Did the Supreme Court Just Save the Election? With Skye Perryman

This episode is brought to you by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Quick civics question.

When public officials swear an oath to the Constitution, does that mean protecting everybody's rights or promoting their own religion? Because as students head back to school, that question matters. Public schools serve families of every faith and no faith at all. They should not be used to pressure students, promote religious messages, or make any child feel like an outsider. FFRF says the oath is to the Constitution, not a creed. The Freedom From Religion Foundation works to keep state and church separate and speaks up for free thinkers, atheists, agnostics, and non-religious Americans.

Learn more at.

Ffrf.us slash office. That's F-F-R-F dot U-S slash O-F-F-I-C-E.

Welcome to the Oath in the Office podcast. I'm John Fuglesang. It's so good to have you with us. And it's so good to welcome the star of our show, the Mac. Of the oath in the office, the author of the oath in the office, as well as the author of the presidents and the people, a man thrown out of Wu-Tang Clan for being too hardcore. I give you Professor Corey Bretschneider. Hey, Corey.

Hey, John. We have quite a show.

We have Sky Perryman is going to join us. We're going to talk about the latest in the post office case, the Supreme Court, thankfully not allowing Donald Trump to move forward with his plan to essentially use the post office to steal money.

Election.

We'll talk about why that happened. We'll talk about her ongoing litigation to stop the slush fund, which it turns out is not totally dead, although it should be. And of course, we're going to talk about the theme of this presidency, corruption and the real theft that's gone on using the office to sell pardons to abuse power. And, you know, this is a show about the abuse of power, but also about a hope and the promise of the pledged to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, defend the office, the oath in the office.

So we'll do both.

We'll be honest this week and also offer some hope.

Well, I mean, it's amazing. We've been talking about the post office and this battle that's been going on for months. The United States Postal Service delivers Christmas cards and tax returns and wedding invitations and jury summonses and sex toys and your aunt's 47-page Facebook printout, but suddenly, whoa, hold on, this envelope looks suspicious, right, Corey? Like, It's just amazing to me that it's went this far. Nothing says limited government like giving the federal government a new job checking whether you're allowed to receive your ballot in your mail to exercise your constitutional right. I mean, I'm excited to talk about it with Sky, but is this finally over, at least for 2026?

It's over for this election, I think.

But, you know, the threat to democracy continues because the idea of the unitary executive, which we've talked often about, but we can't talk enough about, that essentially the president has total control over the executive branch. What this maneuver was an attempt to do was to use that control in order to usurp the law, to usurp our elections. And, you know, what's hopeful is that the Supreme Court majority did stop it.

But, you know, the.

Case is this isn't a final decision on the substance of the law. It is a case that says that it was likely to be an illegal series of maneuvers that they used.

Now, could they come up with ways of.

Making this attempt to pretend to combat fraud, but really steal the election in the future and future elections?

Could they get it past this court? I hope not, you know, but let's be honest too.

There were two justices, Thomas and Alito, who essentially, to my mind, I mean, we can't call, there's no legal reason for this.

They were essentially saying, Yeah.

Let this guy steal the election.

And really partisan hacks, two of them.

Now, Trump also attacked the justices that he appointed that turned on him as he sees it, as he did in the tariffs case. And, you know, that shows this tension. My hope is that those justices are starting to get the message that this isn't an ordinary time.

Starting to get the message? Corey, they all know exactly what they signed up for and they all thought they could be the ones to ride the wave.

Yeah, well, you know, we'll give credit where credit is due. They didn't go along with his attempt to steal the election. I, as you know, last week, a lot of listeners said to me, and I heard from them that, you know, we hear the fear in your voice. And I was scared because when you have this Supreme Court essentially enabling, I mean, let's just remind people, you know, about a third of Americans vote by mail. And he was able to demand that states certify their voters lists against his lists of blocking off supposed fraudulent ballots, which were really just an attempt to shave votes off and to win the.

Election by cheating.

That was a threat to the midterm elections. And that's why I was so worried. So you hear me more relieved.

There is hope.

We'll talk with Sky later about fighting back and citizens' role in fighting back. And, you know, here we did have a victory and those lower court decisions were upheld.

And you know that this was good for democracy because Fox News didn't cover it. I mean, the news broke at 7 p.m. Eastern, right? Laura Ingram- who I'm told went to law school and graduated. She didn't think it was worth telling her viewers that the Supreme Court had knocked down Trump's scheme. And then Jesse Waters came on and I never missed that show. That's a summit. You know, Corey, that guy. And then he never mentioned it. Hannity shows up. Hannity at one point said the single most important midterm election in our Hannity never mentioned it. Corey, this was so bad. They had to work overtime their entire primetime lineup to keep Fox News viewers from knowing the news.

Well, we live in two realities.

You know, there's the people who listen to the Oath in the Office podcast and.

Other shows like it.

And there's those Philistines.

And then there are people who are watching, you know, Fox. which is telling them that, you know, Trump is just trying to fight fraud.

And what is Trump telling his supporters? I'm just fighting fraud. I'm not doing anything.

He's trying to fight fraud. Yeah, yeah. By the way, Trump University and fight fraud with him. Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, they might have overturned an election.

And, you know, the theme of his own corruption and his fight against democracy, it's one idea, which is it's all about himself and his own power and self-aggrandizement.

So the short version is this Supreme Court just stopped the 2026 election from becoming essentially a nationwide software beta test. I think the funniest part of it all, Corey, I guess you could say in this post office ruling, the Supreme Court stamped it, return to sender. And there we go. So let's get to the fun stuff, Corey.

I'm here for the jokes, so I love that.

Then let's talk about the $ 5, 000 dividend. You know, the president went to the midterm convention, and I know you weren't watching because nobody was, and he promised $ 5, 000 to every American of voting age, if, if the Republican Party keeps the House and the Senate, if then you'll all get $ 5, 000. Now, this is funny for many reasons. I don't see how it's not a bribe, Corey, because of the if part of it, but essentially, man, baby, who's already owes us money for the tariffs in a check. And I'm still waiting for my doge check from last year. That's coming soon, right, Corey? I'm waiting on the doge check. Now, essentially, he rolled out of bed and said, hey, Alexa, give every adult $ 5, 000. And didn't do the math, which comes out to $ 1. 2 trillion. Now, I don't think we have $ 1. 2 trillion lying around, professor. So best case scenario, what? He's trying to borrow from our grandkids to pay us now? I mean, they control the White House House and the Senate. He could give the damn money out right now. But he suggested he might not need Congress to authorize such payments. Corey, does he have any plausible constitutional pathway to do this unilaterally?

Well, you know, John, I wish I could. First of all, let me start off by saying, let's talk about the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Trying to bribe people in order to vote for you is not consistent with that, to say the least. But so often we're talking about how the system should function. And this show is also about the reality of how it does function. And unfortunately, the First Amendment, in particular the right of free speech, has been so expanded that the court has limited the kind of corruption, even bribery claims that you can bring. And I think that if a prosecutor were to look at this, I mean, there are so many hurdles to ever prosecuting it. that it's unlikely that it would ever happen. He would say certainly there is a right to free speech. He would say that under the immunity case, Trump versus the United States, that this is an official act that.

He's engaging in. It's a partisan one.

And this court has often rejected challenges, for instance, to partisan gerrymandering on the grounds that, look, you know.

This is part of partisanship, it's part of politics.

So I don't see a successful prosecution. I think the First Amendment would block it off. I think the immunity case.

And that's a real problem.

It's part of why after this presidency, when we have a Congress that wants to preserve the office, we have to start to talk about how to rein in executive power with more specific criminal law. that outlaw exactly something like this. We shouldn't think about politics in terms of what could we prosecute with the laws on the books. We should start with the ethical realization that this is obviously bribery, obviously wrong to try to use the United States Treasury in order to steal an election. And then we've got to think back to the kind of laws that we need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. But the reality is that we have, you know, we don't have sufficient either laws on the books to prosecute it or an infrastructure to prosecute it. And we have this court, despite what it did in the post office case, you know, it didn't totally sell us out, but they blocked off so many of the ways of trying to produce accountability for presidents like this who engage in essentially bribery.

So, I mean, it's $ 1. 2 trillion, Professor. Congress hasn't appropriated any of that money. I guess the question I really want to unpack constitutionally is when does a presidential promise become an exercise of presidential power? Because he's always BSing people. I mean, he lies constantly, but this was quid pro quo.

Well, what he does, and we saw this in the post office case, the court thankfully stopped him, and I would hope that he would be stopped here, too. is that he looks for either inherent powers, he says, of the executive branch. So just to explain it again, in the post office case, he's saying, look, the post office is part of the executive branch. And in the same way that, you know, the printing office in the White House that, you know, makes brochures when people come to visit, I could say what I want in that or not. I can also tell the post office that I want to combat what I think fraud is.

That's what the Solicitor General does.

So that's one thing that he does, is he looks for inherent powers. He also looks for legislation that he says grants him powers, generalized delegations of power.

So by analogy, Sky Perryman's group.

Democracy Forward and I, worked on an amicus brief in the tariffs case. And what he did there, there is no power of a president, and this is what we said in our amicus brief, to unilaterally impose tariffs willy-nilly as he wants in an arbitrary way. But he looked for a law, and he found the International Economic Emergencies Act, and he says, that delegates me the power to institute these tariffs. Now, we said in our brief, and the Supreme Court said, I don't think so.

We read the law. It says the opposite, actually. It reigns in presidents. So he'll do that, too.

He'll look for legislation that he claims enables him to pay this bribe, essentially, assuming that his party wins both houses.

Yeah.

And again, like I'm sorry. Go ahead, Corey.

Yeah.

And I was going to say, you know, one close cousin of the International Economic Emergencies Act that he used in the tariffs case is the National Emergencies Act. So you could imagine him, for instance, saying, well, we're in a national emergency that requires the payment of these of this money. And, you know, more likely than that, I think the House is going to go to Democrats and they'll have an easy way out.

He won't have to pay up. And he'll be relieved about that.

But, you know, there are ways to usurp congressional power. And the theme of this presidency has all been about that. Remember, Doge just ignored the power of the purse. And so why would he not try it again?

Well, because Doge saved us so much money and made the deficit go down.

Oh, wait, no.

But I mean, look, last question on this. I mean, it's bribery out in the open, right? I mean, linking a government benefit to an election as a quid pro quo. I mean, that... Like I would think if a Democrat did that, we'd hear all about the Democratic and constitutional concerns of such an action. But I mean, it's open bribery, is it not?

You know, I wish I could say, John, it's open and shut because should it be?

Yes.

Ethically, should we have laws on the books that would make this obviously illegal and would deter any president from doing it?

Absolutely.

But I also have to face the reality that the president's lawyers will come up with all sorts of arguments.

For why this is perfectly legal. It's a normal thing for a president to do.

And their arguments include free speech, the unitary executive, and possibly even here are the statutory powers that give me the right to do it. And, you know, the court has been willing to use the free speech clause to limit all sorts of protections of democracy, most famously campaign finance reform.

It's limited.

And it also has limited the kind of corruption cases that can be brought.

Wow.

So, OK, let's not talk about bribery. Let's talk about selling pardons. Yeah. We've seen a lot of reporting on this growing network of lobbyists and lawyers and presidential henchmen who are seeking to help all manner of wealthy douchebag get presidential clemency. And CBS on the remains of 60 Minutes actually reported this Trump linked lobbying firm got half a million dollars for work involving immigration and parted related discussions. I mean, they actually showed footage of these guys just selling pardons. We already know that Trump is doing this. What does it mean for the rule of law, Corey? when access to presidential clemency becomes something you can just hire a political insider to do for you?

Well, you know, this 60 Minutes report really started to bring home just how in the open the selling of pardons has been. It's something like, according to the statistics, 90% of pardons have bypassed the Department of Justice. And that's if you include the January 6th pardons. But even if you take them out, it's something like 70%. In other words, there has always been a process of what's supposed to be consistent with equity in the rule of law, that you submit a pardon application to the Department of Justice. There's a pardon attorney, essentially, who looks at all this information and weighs the recommendation. And then it goes to the president. It's a way of imposing some sort of standard and order on this massive power of a president. But that's not what's going on here. The president is basically, it looks like, allowing People who are being paid talk about bribes in order to get pardons in front of him. They're bragging, these pardon brokers, about their relationship with staff members close to the president. And the reality of what's happening, which is that these pardon applications aren't being granted through the normal process, but are being granted through people who.

Had direct access to justice.

Exactly.

What's happening is obviously that the president of the United States is selling pardons. Now, one thing I'll just say about 60 Minutes, on the one hand, it's such a damning story that it got through the pro-Trump forces there.

No, it's very Supreme Court, isn't it? It's very John Roberts.

Yeah, I mean, it was just so bad.

Here's something to make the family happy, and now here's our token bit of integrity.

Go on. Very Supreme Court. But, you know, the way they did the story is not the way I just told it. It really is focusing on these people who are abusing the vulnerable to sell these pardons. And I think you could come away from watching that story thinking it's not the president. that's selling pardons. It's these hucksters who are really trying to profit off naive people.

And they're the ones who would take the fall for it as well. But I mean, clearly they're not doing it for themselves. I mean, okay, can a president constitutionally pardon someone for essentially any federal crime, Professor? Are there things a president can't pardon?

Well, as you alluded to, we're talking about federal crimes.

There is no pardon power for state crimes.

That's right, Derek Chauvin.

And the way that the.

Clause, the way that it's put into the Constitution is there is one exception. The president has the power to pardon, and now here's the clause.

Except in cases of impeachment. Now, scholars through the years.

Have essentially argued that that clause, except in cases of impeachment, is essentially meaningless, that the power is plenary or absolute, that it's an absolute power. He could pardon whoever he wants, even as the anti-federalists worried about co-conspirators, even those who are involved with crimes himself. So, you know, Roger Stone, the January 6th rioters, that there is no limit on that pardon. But a great constitutional scholar and scholar of the presidency named Jeff Toulas and I have teamed up to go back to the history of And to really try to look at that clause, there was a debate about it. We know there was a controversial vote at the founding about the way to word it. And what we argue is, look, no one's really sure what that clause means, but here's a common sense way to read, except in cases of impeachment.

That if the president has.

Been certainly impeached or committed an impeachable offense that connects him to those he wants to pardon, there should be a limit there.

And at minimum, it should be a limit.

That Congress has the right to legislate about, that it can come in and say, no pardons for co-conspirators in January 6th, no pardons for Roger Stone and your other cronies who have contributed to impeachable offenses.

And we want to see legislation.

Passed by Congress that says that common sense thing. But things are so bad with the pardon power that many scholars think that would be unconstitutional, that the president really has this absolute power. That, by the way, I just have to say this, was the nightmare of those who oppose ratification of the Constitution. They worried about the fact that a pardon power would mean not It was called by the pro-Constitution forces of the time, the benign power of prerogative to be used for mercy. But the opponents of the Constitution were like, what if you have a bad president? He's going to use this to get his co-conspirators, his cronies, his fellow criminals off.

And that's what's happening. That's why we need legislation to stop.

It seems like a president could just pardon someone in exchange for money and not pretend it was something else. I mean, what about something more complicated, like not an explicit sale, but a wealthy person makes a large political contribution and then gets a pardon? Like, I guess I'm asking, where does bribery law intersect with the pardon power? Is it just not whether a president can pardon someone, but whether the president is using a legitimate constitutional power for an illegitimate purpose?

Well, it doesn't help things.

And, you know, I've been critical, for instance, of Joe Biden, and some listeners might disagree with this, pardoning his son, because I think that the idea of the pardon, you know, it's well, I think there's strong evidence anyway, that a self-pardon would be unconstitutional.

Well, the Catholic Church doesn't let us do that anymore. We're not allowed to self-pardon. That's like nine Hail Marys.

That's one limit.

But, you know, if you think about what a pardon of co-conspirators is, it is a kind of self-pardon or pardon, I'll say this about Hunter Biden, of family members.

It is a kind of self-pardon.

And so, You know, I think members of presidents of both parties have used this power in ways.

In which it shouldn't be used.

And yes, the dominant view of most constitutional lawyers is that unfortunately it is absolute. I think that can't be, that if a power is abused in such a way that it's going to lead to the downfall of democracy. And you look at the January 6th massive amount of pardons, undoing one of the most important cases ever brought by the Department of Justice to try to fight back on behalf of our democracy.

You see how dangerous this power can be.

So no, I don't think it's unlimited. I don't think that's what the history or the text suggests. I don't think that's what common sense suggests. And it's one of those areas where we need legislation to stop it. You know, by the way, and this goes back, John, to what you said earlier, nothing is going to protect the pardon brokers who are selling pardons.

They very well might be prosecuted. But under the immunity case, under the argument that I just gave you for the absolute pardon power, It's unlikely the president will ever face criminal charges for this.

We got to take a quick break. But when we come back, there's a lot to talk about, including we finally reached the exciting stage of artificial intelligence, Corey, where the whistleblowers got so loud, the people building it are starting to say, yeah, maybe we should slow down. Let's talk about this Matrix prequel we are all living in when we come right back on The Oath in the Office.

This episode is brought to you by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We talk every week about the oath, the promise to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. So here's the church-state version of that question. When public officials take that oath, are they promising to protect everyone's freedom of conscience or to use government power to promote their own religion? Because as students head back to school, that question is not abstract. Public schools serve children from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, and many other families. No student should be made to feel like they belong less because they don't share the government's preferred religious message. The First Amendment is not a bridge to government-backed religion. It is a limit on government power. The Freedom from Religion Foundation works to keep church and state separate. because freedom of conscience means the right to believe, question, doubt, or not believe at all. FFRF also speaks directly for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, humanists, and non-religious Americans who are too often erased from the story. Learn more at ffrf.us slash office. That's ffrf.us slash o-f-f-i-c-e.

Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fugelsang, along with the star of our show, Professor Corey Bretschneider. Corey, I want to jump from one constitutional dilemma to something radically different, artificial intelligence. Anthropic CEO Dario Amadei has now called for slowing the development of frontier AI, while other tech leaders have expressed support for greater safety measures. I mean, he pretty much wandered into the middle of the arms race and yelled, hey, maybe we shouldn't build a god machine at full speed. And suddenly Sam Altman agrees and Elon agrees and Demis Hassabis agrees. And I mean, the AI industry has now achieved something artificial intelligence hasn't consensus. And at the same time, you've got a government like Donald Trump and Mike Johnson saying, no, no, no, can't slow down. China might get there first. Like we're going to race towards extinction because we're afraid somebody else might reach extinction before we do. I guess that's the best way to, to explain it. I mean, Is self-regulation adequate when the potential consequences include national security threats or just catastrophic harm? I mean, when a whistleblower says they know that they can destroy all human life within a decade, that to me seems like, you know what, I think it matters a bit more than the medical visits of trans children. Government, get involved in this.

Absolutely, John.

My God, the way that this is being talked about. First of all, this ex-employee of Anthropic coming out and saying 10% chance that all of humanity is extinguished by AI. That is an existential threat that is beyond measure.

He said they all know it. All the CEOs know it.

They all know it.

Then when I listened to the CEO- of Anthropic, he essentially said, not that he disagreed, but that he prefers to frame it in a different way.

And what is that doing? It's trying to hide the real risk.

When you have a risk this high, and the only thing that's comparable is nuclear weapons, you obviously, to my mind, need not self-regulation, but the creation of administrative agencies through legislation in which experts are able to create rules that regulate Now, I just said a lot of words, but what I've just described is one of the most important inventions of the 20th century.

And that is the creation of the administrative state.

The idea that you can, through laws, create entities that have staff who know more about what's going on than even some of the people who are participating, who are weighing the risks, most importantly, on behalf of all of us citizens.

So the idea of self-regulation, I think, doesn't go far enough.

We really need to have a government agency that has forcible rules that can be created as the technology improves, that have access, and that can enforce this. There is already, let's say.

Two more things.

One is There are checks right now, which is, you know, if you create something that you recklessly know is going to kill somebody, you know, that's possibly manslaughter or even.

A degree of murder.

But it'll be too late if that happens. And that's why we need a preventative measure. And in safety dangers like that, we've done this throughout the 20th century and throughout the 21st century. It's just this Supreme Court and this president have undermined it. By the way, I just have to say one more thing, John, you alluded to this president said that we should trust him, that he's a very smart president and he knows about AI. And his solution to all this is that he'll protect us from going extinct.

Wow.

I talk about frightening. That is something that is false. He's not going to protect us. I don't even think he knows what AI is. Yeah.

No, of course he doesn't know. I don't think he can spell AI. You make a very good point because, yeah, we won the nuclear arms race and we won industrial pollution and we won global surveillance and we won social media. And look at how well all that turned out. You know, these humans, we have this amazing record of inventing something incredibly dangerous. And then like 10 minutes later, we ask, oh, should we have rules for this thing? And like, we don't build the guardrails. We build the damn cliff. And then we debate about having a meeting about guardrails. So what is the government's constitutional authority to regulate these AI companies? I mean, could Congress, at least if they, if they're so bought and paid for, they're not going to regulate them while knowing how dangerous they are. Could they at least require AI developers to demonstrate safety and before they're allowed to release these really powerful models?

I mean, I think certainly Congress has the authority, and there was an argument about this in the 20th century, that more libertarian anti-government forces believed that the administrative state that FDR had created was essentially unconstitutional, that it was stealing from property owners, from companies, and it was unjustly regulating and illegally regulating the private economy.

But as FDR... was victorious over a Supreme Court that tried to stop him.

One of the things that emerged was, yes, Congress can hand over power to experts with guidelines. It's not that they just give them willy-nilly power. That's a description that opponents of the administrative state claim. And, you know, ideally, this should be done, too, with independence. I wouldn't want a president being able to control this agency. And I think the legislation that creates it should create that independence. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, in that overturning of Humphrey's executor, which we've talked about often, has really limited Congress's ability that way. So this is a clash between what we need and what our superiors need.

Court is going to allow.

I mean, if we had FDR, we would have been regulating the Internet like a public utility for a decade already. And you're right. I mean, how do you regulate something when the technology evolves faster than the laws designed to govern it? This is like a bunch of addicts to me. We need more AI. We need more AI. It's propping up our entire Wall Street economy. Your toaster needs AI. Your toothbrush, your refrigerator needs AI. We've somehow decided, Corey, that every object on Earth has to become an intelligent software platform because, you know, being a lamp's not good enough now. But beneath all of this, it seems like these CEOs are acknowledging the capability is advancing faster than our ability to understand it. And control what we're creating. If I'm flying on an airplane, I want to know the guy who inspected the brakes isn't the same guy who gets a bonus for convincing everyone the brakes are excellent. You know what I mean? Go ahead. We'll get off of this in a second. But I mean, who's responsible if the AI causes harm? Will it be the developer? Will it be the user? Or will it be the government that chose not to regulate it?

You know, I think that.

we have analogies that can help us. And what I'm hearing in the public debate isn't breaking this down as simply as it should be. There is a technology out there to deal with new technologies that are dangerous or to deal with materials that are hazardous. And so we just have to think about AI by analogy. So think about the Food and Drug Administration. Do we allow any medicine to be allowed to be sold to the public? No, there's regulation to ensure that it's safe. If it's going to be sold over the counter, that it's been researched, if it's going to be prescribed, that it meets a series of standards. And the Food and Drug Administration does just that. If you think, I mentioned the nuclear threat, and let's get a little more specific about that.

I think I could have been more specific.

I mean, nuclear power plants serve a purpose, but they are also dangerous. And so they are regulated very intensely by the government who are in agencies that are staffed by experts. And as much as This administration rails against the deep state and against people who know stuff. Well, look at some of the people who are quitting Anthropic or quitting OpenAI to warn us. Those are the people that could help us to staff these agencies and to create rules that.

Would protect us.

If we're going to protect against dangerous drugs or against drugs. nuclear energy.

How do we not protect.

Against an AI that has a 10% chance of killing us all?

I just think it's easier than it sounds. If you can get them to settle for government salaries, if you can get these privateers to settle for government salaries, then yeah, you might be onto something, Corey, because that's who should be working with the government to regulate this, people from the inside who know how dangerous it can be. And again, I'm enjoying talking about the end of the world, but Can we move it on to something a bit more light, like the return of Nazis to German politics? Because this AFD story, Corey, I mean, they've made a major breakthrough in Germany's Saxony-Anhalt election, winning 39 of 83 seats in the state legislature. They had like 23 previously. I guess congratulations to far right people who are just like Nazis, but don't like being called Nazis. What does this tell us about the resilience and vulnerability, Professor? of established democratic parties?

You know, the fact that things like economic, the problematic economy, for instance, or the unequal distribution of wealth in Germany, that some of those things have been co-opted by the right to allow them to take over, at least in these local elections.

Should frighten us. And it is a story.

The Nazi party, I should say, is illegal in Germany. But the AFD goes right up to the line of what's legal and have not been outlawed.

And they're winning elections.

So it is a clear message that authoritarianism around the world remains a threat. They were helped by Viktor Orban. But Viktor Orban, I think, also gives us some hope in this story. And as we talk to Sky and pivot to that interview and finish this discussion, if I left people without as much hope as they needed in the last episode, I want to leave them with lots of hope. Let's remember Viktor Orban, who really did destroy democracy in Hungary. And yet citizens, the State Department of the United States, really were able to turn the tide by highlighting his corruption. And as that message got out, including in what were thought to be strongholds of Orban, you know, in areas that were thought to be, you know, solely for him. as those stories of corruption got out, he was defeated in an election. And I think that's what's coming in our own midterm election, that the more we can tell the story of Trump's selling pardons, that we can tell the story of his bribery to try to bribe the American people into voting his way, that in this midterms, we're going to have a serious pushback. It happened in Hungary. There was a destruction of democracy, and yet it recovered. So the AFD story is worrying. You know, aided by people like Viktor Orban, but Orban himself and his own defeat is in many ways an inspiration.

And I want to point out that, you know, Orban was not defeated by a leftist or a reform party. The Peter Magyar coalition, I mean, they're right wing. They're just not crazy right wing. And they campaigned heavily on corruption. And it was liberals and conservatives together who brought down this fascist. I mean, do you think that could work here? Could anti-corruption become a strong enough Democratic rallying point that it cuts through traditional left-right politics? I mean, I'm including the Epstein cover-up. I'm including data centers and ignoring the will of the people. I mean, these are all forms of corruption, and these are all the strongest areas, I think, where we could get Republican brothers and sisters to acknowledge they may have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, and led astray.

Yeah, I think what it requires is doing what we're trying to do every week, and which I wish mainstream media was doing more of, but independent media is doing it. And that's telling the story in depth of Trump's corruption and correcting mainstream media like 60 Minutes when it tries to tell the story of pardons as if it's really pardon brokers that are the problem, not the president of the United States. So I think if we're able to get that message out, and I am hopeful that we will, that's not just a message for the Democratic Party.

It's for Republicans as well.

We had the Attorney General of New Mexico a number of months ago. I think he was one of our first guests. What he said really stuck with me, which is anti-democracy and anti-corruption and pro-economy that will benefit everyone, those are not three separate things. We need to find a vocabulary that to bring them together. And that is what happened in Hungary. And I think that's what is happening here too.

I mean, how much does democracy, Corey, depend on laws? And how much of it depends on people just voluntarily respecting norms that the law doesn't necessarily force them to respect?

You know, I think you need both.

You had a period after the Nixon administration in which we did pass a series of laws that reigned in presidential power and that created real checks on power, created an independent council.

That gave us.

The evidence, at least, of the scandal of Iran-Contra that put presidents in check. And the fact that we've undermined that, combined with the fact that we've got this deeply unethical president, this criminal president, that's been the danger of the moment. That is why it's created so much fear. So the answer is, you know, we need good people to fight back. We need to elect leaders who have virtue in the way the framers meant, which was to obey the law.

That's what they meant by virtue.

And we need to, you know, push back against those who would use the office just to benefit themselves.

And, you know, you're right. I'm the guy who's still angry about Iran-Contra all these years later. I'm still furious about it. As soon as I was old enough to understand what it was, I've been mad ever since. But we will never know for all of the lack of any kind of accountability and all the pardons that Bush gave for everyone convicted. We'll never know how much that investigation held the administration in check. You know, they sent weapons to illegally arm the same Iranians who had killed our Marines in Beirut. They illegally used the money to fund the Contras in Central America after Congress passed a law saying they couldn't. They lied about Israel's involvement in the shipments. Israel was shipping weapons to Iran. I mean, the whole thing was dirtier than Chris Christie's hamper. And yet we'll never know how much that held the administration in check, which is why I'm a big fan, Corey, of every last impeachment measure that you want to bring. Carter Balgreen, let him have all he wants, because I want the next like these Democrats are all saying we're not going to impeach him, not going to impeach him. I disagree. I want this administration to be so busy on defense that they don't have time to invade other countries or have these illegal wars or do crypto grift. I want them terrified every day. And I think the American people are going to vote for the candidates who are going to bring the fight to them and really, really make accountability more than just I'm going to give an angry speech.

And I think I'll say it right here.

I don't love predictions, but I will predict this, that if Democrats win the House of Representatives, I think we will see an impeachment. And part of its importance isn't just in stopping Trump. It's in getting the information out, because when we get information about corruption out, about abuses of power, as we did to a degree during Nixon, not enough, but to a degree. that's how we start to get the motion towards legislation to really reform and protect and restore this democracy.

Well, let's take a quick break. And when we come back, let's sit down with the great Sky Perryman. I've got a lot of questions for both of you about this Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballots. Don't go away, everybody. Be right back on The Oath in the Office. Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. Professor Brettschneider, I'm really excited about this next guest because the last time she was on this show, I wasn't here. And the last time she was on my show, you weren't there. So I'm thrilled you were able to get Sky Perryman to return your calls.

Absolutely.

We're delighted to welcome back to The Oath in the Office for the second time, Sky Perryman. Sky, of course, is the president and CEO of Democracy Forward. And I'd say that Democracy Forward has really been at the forefront of the legal fight against the Trump administration's abuses of power.

As we're talking about different.

Cases in which the lower courts, for instance, have stopped Trump, it's often them that have brought the cases, that have worked with the litigants. And I've also had the pleasure of working with Democracy Forward on the tariffs case, on an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of the tariffs. That was a real honor and an amazing team, I have to say, to work with. So I've seen firsthand, too, the outstanding work that Democracy Forward does. Skye also has a new book out, and we'll ask her about it. It's called Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, How to Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy. And we'll put a link to it in our show notes. So Skye, welcome back to The Oath in the Office.

Oh, it's so good to be with you all. Yeah, thanks for having me.

It's great to have you. Thank you. It's a rather auspicious time because we're recording this Right after the Supreme Court has more or less decided, no, the post office isn't Donald Trump's secretary of state. And I'm so glad you're here to talk about it with us. I mean, he wanted the post office to verify voters sky before delivering ballots. I mean, just think about how this this sentence sounds. The government wants the post office to decide. whether we are sufficiently voter-ish to get our own ballot. What did you make of this? And do you think the Supreme Court's ruling changed anything about these new rules for mail-in ballots? What is still not resolved?

Yeah, I mean, this is really, if you take a step back, and this is what we want everyone to really pay attention to here, this administration has lost in court every single attempt that it has made so far to undermine the midterm elections through engaging in federal administration elections. We have a range of cases where we have secured court orders that remain in place. The Postal Service case, there's not a single federal court. We've had multiple federal district courts. There's not a single federal court that has said that what the president has done there is lawful.

You saw the.

Supreme Court keeping those court orders in place last night, as it should, given how close we are to the elections and given the lack of authority that the president has here And I do believe that we will continue to see the courts, including at the Supreme Court, be a reasonably strong guardrail against interference with these elections. That does not mean that the courts are the silver bullet. And that's why, you know, we're going to talk about my book. That's why I've written an entire book, not about the courts, but about what ordinary people and all of us as Americans need to do in this time. But this is really the White House is trying to confuse people. And so I just want everybody that's listening to hear there is not I'm unaware of any case that. right now, where a court has said that anything the administration is trying to do with respect to these elections is lawful. And I think you're going to continue to see that.

I mean, how do we understand?

I mean, I, of course, was thrilled, as I'm sure you were, and many of us around the country care about democracy, where the Supreme Court has not enabled Donald Trump to move forward with his plan to really use his control over the post office to undermine the midterm elections.

How do you understand what's going on in the court?

I mean, do you think there's a fundamental shift happening, a recognition that this president really does threaten democracy? Or is it potentially that, as was the case in birthright citizenship, a sort of, what are you talking about?

Like, this is just so far beyond the pale.

I have to just throw one more thing in, and I don't know if you were concerned as I was, but the fact that we had this earlier ruling saying that it was too early to decide when the election was so close That.

To say the least, worried me. So where are we with the Supreme Court and what does this decision tell us?

Yeah, look, I think, you know, we've always said the courts are an important guardrail. They're not the silver bullet. And one reason they're not the silver bullet is, of course, that with this Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, we've certainly seen across a number of cases, some generational setbacks in the fundamental rights of people in this country. The voting rights decision, Louisiana v. Calais, there's no way around it. It was a huge setback. for the ability of people to be represented, particularly for the ability of black and brown communities in the South in particular to be represented. That will be generational work to not only win back that right, but hopefully be able to transcend where we really have a democracy that can represent everybody. We've seen cases like Dobbs and I could go on and on as could you all with your study of the court. Those types of cases represent, I think, a real shift in the court that is the completion in some ways, or the next step in what has been a multi-decade effort to push back on the civil rights gains and the gains to achieve what I would call an unrestricted democracy. That's what I call it in the book, a truly unrestricted democracy, where there is no way around it. You have a very far-right, extreme legal movement that has worked through the political system in order to to appoint judges that they perceive will adopt a view that is in backlash to many of the gains that we got through the civil rights movement and the courts in those earlier decades. I mean, that is just the bottom line. And I think when you look at the cases that way, we should be very concerned about the future of civil rights, about the future of voting rights. There have been areas, and our tariffs case is one, which we worked on together, that don't really involve the types of civil rights backlash, but that involve structural areas of the Constitution, where to some degree, this court has been a bit more reliable. Now, I say to some degree, because you can look at cases like Trump v. United States, and you can look at that as a structural case around the scope of executive power. And Trump v. United States was wrongly decided. We know that. And we know that that's part of this, whatever this movement is that some of the justices have been a part of on the court. But I will say that we've not seen any evidence. In 2020, we didn't see any evidence of this. After January 6th, 2021, by the way, it's the same Supreme Court. We've not seen any evidence that this court is willing to, at this point, provide the president with powers the Constitution does not provide him with respect to elections particularly. Now, I'm not saying that they will continue to do that. I want to be very clear. We wrote a whole thing about how people have got to push back because we know that these institutions, they have not completely buckled, but they have buckled in time. But that said, even this summer, after the Louisiana v. Calais voting rights decision, we saw another decision that involves sort of when ballots are counted. The Supreme Court definitely sent a message and an opinion written by Amy Coney Barrett that it wasn't adopting the administration's position that it had taken in that case. And so I think many of us have hauled out some hope that on these structural issues where the president just has no authority at all, that the Supreme Court hopefully will do what it should do and will uphold lower court orders that are protecting the ability of these elections to be administered by states and local governments. Now, the other piece of that, I'll just say, is that we also know, at least with Justice Kavanaugh last night, in the concurring opinion he wrote, that some of the justices, and particularly maybe some of the justices that were appointed by the president, maybe not all of them, are deeply concerned about the time and the sort of way in which this administration is operating, trying to push through all these changes so close to an election, which is, there's also legal principles that suggest they should not be able to do that And so I think it will remain to be seen where the court really is on the substance of this. And that will be a fight because we have not just elections this year. We've got elections every year, including in 2028. But I think that hopefully what we see is the court, at least in this instance, seeking to preserve the legitimacy of these and the stability of these elections. But it is going to take every single person doing their part and the lawyers to continue to litigate these cases.

I'm so glad after determining that he has immunity from any crimes he might commit, they're going to put some limitations on the man. That's very promising. I want to ask both of you, as a concerned person who's never spent a day in law school, does this simply just preserve the status quo for 2026? Or is this setting a broader limit on federal authority for the next election? I mean, is this the final word on their mail-in voting policy? Are we going to see more challenges in before this November or before 28th?

I'm happy to, I mean, look, I don't think this is the final word. I think it probably and rightfully is the final word before this election, because I think that every court to consider this, including, by the way, a federal district court in Washington. D.C. earlier this week, Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump in the first Trump administration, has blocked this rule. So it's not just one particular court. It's courts across the board are blocking this rule. The Supreme Court has rightfully said that it's not going to take the administration up on its invitation to use the shadow docket to disturb the status quo. So I think that that for these elections should provide some manner of stability. But you do have an executive branch that seems intent on wanting to claim power for itself over elections that we don't believe it has under the Constitution. I think you'll see them continue to do that. And that will continue to get played out in the courts. And there could be opportunities in the future. These are very early cases. These are cases on some, you know, on preliminary emergency injunctions and those kinds of things. So I do think you can see it play out.

And of course, the theory of the unitary executive, which is what they bring up in so many cases, is a play here too. And as you know, they were, I think, in a sort of, not in a positive way, but cleverly, dangerously trying to usurp our voting laws by saying, well, the post office is just internal to the executive branch. And so under the theory of the unitary executive, we're not trying to interfere with the election. We're just trying to you know, manipulate the post office in the same way that we control, you know, what pens we order for the Oval Office. We can tell the post office to fight voter fraud.

And unfortunately, that's not going away.

But I, with you, Scott, I take a lot of hope in the fact that the court did push back. You know, this president also, both after the tariffs case that, as you said, we you know, both cooperated on. The president attacked, of course, those justices he appointed who, in his view, turned on him. And he did the same thing here, too. And the fact that there at least is that tension emerging can only be a good thing. Skye, I really want to get to the book, but I know our listeners would really be disappointed if I didn't ask you to follow up on some of what we talked about last time first, which is the state of where things stand with your courageous and this is a good gateway into talking about the book, but your courageous stand, an important stand against the President's slush fund. When we left off last time, you were pointing out that although the administration is saying this thing is dead, and we were hearing that from the Attorney General, that they weren't giving up in court.

So have they now given up? Where did things stand?

No, we're still in court. If the slush fund is dead, it's because of the court order that our brave clients and our exceptional team here at Democracy Forward went in and secured. So we have a court order that continues to block the operation of the slush fund. The government has moved to dismiss that case, and we will have a hearing on that this week. At the same time, we're gathering information because that case already has a trial date. And so we're gathering information in order to to really understand. And the administration's fighting us every step of the way. They don't want to give over any information about whose idea these things were, who did what, where, and when, which is, of course, one of the things you do in court as you find information. The update since we last talked, though, is that we also have amended that lawsuit to address the other element of this series of settlements, which is the fact that the government, the federal government, the DOJ, the IRS and Treasury feels as if they can give the administration, President Trump and his family immunity from IRS scrutiny. And that is plainly arbitrary, but it's also unlawful. We represent brave plaintiffs in the case, the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, it's one of the oldest federal employees unions in the country. But these are people that, workers, who may be conscripted into engaging in unlawful activity, if they were required to exempt the president from this type of scrutiny. And so we brought that range of claims as well, which we're looking forward to the court hearing. And we really hope, we're confident we should, but we certainly hope that we will secure a court order to prevent that too, because that's just a level of corruption and self-dealing that's unlawful.

Are there other Americans who are free from the burden of worry about inconvenience to IRS? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Only these three, huh? Only three, huh? Right.

And in fact, you know, some of these things rhyme a little bit with what happened to Watergate. They're not fully there because this is so much more outrageous. It's a Watergate level scandal a day at a time here. But there were protections that were actually put in place. in order to prevent the president from being able to manipulate the IRS with respect to your political favorites or your political enemies or those types of things. And so he is violating a range of, the administration's violating a range of laws, and we're looking forward to seeing that through.

In the case. I'm going to pivot to a hopeful note.

I mean, I think actually this discussion simultaneously is, of course, both worrying because you have a president trying to use the IRS once again, as Nixon did, for his own personal benefit, and then crafting a deal essentially with himself, pretending it's a separate entity to create this slush fund And the hopeful part, of course, is that your group literally did, at least for now, it looks like, stop it. And they're pretending simultaneously to drop it, but yet it looks like they're continuing to fight in court. But for now, that is looking good. And so it brings us to, I think, the hopeful message of your book. Sky, you've written about why it is that a very passive democracy is you know, is not a good thing.

And that why it's not.

Up to judges or elected officials, but it really is ordinary citizens that are going to push back if we are to save and reclaim, as you say in the title, our democracy. I'll mention the title again, Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, How to Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy.

So Sky, tell us about the, there you are, nice.

Tell us about argument of the book and who these ordinary people are that can inspire us to fight on?

Yeah.

So this book is really, it's meant to be a guide for everybody. And I think people are actually quite exceptional and resilient and amazing, but people don't see themselves that way. They see themselves, what can I just do as an individual? So the book, Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, is really a call for all of us. It is available in paperback. It came out straight in paperback. We didn't do hardback. This is really meant to be used, marked up and used, put in your backpack, not admired on a shelf. And then of course we have the ebook and I read the audio book. So there's lots of ways to get access to it. It's been out for a little bit over two weeks. There are seven steps that anybody can take. And these steps are not just about how to take action in your community, although that is a huge part of it. There are also steps that we need to take as people to be able to navigate an environment where fear and chaos are coming at us constantly. The book really seeks to weave together the personal resilience, the steps we need to take to make sure we're building our own personal and community resilience. with the steps that we can take externally to make a difference. There are seven steps. There are essays in each chapter that are from the front lines of our work. So many folks that like to follow the work will probably enjoy those. Some people that are exhausted have said those essays are help, you know, inspiring in ways. But then we get really to the brass tacks where we talk about why it's important to take the action we're suggesting and then all the to-dos. We have to-do lists. We have websites you can go to. Lots of things that can be your kind of action companion. The book has been out just a little over two weeks. It was an immediate USA Today and New York Times bestseller. Congratulations. More importantly, I mean, that should give us hope, by the way, that a book, and we were told it's a paperback, it's a how-to book, the how-to list of the New York Times. They only do really cookbooks and how to build muscle mass after 40. I mean, these are like not really books about civics or politics and yet we made that because right now in this country in the same way you need to know how to make dolly parton's mashed potatoes or how to build you know your own muscle mass or whatever we've got to know what we need to be able to do to navigate this environment so really pleased with that but more importantly than those lists this book has been selling out of small town bookstores in places that you might not expect including we were on a bestsellers list in oklahoma in places that aren't necessarily seen as the most progressive bastions of the country. I grew up in Waco, Texas. I mean, it's been very popular. It's been sold out places like that. And so it really is a book that's trying to meet everybody where they are to say, this is a moment that is beyond politics and we can all come together.

I got to say, I don't think you sold the book adequately. I'm going to go beyond everything you just said, Skye, because I think this book is an important guide and it can help people understand What we're living in right now, the question at the heart of this book is what we hear so many times. What can I do? So many people feel so helpless about democracy. And I think this book really is very much a guide to navigating this Fellini film we find our country has turned into. You make such a strong distinction between being a spectator in democracy and by being a participant. And I got to say, your first introduction, your first instruction, rather, is so blunt and stop spiraling and pick up a shovel. I love it. To you, Sky Perriman, what does the shovel represent?

The shovel is affirming that all of us have something we can do. We can't control what happens to us. And there's a lot of reasons to be spiraling and panicking. And I talk about them in the book, and I'm not saying don't panic at all. But the bottom line is we have to decide how we're going to respond. And if all we do is spiral and panic and pull the covers over our heads and hope this is going to pass by... we're going to endanger ourselves and we're going to endanger our communities and our democracy. So we have to decide to pick up the shovel and get to work. And then I have a lot, what your shovel looks like will be different for different people in different circumstances.

But I just want to say on the, on the fear point and Corey, like one of the most interesting points about it is what you just said. You don't tell people to get rid of their fear. You tell them to get serious about it. Explain the distinction.

Yeah, absolutely. So I think one of the downsides of this moment, there's so many, is that the conversations about fear sometimes go in the wrong direction because people are shaming folks across this country for being afraid. There is no shame in being afraid. And this is an incredibly scary time. And for many of the people in communities we work on behalf of, they're being directly targeted and directly attacked. So, you know, you get to be afraid. That is a human emotion. The question now is how we can get serious to understand what fear really is. And with autocratic actors and actors like Donald Trump, they seek to raise the cost. They seek to ratchet up the fear of doing basic things, of living consistent with your values, of living consistent with your identity. And what we have to do is learn to build the muscle to respond to fear with courage. And courage is not a knight in shining armor. It's not some big heroic Hollywood. I mean, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people in their daily lives making decisions to be true to themselves and their values, even when it is very, very hard to do so. And to understand that in this moment, the cost of giving into fear is much higher. And the cost of seeking to respond to fear in a way. It's not the cost is nothing. There's cost to everything right now. But that should be liberating. And so the book, there is another chapter just about fear, courage, and joy. And really getting underneath those concepts, but also underneath our daily habits of how we can build that muscle so that we're really ready to go. Courage is a practice. And sometimes you have to fake it until you make it.

Well, that's why this book is not about talking yourself off a ledge. This book makes you want to get off the damn ledge and get busy. I'm sorry, Corey, go ahead.

No, not at all.

I mean, I really relate to so much of what you're saying. I mean, personally, I remember it was my daughter's 10th birthday when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.

And, you know, I didn't know how to react. She was in tears.

She was woke up excited for the first female president to be, you know, to take office. And instead, we have somebody who I had been, you know, describing, maybe she was a little young to hear this, but as a real threat to democracy, which I believe from the beginning, and John, when you and I met, it was because I wrote what I hope would be a one-off piece called Trump versus the Constitution, a guide going through why his proposals were so dangerous. And yes, that idea of, you know, that we all can take the lesson, that fear can be channeled into, well, into doing something, as you argue.

Sure.

So let me ask you about a different part of the book, which you already mentioned, but I'd love some examples for our listeners. I mean, who are the people, the individuals that you've come across in your work, your really heroic work in.

Fighting to save our democracy?

And, you know, if you could give us one or two examples and tell us why they inspired you, I think that people would love to hear it.

Yeah.

So there's a lot of stories throughout the book that I hope will inspire folks. I mean, look, even before this administration took office, we had really, really profound threats to our democracy, to people's freedoms. at the state and local level across this country and including in other spaces as well. And at Democracy Forward, we have represented a series of librarians and independent booksellers in pushing back against censorship laws, including a law that would criminalize librarians in the state of Arkansas. And so I tell the story of Adam Webb, who was a librarian who that was, you know, what he chose to do with his career. He was not looking to be in the middle of a big legal dispute or in the middle of a bunch of headlines. But that is where he ended up when he used his own bravery in order to be able to try to make reading accessible to people in Arkansas. And this is an example of where, you know, doing the right thing for him, right, for his profession, for someone that is dedicated to making sure that people can access books and ideas became a costly thing under a government that in that instance, the state legislature in Arkansas and the governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, became a costly thing. And he had to decide how he was going to respond. And so he responded with us and a range of other people and organizations across the state that went to court. So I talk about him and how these things can pop up. And a lot of the cases that we've been bringing against this administration that we've been winning court orders on behalf of people that are really protecting the entire country, they've been brought by ordinary people who didn't have some special recipe for courage that is not accessible to all of us, but that who really decided in that moment to live consistent with their values. I talk about people like Erez Ravini, who's on our staff here at Democracy Forward. Erez was a career Department of Justice lawyer. He represented and defended policies that Republican presidents and Democratic presidents had put forth, including, by the way, policies in the first Trump administration. Arez was the lawyer for the Department of Justice in the Abrego Garcia case. And Arez refused to lie to a federal court when his superiors really wanted him to not be truthful about what had happened with Abrego Garcia. He told the truth. He was fired for it. And he didn't have some place to go once he's fired. I mean, that's sort of your that was sort of his profession was being a government lawyer. But he did the right thing. He paid a really high consequence for it. He then became a whistleblower and provided more information about what was happening at the Department of Justice. And now, of course, he's an attorney here at Democracy Forward where he's bringing cases to help defend immigrants in this country now. against really corrosive violations of the rule of law. But Erez in that moment, following our professional ethics as attorneys, right? His decision to do something that should just be a daily decision. You don't lie in the courts. When you're an attorney, you follow your professional ethics. This is an administration that wants to create a cost for that. And it's in how we respond to those instances that we can really, really come to being and living in courage and community with each other. So I have lots of examples of that. in the book, and some that are very accessible to people. You know, the student or the parent that speaks up in a community group when somebody's being ostracized from the community, that's really important. And, you know, I grew up in communities like that where a lot of people were otherized. And your ability, if you're in that community, to use your power to step up and to speak up is really important. So I hope it's very, encourages everybody to sort of do the right thing in these circumstances.

There are heroes, you know, in a moment in which democracy is being attacked. And a moment, I like that you said it so bluntly because it's so true, that is frightening. There is no doubt about it, who have been able to channel that fear into really heroic action. And these are people who weren't famous before, aren't famous now, but yet took the really important actions that we need to save our democracy. So, Skye Perryman, thank you so much for your work at Democracy Forward. Thank you for writing Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, How to Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy. And finally, thanks for joining us again on The Oath in the Office.

Yeah, absolutely. Good to be with you.

What a pleasure. Thank you so much.

Thanks.

It really is a good book, Corey. I hope a lot of people buy it because it's a book that'll make you feel better about where we're at and better about what we can still do.

I was so eager to have Skye back on the show, not just because of her expertise in the frontline work of really using the courts, especially the lower courts, to stop this threat to democracy and an effort that started in the lower courts, thankfully in the post office case, has now resulted in a victory, at least for this election, as you heard, at the Supreme Court. But I also just thought that, you know, we all, listeners, if you're listening to this show, it's because you care about democracy, because you likely are feeling that fear. And yet here is her series of stories about how to fight back and principles of what specifically to do. So great interview, amazing discussion, John, as always.

It really is. It's a guide. I recommend it. Her material on what she calls information sobriety. alone in the internet age makes it worth the purchase. Professor, thank you so much for all the brilliance you bring to the table. What is the best way for our audience to follow you, Corey, and to keep up with your brilliance the other six days of the week?

Well, you're going to hear me say it a lot of times because it's so important. If you haven't pushed that subscribe button, push it. If you're watching on YouTube, push that subscribe. If you're listening on Spotify or on Apple, be sure to push it.

And share it.

We're growing because of word of mouth and that, you know, we're not owned by corporate media. This is an independent podcast and it's really listeners that are making it happen. And this is about saving our democracy. And it's really a pleasure to do it with you every week, John. If you haven't checked out our Substack, there's an author in the office, Substack. And if you want to watch, not listen, check out our YouTube.

And I'm also on Substack and on socials at John Fuglesang. Sirius XM Progress, channel 127, every afternoon, 12 noon, 3 p.m. Eastern, 9 a.m. to 12 noon Pacific. We're doing one show this year, Professor, with the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour. It's going to be Saturday, the 24th of August at the Saban Theater in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles. It's our big midterm show. If you're in California, come on down. Our guests, it'll be Stephanie Miller, Hal Sparks, Frangela, me, and our guests for this show will include... Glenn Kirshner, and Senator Adam Schiff, and The Last Jedi himself, Mark Hamill. So come on down to our live show on Saturday the 24th in Los Angeles. And Corey, it's always a pleasure to see you. And thank you again for classing up our SiriusXM show every week.

What a pleasure, John. Thanks for listening to The Oath in the Office.