And how is he doing it? He's saying that, although he gave an initial order to attack the boats, he's denying that the follow-up order to kill those who were in this stable boat was given by him. And he's trying to, at the same time, say he's standing by the general who actually gave the order. And at the same time, of course, what he's doing is hanging that person out to dry, refusing to take responsibility. You know, what the order was or was not, I mean, I think it's clearly the case that what's happened to your is illegal. And it's illegal in two senses. The first order to attack the boats itself, I think, is illegal because these are not military combatants. Thank you. And the administration is trying to say, and there's an office of legal counsel memo that seems to say this, a secret memo is the New York Times has put it, that, you know, this is somehow military combatant that we are in a war, the president is recognized in an ongoing war with drug cartels and with these drug runners. Now we don't even know that these are drug cartels or drug runners is a good chance. Correct. They're migrants. And that's part of the problem here of no due process. And I also doubt that without a declared war by Congress, this is or a direct attack on the United States, that this is a war. So that's the first thing. And from the beginning, all of these attacks, in my view, are acts of murder because you cannot kill civilians. And that is what the military is doing. You can't have a military base in Germany, for instance, and you have a soldier go out and kill a civilian. That's not war. That's correct. That's actually illegal. Now, what if we just assume we give the president the benefit of the doubt and we say, okay, this is a combat situation. The second order, the order to destroy the boat once it was disabled, that resulting in the killing of these individuals, is clearly illegal. It's almost textbook illegal that I'll give you an analogy. You know, legal argument often works through analogy. Imagine that the military seizes a group of even other military officers, has them lay on the ground. You can't shoot them in the back of the head. That's the definition of an illegal act, even within a declared war. And that's what's going on here. And in fact, the military handbook has this as an example. You can't disable a boat and as it's sinking, then seek to kill everyone on it. And so it's illegal, first of all, because these are civilians and second of all, because this final act of killing people as they were disabled is certainly illegal, even if you think they're soldiers. I mean, even a national review professor. The magazine that defends tax cuts for people who own yachts, big enough to have yachts. National review came out and said, this is a war crime. And Dick Cheney's ghost is like, whoa, buddy, dial it back. I mean, Corey, if the reporting is accurate, did Hegg Seth order a textbook war crime? Seems to me that in two senses. One, it's textbook that you can't kill civilians. I'll mention other analogies. During Vietnam, of course, the My Lie Massacre, in which civilians were murdered by military, that is textbook to me, an illegal act in killing of civilians, even in the midst of a war. The fact that these are civilians, possibly migrants, we don't know who they are, and that's part of the problem. That's textbook example one. And then textbook example two, and this isn't an analogy. It's literally in the textbook, is you cannot disable a boat and then kill the remaining survivors as it's about to sink. That's just not within the rules of war. Yeah, that's even assuming that there are combatants, which is an extremely generous thing. So I think what has happened here is a war crime, likely in two ways. And this is true both of Hegsath and also of this general who he's basically implicating. And it isn't an excuse that you were just following orders. I watched the film Nuremberg, which has come out, and I also went and watched as an aftermath after watching the film. The interview between the Supreme Court Justice Jackson, who was the lead American prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials, and Gurring. One of the things that that trial stands for is the idea that just following orders is not an excuse. It sets that precedent. And that's certainly true here. Not only is not following orders, not an excuse, but it is an obligation of any member of the military to refuse to follow an illegal order. And by the way, we talked last week about the senator from Arizona who was calling out to military members and saying, do not follow illegal orders. Now we know exactly what was going on here that there certainly were illegal orders given and likely by Secretary Hegsath. So we've got to have, I think we might see not just inquiries here, but a work crimes trial for murder. Well, for murder. And I just want to point out, yes, just following orders does not offer any protection in this case. And throughout all of this, we haven't even mentioned it. This is because they want war with Venezuela for drug trafficking. They're going to murder people to get it. They're going to lie and say that the fentanyl comes here from Venezuela. That's cocaine. And God bless them, folks. I mean, they're willing to do anything while for drug trafficking, a war over drug trafficking, while pardoning a man convicted of drug trafficking. And polling shows that 70% of Americans oppose a war with Venezuela. Cory, I'm starting to see the midterm strategy begin to take shape. Well, I think we've got to call out just not the fact that this is a criminal president who has a criminal secretary of defense, and not just the contradiction of the pardon of a drug trafficker, and then the supposed random attack using the excuse of drug trafficking on civilians. But we've got to call out this lawlessness for what it is. And it is war crime. And we've got to start using that language. Or if it's not a war crime, I mean, because we're not in war, it's one of two things. It's either a war crime, in which case we buy their argument, or it's simply a crime by the military. And it's murdered by the Secretary of Defense, and that's murder. Okay. Well, on that cheery note, let's come back with some comedy in the form of Alina Haba being disqualified from everything. Oh, God wants us to laugh. We'll be right back. This is the Oath in the Office. Hey, all. Glankershner 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, Professor Brecht's Niter, while we're waiting for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to show up, let's talk about something funny. The appeals court just upheld the disqualification of Alina Haba as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor. Now recall, friends, Alina Haba couldn't get the votes to be confirmed in the Senate. So Trump tried to do an end run around the Constitution's advice and consent requirement by just appointing her as a perpetual interim U.S. attorney. It appears that the courts have rejected Donald Trump's use of make-believe methods to install unqualified puppets around the country. So I have so many questions about this, but Corey Trump wanted to get this woman confirmed. He failed. He did this end run by using acting and interim designations indefinitely from a constitutional standpoint. How clear is the difference between acting appointments that are legal and the kind of perpetual work-around nonsense the court smelled and rejected here? Well, say as a big picture thing, I was hard on the Constitution just now. I said essentially it looks like the pardon power the way they wrote it in was a mistake that they should have been clearer about limits for co-conspirators or family members that the pardon powers are the regarding. Instead, they gave this massive power thinking it was benign that it was a good thing to the president of the United States. Now here, I think in this story, we're starting to see, okay, you know what, the framers did a pretty good job because they came up with an idea which is so important, which is if you're going to put people in these massive positions of power, including prosecutors, it's not enough for one person to say, you know, this is my nominee. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. And that turns out to be a pretty powerful check on the abuse of power because what we've seen here, and we talked about it last week in the case of the prosecutions of Comey and Latisha James, is courts fighting back saying, you can't just ignore this idea of confirmation by the Senate. Right. There are some instances in which temporary appointments interim appointments can happen. It's limited in terms of the number of days. And yet, you know, what the Trump administration is trying to do here is to abuse this interim idea in order to avoid the confirmation process. And yes, the courts are putting a stop to it. In the case of Haba, one of the things that's, I think, really important that's going on here is they try to kind of sneaky and run, which is to claim that she was in the line of succession. And yet, you know, the courts were like, that's not what's going on here. You're just trying to cheat. And good for the courts, you know, as much as we're facing this assault on democracy, we're seeing these judges again and again step up. And that's why in this discussion that's coming up soon with Sheldon White House, we're going to talk about this really misguided, horrible attempt by the GOP to impeach judges for doing what? For enforcing the law in cases like this. The GOP wants nothing more than yes, men and yes women on the courts. And thankfully, that's not what we've got. Is this really an example though, this decision of the judiciary successfully checking executive abuse or professor? Is this just more proof that the guardrails are now only working after serious damage has already been done? Well, you know, it's a great question, John. And I don't want to pretend there'd be two rosy or optimistic, oh, our constitution. Not on this show. No, I don't do that. No, I think, you know, we want hope, but we don't want to be naive. But no, it's a real check, I would say. And slowing things down can sometimes help to grind to a halt the abusive power. So let's take, for instance, the prosecutions of James and Colmy. That in that case, it was very similar decision that the prosecutor who brought those cases was illegally appointed. And we talked about that last week. And what did that do? It at least temporarily meant that those indictments are not valid. Now that it's not to say that they can't bring them again. And that's true in the case of Hobba too, that there might be, we'll see, that there are actions that she took as an illegal prosecutor that will be undone. They're not permanent. They're not, it's not the end of the game. It's not the end of the question of whether or not the administration is going to use these prosecutors to destroy justice rather than be a department of justice. But it at least starts to say, okay, at minimum, you've got to come before the Senate. You can't just do it and run. And once you start to do that, once you start to bring people through to the Senate, they get revealed if they are as cravings. Well, yeah, that's why Trump's done this. Exactly right. He can't have these craving puppets being shown for what they really are on TV. I think that's right. And here I'm going to praise the Constitution again. What does it do this check of the Senate? It doesn't just slow things down. It allows for transparency. Who are you? What motivates you? What corrupt or non-corrupt or virtuous actions have you taken in the past? And what Trump is trying to do now, remember in the first administration, Trump 1.0, we often saw civil servants, lawyers refusing to do the bidding of the president, including within the Department of Justice, refusing to go along with the plot of January 6. And what's happened now is he's figured out that you want loyless above qualified people. But the Senate puts a halt to that. It starts to shine a light and transparency turns out to be a big deal. So I do think these are big victories. They're starting to force into the open. I use the term Craven, the really dangerous nature of these appointments. Yeah, I have to say, I want to remind everyone, the Third Circuit panel did include two Bush judges and one Obama judge, and they ruled unanimously. This was not a partisan ruling. So Corey, before the break, here's the million dollar question. Here's all I can think about. Because Alina Habba's appointment was invalid, this means that every indictment, every conviction, every warrant issued by her office this year could now be challenged. Right? I mean, does this create legal chaos? I mean, what could this mean for public safety in a beautiful place like New Jersey? Well, it's analogous, I think, to the cases of Comey and James, where it might, in some instances, we have to see, as the challenges come, undo some of the damage that she's brought about that she's brought. But again, I don't want to be too naive about it, that a lot of these cases can be refiled, that, you know, motions can be made to redo what she did in a legal way. So it slows things down. It chines a light on this office in New Jersey, but it doesn't undo necessarily everything forever that wrongdoing that she's been a part of. Oh, well, I can dream of disaster. Okay. We got to hit a quick break when we return. The one and only Senator Sheldon Whitehouse joins us on the Oath in the Office. Are you tired of the same old boring political chatter? Are you craving some smart, insightful, and hilarious takes on the day's news? Then get ready for America's original sexy liberal Stephanie Miller. She's now delivering her signature blend of politics and pop culture five days a week in podcast form. Dive into the day's headlines with Stephanie Miller out of the gate and unwind with hilarious conversations on Stephanie Miller's happy hour podcast. Don't miss a single laugh or incredible moment. Subscribe to Stephanie Miller out of the gate and Stephanie Miller's happy hour podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stephanie Miller dot com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Hey, I'm John Fugel saying, do you ever watch these Christian nationalists at right-wing fundamentalists on TV and think, Jesus Christ, these people of the opposite of Jesus Christ? You know, Christianity was supposed to be about love and service, but millions of Americans have grown up to find their nice religions been hijacked by this mean authoritarian tax-free click. I wrote a book about how these right-wingers aren't actually on the side of Jesus, and historically, they never have been. Separation of Church and Hate A sane person's guide to taking back the Bible from fundamentalist fascists and flock-leasing frauds. It's a very irreverent and biblically correct book for believers, atheists, agnosticists, and anybody who's ever going to have to deal with a Christian extremist and your family workplace or government. On all the issues that divide us using actual verses from that book, they claim to follow. They've got a First Amendment right to twist the Bibles of their liking. You've got a First Amendment right to call them out for it, and you'll be surprised at how good it feels. Welcome back to the Oath and the Office. I'm John Fugel-Sang. Our guest this week, Professor, is a hero in the fields of justice, honesty, court reform, dark money. I've had the honor of interviewing this distinguished Senator on my Series XM show, so please do the introduction here yourself. Of course, Senator, it's my pleasure to welcome Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from, of course, the great state of Rhode Island, the state where I've had the pleasure to teach for 24 years at Brown. Senator Whitehouse serves as the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee. And most importantly, for our purposes in our show, he certainly has been at the forefront of the fight to preserve both the rule of law and our democracy in face of the threats that we're facing right now. So Senator, really, is an honor to welcome you to the Oath and the Office. Great to be with you. You both have from Rhode Island, Chris. So I'm nothing. John was saying earlier, he was on the TV show Providence, so that's certainly counts. I also dated a girl who went to Rhode Island School of Design for four years and spent a lot of time in Providence. Yeah, and most importantly, has been to the cable car cinema, which we have. Yes, I have heard of many of us. The late lamented cable car service. Yes, exactly. So Senator, I wanted to get into it. We want to talk about long-term fixes to our democracy and many of the issues that you've been involved in on that front. But we wanted to start with the really some of the immediate crisis, and it seems to be day-to-day this crisis that we're facing from this president and increasingly from the secretary of defense. And we've seen a president abuse his pardon power in the January 6th. Pardon's also in the troubling pardon of the former president of Honduras, claiming in that case to be waging part of the drug war, but at the same time, the secretary of defense and with the president's encouragement has been attacking militarily these boats in the Caribbean. So we've been talking, of course, about that contradiction. But what can we do? I think a lot of listeners want to know this. What can we do in the face of this assault on the rule of law that we're seeing from Pete Hegseth and the defense department? Are there checks that we can use, even though Democrats are in the minority, when it comes to the war power's resolution? Is that something that we could consider? What are you thinking at this moment that we could think it was we've faced this increasing crisis? Well, as you know, it's a problem. It's a very broad-based assault on the rule of law across multiple vectors. So, you know, I'm going to have to speak at the kind of 10,000-foot level. But I do think that speaking up and not being cowed or accepting a new normal that actually isn't normal or proper is an important baseline to set. However you go about doing it. For people in my line of work, there is both still considerable investigative capability and, you know, the small bully pulpit compared to the big one that a Senator Seat gives you and to focus constantly on these issues, I think, is helpful. Secondly, it's gotten so bad that in some cases, there's fairly considerable Republican support for checks and balances. As I'm working on legislation as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, permitting reform, highway bill, water resources bill, I'm getting quite good reception from my Republican colleagues. When I say, look, we can't pass big bipartisan bills and have that fed into the partisan illegal Trump-executive branch without some real checks there. And we're still working on what those would be. But notionally, they're across that bridge and the House bill recently contains some pretty good stuff and some appropriations bills that have gotten out of the appropriations subcommittee are, you know, the same way. So there's a little bit there. The big place, of course, is going to be the courts and trying to particularly protect the district judges who have been first in line who are most under threat and who are being regularly undercut by the Supreme Court using peculiar methods like the Shadow of Docu in particular. So there's much more turbulence in the judicial branch right now than whatever it used to. But you're starting to see some very angry district judges and some very angry and very public retired judges pushing back on the Supreme Court's conduct. But the courts really matter and those court orders that we've been winning are significant. Senator, when you look at Trump's recent pardons and headsets, alleged illegal orders at all these attempts to intimidate judges, at times it feels like this pattern of executive overreach that the Constitution might have anticipated, but maybe didn't fully guard against. I'm curious, Senator, at this point with all of your expertise, what safeguards are you seeing? Which ones exist or should exist to prevent a president from turning the federal judiciary into just an arm of the executive branch? Well, you know, there's one really key guardrail that's out there, elections. And so if you look at the arguments that I think are going to be the significant ones to Americans as we look at next November's elections, they're going to be about cost and they're going to be about corruption. And in a lot of areas, the cost and the corruption arguments overlap. So Trump purposefully raising electric costs for consumers to transfer money to his big fossil fuel donors is, for instance, a two-fer because it's both a big cost for consumers and a really flagrant example of corruption. So I think elevating these concerns in the cost and corruption category for voters as we move towards November is really important. And it's actually working. If you look at way Trump's numbers have fallen away, as it's become clear and clear or to even Republican voters, then he couldn't give a damn about their family finances. He cares about his family finances and how much he can loot and how much he can help his polluter donors pollute. And I think that story is really, really important. And then you get real checks like a Democratic House, for instance, that doesn't need to get around a filibuster for subpoenas and can actually investigate rigorously and for real. That changes the game a lot. So I've got a lot of focus on trying to make sure we frame these issues well for people. So they understand their ability to un-snarl this mess with their vote next November. And as you say, the key is to show that the attack on the rule of law is not separate from pocketbook issues that the corruption costs us money. If Trump is pursuing his own interests and that of his family, he's not pursuing the financial interests of the rest of us of America. This is some academic hypothetical about our Constitution question that doesn't affect anybody. This is very, very real. Right. I'm going to drill down and I'm encouraged, I think, by some of what you're saying about hearing from those across the aisle that they're seeing some of the worst abuses for what they are. And of course, we have some Republicans, though, bringing these hearings about the judiciary and they're playing a game of, you know, I know you are, but what am I when it comes to the attack on the rule of law? And of course, what many of them are saying is, well, you know, you're saying we're attacking the rule of law. No, it's the judges who are attacking the rule of law and going after people like George Bozberg who are essentially, you know, giving support to the rest through attacking the rules of the game. It's not the team on the field. It's definitely the rest that are to blame when we get this on. Exactly. And those war call books. That was war call books. I wanted to drill down on this because I know, of course, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, you'll be at the forefront of this fight. I mean, how are you planning? How are Democrats going to push back? And are you seeing, too, I wanted to follow up Republicans who are sick of this attack on the rule of law, who will stick up for, after all, what are often Republican appointed judges? And, you know, in the case of Judge Bozberg, who simply had his ordered, you know, disobeyed and is trying to pursue the truth of what happened here. I mean, what do you expect? Give us a preview of both how you are going to combat this attack on the rule of law on the Judiciary and whether you see allies across the aisle and this coming fight. Yeah. What I see is a vast number of decisions by district court federal judges appointed by every president. Trump, Obama, Bush, you name it, Biden, that have a common element, which is to throw out excessive executive overreach by the Trump administration and very often do so using language and tone that would in a normal department of justice set off alarms now all the hallways talking about contempt, talking about pretextual arguments, talking about fall statements of fact. I mean, really, really dangerous stuff. I was the U.S. attorney in Rhode Island. There's a lot of stuff that I read in these district court opinions that if I had been on the receiving end of that from our federal court, there would have been meetings. There would have been staff meetings. There would have been consequences. I might have gone over to visit the judge to try to see like what's going on here because this is like really unusual language for a judge to use about a department of justice lawyer where the credibility of the department of justice is such an asset for the department and you don't want to burn it on stupid lies and mistakes and misbehavior. So that's a really important battle that is going on and MAGA does not respond well to being squirted. So when it feels squirted, step two is to attack the judge. And the phrase that I use from Wizard of Oz is to unleash the flying monkeys. You're are very unwell, very angry people out on the internet who may very well have been curated over time on X and channels like that so that when a bomb is dropped on a particular judge, Laura Lumer goes after them or an impeachment motion is filed against them or Trump says that they're corrupt and hate America. There's a consequence in their personal lives and for the court and we've seen that in the Rhode Island court, there has never been security on our federal judges like we have to have right now and it's because of that threat environment which is very often deliberately provoked as a strategy to push back against judges who are following the law and following their consciences. So it's a battle that's happening on two levels as the courts respond and try to do their best and then as the countermeasures from MAGA which tend to be pretty dangerous threats that require people to crank up pretty serious 24-7 personal security are brought to bear. One little sidebar on this that I think is notable is that I have asked over and over and over again for assurances from the Department of Justice and the Marshall Service which is responsible for investigating threats against judges that they will look behind the utterer of the threat to any orchestration or coordination or planning or plotting conspiracy and a prize for whatever you want to call it that is creating this threat and environment. They refused to give me it's a really simple answer by the way. Yes, of course we will and you know time after time after time after time they won't give me that answer. So the threat environment for these judges may very well be being compounded by an environment in which the MAGA Department of Justice is disabling the investigative authority of the Marshall Service and the FBI to go after the people behind these campaigns of threats in the customary way. Senator, I want to build on the professor's question to you. The year Republican colleagues across the aisle privately confide in you sentiments that might be a bit different now than they may have been say the end of January of this year. It does seem like some of our Republican friends in the Senator are a bit weary of what we're witnessing. That is very true. There are some who have truly drunk the MAGA Kool-Aid and they're all in but they're a great many, particularly people who've been here a while and take being a Senator somewhat seriously who are starting to push back in various ways. I'll give a particular shout out to Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who when Trump went after Mark Kelly and other members of Congress for a video in which they said to troops and anybody who was watching. You don't have to obey an illegal order. That is part of the military code. You do not need to obey orders that are illegal and in fact it can be a war crime to obey a plainly illegal order. So Trump then goes berserk and most Republicans know perfectly well that threats to hang or execute senators like not normal. The one who actually put something out on social media and said hey this is not warball. These senators are right that the military is not obliged to obey illegal orders. That is a truthful statement and you can't be threatening to hang people over. First amendment protected truthful statements. So there are blips of courage and honorfulness and underneath those blips are others who agree with Lisa Murkowski but happen to courage to say so publicly. Right. I think the word is cowardice but I thank you for your diplomacy on that one. One thing I wanted to ask is these hearings start to heat up. How much is the strategy going to be to call out the not just strategy but the principle to call out what really is an attack on the rule of law? I mean to threaten to execute people for saying the truth as you put it so well that an illegal order not only shouldn't be obeyed but the military is prohibited from obeying illegal orders that somehow that results in a death threat. A better symbol is there of the attack not just on democracy but of the rule of law itself. As you are now facing this bizzaro circumstance in which it's going to be the judges who are going to be accused of subverting democracy. How much do you want to lead into the question of whether impeachment at all is an appropriate procedure here? I mean it raises the question of ultimately whether or not if Democrats reclaim the house, whether or not Democrats might use impeachment. I'm thinking particularly of the justice Thomas and so much of the corruption that we've seen from the dark money that's been involved with justice Thomas and I know of course you've been a leader on issues of judicial reform. I mean I guess my thought is and just to put my cards on the table that the key is to say that this is a moment in which the rule of law is being attacked and to defend the judges as enforcing the law rather than talking about impeachment as an inappropriate remedy. I mean I think it is an appropriate remedy in some circumstances certainly. Yeah, I'd say two things. First of all, I think it is important to defend the rule of law because it's really the defining feature of our American society and how we work. We don't go by bribes, we don't go by tribes, we don't have chief gents and have phase. We all are under the rule of law here in America. But it's also important to make that point real when you're making it because it surely is an academic thing to say when we've got to hear defend rule of law, what does that mean for me? What does that mean for like decisions that get made? How does that play out in my life is what people want to know? So I think it's really important not to end the discussion of rule of law but to take it from there down to individual choices and decisions that make a very, very big difference so that when the executive branch illegally shuts down money that has been appropriated duly by Congress and is set to go to, deed hungry children, rebuild flooded communities, whatever, it's clear that that rule of law violation has a real human toll to it. Well, Senator, on a related note, you have been a real hero, not just in fighting dark money, but in educating so many Americans about the role dark money plays in shaping our federal courts. And I'd like to just ask you about that because I don't think we talk about it enough. How does dark money undermine judicial neutrality? I mean, I'm a big fan of public funding of elections, but I mean, I don't think a lot of people understand, we understand how much big money buys and sells our politics, but what dark money does specifically in the federal court system. Yeah, dark money has intruded into the court system in a variety of ways. One is through the, basically right wing billionaire funded scheme to capture this Supreme Court and create a court that will rule the way that they want it to rule, not very different than in the old days of American history, the Robert Barons would capture the railroad commission that set the rates for their railroad, where they'd capture the mining safety commission that controlled what they had to do to keep their coal miners safe. Hadn't been done with a court before, but they did it and they spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. So that's kind of an entry point. Then you have the same billionaires funding lifestyles of the rich and famous for like Clarence Thomas and Scalia, so that they're jetting around the world on fast vacations that nobody in there, you know, who's not a multi millionaire could possibly afford in private jets, cruising on private yachts, all that kind of stuff, paying their, you know, family members, tuition and sending money to their spouses. And it's that whole rig and a roll. We did a lot to try to expose. Then once you've got the judges on the bench, they're not always going to be genius about remembering why they got put there and what they need to do. Mm-hmm. So you need to tell them which cases are important and what you want the result to be. And the way they do that is through front groups that they send into the court to write Amicus briefs. It's a brief that you can write if you're not the party in the case. You're a friend, Amicus of the court. And they'll send in a dozen or more of these front groups in flotillas, all writing briefs that harmonize in chorus to the billionaires tune. And they're all funded by a dark money as well. Very often the litigant groups are dark money funded with a plaintiff who they picked out just to be a plaintiff of convenience. This isn't something that started with a dispute between Joe and his neighbor. Exactly right. Exactly right. And when the store, this is something that was cooked up by the lawyers and then go looking for the right kind of plaintiff. We go judge shopping too. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And the plaintiff was put on the payroll of the front group that was litigating the case just to keep them happy. I mean, what worries me, Senator, and I'm wondering about your thoughts about this, is as you pointed out, all sorts of district court and appellate judges in the federal system have stuck up for the rule of law, regardless of whether they've been appointed by Democrats or Republicans, and we focused on Judge Bozberg, who in many ways has been a hero, partly in trying to uncover why his order, and though, Brego Garcia case was disobeyed, and he's looking into to this. But on the other hand, just to connect the conversation to the theme that you've been drawing, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States might undermine many of these attempts to defend the rule of law through the shadowdocket, which we've often talked about on the show or through other orders or even through written decisions, often under the theory of the unitary executive. So, I mean, what is the long-term fix for our system? Because when you have a Supreme Court undermining the rule of law, along with the president, there really is a threat to democracy. So I know that you have been at the forefront of court reform, and I'm wondering if you could give our listeners some ideas as to what this might involve. I know for one thing, subjecting the Supreme Court to the ethics rules that other judges, but would you go further than that? I mean, has your thinking been evolving on this issue? Yeah. First of all, we do need to have a proper Supreme Court ethics code that has the elements of a real ethics code, which includes fact finding, right? Right. It's like the basic rule of any investigative question is what are the facts here? The Supreme Court is the only place in all of government where the people who are the subject of the ethics query get to make up their own facts. Right. There's nobody who rates the report, there's nobody who does an investigation, there's none of that. If somebody brings an ethics complaint against me, the Senate ethics committee has investigators who look into it, and there's a decision, and there's an orderly process. And so that is what's missing from the Supreme Court, which has a nominal ethics code, but none of the process that makes an ethics code actually come to life in reality. So that's part of it. The big thing I think is term limits. Very popular with the public makes a lot of sense, and the bill that I have proposed, and when we can get it passed, we'll fight to get passed, would put 18 year term limits on the Supreme Court, so that vacancies roll in on a regular basis, and you don't get the strategic situation of the Republican justices retiring only during Republican administrations, so that they continue, they say that they're above partisan politics until it comes time to retire, and then it's the only thing that they care about. So I think term limits is really key, and in my bill they're retroactive. So anybody who's been on the court for 18 years would face off into what is basically the Supreme Court equivalent of senior status, which is what regular federal judges go on to when they can retire to senior status. You have justices after their 18 years go on to senior status. So there's consistency with respect to the constitutional jurisdiction of the court, which is actually extremely narrow, but there's turnover in the court is refreshed with respect to the regular appellate. What we think of is like appeals of cases, that jurisdiction of the court, which we Congress gave to the court. That's not something the Constitution gave to the court. We Congress gave that to the court, and so it solves a lot of those problems with the court and puts it on a much more regular schedule. It also gets rid of the problem of the duty to sit, which is a terrible doctrine at the court, which is that even if you've got a conflict of interest, because they're only nine, and because it might throw off the numbers, you've got a duty to sit, even if you've got a big conflict of interest. And so we're going to be Lucy Goosey about our conflicts of interest in order to accommodate this duty to sit. Well, if you've got judges who've rotated off the court after their 18 years, but are still available, there's still senior Supreme Court judges waiting for a constitutional case to come up, then they're perfectly available to come in and make nine, so that you don't have to have conflicted justices sitting on cases in which they have an interest. Well, all of these proposals seem so important in trying to recognize, first of all, that part of the crisis is the problem of what's supposed to be the highest court in the land. It's not acting as a court. It's acting in this, well, unethical and partisan way, and these proposals are a way, I think, of moving us forward. I like the fact, especially, that we don't have to wait 18 years for these proposals to kick in. As a final question, we asked Ted Lutus, and I'm eager to ask you this as well. There was a period after the Nixon administration in which there was so much activity in Congress trying to reclaim its own power. So now, zooming out even beyond the court, I mean, what are the things that you'd like to see Congress if Democrats are able to take the House and the Senate when it comes to reform of the system as a whole to reclaim our democracy? I mean, what are the top issues that we might use the momentum that hopefully will come from seeing the threat that is Donald Trump? What ways can we, what can Congress and the American people use to reclaim our democracy? I'm wondering about your top reforms that you'd like to see. The two biggest things for Congress, I believe, are the power to investigate and the power to appropriate. And both of them have been whittled away a lot recently. The executive branch, really since Ronald Reagan, has whittled away constantly at what it feels obliged to give Congress when we ask questions. And now it's gotten to the point where Pam Bondy comes in and we ask her question and she just says, you know, you're a disgrace of a human being and maga maga maga and go Pound Sand, there's no even fake effort to try to answer questions. So I think we've got to rebuild the power to investigate and reassert the importance of getting truthful answers from the executive branch. The second is that once Congress has decided to appropriate money, that ought to pretty much settle the question. We don't just throw up a multi trillion dollar pile of money so that the president can spend it wherever he wants. And I think it's really important to reassert our power to do that because we're the representative body. We're the hundreds of people who represent people quite closely. The president was only elected once and was elected by everybody. So it's a different world for him than it is for us who are much closer to people. And I think it's really important that the decisions about where federal money gets spent are made closer to the people. And that is by the House, which then has to send the bill over to the Senate for us to amend and worry about it. Say the third thing is we may have to restore independent agencies because there's a very deliberate attack on independent agencies. And the danger with that is that if you let the president make all the decisions at the federal energy regulatory commission, the securities exchange commission, if everybody who's there is his flunky or his toadie, then you will beat a pass to the Oval Office of corruption. Yeah. Of people coming in to give checks and make big offers and return for getting the results that they want at the independent agency. And the idea that Congress can't decide that an independent agency made up of executive appointees is the best way to get the best result for the American people. I think it's constitutional nonsense. But that is where the Supreme Court is heading. And there's a case before it right now, the slaughter case. That could be the one that undoes the ability of Americans to be served by independent agencies instead of ones that are made up entirely of the president's functionaries and thosies. I have a really important follow up to this. And we've been talking on this show about the unitary executive and the way that it is being used as a way to attack independent agencies. And to really turn our system of government again from one that has experts making decisions from one that's based in the rule of law to one that's in the complete control of the president. And to my mind, as important as things like the federal trade commissions, independence and other independent agencies to make them free from corruption and control by a corrupt president. Another thing, a final question I really want to ask you, especially having been a US attorney, is what about the Department of Justice? One question that we've been asking on the show is whether or not we need a return to something like the independent council in which there really is an ability to investigate the executive branch, not just by Congress. I know you've talked about that too, but by prosecutors who can bring indictments. I know the Democratic Party has been split on the independent council. President Carter signed legislation creating it. It was expired under President Clinton. I mean, if things got in that bad that we want to really think about returning, of course we had Ken Star and the abuse that came from it. One of the questions I've been thinking about and asking people like yourself, and there's a member of Congress, I'm especially eager to ask you, is yes, Ken Star was bad, but my phrase has been, I'd rather see 10 Ken Star as than one Donald Trump. That maybe we're at the point where we need a really vigorous check on the presidency given the danger of it falling into the hands of a wannabe dictator like Donald Trump. Well, the Supreme Court has pretty much destroyed any chance of that with its, in my view, the preposterous order providing Donald Trump presidential immunity from any consequences other than impeachment and political consequence. That opens up just enormous avenues for corruption. And particularly when you put that side by side with the ability to control the so-called independent agencies, which make really important decisions that are hugely consequential financially to big, big industries, I did that you can then come in and put gold bars down on the Resolute desk of the Oval Office and walk out and everybody's okay with that because the president can take gold bars now because it's like he's immune from consequences for that. Like Buddy Sianci is the president. Yeah, yeah, only Buddy Sianci was funnier. So, I think that's really important, but I think that the Department of Justice is going to need a very significant reboot after the MAGA pollution of the Department. I think they're starting to see that they're running into some real obstacles. Again, what I said earlier about how these federal judges are describing the conduct of the Department of Justice, that's not heard of. I mean, if you're not steeped in how the Department of Justice and the Federal Courts interact and attentive to the kind of tone that the Department of Justice customarily maintains with federal courts, you might not notice that these words are really unheard of to be used by the about the Department of Justice by federal judges and over and over. I mean, we've got to list pages and pages and pages long of invective and criticism that in an ordinary department would have sent people scurrying for explanations. Yeah. And then you've got, of course, the filthy goings on with Lindsey Halligan, the not US attorney who has notched a essentially vindictive attack on two of Trump's political enemies. And that has not gone well for them in court. And I think it's going to continue to get worse. And the worst the Department gets, the more judges see how bad the Department has become and the more they read each other's opinions and they hear the, you know, you can brew a very significant pushback against the Department of Justice amongst the federal judges. And there's only so much that the Supreme Court can teleport themselves in to a local trial and try to fix for somebody. But we do need to do some really significant work with the Department of Justice. I mean, if I could just, I'm tempted and would be remiss if I did just float a final thought and get your reaction, which is especially on the immunity case, which I think if I had to pick one decision that is really threaten the rule of law, making the president a kind of king who can't be prosecuted has got to be up there. And yet they have left room having they for Congress to act by saying there's immunity when it comes to official, but not on official duties. I mean, could we use legislation in a way to limit this disastrous decision with the hope that if we face this again, I mean, is that something that you'd be tempted by to try to either through ordinary legislation or through an amendment to try to undo the damage done by this horrific immunity case? Yeah, I think probably the best thing to do would be just to go right at it. Yeah. I think I might to fix it either by bringing cases to the Supreme Court that kind of prove that error and the damage of their decision, but that hasn't worked very well because they were completely wrong about dark money in the Citizens United decision. That was back in 2010. So here we are 15 years later. They said dark money wouldn't happen. So we didn't need to worry about corruption. 15 years of billions of dollars in dark money and massive amounts of consequent corruption and they're still pretending that everything's okay with that. So they don't have to be a bit of a change of heart at the Supreme Court, but that's worth trying. Constitutional amendments are immensely slow. I think there are ways to try to buttress congressional investigation so that we can dig into this stuff more readily. I think that would be very helpful. At the moment, you have not only no ability for the executive branch to investigate the president under criminal laws or anybody else to sue the president during the term of his presidency, but you have a Congress that has been quite deliberately disabled and very often willingly disabled in our ability to be really effective in oversight and investigation. So I come back to that as the best way to try to resolve this problem. If there's one thing that we did learn from Trump, it's that you can be, you can have an executive branch that is much more assertive and much quicker to make decisions and much less procedure bound than recent Democratic administrations have been. I think the one thing that's good that has come out of this is that I think when the next Democratic president is elected, there are going to be a lot less thumbtwiddly and militostian than we have been recently because we've seen this example to a fault of a very assertive presidency. I think we could have used a lot of that in our last two Democratic presidency. Yeah. I mean, January 6th, hopefully, should have been the warning, but now we really have seen the danger of what a criminal president and how much danger can be done. And I also just applaud the way that we've together the specific reforms that you've talked about from Congress with, of course, the question of court reform because it's going to take that combination of not just trusting that these justices left alone are going to uphold a temset reform, but what the court is the way it's constituted is going to have to change. And hopefully the reforms with that, I guess as a, I'm always looking for hope on this show and I wonder if we could leave listeners with some hope in the thought that recovery takes a long time and, you know, it doesn't happen overnight, but thinking about both how to fight back immediately and how to recover our democracy in the long term on these multiple fronts is, you know, I think we have to be honest about the risk, but also that there is real hope that we will recover. Yeah. Well, Trumpism has kind of cast a spell over the Republican Party. And with that spell is also a shadow of fear so that many Republicans who aren't under the spell of Trumpism won't push back because of fear, but spells break and fears are overcome. And I think we can look forward to that day happening. I hope soon. And then we're going to go back into the process of trying to rebuild effective, honest and transparent government that the American people deserve. Well, what a great place to end Senator White House. Thank you so much for joining us on the oath in the office. It's been a pleasure to have you and most of all, thank you for your efforts in fighting this attack on our democracy and for the efforts soon to come in rebuilding our democracy. Thanks again for joining us on the oath in the office. Thank you, Cory, or Professor Brechner. That's right. Cory, Senator, thank you. What a pleasure. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. And Professor Brechner, I'd like to thank you for another terrific episode. Before we go, I want to remind everyone that we read your mail here on the show. And if you have questions about the Constitution or obscure Star Wars characters, one of the two of us can answer those things. So Cory, what's the best place for people to write to if they have their legal queries? Well, I'm collecting. I have some great questions, but send more in and we'll get to it soon. Cory. Brechner at gmail.com. And of course, you can subscribe to the sub-stack and see this discussion and our newsletter. And also our YouTube channel where we're growing very fast. If you want to watch us, not just listen to us. And I also want to say again, what a great show, John. This discussion with Senator Whitehouse, our discussion about this horrific war crimes or simply murder being wrought by Pete Hegseth and the amazing horrible contradiction with the pardon of this Honduran former president. This has been an amazing show and amazing guest and glad to be part of it. I'm me too and I just want to thank everyone and let y'all know I have a podcast every day, the John Fugel's saying podcast, for those who don't have serious XM. If you do have serious XM, I'm on the progress channel 127 Five Nights a Week. Cory is with me live, taking calls every Monday night. My book is called Separation of Church and Hate It is a New York Times bestseller and that's I'm actually doing this show from the West Coast this week because I'm in LA doing a bunch of media appearances. So Cory, thank you so much for meeting with me and congratulations again on the insane ratings for this year podcast. My God, I just can't believe it and thanks to everybody for listening. So please write to us and Cory, any final words? Thank you to our listeners. I just say we're more than 450 reviews on Apple. So if you listen to us on Spotify or Apple or YouTube, keep leaving those reviews. Of course, subscribe at this point in the show. We should be reminding our listeners and find our substacks, the oath in the office and subscribe there and keep this conversation going. What a community we've created, John, in the last nine months. It's been a pleasure to do it with you. Hey, don't thank me. Thank my parole officer who says I have to. Thank you so much, Professor Brecidneider. And thanks to that bearable, and winding it, everybody who helps put the show together. I'm John Fiegel-Seng, and we will see you next time on the oath on the office.