Trump’s Media Threats & Todd Blanche’s $1.8B Slush Fund (with Skye Perryman)

Welcome once again to another exciting episode of The Oath and the Office, inspired by Odysseus. I'm John Fiegele saying, joined by the great Professor and the author of The Oath in the Office, Corey Britschneider. Corey, good to see you again, my highly rated friend.

Thanks so much, and what a pleasure to do this with you. I did actually see the Odyssey, so we maybe have to sneak some of that in there.

I saw an IMAX last night in Englewood.

Baby.

Oh, I didn't get imax.

Oh, Oh, you gotta go see it again. Now, you gotta go. That's why they make movies to see that in imax.

Oh. We have an amazing show, you know, our own odyssey against Donald Trump, and we'll talk about the details what's happening. And then also I just want a preview. I pre recorded a conversation with Sky Perryman, who is the CEO of Democracy Forward, and like the ACLU, they are really at the forefront of the fight to save our democracy. And we talk about, for instance, their work in actually succeeding in stopping this slush fund to fund Donald Trump's allies and to go after his opponents they were instrumental too and stopping this phony deal with the Irs. And we talk about, you know, the role of citizens and fighting back and how we can actually do it. So we're going to talk as always about the threats to democracy that we're facing now, this ridiculous speech that Donald Trump gave that was a sort of speaking threat to democracy, and then also how we fight back.

Well, I'm a big fan of Skyperry Ben. She's done my Serious ExM show many times, so I can't wait for that. And I want to thank you, professor, for being so flexible now that my Serious XM show has moved back to the day times, which is where I was when I first met you. But thank you for those six plus years you did hard time with us in late night. It's been a pleasure to talk about this out with you in the daylight again. And I have to begin by asking you about Donald Trump's hateful, mendacious, and not entirely charismatic primetime address last week. I'm sure you saw it, the state of denial address about the desperate crisis of election integrity in America, but only when he's in charge. I don't know if you caught that, but it's never a problem. Our elections seemed to be fine if it's Barack Obama or Joe Biden in charge. But if Donald Trump's president and it's twenty twenty or twenty twenty six, my god, it's so rife with corruption. I guess he's saying democracy only breaks when Trump's holding the keys, Corey. But he did this to revisit his old grievances about the twenty twenty election while presenting newly declassified documents that would prove that somehow China rigged it, And they did the exact opposite. They actually showed that Russia was colluding to try to overturn an election. But I mean, where to begin From a constitutional perspective, Corey, how unusual is it for a sitting president to use the the institutional authority of the presidency to convene broadcast networks and do a primetime address on our taxpayer funded airwaves to relitigate a past election. We know why he's really doing it, But we've never seen anything like this theatrically in history, have we?

Yeah? You know, I'm usually looking for parallels and finding them, and threats to democracy and things like shutting down the opposition when it comes to free speech. We certainly have seen that from past presidents, from John Adams and Wilson, But have we ever seen a president use a national broadcast to undermine confidence in the electoral system itself, at least again, as you said, when it goes against him. But yet still, and this is one of the bizarre things about the speech, have confidence when it supports him. I mean, right, but you know, the just the bizarreness of all this, I have to say, let me start with the idea of the deep state. I mean, the deep state actually goes back to skepticism about the CIA and a lot of the secrecy that has existed in the American presidency, especially in the twentieth century, external skeptics coming in and saying, hey, there's something weird going on here. Let's see behind the veil. What's so strange about this is the rhetoric of the deep state, of people undermining our elections from within or minimizing you know, foreign threats, Like yeah, from within.

His own people, in his own He's literally talking about the people he hired bringing him his daily briefings, that it left stuff out and that like literally he wasn't even trying. I expect much more from the evil mind of Stephen Miller than this speech provise Cory, because I mean the smoking gun came unloaded, it was all stuff like that.

Yeah, I mean, let me cite the unitary executive theories. He has exerted enormous control now over the civil service, and yet at the same time that he claims, well, I have control over all of this, and is exerting control still. He claims there's a secret cabal within the government going after him. No, it's you. You are the cabal. And I think what's really going on is you know, it's revealing of what the strategy is here. Yeah, frame election interference. Well, who's doing the interference. It is Donald Trump. He is trying to subvert votes, to undermine confidence in elections, to get legislation thankfully that I think won't be passed past. And you know, there's so much going on behind the curtain. One of the things, just to preview the discussion that I recorded earlier with Sky Perryman that will hear later, is one of the things that's great about democracy forward is trying to pierce that veil of secrecy, and what we see from Trump what he's already told us makes us extremely suspicious of what's going on behind the scenes. And you know what, those are documents, And thankfully, because of the Foil Law and other ways of getting transparent access, we consue to get access. So it's one of the things we talk about.

Well, here's the thing. I mean, I guess declassified means stuff. I really wish it actually happened, because there was nothing there that he said was there. China did not manipulate a single vote. He keeps on trying to overturn an election that's like old enough to be in kindergarten, now, you know. And it's easy and tempting to laugh at this, but there is method to this batshit, as you say, professor, And one of the central themes of the speech was that Americans should doubt the integrity of previous elections, while also urging Congress to pass sweeping new election legislation that we don't actually need. There has never been a problem with voter impersonation in this country. We don't need voter ID laws. They solve no existing problems. But we know what the Save Act is all about. The Save Act is all about the fact that women have been voting democratics since nineteen ninety two consistently, and that's got to stop. And they think they found a way to reduce those numbers for at least one or two elections. So is there a constitution difference between advocating election reforms and using presidential authority to undermine confidence and elections without ever giving any evidence that voting systems or vote counts were actually compromised. Again, he brought no evidence to justify these laws that are designed for one thing, to make it harder for citizens to exercise the right to vote.

That's right. Well, the speech was about was a smattering of phrases, deep state, China all, you know, trying to just prime these ideas. America has all these enemies that are.

Resulting in master greatest hits.

Yeah, it's greatest hits.

And then with trans children playing sports or hacking our elections everything.

Wait, when you look at you know, the evidence of voter fraud, even the Heritage's database of supposed voting instances of voter fraud, you know you're talking about in the hundreds. Now, this isn't even confirming their cases. Nothing that would ever approximate making a difference in really any election that we've been talking about, So you know there is no evidence for this. Now you asked about, you know, the constitutional dangers, but also the protections. Let me first say just to reassure people what the protections are, and they are vast our elections. Thankfully, it used to be that scholars and politicians debated about whether or not we should have one national system of elections to better protect it. That debate, I think has been answered by Donald Trump, which is a great thing that elections are controlled by local and state government because he keeps him from doing what he surely would do if there was national control or control by the president or thankfully we haven't done this, but if the Congress would have delegated the power to the president, if any of that would have happened, he would have swooped in and assuming that it stood court challenges, if that was the system national elections, and he would have stolen all the elections going forward. It would have been a clear path to a clean coup. Now, the fact that the elections are local keeps him from being able to enact his will, so he's got to figure out ways of shaving off votes, and the same act is one attempt to do that, and we talked to Stacy Abrams an amazing discussion. I urge listeners to go back to that. You know, he's figured out every state in locality requires some form of identification. But what Trump has done is figured out the specific forms of identifications like passports that people don't have right him, don't have so that's all that.

That's yeah, and who doesn't have driver's licenses, College students, especially college students in cities, and seniors and you know, I mean, who's not going to have a photo IDA people who are new citizens. I mean, it's just it's all done to shave a little here, shave a little there. This was a spray of sloppy lies spread by an unpopular politician who was impeached twice for trying to cheat in the twenty twenty election. Let's not for he was impeached twice for trying to cheat in the same election that he was talking about in a primetime speech six years later, and he's been cheating in the twenty twenty six election, Professor since early twenty twenty five, when he demanded Texas have a mid decade Jerry Mander to dilute the non white vote. So what was amazing to me was the speech had zero mentions of Russian interference in American elections. He didn't talk about in the speech, but in the documents he released, it confirmed that the Russian government was spreading claims that Joe Biden was engaged in a criminal activity with Barisma with his son. Like they released the documents and I quote, Russia planned those narratives with US officials and planned a high profile corruption scandal at the peak of the twenty twenty US presidential campaign. This is what he actually released, Corey, to prove the twenty twenty election was rigged against him, and it actually shows that no, Russia was still interfering in our elections to hurt Joe Biden in twenty twenty. I mean, where does this fit Historically We've never seen a president repeatedly question the legitimacy of elections after courts and election officials and Intel Agency have rejected those claims. I mean, is it just desperate fumbling, Corey? Do I need to be scared of this because the states do control the elections and all of this is just lies to try to get a population worried about gas prices to care a lot about it election six years ago, so they can cheat in one in a few months.

Well, I think we do have to be concerned, and that's why we have to try to figure out, you know, what is going on behind the scenes, because this speech gives us not more than suspicion, it gives us evidence that he is going to try to cheat in this election. And his obsession about proving that somehow there is election interference against him, you know, is all part of building this case to cheat in the next election. I think it goes to a kind of psychology which is actually kind of Nixonian broadly, which is everybody's doing it, everybody's cheating, so I can cheat too. And how does he show that he shows that there are forces lined up against him supposedly, Well, he isn't actually shown. Point about barisma. You know, let's remember that in the first impeachment of Trump for the quid pro quo where he was really threatening Zelensky in order to get information on his opponent. That was the information that he was seeking Hunter Biden and Joe Biden supposed involvement with Ukrainian company, and one the that we've never gotten away with and it's a president who was obsessed with his supposed opponent who's no longer president, Joe Biden, and all with an aim of one thing, which is just like that original scheme in the first impeachment, getting information that I could use on my opponents send an election, to cheat, to manipulate the vote. And that's what this said was really exhibit A in his attempted coup to destroy our democracy.

That's what he got impieced for with Ukraine. All right, really quick, because I know we have to move on. There's a lot to cover. But during the speech, Trump criticized CNN and ABC and NBC for declining to air his lies live on their networks, and he suggested their broadcast licenses should be revoked because the only thing these people hate more than the New Testament is the Bill of Rights. So, Corey, from a First Amendment standpoint, obviously, the government can't punish newspapers or TV stations because it dislikes editorial decisions. Can you just explain why editorial discretion itself is constitutionally protected speech.

Well, you know, we talked last week with the senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden about his jaw Boning Act, and we talked to death about this, and I'm so grateful actually to listeners who keep writing to me, and a lot of people had never heard this term jaw boning, but it is so important for the moment because sometimes you know, in the Sedition Act, which we've talked about extensively, John Adams signed law that said basically, criticize the president, you go to prison. The nice thing about that law is, Okay, obviously that's a shutdown of free speech. And yeah, back looking back on it, we can see that what about when the president uses the FCC in order to pressure private companies to make their own decisions. I'm giving this the most sympathetic, overly sympathetic way of describing.

It, to shut it query.

Maybe that's not the government shutting down your free speech, and so it's not relevant to the First Amendment, except that obviously that's not what's going on the government pretending that private companies are making their own decisions, but really are pressuring forcing them to do so. So that's a problem.

By the way, thank you for reminding everybody that Donald Trump attacked capitalism. I'll be sure to remind the Democratic Party to not use that at all in their campaigns this year. You know, please Democrats don't use that and it's too effective. Please don't go out as hypocrisy Democrats.

You know, the way he's gotten away with it is that he pretends somehow that these are private decisions. CBS, of course, did show the speech, thankfully, ABC and NBC did not. Even though they are going to have their licenses threatened. They resisted in the face of it. It's still a First Amendment violation. I hope that those corporations do sue because you cannot, through pressure, threaten the licenses and try to basically shut down the decision making of private companies. And yes, the Democratic Party better be emphasizing. I thought cn EN did a nice job. They printed the speech, but with panditation, that's a good way to do it. You can cover the speech. We're covering it right now, exactly, letting it air on its own.

Well, that was the question I had for you, and then we'll get off this topic. But it doesn't seem too tough to balance these two competing journalistic obligations. Right on the one hand, you have to inform the public because it's a speech, and you got to tell them what the president said, but you also have to avoid amplifying demonstrably false claims, which is the same reason why if you're hosting a debate and Donald Trump is there, you really want to call out his lives. But that's another show. So I mean, that seems to be where it's at. Corey, I agree with you. I think that they pulled it off by actually having fact checking for a speech, and I support keeping that and when there's a democratic president, I hope they keep it too. I would love to see these broadcast networks have live fact checking in the moment to scare these politicians into telling the truth.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's the only way to do it, because there is a real story here, which is that the president is trying to undermine our elections in order to try to steal the midterms. And that's about the biggest story that there can be. Now, how do you cover it? That's a separate question. And if you cover it by just you know, letting that speech appear nearly willy with no commentary, is if it's true, then that's the opposite of journalism. So CNN and ABC and NBC, great jobs, CBS, you know, Wow, you really are turning into the next Fox.

Oh, I got to say, Tony Dekoppele gave Donald Trump a lovely flot massage later in the evening. I don't know if you saw it, but he actually cooked him dinner and then made him a comfortable bed and then gave him a flip massage with anointed oils from India. It was beautiful. I wish you'd seen it. It was really good journalism. Oh, CBS, All right, let's talk about Todd Blanche has been a few days since the confirmation hearings. They did not go well. The senators were talking to him about obviously, the DOJ is supposed to be independent, and it's being used to pursue Donald Trump's political opponents. And you were his criminal defense lawyer. Why are we doing this? I mean, I don't even know where to begin, Corey. This guy should not even make it to a hearing and he's most likely going to be confirmed. What constitutional principles are at risk when concerns are there that prosecutorial power is being exercised to beat up on a president's foes.

Well, you know, there's a lot made of the fact that I do want to emphasize this that the Department of Justice is supposed to be representing the people the cases that brought criminal cases on behalf of the people of the United States, not on behalf of the president. And of course, the way that Blanche sees himself is that he is the personal lawyer of the president. And I've said that, you know, on CNN and on this show, but you just said something that I want to emphasize even more. Mead, Yes, that he sees himself as the personal defense lawyer of the president. This was the guy that defends he is defendant Donald Trump. In the New York case about Stormy Daniels from criminal charges, he went after Michael Cohen by trying to just accuse him of lying about everything on the stand, even though a lot of what he was saying was backed up by evidence. Of course, Donald Trump was convicted in that case. And what's going on here too, is that that's the kind of thud, I'll call it a thug lawyer that we're getting as Acting Attorney Drenal is trying to be Attorney General, that he's just going after Trump's opponents, defending him at all costs, going after his opponents as he would an opponent in court. It is really such a travesty.

Chuck Grassley still has not scheduled a vote yet, which is very interesting. And it's not because Chuck Grassley is waiting on a case of true blood to arrive to keep him living. It's because John Cornyn is very far from a yes right now, and it's only going to take one Republican no vote in this committee to sink the nomination and Professor. As we all know, John Cornyan doesn't oh Donald Trump any favors for the rest of his life, does he. Donald Trump decided to endorse Nazi weasel Ken Paxton, and that's why John Cornan is about to become an ex senator. And now John Cornan's vote could sink Donald Trump's crooked pick for Attorney General. It's kind of brilliant, except I don't know who to root for and who to root against.

Well, you know, a lot of this comes down to this slush fund to try to take money that Trump got in a illicit deal with the Irs, to deal with himself in order to fund money to his allies, including those who participated in January sixth. Now that slush fund, you know, just so not just so happens. We planned this guest guy Perriman, her group stop that slush fund. Literally, they are the people that went to court and said, I don't think so, like you know, this is illegal, and once they got a court order from a judge, that started to you know, help get media attention on it and to get now here's where it's really relevant to these hearings, to get the Attorney general to back down or so he says. He said multiple times it's dead. But now when Corning says, okay, put it in writing, he refuses to do so. And that's one thing that really pissed off this senator from Texas that you know, essentially not just lying, but just rubbing it into the face of the committee that you're pretending, maybe for a few seconds, to drop this slush fund and then refusing to put it in writing. Well, one thing, you know, I talked to Periman about this. Wait for this in the interview. Amazing to listen to what's going on with the case, you would think that if they really dropped it, they have not dropped the case. They are continuing to fight for this slush fund against those who would stop it. And that suggests the Senator is exactly right. What a news worthy moment for that interview, for this battle between Cornyan and Trump. You know, let's hope that that Trump doesn't come up with some deal that makes cornyin back down. It's too important.

Well, and there's also the not too small factor of covering a child rape, which has been Tillis's problem. We got to take a quick break, but when we come back, I want to pick up on this note, professor, because as you know, a federal judge just smacked down this IRS settlement and I want to ask you about it back in a moment, donn the oath that in the office.

The New John Fugel Sang Show every day at twelve noon.

Good afternoon, John, and welcome back to Afternoon Radio.

I have missed you. Now you're back into the daylight.

Good afternoon, John. Congraduations on the new show, loving it, 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 XCM after.

Welcome back to the oath and the office. I'm John Fiegel, saying, along with Professor Corey Bretschneider, Corey, federal judge just described that IRS agreement that would benefit Trump as an improper exercise in self dealing and pretty much smacked out all of the corruptions surrounding the entire litigation and even referred one of the attorneys involved to state bar authorities. A lot to unpack. We already knew this was corrupt. A federal judge is now validated that. For those like me in the audience, what does self dealing actually mean legally speaking?

Well, you know, the way that this has been described is as a fraud on the court. And that sounds like a strong way to put it, and for good reason. The whole idea of a lawsuit is supposed to be that you have two parties battling it out. Now, think about it. The IRS is part of the executive branch and Donald Trump is in charge of the executive branch. And yet this supposed deal was hashed out between two warring parties, the IRS and Trump. No, it was Trump and himself. It was a scam, and that's what this judge is pulling out. I mentioned the unitary executive theory. You know, it used to be that there were theories of the executive branch that said you had civil servants, the I R. S. Or the Department of Justice is technically underneath the president, but they really are, you know, legally separate all of those hurdles. Those barriers between the president and the agencies are disappearing under the theory that Donald Trump and his lackeys are pushing the units of executive So in what way is this really a battle between Trump and a different entity? No, it's Donald Trump self dealing with himself, not in the conflict. And that's the fraud on the court that's been called out. There isn't a real conflict. I keep mentioning Sky Perryman. I'm so excited for listeners to hear it. But you know it's an other place where incredibly, they went out and they have either people come to them or they seek out plaintiffs in these cases who are going to have standing to challenge these bs deals, to challenge the slush fund, to challenge the needed thing that gave rise to the money for the slush fund, which is this fake fraud on the court. Lawsuit. So you know, really it's what's our guests are often, you know, related to the news that you know, definitely we had Senator widen As that we were considering whether or not to confirm the d n I and the questions of international surveillance. That was an amazing episode and this one is too really relevant.

Okay, well, let me let me just ask you about this, because the Catholic Church as a whole policy of their own on self dealing, but it's got a bit different language. They're not fans. How How rare is it for a federal judge to refer an attorney involved in a case to state bar authorities.

It's pretty rare, you know, and it's got to be really bad. But think of what I just told you exactly. You know, judges don't like being made dupes. And I want to see more of it fraught on the court.

I want to see more of this. I hope it's not too late to dispar Pam bond equory. Do you understand. I still I'm still holding out hope that Pam BONDI could be disbarred for this stuff. Like I'm thrilled to see the judicial branch actually punching back and not just handing over their money to the ability.

And I want to say why. You know, judges do get emotional, they do get angry. And one of the things I think that really angers them is well, straight up lying, which we've seen from a lot of the Department of Justice. And we've talked about why a presumption of trusting the Department of Justice has just evaporated. That long tradition is gone, given how much lying there's been. That's one thing that makes them really angry. But there's what really makes them even more angry when you try to give them to rubber stamp a fake agreement with what you're presenting as two warring parties but really are not. You know, it's like, you know, me and you John catch a plot to pretend to have a battle because we've come up with a way to fraudulently benefit if it looks like we're in a lawsuit, we're lying the judge that we get to involve our we're not really doing this. But if we get a judge to involve ourselves in that, they're not going to be happy. And that's exactly what's happened. They're trying to basically rope in the judicial sherry to make them a party to a fraud.

Can I tell you my really unpopular opinion about this, Cory, please, My really unpopular opinion about this is that I don't want to hear any Democrats complain about it, because the Constitution already has mechanisms designed to stop presidents from using the public office for their private benefit. The Constitution has the emolument's clauses foreign and domestic. As I've told you many times, we could have impeached Donald Trump one minute into his first inaugural address in twenty seventeen. Jimmy Carter gave up a damn peanut farm. Mitt Romney was willing to put his gazillions into a blind trust. This president has made more money in the last year off the office than he ever made on his own in his entire life. And I don't see anyone ever mentioning the constitutions of mollument's clauses ever, and it's happening out in the open, So why shouldn't he do it at this point? If even the Democratic Party is not going to risk the bad vibe of using the eyeword related.

To this, well, it is impeachable. Our whole episode about the more than two billion dollars that the president has stolen, not just benefited, using the office in order to profit himself is exhibit A. And the reason it's like.

It almost sounds like you don't trust Crypto, professor, It almost sounds like he's calling Crypto a scam.

But go on, and you know what's the argument for why this specifically is a place for impeachment. Well, as you say, and that it is true, you're not seeing it. You know, usually in the media you are hearing about it and seeing it on this podcast. We have two emolument's clauses, one domestic, one international, and Trump is continually violating both. And he's doing it for two reasons. One is he thinks he has immunity. He shouldn't and doesn't have immunity. These aren't official acts, but he's deluded himself into thinking that they are. And yes, he can be prosecuted, I think for some of these crimes after he leaves office. Except for the fact, and here's the second thing that's complicated that we don't have laws on the books that take the emoluments clauses and turn them into criminal law. This is a subtle point, but I think it's worth making. Yes, it's prohibited under the constitution, but the way the constitution works is you need to translate it into laws on the books passed by Congress, and we don't have enough. It's possible to do it, but it should be crystal clause clear. We have prosecuting prosecutors are saying it would be hard to make the case because they're too weak. Well, I think there's an obvious answer, and Jamie Raskin has been one of the people who has done something about us. You have to have legislation that makes it not not you know, I don't should we indict him or not? Should we prosecute him or not? Make the laws so clear that if you use the office to steal from the American public, you're going to be prospects.

The laws are already clear. Financial disclosures last week show us that Trump's company received millions from foreign business interests while related trade matters we're still pending before the US government. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton had been making money from foreign corporations while they had legislation pending in front of her husband while he was president. I think our Republican friends would have impeached them using existing laws very effectively. I mean, ethics scholars have always warned us about presidents having extensive private business interests. But turns out, go ahead and do it violate all those norms because no one's going to stop you. I mean, yeah, they could impeach him for it. They could, they don't want to.

Let's talk about two things. One is, and this is we're in heated agreement about this. That the you know, in the absence of criminal laws, making something obviously illegal, and that's the situation I think that we're in. We do have another mechanism for removing a president. That's impeachment. And when the Constitution says that an impeachabable offense is a high crime and misdemeanor, it doesn't mean a criminal offense. It means a crime against the Constitution, against the Republic, against the people, and the emoluments clause violations are primary there. So yes, Second, that we have a democratic majority in the House, I think, in addition to other articles of impeachment, the first ones definitely should be about these emoluments clause violations. Now here's the second thing, though, that we need to do because this is also a problem. When I talked to prosecutors and we had Joyce Vance on the show, and just as a reminder, she's one of the people who think amazing that you know that even the most seasoned federal prosecutors who agree with us that this should be a crimer like I don't know that if I brought that case that I could get a conviction. That tells me that we need laws on the books to make it easier. Not just talking about impeachment now, I'm talking about putting somebody in prison, just to remind people you impeach and remove a president, they don't go to prison, they're just out of office. That would be great, but this is an offense that is worthy of a prison sentence, and we may clarify.

Them make Grifter is afraid of prison again. I agree. And you know, look, my unpopular opinion is Democrats should be impeaching this guy for something else. Once a week. Every week, there should be new articles of impeachment introduced by a new Democratic representative and they will go nowhere and there should be a lot of hype and news coverage for it. Because when the Republicans were introducing seventy plus repeal Obamacare bills, and we laughed and laughed at them. What they were doing in that doomed Kamakazi legislation was fundraising and giving a mission statement and reminding their base of exactly what they were fighting for. In that case, it was taking healthcare away from Americans because they're evil. But I think you want to see a Democratic party fighting. Get in the ring. Now. Let me be willing to see you take a punch and even get knocked down and not get there, but you're going to fight for it, and you're not going to not fight for impeachment because you know it's going to fail. I think we want to see that. Al Green alone can't do it, and I think Democrats, if they did, it would raise a lot of awareness about this kind of corruption and the emolument's clause. Most Americans don't know what the emoluments clause is. They should and I think you can fundraise off it as well. So I'd like to see them just get in the spirit.

There's another really, you know, I'm of the bl be that although the impeachments didn't result, half the impeachments in the history of the Republic I should say, we're in Trump's first term, and you know they weren't a mistake. They let us see the threat to democracy, both in the attempt to get dirt on his opponent Joe Biden. Still relevant to the speech, of course, the impeachment for January sixth was called for, and one of the things that it does, and Johnny, I think you're getting at this too, is not just rise awareness of the general crimes, but we get information. And so much of the problem of this presidency is the black box that's hiding the illegal activity, the fraud. That's part of what sky Perriman is trying to do after this speech and her lawsuits with Democracy Forward to get information about what's going on behind the scenes try to steal the midterm elections. But it also would happen through impeachment, where we would get information as we did in the first term.

So before we hit our break and then the interview, because now you've got me dying to hear it really quick. This is really disturbing. After Ice has now officially killed believe they're eighth person of the Year, the reports are that the FBI is going to stop investigating confrontations involving ICE personnel. In other words, no oversight. If these masked cowards with badges murder people, the FBI, the federal government won't take any interest in such violence. I mean, Corey, if ever there was a time for independent oversight being an important component of constitutional governance, wouldn't it be this? I mean, Americans might die and the FBI won't get in the way.

Yeah, I mean it is, you know, talking about a veil of secrecy and hiding information. What's happening we know is that ICE and I'll just emphasize part of the reason why is structural. They've eliminated essentially the training for ICE officers, so you know, yeah, grut is a gun people who really shouldn't be working in these positions. Refusing to train them, We're going to have not fewer, but more of these horrific incidents in which people on the street are having their basic rights human rights abused by ICE. And rather than you know, who's supposed to be looking into these offenses, it's the federal government. It's the FBI, and they are refusing to do it. They are just adding to the veil of secrecy, as listeners know. And I'll just emphasize it again. Other entities have to step up. And I am really an advocate for state attorneys generals, local prosecutors bringing charges against ice officers. I know about at least one investigation in Minnesota, but you know, we now know there might have been a debate about that. Isn't this a role for the federal government. They have just abdicated the federal government their role in enforcing the criminal laws. If you murder somebody, that's a violation of local Every state in this country bans murder, and you know what, those laws have to be enforced. They're not going to be enforced by the federal government, so they have to be for us well, state prosecuted.

You know.

NPR had an interview with a woman named Ashley Bruyette. She is the ex wife of the man David Bruyette, who shot and killed Johann Deran Guerrero four times in Maine last week in front of his child. This man was not the target, He had a social Security number, he was following all the rules, He was unarmed. He was shot in the vehicle, pulled out of the vehicle in front of his three year old daughter, handcuffed once he was pulled out and shot and left to bleed to death on the sidewalk. And this man's ex wife told NPR that he called her and begged her to say positive things about his character. She said that he was abusive. She said that he's already asked her to lie for him. His former best friend from high school testified on his ex wife's behalf when they broke up because he was so abusive. She played a tape of this man threatening to have all the women in her family's throats cut. In a twenty twenty one court filing, this guy was stripped of his firearms temporarily because of complaints of abuse from his second ex wife, Corey. I'm like, is it too much to ask that we screened these people? The man who describing just shot and killed an innocent man last week who was getting a citizenship, and they had the wrong guy, and we're still paying his salary. He's not even suspended, And the FBI will not intervene or investigate.

Yes, as a matter of as a matter of policy, they're just not going to look into this wrongdoing. As a matter of hiring and training, there is none There are no standards, and you know. That's why I should say too. You could hear me talk shout through the rooftops about the need for local prosecutors to bring these indictments, which they definitely can, although they're reluctant to have been reluctant to do so. But you want to hear the best argument for it, it's just look at the facts, look at the brutality, look at the individuals who are involved, and then you see why we need the criminal law to be in forced and why the FBI and the federal government. Well, this goes back to Todd blanche. This is the guy who's going to be in charge of whether or not to prosecute Ice. I don't think that the same person who's setting up a slush fund for Donald Trump and then lying about whether or not he's backing off it is going to be the person to enforce justice for Americans.

God bless our fascists for being so incompetent. All right, we have to take a break. Let me come back. The professor assistant with sky Berravin.

Don't go away, Heyl Glenn Kirshner here, So, friends, I hope you'll join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters.

Do you care about ethics and government, criminal justice reform, a conflict free federal judiciary.

I thought so.

On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need to reform our government and its institutions, and we talk about real, achievable reform. I hope you'll join us look for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts.

Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. It's really my pleasure to introduce Sky Perryman. Sky Perryman is the CEO of Democracy Forward, and I would call Democracy Forward one of the premier legal organizations fighting Trump right now in court, trying to defend our democracy. We'll talk about what they've been doing, incredible work. It's been my honor to work with them on the tariff's case. Sky is a graduate of Georgetown Law School. She was named one of Time magazines one hundred most influential people, and she joins me to discuss the legal fight against the Trump administration and the fight for our constitution. So, Sky Perryman, Welcome to the Oath in the Office.

Thanks so much for having me, what a pleasure.

Can you just start off by telling me about the organization, what your overall strategy, is. I want to get into some of your incredible legal fights and really legal victories. Part of our podcast is about the threat to democracy, but it's also about why citizens need to be fighting back and the hope that this actually works as worked in the past, will work in the future. And your organizations really really showed that. So just start off by telling us what are you all about and what have been your strategies in dealing with Trump two point zero.

We're about making sure that the American people can create the conditions needed, which are democratic conditions and democracy where all people can thrive. And what has happened, as you know, over the past few years in our country, and this did not start at twenty twenty five when President Trump came back into office, but we have been for a variety of years. We've been admitst a democratic backslide in this country where far right extremism at the state and local level has done everything from banned books to ban healthcare to try to prevent people from voting. We have a rise of misinformation and dism in this country. We have a challenging Supreme Court landscape where the Supreme Court has in many instances reversed the rights of people as opposed to protect the rights of people, and all of that is happening against a backdrop across the world where so many countries are facing these backslides. The number of democracies in the world is declining as a number of autocracies is rising. So it's against this global context. And then, of course, a year and a half ago, with the inauguration of President Trump and the way he has chosen to govern, we've seen that backslide really accelerate, and so our organization is about making sure that people in this country can utilize the power and the tools that our democracy provides for them to be able to protect their communities, protect their rights, to push forward when that is possible. And one of those tools is the ability of people to go to court and to demand that their rights be defended. And so we do a lot of court work. We represent all of our clients free of charge. We believe that it's important that the American people be able to access the courts, even if they can't afford excellent lawyers. We have excellent lawyers here who do that work pro bono, so that we can make sure that the Constitution is defended and that people are defended.

Well, you have put together an amazing team of litigators, people who are in formerly in the Department of Justice. I know many people served in the department before it was taken over by Trump and trump Ism. And you've been having amazing victories too in the federal courts in where so much of the pushback has happened. So one of the things that I know you've been deeply involved in and have had success, and this is one of those hopeful moments, is in pushing back against Trump's corrupt deal with the IRS and also his related creation of this slush fund, this attack fund on his opponents. So talk to me about both of these cases and how your litigation strategy has really helped to stop this in its tracks. I think that our listeners will want to know not just what the issues are, but like, how did you do this? Well?

We do have such an amazing team and the team though we have amazing clients across this country. People in communities are stepping forward even when powerful institutions have been stepping back or sitting on the sidelines. And so the slush fund, this creation of the one point seven seven six billion dollars slush fund, which is a total corrupt political kickback scheme to use taxpayer dollars to try to compensate people who have been convicted of in many instances, people that pled guilty of violent crimes, whether that is violent restrictions and trying to keep people from being able to access reproductive healthcare clinics, which is unlawful under a broad bipartisan act, or people that participated in January sixth and tried to disrupt the peaceful transition of presidential power, and on and on. This slush fund that the government creates has been unlawful from the start, but there was a real question about who would really be able to step up and challenge it. And so we represent an amazing coalition of plainffs. We represent a former prosecutor who was fired by Donald Trump's administration this because he worked on the January sixth cases. He did nothing wrong, did his job, but got fired. We represent a coalition of reproductive health care providers who for many years, even way before January sixth, when they go to work, they face violence and threats because of anti abortion extremism that is so violent, So you know, we represent them. We represent the City of New haven that's been retaliated against by this administration because the administration doesn't like the way it treats immigrants in its community. And then we're really pleased to represent Common Cause, which is of course, you know, an amazing pro democracy organization. So we have this big coalition of plain effs and we were able to file suit. You know, the president can't do things without acting through the federal agencies, and here you have a number of these federal offices that were establishing the slush fund. We filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia in federal court, and we immediately were able to get the fund paused because the government would not even agree. And I think your listeners would be interested in this, like the government would not even agree to pause the fund while the court could set a hearing schedule. So this is one of the Trump administration's core philosophies has been to try to outrun accountability, or to try to run so fast that the courts can't act. And about a year and a half ago when we started lit getting these cases, it was very hard sometimes to get the courts to act quickly because they would you know, they would be worried that, you know, are they acting to hastily now that they've seen this administration try to outrun them. We're seeing the federal courts understand, okay, if you're not even going to agree to pause something so that we can get a hearing schedule, we're going to go ahead an issue in order. So that's what the court did, and then she had a full hearing on our ow for pulmonary injunction, where she found that, of course our clients had made the case that they were likely to succeed. And so now now the matter is paused, that the slush fund is paused while we litigate the merits of the matter.

Now, what's interesting about this case.

Another thing that has been quite interesting is that the Department of Justice has made a range of claims. You know, Todd blanch goes to Congress and says, the slush fund's dead, we're not really doing it. And our case has really been the instrument I think that has shown the American people what's happening here because he goes to Congress and says one thing. But then when we say, well will you will you swear on yours and put put a paper down in Court. You know, all of a sudden, he's not interested in that. And so I think that this is a great example of how litigation can.

Be helpful to protect people.

We want to protect taxpayers, we want to protect our clients. Obviously, we want to protect against corruption. We certainly will our clients could be harmed if these people go out and get checks from the government. But we also you know, this is a good mechanism really exposing how this administration is operating. So that's been the challenge of the slush fund. Now, the other piece was this.

Litigation that there's so important what you're saying and this word. So if you want an example of where a litigation group has stopped the government clear in its tracks, this really is it. And of course on the podcast, we're talking a lot about the heroic role that federal judges have played outside of the Supreme Court, but that doesn't come from nowhere. You need a case and you need clients, and that's what you've been able to do. But just to clarify, because I think this is really important and I'm not seeing it get the kind of coverage that it should get. We saw the Acting Attorney General say essentially that the slush fund is dead. But now what I hear you saying is that he's lying to us. And maybe that shouldn't come as a surprise, but it is an important point. So am I right that they're still fighting you in court at the same time that they're pretending that it's dead.

Absolutely.

Not only are they fighting in court, just to be very clear, they are refusing to sign documents to say instead like, if it's dead, then let's move on, right, But that's not anything that they've been willing to swear to. And actually the judge in our case gave them a few days to show up with evidence that the slush phone was dead, and they couldn't do that. And so I think, you know, we're we're going to continue to monitor it day by day.

We're preparing the case.

There's a trial date on the case for later this year, so you know we will we have a schedule and everything. But part of this really is the American people getting to see with their own eyes the way this administration says one thing but then won't really back it up and tries to outrun accountability.

And what we know about the American.

People is that the vast majority of people in this country, regardless of whether they agree with each other on a lot of things, they don't think that office holders and people that are presenting before courts and people that are presenting before Congress should be making incorrect and untruthful statements. And so I think this is one of really those things that's captured the imagination of a whole lot of people across the political spectrum because of what we've seen, which just briefly, I think you wanted to talk about the IRS settlement which emanated, you know, which came out of this Florida case that the Trump organization filed against the IRS, and then Trump came out and President Trump came out and announced I've sued myself. Well, that's not a real good way to get the federal courts to be excited. You have to have actual adversity in cases and controversy in this country. And so what we did in that case was we represented a range of former officials that had served in IRS or in Treasury, had served both Republicans and Democratic administrations to explain to the court the various options that the court had. The Court ended up taking those options, appointing Independent and Meki to ride, you know, really ended up taking a lot of that, we believe from the briefs.

And then at the same time, we were very pleased to see.

Thirty five federal judges, former federal judges, judges that had been appointed by Republicans and Democrats file a pay were in the case, really asking the court to consider whether the Trump organization had engaged in fraud on the court. And that's where the fireworks in that matter obviously have been.

Yeah, I mean really seem to I would have said, stopped them, called in their tracks, but of course they're pretending that this is over, at least in the slush fund case, and it sounds like continuing. I mean, how do you see it seems like an interesting case study. We talk so often about stopping this administration, about the role of the courts, but it seems like this is a case study in both stopping them in court. You did get this injunction against them, but yet that had a wider ramification and push politically the acting Attorney General to at least pretend that he was stopping all of this. So, I mean, talk to me more. I want to ask more about how you get clients, because I think that's an interesting part of all of this and really part that's often not reported on. But talk to me more generally about how have you seen this work, the sort of combo of litigation and political pressure and getting them to back off, at least publicly as you continue to fight. I mean, you're not just a litigation group, of course, you're engaged in trying to stop an administration that's intent on well destroying democracy, creating a fund to shut down its critics.

Every single day we see that, we say it's courts plus people, and we always are very clear eyed that the courts are hugely important tool and they're a tool that we should not underestimate. Even as one may be frustrated with some of the decisions out of the US Supreme Court, the courts have been a huge tool. They're protecting people every single day, and at the end of the day, it is going to be the people. And so our work at democracy for it is really aimed at using both the courts and the people. But to be clear, for us, the courts are a major way that people can have their voices heard. Now we have seen over and over again that the Act, you know, we have a saying around here. You know, if you don't fight, you can't win. And we have seen over and over that the act of filing a lawsuit on behalf of brave clients who are willing to get into court with us, that that action has often delayed or stopped the administration in their tracks even before we get court orders. So some examples on that. We filed a case to block the administration's attempt to cut off funding for K through twelve education and higher education based on teaching real history. They said, if you don't align with the White House's views on civil rights or you know you're you're gonna you don't get your funding. We filed a case in federal court before a judge that President Trump himself nominated. We won a court order on behalf of our brave clients in that case, finding that this letter, this dear colleague letter, was unlawful.

But the administration didn't even appeal that.

They who are the letter up walked it back and you know everything is blocked now. We see that a lot with our funding freeze case. We are still actively litigating it. It's on appeal. We blocked this nationwide funding freeze. We had to go to court to block it. But what you saw was that the action of going to court and having a federal judge very early early days of the administration say you know what is happening here, this looks completely arbitrary. That actually put the White House in a difficult spot in their first White House press or where they had to show up and start defending why people's Medicaid portals were closed and why meals on wheels might not be working in a community. And so this is really a core tool, and it's a tool I think that is underappreciated people that say that their strategy is they're going to try to work with the administration, They're going to try to do deals with the administration. I mean, I can talk a lot about how I don't think that strategy is going to pay off for people. But even if you have that strategy, the way you get to the negotiating table is to assert your rights in court and to file a lawsuit. And we see that in our courts every single day.

Yeah, and we've seen that over and over with those who have tried to negotiate that they think they're giving an inch. And then of course the administration says, look, how weak these people are. Let's just ask exactly this has seen that with the law firms, with the universities, and your strategy. I think of saying this is illegal, you know, beginning with that, that puts you in a much better negotiating place. I mean, I also just want to emphasize too, what you said, which is, although you know this is litigation and there is an aspect that's negotiation, it also is publicity that this is. You know, so much of the fact that the slush fund is being covered in this fake deal with the IRS, which is, as you said, really a deal of Donald Trump and himself and there's no real lawsuit there. All of that was exposed through the litigation. So that's why I think this is so important. I mean this, Yeah, I think in.

This media environment where there's such sensationalism and their algorithms are feeding you things, you know, one thing we have found is that a way, not always but a pretty surefire way to cut through a lot of the noise and to really focus the public on what is actually happening is through bringing litigation. Because the litigation, the facts come out. A break over Garcia, right, everybody remembers mister Garcia. His entire story blew up this idea that the White House had that they were going to be able to remove people from the country without any process, and that the American people weren't going to care because people got to know mister Garcia's situation and this story, and that doesn't happen if you don't file the lawsuits.

And you know, it's such an important point that I want to come back to, and it was one of the first things that you said that you know, you need the clients, You need the people, the brave people who are going to stand up and say this is illegal and I've been harmed. And I think that isn't something that maybe even listeners of this podcast or those who are watching the news more generally always understand about the way our courts work. You know, it's not like, at least in this country, that you could come in and say you've acted unconstitutionally in some abstract idea. You need an individual who's been harmed. And that's one of the real successes that you've had in these lawsuits, both in the irs case but also in the slush fund case, and finding the actual people who have been harmed. So talk to me more about that, like how do you find clients? You know, what's it like for them to stand up to the administration. They of course need to give their names. Tell us about that about these hero kind of unsung heroes of so much of the resistance to Trump right now, they are.

The heroes, and we, you know, we really want to lift up the role that ordinary people.

Of course I don't think they're ordinary. I think they're extraordinary, but.

Just people that are living in all different walks of life who have said, you know, I can see what's happening to my community, I can see what's happening to my family, I can see what's happening in my country, and I want to do something about it. It really is the thing that motivates us every day, that motivates our team.

So sometimes clients, in many instances, clients come to us.

I mean, you know, when Elon Musk was running through Washington decimating our civil servants, right the people that have dedicated their careers to serving the American public, there was a big panic about you know, what were they to do? How were they to respond? So in many instances clients do come to us, But in some instances, people don't know how to find a lawyer, they don't know that they can be represented free of charge. And also because of the way and I know your audience follows this, because of the way the laws have been interpreted, sometimes a single individual isn't actually the only planet that you need.

Because we want to make sure.

That we can get relief for everyone in the country, and the courts increasingly are looking at sort of like how widespread the harm is?

How can we demonstrate that? So we do a lot of work.

I mean, we represent a lot of associations, a lot of groups that have members who are harmed by these unlawful actions, but that can demonstrate that that harm is widespread, which helps us when court orders that can help more people as opposed to just you know, helping one or two individuals, and a lot of that work. You know, now it's much easier. A year and a half into this, when the administration first came on the scene and was really doing such harm to people, there was a lot of fear among organizations if we cross them, what are they going to do?

Well?

What the problem with the way the administration has operated with their overreach is the only thing that's really won. The only way you really can get your way with this administration right now has been to sue them. So now a lot of institutions or more institutions are seeing that, which has been helpful in making sure we can make sure that people and communities can get into court.

But there is a lot of fear.

I mean, people are very afraid because the administration is wanting them to be afraid. But I will tell you we have seen in our cases that litigation has actually been a protectant against people. I say all the time, this administration knows what to do with weakness, they don't always know what to do with strength. I mean, they will come after people no fault of their own, including incredibly buried and courageous people. So I'm not saying it's one hundred percent, but in general, in general, they are much more interested in targets that they believe will capitulate or will pull back, as opposed to people and communities that will confront them in court. And that's really been the north star for a lot of our clients.

Yeah, and of course the litigation that we're talking about the creation of a slush fund to aid your allies Trump allies and to shut down his opponents. What a perfect example of the threat that people feel. But also, I mean, what a great point that litigation is actually what pushes them back. I mean, when you look at those who have caved in the universities I'm thinking of in particular, and of course to the law firms, those universities who have fought back have often won, and those who behave have been asked for more and more. And so when people you know that at my university or at others, are asking should we fight or should we back down, it's like there is no you know, partially backing down, there is no compromise. They're going to just demand more and more. In litigation is the thing that actually protects you. It's not to say you can't negotiate, you know, once you begin to litigate and you know, maybe you could make a reasonable settlement then, but backing down is about the worst thing you can do in the face of such a bully that's trying to destroy democracy.

Well, one thing we say is, you know the cost of inaction and the cost of action, and right now there is a lot of people afraid of how costly what the consequences would be for pushing.

Back or for acting and their right to be afraid.

This is a really scary time. But what we know about this time, and what the real risk assessments would show, is that the cost of inaction is higher than the cost of action. And I think that sometimes in these discussions, whether they're in boardrooms at universities or at companies, the cost of inaction gets minimized. And when you're looking at a political movement and an administration in this country that does not want to be held accountable to the constitution, that does not want a democracy that is available to all people, the cost of not doing anything or far far higher than the cost of stepping up and being part of the work to defend these rights and this form of government.

Yeah, let's talk about action and defense of democracy. Can you tell us just some of I mean, of course, one of the huge stories of the moment is that Donald Trump has given a speech about threatening our elections, claiming that they are insecure, and of course using that as an excuse potentially to continue to cheat himself. He's tried, through various proposed legislation to limit the right to vote of his opponents. And I know that you have a plethora of pieces of litigation, a number of lawsuits that are challenging this attempt to shut down democracy, both when it comes to protecting our votes and also to get transparency when it comes to some of the stuff that's going on behind the scenes that we got a little window in his speech recently. So tell us what kinds of cases are you bringing here to protect our democracy and our argy?

Yeah, I think the.

Main I think, yeah, I think the main thing that's really important for people that are tuning in to know is that, largely speaking, the president's attempts to engage in these conspiracy theories, the president's attempts to intimidate and try to get voter rolled, all those things, they are largely being blocked in the courts. And that's no surprise because the Constitution provides no basis for the president to have a role in our elections like that. Just is what happened two hundred and fifty years ago. We didn't throw off the reigns of monarchy to put a president in charge of elections, and that's how you know, you know, and that didn't change within the ten years between the declaration of independence and when the Constitution comes about. So there's no real role for the president here, and the federal courts have been pretty uniformly seeing it for what it is. So in cases that we are not involved in that, I'll start with those first. You know, the Department of Justice, I believe is zero for sixteen in their attempts to get data from the states. Now we have blocked alongside we are counsel at Democracy Forward, alongside our friends at CREWE and the Fair Election Center, we have blocked the president's attempt to use this modified SAVE database within the Department of Homeland Security to aggregate information and potentially to use that.

To remove voters from the roles. We've blocked that by a federal court.

We're fighting literally every day on their complains alliance with that court order, but that has also been blocked. We have exposed in another federal litigation that when DOGE was in Washington, they were accessing individual social security information and that a DOGE team members signed a voter data agreement with a third party organization that, by the Department of Justice's own telling, was engaged in seeking to overturn state election results. So we have won a major discovery order to get to the bottom of what's happening there. And then right after the president's speech, just hours after the president's speech, we filed suit because the government has been with holding documents from the FBI, the DOJ, and the OD and I the very agencies that the President was trying to put at play. They've been withholding documents about all of these types of conspiracies that of course we know the documents will show that these are just conspiracies. And so you will see that type of action from US. You will see that type of action from other organizations, from the state ags. There will be swift legal action every time this administration seeks to do something to undermine the elections. And it's not going to be easy for the president to do this, and our constitution doesn't permit it. And I think you saw even the US Supreme Court in this last term in the Mississippi decision.

I think I think it was an.

Amy Coney Barrett opinion, you know, really explaining that there isn't a role for the president in some of these things. And so I think that we're feeling, you know, the lawyers.

Are going to do what we need to do.

But this is the type of election that every single American is going to have to vote, is going to have to make a plan to vote, and is going to have to sort of make up their minds and with their communities that we're not going to stand idly by while an administration or any other tripe of force tries to undermine our elections. And there really may be actions that people in communities need to take in forms of peaceful mass mobilizations, education campaigns, helping accompany people of the polls. Those are going to be actions that we may need to see over the coming weeks and months. And at Democracy Forward, we've invested a lot, not just in our legal work, but also in helping to support communities be able to engage in those peaceful and lawful ways to protect our democracy.

I'm interested in digging into this litigation that followed the speech, because you know, I think a lot of people felt powerless listening to this thing. It was so outrageous that he's making all of these claims, both about the insecurity of our elections generally when his party loses, but I guess the security when he wins. And you know, it's just a sort of mass confusion. And yet you responded with a legal strategy and with litigation to try to figure out what's really going on here behind the curtain that we know just from what we're seeing that there's pure chaos and there must be even more malicious activity going on behind the scenes. So how are you going about trying to get this information? You know, tell us more about how this lawsuit, in this litigation will work. I mean, it's one of those areas where I was especially impressed to see you doing this because I thought, like, well, you know, the administration at least claims it's a black box. They don't. The whole way that corruption works, you know, the Nixon administration earlier is the presidents put veils of secrecy around themselves, and of course he's both wanting to tell us about the insecurity of our elections and not show us any proof of that. And you're really trying to pierce that veil of secrecy to get transparency, to get the truth. How are you doing that which we've been.

Able to do.

I just want to say that through our litigation, we've been able to uncover so many things. We've uncovered that they were intimidating local communities that thought that they had to turn over voted data. So you know, this is really important. So the Freedom of Information Act is of course an amazing and an important tool for the American people. This is information that's in our government is the people's information. It's not the information of a particular leader or the people that follow that leader. This is the people's information. And so we have had a great success in using the Freedom of Information Act and the litigation when they don't respond and don't give over that data to force production of information. That's been very helpful to protect people's rights and to expose what is happening our other you know, our litigation cases that are not litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. You know, the courts have a way of shining a light, and so we've been able to uncover so much of this through that litigation as well. You know, Justice Lewis Brandeis had said, you know, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And even in these times where it seems that these threats are so accelerated, and this country has faced major threats before, but these are very accelerated and concerning almost unprecedented threats here, definitely unprecedented to have a president that's actively trying to keep people from being able to participate in our elections. Exposure has still been a key key way that people have been able to push back and to stop bad activity, which is of course why the administration is seeking to intimidate journalists, is seeking to intimidate storytellers, is making outlandish claims that you can't record what's happening on the public streets of your community. Of course you can, but making these claims because they don't want that transparency and exposure. And so we are really pleased and honor that we can use the tools that the law provides. Is an area of law that is still there, that is still providing these types of tools.

And we're going to use them.

Well, what an amazing conversation this has been. I'm going to ask you one last question before we say goodbye. I mean, so much of the important work that you're doing and finding litigants and actually literally stopping this administration. I just want to emphasize that point that you really did stop the slush fund in its tracks. And you know that's led to the administration claiming that they abandoned it while it sounds like they're continuing, but you did stop it. This litigation works. You've provided information to us, You've helped make this a story that we're all aware of, as you said too, and that's been true throughout this administration and the Abrego Garcia case. The reason why we're all talking about the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act and their attempt to basically revoke due process off this ancient litigation is because somebody stood up. There was a client who was willing to push back. That's true of a break of Garcia. So tell me though, too. I mean, just as a part of what we're always talking about on this podcast is of course the threat to democracy, but also the future. I mean, this is there legislation. What would you like to see going forward for us not just to get Donald Trump out of office, but to see our democracy restored. I'll just invite you to speak more generally about what we were Yeah, I.

Mean, I love this question, and I have to say that we know that it's not just about the restoration of democracy, It's really about the reimagining of democracy. Our country is an amazing country and the ideals it was founded on the way in which it was founded. For all of the setbacks and all of the injustices. It was the first country in the world that was founded on common ideals as opposed to historical accident or necessity or survival. But from the beginning of that founding, of course worse the promises and the practices didn't match up. The country was founded on stolen land. It was founded and you know, in the midst of human enslavement and in the disenfranchising of the vast majority of people that lived within the country's claimed borders, whether they were women, people of color, non property owners, couldn't vote. And so this is a moment where we have to be honest about that history. For all it's good and all it's bad, and I just listed a lot of the bad pieces of our history, and we have to be honest that it has been ordinary people across this country that have pushed to make promises actually practices, that have pushed to really realize a democracy that is made to hold all of us. And this is an amazing moment where as people are seeing what is at stake, and as powerful institutions have been pulling back, people have been stepping forward.

And so what we want to see.

Is our systems and structures really be set up to hold all of us. That means that we need to talk seriously about Supreme Court reform. It means that we need to look at things like the electoral college, or the filibuster, or a number of things that exists within our representative system that was here to try to restrict democracy as opposed to empower democracy. And then on a more granular level, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that when people dedicate their lives to serving our country as career civil servants, that there are protections for them so that they don't get treated the way our civil servants have been treated now, and so that a leader can't come in and just like eradicate the professional civil service and replace them with partisan loyalists. We need to make sure that there's more comprehensive anti corruption laws, because this country was not really did not really contemplate that the government itself would have widespread corruption. And so, as you know, our laws are set up for the government to want to root out individual instances of corruption within the government, set up for the government itself to be broadly and widely corrupt, and we now have a lot of challenges as a result of the deep corruption that we're seeing. So we're deeply hopeful about what people are doing in this moment. I think we think that it's a really hard moment and it may get worse before it gets better, but we are also deeply hopeful about what this crisis can do to catalyze real change, not just performative change, but real change that truly helps to bring about a democracy that we've never had in this country, but that so many people across so many generations have been working to achieve.

What a great place to end. Absolutely in times of crisis, that's where we often find the moment to not just push back against the president causing the crisis, but to rebuild our democracy. And like you, I'm hopeful that we'll do that at this moment and in the future, and that we won't just stop Donald Trump, but that will do much more. But of course, thank you too for your work in stopping Donald Trump and the Lush fun case and so many other pieces of litigation that you and your amazing group Democracy Forward have been involved with. Sky Perryman, thanks for joining the pleasure.

Thank you so much outstating work, Professor. Thank you very much for that.

You know It really is a pleasure to do this show with you, John every week, because we're documenting what's happening, we're being honest about it, about the brutality of ice, about an attorney general who thinks he's the personal criminal lawyer of the president, of a speech that was meant to indict the insecurity of our elections, but really revealed the president's own motivation to try to steal our elections. And then to combine it with the chance on this show to speak to, you know, somebody who maybe listeners have heard on MS now or on your show, John, but some of them, and many of them will be introduced for the first time, who's actually leading a really massive, powerful, brilliant organization with some of the best lawyers out their former Department of Justice officials. As I mentioned, I had the chance to work with Sky Perryman's team on the Terrorist Brief, which I'll add was an instance where where litigation stopped the president from acting like a dictator. And so, you know, on the one hand, it's a frightening moment, but I'm so glad that we got to have that discussion with Sky Perryman and to talk about democracy forward and you know, we'll keep going and next week we'll have David French on the show. An amazing conversation there, so what a pleasure. John. Thanks, thanks, thank you everyone for listening, and thanks for making this, by the way, not just a top podcast, but the number one trending podcast on Apple Government. And if you haven't subscribed, definitely subscribe and tell your friends about the show.

I want to thank Wendy and Beyo Wolf and everyone who puts the show together, and thank you Professor. As always, I'm John Fegele Sang. We will see you next time on the open of the office.