A Brown Professor on the Shooting—and Gun Laws

I always when we talk about the founders want to come back to the debate between those who wanted to ratify the constitution and those who were against ratification and you're right to say that the founders in the sense of those who were pro- ratification people like Hamilton and uh Madison and Jay the writers of the federalist papers they thought look you know we're going to have George Washington we'll use him as the model of virtue and George Washington made good on that promise when he says in the second inaugural I just took the oath of office it requires me to protect the constitution ution and if I violate it, subject me to criticism and upgradings. That really is the idea of a virtuous president. But the anti-federalist saw it a totally different way. They said, and it's like eerie because they predicted this exactly. What if you have not a person of virtue, what if you have a criminal president?

>> Yeah. >> What's going to happen with the criminal president is they're going to figure out how to subvert all these checks. They turn out to be so weak and the system isn't designed for a criminal president. So they they say Patrick Henry in particular and I've quoted this before but I can't it's so relevant to what we're talking about right now that you know the the the president um is going to realize that the checks are so minimal that they'll get bolder and bolder in their power until and this is Henry's way of putting it. Patrick Henry the revolutionary hero turned critic and opponent of ratification of the Constitution. Still a loyalist to the United States but against ratification.

What he said is uh they won't hesitate to make one bold push for the American throne and crown themselves a monarch. [music] Welcome to another episode of the oath and the office. I am John Fugulang. It has been a week of unspeakable violence and loss and it is uh a very solemn occasion and a very sad week and um I am very comforted by the wisdom and warmth and humanity of my co-host, Professor Corey Breneder, who is of course a Brown University professor and uh and and uh Corey, welcome. It's good to see you. I I know that this uh horrible shooting on the Brown campus uh has probably affected you deeply.

>> Thank you, John. It is terrible. The events are unspeakable. We have two students who have been shot and murdered. Um, and both remarkable students by all accounts and the campus the sense is fear. I was not on campus at the time of the shooting, but I can speak to the fact that people are reeling. It's really quite horrible. And yet at the same time, I would say that there's massive fear on the campus because as of the time that we're recording this that they still have not caught the the perpetrator. Um there's no one in handcuffs.

People are are extremely fearful. But there is also at the same time a kind of resilience. um just speaking to people, some of my students, for instance, work for the newspaper, The Herald, who has been furiously continuing to report on what's happening. Uh students are banding together. They're making sure that no one's alone when they're going out at night. And um at this point, I think most of the students have left campus, but uh while they were still there, there was a sense of solidarity. So, it's one of the you know, it's unspeakable. It's not something that I could have even imagined happening on our campus. Frankly, when I've seen school shootings before, I thought, "Oh, that's something that happens somewhere else." And of course, that's how everyone feels until it happens at your own >> own place.

>> Do we know anything at this point about what happened? It was during an economics review session. This is obviously during finals week. Um, they have no idea yet whether this was specifically targeted uh against specific individuals or or what the entire motive might have been. That's right. There really is no sense. I mean, uh, we know that there what happened was that inside the room were this economic, it was a intro introduction to economics class. And uh, this was a a class in particular that had undergraduate teaching assistants to help with reviews and and discussions of the material. And this was a review session for the final exam that was taking place in the engineering building. Um and um the shooter came in uh the the undergraduate teaching assistant uh said that he saw the shooter looked him in the eyes uh before opening fire.

Um and there were also in addition to the um shootings that occurred in the room were some evidently in the hallway outside. This is an older building on campus, the engineering building. It was an economics class, but I should say reviews sessions like this will happen all over the campus because we need the rooms and and each department won't have enough often for its own students. So that's why it was in the engineering building even though it was an economics class. Um, and you know the the the tragedy is unspeakable. I'll I'll say you know one frustration is well why why do we not have more information? And it turns out that that building um didn't have a lot of cameras in it because it's an old older building on campus.

>> Yeah, obviously any violence with guns in this country is going to be politicized um as well it should be and uh this is a White House that has made it a practice of putting out information on social media and then deleting it rapidly. That happened in this case as well. We've seen this before when they when Pam Bondi announced that two DC National Guard members were shot when it wasn't DC National Guard and that had to be deleted. We've seen it uh with with the Charlie Kirk shooting. This White House tends to put out information right away after the Charlie Kirk shooting. Patel made premature pronouncements for the first hours. And in this case, the president said that someone was already in custody. Um that wound up not being correct. And then the president came out and began blameshifting. And perhaps to distract from his own mistake, was suggesting this was a failure of the university, not of the gun laws that allow lunatic males in their 20s to easily get products designed to kill

lots of people really fast. It's a failure of the university. Cory, I want to ask, what does constitutional accountability actually look like to you in situations of mass violence? >> You know, we have to see it through the personal lens. there's no way for me not to see it that way. But it also immediately, especially with this president, raises questions not just about law, but about what the purpose of government is. And if there's one purpose of government, it's got it's a basic task. It's not its only one, but it's to keep people safe. And so when you hear the president of the United States saying, "Well, it's not my problem. It's the university's problem because they've failed to the FBI hasn't found the person already." uh immediately shifting blame like that.

It's like well he doesn't understand the basic role of the government is to provide safety >> and how could somebody be so clueless but of course that's consistent what with what we've seen and when the FBI director um you know releases the name of uh this person in custody even though that there wasn't reason to hold him it turned out in the end jumps the gun that's also all about narcissism about his own publicity cash patel >> exactly >> and so that you know it's not a surprise he would I would have loved to have think that in a crisis like this where a university is attacked senselessly uh violence of you know young adults um two murders that the president would step forward and you know rise above it and the FBI director would do the same but we've seen the opposite of that and we've seen the cluelessness to not understand the role of the federal government is to correct us >> well uh standing up and handling it is what men would do and the president and director of the FBI are not what we call

men, but blaming institutions, right? That's a great way of avoiding the more inconvenient national conversation about gun violence in this country and why other people around the world are looking at us in shock that we keep allowing this to happen. But just to put this to bed, from your perspective, professor, what is the responsibility of a university and where does that responsibility end? Look, I you know, I I don't think anybody at Brown would I know that no one at Brown would disagree with the fact that we've got to really take a serious look at our security. And that's exactly what's going on. As the emails come out, we receive probably three emails a day from the university detailing both the investigation, but also what's being done. And yes, there is a comprehensive look at the security in at Brown. You know, for instance, shouldn't you have to use a key card in order to enter the buildings? We were told that the the building was um uh open because it was final exam period.

Well, that's something that probably has to be looked at as generally the security needs to be looked at. I mean, I will say that I know a lot of the um we have our own police department on campus. These are extremely dedicated people and people who work at Brown love the university as I do. So, you know, there's no individual fault here, but at the same time, we'll look at the university will look at the the the way that we provide security. But I can't emphasize this enough. That's not to say that the FBI, the national government, that after all, a huge portion of our tax dollars go to funding this agency that is supposed to protect us. It can't abdicate that responsibility because the president's decided that he's frustrated with the investigation and wants to blame a specific institution that doesn't have anything like the manpower and resource power to conduct a a national highlevel search for what is a threat not just to Brown but to everyone. I mean this is some somebody we don't know what the motive was uh but

clearly unhinged and dangerous. >> Well, let me ask a big question that we've never discussed before, Corey. Um, but it's never hit this close to home for you as a professor. This country has normalized mass shootings in ways that all other first world democracies simply have not and and I want to get your take on it. I mean, why why how should we respond to claims that nothing can be done? >> I just think it's false. I mean, there are things that can be done to prevent this and one very instructive thing to do is to look at the comparative cases.

Now, of course, there was also around the same time as the terrible events at Brown, a tragic anti-semitic attack uh uh attack uh and killings in Australia. >> That's right. >> But when you look at the response of Australia, first of all, in in pre in a previous mass shooting, legislation was passed pretty quickly. And when you look at the >> 199 I'm sorry, 1996, I want to point that out. 1996, we're talking about Go ahead. And when you look at the graphs of what followed in 1996, it was a massive reduction in gun deaths. We haven't seen anything like that in the United States and gun deaths continue to happen. This isn't the only killing uh this year. It is an unusual unfort for fortunately it it is normal. Uh it's never happened at Brown before, but it's happened around the country. And the the false sense of security that it can't happen to me that I was admitting that I had, you know, is just not right. But when you look at Australia, it shows you restrictions on guns, gun control really does work. Uh look at New Zealand similarly. Uh now that there's a reason

why they can act so quickly in those two countries and that's because they're parliamentary democracies um that have just a lot less of the slowness that we have in legislation. But that's not to say that we can't act eventually. That there is pressure I think in those systems. There's a flexibility that allows for rapid action. Uh we're not going to get gun control legislation without a change in the House and the Senate, but we do have an election coming up and it's not going to happen immediately this legislation, but it can happen. We can have serious gun control uh in this country and that's what I think partly this election has to be about. Again, returning to the issue of basic safety and whether or not the government can provide it. I mean, if if we want it, you know, if we if we have the will, if we're pro-life, if we're patriotic, if we care about the lives of other Americans, we can do this. We've seen it before. Government policies have gotten us into messes. Government policies have gotten us out of messes.

Other countries have the same mental illness, the same violent video games, the same SSRI. They do not have access for emotionally unstable 20something males to products designed to kill lots of people really fast. And we're already hearing the right-wing overwhelmingly uh described as Christian pro- guns, proun proliferation folk out there who are saying, "Well, this goes and proves that Australia, oh that gun control doesn't work." See, gun control doesn't work. Now, 1996, they passed this law. And they haven't had a mass shooting since almost 30 years. That you can still get guns in Australia, but they have 12 times the population. Our country has 12 times the population of Australia and we have 580 times the number of annual gun murders. What do you say to these nayops who say that strict gun laws don't stop violence altogether? Should why should we even try? It seems like it's just a rhetorical trap to stop any progress.

And I keep thinking these people, you know, how they they they hated gay people until their nephew came out. I fear, Corey, that we're in a society where it's going to be one degree of empathy and every one of these Republicans is going to need to have someone they love get shot before they care about reducing these these stats. >> Yeah. I think it's, you know, part of the problem with the specific policy issue is that people rely on anecdotes and so of course a lot of anti-gun control forces on the right are willing to say, "Oh, look, it happened in Australia. Gun control legislation doesn't work." work. But that's not how empirical analysis of policy is supposed to work. You look on the whole, not at the specific examples. And the truth is they have seen after uh the 1990 shooting, 1996 shooting, a massive reduction in in in attacks and gun deaths. Now, they're looking at more about more restrictive legislation. And the fact that they have some of the most restrictive legislation in the world hasn't done the trick. And so they they look at the data, they say, "These laws

work. Let's do more." not less. In the United States, things get so politicized so quickly. Of course, you know, I I'd be remiss to not mention that um that so many on the right were were very quick to point out that this somehow was an attack on conservative students because unfortunately one of the students uh is a uh was a member of the Young Republicans and they admitted the fact that the other student was a Muslim student and the idea that this is a political attack based on ideology has no founding in fact and from anything that we've seen so far. So, it's just a a sickness of our society and our system that we're willing to politicize this in as quick a way as as we can, especially well, frankly, those on on on the Trump side of things to say that oh, the Australia's evidence gun control doesn't work. This is like Charlie Kirk's uh death and attack on the right and and none of that is based in reality. We've got to, you know, return to a sane politics that's based on data, that's based on safety, that's based on shared

values. And the leadership failure that we're seeing at the top is really uh, you know, one of the worst things about it. Of course, the absolute worst, the deaths, themselves, and the attacks and those in the hospital. But watching a president just degrade himself and degrade all of us with with this rhetoric has been a horrific part of >> the just the just the unspeakable uh uh atrocity of indifference. And I should point out this Australia uh shooting, you know, this was truly an anti-semitic attack. We've sort of gotten inured in the last couple years to uh anything that criticizes the civilian government of Israel being called anti-semitism, which I think is very very dangerous and distracts us from the real true hatred of our Jewish brothers and sisters that's out there. And I I got to say uh it was a Muslim man who was one of the heroes of this occasion. And that is a a a very very narrow silver lining. He's already raised a million dollars for his recovery in the hospital. But Cory, in the light of all this, Australia came out and they said they're going to pass

more gun laws to try to make sure this doesn't happen. And they have a constitution where they can do that right away. Over here, we already know nothing moves. Barack Obama tried to have expanded background checks, 90% public support, and he could not even get an up or down vote in the Senate. I I want to tug on your coat before the break about Heler, the landmark 2008 case, Colombia versus Heler, where Justice Antinine Scalia, the patron saint of all of these right-wing guys, wrote the majority opinion where he he said yes that you have a right to bear arms for self-defense, but said the right is not limited and is compatible with long-standing gun regulations.

Scalia said that the Second Amendment doesn't pose a problem for lawful regulations that have historical support. So, I mean, why is this so hard? You know, constitutionally speaking, Scalia himself says meaningful gun regulation is compatible with the Second Amendment as it's actually written. >> Yeah. I mean, I, you know, I'm a critic of the Heler decision. I think that the right understanding of the Second Amendment is that it's a dead letter, that the Second Amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and everything that follows from it is about well-regulated militias, which are an institution of the 18th century that don't exist anymore. or there were a way of allowing fori civilians in the absence of a standing army to come together in order to provide defense of the nation. Well, that that's not a thing anymore now that we have a standing army. So, to my mind and this was the law until the Heler case that the second amendment is is not really about individual rights. Now, the Heler case changed that. It made Scalia said, "Well, that preface, as he put it, that

prefaratory clause is irrelevant to the fact that there's a still a right to gun ownership for individuals." Now, I disagree with it, but even Scalia, and I'm just now adding and enhancing what you said, John, >> please, >> even Scalia pointed out that, you know, it does say well regulated. And so, if you think that clause matters, then the kind of right that there is is one compatible with regulation. So the idea that this is some sort of absolute right in the Second Amendment, even if you're a conservative, is just wrong. So there is no constitutional bar on doing something, taking away all guns. Yes, I think that that the Supreme Court certainly would not allow that, >> which nobody's called for, >> but nobody's calling for that.

Absolutely. And you know, in the in the absence of that, any sensible regulation is is not just, and let me just emphasize this. I have a piece in the Guardian that we can link to on the Substack that it's not just that it's allowable under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment to any to the to the degree that it says anything about gun regulation, it calls for for regulation because even when it came to these militias, they were worried enough about guns that they wanted them regulated. So, if there's anything that survives of that preface, well, regulated, that means we've got an obligation to do something. The piece that I'm talking about in the Guardian that I had talked about the Stoneman Douglas activists that came after that that shooting and who really really to my mind are the true defenders of the Second Amendment. If you want to take that seriously, the idea of well reggulated then you know that's what that's what they were calling for not the abolition of all guns. And you know I will say something on a sort of hopeful note. This is an unspeakable

tragedy. But you know I I you know want to shine a light on why Brown is a special place. It it we look for students in admissions who are self-motivated, who are sincere about beliefs about public policy, about the public good. And what I believe you're going to get is 5,000 kids, students, young adults, who as they grow, as they after they've handled the aftermath of this tragedy, are going to turn into activists who are going to demand regulation. And I don't think all of them are going to be from the progressive wing of Brown's campus. I think they're going to come from all the wing because when you see this firsthand, uh, you're not going to stand for it. And when you know that something could be done, you're going to do something about it. So these are talented, motivated people who I think like we've seen before from the Parkland shooting from Stoman Douglas are are really going to uh step forward and and do something. So I I take heart in that.

>> I do too. I mean the majority is with us. The majority wants this to be reduced. The majority knows that we can have an America where it where you can tackle a guy when he has to reload mid massacre after 10 rounds. It's not that hard to do and we can achieve it if we have the will and if we're pro-life enough and patriotic enough to care about our fellow Americans. At this point, Corey, I'm already defending Scalia on this show. It's that bad. So, I'm going to really need to have some laughs about Susie while setting the entire White House on fire in a unspeakably candid interview with Vanity Fair, but we'll get to that later on.

Quick break. We'll be right back in a moment. This is the oath and the office break from violence and talk about the violence being done to the separation of church and state. Um, this new legal challenge in Tennessee, it seems, is about to revive the question of religious charter schools and how they want so badly to make public funds go to private religions that you can hear the founders screaming from their crypts. Corey, tell us a bit about this case in Tennessee and why it's such a big deal. >> Well, we had a case um some months ago about the question of whether or not there was a free exercise. The Constitution has two religion clauses.

One guaranteed the free exercise of religion, the other banning the establishment of an official church or laws respecting an establishment of religion related to the establishment of religion and the argument that the court is going to consider again already considered it once um and I'll talk about what happened uh but it the court is going to consider the question of whether or not there's a violation of that free exercise clause when it comes to denying uh religious public schools the ability [snorts] to exist. So there are of course these charter schools that are involve choice of students um but that are publicly that are public and the lawsuit says denying the ability to create a religious public school uh is a violation of the free exercise clause.

Now why is that? They're saying that it's a kind of discrimination that what a charter school does is it creates a a variety of different choices. And if you're saying one of those choices can't be a religious one, then we're not going to allow it. And what happened the last time the court a few months ago considered this uh is Justice Barrett recused herself because >> I was going to ask about that. Yeah, that's we ended up in a deadlock cuz she recused herself. for her and she's been basically so involved in the issue and uh turns out was a close friend of one of the litigators uh uh and and that friendship I think led her to we don't know the reason for her recusal but that's my sense that she stepped down because of her friendship with this litigator. Uh I don't think she would recuse herself just because she has strong feelings on the issue. Justices have strong feelings on all sorts of issues. So that led me [snorts] at the time when we covered it um uh before back in the spring to suggest that this isn't the end of it, that we're going to see another case, that this will be teed up again, the court will take it and likely this time

she won't um back down, that she won't recuse herself. And and I am fairly very confident that her vote will be to say that yes, there is religious discrimination involved when you deny the existence of a religious charter school. And so I think we're going to have new law on this subject. Uh 54 decision this time and uh we'll cover it as as it comes up. >> I mean, you know how I feel about this, professor. I wrote a book about it. These fundamentalist Christians do not care a damn about the Bible or the things Jesus talked about. They care about conservative Christian power. That is their goal. That's what all of this is about. It's not about making using the teachings of Christ to make the kids better people. It's all about Christianity having more their version of Christianity having more power. It's everything the founders warned us against their their narrow right-wing version of the gospel and and having that be administered in our government.

Are we to are we seeing a shift from religious freedom from government to religious entitlement to government funding? It really seems like the deck has been stacked enough to begin to make that undoing of the Constitution happen. Uh, [snorts] I love that way of putting it and of course your last book and I know you're you're thinking about this for the for the next one too is about that and there couldn't be a more important issue because I think the framers rightly did worry about and I'm going to go back to the Constitution [snorts] and its language because it it really helps us to navigate here to see what's wrong with this reasoning. I tried to lay out why the justices think this is a free exercise violation. But what it does is it really eviscerates if they if they do this uh the most important part of the religion clauses and that's the establishment clause. And the the framers themselves emphasize this idea that not only would we not have an official religion but that we wouldn't have laws that related to or were were like laws that you would have if there was an official religion. And

what is a religious public school after all? But saying that government can endorse and teach some religions as true and others as not true. And that's my worry that there once you open the door to religious charter schools, there's no careful distinction between say secular subjects uh and religious subjects might get into teaching religion as true. And that's not what a pluralistic, a multi-racial, multi-religious society is like. and and um you know let me just say one more thing about this the um you know the whole idea that we're not an institution and not a nation that embraces one religion the its school system a nation's school system is how we impart what we are the court had so carefully distinguished between the kind of funding for religion that we might allow and it was subtle about this in a case called lemon it said for instance look it's fine to give funding to religious schools for secular subjects, for math, for reading. And in fact, my

mom, I I'll mention my mom uh who listens to the podcast, by the way, worked for a long time as a guidance counselor in a Catholic school. Now, they had they distinguished the separation of church and state by having her in a van across the street from the school, but they still were providing services to the students. These were careful ways of working out the difference between saying we have an official religion and that we can fund secular subjects or services for students. And that's all being wiped out by saying yes, we can now have religious schools. Once you do that, I don't really know what the limit is on having an official religion. In fact, Justice Thomas to just go, we'll talk about him later too, but to show you how radical how radical direction things can go.

Justice Thomas thinks you can have official state religions. And he looks at the he says uh there would be no problem with uh the state of New York saying that we're uh Presbyterian or or declaring an official religion. And that really is a violation of the framer's idea. >> It's it's it's madness. And as scary as it is to think about a talking snake being taught in science class, what really makes me the most upset about all this is a a big chunk of this I've come to believe is about teaching girls uh the biblical roles of girls in womanhood. And I think that's driving a whole lot of this too, Cy. Obviously >> calling it religious freedom. That's the worst part. You know, it's violating the values of a pluralistic society and and at the same time falsely claiming it's relied. And I have that's where we're headed.

>> The question we always have to ask whenever this debate comes up and I I'm sorry to bring it up again, but how would religious charter schools funded by taxpayer dollars affect students of different faiths or no faith at all? I'm already hung up on the fact that this whole charter school scam is designed to make poor kids fall through the cracks and turn the public school system into a place for the poor kids to go. I mean, we this is just bringing back segregation in so many ways. But what about the actual kids? What about kids who who weren't Christian, weren't religious, or weren't uh uh this conservative Christian, which of course does not focus on the teachings of Jesus, just focuses on power. I mean, what about those kids?

>> Well, I think you've got to, you know, what they would say, the defenders of the system is it's about choice. And what a charter school does, they're not private schools, they're public schools, so they're free. And you you don't want your kid to go to that school, then they can go somewhere else. But, you know, so much of this comes down to where you live. And so, say that the one school that's highquality in your area is a religious uh uh Catholic school, for example. If that's the only choice that you have, you know, well, you might wind up making that sacrifice even though those aren't your beliefs. And then all of a sudden, you've traded for the educational value of your your your kid.

You're, you know, >> Yeah. uh the the your your the values of your family and now all of a sudden you're being taught this totally different set of values and and you're you're and the idea too I will tell you I mean I I think I've shared this before but when I was a graduate student I was part of a group that would uh often have prominent host prominent conservatives and I I loved it because I got to sit there in these conversations but I won't forget and I I won't reveal enough to know who this is but in in this one of these conversations there was a federal judge who talked talked about the idea that um you know she didn't really get why the the liberals like me frankly were so upset about um religion in schools and Christianity in particular because in her kids school there was a Christmas pageant and all the Jewish kids loved it and it's like well you know I just think it's just not showing the idea that and I I'm going to go back to the founding because you mentioned that George Washington in his letter to the um

Newport congregation ation Jewish congregation in Newport, the Toro Synagogue. He talked about the fact, it's such an incredible letter that they were asking, "Is there going to be an official religion in the United States?" The congregation wrote to him to ask that question. He writes this incredible letter back that says, not only is there not going to be an official religion, but I reject the idea of mere toleration. Those are the words that he used that I'm not going to think about religion as you know Judaism for instance as just a tolerated religion.

It's going to be equal with all religions and how are we going to ensure that the idea of equality comes from the ban on establishment. So uh you know that's what this story doesn't get. the idea that yeah, the the Jewish kids were happy to see, you know, this other religion highlighted on stage, not by the way in a pluralistic display, but in one that prioritized one religion uh above others. No, that that is a violation of the basic idea that we are equals in this society regardless of our religion. And that, you know, take it from no no better authority than George Washington. Uh I want to shift gears a bit, keep it on the Supreme Court for a story that's quite disturbing, and that is uh about racial discrimination in jury selection for death penalty cases, which obviously is a problem that has always existed. But right now, the Supreme Court in the Pitchford case is reviewing this. It alleges racial bias in the jury selection in a death penalty trial. Cy, um why does this case matter?

I'm actually surprised in 2025 that we're still seeing cases like this make it up to the court. It encourages it. It warms my heart to know that enough people care. >> Yeah, I was going to say, you know, we're so often talking about destruction of the Constitution on this podcast. Um, and you know, the first part of our podcast was about horrific events in which the apparatus of government is failing to respond entirely when it comes to gun control. And the religious charter school argument, to my mind, is is a very worrying development. But here's a a good thing, which is that there's a case called Batson that um prohibits discrimination based on race in jury selection and especially in death penalty cases that you can't have a prosecutor who's trying to exclude black jurors, for instance, in the hope of getting a conviction. And there's a prosecutor who uh in an earlier case did just that and the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision uh made very clear that Batson instilled the law that we're not going to allow exclusion of jurors based on

race so that you can get conviction especially black jurors to ensure an all-white jury that that period of America is over. Now, you know what? At the same time that I want to highlight that it looks like the court has another one of these cases that they have the votes to continue this extremely sensible basic requirement of civil rights. Justice Thomas has spoken out about this in a way that I just think it's important to highlight because you see how bad things have gotten. He says, "Well, I understand why the court is applying Batson, but Batson's wrong."

And in a color conscious in a color blind society, um, what we need to do, and this is of course his main one of his main views, color blindness. >> Yeah. Is not look at whether or not [laughter] there's discrim. I mean, it's just baffling. >> Well, you know, color color blindness is for people who can't bring themselves to be color conscious, Corey, as we have learned. I mean, >> I I have to say, too, you know, it just shows how um this language of colorblindness really is a way of saying we don't believe in anti-discrimination legislation.

>> Can you not take race into account? >> Exactly. >> Stop discrimination. That's how you do it. >> But doesn't racial discrimination and jury selection undermine the legitimacy of the entire justice system? >> Yeah. I I mean, how could you claim that you have an impartial system if you are trying to stack it with people based on race in a way to ensure conviction? It's almost the definition of uh what the apartheid society of the um 19th and 20th century was. The the fact that so many um false convictions happened because of uh just this excluding black jurors, making sure it was an all-white jury with um black defendants. And uh that's what Thomas evidently wants to bring us back to. I mean his colorblindness, I could sort of understand the argument, although I vehemently disagree with it in areas like affirmative action. But when you get to to the core idea of discrimination that you're not supposed to take race into account, you show how misguided he is. And uh you know, I don't know what motivates this person.

And there are all sorts of speculation but um you know worry about being condescended to but this is the core of anti-discrimination that he's now uh challenging. I mean the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race bans segregation. I imagine that on those things as radical as he sounds is he thinks that legislation is misguided too. >> But let's let's let's be honest here. I mean the very you know me death penalty is my biggest issue. And to me, it it's inherently shows that that a death penalty system that historically for decade after decade shows racial bias.

How can the system ever be considered just, >> right? Like it's already unjust. I I already think it's that our system is invalid because we kill people. We we murder our prisoners. We're the only advanced country in the first world that still murders our prisoners. What does it say about American democracy, professor, that these cases keep popping up? I mean, by the way, this is not the first time the same prosecutor has been accused of removing black jurors. So, at what point does a pattern become constitutional evidence? >> There's one of the most important lines, I think, in the history of the death penalty. And I'm going to say something about the history uh in which one of the justices says, "I I will no longer tinker with the machinery of death."

>> Harry Blackman. Harry Blackman. >> Harry Blackman says it great. >> I remember. And um the the to my mind it's such a profound moment because the court's history is that in Ferman versus Georgia in the 1970s they do say that the eth amendment bans the death penalty that the idea of cruel and unusual punishment can't be made compatible with the death penalty. And they do that for several different reasons. One is they say uh racial discrimination that's the main opinion is so endemic into the system it can't be overcome. And that's what we're talking about now. We're seeing that here. And you know, banning the um a jury that's all white is one thing, but it shows you that that this is just one part of a deeply discriminatory system. Uh another issue that's raised is innocence. That you can't undo the uh conviction and killing of an innocent person, although there are many instances in which this has happened. So the irrevocability is a problem. But the main opinion by

justices Marshall and Brennan that I tend to turn to, it's a concurring opinion, but it was the one that I wish would have stayed on says um that uh you know there's something about the dignity of human beings that's being >> and a government doesn't have the ability that it's not within the government's power to to take life and to violate that basic human dignity. Now, the follow-up to this in a case called Greg versus Georgia, they the courts said the opposite of this Blackman quote. They did allow for the tinkering with the machinery of death.

And as the um the the states started to come up with methods of, for instance, bifurcating juries, having the guilt phase different from the second phase of of figuring out whether or not death would be a punishment or not, >> right? >> The court loosened up and allowed it. And so, we're back to tinkering with the machinery of death. And I couldn't agree more. That is a total mistake. >> And I should put in here uh just for my preaching moment that um these people who are fighting for this identify as Christian. And I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy has to be mentioned. Jesus, if you believe this book, they wave around overwhelmingly opposes murdering prisoners or sinners, even the ones who deserve it. If you believe this book, he overturns retributive justice as a concept in the sermon on the mount. He stops an execution, says only sinless people are allowed to execute. I mean, time and time again, he opposes the idea of murdering bad people who are prisoners. And I just wish that at some point the media and the court system

could begin using the hypocrisy argument because again, these folks, they they they keep saying they want conservative Christian values. They don't want the values of Christ. And that is why what they're trying to do to our government in every level is so insidious because they're not really trying to push Christianity on us. They're trying to push their version of it. And that's what's destructive. >> And like all our conversations, John, one of the the great things that I think we're doing is we're having a conversation on a constitutional level, on a legal level, on a policy level, and then we're bringing in questions of faith and and belief. And I think too one of the allies in this fight might be the the new pope who has been saying uh what you've been saying and and will start to highlight this issue in a way that might get American back on the agenda. It's not immediately in the future that uh the Congress is going to ban ban the death penalty, but >> I know that I mean the long run >> I don't see it coming anytime in my lifetime, but again this is something that that Jesus is unambiguous about.

And to the Vatican's credit, I will call them out all day, Corey, you know, on hypocrisy and and and gender injustice and the homophobia and the sex hang-ups and the the looting and the pillag. I could go on, but when it comes to this, they're they're right on. So, we have a lot more to cover on the oath in the office. Please do stick around. When we come back, uh I want to talk about Lindsay Halligan, who uh boy, I wish Trump could just quit her. And of course, Susie Wilds has set the White House on fire. And it looks like she didn't mean to. Or maybe she did. And the White House chief of staff is already putting space between herself and this parade of mediocrity. Don't go away. This is the oath in the office.

Welcome back to the oath in the office. I'm John Fugleang. It's so good to have you with us. Professor Corey Brett Schneider. Uh wow. Can we talk about Lindseay Halligan just a little bit because Trump is now pushing this bid to to get the Senate to confirm her as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. In November, a federal judge said uh her appointment as the top prosecutor was totally invalid. And that is why the Leticia James case was uh dismissed, why the James Comey case was dismissed. As we've talked to you many times, I think the greatest grace given to America is that when it comes to our fascists, they tend to be more dumb than evil and all these preventable problems.

But I want to ask you about Lindseay Halligan because she does fit the Trump profile of why he'd want to have someone like her for a lawyer. She's uh she's hot, amoral, and obedient to him, which seems to be the three things he looks for in a woman. Um, but this is at at the heart of this, this is what they call the blue slip tradition, right? This century old practice where they're going to try to get her in there anyway. What does this tell us about how the Senate is supposed to act as a check on presidential power? Because I kind of feel like they're going to be teaching Lindsay Hallagan in law school for a long time, and maybe that would be her great gift to juristprudence.

>> Yeah, it is somebody who is not qualified. obviously and was not legally appointed. And just to remind listeners, we covered uh the Leticia James and uh Comey indictments and the court's uh smart move of saying uh these indictments aren't valid because the prosecutor isn't lawfully appointed. They tried to have her as a interim appointment although she didn't meet the criteria. So now Trump has swallowed the pain and seen that this isn't going to work just sticking her in there that we have a check which requires confirmation by the Senate and he's going to try to get her through. So so that's a constitutional lesson that's important.

This blue slip tradition, you know, can be uh we talked about the problems with our system of government and I'll put the Senate there too. That one of the problems is that it slows things down. And so when you see Australia and New Zealand zip through uh gun legislation, gun control legislation, it's because they don't have they have a parliamentary system. It doesn't have the slow gears of uh policy that a presidential system like ours does. But there are good things about it, especially when you have a president who is wanting to attack the rule of law and democracy. One is the requirement of the confirmation process, but the other is the blue slip process, which can be pernitious in the hands of uh um those who want to see uh you know block appointments that are progressive say in um in in states that are not and it gives senators a lot of power. But here it's protecting the basics of the rule of law. It's protecting against an appointment of somebody who really is not qualified and both the requirement of Senate confirmation and the blue slip

process which >> so I I understand how the blue slip is supposed to be how the Senate should act as a check on presidential power and as you mentioned Lindseay Helligan has no prior prosecutorial experience. She was Trump's personal attorney. That's very unusual right for a US attorney nominee. I mean, like, this seems to be a textbook case about the independence of federal prosecutors. Criminal cases against Trump's political adversaries were dismissed because of her involvement. As I mentioned, Comey and and and and James. >> So, what does this reveal about the risks of politicizing the Justice Department in the first place? I mean, why does it matter for public faith in the rule of law? If you're going to try and corrupt the Justice Department, maybe get competent corrupt people to do it for you. Well, I think that maybe is one of the good things to learn about all this, that there aren't a lot of competent and corrupt people. The Justice Department has a long history, especially after the Nixon administration, of prioritizing integrity. And you have people who, you know, it's seen for law students, for instance, to get into the just the

Department of Justice honors program to be a US attorney. People like Prip Barara, who right um I've had the honor of being on his podcast. He'll be on with us soon. You know, the these are people who are at the highest level of the legal profession and exhibit integrity. And yet, we have a president who's figured out that if you have people like that in power, they're not going to do things like indict his political opponents. So, he looks for loyalists over all things. >> That's it. >> And now, what's the check on that? Well, we're seeing in real time what the check is. It's the Senate and the confirmation requirement and the limit on using interim appointments, which don't require confirmation. And it turns out it's also hopefully this blue slip process which requires essentially the sign off of senators from the state in question in which the US attorney will be appointed. So if Trump is arguing that blue slips are a scam because they block his ability to govern. I mean I think he's pretty much saying it's not really about efficiency. It's about getting rid of the guard rails that prevent him and future presidents from

installing dopey loyalists in prosecutorial roles. >> I couldn't have said it better, John. That's a great way to put it. everything is dumb and stupid if it means blocking his power because this is and you know we've been consistently saying this since we started this podcast. This is his attempt to destroy the Senate, to destroy the courts, to destroy the independent civil servants who would check what he wants to do and to install an authoritarian uh uh monarchy or dictatorship. That's really what he cares about. And so every time he sees the system uh stopping him, he he says it's stupid because that that's what he's all about is his own power. Now, you know, when we first met and I wrote my piece, Trump versus the Constitution, I thought it was obvious that he'd learned that lesson very quickly because uh you know, the Constitution, if he were to win, that the Constitution is above any person. Well, in real time, we're seeing that that's not obvious that the President Trump often is defeating the Constitution, but but you know, he's not winning in every case, and this is one of them which he's

clearly not winning. Thankfully, Susie Wilds, not to jump ahead, but but you know, admitted that she's been trying to stop him on his retribution campaign, his revenge campaign against uh Leticia James and against uh Comey. Actually, I should say she distinguished between them. Leticia James, she said she understood. Comey she was not happy with uh in the interview. But but you know the bottom line is you have a president who's using the office not to do what he's supposed to do but to take it out to take revenge out on political opponents. You can't do that if you have the tradition of integrity in the department of justice. You have to subvert it. And thankfully the blue slip process confirmation that that looks like it's it's throwing a wrench in his plans.

>> Well you brought up Susie Wilds. So let's let's finally go there. a feel-good story about a deeply feel bad experience. Um, with all of this violence and and loss and and and and and death this week, uh, I want to thank Susie Wilds for making me laugh today. Um, we've talked about the White House chief of staff and I've shared with you my puzzlement about her, professor. What is her role? She seems like the adult in the room that Trump surrounded himself with in the first term. Now she seems like the only of course in the first term he only had adult film stars in the room but now I thought Susie Wilds is I guess her job is keeping this on the tracks and I don't know if she's doing a great job or a bad job but she gave a series of interviews to Vanity Fair and wow uh I hope this lady talks a lot. I want to hear her I mean like we're going to we're going to see quotes from Vanity Fair in future court cases. I'm pretty much convinced. But to your point, professor, she openly acknowledges that Trump is pursuing criminal prosecutions out of a desire for revenge. So let's start with that. From a constitutional

perspective, where is the where is the bright line to you between lawful authority of the executive and unconstitutional abuse of power when prosecutions are motivated by petty personal vengeance? Look, the point of the job, and it's outlined in the oath of of office, that's why the podcast is called the oath in the office, is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution to protect the rule of law. And the opposite of that is somebody who uses the office for their own personal grievances. So, let's take the two cases just to come back to them. Yeah, please.

In which he is relentlessly pursuing prosecution. uh one is uh uh which which Susie Wilds did say was a bad thing to do was against James Comey and she essentially said look he's only was doing his job and all the things that Trump is upset with him uh you know have to do with with his role. So, but the thing that really got me that was so strange is she said uh one thing was she would let him do it for 90 days and then after pursue revenge, but made an exception for Leticia James. And just to remind you, Leticia James won uh I think it was a $500 million verdict against the Trump Organizations.

>> And she made and Leticia James got all of us to feel sorry for banks, the IRS, and insurance companies cuz Trump was ripping them all off. And it's not easy to make people care about those three entities. I'm sorry, professor. Go on. >> So there, Susie Wilds is like, well, I understand. She she got a $500 million of his own money. Leticia James didn't get the $500 million. [laughter] The state of New York was supposed to get it. And actually, the number was adjusted subsequently lower even though the liability stood. Uh but so there's just sort of a weird misunderstanding and the way, you know, she has some basic idea that that this isn't okay to seek revenge, but the 90day exception and the Leticia James exception tell me this isn't somebody who's all there.

It's somebody who is got some conscience, but it's like she has a quarter of a conscience or something like that. >> Yeah. Or I don't even know if she has a conscience or if she knows the way this movie ends, which as I've said many times, this movie ends like the last scene of Scarface. And I think I mean I got the impression that this was a chief of staff really starting to put serious distance between herself and the malfeasance she's propped up. I mean as you said she described trying and failing to get Trump to stop his score settling as she called it after 90 days. The fact that she would say that to me tells us that this this is not incidental revenge. This is ongoing retaliation. He's not going to stop.

What does the Constitution Corey I'm trying to frame this right. What does the constitution assume about presidential character and restraint or just basic human decency? And what happens when those assumptions break down? I mean, it is possible that the founders could never have imagined a oligarch millionaire at birth racist narcissist with decades of untreated syphilis in his brain. I mean, what what is what does the Constitution assume anything about presidential restraint? And and if those assumptions break down, we're just stuck with a dictatorship the founders couldn't have predicted.

>> I mean, I always when we talk about the founders want to come back to the debate between those who wanted to ratify the constitution and those who were against ratification. And you're right to say that the founders in the sense of those who were pro- ratification, people like Hamilton and uh Madison and Jay, the writers of the Federalist Papers, they thought, look, you know, we're going to have George Washington. We'll use him as the model of virtue. And George Washington made good on that promise when he says in the second inaugural. I just took the oath of office. It requires me to protect the constitution and if I violate it, subject me to criticism and upgradings. That really is the idea of a virtuous president. But the anti-federalist saw it a totally different way. They said, and it's like eerie because they predicted this exactly. What if you have not a person of virtue, what if you have a criminal president?

>> Yeah. What's going to happen with the criminal president is they're going to figure out how to subvert all these checks. They turn out to be so weak and the system isn't designed for a criminal president. So they the they say Patrick Henry in particular and I've quoted this before but I I can't it's so relevant to what we're talking about right now that you know the the the president um is going to realize that the checks are so minimal that they'll get bolder and bolder in their power until and this is Henry's way of putting it. Patrick Henry, the revolutionary hero turned critic and opponent of ratification of the Constitution, still a loyalist to the United States, but against ratification. What he said is, uh, they won't hesitate to make one bold push for the American throne and crown themselves a monarch. That's pretty much an exact quote. And what do you have here? Well, where's the check coming from? The chief of staff, which is not a constitutional role, saying, "Hey, you're not supposed to do that. That's where the check is supposed to be. It's not working." You know, and even this check within the president's staff is like sometimes, oh,

I understand what you're doing when it comes to Leticia James. It's not a real check at all. Why she's doing it, the motivation question is an interesting one. Christopher Whipple wrote this pretty important book about chiefs of staff. So, she might be trying to proper herself up in history. That might be one thing. >> I think so. Very much her very much. Ding, ding, ding. >> Or she's just sloppy as she started to talk about all this. And so, >> those two things can be true, professor. Those two things can be true at once. She could be selfish and sloppy sort of a a prerequisite for this administration. But again, for those who haven't read the Vanity Fair article, I encourage you to read it because it's full of great gossipy stuff. Cy and I just have to talk about the legal angle.

But I mean, she read the Epstein document. She acknowledges Trump's names there. She said she told Trump not to pardon the violent January 6 terrorist and he ignored her. Uh she said there's no evidence that Clinton was ever on Epstein's private island, which is essentially calling her boss a liar. She says that Trump has an alcoholics personality. She she she said that JD Vance was a conspiracy theorist for a decade and he only became proTrump because he's ambitious. I mean, she's telling a lot of truths here. Elon Musk is an avowed ketamine user. Russell Vote is a right-wing absolute zealous. She defended USAD saying they do very good work. I mean, this lady did a lot of truthtelling here, Corey. I'm kind of astonished. But what got me is that she makes it very clear. She doesn't see her job as constraining the president.

>> But she sees her job as facilitating his desires. Whatever petty whim man baby wants, even if she thinks he goes too far, it's her job to give man baby what he wants. This is a dumb question, but let me ask it anyway. In our system, Cy, who's supposed to restrain a president inclined towards retribution and madness? It's not the advisers. It's the It's the DOJ, Congress, and the courts, right? >> My mom always told me there are no dumb questions. And you know, in this case, this certainly not a dumb question. It's a profound one to ask about that. And I think it helps to show, you know, the the way that all this cashes out this debate between anti-federalists and federalists that there is no design in the Constitution for a chief of staff to be constraining a president. It's part of the executive branch. And that's what you're seeing from her. Although she's had claims to have some push back and this does look like a attempt to cover >> she's a henchman. She's another henchman >> just enabling him again and again and she you know she's still there by the way. She hasn't been fired or resigned.

>> Not yet. It's it's early but yeah we'll see. So, so the constitutional checks that we do have though, you know, sometimes work. And just to kind of review the whole discussion that we've had, uh, it includes confirmation by the Senate of US attorneys and other uh, principal officers of the United States. It includes uh, even uh, informally the blue slip process reflects the idea of a separate branch of government having control over these appointments. But there are some offices that are subservient to the president like the chief of staff. Now, here's I think what's profound in your question to open it up. Remember what Trump is trying to do is to subvert all those checks to undo them under the theory of the so-called unitary executive. He wants to make everybody like his chief of staff totally subject to his whims. And that includes judges. It includes correct Congress. And you know what? The juryy's still out on whether or not he's going to succeed.

So, let me wrap this one up because I want to get off of Susie Wilds, but I mean, she sub she summarized Donald Trump's whole mindset as uh he believes there's nothing he can't do. Okay. And I think that's right. He has been spoiled since a child. He was not raised by parents who knew how to say no. From your work in constitutional democracy, professor, um is that belief itself a constitutional crisis? I mean like if he really does believe there's nothing he can't do like that's a fact right would that could that be a constitutional crisis a person's belief and and what mechanisms would exist to correct a president who sees no limits on his power and only his >> I was thinking about that as I read both um uh the about read the account of Susie Wild's interview uh because it really reveals it's inside look about our worst fears about what's going on.

You see how of course it's revenge that's motivating things that he's bringing people on board who he thinks of as allies even if they're using ketamine in the case of Musk. And it shows a kind of pathology that the anti-federalists were worried about and turns out rightly which is that it would not be a crisis if it was the belief of just some real estate developer. But this is the belief of the president of the United States with this massive amount of power. And although we have these supposed checks on that power, are they going to hold? Are the antifederalists going to be right? And when you have somebody who's motivated exactly as Patrick Henry uh worried about with not only narcissism but with monarchical ambitions exactly the checks hold they might. They might not. And that's why absolutely it is a crisis to have somebody in power with these horrific beliefs.

>> Wow. It's so much fun to live through a crisis that'll be taught in law schools for a hundred years. Corey, it is time now for uh some uh viewer mail if you're ready. JD from Wisconsin asks, "In the October 8th podcast, you and Fugle Sang spoke about how with the exception of Trump, everyone else who has violated our Constitution and laws can be prosecuted." My question is by whom? Thanks for all you do. >> Well, I think that's a great question, JD. And you know, it goes to the heart of the question of how much control the president has over the Department of Justice. I think the re reality is um that we won't see prosecutions of Trump's allies in this term from the federal government. Uh that if we do see them, it'll likely be because in the next administration, there's a reckoning.

>> That's correct. >> And there there are issues like statute of limitations, but assuming that they haven't haven't gone out, this isn't going to be the president forever. That's the idea of uh t of limits on the president's term. You know, it'll expire. And so I think John and I have talked about the need for a truth commission coming clean about all the crimes that have happened, but I don't think that's incompatible and shouldn't be incompatible with the possibility of prosecution. So I think likely that's when we'll see them. I had would have thought that um you know in the case for instance of this is changing topics a little bit but please when local laws are violated say by ICE in the um what are often abductions of local people if there's violence for instance uh local prosecutors could bring those cases against federal officials they don't have immunity uh but I haven't seen a willingness of of prosecutors to do that so I think the the realistic answer is it's the next administration >> okay we have another letter. Uh, this person didn't leave their name, but they say, "Love the pod. Regarding the

Supreme Court hearing on conversion therapy, uh, if their argument is that conversion therapy in Texas is a free speech issue, then cannot abortion providers in states with bans on counseling or referrals for abortion also use this argument to allow counseling and referrals?" >> Um, it's a great question and the court looked into this. Uh there's a case for instance called Russ versus Sullivan about gag rules. Um and the idea of a gag rule often when you really look at it is that they're not bans. They're financial incentives or bans on uh providers that receive federal funds from giving counseling about abortion.

And what the court has said is there's a difference between an outright ban and the use of financial funds to uh limit what individuals what what groups can or can't be told. Um and so under the Russ versus Sullivan principle and the idea of uh there's a difference between uh government acting in its capability of banning things uh prohibiting them and incentivizing or disincentivizing them. And so that's anyway the court's argument for why there might be a difference here, why why that might not be a free speech issue.

>> Exactly. Right. And the court's going to decide what they want to decide anyway. I mean, look at these stories we've covered this week, professor. The mass shootings, government misinformation, uh deliberate church state entanglement, racial bias in the courts for death penalty cases, democratic guard rails weakening or being deliberately dismantled. in times of of fear, in times of grief, I want to ask you, Corey, um what what gives you hope right now, especially as a Brown University professor who teaches young people? >> Well, thanks, John. You know, I didn't want to not do the podcast despite the fact that there is so much going on right now at Brown and the aftermath has been really horrible, frankly, and the sense of fear on the campus and and the worry among uh my students. But I wanted to do it partly to talk about the fact and to give testimony about how much perseverance there is even in this horrific time. People coming together thinking about what they can do uh wanting to move on and persevere despite the the horror of this moment. So it is

a pleasure to speak to you every week and although this has been a painful week uh you know I thought it was important to talk about that. So I am seeing a lot of hope. I mean these students and I think you know it's not just true of students at Brown it's true all over the country young people have this resilience to them and you know I think too there's a sense and this is what I'm most encouraged by to try to think about once we recover from the immediate after effects of the shock of this how to fix things long term policy can do a lot to stop horror horror is not something that we have to live with >> correct >> that's I think what what we'll be talking about in the weeks to Professor, I want to thank you so much for uh for this episode. I know we ran a little long, but I'm glad we went as deep in everything as we could. I want to thank Wendy and Beaywolf and everyone who helps us put this together. I want to thank the uh the viewers uh you deeply attracted people for uh your support.

Thanks to everybody for your very kind uh notes and comments to me about uh the unspeakable loss of Rob and Michelle Reiner. Uh I loved them both very much and they were both very good to me. And um Corey, I just want to remind everyone uh we read your mail on the air. So, please folks, send us your notes if you have questions about constitutional law. Uh Corey can give you smart answers and I can give you uh goofy ones. And um how can our listeners follow you, professor, the other six days of the week? >> Well, we have the oath in the office substack and we'll put links up to the articles that we mention every week and uh that's growing. So, check that out.

The oath in the office substack. You could also find it under my name, of course, Corey Brett Schneider. Uh, I don't know if you listen to us on Apple, leave us a review. We we're we have more than 450 five-star reviews evidently and we're very high up. If you listen to us on Spotify, do the same. Or wherever you get your audio podcast, leave us a review. And of course, subscribe. Uh, you can also find us on YouTube. Um, and you should subscribe there. And most importantly, the way that we're growing so rapidly, I mean, frankly, we're at 20% a month. we grow, which is a massive amount of growth, uh, is by people telling people. So, if you enjoy this podcast, tell your friends, send it to some friends, and, uh, uh, we're it's a pleasure to join you here every week. If you want to send in uh, questions as we did today. We'll continue to take questions. Uh, you could write to me at corey.brechnneidergmail.com and uh, we'll continue to answer them.

And uh, just want to thank you too, John, for um, uh, this amazing discussion as always. >> Thank you, professor. uh especially at such a a dire time. >> I do a show on SiriusXM Progress five nights a week and we're also a free podcast. My book is out now called Separation of Church and Hate. It makes a great gift for the sane Christian in your life or the sane anybody in your life dealing with a crazy right-wing Christian. And uh I want to thank you again, professor. This was a hard week and uh thank you for the intelligence and grace that you bring to all these discussions. We will see you all next week on the oath in the