Trump’s Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and the New Normal (with Aaron Parnas)

The president is suing his own administration to take money out of your pocket to put it into his pocket. >> The shadow docket isn't just a second track of constitutional law. It's not law. It's just raw power being exercised. >> I'm sick and tired of every single journalist [music] in DC having Donald Trump's personal cell phone number and calling him up all day. Trump is manipulating the market through you. Like that is what's happening. >> What a pleasure to welcome Aaron Parnas to the Oath in the Office. Aaron is one of the best people out there covering what's happening with this Trump assault [music] on democracy.

>> Welcome to the Oath in the Office podcast. I'm John Feigelstock. It's so great to have you with us and let us welcome the star of our show, the author of the Oath in the Office. That would be Brown University political science professor Corey Brettschneider. Professor, it's good to see you. Welcome back. >> Thanks, John. You know, I look forward to this discussion every week even as the chaos and the threats to democracy increase. And we're going to talk, of course, about the shadow docket and some amazing inside information that we finally have about this secret process. We'll explain the secret process and why it is a threat to democracy. And we'll also talk about our favorite Supreme Court justice. Well, not exactly, but somebody we certainly find interesting.

That's Clarence Thomas and his speech that he gave. So, it's going to be an amazing show. And of course, we have Aaron Parnas, one of the best commentators, young commentators on politics today. Really focused on breaking news. And one of the reasons I've been so eager to talk to him is whenever I talk to young people, by which I mean really people under 35, his name always comes up as somebody who's really doing a lot to keep people informed even in the midst of this messed up media ecosystem. So, quite a show today. >> Well, I want to talk to you about this shadow docket business cuz I've learned a lot about this from you. And now the New York Times had this uncovered internal memos that reveal this shadow docket wasn't really an organic evolution. This thing was rushed. It was a strategic break from centuries of judicial restraint.

You know, John Roberts always says he wants the judges to be umpires, but it turns out, I think, Corey, he wants them to be the kind of umpires who call the game in the first inning and then go home. In just 5 days in 2016, this 5-4 conservative majority halted Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan before any lower court could rule on it. They just put out a one-paragraph order with no explanation, and these memos show there was a real rush to predict the outcome of a case before it even got litigated. You're the one who taught us that the shadow docket was like a judicial Uber Eats. You know, just your ruling has arrived. Don't ask who made it. So, I mean, what exactly is the shadow docket, Corey, and and how has its use changed in recent years?

>> Well, I really want to lean into the Uber Eats, uh, you know, analogy because one of the things that people worry about with Uber Eats and other, uh, apps is that there are these shadow kitchens. You know, that you think you're ordering from a restaurant, but you're actually ordering from some strange kitchen on the seventh floor of, you know, a tenement somewhere, and, uh, the food isn't prepared as carefully as you might have thought in the restaurant you thought that you were ordering from. That really is the shadow docket, you know, to get into it. What this is is First of all, let's start with what the law is. That might sound like a basic idea, but what the law is is judges making decisions based on prior cases, based on the text of the Constitution, based on the principles of the Constitution, and, um, they write opinions. That's how we know. They're careful. They share opinions. They negotiate. They correct one another. It is a slow, deliberate, careful process.

Even if we don't agree with what an opinion says, the fact that it exists is what makes it law. And the shadow docket is the opposite. It's what more formally is called emergency orders. It's the process by which the court will often, especially when it comes to, uh, actions by the executive branch, bypass that normal process of law and just make a decision. And our suspicion in our discussions about it, the shadow docket, as it's often called the secret docket, is, uh, that it really isn't law that it's just being done based on partisan politics and certainly we can see the votes even though we can't see the reasoning. That suggests it's partisan.

And now that the New York Times has these amazing memos that were leaked, we don't know by who, but it gives us an insight into what's going on. That idea of John Roberts as any kind of umpire, like I don't think so. It really shows not just his raw partisanship because he's opposing Obama and >> defending Trump in the shadow docket decisions, but where his real passion lies, which looks like it's for the coal industry. And I can say more about that. It's a lot of worry about law that is the yeah, the coal industry. That that's what this article is really really about. I mean, these internal documents show yeah, there's disagreement between the conservative and liberal judges.

But I mean, this is now being called the birth of the modern shadow docket and Chief Justice Roberts this this this aristocrat who who who cares so much about appearing unbiased, he he really seems to have justified emergency intervention as necessary due to economic consequences, but it's one paragraph. There's no reasoning, okay? It's like a breakup text. It's not like a Supreme Court ruling. Elena Kagan warned this was unprecedented. No justice on either side mentioned climate change. The deciding vote came from Anthony Kennedy who kind of treated this whole thing as a foregone conclusion. I mean, this this this moment didn't just block a policy. This created a new governing method, didn't it? I mean, these fast, opaque, high-impact rulings without any explanation. And this is now routine. This is shaping national policy. This has really helped this no-talent racist reality show clown run roughshod over our laws.

>> Uh you know, I I love I can't get what the shadow docket is as a kind of breakup text that it's short and inappropriate and insensitive. >> Let's say what the ruling feels like. I take it versus breaking up with me and while I'm very >> I I just love that. I mean uh I hope that becomes a famous line. We'll certainly promote that on the on the blue sky and the Twitter. >> Let's stop it. But is is the shadow docket effectively like a second track of constitutional decision-making? >> Yeah, I think it's even worse. I mean that's why I'm so taken with the analogy because you know what opinions do is they give they are the law. They give reasoning. And the shadow docket isn't just a second track of constitutional law. It's not law. It's just raw power being exercised. And you know what we've done so far and now we can do something different now that we've seen the actual memos that that the justices have been sending to each other including Roberts really pushing to use this method.

You know there's an argument I should say whether this is for the first time. They've done things like this before going back a few years before and Scotus blog for instance has been criticizing the New York Times coverage for overstating it. But let me just say a bottom line aside from all this inside baseball, it's a radical departure in huge cases. I mean this is a major policy decision by the EPA that the court is pushing back on. There are major threats to democracy that the Trump administration has engaged in and they're using this I wouldn't even call it constitutional law. This raw power technique of the court to make these decisions. And again, during Obama what the court was sorry during Biden I should say what the court was focused on was stopping this these actions and using the shadow docket as a way of torpedoing a president. And Roberts in particular is incensed that a particular policy by the EPA is going to cost a lot of money to the coal industry. That's what we see him complaining about. He's not acting

as an umpire. It's a kind of emotional frustration that you see in the memos. And now and here's the partisanship. It's it's you know used to enable Trump again and again without any opinions, without any reasoning. The liberal justices, like Justice Kagan, pushed back, uh really criticizing it as as um uh contrary to the way the court is supposed to operate. Uh so, there was recognition that this is a dangerous move by the court. And um you know, thankfully for the reporting of the New York Times, we now have an insight into what's really going on in this dangerous technique that the court is using to undermine now our democracy.

>> And the vote really broke along ideological lines. I mean, that's not a surprise. We're kind of used to that in the Supreme Court. These justices are cast for their ideology, and they run around and do a pantomime to pretend it's not that way. Occasionally, you get like a William Brennan or a David Souter who winds up surprising people. But, I mean, that's nothing new. You know, you know, is the concern here more about not so much what the court decided, but how they decided it and announced it? >> Well, you know, the partisanship of the court, this is something that that needs to be studied, but it seems obvious to me. It's jumping out. The partisanship decreases the more transparency that there is. So, you see justices breaking from their ideological in in really important cases. The tariffs case is the most important recent case that we've talked about in depth. But, you know, three conservative justices uh uh uh switched sides. And we've seen that too. We're about to see it, I believe, in the birthright citizenship case where uh conservative justices are going to vote to strike down birthright

citizenship. We saw it in earlier cases involving gay and transgender rights, the Bostock case written by Justice Gorsuch. But, on the shadow docket, where nobody's watching because there is no reasoning, there's nothing for commentators and journalists and academics to dig their teeth into, they're hidden. And how are they going to act? They're going to act as politicians. And so, that uh it just makes the partisanship all the all the worse. >> They're going to act as aristocrats, which is what I will always call them. These are aristocrats protecting aristocrats. These were the founders of the US who thought only white land-owning males should be allowed to vote and the Supreme Court keeps that tradition alive. I mean obviously they're aware of the legitimacy problem. I don't really think the court is concerned with it. I think they're more concerned that they got found out. But are there any reforms that could rein in the use of the shadow docket?

>> Well, on the first point, you know, what's interesting is Justice Roberts in these memos and I think there's a memo two from Alito. They clearly are aware and concerned about the court's legitimacy but in a just completely misguided way. They're they think the shadow docket's going to help them with that problem and rather than doing what does make a court more legitimate and that's showing us their reasoning, showing us their work the way Preet Bharara put it when he was on and and going through in depth the way we were reasoning through problems. I love that phrase. There's no work shown here and you know, that's what undermines legitimacy. In terms of what we can do about it, you know, I think this is one of those areas where when you shine a light on it, it's embarrassing for the court and because of what you're saying, they are concerned about legitimacy and this threatens their legitimacy. I hope I think this might actually result in them doing less of it. And so let's just keep doing it. Let's look at the shadow docket.

Let's identify it. I have to give a shout out to to a colleague of mine. I I taught for a semester or or trimester at University of Chicago Law School and there's a a conservative law professor Will Bode who's there who I believe is the person who really kind of started writing about this and discovered it shining a light on something that people weren't even noticing. >> Right. So the Times report reveals, you know, when this started being used and it has the memos. But it was quite possible and this is kind of incredible that people would have just thought, oh, this is some weird procedure that's going on on the shadow docket. I wouldn't have realized how serious it is. So it's transparency that I think is going to back them down.

>> All right, one more question on this. I mean cuz I should the court be required to provide written explanations when they give emergency rulings? >> Yes, I mean I I think they should but they cover their own rear, right? I mean it's not asking too much. >> I mean here's the problem, you know, when you're talking about the Supreme Court and especially the Supreme Court after Marbury versus Madison, which has really declared itself the final interpreter of the Constitution. And even even if Marbury didn't do it more recently they've leaned into that idea that they say in the end what the Constitution is and what it means. And so the idea that you'd have legislation telling how to operate internally, they'd almost certainly find it unconstitutional. I mean an amendment, even that, the court court I think regards separation of powers as as sacrosanct. So we've got to come up with other techniques besides legislation to to make things transparent.

>> Clarence Thomas just gave a speech this week, Professor where he railed about the Americans he despises and um and he suggests that rights originate outside of government. This is of course Clarence Thomas saying that rights come from God, author of the Bible, a book that Clarence Thomas doesn't really follow when he gives out rulings. But um he's saying that rights come from natural law or divine authority. In this century. Um I have many thoughts on this, but how does that basically compare to with the Constitution's actual structure and enforcement of rights, Professor?

>> You know, I listened to the speech and it's been criticized a lot and I'm going to start maybe by differing some of from some of my fellow commentators and say what I think is good in that. I like the idea that he leans into the idea of Frederick Douglas as one of the most important interpreters of the Constitution and I love, I would say and share the idea of Frederick Douglas. And evidently even Clarence Thomas, yes, this is going to surprise you and I'm going to get critical in a second, but I want to just say what I agree with, that you should use and this is really Douglas's idea that Thomas is is repeating that you should use the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation of equality as the lens from which to understand the entire Constitution that it's got a moral foundation. So all of that is straight Frederick Douglas, the the hero of my book The Presidents and the People, but here's where Thomas just goes off the rails and is really not doing what Douglas is doing. Uh first thing is he has an idea that the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration come from God and that you know somehow you can almost directly

infer God's you know plan in all of this and that just gets into the world of theocracy not democracy. And then not surprisingly what he thinks the framers were doing in using the Declaration and he goes quickly to the 18th century framers is to um use it in order to curb democracy. He uses the phrase excessive democracy. That's what he's worried about. And that's not what Frederick Douglas was doing. He was using the idea of equality in order to further the idea of democracy. In fact Douglas's most important argument is the preamble says we the people not we the white people and and Thomas is just ignoring all this. And finally what Thomas is really about is just getting away from the idea that government has a role in making our lives better. And that's the extreme opposite of what Frederick Douglas thought. Douglas's huge contribution to America was to recognize that the Constitution needed to be clarified through amendments that the amendments that were passed to guarantee equal protection of all persons nationally.

>> Yeah. >> And you need an active federal government to do that. You need a Department of Justice which was created at during the Grant administration. You need national civil rights. Those are all the things that Thomas is trying to kill. >> Which is goofy why you know Clarence Thomas would invoke him cuz Clarence Thomas's career is always siding with power over the less powerful. Always siding with labor over management. Always siding with polluters over the environment. Always siding with the wealthy over the poor. And he references his upbringing under Jim Crow, right? And he argues government was the source of injustice not rights. But at the same time, all of the key advances in civil rights didn't come from angels. They came from federal legislation and court decision. So, I mean, it seems like he wants to hate the government for the bad things and then ignore the positive things that he also legislates against.

I mean, if you think of the two most important pieces of legislation in the 20th century, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they were attempts to make good on the promises of the 13th Amendment ending slavery, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, and the 15th, albeit imperfectly, trying to guarantee a right to vote regardless of race, at least for men. And you know, that Douglas was critical of that actually, that it was too limited. But it requires active government to protect civil rights. And here Thomas is giving this speech about how government is bad and really corporations are great. And that the idea of of government itself is the danger. And that just it doesn't I I I can't even understand what he's talking about. I will say one interesting thing here, too, is he picks up, you know, in my book The Presidents and the People, I talk about Will Woodrow Wilson as the first white nationalist president spreading white supremacy through the segregation, for instance, of the military and the and the federal government. And he also hates Wilson.

So, we share that. But when you start looking at what he's doing, Wilson was all about disparaging government's role in protecting civil liberties and civil rights in particular. And yet he thinks he's an ally, you know, an opponent, sorry, of Woodrow Wilson. And in some odd ways, an ally. >> They hate govern- They they they actually love government. They hate democracy. >> That's I know how it plays out. >> That's the theme. You basically that could have been the title of his speech. >> Exactly right. That could have been the title of this party. We got to take a break, but when we come back, I want to ask you, what does it mean when a career prosecutor withdraws from a high-profile, politically sensitive revenge case investigation? Is that a bad sign for Donald Trump, Corey? Right back in a moment on The Oath and the Office. Welcome back to The Oath and the Office. I'm John Feigel saying Professor Corey Bret Schneider over in Florida. Uh this federal prosecutor just walked away from the investigation or I should say the hatchet job into former CIA Director John Brennan uh reportedly over concerns about the legal viability of the case.

What a shock. Um this is good, right? Like what is it signal when a career prosecutor withdraws from a high-profile politically sensitive investigation dictated by a president who wants revenge on his critics who used to run the damn CIA? >> Uh you know, what we've had a lot of amazing episodes, but one that I'd really urge listeners go back and listen to is the episode with Preet Bharara who >> Mhm. >> uh was the um US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, uh was fired by Trump, and we talk about this question of resignation, and he he makes the case that it's no longer a hard question. You know, if you're being called by the Department of Justice to be involved at all with the prosecution of Trump's political enemies, you have to immediately resign. And you know, maybe you should basically everyone should resign from this Department of Justice. It is so messed up what's going on. And that's what you see increasingly people who are you know, have had careers, have integrity, they're being asked to prosecute Trump's opponents, and there really is one thing to do which is to resign. So this is a good

sign for democracy. And it you know, in in the long run it might help us because as people refuse to engage in these political prosecutions, the the quality of the lawyers there gets less and less. And in court that doesn't play well. Judges get frustrated, and it becomes transparent what's going on, which is that the Department of Justice has been taken over by this president in an attempt to try to destroy uh what? The integrity that was created after Nixon, the idea of any independence, and to turn it into a personal tool of the president. We we talked about how the acting Attorney General was the president's personal lawyer and this is another example of it. But but you know, I don't want to lose the hope in this.

You know, we always look for the hope and you have people of integrity saying, "No, I'm not going along with this. I'll give up my career rather than partake in a political prosecution." >> which is amazing. I mean, I'm I'm curious historically how have institutions responded when legal professionals resist pressure from higher-ups like this? >> You know, I think there's always mixed performance. The one of the things that I'm focused on is the analogy with the Nixon era and one of the people in our textbooks that we often write about as a real hero is Leon Jaworski who it is true after the Saturday Night Massacre when Trump fired Archibald Cox who was looking into his criminal misdeeds and those of his cronies took over. And you know, for a long time it was look, this amazing hero, these great lawyers step in and they do great things. And what my research has shown is that we overestimate that that in the case of Jaworski the the pressure to continue in large part was that brought by citizens, by the grand jury.

So, I don't know that I could just trust that all professionals are going to do the right thing. I think it requires pressure from all of us. This lawyer did do the right thing in resigning. But we've really got to start and and we could use this podcast and other venues to say, you know, you have an obligation as a lawyer to not simply evade the law, to not shut down the law, to not use the law as a weapon against the president's and powerful enemies of the president and the powerful. And so, it's not going to happen just by the norms of professionalization.

And what I worry is without the ABA which has been speaking out. I was proud to win the Silver Gavel Award from the ABA partly because they have been doing what I'm saying, putting pressures on pressure on lawyers to not go along with this attempt to take over of our government. But it requires pure pressure of both from within the profession and from without. And so, I'm glad to be doing this with you, John, every week. >> Well, before we hit the break, I got to just a one last thing I want to ask you about. Um, you know, Jimmy Carter famously said, "The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest." And when you think about the weakest people in the society, you think undocumented immigrants, you think uh you you you think um uh poor people, you think transgender folks, you think prisoners.

Uh let's focus on the last two because a federal appeals court has opened the door for the Bureau of Prisons to start transferring transgender women prisoners into men's prisons under a new policy. Uh the court said the evidence doesn't meet the threshold for cruel and unusual punishment, so bring on rape, which we essentially silently sanction and allow as part of our uh penal process. Corey, how have the courts historically interpreted Eighth Amendment in prison conditions cases?

>> Uh narrowly, and that's unfortunate that there are a lot of conditions that in my mind certainly are cruel and unusual, and this is one of the areas of the Constitution that lays out a broad principle, and it should be used wherever abuse is being found. And I'm not hopeful that the Eighth Amendment will be used to uh to stop this. It's possible, and it's certainly worth litigating, but um you know, the the the court is simultaneously narrowed the meaning of the Eighth Amendment and the cruelty of the this administration has uh just increased. You know, you would think, just to kind of narrow in on that idea of cruelty, that one of the things that you would want in a society is not to subject people to torture, not to subject them to possible death, uh sexual violence. And yet, we know that this policy that the administration is pursuing uh could well uh result in all these things. And so, whether or not the Eighth Amendment is going to stop this, We as citizens have to just see quality where it exists and stop it.

>> This ruling reflects a pretty clear shift on how courts are approaching gender identity claims under constitutional law, right? >> Well, I'm not sure. You know, you have this amazing moment where Justice Gorsuch now it was specifically about employment and using title seven of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's something that I never would have imagined. I mean, I opposed his nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court after discovering his his PhD thesis in philosophy. He's the only Supreme Court Justice with a PhD in philosophy and in it he compares uses bestiality to disparage the idea of gay marriage and gay rights.

>> What a shock. >> But now here's the shock. When the court asked the question, does the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its ban on sex discrimination also protect uh gay and transgender people? You would think he'd say no way. And in fact, he wrote the opinion saying yes, absolutely. What is discrimination against transgender people but a form of sex-based discrimination? So, you know, sometimes the court and this is a monumental ruling. It isn't a by the way ruling comes forward by using the analogy between gender and sex-based discrimination and thinking about transgender rights and that was Gorsuch. And yet here the court is well, we'll see what happens, but the administration certainly is pushing it in the extreme opposite direction.

>> We got to hit a break, but really quick, are there any other constitutional provisions, equal protection, that could come into play with this? >> Um you know, I would think that we could try to use all of these areas to litigate and you know, it is I don't want to say that cruel and unusual punishment is never used. There's a prison overcrowding case for instance and the more that we can reveal and I think maybe the research will show this that the court is intentionally or or recklessly showing disregard for the lives of transgender people, the more the possibility of these cases being won comes out and let let's do that investigation and and hope we prevail there. We got to take a quick break, but we'll be right back with uh Mr. Aaron Parnas. This is the Oath in the Office.

>> Welcome back to the Oath in the Office, Professor Brett Schleiter. I'm very excited to welcome this next guest. >> Uh what a pleasure to welcome uh Aaron Parnas to the uh Oath in the Office and uh Aaron has a a law degree uh from George Washington Law School and is one of the best people out there covering uh what's happening with this Trump assault on democracy. Uh and you know, Aaron, I I think a way to begin >> He's Can I just inter- Can I just insert into your introduction to say this guy is one of the people redefining independent media at a time when corporate legacy media has shown it can't be validated. This guy has over 4 million followers on Tik Tok. Everyone should subscribe to the Parnas Perspective on Substack. I mean, if you're tired of news that's filtered through a corporate lens, Aaron is doing vital work and this is where young people are getting their news now and it is, I dare say, uh a much more ethical source than some of the ones we grew up.

>> I was going to say, you know, you beat me to the hyperbole, but yes, that is a lot of factual hyperbole. And uh you know, when I was at dinner um with uh family friends recently and some people at the table were, you know, in their 30s and when I mentioned that we had Aaron on, you know, they listened to the podcast, but they really lit up. Like this is the person that we need to hear from. And that actually is how I wanted to start, Aaron, that I think you've probably done more than anyone to uh break through the media media ecosystem that has so much uh falsehood in it, so many lies, so much as uh we'll talk about in a future episode, anti-science.

Uh and yet you're able to cover what's happening, you you without corporate backing, independent, as we are. Uh so, you know, tell us like what what is the way forward when it comes to the media ecosystem that we're in? So many people worry that with the demise of corporate media that that, you know, things are so fragmented the truth can't win out, but you're out there battling every day to get the truth out. So so what's your way forward and what do you have to say to the skeptics who think that our media environment is, you know, destroyed for the long term? >> Yeah, well, first thank you so much for having me on. Super excited to be here.

Uh be here with you guys. I mean, I think truly it goes back to one principle and that's just kind of sticking to the facts. I I'm a big believer that right now where media really lacks in this day and age is kind of this gray area between opinion and fact. And there has been so much opinion that has seeped into a lot of the media that we've seen on television, uh and radio, and elsewhere. And I think media devoid of opinion, media focused on fact, just the truth, no removed of hyperbole, now removed of AI and that click bait nonsense that we see everywhere. That is really kind of the path forward for media and that's the way to break through. I really think that there is and it's funny, a lot of people come up to me and tell me, "Well, Aaron, I never thought what you do could be successful because all you do is you have your monotone voice and you just share the news." And I'm like, "Well, that is what a lot of people are looking for these days because the just the news doesn't really exist in a lot of places unless you spend your day reading the wire in terms of the AP and Reuters as things come out.

Otherwise, you're not going to get that on any TV show or even in print nowadays in many newspapers. >> But I don't think younger audiences are necessarily looking for neutrality, do you? I think they're looking for clarity and perspective. >> I mean, that that's that might be part of it. I I I personally try to pride myself in in in staying as neutral as I can. Like I'll never tell you who to vote for or what position to take or what it is or something or not. It's not my responsibility. My My is just to educate you and hopefully empower you with the tools that you need to then go and make whatever decision that may be.

>> That's right, Aaron. How do you deal with the fact, and this is just something that I'm facing in the classroom, too, where on the one hand, you don't want to be partisan. On the other hand, as John's suggesting, I don't think you want to be neutral, either. And I think a lot of my students, you know, are are are similar that to to a lot of the people who are watching and listening to you. But the worry is, and we pushed Jake Tapper on this, too, I should say, into ultimately agreeing with us, but that that if you're too neutral, you the worry is that we might miss the story of the century, which is that Trump is really bringing an all-out assault on democracy. Now, you know, that might sound like an opinion, but I think that if you don't have that frame, you'd miss a lot of what's going on. So, how do you combine that? I mean, I certainly appreciate what you're saying about basic reporting, but how do you how do you deal with the well, the frame of this episode, which is the not just this episode, the podcast, to try to think of about why this isn't business as as usual. I mean, we just I I don't mind sharing this, actually, but I was just at an event at Brown, where

one of the members of the Department of I won't say his name, Department of Justice was hosted. And the questions I I felt really uncomfortable with the whole session, because a lot of the questions were as if it was just a normal Department of Justice. And I I walked out, because it's not a normal Department of Justice. And I don't want to be part of something that pretends otherwise. >> Well, I I think it's a bit of a loaded question, and I'll respond them kind of two parts. I think the first part is it's important not to whitewash what we're seeing today. It's a term I use often, right? We Just because Trump is president, or the DOJ is what it is today, doesn't mean that a president gets a free pass when he says "Praise be to Allah on Easter." Right?

Like, that is not normal, and saying that is not normal, in my opinion, is a neutral perspective, because that is factual in that like, no, it is not normal for a president to be posting the end of a civilization, right? Like that commit threatening war crimes. That is not normal. And and it's important that we not sand wash the times that we're in. And adding to the second point is saying that Donald Trump has launched an assault on our democracy, that is not a partisan opinion. That is That isn't an opinion at all in my opinion because he probably would admit that he has launched an assault on our form of democracy as we know it. He himself would say that because he doesn't agree with where we are as a nation. So, I think that that is true. And I think that he has launched an assault on our institutions on uh both in government but also in private private institutions, colleges, etc. And I think that is it's important to frame it in kind of that way, which to me still is neutral uh because it is factual.

>> Yeah, but I think in that sense you're you're carrying on the the Cronkite tradition. Um it it's unreasonable to believe that journalists can be automatons with no opinions whatsoever, but you're guided by morality and you're guided by the dictates of of journalism. And I mean, you're reporting on the all the growing concern among Trump advisers about his discipline, about his temper tantrums. What you've been doing lately has been so fair. Uh as a comedian whose job is to be biased, I so enjoy getting my information from you because you're not pulling the same racket I'm pulling.

And we see figures like Tucker Carlson uh distancing themselves for whatever dubious reasons, apologizing for past support. I mean, from your reporting there, and are our insiders concerned about political liability? Are they concerned about national security implications? Or are they just looking at their own resumes and realizing that this is turning into the last scene of Scarface? >> Could I say all of the above? I mean, I think that's that's it is all of the above. I mean, I think that there is genuine concern with where we are as a nation in terms of whether the president is fully fit and has the mental acuity to continue serving in his capacity as president. I think there are serious A lot of people have serious questions about the president's discipline and whether or not he can stay on message, which we know he can't. Um and then yes, I think a lot of people in the White House went to the White House as you do in any new administration, you go there to get a box checked on your resume and then go into private practice and make a whole boatload of money. And I think a lot of people are looking for their exit strategy exit strategy before it gets too crazy and before it gets to the

point where they're so toxic that they won't be able to get hired. I I believe we may be at that point already. But I think that a lot of people in this White House are looking for, okay, Trump is only going to be president for another 3 years, no matter how much he wants to stay on longer, what is my day after look like? Someone like Susie Wiles, I think, is right now thinking, okay, what is my day after look like? How do I profit off of this White House? And so that's, I mean, that's another concern that a lot of folks have. >> Yeah, it sounds like your idea of neutrality is a bit different, I would say, than sort of the New York Times journalist who tries to distinguish between the op-ed page and and the front page. And you you kind of have a conceptual idea within neutrality that can think about the law and think about democracy. I mean, what do you do? I mean, let's get into some of the stories that I know that you're covering. And one of the ones that you have been talking about that is not getting nearly enough attention is this attempt by Donald Trump to really extort the IRS um for a massive uh payment and payout. I

mean, how do you Tell us about that? What's happening there? How do you cover it? And uh you know, I think this might be an example of what we're talking about where where some opinion is going to fit into a very factual story. It's hard hard to cover it without being outraged. >> No, listen, that story, I mean, I think is one of the crazier stories you'll actually hear in any administration. I mean, for background for those who don't know, Trump is actively suing the IRS and the Treasury Department, his own government, the government he controls, for $10 billion dollars for what he says his tax returns were illegally released I believe to the New York Times. He and 42 others 42,000 other people had their tax returns illegally released by a whistleblower by someone in in one of these agencies.

>> One of the people who leaked it so we all owe him 10 billion dollars. >> Correct. I mean here's the thing it what the leaking of his returns that is illegal for sure and I think no one disputes that but I think that the problem here which a lot of people are recognizing is that the president is suing his own administration to take money out of your pocket to put it into his pocket. Right? And when you're in a typical lawsuit you're going up against an adversary. You're not going up against a friend usually. Here he's going up against Todd Blanche his personal criminal defense attorney who's now the acting attorney general. Scott Bessent his Treasury secretary. So the people he's negotiating with the people he's trying to settle this lawsuit with are the same people that uh report directly to him. And if he doesn't I mean there could be a situation where if he doesn't get the favorable settlement they could lose their jobs and no one can do anything about it. That is a raging conflict of interest.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I also think of it and I'm I'm interested if if you agree with us that that there's no way to really think about why he's able to do that without thinking about the assault on democracy that Trump has expanded executive power, commanded loyalty over what used to be thought of as independent civil servants and uh the IRS for instance is not supposed to do the bidding of the president. We've had presidents who have tried to control the IRS for their own purposes in the Nixon administration. Uh so are you seeing that as a sort of trend more generally this sort of theme that Trump's corruption and the massive amounts of it are connected to his uh expansion of executive power and demands for loyalty?

>> I mean I I think that Trump from the beginning I mean since 2017 he has believed in this kind of theory of government where the executive is the end-all-be-all, that you can really do anything you want through the powers of the executive, that you don't need a functioning Congress, that who cares what the judiciary really thinks or says, because ultimately I can do whatever I want, however I want it. He figures out how to get around any court ruling or most court rulings. He figures out how to get around a Congress that doesn't function. So, yes, he fully believes that in the consolidation of the executive and making a very powerful unitary executive, but also I mean, no one should be surprised about this. This is what Project 2025 was written on, right? Like that was the basis of everything that they ran on. So, it should come to no surprise that he's actually doing what he said he would do.

>> But is this an example of of using the government power to target your perceived enemies for for revenge, or is this something more debased? Is it just a shakedown because he sees a chance to pocket 10 billion? >> No, I don't think he's going to pocket 10 billion. I mean, >> think he is, either, but I think that could be the intent. >> No, for sure, that could be the intent. I mean, listen, I think at the end of the day, this is definitely him trying to use the levers of the executive to enrich himself. I will also say that something Trump likes to do, and we've seen this especially the second term, it's kind of like a velociraptor testing a fence, right? He's trying to see where the vulnerabilities are in in the federal government. And if he's finds a vulnerability that he can ram through and bite through, he'll go through full force, but there are sometimes that fence is too strong or too electric, and he can't get through. So, that that's kind of this is just another test of the fence.

>> Another story you've been looking at, and one of the things that you do so well, Aaron, is is cover the individuals that are in the midst of this administration and the supposed loyalists who are also same time deeply incompetent, and it's hard to think about that theme without thinking about Kash we've got there. So, I mean, what what's your sense of this, you know, The Atlantic, of course, has the story about his drunkenness, his thinking that he was fired when he was unable to log into his computer possibly because he was inebriated and or or I'm just paranoid. So so what's your sense of where things stand with Patel and you know, what this says to about Trump's you know, demand for loyalty but also willingness to throw people under the bus when they don't serve him anymore.

>> It's actually funny. The same day he thought he was fired, I actually had heard that he was fired. So I I I he I heard that earlier that day and then seeing the story kind of update that which was a kind of interesting. Um but I think ultimately number one, I think the Atlantic did a great job in its reporting and I think that anyone who questions the Atlantic's reporting should go back through the history of the Atlantic and see why there haven't been any successful defamation suits against the paper because it's a really good and well-vetted piece. I think number two is it just shows that the big takeaway in all of this is not Kash Patel's alcoholism or the fact that he may be a threat to national security or whatever.

I mean, all of that we already knew in a way. We saw the video of him with the men's Olympic hockey team, right? We we we had a sense. The real takeaway to me is that it doesn't actually matter what you do, you could still stay in the job. Right? If you if if an article like that came out against say a supermarket worker, that supermarket worker would be fired tomorrow, placed on administrative leave, suspended, whatever. But in the Trump administration, it doesn't even matter.

>> You're exactly >> You think it's just loyalty, loyalty, loyalty. >> Yeah, that's the point and you loyalty it's a yes. >> Yeah. Is there a point though where it just becomes embarrassing? I mean, we're looking at Pete Hoekstra for instance and you know, the incompetence and and well, the the we could we could go on and on about Iran but the certainly at minimum the incompetence that he's showing there. I mean, is it do do you think Trump will in these cases have a moment where even in the most extreme when it comes to extreme loyalists that that he's had enough and uh now for instance has he had enough of >> Yeah, I mean I would say I thought this may be enough for him on Kash Patel honestly and because of the alcoholism part of it.

Donald Trump a lot of people don't know this but he has been sober his entire life. He lost his brother to substance abuse. This is like the issue that like bothers him more than anything is when someone close to him engages in substance abuse. He's never allowed his kids to touch alcohol or drugs and so I would think that this would be if anything this would be the straw that broke the camel's back and it may very well have. We may just not know about it yet. So we'll see. >> Yeah, I I my opinion on this has been that he's deliberately for the second term hires unqualified people because qualified people in the first term told him you can't do that sir, it's illegal and by hiring flunkies it allows him to lance them like a boil if things get too hot for him. Pam Bondi takes the blame for Epstein. She goes off. Kristi Noem will take the blame for the deaths of citizens.

Pete Hoekstra will get fired as soon as this war really makes Trump look bad and he needs to blame it on someone else and it it's the same for Patel. I don't think up on this level is going to get him fired but are you hearing about through your sources any pushback from within the FBI or intelligence community because that's the fascinating angle to me here the career agents who are watching law enforcement get fired by these henchmen and see what they're doing? >> without a doubt. I mean I think there's a ton of pushback within the FBI but I I think that there's this overwhelming fear within the FBI that they want to keep their jobs. They cannot keep their jobs if they come out against Kash. So yes, there is a there is a fear and they want to come out against him but they just can't.

>> Mhm. I want to pull back a little Aaron and ask about um Are you seeing from your audience you know, many of whom are in their 20s and their 30s? Of course you're huge on TikTok and that younger audience is watching and they're as as well as your Substack. I'm Do people have a sense of I mean my worry frankly from teaching is that there isn't a sense of how abnormal this is, how dangerous to democracy what they face is. Uh what's your sense, you know, of of the the culture and in particular of young people's perceptions as they're watching your videos? Do they appreciate how dangerous this is? Do they think it's business as usual?

>> Well, to me it is business as usual actually. I'm going to push back at the premise of your question. >> I mean, you know, you you might be one of the >> Well, now that I've got that >> And the reason why is because so I'm 27 right? First presidential election I remember was 2016. I don't remember the Obama years. I don't remember the Bush years. I was a child back then. I didn't care about politics. Most people my age were the same way. Um most people almost everyone younger than me is the same way. The only thing we know is Trump won Biden Trump two. And when you look at the world view through okay, all we know is Trump pretty much, then this is normal. The chaos is normal.

>> Yes. >> The dysfunction is normal. So, I would argue that we are in a time of normal. It's just a new normal and it's going to be very and it's it's better to adapt to the reality of what we're in rather than try to achieve something that we'll never get back. >> But do you think I mean, when you take the broad I'm 52, so I you know, seen more than that, but I'm also a student of history and when I think of what is happening in this moment, it's not that we've never seen anything like this before and you know, in the Nixon era if you go back, John Adams attacked democracy. This is something never heard of. It's a continuation. This is the Clinton impeachment. This is the Iraq war. This is Gingrichism. This is I mean, I mean, Aaron entered this thing in progress. Donald Trump I don't I agree with it.

>> If Donald Trump represents anything actually new, just a trashier hood ornament to the car. >> Right. There was a grievance to John in the sense that like policy-wise none of it is new. I mean, yeah, we're in a war in the in the Middle East 20 years after we started a war in the Middle East, right? Like it's it's the same thing in the same playbook over and over again. It's just how it's being done. I think Trump having access to Truth Social and putting out Truth Social posts every hour of the day about crazy I mean, that is very different. We didn't have that 25 years ago. So, I guess it's like the means by which it's being done rather than actually what is being done.

>> Huh. Well, I guess I'll push back against both of you because the you know, the the way I have what's happening is that it it is it is different in some fundamental ways that one for instance, the lawlessness of the administration and the amount of theft that you're seeing through you're absolutely right to say this isn't he didn't invent the unitary executive it dates back to the 1980s and the idea of this kind of consolidated power. But, the idea of a president stealing this amount of money from the IRS for instance as you were just talking about. I mean, really trying at least to steal billions. Maybe he'll get up you know, something less than that. But, but that I haven't seen before.

>> And that's the use of you know, social media and stock manipulation to try to make money. You know, that the use of the office really to try to become a Putin style billionaire. That we haven't seen before. And then I'll also talk about the civil servants within the government. The as John was saying that in the first administration there was a kind of sense that you know, there was civil service protection and that people saw themselves as temporarily occupying offices that they know they wouldn't always have. So, you you had the DOJ it was a threat to democracy from Trump.

You had the DOJ pushing back against his attempt to steal the election. They didn't go along with it. You had a vice president push back against that attempt in a way that you you wouldn't see with J.D. Vance. And then when we go to previous administrations Republican and Democrat the lawlessness that we associate and that we've been talking about. No, I don't think that we've seen that. We've seen elements in the culture of this. But, but but the theft and the threat to democracy in the sense of threatening elections themselves the attempted coup of January 6th, all of that strikes me as quite different from what I see before. But I I appreciate Aaron, I mean you are echoing what a lot of my students say, which is I've only seen this. And so I appreciate that within your lifetime that might look normal, but it certainly isn't normal, I don't think.

But I welcome your response, yeah. >> I mean every I mean that's that's history for you, right? Like every time we have a new period in history, that new period is a new normal in a way, right? And this is just that new period in history, in my opinion. I don't know if we'll ever swing back to where we once were. I don't. >> Well, I mean it's a been a a year, you know, since this administration. I guess I'd argue that's what's different, that we didn't see this kind of lawlessness in Biden. We saw things I didn't like, like the pardon of his son. And in Trump one, we certainly saw attempts to do what he's doing now. We saw pushback. So I guess I think, you know, what's important to see, and you know, maybe this is also relevant to the earlier question that we were talking about, is the the fundamentals of the rule of law and the way, you know, that actually has been part of the American system from the beginning, and that we're seeing it uniquely threatened. I guess I would want that should be part of any any coverage of this administration's insane year.

>> I'll jump on that. One of the areas where it's also different is this harassment and persecution of the press. And that's what we're seeing now. Don Lemon spends goes to jail because he covered a non-violent protest. I mean, these legal threats are having a chilling effect on investigative reporting. And and Aaron, I wanted to get your thoughts on that as well as your thoughts on the return of the White House Correspondents Dinner. We saw a ton of legacy journalists, including our pal Dan Rather, come out and say, "You guys can't do this unless you're going to challenge Trump to his face." I mean, how should journalists be navigating this? Is it time to play kissy face with this man who would lock them all up if he could?

>> You know what I'm sick and tired of? I'm sick and tired of every single journalist in DC having Donald Trump's personal cell phone number and calling him up all day and then and then and then putting out a tweet saying Trump said all of these things that and Trump told me this. >> Right. And great, Trump is manipulating the market through you. Like that that is what's happening. >> Yeah. >> No, I I I think >> They're trading trading journalism for access. >> Exactly. And I >> Proximity to power. >> Correct. I think that the what Dan Rather did and and those journalists did signing onto that letter I think is important. I think that the White House Correspondents Dinner should not celebrate a president who denigrates the press. I think I'm even more upset Brendan Carr was invited FCC chairman by Paramount to sit at his at their table.

He'd Hexset was invited by CBS News to sit at their table. Like this is not like >> Uh >> Yeah. It It's tough. It's tough to watch. I mean, but at the end of the day people forget and this is why it's to me independent media is so important that big media companies need clicks and need headlines and need and need access to make money, right? Without this access many of them won't make the money and so they're trading access and eventually money for um kissing up to Trump.

>> Yeah, that's it. >> This is one of the the things that you touched on but I want to ask you about cuz I also think it's part of what's unique is the sort of accusations of insider trading as you know announcements are coming for instance uh was worried that oil futures are being bet on based on inside information before Trump's announcements come about uh ceasefires or or updates. So, I mean, is that one of the stories that you're looking looking at and you know, how do you feel? >> Yeah, for for sure. I mean, I I I mean, I think like no one really knows what's happening and I think anyone who says they know is lying to you and I think it's it's been very fascinating to watch kind of the fall of Axios through all of this to me of like that specific paper because it's like oh, everything Trump or an Israeli official says is now news.

They're moving like Friday night or Friday at 1:00 p.m. 3 hours before the markets close we're moving closer to a ceasefire. Great, oil prices fall. Then Saturday morning bomb the hell out of them. It's like, what are we doing? >> 13 tweets in an hour about how our there's going to be a ceasefire and there's not really a ceasefire. >> Yeah, I guess I would add that to my to my preaching about why this is not normal. That that that kind of inside manipulation of the markets, you know, I don't think we've seen anything like this kind of criminality from any president.

>> a lot of people are having to learn how to understand what this particular brand new form of scandal is and how this is being done and the show in government. The Iranian government is acting like an SEC whistleblower explaining to Americans exactly what's happening. That's how bizarre this is. >> Amazing. 100% >> Let me close on a positive note, Aaron, because I mean, we're also we just saw the reports of more than 150 veterans protesting at the capital. That's the largest protest of veterans tied to this conflict and I'm curious what does that do for your heart? As a person who like Corey and I have to stay marinating in this swamp all day, when you see protests like this beginning to break through to mainstream political discourse, I mean, what does it say about where the public opinion on this destructive conflict is heading?

>> I mean, it just shows that it's it's pretty bad. It's pretty shitty for the White House, right? Like I mean, I I said it from the beginning like if you're going to bring America into war, you got to prosecute the war. You got to explain why we're going to war. Bush did it successfully. It's why he had a 90% approval rating on the war when he first started out even if it was a BS reason for it. Trump started out at 40% because he thought he could just fit a square peg through a round hole. >> Yeah. >> Didn't work. >> Yeah. >> All right, on that note, we're out of time, but a pleasure Aaron Parnas. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for your hard work. Thanks for speaking to young people. Thanks for speaking to old people, too. Everybody needs to subscribe to us.

>> Everyone needs to subscribe to the Parnas Perspective on Substack. Yeah, it won't be >> Subscribe to the Parnas Perspective and great to to talk to you and thanks for joining us on The Oath in the Office. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you. >> Thanks again, Aaron Parnas. Well, Corey, are you feeling more hopeful for the future of independent journalism after that? >> Well, you know, I am thankful that there are people like Aaron out there trying to report this story and get it through to people, but it reinforced the worry that I have and the reason why I wanted to start this podcast, which is that there is a sense among young people and he said it in as plain a way as you can that this is normal, and it's not. As I tried to emphasize to him, we have to really see this threat to democracy for what it is and educate people about it and give the wider frame because if we don't see it for the threat that it is, for the abnormal moment in American history that it is, we might not ever return and it might become uh what looks normal might become prophecy, might become normal. And that's really a a worrisome idea, especially when you have a president who's uh not only commandeered the

executive branch for his own purposes, but for his own criminal enrichment. That's uh that's the story of of the year. >> And to me, it's just another lesson why it's so important for every member of our audience to try to be healthy, to try to get enough sleep, break a sweat, do cardio a few times a week, watch the partying, watch the alcohol, the drugs, the meat, the wheat, the dairy, stay healthy because you deserve to live long enough to see karma come for Kash Patel, Donald Trump, and Pete Hegseth because, oh boy, it is coming. Uh Professor, I want to thank you. We covered a lot of ground on the show this week. What is the best way for our listeners to follow you and your brilliant study the other six days of the week?

>> Well, our audience is growing so fast and it's because people are sharing with one or two people. So, just share it with somebody if you haven't, The Oath in the Office podcast. Uh be sure to subscribe, of course, if you haven't and to review us on Apple or wherever you get your podcast. There's also a YouTube channel if you want to watch us, not just listen to us, and uh The Oath in the Office Substack. >> And I want to thank everybody for joining us. I host the evening programming on SiriusXM Progress. So, also host The John Fealstein Podcast. My book is called separation of church and hate. Want to thank Wendy and Beowulf and everyone who helps keep this monster train on the tracks. Corey, the the the the ratings for this show, my god, the charts. I'm glad you're keeping it going on track of all this. And everybody should follow our Substack and our YouTube page as well. Professor, thank you so much for another another packed episode. I have to go process all that I've learned. But, we'll see you guys next time on The Oath and The Office.