Trump vs. the Supreme Court. Again.

Welcome to the Oath and the Office. I am John Fegle, saying it's so good to be back with you. Please welcome the star of our show, the pride of Brown University, the author of the best selling The Oath and the Office, and the Presidents and the people people of Earth. I give you Professor Corey Bretschneider.

Thanks so much, John.

We're going to reprise our discussion about birthright citizenship, not because I want to live through Donald Trump's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship as he did, but because for real, we've got a sequel.

We'll talk about.

That, and of course we're going to talk about license plates, one of my favorite topics, and we'll get to nerd out about license You know.

What you left your license plates story is actually one of my favorite First Amendment stories of the entire year.

I had to learn learn for retreat.

I had to split so many First Amendment hairs trying to understand this story. So I can be on a podcast with you, professor if that is your name, and I have to.

Say just to get people ready, like if anybody could make license plates exciting, intellectually humorous.

It is my friend John Fugel saying.

Well, but here's the thing, though. Today we're going to talk about five stories that seem pretty different, but I think they all raise a similar question. We got a president who's trying again to reject birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court told him stop doing that, this really fascinating First Amendment fight over profanity or messages on personalized license plates. And then it is the seven year anniversary this week of the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Happy anniversary to all who celebrate. Todd Blanche gets hired to be in charge of the official cover up a federal court telling the president he can't build his four hundred million dollar ballroom without congressional authorization. And the Senate Committee is trying to have criminal contemporroceeedings against Anthony Fauci, not Trump, who deliberately lied to people during a pandemic. And it seems like these five different stories are all about what happens when executive power collides with constitutional limits, which seems to be the theme of this podcast.

Ser that's right, you know, John, I wish that it turned out that we did a podcast on too narrow topic, because every week we had to struggle to figure out, you know, what does this have to do with the limits and danger of executive power. But every week, you know, it's just a challenge to narrow down the stories and these are the ones that seem most pressing this week because it is an all out assault on our rights. And that's what we'll talk about.

And I have to add.

One thing, which is if you are new to the podcast, if you've been listening, and many people have listened from the beginning, welcome back. If you're new to it, I just ask you to subscribe as we launch into this.

Please, so let's dive into it. Supreme Court ruled six to three way back Corey what June thirtieth years ago that Donald Trump's executive order trying to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary status parents could not stand. The Constitution is the Constitution and a president doesn't get to overrule that with an executive order. I mean, John Roberts's majority opinion was all about the fourteenth Amendment. We went deep on it here. Trump thinks that he can get around that and defy that, and he's now signed two new executive orders trying to narrow approach, including targeting what they tried in front of the Supreme Court, birth tourism, and certain categories involving foreign government personnel or alien enemies. There will be many legal challenges about this, but I mean, Corey, I had to learn so much about this in the Fourteenth Amendment to do.

A show that you're a dune exact. I was done with this.

I thought I can delete that from the mental hard drive now. But June thirtieth wasn't that long ago. What room, if any, does this guy actually have to redefine who receives birthright citizenship post Supreme Court ruling?

He absolutely does not, But we're going to get into the big why. And of course he's doing this because he wants to continue to tee up the issue. And I think I'll also say, just in the beginning, even though the Constitution couldn't be clear that this exist executive order trying to redefine and revoke really birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. And even though the Supreme Court has said, hey, we read this thing too, the Constitution, we know what it says, and presidents can't just rewrite it with executive orders, he wants to openly defy the Constitution. When you and I met I wrote a piece called Trump versus the Constitution a guide, and that's the theme here again. I should say, just as a way of starting, there are two executive orders. One I think likely is constitutional. It isn't desirable, and there are problems with it, but I don't think courts are going.

To stop it.

And that has to do with who gets into the country in the first place and stopping so called birth taurus from entering the country. But the other one, which is the one that we're going to focus on, really is a defiance of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said in its case about birthright citizenship, and we had the honor of hosting Cecilia Wang, who argued that case so brilliantly before the Supreme Court for our spawn for the ACLU, and what the Court said was essentially what she said, which is the Fourteenth Amendment says if you were born in the United States, full stop, you are a citizen. And when it says subject to the jurisdiction. Although Trump is trying to expand that in all sorts of ways, all that meant was these narrow, narrow exceptions, so ambassador's children, for instance, are not birthright citizens because they are not they're immune, they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But now what Trump is trying to do is rewrite history, rewrite the Constitution, and try to expand these narrow exceptions to try to blow them up.

So one that he's.

Really working with is this idea, especially that in the event, a kind of hypothetical, if there was an invading force in the United States and the invading force had children, then those children, assuming that they're both or part of the invading force.

Baby army in this wild example.

So he's trying to say, oh, well, that means, you know, he thinks this is they've said this for a long time, that the so called invaders, and let's just say upfront, how openly racist this is of people coming into this country who lack allegiances.

Is another way that he argues that.

You mean, like the same undocumented workers that Donald Trump has hired himself in two different centuries, that kind of threat. I'm so sorry, thank you.

Horrific, you know, but part of again, you know, the theme of our show in general, on this show is his assault not just on our rights, but you know, all at once on the text of the Constitution, on the idea behind birthrights, citizenship, and I'd urge listeners too, in addition to listening to the episode with Cecilia Wang, the discussion with David French where we talked about the American idea that you know, we are all equals at birth as opposed to the idea that we inherit our rights based on who where parents are. He's really got that second idea that he doesn't believe in equality in the fundamental way of the United States Constitution.

So I mean, I follow you. They're arguing the White House that these new orders are in a material way much more narrow than Trump's original order. Now, I don't know how much of this is them playing greatest hits for the racist at the state fair. I don't know how much of this is them just trying to act like they're doing something performatively so the good old boys back home will feel like the gas doesn't cost four dollars a gallon, or if they're just doing this because they want to get it in front of the Supreme Court again and keep trying over and over until they eventually win. Right, But like, their focus has always been on what they call the original purpose of the fourteenth Amendment. It was protecting formally enslaved people and their descendants. And Trump, who knows nothing about this and loves the Confederacy, loves talking about that's what it was for. It was for the slaves. Will you live it as slaves?

Corey?

Why is it constitutional interpretation limited to just the circumstances that originally prompted an amendment hundreds of years ago?

You know, there are examples in which the executive branch is told something is unconstitutional and then they come back and in good faith rewrite it and give a more narrow executive order to try to comply with the court's ruling. So having a sort of second executive order is in itself not necessarily a strange thing.

But what is very strange.

About this, and this picks up on a lot of you know, the points that you were making, is that the court's ruling was very broad. You know, it's said, essentially, if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen. And there are only a couple of exceptions I mentioned, for instance, the ambassador's example, and so you know, they precluded essentially what this Executive Order is trying to do. So why are they doing And it's partly politics, it is also, I think, yeah, trying to defy the Supreme Court to just say we don't agree, and to try to assert executive power over it. I'll just say how I think it'll play out. The ruling should have been nine zero.

It was six'.

Three and it was six' three on this broad point that the children of the undocumented. Are citizens there was one Vote By justice kavanaugh for the idea that it Wasn't the constitution that. Said that there was a law Passed by congress that. Said THAT but i still think it's six', THREE to say i don't think so on this that even though You've narrowed the executive order to so, called birth tourism that's not one of the exceptions that. We're talking about and the main point is you're Born In, the united states. You're a citizen that's the idea of equality.

Before, the law.

Yeah but isn't the birth tourism just what they have to say to make it appear not quite? SO nakedly, racist, I, Mean, honestly corey like couldn't the government regulate fraudulent visa applications without having TO Change? The US constitution am i? Asking too?

MUCH that's, right i mean there is nothing in the idea that if, you committed, fraud for instance that, you you know you.

Someone, for fraud.

Yeah you know that you might be subject. To CRIMINAL action but i think the idea you know that you would revoke because you came. Into the country this is what they're, trying to say that, you somehow, inherently you know because you did want your child to be Born In. The united states that is, not you know that might be, a policy idea but it's Not what. The constitution says it says if you're Born In, the united. States full stop it doesn't make. Exceptions for travelers you are a Citizen Of. The united states, and you know if you, don't like it changed the constitution or at least change the. Law to clarify but you can't just do this.

Through, executive order.

Well let's move on to something that affects all, of our lives and. That's license, plates you know when you first pitched, ME this story, i Was, like oh GOD what. What i mean i'm happy to Not Talk about todd blanch. For five, minutes god knows But this is this is one of those areas of CONSTITUTIONAL law that i think sounds kind of goofy until you realize, that this this this actually asks a. REALLY enormous question i. Love this story when the government gives you a little rectangle of metal and says you have to put this. On your car whose? Speech is that so The story Is Virginia evoked CURTIS whiteley's PERSONALIZED ftp and atf plate after an, Anonymous, complet o corey Correct me, If i'm Wrong. Professor of europe on, THIS kid's LINGO i BELIEVE ftp and atf stands For fuck the Police and The, Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and firearms, You, got.

It, okay.

Thank you sir, so You Know the fourth circuit ruled that personalized license plate text is private speech Protected By, the first amendment which is different from the government speech question that is presented by. Specialty plate designs THIS is something i had never actually, thought About it but.

I've really gotten.

Into this right but, YOU'RE right now i see why you. Like this topic. YOU'RE infecting, me i mean it's all about viewpoint discrimination and the state's ability. To regulate expression if not words that, some not all might. Be offended by and you've written about license, plate speech before you've described it as a form. OF mixed speech i love this issue because it's so serious and stupid at. The same time Why Should the first amendment care what somebody puts on?

A license plate i have written about license Plates In The, new york Times and before, TRUMP was elected i was very folk on this really kind, of cutting edge Interesting Issue and. First amendment law i've moved on, to other things mostly because we are under threat of having all, of our Rights Including the first amendment revoked.

By a president oh.

The goofy POP culture stuff i used to cover on my show In The. BEFORE nimes, professor, I know yes, i will.

Say you know but one of the things, and this, is you know just to kind of plead a listeners to get into, this with us to nerd out.

On License Plates in first.

Amendment law, and constitutional law sometimes the issues, are extremely, pressing you know can a president commit a crime and get?

Away with it. The immunity question sometimes they're.

More abstract and not obviously salient, in the instance but it helps us to think about the more general question.

Of free.

Speech, in, this so yes it's, about license plates but it's really a way of thinking. About free speech so just to, get into it the court in a case and this is, really you know my concern is about not just the idea of, protecting free speech but how is it that government can, combat white supremacy how can? It combat racism and it has to have the power. To do both that's, my central idea both of, protecting all viewpoints not being criminalized for, what you say but also having a role for the government in trying to well stop the history of white supremacy that we have. In this country and, THE best way i think one way for it to do that is when it sends. Its, own messages okay let's get. Into License plates So texan plates Texas and The walker Case Walkover versus texas division looked at the following facts and then we'll talk about. The new case texas has a Group called the Sons of the confederacy who wanted to have a Choice that all.

Texans were given for.

Their license plate this is known as a specialty plate when you're given a choice That had the confederate, battleflag on it and when they were denied That right, because TEXAS said and i think this.

Is, common sense.

Hey that's racist we don't want that on. Our license, plates, they said well it's our. Free speech right so now, here's the, question you know does The government does, texas in particular have the right to say we don't want racist materials on our? Own license plates and, the, COURT rightly, actually I think said. Texas wins this this isn't a. Free speech issue but now what's happened is we're in. A different question you have a right to, a bumper, Sticker for instance what about, an individual plate an individual SPECIALTY plate that, i choose myself not for other people that as part. Of A group do i have the right? To do that and THAT'S what this ftp?

Plate?

Is about right and now that's our NEW question that i think is a genuinely hard. And interesting question i've been, thinking About it and i'll give. You Some, thoughts but, john, go ahead.

Yeah let me let me pull it back, just a second because it is so The sense of Confederate, veterans in texas this this, whole thing right they treated specialty plate designs. As, Government speech right why wouldn't that automatically mean all speech APPEARING on a stack eight issued plate is. Also government speech well that's.

The, you know ultimately that is The conclusion that, i'm drawn to that they should just say it's just too dangerous when it's an official plate, to have, messages for instance. That are racist and although you do have a right to say racist things in your house and display them on, your you know lawn even and even on, a bumper sticker arguably that's, personal free speech the state is. A, different thing, SO you know i think that the, Conservative liberal breakdown i'm not sure how it's going.

To play out this isn't a case in which conservatives and liberals are going to break down on.

The NORMAL lines but i think a sensible solution to all this is to say it's just too dangerous to have Things like a. Confederate battle flag and if a state doesn't WANT to have ftp on your LICENSE plate that i think you still preserve enough free speech if you could put it on your bumper sticker and you don't have it on. A license plate so that's going to Come Before. THE supreme court i think that's. What they'll say and this is one of THOSE instances, Where, i think okay they're following.

A sensible, path.

I mean it's something constitutionally different about this idea of the state giving citizens this menu of twenty six letters and characters, you can use and then approving an individual's message. OR saying, no I mean IF I Put i love america on, my license plate everyone understands that. It's. Me SPEAKING right IF i put f the police on, my license plate people should still letter state it's me speaking And NOT the, virginia. DMV speaking, right i mean if the state is just saying that they have an interest in preventing, profanity and incitement that.

Would.

Be, ENOUGH right.

Well i think that's an interesting way to. THINK about it i don't think that the profanity thing is going to get us. Out of it because there's a Famous case Called, cohen versus california one of the most famous, and constitutional law and it's Actually During. The vietnam, War, this individual cohen has a, JACKET that says i think it iss. F the war IT uses the f word and has an. Anti war message and the court actually has one of my favorite lines. In, constitutional history actually and we'll see if. You Appreciate this to john as, a Professional comedian the court in one of its few, Moments being funny but it's trying to ask the question of whether or, not that speech which, is you know, on his jacket not on, a license plate whether or not it is. Protected or not and they, consider, the possibility well we could just, say it's obscene and, then they say this. Is the line it is very hard to imagine anyone Becoming aroused by, cohen's, Tattered jacket right and part of PART of why i like it is the idea that somebody might, be aroused, by you know a, non tattered jacket or that that would. Be, the difference no it's because it's not, about. You know obscenity it's it's not about. Sexuality at all. It's about advice and, so here HERE here what i, here's my, point you know aside from my straying into Nerding out On, cohen versus california it is about political messages and whether or not they can be limited when the government wants. To do it and the government can't do that again when it's, A bumper.

Sticker but what about when it's?

A LICENSE plate, and, i think yeah, it is sensible especially when you consider this possibility. Of racist, MESSAGES you Know i, hate jewish, people for instance on. A license plate i wouldn't want. To see that and If There's a first amendment right, to do that you know we, might see it especially given where things are headed in this culture and other instances. Of RACIST speech so i think giving the government the, ability, to say okay if it's, a license plate it's not a zone of, total free speech that makes, sense to me even if it is picking the un choosing in the way.

That you're suggesting but with the issue still.

BEING viewpoint, discrimination i mean could, a state, conceivably let's say ban all profanity on personalized plates and make that a viewpoint neutral rule to get? AROUND that thing I guess.

WHAT i'm, saying i mean just to.

Introduce this idea, sometimes you, know for instance can you put somebody in prison the court applies a rule that it, calls viewpoint neutrality meaning it can't pick and choose based. On people's opinions it can't choose Based on viewpoint so canad engage. In viewpoint discrimination that's the technical way. To put it when it Comes to, and i'm, saying you know we'll see. What they say it's, a HARD case, but, i think yeah that's.

Probably ask me one more. Question about this we got to, get a break or when he's going to. Beat me, up let's say let's say my Beautiful state of virginia allows license plates that Say, back the blue but they reject license plates that say. Fuck the police is that a neutral regulation of language or is that the government choosing which side of a political argument gets a. Government issued plate it's.

A great question and just, to Be clear what i'm suggesting, would, allow that right the, government could, say you Know back the blue on, a license plate but it would Prohibit some other and that's that's an Argument against what i'm. Saying FOR sure but i guess, my view, is you know it's, a license plate and a license plate is different than. A bumper sticker and if government tried to pick and choose what kind of bumper sticker you could put on your that's regulating.

An individual's speech but.

When now here's the idea and my book, that's about this it is called when, the state speaks what? Should it say and that's what, we're talking about. When government speaks and if we're thinking that the license, plate is, government you know think of public, Holidays, for instance right We Don't have, bull connor Day We Have Martin luther. King junior day and the reason for that is because government is saying there are some viewpoints that are inimical to our Ideas of the constitution, and Some consistent and king stood for the Ones consistent, and connor no so we. Don't have, equality you know. That's government Speaking and what, i'm arguing for although you're, rightly pushing back is we should think about license. Plates that way who would have known that there's so much controversy and intensity.

About, this, TAVERN well listen i just want to thank you for letting us do a whole segment where we didn't have To Talk. About, Todd bland professor are you ready to Go? Back to titanic because when, we come back let's talk about the most unfit of all the. Unfittious attorneys general that would be the president's private, criminal defense attorney who is now. You're top cop and that sound you here are the founders screaming. From their crypts this is the oath. In the office we'll be right Back The New John fugel sang show every day. At twelve, Noon, good afternoon john and welcome.

Back TO afternoon here i.

Have missed you now you're back. Into the, Daylight, Good.

Afternoon john congraduations on, the new show loving congratulations on the changes happening.

With the show, Excited for you excited, for, me personally like, OH my god i can.

Call an Again The New John fugel sang show every day at Twelve NOON On Serious xm progress channel one twenty seven Or ON the Serious xm after welcome Back to the Oath, In The Office I'm John fugel Sang Alone WITH Professor Corey bretschnei republican senate had. Quite a Weekend They confirmed Todd blanche As America's Criminal defense attorney general at four point thirty, in the morning fifty. To forty nine and apparently that's the ideal hour to decide on who's going to be the next pedophile protector To run The. Department of, Justice. You know corey nothing says, rule, of, law like hey, Is everybody up let's hire the Attorney General before stephen miller gets Back. From feeding corey. They did it we said Last Week when SUSAN collins said i will not vote, FOR this, man i said they've. Got the votes she would not have Said This if john, thune didn't know he already. Had the Votes and now satan's Plot To make pam bondi look like a moderate seems to. Be continuing apace what should the public understand about the trouble we're in with this person fulfilling the constitutional role. Of, attorney general well let's just start.

With his, history you know it's one thing to be the personal lawyer, of the president and we've heard that, commentary a LOT but what i was saying is most Significant About Now attorney general blanche's history is that he was the criminal defense lawyer. Of the president and that's, how he's, acting you know as somebody who's really Just trying to his main priority Is to get trump. Out Of prison the attorney general is supposed to. Represent the people think of the way that we frame the names, of criminal cases The People, versus, donald trump right the people As who The department of justice is. Supposed To defend The, DEPARTMENT of justice i should say two founded in, the nineteenth century it's not an eighteenth century institution as a way of Combating The. Ku klux klan that was its main purpose. And white supremacy how far we've come when its main purpose seems to be not only protecting, the president criminally but also to engage in the criminal aggressive action of trying to prosecute. Your political, opponents so yeah IT does, make i mean it's crazy, To SAY this pam bondi look, like a moderate but he really has.

Just doubled down one other thing about the hearings that.

Was so, disappointing you know he just lied and minim misrepresented about the question of whether or not this slush. Fund is, dead I'LL go but i refer back to our own Amazing Discussion, with sky perriman who will be back on the show actually in a few weeks when her. Book comes Out Her, group Democracy forward who i've had the honor of working with too on. The tariff's case they brought a lawsuit that stopped.

THE slush, fund i mean it's a.

Really amazing thing if you want to see, citizens fighting back how.

It can work.

They did that but now here's where. The misrepresentation happens if he really was dropping this slush fund and this was just to remind people to DEAL, with The irs that trump would drop his fake lawsuit with himself SINCE. He's the irs is part of the executive branch in exchange supposedly for this more than two billion dollars slush fund To reward the january sixth criminals and those.

Who convicted criminminals you know that slush.

Fund was dead he promised that to senators who are worried about it or about this, from self dealing but he didn't. Drop the lawsuit. It still continues and that's what We, heard from perryman and that's the evidence that this guy was not telling the truth.

IN these, hearings i mean.

Where to, Begin You know bill cassidy was the, deciding vote here and he didn't look happy to. BE that, VOTE i mean i don't understand what's going On with these republicans who o trumpe nothing and they're on their way out the door and they're going to vote. For this guy because, To, your point professor, as we've discussed the Very Fact that todd blench would even present this slush fund as an idea in public in, the first place does that not render him unfit. FOR the office, i mean literally he tried to pitch this bribery scheme to guys who beat up cops. For a Lie And so bill cassidy is the deciding vote after being the Deciding VOTE. For Robert f kennedy junior Last year because Kennedy Promised him senator kennedy that if he confirmed him that he wouldn't go, out After vaccines. And, kennedy lied cassidy, who's a doctor voted for. HIM right away rfk. Broke his Promise trump gutted cassidy. In the primary this guy's career. Is just crushed and then on his way, out the door, owing them nothing he confirms the most unfit attorney. General in history and now it seems like we can't deny the fact that we have a president with complete Control Of. The justice department is that? Fair to say and what does? That even mean presidential Control of The department.

Of justice's such, an important. Topic You know after Nixon's Disaster And Nixon attorney general mitchell was convicted convicted of crimes Connected to the nixon presidency, and election campaigns there. Was a reform and now there was a reform that really could have gone in one. Of two directions one was to try to legally impose Separation of The department of justice from, the president himself and, the other idea which is one that largely has prevailed and continues, to this day was supposed to be based On Norms, that ed, levy for instance who was The president Of university Of Chicago and Attorney General, during gerald ford a real, person of integrity instituted a Culture in The department of justice that people, who work there Including Our, friend glenn, kirshner you know. Really exemplified, that you know you weren't working. For the president you weren't even supposed to communicate with People Within, the white house, and you know even a conversation on a tarmac.

Wasn't wasn't allowed that.

Was the norm but the problem with doing it based on norms rather than legal separation is that what's Happened Is that Donald trump And todd blanche now have. Just blown, through you know if, there's just norms what's. To, STOP it, SO i mean i really favored the idea that there should be a more concrete and my various ways of, thinking about this a. Concrete legal separation one last, thing about this which is. AT the founding i know that listeners love it when we, talk about history and this is an important place to do that there was a real debate about the question of whether or not if, the attorney general and this Is before The, department of justice but the office of the. Attorney general existed if the attorney general is within, the, president's cabinet well then what's to prevent that person from being co opted by? A bad president and the framers Said what ed levy and others Said during, the ford administration The people Like, madison, and hamilton well we won't have, people, like that well. People of virtue but the anti federalists who really warned us about the danger of the constitution that actually urge us not, to, ratify it, said you know. This is crazy it's fine if you have, people of virtue but what, if you don't then all of a.

Sudden it changes and there.

Were other models here's, One Of them new york's model To teach a james the Attorney General in new york, is independently elected we wouldn't have the same problem. That we have so there were structural fixes.

To ALL this can i ask you a couple of just abstract questions Loosely Relating. To todd lanch can a president ever lawfully tell the attorney general who?

THEY should investigate, i mean again in terms of the Ideas, of the constitution THE ideas that i, was talking about of the Norms of The, department.

Of justice the answer is supposed.

To be no but when you're, talking about legally what's to Actually Prevent a, todd blanche's argument And Unfortunately the supreme court has built up this area of law is and this will sound familiar because we've talked, about it often the theory of the unitary executive that if because they didn't choose to have an executive branch that divided up the prosecution power with an, independently elected prosecutor because the founders put it that power. Under, the president yeah the president can do. Anything he wants the same way that, he can, tell YOU know the epa what, he wants done he can Also Tell the attorney general what.

He Wants Done that's.

Todd, blanche's stated view and that's why we're. IN such danger i think that is just a horrific assault on the idea of the. Rule of law and that's why we need legislation that would actually separate that make that criminal illegal and separate out the attorney general and the power of prosecution from a president's ability to use it, For, personal vendetta.

Corey if a convicted child rapist and child sex trafficker was suddenly upgraded to a much nicer prison not normally associated with child sex traffickers who've been, Convicted by Juries do the american people have a right to know why this would happen within our? Criminal justice system and can you think of any reason why this might happen where we the people might? Not be, told you.

Know part of the problem with this arrangement Where Again the attorney general works for the president and now with, the court's help they've undermined the idea of the rule of law by making this essentially. A loyalty relationship And, now THE congress and i want to say something Too about why congress might, Have done This but the congress has affirmed somebody who's just told us, openly that yeah he is essentially the criminal defense any. Of the president he hasn't, using these words but that's been the. Gist of it so much of the, problem is secrecy and not just in the example, that you give, but more generally there's just not a lot of transparency. ABOUT what's transpiring i think, in the future people like me, Will go in, We'll use foya we'll try to. Get the documents they're journalists who are, doing that now but that takes a, lot of time and so so much is going to be, hidden from us, and you know one way round it, JUST you know i we're always looking to, tell the truth but also have HOPE will be i think these are. Certainly impeachable offenses the fact that the president has gone after and so the Subpoena power of congress once, impeachment kicks in that might be a way to start finding.

Out, WHAT'S happening.

Yeah i don't want. TO seem nihilistic i think The Smartest thing todd blanz could have done would have been to run as Far Away from donald. Trump as possible now by signing, ON for this i wouldn't Trade places with todd. Blance, For ANYTHING professor can.

I say something YOU know that i certainly. AGREE with, that i mean, He's really solidified.

He's he's punched. His OWN ticket now, i, should say too he's going to have a lot of stuff in it that is obituary wouldn't have had if he had.

Just walked away when, people say too you're on the wrong. Side of, history you know people like me get to. Write THE history And i guarantee i'm going to say this guy who was on the wrong. Side of history one puzzle, which YOU raised which i want to come back to if, You, don't mind john is you know why Is it that cornyn and other senators who, had the Ability especially as trump We covered week trump dropped so far. In the polls why do they why? Do, they not well the answer could, Be Future Jobs rob but i've got. TO say something i heard this from A really noted i can't, give THE name but i will, say you know my source is a noted Journalist Who, covers capitol hill and the surmise was that, this person, thinks you know based on their experience doing, this every day that it's, fear OF violence of maga attacking even killing them.

From DOING that and i think that.

Sounds too, real you know the violence that then threats that come with opposing this. President are extreme and AS much as i, want, to say well you signed up, for this, job you know and death threats are a horrible part of. Our current culture but you don't give up on your obligation to the constitution because you're worried. ABOUT death threats I do think i've come to, believe you know and you. KNOW we do i have conclusive evidence and, bucle YET no but i think that, what we have with so much circumstantial evidence that shows they are, receiving these threats they.

Are way up you're much kinder than me.

From.

PREVIOUS time now i think there is real fear. OF being attacked i also think they. Care, ABOUT jobs yeah i.

THINK they're compromise i think they've got, the improv yesay maybe they've either got stuff on them and Compromise is how, Epstein, did it compromise how it's. Always been, done that's How that's how. Putin likes it or they are awaiting lobbyist. JOBS or whatever i mean the amount of humiliation that these three men in particular are faced for telling The Truth. About DONALD trump and I WAS on ms now With Our friend alli velshi two weeks ago when, this IS happening and, i, was like sorry Forgive me if i'm not going to go out and get the collector Plate From the Bradford exchange Of tillis and. Cornyn saving democracy this is. All theater again they're hemming and Hawing Over whether todd blanch would put in writing that. Will never do the Very Fact that todd blanche tried to make this the law shows he's unfit. For the job and they. All know it these guys Know how. Evil TRUMP is and i don't really remember A time when Cornin put the constitution above his own comfort, In, His Career professor so i'm much more cynical than. You on this i've come. To expect, it And Again when susan collins came out and said that she was going to, VOTE against him i went on the air That day, And i'm like fune has The Votes because susan collins would never have come out and said that unless it was safe for her. To do it and, BY the way i don't think The voters of magnan are going to be. All that.

IMPRESSED so amazing.

I have to just hit that point again because she just has a way, of.

You, know surviving no she has, A. Rear disorder corey, every six years her. Body turns moderate it's really she can't. Get help it, every six years.

He's a moderate, And, come on maine we have to get rid of her this time because that routine that she does over and over again including Somehow believing that. Roe was safe so the main main thing that she's, done to, us.

He said Does She? Believed brett kavanaugh.

She's.

The reason yeah she is the master of clutching her pearls while also handing over the keys at. The same, TIME all right i got to talk to you. About the ballroom obviously they. Got this thing they want to. Build this ballroom where they used To Have, a white house they tore that down to build this ninety thousand. Square foot ballroom and of course the president. Has been stopped there have been many conflicting rulings, and emergency APPEALS But a dc circuit panel previously allowed construction, to continue temporarily but now it's been. Shut down again is this a separation of powers case disguised as? A construction dispute because the headline this Week was the president's, just a tenant he doesn't. Own this place does it come? DOWN to, that i mean What does the constitution say about the president's authority to? Alter, FEDERAL property say i Don't Know the kennedy center off the top.

Of my, head You know the constitution does, speak About this and congress has put added its voice to Affirm what, the constitution says and what it says is that when it comes to the Property Of, the united states and Of Course the white House Is not donald, trump's personal mansion although he.

Thinks it is he thinks that.

All of it is the Property Of the united states is under the Control. Of the congress and then there is a Law passed By congress, where congress, said and hey we want, to emphasize this we are in control of. Things like renovation and so That's what The court of appeals has now said is this is not up to the president to do. What he, wants and, that you know is a way of preserving not just the rule of, law and legislation but the constitutional idea that. NOT just property i should just, frame this too and it connects to. Things like tariffs when it comes to the financial Resources Of. The united states the president isn't just given the power.

Of the purse It's.

Given to congress and the related idea of the parallel of the purse is power over the Property Of. The united, states and, SO you know i think, he thought, too you know in This Sort of silicon, valley immature way like let's just break it and then it'll.

Be too late it's, Not Too.

Late donald trump and that's what you're this nice thing called the judicial injunction is.

LETTING you, know i mean there is a meaningful constitutional difference Between Redecorating the oval office and putting a lot of ugly gold shit in and then just demolishing an historic Portion Of the white house to build a ninety thousand, square, FOOT structure.

Right i mean certainly there's some Discretion Within. The white, house you know how do, you decorate it what's.

In the rooms where you can?

Move furniture around what can you redo a, historic landmark, building you know not just, landmark iconic, building you know talking about the Property Of. The united states if there's one, symbol of It It's. The white house And thankfully the pramers. Thought about this they did not, want a king and as much as they might have been naive in ways they thought could stop somebody who wanted to, be a king they did put some stuff in there that said you are. Not a king and one of those things is the Property Of the united states is under the Control.

Of, the congress thankfully.

So if a president, wanted to Say Demolish the east wing and build a casino and construct. A swimming pool i'm. Not even kidding and the president wanted to put his name in giant gold letters, on the building he couldn't Do. It without, congress.

You know things that permanently.

ALTER the building i, think the answer and that's what this, lawsuit is about, is clearly no can you do things that are temporary to sort of you know. Part of, it you know we were talking about the idea. Of Government expression donald trump can express, his political views he can have, his aesthetic taste as horrible, as it is and so things like gold in, the oval office that's.

Up to him what portraits he Wants in. The oval office those things were main Property In. The, united states again.

Bring them home but he can display them or not. As he wants but when he starts to, alter the, property you, know you know he, is a tenant he is. Not the landlord and that's what, he judge said.

And that's what the.

Judge's point was, before, OUR break professor i keep meaning to, Ask you this why should ordinary citizens with stuff to do care about a damn fight? Over a ballroom what's the? Larger constitutional principle, let's take.

Here you know and that's a nice theme for all. Of these discussions when something, seems, you know huge like war or the shutdown, of free speech the shutdown, of the opposition it's clear what the stakes are and why we have to think. About the constitution, and you know we on this podcast we're talking, about the law but we're also often talking about the principles behind the.

Whole system of law that we have.

Of constitutional democracy and you know that's. True here, too, you know yes there are more important issues, than the ballroom but it's a symbol of. The wider issues and if you give ground on, any one issue he's going to take it on the, even bigger issues and. So that's important i'll, add one thing which is the reporting SUGGESTS this is o occupying a huge portion of his.

Time and brain This.

Is what oh he cares about this. In, a lot yeah.

We're ever going to get this.

Constitutional lesson through it's not that he's going, to learn it but we're not going to stop trying.

To teach it this is a good one for him.

To learn on aren't you glad we didn't have a woman president building ballrooms and wearing? Too Much, makeup all right we got to take a quick break back in. Just a moment This is the Oath. In the, office.

Hey all. Clink, KERSHNER here friends i hope you'll join me on, My Audio. Podcast justice matters we talk about not only the legal issues, of the day but we also talk about the need to reform ethics. In our government. Here's One example the, oath of, office you KNOW the one i do solemnly swear to support And defend the constitution against all enemies. Foreign end domestic let's add twenty two words to, that OATH quote and i will promptly report any instances of crime and or corruption by government officials and Employees of which. I've, become aware friends our democracy is. Worth fighting for join.

Us, in this fight.

Because justice Matters Look for justice matters wherever you ordinarily. Find your podcasts.

Welcome Back to the Oath. In The Office, I'm. John fugelsang professor Finally We. Have anthony fauci Let's Talk about rand paul's desperate public attempt to have a focus group to see if he can run. For PRESIDENT again because i think that's the only. Reason This happened rand paul would like to run. For president again has not gotten around to any significant legislative achievements or anything that's made. People's lives better and he doesn't really have any policies that would help, the middle class but he can beat up on. Twenty twenties boogeymen And So The senate Homeland Security And governmental affairs committee voted To hold doctor fauci in contempt after He Invoked the fifth amendment. During, Congressional Questioning again donald trump deliberately Lied to the american people hundreds of times willfully during a plague that Took a. Million American Lives but rand Paul's arguing that fauci's presidential pardon means that he should not be allowed to invoke the fifth and so he's trying to Refer This to todd blanche At The New. Corrupt justice department the committee's Own website identifies rand as Chairman And lists fauci's july twenty ninth testimony. Before, THE committee, so i mean this is. Insane to me What Does the fifth? Amendment actually protect and can you not be allowed to use it because you?

Got? A pardon WOW you know i really have more than.

The other stories i'm having trouble even wrapping my brain around this because the idea seems to be let ME see if i can put this AS clearly, as i can that because a pardon gave, immunity from prosecution we need. To prosecute him that's essentially. WHAT they're, saying i, mean it's, like you're immune so we have to put.

You in prison but again they're saying like he, lied to them because they're saying he lied, to them wilfully, because, he's like well you don't, Need masks now oh you do need mask now because. The science changed but they're defending the man. Who deliberately lied so we know they don't. Care about lies we know they don't care about. The public health we know that, going, into, it right, PROFESSOR.

You know i think that there's a huge CONTROVERSY obviously. About covid policy did he, do something right did he?

Do it wrong?

Was he perfect was he that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not somebody who obviously was trying to do things in good faith should be put in prison for being a civil servant in one of the most Difficult times. In american history and even if, he wasn't perfect even if he did things that you, DISAGREE with you i think they were going, to imprison him and they we're going to trip him up by and for what what?

Is the crime It's.

Invoking, the fifth amendment which is the right. Against self incrimination you're going to prosecute somebody for bringing, up you know and it, DOES you know i try to stay away, from overwrought analogies, but you know during, the McCarthy era, all the time these were the kind of things that they were trying to do to essentially punish people.

For their speech and this is a political enemy.

And they don't.

Care, about belluted no it, doesn't make sense but they're trying to to find a way, to imprison, him you know. Given the, pardon and ironically the fact even the pardon was given is the way that they're.

Trying to justify this Shows exactly why biden knew the man. Needed A pardon And I guess hunter biden's, gotten too popular so it's not fun for them to. Do That, anymore hillary clinton this is. What they do they have to have a whipping boy that. They beat up they got no policies, to help you and they Don't Care that donald, Trump deliberately lied but they're going to go back to the well and it's like playing. THEIR greatest, hits i mean a pardon.

The While confirming todd blanche.

Let's FORGET right but i mean a pardon doesn't eliminate the possibility, of SELF incrimination, like i Mean what would congress have to establish before holding a witness? And contempt right what would they have to prove?

To do, that.

You know if you, don't show up that's usually one of the plastic ways that you can hold. Somebody in contempt and if you, REFUSE to come i. Could understand that but the idea that invoking your right is going to lead to, THE contempt charge i don't see. COURTS upholding this i don't think that the pardon sort of Takes Away your.

Fifth amendment right.

I'LL say, Something i mean i'll lean into the arguments just to try to start to.

Think through it as bizarre. As it, is you.

Know, for one thing he might be prosecuted, for some things including it turns, out for contempt And So the fifth amendment right, is you know let's just go back. To the basics the idea is that, MY own words i can't be forced to give them to you to then use them against me in order to put. Me in prison that's. A fundamental issue is he in danger of? Being in prisoned obviously they're trying. To prosecute him we have an attorney general who is going to do the bidding of a president who now regards this man who was his ally and now regards him. As an opponent the reporting Too about how fauci was In Touch with stephen miller's wife WHEN. She had, covid you know the personal element of destroying your enemies and then trying, To you know Trump, versus the constitution that theme that we've. Been talking about you see. It here, again you know it's just trying to come up with these clever legal arguments in order. TO wiggle around i should say a lot of the senators doing this and, thinking about this who, are participating, it you know, they know better they're, trained in law and yet they're trying to use this silly idea that the pardon gives them the right to demand that he basically give up his rights. Against self, INCRIMINATION you know i.

DON'T think, so i mean we were talking about birthright citizenship here today and license plates and this corrupt attorney general, in the ballroom And, now doctor fauci and it seems like the common denominator is. Limits on power SO that's what. I take away And something that i've always thought, About, your work professor Is that somebody i've, learned from you is that democratic institutions don't always collapse because somebody. Abolishes a constitution they erode because, people in power over a long, period of time gradually. REINTERPRET the, limits i mean is that what's happening when we see constitutional boundaries suddenly become just matters. Of, POLITICAL convenience.

Yeah i, mean you know there are ways that democracies end. That are dramatic you, have a coup a military coup, from the outside you. Have an invasion democracies can. End that way but in, the modern world not Even Taking, the united states when, you look abroad that's not. How they end they end through slow evolution or through elections that result in autocrats. Coming to power and that's what's happening here that we are seeing democracy being eroded every single week that we, do this podcast and each Of These issues, birthright citizen issue The, attack on fauci The, attack on komi The. Attack on james if you were to take any of these, as individual stories, He, would think ah it's not that. Big a deal, but you know when you take, it to together you see it for. What it is it is the equivalent of a slow moving self coup by the president and destruction of. The other branches and it's not as dramatic as the guns that would be fired in, a military coup but it is no less impactful when it comes to the result, for our democracy which unfortunately still could. Be it's destruction as much AS you and i and many other people are guests that we, have every, week you know we're not choosing them just because you. Know they're interesting we're choosing them because they're at the forefront of the fight to. Defend our democracy and you know that's because we have to first of all recognize that it is under attack in this subtle way that, you point out and then also that you know there are things we can do to fight.

BACK and, Win, i mean Corey Your book the Presidents and the people is, a great one and it's all about citizens who fought back against presidential. Abuses or overreach but what do is fighting back constitutionally mean for an ordinary citizen up AGAINST all, the i mean it's fun to watch this. Guy self destruct but a lot of people want to fight back. Harder and.

SMARTER you know i think that it means, first of all doing what we're doing every week on this show and talking to your friends and, colleagues about it because there are a lot of people who think this is just politics As usual or. I'm you know the other thing that YOU hear is i don't get. Involved in politics it's too destructive, and you know sort of headed in. The sand approach the first thing is to recognize it for. What it is this isn't. A normal presidency it is a presidency in which our rights.

Are under attack once we as.

Individuals start, to see that we can start to build a movement around the idea that we don't just Need To, defeat donald trump we need to reinstitute rules that are going to. Protect our Democracy and so i'll just SAY one that i think. Is so pressing, if you know before the, idea was abstract what do we do with an attorney general who acted as the criminal defense lawyer of a president.

Or enabled criminality. It's not hypothetical, we've.

Seen it not just Now, but during nixon and so that's one of the kind of things that we need to do as we fight back to institute laws that insulate an attorney general from a president law does that make it illegal to order the?

Prosecution of opponents.

So thank you know this.

Could happen again it's not just Getting.

Rid of trump that's not what this.

Podcast is about it's about restoring the rule of law and our democracy.

And enjoying and savoring every moment asaious it Gets, Rid, of. Trump Yes exactly the lord's going to make his arteries Do what the lord's going to make, His Arteries. Do professor bretschneider what's the best way for our listeners to follow you and keep up with your brilliance the other six days.

Of, the week well be sure to follow us or subscribe wherever you. Get your podcasts we're on, all Audio, platforms on apple where we're usually on, the top three often number one when It comes to, apple trending podcasts and we're, also on YouTube so subscribe where if you're listening to us, or watching us you also can check out the oath and. The office substack and what a pleasure it is to join you.

Here every, week.

THANK you sir i Want to Thank wendy and beywolf and everyone who puts. This monster together you can hear me Every DAY On Sirius xm progress channel one twenty Seven On The John fugel saying Show twelve noon eastern. To, three pm yeah that's a twelve noon To three. Pm eastern nine and it's nice to work, In. The daytime corey i'm starting.

To nice t see you during the.

Day, way in yeah not catching on fire AS much AS i thought. I would have thank you all, for joining us and be sure to join us next Week on the Oath. And the office