Can Congress Stop Trump’s War?

Donald Trump posted the bombing announcement like he's dropping a new sneaker brand. The United States and [music] its partners have launched Operation Epic Fury. >> [music] >> This weekend America and Israel launched this illegal war and killed the leader of Iran. >> [music] >> Are there some uses of force that fall short of full war that might be allowable by the president without consent of Congress? >> The intel assessment said Iran was years away from an ICBM that could reach the US. [music] But I think in Epstein panic time, that means drop everything now.

Welcome to a very special edition of The Oath and the Office. I'm John Feugelsang. We're at war in the Middle East again, friends. Not because Congress debated it, not because there was a clear and present danger, not because the American people demanded it, and not because the Joint Chiefs say there is any threat to us. To make some sense of this illegal michigas, let's go to the star of our show, the author of The Oath and the Office, Brown University political science professor and the Supreme Court calls him the Mac, Corey Brettschneider. Professor, good to see you this very strange week.

Uh thanks so much, John. The the accla- the fake praise gets more intense. It's always by the Supreme Court. >> was kicked out of Wu-Tang Clan for being too hardcore. They don't know, Corey. Let me say it. They don't know. Come on now. Each week I don't know if you could top the previous week, but I think you you succeed. And uh it is a special edition of Unfortunately, this this is uh a presidentially declared war. You might think to yourself, well, war is declared by Congress. We're going to talk about that. Uh it's also time, I think, that we talk, of course, about what's happening in the moment, but also do a deep dive into the War Powers Act, which governs much of what's happening and what's going to happen over the next few weeks. And so I'm looking forward to really talking to you, John, and doing my best to explain to listeners how this complicated law functions, what its purpose is, how it was amended unfortunately to weaken Congress, uh and um looking forward to some listener questions, but before we get into that, John, I've got to just congratulate you

because your amazing book, Separation of Church and Hate, which we hear from listeners all the time, and I hear from listeners in person, too, how much they love it, a book that really distinguishes between true Christianity and Christian nationalism, uh and uses the Bible in such an important way to criticize white nationalism and and theocratic views, uh has won a major award, and that's from Audible for best, I understand, best audio nonfiction audiobook, period. And that's That's I was so moved, John. 2026 Audio Awards last night in New York City. I I kind of felt like Ringo, you know, I'm just glad to be here. Uh and and and I had to go to the SiriusXM Studios. I was like, "Do I have to go to this award show?" And but I was excited. I've It's my first audiobook, and and so I did not think I would win this. I beat Spinal Tap, >> [laughter] >> I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, Rob Reiner would be delighted at this, I know, but

I feel like the the they made a mistake in the in the in the jury room. But thank you, Professor. It's a Well, so much badness in the world and the destruction we're going to talk about is, you know, worrying, to say the least, and especially at the helm of uh led by this out-of-control president. Uh but to have great news like this, which is so well deserved, congrats again, and on behalf of the so many listeners that I hear about, I I know everyone is thrilled for you. You know, Professor, I think part of the gaslighting is they don't want people to feel joy. They want us to be in a state of anxiety and panic all the time. And I say to folks on my SiriusXM show almost every night, don't let these people take your joy away.

Despondency is privilege at a time like this amidst so many constitutional crises. So, I just tell everyone to please don't let them take away your joy. And as soon as I find the right medication cocktail, I look forward to having joy that I won't let them take away. Um, but I I right now as for now, uh, my neuroses are up to 11, Corey. This weekend America and, uh, Israel launched this illegal war and killed the leader of Iran. This happened, um, 73 years after the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratic democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953. And I just want to say this because most media won't be reminding us. But that last time America overthrew a leader of Iran, that American led coup led directly to the abuses of the Shah, the rise of the extreme religious conservative nut jobs running Iran, the 1979 hostage crisis happened directly as a result of America's actions, and all the abuse of the Iranian people we've witnessed for

decades. President Eisenhower, the last Republican president to balance a federal budget with a surplus, by the way, it's been 70 years. He He authorized Operation Ajax because Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mosaddegh, believed that the oil beneath the ground belonged to all Iranians rather than Western oil companies. And this led to us staging the coup against this democracy, installing the Shah, who became so Hitler-like in his cruelty that eventually to a tormented populace, the fundamentalist lunatics seem like the only way out. And now 70 years later, we are bombing them after tearing up a nuclear deal that our military insists Iran was complying with. And then after bombing their nuclear facilities, obliterating was the word Trump used last fall. But now suddenly, I guess either we were lying then or we're lying now. So, there's a lot to unpack here, Corey. Let's begin with the the the biggest one. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. What did the framers

intend that little clause to accomplish? Well, I think too, especially as we talk about fighting theocracies or fighting dictatorship, if that's really what we're about, we've got to look back to our founding documents because of course the the Declaration of Independence is a revolution against monarchy and the Constitution is meant to be an alternative to monarchy. And one of the simplest places to start is with the divided power war power that the um framers came up with. In British monarchy, the king initiates war, a queen, the monarch, initiates war and carries it out. And what the framers quite brilliantly realized that they needed to do, and this is a lesson that we've forgotten unfortunately, but need to come back to, is to divide that power up, to give the power of initiating war not to uh the executive, not to the president, but to Congress. And to give the power to carry it out, the power of commander in chief, to the president. By dividing the war power in that way, they thought that things would be slowed down when it came to the decision to go to

war. And yes, they thought it it would be tilted against war. It would have a default against really seeing how destructive war was, not just because of the obvious death that results from it. The horror of that, but because the entire domestic agenda, they argued the framers, would be swept up in an international conflict. And so whatever our goals were of, you know, at home of protecting liberty or fighting poverty, that was being at risk the second we go to war. And so that's why they divided the war powers up in that way. And as we'll get to, there was an attempt to refine after Nixon to revive these these split war powers, to revive the role of Congress, but but it hasn't worked out as well as we would hope, especially at this moment. Yeah, I want to get to what I think are the two biggest, starkest, dumbest lies this administration has told in the midst of this campaign, but I got to ask >> [gasps] >> I'm thinking historically, Professor, if a president launches large-scale

military strikes without any kind of congressional authorization, Mhm. under what circumstances, if any, could that be constitutional? Only if we've just been attacked, right? No, it's more complicated than that, and certainly that's one example that even under the Constitution that defensive war, say America was attacked by a foreign adversary and the president responded in self-defense, I think that's pretty clearly within the president's commander-in-chief power. Now, you asked the question in an in an important and subtle way. Are there some uses of force that fall short of full war that might be allowable by the president without consent of Congress?

And the answer, according to the War Powers Act, is yes. And there are really two uh iterations of the War Powers Act that I'll talk about, but I'll just start out most sim- simply about what the purpose is. Please. So so Nixon, of course, um there there was an a long battle about whether or not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was authorization for the Vietnam War, but aside from that, the incursions into Laos, uh um for instance, uh and in Cambodia, uh were widely regarded by the American public and by Congress as illegal incursions.

And so for that reason, Congress actually has a moment of sticking up for itself in a strong, strong way at the end of Nixon's presidency, not only in the impeachment proceedings, which lead to his resignation, but in the passage of what's known as the commonly as the War Powers Act at the end of his presidency. He vetoes it, of course, he doesn't want limited war power, and there is so many so much support for this that there's an override in Congress. And what the War Powers Act's purpose is is to reclaim for Congress that power to declare war, but they are focused on the question that you asked.

What about conflicts where the president acts short of total war? And in those instances, they put a time limit. They said there could be a 30 or even 60-day period in which will allow these conflicts, but after that the time's up. You absolutely, according to this law, and this is what they thought was reclaiming the power, um could um uh require not could, needed the president needed Congress to authorize that action. And so, any immediate emergency action, for instance, that that the president's knowledge requires him to or leads him to to make that decision of the use of force short of total war, you have 60 days. And um that War Powers Act, what was used in um Iraq both Iraq wars um and in Afghanistan. There was an authorization under the War Powers Act of this use of force, not a declaration of war. The idea was this these were actions short of war, and we can talk about that. But but but they were That was the idea.

One other quick thing, which is Congress now I know we'll get into this later, but I do want to mention it. Congress did have another tool that it used. It said, "Look, Congress can at any point with just both houses of Congress stop any military action immediately." Now, that was later changed to require 2/3, and we'll talk about that. But but those were the two You know, that's how they worked it out. They were I You know, I I'm going to criticize them. It hasn't worked, frankly, in the way they thought, but they were trying. And that's the kind of thing when we talk about hope that we need to be talking about. How do we fix this thing? Okay, well, this is the part where I ask the the dumb questions then.

>> I need you to help me explain this. >> Yeah, no. So, so I I have many, don't worry. And And folks, this is a lot sexier than it sounds, I promise. Um >> [laughter] >> Corey, what was what was Congress specifically trying to correct after Vietnam when it passed the War Powers Resolution? I think they were trying to correct the the fear that the presidency was becoming an imperial presidency, which led to two problems. And this is directly linked to Watergate. It led to illegal wars and to Congress basically being pushed out of the question of whether or not we're going to use the military abroad. And Nixon, you know, wasn't fond of consulting Congress. And so they're fighting back on that front.

And I think they're also worried about more generally dictatorship. That if this president becomes an imperial president, he might shut down civil liberties at home. And we know that, for instance, as I I show in in my book, The Presidents and the People, that he was doing a lot of that domestic repression, ordering basically illegal, criminal shutdowns of his opponents, like Daniel Ellsberg. Yeah. And And so there would be this 60-day clock, plus a 30-day withdrawal period, right? The The resolution note requires notifying Congress within 48 hours.

And then if it's gone wrong, if they want to stop it after a presidential veto, it would require a 2/3 vote to override, right? So if if Go ahead, please. I was going to say this is where it gets complicated. And I'm I want to go into the weeds on this because I think it's worth it. You see how how Is there a more important issue than constraining the president's war power and reviving Congress? I I'm not sure that there is. >> I Congress that refuses to take that responsibility is a more important issue. But I get what you're saying. Go on. Right. Well, you know, part of it is because of what happened here and what I'm about to explain. That if if the law was set up in a different way, it would be much easier for Congress to act. And I think we might have even seen it already. So here's what gets weird. And please ask me questions. As you know, my mom says often, I'm fond of quoting her that there are no stupid questions. And as every listener tells me, John, your questions are never So I thought think we're any any danger of anything like that. Sure.

worry of the stupid question, but this is complex stuff that I'm desperate to explain to people because I think it does explain our current moment. So, it begins with Congress saying a very simple thing. We're going to reclaim our power in this way. You have the 60 days, but if two houses of Congress, meaning a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate, majority only, say stop this thing, we don't we don't agree, that's the end of the war. That's the original War Powers Act. Now, in the 1980s, and for reasons that I'm hoping to even get may get really into the weeds on, Congress changes its mind and it goes from upping the power of Congress to sur Sorry, let me say that again. It goes from upping the power of Congress to actually surrendering it. How does it do it? It changes the majority vote of the House, majority in the Senate, to require essentially 2/3 because it says, "We're going to change the rule. A majority of both houses can stop a war if, now notice this, John, follow me here, if the president agrees.

Right. And if the president disagrees, you need 2/3. What do you think's going to happen when a president has action that a Congress is going to stop? Of course, he's going to disagree and veto the resolution. And so, as Democrats talk about things now, the number you're going to hear about is 2/3. That was a conscious choice of the Congress in in the 1980s during Reagan, I think it was '83, that they changed the rule from from majority of both houses to 2/3. There's a reason for that that has to do with the Supreme Court, but the bottom line is they messed it up. I'm not going to curse because we go for clean on this show, but they definitely effed up the the the War Powers Resolution by by literally handing over the war power to the president. When it comes to the 60 days is still there, thankfully, and in 60 days, the president's supposed to stop this thing if he hasn't gotten authorization.

Otherwise, it's it's obviously an illegal war. But short of that, Congress used to have the power to have just a majority both houses stop it. We've got to go back to that. When we get through this disaster, it's got to be priority number one. We've talked to uh Ted Lieu and Sheldon Whitehouse. We'll continue to have members of Congress on the show, and that's one of the things that I really want to push them on. Well, I want to talk about the uh the first of the big lie, maybe the biggest lie we've been given, which is that this war, this attack, this this preemptive strike by America keeps Americans safe. And this is the oldest line in the playbook. We had to bomb these people for for safety, you know, defensive bombing. Even the Pentagon briefers told Congress there was no evidence of a preemptive strike from Iran coming.

There was no imminent attack coming. The Pentagon, not Hagsef, but the Pentagon seems to have thrown Trump under the bus on this one. And yet suddenly we're supposed to believe missiles were seconds away from hitting Cleveland. The the intel assessment said Iran was years away from an ICBM that could reach the US. Years. But I think in Epstein panic time, that means drop everything now. So, this is preventive war, which is exactly what Bush and Cheney's rationale was for invading and occupying Iraq. I'll remind everyone Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower said preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I could not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. So, I I mean, Corey, it just seems to me like if this keeps America safe, it's it's it's like setting your house on fire to keep your family warm.

Presidents often justify unilateral force because of an imminent threat. Um it's going to be debated for a long time whether this was, constitutionally speaking, how narrow is that exception supposed to be? Uh it's right to say that if there really were missiles flying at at the United States, that the president would be within his rights to act defensively, but as that turns out not to be true, that rationale disappears and it looks like it was a misguided attempt. I mean, big surprise by this president to mislead us and I will keep thinking it wasn't illegal. I will say about Bush and Cheney that yes, exactly. That was the rationale for war. It turned out to be false. They likely knew it was false and all that is horrible, but not to defend Bush and Cheney, although in in several moments they look good compared to Trump. There was an authorization in Iraq of the use of force and you know, I I don't agree with that especially in retrospect, but at least Congress took the responsibility to act whereas here

there's an attempt to completely circumvent them and that's why it's so important that Congress step up especially after the 60 days if if the president continues to to engage in this war. You know, arguably the 60 days is being generous to Trump because the craft those who drafted the War Powers Resolution were very clear and John, this is one of the really important things that you said early on that the 60-day leeway was in action, military action, military force short of war and you know, I don't think that's what we're talking about here. This looks like a total a major war that the president's launched and so in my opinion, there's a good argument that actually zero days that he needed the authorization even with the War Powers Act. So if if intelligence assessments show there was no imminent attack coming and again, these are the guys who were boasting that they obliterated Iran's nuclear program less than 6 months ago. I think they obliterated what the word obliterated means, but if these assessments show no

attack coming, doesn't that significantly weaken an Article 2 justification here? Definitely. The idea that he's sort of doesn't need Congress because he's acting defensively, you know, if he thought he going to try it that that 80% it was my student Pete Hegseth and still on that. You got us dropping that factoid Corey. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you. I was not not bragging. I'm apologizing. The um I'm feeling guilty. No, remind everyone that swine is Ivy League. Remind Ivy League autonomous is the biggest problem in our in our government. These guys that Senator John Kerry John Kennedy, he was he was a road scholar and now he talks like a man who steals chickens. No, let's out them as as as as being Ivy League, but go on.

>> I mean, I'm so horrified as I see what Hegseth is doing and the idea that I likely was his TA. I it does haunt me. The the other thing that that haunts me is that you know, Hegseth here is the the adult in the room oddly. I mean, not that he's an adult in any way, but that Trump just tries this out like right right what lie and then it's exposed for that. So, I think we're done with that. There's no idea that there was some imminent attack on the United States and so now we're in the realm of is it the provision of the War Powers Act that requires authorization within 60 days or is it a kind of full out war that would have required it after well, no days that it would have required it in advance. Either way, this president is is is almost certainly acting illegally. He doesn't have plans after the 60 days to stop the way he's talking about it. So, just so so we're totally clear deterrence preemption That would be fine. They're not, but they're going Yeah, they're not constitutionally equivalent to repelling an actual real attack.

A real attack and I'm litigating this now Corey. I'm like I'm going to be I'm going to be the whole war crimes tribunal. If there was really an imminent attack coming against the United States regardless of whether it was launched, I'd say yes, the president was within his right to launch a pre-emptive war and that would be legal, but that's not what happened here. Yeah. Now, the second big lie, cuz at 2:30 in the morning, cuz all great constitutional moments happen at 2:30 in the morning, Donald Trump posted the bombing announcement like like he like he's dropping a new sneaker brand. And then 2 hours later, at 4:30 a.m., he posted, "Iran interfered in the 2020 and 2024 elections." So, there it is.

Now, I guess war Corey is apparently retroactive campaign customer service, right? They ruined my poll numbers. But, this is the escalation. Foreign interference becomes national security, national security becomes emergency powers, emergency powers becomes uh we need to rethink how elections work. And so, we know what the the scheme Right, that's the scheme that's going on here. I want to ask you about the legislative veto. Originally, Congress had envisioned that they could stop hostilities with a simple majority. We mentioned it briefly. But, how did the Supreme Court rejecting the legislative veto reshape how these war powers are enforced? John, I just love that you do this podcast with me because I don't think that any uh podcast that are as widely listened to as ours are talking about the legislative veto. But, if you want to understand why the threat that you were just talking about, which is and let's not be soft about it, the threat of dictatorship, the second that the president assumes that the power to launch wars and initiate it are his alone,

uh that emergency powers might include things like suspending elections. We're not in the realm of democracy. We're in the realm of dictatorship. And that's why it was so important to that Congress at the end of Nixon's presidency to say, "Not only do we not live in a dictatorship, all you need is 50% of that Congress declares war and it can reclaim those war powers with 50% of both houses." So, what Why did they change all this in 1983 to require 2/3 to make it essentially it's almost impossible, I should say, to get 2/3 to override a veto. You You in in the end of Nixon's presidency, it was so unpopular it was possible. But right now, it's it's you know, I hope we'll get to that moment. We're not there now.

Why did they do it? Why were they so weak? And the answer is that there is this obscure case called Chadha. It's not obscure if you study constitutional law, where the Supreme Court, in writing Chadha, took a long-held view, and my research in into his role in the Ford presidency shows that he he This was a long ambition to strip the power of Congress and to restore the president's power. He thought that Nixon, you know, although he wasn't fond of Nixon's crimes, he thought that he had gone uh that that Congress had gone too far in trying to stop him. So, anyway, here is the the long and short of it. And yes, interrupt me if I'm uh I'm failing to do it. The long and the short of it is that the Supreme Court says that the technique that Congress has used to reclaim its power, which is commonly called the legislative veto, and there are over 200 examples of this in legislation, where we'll use two houses of Congress, a majority vote, to stop a president, that that anywhere you find it in these 200-plus laws, it's

it's essentially all unconstitutional. That's his argument in this case called Chadha. And I can tell you about Chadha. He looked for a case in which there was a very sympathetic person. Chadha is um a non-citizen who is told he can remain in the country by um at the time the Immigration Service, the INS, and he's overridden by a veto from from Congress, a legislative veto. Told he has to leave the country.

Court looks like the good guy here. He's like, "No, the guy can stay." The Supreme Court really up to is something much more complicated. It's stripping away the power of Congress in 200-plus laws, including uh and Congress agreed to do this when it comes to the the simple need of 50% of the house, 50% of the Senate that legislative veto to stop a president. And all over the place Congress in 1983 in a lot of instances gets rid of its power under the legislative veto. They didn't even try to fight back. There would have been ways to fight back, to argue it, to instruct the American people about why Congress' power is so important. Instead, they gave it all up.

They just handed it over to the president. Including in the most important place, the war powers. Well, we have to hit a break or we're going to get in trouble, but I just want to say that over over in the Middle East, you know, they call they call government based on extreme conservative religion Sharia law. Over here, they call government based on extreme conservative religion Scalia law. We got to take a break break, back in just a second. This is The Oath and the Office. Welcome back to The Oath and the Office. I'm John Fugelsang. It's a very special Operation Epic Fury episode. Hey Corey, by the way, can I just say Operation Epic Fury does not sound like foreign policy. It sounds like a video game. It has Seth plays in the office between Jell-O shots. You know what I mean? Like does an Epic Fury sound like the energy drink that Cash Patel chugs because he thinks it'll finally make him popular? I hear Epic Fury, I think of Donald Trump, you know, raging against his own blocked colon, but that's that's what they're calling it. These are non-serious people. So, where are we now? I mean, there's as of this taping six Americans have already

been killed. Three F-15 fighters have been downed all by our allies in friendly fire. Three F-15 fighters is more money than Elon Musk claims Doge saved our budget. Okay? So, that's that's where these guys are at. Um beyond the war powers resolution, what is Congress' most powerful tool? I mean, the power of the purse. If Congress cut funding for an operation, that could restrain the president, but are there any historical examples where funding restrictions limited military action?

Um outside of ice in Minneapolis. Sorry, go on. Right, you know, first of all, I think we needed that um that riff uh from you after the longest question of Chada. Listeners have now recovered. Uh so, thank you for that. And now the discussion, you know, what we're always trying to do on this hot podcast is to talk about the truth of where we are. And things are really not good. Congress giving away its power, the president acting as a dictator using the war powers in the most frightening way possible, totally disregarding the American public and their representatives in Congress. That's not a good thing, and we've been honest about it. But now what you're starting to ask about and what we're getting into is the hope, you know, what can we do to fight back? And I'll mention several things. Funding is one of them, but the most important thing I think that we need to start getting on the agenda is Congress reclaiming its power in a new War Powers Act. Here's an easy way to do it. Forget about this 60-day period. Put it at zero. The Congress has the power to declare war. That is, by the way, just two houses and a majority. Nobody

doubts that. And get away from all this convoluted 2/3, 60-day All the War Powers Act, as well-intentioned as it was, it was a failure. So, the first thing that Congress needs to do is to reassert its authority. Now, do they have the votes now? No, but they can start to talk about it. Yeah. The second thing is is funding. If he Let's just look at the scenario where this is most realistic cuz I don't think it's going to happen now. But say Trump defies Congress after 60 days and there's not support. There hasn't been an authorization of the use of force, which I don't think there will be. Uh if we're 60 days out, you know, that's a prediction. I could be wrong, but if Congress does its job, there won't be.

Uh 60 days out, he doesn't have the other The war there is no question. It is illegal under any way of seeing it. Congress absolutely needs to cut off funding. And you know, whether they're willing to do that or not, they have an obligation to do it. A final thing, of course, is impeachment, which we could get into. >> Well, let's get into it because I mean, sorry, justifying a war publicly on grounds that are contradicted by classified intelligence briefings, I mean, that's that's beyond a political problem. That's a constitutional violation. And look, I'm a big fan of normalizing drawing up articles of impeachment every week. And and I mean, the like the very fact that these Democrats haven't introduced impeachment against Pete Hegseth or Kristi Noem is kind of disgusting me. I think we've got to start actually rattling the cage here and making these people a little bit afraid of what's going to happen. I know they they seem quite confident they can steal the midterms, but I mean, this brings us to this issue that is another really, really sexy bit of law, which is the political question doctrine. Because

I I mean, obviously impeachment is already constitutionally grounded, it's not politically realistic. But I want to ask you about the political question doctrine cuz it sounds like another thing that we just made up. I know that courts historically have they've avoided war powers disputes using the political question doctrine. Why and how, Corey? Well, sometimes the courts refuse to get involved in a conflict even though they might have a an opinion. One issue, for instance, in the political question concerns impeachment and how the Senate trial, as you said, just to to follow up on that, that it's not just that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to impeach and remove a president. 50% to impeach in the House and 2/3 to remove, but also to to remove executive officers like Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem. So, in the example in which we're 60 days and there's no authorization of force, absolutely Pete Hegseth should be impeached and removed by the Senate, even if they don't have the votes. So,

the political question doctrine, one way into it is to understand that when it comes to impeachment, the courts have said hands off. We're not going to get involved, for instance, in the rules on the Senate trial. And there was a case about a judge, also named Nixon, not Richard Nixon, but a Judge Nixon. And the court said, you know, this is this is not the kind of issue in which we're going to get involved. They've also in war powers made the argument that this is too complicated. If there's a dispute about whether or not a law is legal between Congress and the president, we're going to have our hands off. One of the things I'd love to see in a new war powers act is to change that, to make it clear that if the war is illegal, that absolutely the courts need to be involved. And it's been a failure, I think, this political question doctrine. But that's the worry, that even if the war is illegal after six 60 days to get down to it, you would hope that the courts would intervene.

They're they're unlikely to do so. So, we're not going to hear this on the corporate media because, hey, ratings, but there's no constitutional requirement that a president has to demonstrate their the independent US national interest is at stake, right? The president doesn't have to prove that that the national interest is threatened. But if a president is linking military action that's already illegal to bogus claims of foreign election interference, I mean, that's pretty terrifying. I've already said on this show, I believe he's going to try and cut a deal with Maduro where Maduro gets a pardon from prison for saying that Venezuela hacked our election in 2020. But I mean, this is about the upcoming midterms. Could a Uh this is a lot of setup, but could a president legally alter federal election rules unilaterally under a national security rationale?

Absolutely not. And there I would hope the courts would get involved because while the question of war itself might be a political question, and one that they're not going to get involved in, the our election law is not. Our election law is and and is, for instance controlled by local government. And when he says he wants to nationalize elections, the idea that he's going to just step in unilaterally and change the rules. No, these things are governed by state and and by uh Voting Rights Act and other federal provisions and courts absolutely need to enforce that. Now, you've seen him willing to cheat. I mean, we had an attempted insurrection. Uh in that should have barred him from office in the first place.

>> He was in bus He was impeached both times. He was impeached for trying to cheat in the same election. But he certainly did that and was and Jack Smith had indicted him for his role in January 6th. So, the idea that he's going to illegally, not legally, try to usurp this election is very possible. He could do it in other ways, too, aside from, you know, just suspending them or something that's obviously illegal. Uh for instance, we've talked about ICE a lot on this show and he could deploy ICE to intimidate people at polling stations. That That I think is realistic as a option that he might engage in. Is that legal? No. No, he might do it anyway. I would hope courts would stop stop it. Uh you can't use uh there's no power of ICE to stop and intimidate voters. That's certainly uh uh illegal and it's certainly a violation of the First Amendment. Um and election law, but but you know, I would hope there that the courts would stop him. By the way, you know, I I don't want to We talked at length about the Texas case and there, you know, we have this coalition of six people who are not um going to stand up for at least

obvious usurpations of the law and they did that in the Texas case and I'd hope that we'd see those same six here. I'm not counting on Kavanaugh or Alito or um um Thomas to do anything that's reasonable, but the six I'm hoping. Yeah, I mean, I hope so, too. I don't have very high expectations for any of the dirty six. I I mean, so the framers, it seems like they envisioned Congress as this democratic emergency brake because war should require public accountability. I mean, Corey, if members of Congress sued, would they have standing? Could service members challenge the legality of deployments?

You know, I'd like to see these suits for sure. And let me say, we definitely have a dirty three, we have a clean three, and then what do we have? Like a moderately dirty? Uh no, John Roberts caused all of this, Corey. Here I'll let Roberts have John Roberts caused all of this. Yes, and I'm not going to argue. By the way, he has this is United States. I had this fight on my show the other night. John Roberts is why women are bleeding out in their cars in hospital ER parking lots. John Roberts is why the Voting Rights Act was gutted and they're doing all of these voter ID laws to make it harder for Americans to exercise their right. John Roberts is why Donald Trump believes he is a king because John Roberts thinks America missed having a king. So, yeah, I don't get all this like John Roberts would he is good that he was forced to sit in the front row and be held behold what he has unleashed on the rest of us because he's Trump to the bone, this filthy aristocrat. I'm sorry, man. I don't let him off the hook for any of this. Yeah, I guess what I would say is, you know, and you of course you know and our listeners know that I've talked about the immunity case and the way that it's really brought about well, we're on the

verge of a coup, a destruction of constitutional crisis is a good thing because there's conflict. A coup is when the president's won and Roberts immunity case did a lot. Voting rights, privacy, it's decimation of our government. The question is whether or not there is in the way that you are seeing with the other three a total capitulation in every case, even the most extreme. And the tariffs at least raises the issue of whether or not and in the case I'm going to talk about, whether or not there are five votes to stop him. So, um yes, members of Congress can seek standing and they often have on grounds that their fundamental powers under the Constitution are being harmed in the event for instance, in which he continues the use of force after 60 days, Yeah.

>> would they take the case? There's possibility that they could take it and then say there is standing, but use this political question doctrine to say it's beyond their control. That's likely what would happen, but at least there would be a stand taken by Congress. At least there would be a line drawn, and at least we would start to educate the American people about why we need this new War Powers Act that I keep preaching about. You know, Corey, this is all so scary. I I I want something comforting and familiar like the Republican Party covering up powerful child rapists. Um we got to take a break, but let's let's go back to let's go back to Camp Epstein because uh they hauled Bill and Hillary Clinton in front of the Congress this week, and I have many questions for you about this testimony. Do you mind shifting gears dramatically to to Not at all. I think that's part of the story, and that's what we're trying to do here each week, tell the truth. It's really true because all of this bombs going off and around, and I'm still not distracted. We'll be right back in just a moment. This is The Oath and the Office. Welcome back to The

Oath and the Office. Hey, we got some uh some some listener mail, but before we get there, Professor Breitweiser on a completely different topic, or maybe not, Bill and Hillary Clinton were brought in front of uh in front of Congress and interrogated uh for for show. Um the Clintons wanted it to be broadcast on TV, and the Republicans decided to release little clips, um and to distract from the reality that Donald Trump and Pam Bondi have broken the law every day since December 19th, 2025 to protect child rapists. Um when Congress subpoenas former presidents or political figures for testimony, what constitutional standards govern that authority? This was very much uh a first, at least in our lifetimes, wasn't it?

Well, I think that the the the fact is that we've seen this before. The house is not really doing anything to investigate Epstein when it comes to in particular Hillary Clinton, I should say is the person I'm focusing on. They're trying to put on a show and they were trying to get clips of her embarrassing herself that as they now are would be released on video. Nancy Mace for instance is putting this all over her social media. And Hillary Clinton said it so well in her statement. She never even met Eps. Like what are you doing?

Asking her to testify about this thing that she knows nothing about and of course it isn't about the victims. It isn't about pursuing the truth of getting these files out. It's about trying to somehow cast blame on this uh woman who Hillary Clinton who has nothing to do with any of it. And so it just was a a travesty. I thought though that she just handled herself so well in her statement which just said, "Look, this is a real crime and we need to find out who the perpetrators were. One obviously is in the White House who's been so connected to Epstein and yet isn't being investigated, has been credibly um has been accused I should say of crimes within the files.

So why are you why are you bringing me out?" And you know, it reminds me of the kind of show hearings that you had during the McCarthy era and the Red Scare where you're just trying to blame people for our you know, there was a real issue about communism in the world and yet trying to turn it internally to to perceived enemies had nothing to do with it and that's what you're seeing here. Well, and if I may, I mean, generally speaking, I'm not a Democrat, but I think um if the evidence proved that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump abused children with Epstein, um Democrats would reject Bill Clinton.

Right. >> Republicans would reject the evidence. So Um, that's what's going on here and my biggest question of all of this is now that they've done it and and half of me, Corey, thinks that the Clintons actually did this to take one for the team historically because now is there not precedent to subpoena President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump who was quite close personal friends with convicted child rapist Ghislaine Maxwell. I mean, this really seems like the only reason the Clintons would have ever subjected themselves to this nonsense.

I do think that's, you know, I I love it that we're finding hope in even these horrible stories and the fact that Bill Clinton agreed to testify does set a precedent. He didn't try to invoke immunity. He said, you know, yeah, I'm not above the law. You're subpoenaing me. Here you go. Even though he, you know, there were reasons certainly for Hillary Clinton to not show up. Uh, and at some point I did see some of the hearing breakdown where she she was being asked, for instance, about Pizzagate and she rightly showed outrage and saying that this is ridiculous and an insult to the institution of the Congress that you're even asking about it. And she would have been in within her rights to walk out at that point because it was totally inappropriate and abusive. Uh, but the fact that they did show up, you know, starts to to bring a precedent. This is hard to imagine, but in this period that I was talking about in which uh, the War Powers Act was passed and these legislative laws using the legislative veto were passed, in particular many of them during the Ford administration including the Emergencies Act. Uh, Ford himself went to try to show the idea

that a president is not above the law and testifies before the House of Representatives. So, you know, I like that idea. That is as grotesque as the spectacle was that maybe there's some coming back. I did want to say something about Clinton. Absolutely right. If it should it's shown that Clinton committed crimes along with Epstein. Um, and I think there's good reason, by the way, to to criticize Clinton on many fronts including his behavior um, uh, in regard to Monica Lewinsky regardless of whether or not the investigation was justified. >> I actually thought that was an unfair thing to bring up. I thought they were just doing that to play pile on the guy.

I'm not saying it they should have brought it up at at the hearing but I'm saying in the in the in the hindsight of history that wasn't a great moment for the presidency and for Clinton himself but certainly to go to your point if he did commit these crimes we should be condemning him. Of course we should and his Sirish Sindad and yet and yet as we see the crimes of Trump and we see by the way his promise to not to get us involved in endless wars and yet doing precisely that in Iran the idea of cognitive dissonance that psychologists talk about seems apt here that many people and I should say you know this isn't a partisan thing necessarily although we're seeing it really in a horrible way in the Republican Party. The idea of cognitive dissonance is that sometimes when the evidence contradicts what you believe rather than short changing your beliefs as you should you change actually your perception of the evidence you lie about the evidence to yourself

and that's what's going on it's a national cognitive dissonance in which the evidence is showing up us again and again that this person who promised no endless wars is engaging in them that QAnon which promised to hunt down the worst child molesters now have been shown to touch the Republican Party and rather than amend the belief that this is my party we're seeing so many Republicans you know just say this president is fine and you know come up with excuses for disregard rate evidence it's it's one of the worst things about the moment. The red hats have decided that war and pedophilia are totally okay now Corey and I don't understand why political figures would voluntarily testify like the Clintons did even when they're not strictly required but I'm I'm kind of delighted now that there's a precedent for compelling testimony from presidents and their wives. I think that that's actually really called for in this case cuz I'm betting the farm on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee.

I think the American people deserve to have another first lady put her hand on the Bible and and and tell the truth about this stuff. Any Anything else, Professor? Anything we have I want to get to to listener mail, but is there any we haven't covered yet? I'll just say, you know, I it's a tough moment for the country, you know, we're on the brink of a presidentially declared war and we've talked about ways of stopping it and ways in which it's arguably illegal. And yet, we're still finding the hope. So, that's why we're doing this podcast and thanks to the listeners for for listening every week and yeah, I'm anxious to get to listener questions.

>> I just if I was Bill Clinton, the only thing I would have said was I've called for all the files to be made public and transparent every day and Donald Trump is still protecting the child rapist. That's the only answer you have to give to every single comment. All right. Um Valerie from New York writes and asks, given the influence of people like Elon Musk funding people like Vance, Peter Thiel in this case, the Antichrist aficionado, are we doomed to see the destruction of democracy? This question's very close to my heart, Corey. I do believe that private financing of elections is the square root of all of our problems, that big money in politics is the square root of all the problems that we refuse to fix. Do you Do you think we're doomed to see the destruction of democracy? Did Did Citizens United seal the deal?

Well, the Anti-Federalists who I'm fond of quoting and looking at warned about a lot of things that could destroy the country and one of them was oligarchy, that in a system in which there was massive amounts of money and the country was large that you just might get not democracy, but the wealthy people destroying our system. And are we seeing that at this point? We are seeing Donald Trump and his cronies, and I worry about J.D. Vance, uh not just influencing in the sense of helping their own businesses, but with these wacky ideas that you get on the right that Valerie is really alluding to, the idea of Peter Thiel that um Greta Thunberg is the Antichrist, and that the worst thing in the world is environmental protection, which he sees as as the as the agenda of the Antichrist, but because he has so much um money that can then be funneled in through and because of Citizens United and through corporate dollars, through dark money, which is uh Jane Mayer, I

recommend her book and others. Yeah. It it is a moment in which we have to see that money in politics is not just some issue of free speech, that we have to protect democracy by creating a system of elections in which money >> Yeah. uh is at least minimized, even if it has some role. And and Citizens United has found that hard hard to do. And so those who predicted that it wasn't going to have a role, it has. There's a uh if Citizens United doesn't um itself protect SuperPACs, it's a lower court decision that does so. So trying to get litigation to overturn that decision, my former law professor Larry Lessig has been a great activist on that front, would be one way to do it. Certainly legislation to overturn that decision to get rid of SuperPACs would be another. And you know, if the Supreme Court stops us, as it might, Citizens United isn't can be narrowed, it can be you overturned, that's unlikely, but certainly could be narrowed. We have to start to talk about an amendment, and I've long supported an amendment, uh and held a conference at

Brown with local legislatures. You know, it's a small step, but I'm proud to say that Rhode Island, as a result of our efforts, including Lessig was a big part of this, uh was the first um state legislature to vote to ask Congress to return a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. That's not going away even if Trump goes away. That's the kind of issue that we have to turn to as we start to talk about how to not just reform our democracy but save it. Why it's almost like the founding aristocrats who designed a system where only wealthy land-owning white males were allowed to vote gave us a rigged system, Corey. Almost seems like the system's been rigged from the very beginning. I mean I always say it's never been about conservative versus liberal. It's always been aristocracy versus democracy.

Conservative versus liberal is how they keep us fighting each other so the aristocracy can rule everything in a in a world where for criminal activities the wealthy pay people pay fines. Well, that's not a punishment for the wealthy. It's a punishment for the poor. Rich who break the law of a fine, not a problem. And in a world where money is speech, it seems like the system is rigged to give the wealthiest more speech. But I don't think it's by design. You know, the Constitution and the Eighth Amendment bans for instance excessive fines. There's no Citizens United provision or talking about money in politics in the First Amendment. It talks about free speech and there are ways of respecting free speech while still curbing the influence of money in politics and not allowing for abusive secret funding of elections. So, I think you know, the Anti-Federalists had a point and that's what you're alluding to that from the beginning they did think it was rigged. And they've certainly been proven right in many ways, but let's not forget too. We've had moments of fighting back. We talked at length about the War Powers Act. That was an important moment even though it didn't

work in the end. McCain-Feingold of course is an extensive campaign finance legislation. John McCain, Russ Feingold too. I actually interviewed Russ Feingold for when I was doing Pass the Mic for SiriusXM. We should have him on this show. And um you know, I think I think we've got to sort of gear up and see that that the Anti-Federalists warning is absolutely important, but that we can overcome it. We can save this democracy. Okay, uh here's the question dear to my heart. Uh Philippa asks, "The recent ham sandwich incident where a citizen threw a sandwich at the National Guardsmen in DC and a grand jury failed to indict seems to be a great example of effective resistance. Is this a road map for the way forward? And if so, how can citizens safely and broadly adopt this template to make the authoritarians unravel?" I just want to come out and say that I I I enjoy wasting food as much as any privileged first world white person. I I I don't think that uh throwing ham

sandwiches is a legitimate form of protest when there are a hungry people on Earth. And I also then Corey, um I don't consider it. I mean I I think it's obvious you're not going to indict a guy for throwing a ham sandwich, but they're looking for any excuse to come down. I mean the greatest miracle of the Minnesota resistance was that no one threw a rock at ICE because they just wanted an excuse to kill people. But uh what do you think about the ham sandwich incident? And and what kind of precedent will that bring us for the years to come? You know, grand juries throughout American history have refused to indict in cases of abuse and it goes way back.

Uh one of the things that Samuel Chase, the abusive Supreme Court justice who with John Adams worked to shut down free speech and the Sedition Act, was impeached partly because he tried to manipulate grand juries who refused to listen to him uh into indicting political opponents. And so, you know, when it comes to the prosecutions of James and Comey, uh I'm if they continue with them, they've been chasing by judges. Uh if they find a judge like Aileen Cannon, you know, type judge, a Trump appointee or somebody sympathetic to actually move forward with these indictments, what I my faith really is in these grand juries that American citizens know it in their intuition when they see tyranny. And you know, in many ways at this moment in time, I trust grand juries. I trust citizens more than I trust public officials. So, it's a great example uh that you know, when these abusive prosecutions are attempted that we still do have this important institution guaranteed by the Constitution. And it's another place that I I have faith that

no, we're not done in yet. We don't have a dictatorship. We're still uh have a fighting chance at keeping our democracy. Professor, I am so grateful that we went deep and nerdy on all of this today. The American people No, no, the American people I think have made it clear that through polling before Trump's attack, they didn't want a new Middle East war. Uh the the polling after the attack revealed that only about 25% of Americans support this illegal attack. That that's fewer people than support Donald Trump. And it's great the president's, you know, partying with his rich donors at Mar-a-Lago while all this is happening, but as you know, kill people and blow stuff up and hope it sorts itself out so we look good is not really a long-term strategy. And and just before we go, I just want to ask you when a president stops feeling obligated to explain war to the people uh war becomes not a national policy, it's an executive impulse. There's no doctor, there's no vote, there's no clearly defined end.

How do you see this playing out in the weeks to come if this thing is not wrapped up quickly? Well, you know, one thing we didn't talk about is the requirement we I mean we mentioned it, but we didn't talk about it is Atlanta some of the issue other issues, but is the simple requirement that the president inform Congress when he's launching a military attack. And he did try to do that um with a few uh congresspeople, but did not inform the whole Congress. And he's really disregarding the most fundamental duties. He's trying to become a dictator, and we're seeing that again and again. So, uh that's one thing I think we need to talk more about is accountability to Congress, and the bigger issue, of course, that we've handled today is that as we talk about this ongoing self-coup, this attempt of Trump to crown himself a monarch, uh that, you know, the usurpation of Congress is a big part of that story, and my hope is that we'll continue to see that we will begin to see, I should say, those congressmen fight back, and um we'll continue to have members of Congress. I should say, too, just

looking forward, we have Stacey Abrams, an amazing figure, uh standing up to this president. We have uh Justice Breyer, who offers We talked about Scalia, the main opponent of Scalia is going to be here with us on this show. That's going to be an amazing moment. Uh and I look forward to those discussions, and I look forward um to joining you and and having the listeners uh uh uh listen in and send their questions as we fight back against this attempt at tyranny. Professor Brush Schneider, uh I want to thank you for the podcast.

Tyranny of the Church, were we number three? We were three last week, Mike as well. If you didn't hear it, check it out. He ran it on my radio podcast. I should say, too, you'll hear an ad for Mike Mike's show. He's going to run ads for our show. It's a nice partnership. Well, Mike, I'm literally excited about the ads at this point. Corey, what's the best way for our listeners to follow you and keep up with your work throughout the week? Uh you can find the Oath and the Office Substack. It's a newsletter where we talk about the stories that we've uh covered on the show, but also link to more information, and there was a lot this time. I love, John, that we went so deep in things like the legislative veto, and you could read more about that in the newsletter. Uh you can find me on Blue Sky as Democracy Prof, and um John, want to thank you not just thank you, but also congratulate you again on the best nonfiction audio book of the year, Amazing with Kahlil Gibran. Thank you, Professor. My book is called Separation of Church and Hate, a Sane Person's Guide to taking back the Bible from fundamentalist fascist and flock fleecing frauds. Um on SiriusXM every night

on the progress channel. If you don't have Sirius, we are a free podcast every morning, the John Fugelsang podcast. Corey Brettschneider's one of our regulars. And um I want to thank uh Wendy and Beowulf and everyone else who tells me when my mic's not working and keeps this podcast running. Uh thank you, professor. I want to thank everyone uh for writing in. And we'll see you next time on The Oath and the Office.