May 12, 2025 • 43 mins
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson examines President Trump’s latest corruption in broad daylight. Strict Scrutiny co-host Leah Litman details her new book Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds and remisa O's turk Tough student detained
by Ice has been released after judge's orders. By the way,
her crime was writing an opinion. PieP We have such
a great show for you today. If the Lincoln Project's
(00:23):
own Rick Wilson joins us to discuss President Trump's latest
corruption in broad daylight, then we'll talk to Strict Scrutinies
co host Leah Lipman about her new book Lawless, How
the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and
bad vibes. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Smiley as Friday sunset, we got a choice quote from
one Stephen Miller, and it's pretty pretty chilling.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
The privilege of the written of habeas corpus can be
suspended in a time of innovation.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
So would say that's an option we're actively looking. Look,
a lot of it depends on whether the course do
the right thing or not.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
At the end of the day, Congress passed the body
of law.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
All right, this fucker, by the way, a few thoughts
no ah, ah, nope, and by the way, the times
when they've suspended habeas have been like have been like
Pearl Harbor. Okay, they're not suspending habeas because they've made
up another crisis. Okay, so try again, baldy, that's a
(01:30):
no go. And by the way, when they say this
crazy shit, we just say no. We say no, no, no, no.
Net net net is fucking bullshit. Just ignore them and
keep going. The courts will smack it down. Don't let
these fuckers do stuff. And by the way, again another
(01:52):
moment where you realize that you don't have to let
these guys do this. Congress should be holding hearings every day.
None of this is business as usual. Push back to authoritarianism. No, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Yeah, agreed. So on Friday, there was also a huge
confrontation outside in ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey, where
Mayor Rosbarroka was taken into custody and they had threats
towards Representative Body Watson Coleman the.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Rest of the fucking mayor of Newark because they said whatever.
It doesn't matter, they said whatever. Lie. Congress has the
right to go into Ice attention centers. Trump thinks that
ICE is sisca Savo. It is not. It is under
all of this. By the way, I'm going to say
(02:45):
this as many times as I humanly can, Congress has
authority over all of this. Just because they are largely
cowardly and don't want to assert it doesn't mean that
they don't have authority over it. Right Congress is allowed
to go into ice facilities. They are not storming it.
They are going in there. The Trump administration arrested the
(03:08):
mayor of Newark because they want to be authoritarians. None
of this is okay, None of this is legal, and
Trump World will yet again lose in court. And by
the way, they know they'll lose because they let them
out right away. They didn't keep them over the weekend
because they knew that they were just barreling into what
is going to be a huge crisis. They keep losing.
(03:31):
They're doing the wrong stuff. The courts are holding do
not let them get away with it. By the way,
the people who were there who should be applauded, because
this should be going on all the time. New Jersey
reps Bonnie Watson, Coleman, Rob Menandez, brother of Elisia and
La Monica McIvor. Good for them, and first of all,
(03:52):
ICE is like, well over their skis at this moment. Yeah,
so not okay?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Now, well, unfortunately trumpstration to say that it is definitely
on the table to arrest members of Congress, and it
looks like AOC has some words about that.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, by the way, they basically the Trump administration has
been working real hard to make abolish ICE a reasonable
centrist position. Okay, abolish ICE is like moderate Republicans are
soon going to be saying it. AOC did a really
good video. You should see it. AOC is a really
good communicator, communicated really well about this ICE stuff, Like,
(04:31):
you guys have to push back. This guy's a bully,
but he's also lazy and shiftless, and you just have
to keep pushing back. And that's what AOC did so well,
because she knows that if you give in to Trump,
your captured institution, and then he will just do crazy
stuff to you, like he's doing to all of those
law firms that made deals with him. So good for AOC.
(04:53):
She's correct and she's right, and that's that's it, and
we got to keep going. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So, mister Trump not known for those thoughtful, carefully crafted
policy decisions. He killed the Woke program the other day,
which you might say, Oh, that sounds like was something
he would do. But there's one problem. It is mostly
benefits his voters, so it's not so woke.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Well maybe it is, man. Maybe the reality is that
woke policies actually just benefit for people. So he has
he got rid of everything that has the word equity
in it. And it turns out that the Digital Equity
Act wasn't just This is the problem with reverse racism, right,
(05:41):
is that occasionally you stumble on reverse whatever that is
hurting the poor. So here we have Trump and these
worthies grants to improve internet in poor Red States, which
Donald Trump, because it had equity in it, he ended
the program. And I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you
(06:01):
could get a better metaphor for what the Trump administration
is than ending a program to help his voters because
it had the word equity in it. And ladies and gentlemen,
I am not surprised to see it, but it really
is quite on the nose. Rick Wilson is the founder
(06:24):
of the Linda Project and the host of the Enemy's List.
Welcome Back, Rick Wilson, Molly John.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Fast is always a pleasure to be with you on
this fine day.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
The are giving Donald Trump a.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Jet, a fancy jet, a seven forty seven eight hundred,
which is very large and was decorated by some combination
of Saddam Liberachi and somebody who went buckwow with a
hot glue gun and glitter.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
I understand that this is a complete authoritarian creep, but
it is worth for a minute just realizing that we
have sort of given up. Congress has given off on
the idea that presidents aren't supposed to use the presidency
to make money.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
They have completely given up on that. You're one hundred
percent correct. They now believe that the only corrupt thing
in the White House could be Hunter Biden selling some
oil paintings. This is all just perfectly normal to them.
And let's put this down for what it is. This
is a bribe. The Qataris are paying Trump a bribe.
It's about a you know, a five hundred million dollar airplane.
(07:31):
It's a bribe.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah. They're doing it because they know what Trump is like, right,
I mean, this is they know that it's paid for
play with Donald Trump and Donald Trump. I mean even
in the lesser right, like even with the British government.
They came in and were like, we'd like to bring
you an invitation from the you know, from the king.
(07:54):
Like that is in itself a bribe too. I mean, right,
this is the whole way of doing business.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
If we were looking at some other country and at
their government doing this, we would say, wow, that country
is really incorrupt. We would say that's remarkably shady. That's
not first world business practices. That's the kind of thing
that happens in kleptocracies and satropies and weird you know,
East Asian money laundering havens and all this other stuff.
(08:21):
But now, as you said, we've sort of given up
on it as a country. No one gives a shit
In Congress, they're like, oh yeah, that's a nice, nice plane,
mister president.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So Democrats don't control they don't control any branch of
the federal government. But what should they be doing? I
think they should be doing more on this.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I think, look, I think this is another thing where
some shadow hearings would come in handy. I think this
is another thing where in the course of other hearings
they should be asking the White House these things. They
should be papering the various agencies that are doing this
with questions who they still are. You know, even though
they're not going to get immediate answers or real answers,
(08:59):
they should be doing it in a way that lets
the government know that Donald Trump is in fact engaged
in widespread corruption. And you know, I think I heard
the phrase Biden crime family about a billion times out
of Fox and Trump folks. During the Biden administration, Hunter
Biden got a couple of board seats and sold some paintings.
(09:22):
Add all that up, and what's going on right now
is like a thousand times that every single day in
their crypto scam, in these real estate scams that they're
doing overseas, give it getting a plane as a gift,
these supposed investments in America that are coming in from
all these Gulf states. And it's funny because even Laura
Lumer was attacking Trump today, Ryan over the kataris giving
(09:46):
him a five hundred million.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Sil I mean, it's bad when the moral compass is
Laura Lumer. That's not good, right.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
I mean, that's that's a low bar.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
But it is interesting. I mean, she definitely is right.
So also this week we learned that Pete Haggs Hath
had plagiarized his thesis that got like two seconds of
airtime right that the Princetonian had found he had plagiarized
his thesis from the New York Times in the Washington Post,
leading me to think he reads the New York Times
(10:19):
in the Washington Post. I'm shocked, but I guess.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
It was a while now. Look, I mean, I would
say this in many other administrations, a plagiarism scandal would
be disqualifying. But when you look at the biggest influencers
on the right, several of them, Ben Dominic, Benny Johnson,
a whole bunch of these folks are known plagiarists, and
that doesn't affect their position inside the Mago universe at all.
(10:44):
So why would it, Why would it, you know, disqualify
Bee's and look in the catalog of Pete Hexsa's many sins,
plagiarism is actually kind of low on the food chain.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I mean, I'm still impressed that he plagiarized from like
real legit.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Outlets right right right, and not like the Golden Book
of Defense Policy or something right right.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Or like you know, remember you'll remember that the other
person who was famous for plagiarizing, though it turned out
to be plagiarizing himself. Was everyone's face, the great economist
ron Vara, ron Vara, ron Vara. By the way, we
haven't seen him so much since they've I.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Was gonna say, have you noticed that he's sort of
I mean maybe heara direction program or something.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I feel like they're going to put Peter Navarro in.
He's going to get some other job because now this administration,
Trump doesn't fire people, He just moves him around. So
he's going to be like hud secretary who knows.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I mean, you could easily see that. I think of Trump,
you know, not wanting to get as he as they say.
He doesn't want to give the media a scout, so
you can easily see him saying, hey, you're going to
be the ambassador to the United Nations economic counselor. I
don't know, makes some faky job, right, right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
But what is happening behind the scenes, and I do
think this is real important and also interesting is that
Trump seems to acknowledge that he fucked with the tariffs,
right because trying to make a deal behind the scenes
in Switzerland. I like that they're like, we solved, we
(12:23):
brought peace to India and Pakistan. That was yesterday and
then and then India was like not so fast, bitch,
and then today and then today and by the way,
we'll see how long that India Pakistan piece deal negotiated
by Marco Rubio, who wasn't even there that everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
In India and Pakistan says, the.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Fuck are you talking about talking about?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
But we'll see.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
But the the stuff in Switzerland where they're trying to
negotiate a trade deal, Trump said it went very well.
You think it went very well.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Knowing what a truthful interlocker to Donald Trump tends to be,
I would say that this is about as real as
you know Trump University. This is bullshit. He's lying. And
the Chinese, if they do what they've done lately, within
a day or so, we'll say nothing was accomplished in
these talks. We're back at stage zero. I think the
other thing that's going on here, though, is Trump needs
(13:16):
to keep the market juiced. He needs to keep the
stock market moving because if it does, if reality does
catch up on the stock market and he's unable to
rely on that as a major indicator and it crashes
because of this insane trade war. I think at that point,
we're in really weird deep water.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
So let's talk about what that looks like, really weird
deep water. Because there are right now lots and lots
of empty or semi empty port containerships like we see
the slow row all here. Here is no world. Even
if they and I don't think China is going to
do this, but even if tomorrow China was like, we
(13:57):
did it trade, we're done, we have a deal, which
is what Trump needs. Even then, we still have a
inflationary choke hold that it's I mean, I don't write
that's three weeks, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks behind.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
We are right where we are right now. You know,
as of now, shelves are starting to empty out in
major retailers and there are no ships waiting to refill
those shelves. And if those ships tomorrow, if you said, okay,
it's all over, if Trump dropped dead tomorrow and the
new president said, China back to.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Where we were, even better, if you do that, I'm sure,
which it doesn't necessarily want to.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
I think we've got the bit in their teeth and
they're not playing around. But if they wanted to, it's
going to take a month to turn all those factories
back on, bring all those people back in, get new
orders in the door. Then a month after that the
ships will be loaded. It takes about three weeks for
them to cross the Pacific. Two weeks, let's call it
to cross the Pacific. It takes about a week from
(15:01):
the minute the ship gets there to the minute stuff
starts to being distributed. So we're talking about July mid July.
If it happened today, I think we're in a much
deeper hole than anybody wants to acknowledge, especially the market,
and especially a lot of folks in the media who
have not been who've been following the daily Trumps statement
and not the bigger macro economic picture for American consumers,
(15:24):
which is hard to do. I admit it's a hard
story to cover.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
People need to stop repeating what the administration says. Okay,
stop it right. They did not make peace with India
and Pakistan did not happen.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
They did not make a deal with China this weekend.
The UK trade deal was a nothing burger. And when
they claim it's the biggest thing ever, you shouldn't just
repeat it's not. It's the biggest thing ever.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
And by the way UK is like our seventh or
eighth biggest trading.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Party, not the same category.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
We actually export more to them than they import.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
A little bit. Yeah yeah, so.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
But the other thing that I think is spectacularly stupid
about this whole problem, right, is going to be hard, Right,
they are hard. They're hard to deal with. They've been
eating our lunch for decades and decades. It's not going
to be that easy to solve.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
But Mexico and Canada, he could do that tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
He could walk in the door tomorrow with Canada, flip
the switch in the you know, easily. They would immediately
reciprocate to go back to zero or back to whatever
the effective low rip rate was, and it would be
over and it would start helping. Because Canada and Mexico
are our two biggest partners. Then China like, why.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Not do that? But explain to me why he's not
doing that.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
I don't want to it.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
I think he doesn't want to be perceived as having
given in first off to Shinebaum in Mexico, who is
both a woman and a Mexican. These are not great
things in the mind of the MAGA. They don't want
to be seeing that Trump caving in to these two
countries that they basically in maga culture holding contempt, and
Trump knows if he does that, he will be perceived
(17:06):
as a loser and all that of their business.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Right, he clearly is trying to do it with Canada
because when Carney came, he was not his usual obstructor.
He was not the same obstructor asself self.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Even would you notice his body language in that meeting?
Tell me hunched over pass it? It was very different.
I mean, I want to ask you this because is
Zelensky all these people would have dealt with him so far?
Don't you think Carney's like the most impressive.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I just think about the Zelensky meeting where JD was like,
you didn't even wear a suit, right, Like that's when
you know, but this was like I think Carney is
very smart and knows how to deal with this. But
the problem is, you know, again, this is like the
thing I always talk to Gid here about he's living
over a crack house. So there's only so much you
(17:54):
can do when you're a right when the big economy
is completely crazy. So the my question though, is why
is Trump not rushing to make it? I mean, he's
gonna have to make a deal with Counada in Mexico anyway,
because China is going to fuck us, right, I mean,
they'll write like, I mean, it's hard to imagine. He's
not gonna get fucked by China. They're already.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
No, he's gonna get He's gonna get fucked by China
in a way that's gonna leave him walking funny for
a month. This guy does not understand. He gave she
the greatest political gift he could have ever given China.
He gave me with all the China, all China's internal
economic problems. Now she is like a war leader against Trump.
It's so crazy to me that this White House is
(18:37):
so unsophisticated that even the people who are allegedly sophisticated
didn't understand this. Like this is a strategic misteriad of
China at the biggest level I could imagine.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Yeah. And it's interesting though, like he must have someone
behind the scene, and this is the thing, right, I mean,
I know there are no grown ups in the room,
but isn't there someone behind the scenes who's like, China's
not gonna make a deal with you because they are
There's no incentive for them to do it.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I think that Marco will never say that to him
because it will be seen as defiant. Right, even though
I think Marco knows that, I think Rubio knows that
at some level, he's not. Marco is not completely unsophisticated
about what's going on in China. He is Marco is
a big China hawk. But I don't think he wants
to tell Trump the truth because Trump has invested everything
(19:25):
in this. This is his signature issue now, even bigger
than immigration. This is the defining issue of the Trump first,
you know, one hundred and whatever days it is now
because it is the only thing that has changed this
country at every level. Fundamentally, Immigration is a big deal
and a terrible abuse of their power. But this is
(19:46):
like prices in Walmart and Target and the pharmacy and
your grocery store are changing for the worst because of
this one decision across.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
The board because like clearly he started a pass.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I think he does know that, because he's trying to
do this like austerity bullshit. I love that or two dolls. Yeah,
I was like, okay, comrade, do you control the means
of productions?
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Amazing? I mean they hate.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Capitalists, the beat arbists be bountiful.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Why do they hate capitalism?
Speaker 3 (20:14):
You know, I don't know, Molly, because it seems to me,
and you know, I'm a free markets guy. It seems
to me that telling people what they can purchase, how
many items of a given product they could purchase, strikes
me as planned economy stuff. This doesn't sound like American
capitalism in action.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So let's sort of do a few minutes on where
we are right now. Trump is going to try to
make a trade deal with Canada. I think Canada. It's
going to be on and off. He has this couple
of other sort of things going. I mean, what do
you sort of want like as you're looking at the
kind the you know, the House is still trying to
(20:54):
pass a budget. It you know, they are nowhere.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Everything I've heard from people in DC in the legislated process,
in the Senate and the House in the last week
is that Mike Johnson is spinning his wheels and the
MUD's flying everywhere. But this is not at this point,
this is not happening, right. They're not doing a tax
bill that is going to add five trillion dollars to
(21:19):
the deficit or to the debt. Excuse me, actually, you
know what and a trillion dollars to this.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I just want to add something. Donald Trump, as we
were recording this just truth, and we use that in
scare quotes that he has a China deal, you'll notice,
and US announces China deal in Geneva. Okay, so we'll
see what this looks like. But I would not breathlessly
report a China deal.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I would not breathlessly report that either. I would be
very extremely cautious. I would be extremely cautious if I
were the markets in accepting this. But you know, if
there's a if, as always, there's a bunch of mysterious
buying of futures tomorrow for an uptick in the market surprise,
I wouldn't be shocked to see the same game that
(22:05):
has been played three or four times now, you know,
not as big a scale as the first time. When
Trump gave Wall Street a heads up privately, but I
think for.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Sure was it his tweet that said is.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Time to buy? I mean, look, I don't know one
reason why China would take a deal right now. Yeah,
why would they take a deal today when they can
drag this out and get more out of him? This
is I think perhaps the concept of a deal yeah yeah,
rather than a deal.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah. It's always concepts of something, isn't it in two
weeks yep?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
But they have been backing down over all these things, right,
they're backing down from two right, and even some of
these like you know, we've seen some of these students
who are arrested now being freed on court orders. They're
obeying some of those. And I think one of the
most interesting tells of the whole week was just how
(23:01):
badly unprepared and how badly beat up Cash Betel and
Christy Noman in particular were in front of the US
Senate this week. They were not ready, yeah, to be questioned,
they don't have their budgets ready.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
That was I don't really know.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
I mean, I think I mean a gold star at
Chris Murphy, who was like unbelievable buck it, I'll do yea.
He went in there with like out for blood and
he got.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I know, and a lot of facial hair too, out
for blood, with lots of facial hair. Chris Murphy, he.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Is, listen. I think he's got the sort of Viking
berserker gong spirit.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Leah Lippmann is the co host of the podcast Strict
Scrutiny and the author of Lawless, How the Supreme Court
Runs on Conservative grievance, stringe theories, and bad vibes. Welcome
to Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Leiah Lipman, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Let's talk about this court. Seems like it's gone well, No,
I'm just kidding. First, let's talk about your book, because
I actually think Supreme Court has weirdly as much as
they can considering how conservative they are, in some way
is not done as badly as I thought they would.
But first, talk to me about this book and sort
(24:19):
of where we find the Supreme Court at this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
So the book is called Lawless, How the Supreme Court
Runs on Conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes. The
sub title should give you a basic gist of the argument,
but mostly the idea is the Republican justices are kind
of repackaging and channeling Republican talking points, their innermost feelings
and the generals like geist of the Republican Party into
the law. And because a big animating principle of the
(24:45):
Republican Party right now is conservative grievance. The idea that
Conservatives and Republicans are the victims of you know, anytime
things don't go their way or anytime people don't share
their views like that is a core precept that has
made its way into several different areas of law.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
How did this Supreme Court get here?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
So a few different ways. One is, the conservative legal
movement and Republican Party made a concerted effort to plan
to take over the court. You know, they recognize that
they needed the court to enable their anti majoritarian project.
You know, they needed the court. Oh yeah, No, it
worked in splendid ways.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You know.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
It was not a straight line, to be sure, But
they invested in communicating to people about why courts matter.
They invested in organizations like the Federalist Society that would
help them credential and select people whose views would match
the parties and who would be influenced by the signals
they sent to them. And they managed to develop all
(25:52):
the legal theories that created this veneer applausibility that they
could sell to the public. And you know, their base
knew what they were talking about. But if you were
just tuning into the news, the phrase textualism isn't going
to scream to you. I am going to destroy the
administrative state, even though right like people would.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Turns out that's what it meant.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, it's surprised.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Trump said this week that he was not sure if
he needed to uphold the Constitution. You know, it's so
funny because I'm so glad I get to have you on,
because I'm obsessed with the Supreme Court, and I am
like very nerdy about it, and so I often can't
ask some of the questions I want to ask because
they're too nerdy. But I can ask you them. Which
(26:35):
members of the court are real textualists? By the way,
of course, we both agree that textualism is largely bullshit
cover for trying to dismantle the administrative state. But just
tell us who pretends to be textualist on this court?
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Yes, so I would say the people who perform textualism
the most ostentatiously perfect would.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Be That's the question I wanted to ask.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah, bil Gorsich, Amy Barrett, and then after them Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Right, so the new justices yep. And then Alito and
Thomas performed box news.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Yes, so Alito manages to have zero principles whatsoever, and
not even to pretend to have principles other than the
idea that a democratic party is an existential threat to
his worldview.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Yeah, okay, and then Thomas is just mad about everything.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
So Thomas is more focused on a method of interpreting
the constitution, originalism, than he has been focused on how
to interpret statutes textualism right.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
And originalism is basically.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Wo Originalism is the idea that, in order to determine
what the constitution means today, we ask what it meant
to the people who drafted and ratified the constitution in
the seventeen hundreds and eighteen hundreds, who, surprise, surprise, all
white men. Since only men could vote at the time.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
You would think that originalism would not be would he
would want for any number of reasons in this country's history.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Clarence Thomas is perhaps better than anyone the embodiment of
we all contain multitudes, because of course I agree, right,
you would think that would be a giant red flag
and siren going off. I will not outsource our rights today.
What the government can do to the people who drafted
(28:26):
and ratify the constitution and said women can vote and
black people can be owned as property. And yet originalism
has continued to this day.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Can we talk about Shaughnessey and then Shaughnessy Pardue, which
was a sort of shadow dock at nine zero in
which there were two talk to us about that.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
Yeah, So Shaughnessy is this kind of older Supreme Court
decision from the fifties or yes, from the nineteen fifties,
and it should, I think be understood as part of
this Cold War era, you know, system of immigration, and
with the Court said, there is you know, when you
are dealing with someone who wants to enter the United States,
(29:07):
they have less protections, you know, than people who are
citizens in the United States or permanent residents of the
United States. So they kind of adjusted, you know, the
amount of due process rights you get kind of depends
on your relationship to the United States. And the Trump
administration has ran with this right to announce the totally unhinged,
(29:32):
in correct idea that non citizens just lack due process
rights at all, when that's not what Shaughnessy said, and
there are other cases that in fact hold non citizens
in the United States lawful permanent residents and whatnot, you
do have due process rights. And that seemed to be
(29:52):
something even this Supreme Court was concerned with you know,
when it looked like the administration was about try to
summarily expel more people to the L. Salvador Mega Prison.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
So those two nine zero decisions, right, what is happening or.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
One of them was nine zero but then.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
The other one was seven to But talk to me
about that sort of is Roberts, what is happening behind
the scenes here that we are getting these numbers? And
what is the Supreme Court doing taking these cases? And
in the nine zero they took a case that they
sort of chose to take, like sort of talk us
through because it feels like Roberts is doing stuff here
(30:36):
that is meaningful and important.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
Yes, so I think we should understand, you know, what
is happening at the Supreme courts to be a product
of a few different things. One is how wild the
asks are that the administration is making of the Supreme Court. Like,
if you managed to lose both sam Alito and Clarence Thomas,
I think you need to do some real soul searching.
(30:59):
And yet that is what they have done in at
least one case. So that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
And that case wasn't meant to go up right, I
mean that was sort of they took it.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
That was one of the shadow docket cases on the
Alien Enemies Act about whether the individuals could challenge their
summary expulsions via this one federal law, the administrative procedure acting,
rather than something else. And then the Kilmara Brego Garcia
case about whether a court could order the administration to
facilitate the return of someone wrongfully deported. Even sam Alito
(31:30):
said yes, in fact they can do so. Wow. Right,
So it's partially a product of the administration is making
outlandish asks. But second is it gets the Supreme Court
a ton of good press when they rule against the
trum administration, like that is going to dominate the news
when they likely turn away Trump's request to implement his
(31:53):
order stripping people of birthright citizenship, that's going to occupy
headline after headline, even though within the same month they
are likely to say states have to create religious public
charter schools. They're likely to say it's unconstitutional for states
to include LGBTQ reading materials in public schools. And so
I think it is to the Court's benefit to rule
(32:15):
against the administration occasionally, like while also ruling for the
underlying ideology.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Right, So it's a pr stunt. That's why they're taking
on the birthright citizenship case, because they could just bat
it down.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Exactly, like, there's no reason to move that case from
the shadow docket where it came up, you know, to
the Court's regular docket, and doing so is going to
generate a ton of coverage on the oral argument, more
coverage on the ultimate decision, and delay the ultimate decision
to coincide with some of these crazy ones.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
So that is important. But I just want to do
another minute on what Roberts is doing right now, because
I do think the Alien enemies didn't seem like great.
You know, it's this wartime act. There's no evidence to
support the idea that we're at war. No one's even
heard of this El Salvadorian gang. I mean, it was
(33:10):
pretty it's pretty weak sauce. Is it now completely out
of the realm? I mean, can they use it anymore?
Is it gone? I mean, where are we now with them?
Speaker 4 (33:19):
So, they unfortunately can still use it because what the
Supreme Court did in their first intervention in the case
is say a court cannot block that policy nationwide. Instead,
individuals have to challenge their potential expulsion via this one
procedural mechanism habeas petitions, and because of that that means
(33:43):
you get these like one off district court rulings that
block the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act, but
only in their jurisdiction. So we have like rulings to
that effect in Colorado, New York, some places in Texas,
but not others. And that means the administration might try
to move people around to expel them from a place
where there is no such prohibition.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
How much of where we are in this moment is
because of this sort of bad legislature not repealing zombie
laws because you thought, well, no one will ever bring
them back, and also part to keeping America in a
state of emergency after nine to eleven despite the fact
(34:28):
that there was no emergency.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
Look, there's no question that Congress has enabled the rise
of Donald Trump and also not to take in preventative
steps to make the Trump administration less bad by repealing
some of the zombie laws or some of these statutes
that confer vast sweeping authority on the president. You know,
Donald Trump is of course right, like the canonical bad man, right,
(34:54):
but we shouldn't ignore the fact that like he is
only doing what he is doing because he's enabled by
the people around him, And that includes you know, Congress
that isn't limiting his ability to create these terrorists that
are imploding right, the global economy and the United States economy.
That includes the Senate Republicans who confirm people like Pete
(35:15):
hag Seth to be Secretary of Defense. But I think
it also includes right, the Supreme Court, right, who has
also laid the groundwork for Donald Trump in important ways.
Like you talk about the legislature, the Supreme Court made
the legislature less democratic and representative by demolishing parts of
the Voting Rights Act and saying, yeah, you can engage
(35:35):
in partisan jerrymandering, which makes the House less representative on
top of Senate mal abortion it. So Donald Trump is
real bad and like he has been made worse by
all of the people around him.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yeah, right now the Supreme Court has you know, they're
sort of going into this oral arguments and then they'll publish,
you know, and then they'll all go on vacation. As
one as one does. In's sort of what way have
they kind of done right by us? And what way
have they done wrong by us?
Speaker 4 (36:05):
So I think they were absolutely correct to in the
middle of the night early morning, Holt the Trump administration's
efforts to try to expel more Venezuela nationals to El
Salvador by moving them, as we were saying, like out
of one place where there was an order prohibiting the
expulsions to another where there wasn't. So that's one thing.
(36:26):
I expect they are going to turn away his request
to strip away birthright citizenship, so that will be another.
I'm kind of waiting for more examples. I'll be honest.
They have not done a ton of good. They recently
allowed him to implement his ban on transgender service members.
They have greenlit other policies as well, like the freezing
(36:49):
of Department of Education funds for teacher training or the
firings that the Office of Personnel Management directed. So I'm
waiting for more examples.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
Trump World, I mean largely because a lot of the
stuff they want to do is illegal. Has been pretty
sumarily losing in the court in the lower courts for sure,
and I think the lower courts are more principled than
the Supreme Court for a few different reasons.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
I mean, one is, administrations just aren't trying to appoint
right people who are as uniformly ideological to the trial
courts as they do the appellate course of the Supreme Court.
Another reason is there's this blue slip system where when
Donald Trump went to appoint people to states with Democratic senators,
(37:37):
those democratic senators could block his appointees, so that allowed
them to veto some of the more extreme ones. And so,
you know, I think both of those dynamics make the
lower courts a better bulwark for the law than the
Supreme Court has proven to be.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
All of the stuff Doge did seems like it's illegal.
The NIH grants. One of the more justive things that
Elon Musk has done is cut cancer research and Alzheimer's research,
and he's done this by capping indirect funding. He was
very offended by the idea that indirect funding was more
(38:13):
than fifteen percent. He didn't understand how it worked, because
why would He's the richest guy in the world. That
stuff seems like it'll get reversed in court. That said,
a lot of these trials have shut down. Do we
think they're going to get reversed in court definitively enough?
And do you I mean, is there a world in
which that stuff gets back on track.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Yeah, so the administration has actually turned tail and reversed
course after some lower courts ruled against them. So when,
for example, we got the early Office of Management and
Budget pause on all federal financial assistants, you know, they
quickly walk that back, I think within twenty four to
forty eight hours after a court said no, you can't
(38:56):
do that. Similarly, you know, on some of these national
institutions with health you know, caps on overhead costs, indirect costs,
they're too you know, they walked it back and then
tried to implement it through another agency. So I think
on some of this, you know, the judicial accountability coupled
with the public pushback. You know, on the NIH grants,
(39:17):
for example, you had Republican politicians being like, look, you're
going to kill the greatest jobs program that exists in
my state, right because indirect costs exactly fund a ton
of jobs, you know, for major research universities in a
variety of roles. So I think some of that is
going to be beaten back, but others it's really impossible
(39:38):
to challenge and to turn back. So doge going into
systems and getting access to all of the data or
replacing some of the programming with their own. That's just
really hard to challenge in court, And once it happens,
it's hard to turn the clock.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Back excited to see what DOGE does with all our data.
It seems like a no brainer. We're almost time. But
I want you to talk about Amy Coney Barrett, hero
of the resistance.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
Go okay, wildly overstated. She has ruled against the Trump
administration or Donald Trump in three cases. One was to
allow a New York State court to impose a virtual
sentence of zero time, you know, on the heels of
him assuming to office. Not a huge deal. Second was
to not pause a lower court decision that told the
(40:26):
administration you can't suddenly defund all of the United States
Agency for International Development. But what people might not appreciate
is she later joined with the Republican appointees to pause
a lower court's decision that had said the same about
the Department of Education, and they delayed ruling in the
USA case until after the court ordered deadline for the
(40:46):
administration to pay up. So it wasn't even an unqualified
win for challengers of the Trump administration. So the idea
that she is some sort of liberal squish turned David
Souter turned moderate Independent is grossly overstated, and I think
people need to look at a broader set of cases
to realize she's totally in lockstep with the Republican appointees
(41:08):
on nature, social issues, and to the right of Justice
Kavanaugh on some matters, like the Voting Rights Act case
from two years ago.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
So yeah, not good, not good. Thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank.
Speaker 4 (41:19):
You, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
No moment, Rick Wilson.
Speaker 3 (41:29):
Yes, Molly, what is your moment of fuck?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Right?
Speaker 4 (41:33):
So?
Speaker 3 (41:34):
My moment of fuckery is an all time fan favorite.
It is the general he loves I know he loves
us both. It's the degenerate FOP. It's the walking STD
sample case of Paul Beach County. Actually he lives in
Broward now in an apartment, not even in a house.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
It's Roger Stone really trying to get him, aren't listen.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Here's the thing about Roger Stone. This week he's out
calling for Mark Kelly, United States Senator, and to be executed,
to be tried and executed for treason because.
Speaker 1 (42:08):
He complained about Trump's crypto scam. Is that why?
Speaker 3 (42:11):
That is correct? He complained about Trump's crypto scam.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
You're these free speech absolutists don't like free speech.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
These guys, they yeah, they love free speech, they love
talking a big game. And yet the slightest whisper of
criticism of Donnie, you know, Donnie sticky fingers and families,
obvious cryptos scam, an obvious flim flam. And they've got
Rogerstone out there calling for the execution of a US senator.
You know, I gotta tell you, if it comes down
(42:40):
to the revolution, I got I'm betting Roger is up
against the wall before Mark Kelly by a long damn stretch.
This guy is so vile and so corrupt, and it
just it just it's like one more, one more of
these things where don't let Republicans ever tell you they
value human military service, or honesty or free speech or
any of that ship because she's literally calling for Mark
(43:01):
Kelly to be executed Rick Wells by drunk Fast.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going Thanks for listening,
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds and remisa O's turk Tough student detained
by Ice has been released after judge's orders. By the way,
her crime was writing an opinion. PieP We have such
a great show for you today. If the Lincoln Project's
(00:23):
own Rick Wilson joins us to discuss President Trump's latest
corruption in broad daylight, then we'll talk to Strict Scrutinies
co host Leah Lipman about her new book Lawless, How
the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and
bad vibes. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Smiley as Friday sunset, we got a choice quote from
one Stephen Miller, and it's pretty pretty chilling.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
The privilege of the written of habeas corpus can be
suspended in a time of innovation.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
So would say that's an option we're actively looking. Look,
a lot of it depends on whether the course do
the right thing or not.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
At the end of the day, Congress passed the body
of law.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
All right, this fucker, by the way, a few thoughts
no ah, ah, nope, and by the way, the times
when they've suspended habeas have been like have been like
Pearl Harbor. Okay, they're not suspending habeas because they've made
up another crisis. Okay, so try again, baldy, that's a
(01:30):
no go. And by the way, when they say this
crazy shit, we just say no. We say no, no, no, no.
Net net net is fucking bullshit. Just ignore them and
keep going. The courts will smack it down. Don't let
these fuckers do stuff. And by the way, again another
(01:52):
moment where you realize that you don't have to let
these guys do this. Congress should be holding hearings every day.
None of this is business as usual. Push back to authoritarianism. No, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Yeah, agreed. So on Friday, there was also a huge
confrontation outside in ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey, where
Mayor Rosbarroka was taken into custody and they had threats
towards Representative Body Watson Coleman the.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Rest of the fucking mayor of Newark because they said whatever.
It doesn't matter, they said whatever. Lie. Congress has the
right to go into Ice attention centers. Trump thinks that
ICE is sisca Savo. It is not. It is under
all of this. By the way, I'm going to say
(02:45):
this as many times as I humanly can, Congress has
authority over all of this. Just because they are largely
cowardly and don't want to assert it doesn't mean that
they don't have authority over it. Right Congress is allowed
to go into ice facilities. They are not storming it.
They are going in there. The Trump administration arrested the
(03:08):
mayor of Newark because they want to be authoritarians. None
of this is okay, None of this is legal, and
Trump World will yet again lose in court. And by
the way, they know they'll lose because they let them
out right away. They didn't keep them over the weekend
because they knew that they were just barreling into what
is going to be a huge crisis. They keep losing.
(03:31):
They're doing the wrong stuff. The courts are holding do
not let them get away with it. By the way,
the people who were there who should be applauded, because
this should be going on all the time. New Jersey
reps Bonnie Watson, Coleman, Rob Menandez, brother of Elisia and
La Monica McIvor. Good for them, and first of all,
(03:52):
ICE is like, well over their skis at this moment. Yeah,
so not okay?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Now, well, unfortunately trumpstration to say that it is definitely
on the table to arrest members of Congress, and it
looks like AOC has some words about that.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, by the way, they basically the Trump administration has
been working real hard to make abolish ICE a reasonable
centrist position. Okay, abolish ICE is like moderate Republicans are
soon going to be saying it. AOC did a really
good video. You should see it. AOC is a really
good communicator, communicated really well about this ICE stuff, Like,
(04:31):
you guys have to push back. This guy's a bully,
but he's also lazy and shiftless, and you just have
to keep pushing back. And that's what AOC did so well,
because she knows that if you give in to Trump,
your captured institution, and then he will just do crazy
stuff to you, like he's doing to all of those
law firms that made deals with him. So good for AOC.
(04:53):
She's correct and she's right, and that's that's it, and
we got to keep going. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So, mister Trump not known for those thoughtful, carefully crafted
policy decisions. He killed the Woke program the other day,
which you might say, Oh, that sounds like was something
he would do. But there's one problem. It is mostly
benefits his voters, so it's not so woke.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Well maybe it is, man. Maybe the reality is that
woke policies actually just benefit for people. So he has
he got rid of everything that has the word equity
in it. And it turns out that the Digital Equity
Act wasn't just This is the problem with reverse racism, right,
(05:41):
is that occasionally you stumble on reverse whatever that is
hurting the poor. So here we have Trump and these
worthies grants to improve internet in poor Red States, which
Donald Trump, because it had equity in it, he ended
the program. And I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you
(06:01):
could get a better metaphor for what the Trump administration
is than ending a program to help his voters because
it had the word equity in it. And ladies and gentlemen,
I am not surprised to see it, but it really
is quite on the nose. Rick Wilson is the founder
(06:24):
of the Linda Project and the host of the Enemy's List.
Welcome Back, Rick Wilson, Molly John.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Fast is always a pleasure to be with you on
this fine day.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
The are giving Donald Trump a.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Jet, a fancy jet, a seven forty seven eight hundred,
which is very large and was decorated by some combination
of Saddam Liberachi and somebody who went buckwow with a
hot glue gun and glitter.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
I understand that this is a complete authoritarian creep, but
it is worth for a minute just realizing that we
have sort of given up. Congress has given off on
the idea that presidents aren't supposed to use the presidency
to make money.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
They have completely given up on that. You're one hundred
percent correct. They now believe that the only corrupt thing
in the White House could be Hunter Biden selling some
oil paintings. This is all just perfectly normal to them.
And let's put this down for what it is. This
is a bribe. The Qataris are paying Trump a bribe.
It's about a you know, a five hundred million dollar airplane.
(07:31):
It's a bribe.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah. They're doing it because they know what Trump is like, right,
I mean, this is they know that it's paid for
play with Donald Trump and Donald Trump. I mean even
in the lesser right, like even with the British government.
They came in and were like, we'd like to bring
you an invitation from the you know, from the king.
(07:54):
Like that is in itself a bribe too. I mean, right,
this is the whole way of doing business.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
If we were looking at some other country and at
their government doing this, we would say, wow, that country
is really incorrupt. We would say that's remarkably shady. That's
not first world business practices. That's the kind of thing
that happens in kleptocracies and satropies and weird you know,
East Asian money laundering havens and all this other stuff.
(08:21):
But now, as you said, we've sort of given up
on it as a country. No one gives a shit
In Congress, they're like, oh yeah, that's a nice, nice plane,
mister president.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So Democrats don't control they don't control any branch of
the federal government. But what should they be doing? I
think they should be doing more on this.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I think, look, I think this is another thing where
some shadow hearings would come in handy. I think this
is another thing where in the course of other hearings
they should be asking the White House these things. They
should be papering the various agencies that are doing this
with questions who they still are. You know, even though
they're not going to get immediate answers or real answers,
(08:59):
they should be doing it in a way that lets
the government know that Donald Trump is in fact engaged
in widespread corruption. And you know, I think I heard
the phrase Biden crime family about a billion times out
of Fox and Trump folks. During the Biden administration, Hunter
Biden got a couple of board seats and sold some paintings.
(09:22):
Add all that up, and what's going on right now
is like a thousand times that every single day in
their crypto scam, in these real estate scams that they're
doing overseas, give it getting a plane as a gift,
these supposed investments in America that are coming in from
all these Gulf states. And it's funny because even Laura
Lumer was attacking Trump today, Ryan over the kataris giving
(09:46):
him a five hundred million.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Sil I mean, it's bad when the moral compass is
Laura Lumer. That's not good, right.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
I mean, that's that's a low bar.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
But it is interesting. I mean, she definitely is right.
So also this week we learned that Pete Haggs Hath
had plagiarized his thesis that got like two seconds of
airtime right that the Princetonian had found he had plagiarized
his thesis from the New York Times in the Washington Post,
leading me to think he reads the New York Times
(10:19):
in the Washington Post. I'm shocked, but I guess.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
It was a while now. Look, I mean, I would
say this in many other administrations, a plagiarism scandal would
be disqualifying. But when you look at the biggest influencers
on the right, several of them, Ben Dominic, Benny Johnson,
a whole bunch of these folks are known plagiarists, and
that doesn't affect their position inside the Mago universe at all.
(10:44):
So why would it, Why would it, you know, disqualify
Bee's and look in the catalog of Pete Hexsa's many sins,
plagiarism is actually kind of low on the food chain.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I mean, I'm still impressed that he plagiarized from like
real legit.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Outlets right right right, and not like the Golden Book
of Defense Policy or something right right.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Or like you know, remember you'll remember that the other
person who was famous for plagiarizing, though it turned out
to be plagiarizing himself. Was everyone's face, the great economist
ron Vara, ron Vara, ron Vara. By the way, we
haven't seen him so much since they've I.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Was gonna say, have you noticed that he's sort of
I mean maybe heara direction program or something.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I feel like they're going to put Peter Navarro in.
He's going to get some other job because now this administration,
Trump doesn't fire people, He just moves him around. So
he's going to be like hud secretary who knows.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
I mean, you could easily see that. I think of Trump,
you know, not wanting to get as he as they say.
He doesn't want to give the media a scout, so
you can easily see him saying, hey, you're going to
be the ambassador to the United Nations economic counselor. I
don't know, makes some faky job, right, right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
But what is happening behind the scenes, and I do
think this is real important and also interesting is that
Trump seems to acknowledge that he fucked with the tariffs,
right because trying to make a deal behind the scenes
in Switzerland. I like that they're like, we solved, we
(12:23):
brought peace to India and Pakistan. That was yesterday and
then and then India was like not so fast, bitch,
and then today and then today and by the way,
we'll see how long that India Pakistan piece deal negotiated
by Marco Rubio, who wasn't even there that everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
In India and Pakistan says, the.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Fuck are you talking about talking about?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
But we'll see.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
But the the stuff in Switzerland where they're trying to
negotiate a trade deal, Trump said it went very well.
You think it went very well.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Knowing what a truthful interlocker to Donald Trump tends to be,
I would say that this is about as real as
you know Trump University. This is bullshit. He's lying. And
the Chinese, if they do what they've done lately, within
a day or so, we'll say nothing was accomplished in
these talks. We're back at stage zero. I think the
other thing that's going on here, though, is Trump needs
(13:16):
to keep the market juiced. He needs to keep the
stock market moving because if it does, if reality does
catch up on the stock market and he's unable to
rely on that as a major indicator and it crashes
because of this insane trade war. I think at that point,
we're in really weird deep water.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
So let's talk about what that looks like, really weird
deep water. Because there are right now lots and lots
of empty or semi empty port containerships like we see
the slow row all here. Here is no world. Even
if they and I don't think China is going to
do this, but even if tomorrow China was like, we
(13:57):
did it trade, we're done, we have a deal, which
is what Trump needs. Even then, we still have a
inflationary choke hold that it's I mean, I don't write
that's three weeks, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks behind.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
We are right where we are right now. You know,
as of now, shelves are starting to empty out in
major retailers and there are no ships waiting to refill
those shelves. And if those ships tomorrow, if you said, okay,
it's all over, if Trump dropped dead tomorrow and the
new president said, China back to.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Where we were, even better, if you do that, I'm sure,
which it doesn't necessarily want to.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
I think we've got the bit in their teeth and
they're not playing around. But if they wanted to, it's
going to take a month to turn all those factories
back on, bring all those people back in, get new
orders in the door. Then a month after that the
ships will be loaded. It takes about three weeks for
them to cross the Pacific. Two weeks, let's call it
to cross the Pacific. It takes about a week from
(15:01):
the minute the ship gets there to the minute stuff
starts to being distributed. So we're talking about July mid July.
If it happened today, I think we're in a much
deeper hole than anybody wants to acknowledge, especially the market,
and especially a lot of folks in the media who
have not been who've been following the daily Trumps statement
and not the bigger macro economic picture for American consumers,
(15:24):
which is hard to do. I admit it's a hard
story to cover.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
People need to stop repeating what the administration says. Okay,
stop it right. They did not make peace with India
and Pakistan did not happen.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
They did not make a deal with China this weekend.
The UK trade deal was a nothing burger. And when
they claim it's the biggest thing ever, you shouldn't just
repeat it's not. It's the biggest thing ever.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
And by the way UK is like our seventh or
eighth biggest trading.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Party, not the same category.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
We actually export more to them than they import.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
A little bit. Yeah yeah, so.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
But the other thing that I think is spectacularly stupid
about this whole problem, right, is going to be hard, Right,
they are hard. They're hard to deal with. They've been
eating our lunch for decades and decades. It's not going
to be that easy to solve.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
But Mexico and Canada, he could do that tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
He could walk in the door tomorrow with Canada, flip
the switch in the you know, easily. They would immediately
reciprocate to go back to zero or back to whatever
the effective low rip rate was, and it would be
over and it would start helping. Because Canada and Mexico
are our two biggest partners. Then China like, why.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Not do that? But explain to me why he's not
doing that.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
I don't want to it.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
I think he doesn't want to be perceived as having
given in first off to Shinebaum in Mexico, who is
both a woman and a Mexican. These are not great
things in the mind of the MAGA. They don't want
to be seeing that Trump caving in to these two
countries that they basically in maga culture holding contempt, and
Trump knows if he does that, he will be perceived
(17:06):
as a loser and all that of their business.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Right, he clearly is trying to do it with Canada
because when Carney came, he was not his usual obstructor.
He was not the same obstructor asself self.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Even would you notice his body language in that meeting?
Tell me hunched over pass it? It was very different.
I mean, I want to ask you this because is
Zelensky all these people would have dealt with him so far?
Don't you think Carney's like the most impressive.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I just think about the Zelensky meeting where JD was like,
you didn't even wear a suit, right, Like that's when
you know, but this was like I think Carney is
very smart and knows how to deal with this. But
the problem is, you know, again, this is like the
thing I always talk to Gid here about he's living
over a crack house. So there's only so much you
(17:54):
can do when you're a right when the big economy
is completely crazy. So the my question though, is why
is Trump not rushing to make it? I mean, he's
gonna have to make a deal with Counada in Mexico anyway,
because China is going to fuck us, right, I mean,
they'll write like, I mean, it's hard to imagine. He's
not gonna get fucked by China. They're already.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
No, he's gonna get He's gonna get fucked by China
in a way that's gonna leave him walking funny for
a month. This guy does not understand. He gave she
the greatest political gift he could have ever given China.
He gave me with all the China, all China's internal
economic problems. Now she is like a war leader against Trump.
It's so crazy to me that this White House is
(18:37):
so unsophisticated that even the people who are allegedly sophisticated
didn't understand this. Like this is a strategic misteriad of
China at the biggest level I could imagine.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Yeah. And it's interesting though, like he must have someone
behind the scene, and this is the thing, right, I mean,
I know there are no grown ups in the room,
but isn't there someone behind the scenes who's like, China's
not gonna make a deal with you because they are
There's no incentive for them to do it.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I think that Marco will never say that to him
because it will be seen as defiant. Right, even though
I think Marco knows that, I think Rubio knows that
at some level, he's not. Marco is not completely unsophisticated
about what's going on in China. He is Marco is
a big China hawk. But I don't think he wants
to tell Trump the truth because Trump has invested everything
(19:25):
in this. This is his signature issue now, even bigger
than immigration. This is the defining issue of the Trump first,
you know, one hundred and whatever days it is now
because it is the only thing that has changed this
country at every level. Fundamentally, Immigration is a big deal
and a terrible abuse of their power. But this is
(19:46):
like prices in Walmart and Target and the pharmacy and
your grocery store are changing for the worst because of
this one decision across.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
The board because like clearly he started a pass.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I think he does know that, because he's trying to
do this like austerity bullshit. I love that or two dolls. Yeah,
I was like, okay, comrade, do you control the means
of productions?
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Amazing? I mean they hate.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Capitalists, the beat arbists be bountiful.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Why do they hate capitalism?
Speaker 3 (20:14):
You know, I don't know, Molly, because it seems to me,
and you know, I'm a free markets guy. It seems
to me that telling people what they can purchase, how
many items of a given product they could purchase, strikes
me as planned economy stuff. This doesn't sound like American
capitalism in action.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So let's sort of do a few minutes on where
we are right now. Trump is going to try to
make a trade deal with Canada. I think Canada. It's
going to be on and off. He has this couple
of other sort of things going. I mean, what do
you sort of want like as you're looking at the
kind the you know, the House is still trying to
(20:54):
pass a budget. It you know, they are nowhere.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Everything I've heard from people in DC in the legislated process,
in the Senate and the House in the last week
is that Mike Johnson is spinning his wheels and the
MUD's flying everywhere. But this is not at this point,
this is not happening, right. They're not doing a tax
bill that is going to add five trillion dollars to
(21:19):
the deficit or to the debt. Excuse me, actually, you
know what and a trillion dollars to this.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I just want to add something. Donald Trump, as we
were recording this just truth, and we use that in
scare quotes that he has a China deal, you'll notice,
and US announces China deal in Geneva. Okay, so we'll
see what this looks like. But I would not breathlessly
report a China deal.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I would not breathlessly report that either. I would be
very extremely cautious. I would be extremely cautious if I
were the markets in accepting this. But you know, if
there's a if, as always, there's a bunch of mysterious
buying of futures tomorrow for an uptick in the market surprise,
I wouldn't be shocked to see the same game that
(22:05):
has been played three or four times now, you know,
not as big a scale as the first time. When
Trump gave Wall Street a heads up privately, but I
think for.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Sure was it his tweet that said is.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Time to buy? I mean, look, I don't know one
reason why China would take a deal right now. Yeah,
why would they take a deal today when they can
drag this out and get more out of him? This
is I think perhaps the concept of a deal yeah yeah,
rather than a deal.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah. It's always concepts of something, isn't it in two
weeks yep?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
But they have been backing down over all these things, right,
they're backing down from two right, and even some of
these like you know, we've seen some of these students
who are arrested now being freed on court orders. They're
obeying some of those. And I think one of the
most interesting tells of the whole week was just how
(23:01):
badly unprepared and how badly beat up Cash Betel and
Christy Noman in particular were in front of the US
Senate this week. They were not ready, yeah, to be questioned,
they don't have their budgets ready.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
That was I don't really know.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
I mean, I think I mean a gold star at
Chris Murphy, who was like unbelievable buck it, I'll do yea.
He went in there with like out for blood and
he got.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I know, and a lot of facial hair too, out
for blood, with lots of facial hair. Chris Murphy, he.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Is, listen. I think he's got the sort of Viking
berserker gong spirit.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Leah Lippmann is the co host of the podcast Strict
Scrutiny and the author of Lawless, How the Supreme Court
Runs on Conservative grievance, stringe theories, and bad vibes. Welcome
to Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Leiah Lipman, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Let's talk about this court. Seems like it's gone well, No,
I'm just kidding. First, let's talk about your book, because
I actually think Supreme Court has weirdly as much as
they can considering how conservative they are, in some way
is not done as badly as I thought they would.
But first, talk to me about this book and sort
(24:19):
of where we find the Supreme Court at this moment. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
So the book is called Lawless, How the Supreme Court
Runs on Conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes. The
sub title should give you a basic gist of the argument,
but mostly the idea is the Republican justices are kind
of repackaging and channeling Republican talking points, their innermost feelings
and the generals like geist of the Republican Party into
the law. And because a big animating principle of the
(24:45):
Republican Party right now is conservative grievance. The idea that
Conservatives and Republicans are the victims of you know, anytime
things don't go their way or anytime people don't share
their views like that is a core precept that has
made its way into several different areas of law.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
How did this Supreme Court get here?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
So a few different ways. One is, the conservative legal
movement and Republican Party made a concerted effort to plan
to take over the court. You know, they recognize that
they needed the court to enable their anti majoritarian project.
You know, they needed the court. Oh yeah, No, it
worked in splendid ways.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You know.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
It was not a straight line, to be sure, But
they invested in communicating to people about why courts matter.
They invested in organizations like the Federalist Society that would
help them credential and select people whose views would match
the parties and who would be influenced by the signals
they sent to them. And they managed to develop all
(25:52):
the legal theories that created this veneer applausibility that they
could sell to the public. And you know, their base
knew what they were talking about. But if you were
just tuning into the news, the phrase textualism isn't going
to scream to you. I am going to destroy the
administrative state, even though right like people would.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Turns out that's what it meant.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, it's surprised.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Trump said this week that he was not sure if
he needed to uphold the Constitution. You know, it's so
funny because I'm so glad I get to have you on,
because I'm obsessed with the Supreme Court, and I am
like very nerdy about it, and so I often can't
ask some of the questions I want to ask because
they're too nerdy. But I can ask you them. Which
(26:35):
members of the court are real textualists? By the way,
of course, we both agree that textualism is largely bullshit
cover for trying to dismantle the administrative state. But just
tell us who pretends to be textualist on this court?
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Yes, so I would say the people who perform textualism
the most ostentatiously perfect would.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Be That's the question I wanted to ask.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah, bil Gorsich, Amy Barrett, and then after them Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Right, so the new justices yep. And then Alito and
Thomas performed box news.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Yes, so Alito manages to have zero principles whatsoever, and
not even to pretend to have principles other than the
idea that a democratic party is an existential threat to
his worldview.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Yeah, okay, and then Thomas is just mad about everything.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
So Thomas is more focused on a method of interpreting
the constitution, originalism, than he has been focused on how
to interpret statutes textualism right.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
And originalism is basically.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Wo Originalism is the idea that, in order to determine
what the constitution means today, we ask what it meant
to the people who drafted and ratified the constitution in
the seventeen hundreds and eighteen hundreds, who, surprise, surprise, all
white men. Since only men could vote at the time.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
You would think that originalism would not be would he
would want for any number of reasons in this country's history.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Clarence Thomas is perhaps better than anyone the embodiment of
we all contain multitudes, because of course I agree, right,
you would think that would be a giant red flag
and siren going off. I will not outsource our rights today.
What the government can do to the people who drafted
(28:26):
and ratify the constitution and said women can vote and
black people can be owned as property. And yet originalism
has continued to this day.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Can we talk about Shaughnessey and then Shaughnessy Pardue, which
was a sort of shadow dock at nine zero in
which there were two talk to us about that.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
Yeah, So Shaughnessy is this kind of older Supreme Court
decision from the fifties or yes, from the nineteen fifties,
and it should, I think be understood as part of
this Cold War era, you know, system of immigration, and
with the Court said, there is you know, when you
are dealing with someone who wants to enter the United States,
(29:07):
they have less protections, you know, than people who are
citizens in the United States or permanent residents of the
United States. So they kind of adjusted, you know, the
amount of due process rights you get kind of depends
on your relationship to the United States. And the Trump
administration has ran with this right to announce the totally unhinged,
(29:32):
in correct idea that non citizens just lack due process
rights at all, when that's not what Shaughnessy said, and
there are other cases that in fact hold non citizens
in the United States lawful permanent residents and whatnot, you
do have due process rights. And that seemed to be
(29:52):
something even this Supreme Court was concerned with you know,
when it looked like the administration was about try to
summarily expel more people to the L. Salvador Mega Prison.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
So those two nine zero decisions, right, what is happening or.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
One of them was nine zero but then.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
The other one was seven to But talk to me
about that sort of is Roberts, what is happening behind
the scenes here that we are getting these numbers? And
what is the Supreme Court doing taking these cases? And
in the nine zero they took a case that they
sort of chose to take, like sort of talk us
through because it feels like Roberts is doing stuff here
(30:36):
that is meaningful and important.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
Yes, so I think we should understand, you know, what
is happening at the Supreme courts to be a product
of a few different things. One is how wild the
asks are that the administration is making of the Supreme Court. Like,
if you managed to lose both sam Alito and Clarence Thomas,
I think you need to do some real soul searching.
(30:59):
And yet that is what they have done in at
least one case. So that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
And that case wasn't meant to go up right, I
mean that was sort of they took it.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
That was one of the shadow docket cases on the
Alien Enemies Act about whether the individuals could challenge their
summary expulsions via this one federal law, the administrative procedure acting,
rather than something else. And then the Kilmara Brego Garcia
case about whether a court could order the administration to
facilitate the return of someone wrongfully deported. Even sam Alito
(31:30):
said yes, in fact they can do so. Wow. Right,
So it's partially a product of the administration is making
outlandish asks. But second is it gets the Supreme Court
a ton of good press when they rule against the
trum administration, like that is going to dominate the news
when they likely turn away Trump's request to implement his
(31:53):
order stripping people of birthright citizenship, that's going to occupy
headline after headline, even though within the same month they
are likely to say states have to create religious public
charter schools. They're likely to say it's unconstitutional for states
to include LGBTQ reading materials in public schools. And so
I think it is to the Court's benefit to rule
(32:15):
against the administration occasionally, like while also ruling for the
underlying ideology.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Right, So it's a pr stunt. That's why they're taking
on the birthright citizenship case, because they could just bat
it down.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Exactly, like, there's no reason to move that case from
the shadow docket where it came up, you know, to
the Court's regular docket, and doing so is going to
generate a ton of coverage on the oral argument, more
coverage on the ultimate decision, and delay the ultimate decision
to coincide with some of these crazy ones.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
So that is important. But I just want to do
another minute on what Roberts is doing right now, because
I do think the Alien enemies didn't seem like great.
You know, it's this wartime act. There's no evidence to
support the idea that we're at war. No one's even
heard of this El Salvadorian gang. I mean, it was
(33:10):
pretty it's pretty weak sauce. Is it now completely out
of the realm? I mean, can they use it anymore?
Is it gone? I mean, where are we now with them?
Speaker 4 (33:19):
So, they unfortunately can still use it because what the
Supreme Court did in their first intervention in the case
is say a court cannot block that policy nationwide. Instead,
individuals have to challenge their potential expulsion via this one
procedural mechanism habeas petitions, and because of that that means
(33:43):
you get these like one off district court rulings that
block the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act, but
only in their jurisdiction. So we have like rulings to
that effect in Colorado, New York, some places in Texas,
but not others. And that means the administration might try
to move people around to expel them from a place
where there is no such prohibition.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
How much of where we are in this moment is
because of this sort of bad legislature not repealing zombie
laws because you thought, well, no one will ever bring
them back, and also part to keeping America in a
state of emergency after nine to eleven despite the fact
(34:28):
that there was no emergency.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
Look, there's no question that Congress has enabled the rise
of Donald Trump and also not to take in preventative
steps to make the Trump administration less bad by repealing
some of the zombie laws or some of these statutes
that confer vast sweeping authority on the president. You know,
Donald Trump is of course right, like the canonical bad man, right,
(34:54):
but we shouldn't ignore the fact that like he is
only doing what he is doing because he's enabled by
the people around him, And that includes you know, Congress
that isn't limiting his ability to create these terrorists that
are imploding right, the global economy and the United States economy.
That includes the Senate Republicans who confirm people like Pete
(35:15):
hag Seth to be Secretary of Defense. But I think
it also includes right, the Supreme Court, right, who has
also laid the groundwork for Donald Trump in important ways.
Like you talk about the legislature, the Supreme Court made
the legislature less democratic and representative by demolishing parts of
the Voting Rights Act and saying, yeah, you can engage
(35:35):
in partisan jerrymandering, which makes the House less representative on
top of Senate mal abortion it. So Donald Trump is
real bad and like he has been made worse by
all of the people around him.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yeah, right now the Supreme Court has you know, they're
sort of going into this oral arguments and then they'll publish,
you know, and then they'll all go on vacation. As
one as one does. In's sort of what way have
they kind of done right by us? And what way
have they done wrong by us?
Speaker 4 (36:05):
So I think they were absolutely correct to in the
middle of the night early morning, Holt the Trump administration's
efforts to try to expel more Venezuela nationals to El
Salvador by moving them, as we were saying, like out
of one place where there was an order prohibiting the
expulsions to another where there wasn't. So that's one thing.
(36:26):
I expect they are going to turn away his request
to strip away birthright citizenship, so that will be another.
I'm kind of waiting for more examples. I'll be honest.
They have not done a ton of good. They recently
allowed him to implement his ban on transgender service members.
They have greenlit other policies as well, like the freezing
(36:49):
of Department of Education funds for teacher training or the
firings that the Office of Personnel Management directed. So I'm
waiting for more examples.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
Trump World, I mean largely because a lot of the
stuff they want to do is illegal. Has been pretty
sumarily losing in the court in the lower courts for sure,
and I think the lower courts are more principled than
the Supreme Court for a few different reasons.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
I mean, one is, administrations just aren't trying to appoint
right people who are as uniformly ideological to the trial
courts as they do the appellate course of the Supreme Court.
Another reason is there's this blue slip system where when
Donald Trump went to appoint people to states with Democratic senators,
(37:37):
those democratic senators could block his appointees, so that allowed
them to veto some of the more extreme ones. And so,
you know, I think both of those dynamics make the
lower courts a better bulwark for the law than the
Supreme Court has proven to be.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
All of the stuff Doge did seems like it's illegal.
The NIH grants. One of the more justive things that
Elon Musk has done is cut cancer research and Alzheimer's research,
and he's done this by capping indirect funding. He was
very offended by the idea that indirect funding was more
(38:13):
than fifteen percent. He didn't understand how it worked, because
why would He's the richest guy in the world. That
stuff seems like it'll get reversed in court. That said,
a lot of these trials have shut down. Do we
think they're going to get reversed in court definitively enough?
And do you I mean, is there a world in
which that stuff gets back on track.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Yeah, so the administration has actually turned tail and reversed
course after some lower courts ruled against them. So when,
for example, we got the early Office of Management and
Budget pause on all federal financial assistants, you know, they
quickly walk that back, I think within twenty four to
forty eight hours after a court said no, you can't
(38:56):
do that. Similarly, you know, on some of these national
institutions with health you know, caps on overhead costs, indirect costs,
they're too you know, they walked it back and then
tried to implement it through another agency. So I think
on some of this, you know, the judicial accountability coupled
with the public pushback. You know, on the NIH grants,
(39:17):
for example, you had Republican politicians being like, look, you're
going to kill the greatest jobs program that exists in
my state, right because indirect costs exactly fund a ton
of jobs, you know, for major research universities in a
variety of roles. So I think some of that is
going to be beaten back, but others it's really impossible
(39:38):
to challenge and to turn back. So doge going into
systems and getting access to all of the data or
replacing some of the programming with their own. That's just
really hard to challenge in court, And once it happens,
it's hard to turn the clock.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Back excited to see what DOGE does with all our data.
It seems like a no brainer. We're almost time. But
I want you to talk about Amy Coney Barrett, hero
of the resistance.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
Go okay, wildly overstated. She has ruled against the Trump
administration or Donald Trump in three cases. One was to
allow a New York State court to impose a virtual
sentence of zero time, you know, on the heels of
him assuming to office. Not a huge deal. Second was
to not pause a lower court decision that told the
(40:26):
administration you can't suddenly defund all of the United States
Agency for International Development. But what people might not appreciate
is she later joined with the Republican appointees to pause
a lower court's decision that had said the same about
the Department of Education, and they delayed ruling in the
USA case until after the court ordered deadline for the
(40:46):
administration to pay up. So it wasn't even an unqualified
win for challengers of the Trump administration. So the idea
that she is some sort of liberal squish turned David
Souter turned moderate Independent is grossly overstated, and I think
people need to look at a broader set of cases
to realize she's totally in lockstep with the Republican appointees
(41:08):
on nature, social issues, and to the right of Justice
Kavanaugh on some matters, like the Voting Rights Act case
from two years ago.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
So yeah, not good, not good. Thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank.
Speaker 4 (41:19):
You, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
No moment, Rick Wilson.
Speaker 3 (41:29):
Yes, Molly, what is your moment of fuck?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Right?
Speaker 4 (41:33):
So?
Speaker 3 (41:34):
My moment of fuckery is an all time fan favorite.
It is the general he loves I know he loves
us both. It's the degenerate FOP. It's the walking STD
sample case of Paul Beach County. Actually he lives in
Broward now in an apartment, not even in a house.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
It's Roger Stone really trying to get him, aren't listen.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Here's the thing about Roger Stone. This week he's out
calling for Mark Kelly, United States Senator, and to be executed,
to be tried and executed for treason because.
Speaker 1 (42:08):
He complained about Trump's crypto scam. Is that why?
Speaker 3 (42:11):
That is correct? He complained about Trump's crypto scam.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
You're these free speech absolutists don't like free speech.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
These guys, they yeah, they love free speech, they love
talking a big game. And yet the slightest whisper of
criticism of Donnie, you know, Donnie sticky fingers and families,
obvious cryptos scam, an obvious flim flam. And they've got
Rogerstone out there calling for the execution of a US senator.
You know, I gotta tell you, if it comes down
(42:40):
to the revolution, I got I'm betting Roger is up
against the wall before Mark Kelly by a long damn stretch.
This guy is so vile and so corrupt, and it
just it just it's like one more, one more of
these things where don't let Republicans ever tell you they
value human military service, or honesty or free speech or
any of that ship because she's literally calling for Mark
(43:01):
Kelly to be executed Rick Wells by drunk Fast.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going Thanks for listening,
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com