August 18, 2025 • 18 mins
Alex Marlow, editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and two-time New York Times bestselling author of Breaking the News and Breaking Biden, returns with his third book: BREAKING THE LAW: EXPOSING THE WEAPONIZATION OF AMERICA'S LEGAL SYSTEM AGAINST DONALD TRUMP (Threshold Editions; Hardcover; On-sale August 5, 2025), a fearless and thoroughly researched exposé on the new political battleground: the American legal system. In this urgent and gripping book, Marlow turns his sharp investigative lens to the legal cases targeting President Donald Trump-and what they mean for the future of the conservative movement and the rule of law in America. BREAKING THE LAW reveals how legal institutions are being repurposed as political weapons. Marlow not only exposes the players and tactics behind this unprecedented campaign but also makes bold predictions about where this trend is heading-and what conservatives must do to fight back. Hailed "a must read" by President Trump, Marlow's book is both timely and timeless. It's the first major retrospective on the 2024 election and how the legal war on Trump influenced voters, media narratives, and the conservative base. This is Alex Marlow at his most uncompromising and clear-eyed.With the same meticulous reporting and narrative drive that defined his previous works, BREAKING THE LAW offers a provocative and authoritative response to one of the most consequential legal and political stories of our time.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey er, how are you doing today? I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Absolutely, I'll tell you I got to I'm going to
start things off here by saying that thank you for
doing this book. And the reason why I say that
is because I'm not I'm no different than any other American.
We go to eighteen different platforms to think we're getting
the news, and then we only develop our own opinion.
And so at least with this book, we can take
our time and get a better understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
That's exactly what we're what I'm trying to accomplish here
with this This is one of the main points. I'd
say there's probably about three or so main points what
I was trying to do. But I lead a powerful
newsroom that's influential, and even I was having a hard
time keeping track of all the law fair that was
being done the various fronts. I always assume this is
by design. I tend to give the left credit that
(00:46):
they've thought through things and how they could give us
a hard time, and how they could be most effective
in using whatever means necessary to achieve their political goals.
And I thought, as a fundamental level, as a people,
it'd be nice if we all understood exactly what was happening,
but someone had to piece it together because it gets
very confusing and muddle to distinguish between all the various cases.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah, I wish I could see the way that you
put this book together, because You're right, there's so much
information and is it credible? And how much fact checking
did you have to do? I mean, and then we
got to put it together?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Oh my god, it's incredibly rigorous. I'm very blessed to
have a great research team. Everyone who helps me is
an alum of Peter Schweizer's Government Accountability Institute, So luckily
I'm connected with some of the best in the game
on this stuff. And technology gets better, it gets easier
to fact check, but the fact checking process is very rigorous.
You're very time consuming. I always say that I'm blessed
(01:38):
to do I have a great job, and it's my
work is really pleasurable in general. But writing books is
the hardest thing I do because you do have to
keep track of so many moving parts at once, and
you have to build a trust with the audience. I'm
not playing a short game here. I'm trying to do
this for decades. I'm seventeen years into my career. I
(01:59):
want to do this for thirty more years, and I'm
going to build trust with an audience that they have
to know that if they read something that I wrote,
that I've done my due diligence. So they can take
it to the bank, they could take it to their barbecue,
they can take the polling place, whatever they want to
do when they want to convince someone that this is
the way, this is the truth, that they can trust me.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, you start off the book with an quote from Aristotle.
I mean that right there, gets your attention and says,
this man's not screwing around. I mean Aristotle said, at
his best man is the noblest of all animals, separated
from law and justice, He's the worst mind God. That
just says, hey, dude, wake up, wake up.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
It's about guy that Aristotle. You know a lot of
good quotes. I chose this one. I thank you for that.
It was fun to I had a few quote ideas,
but for an epigraph, I've never done one before, but
I like this one. It spoke to me because it
feels like in America we have to look at some
of the fundamentals that make us a special place. And
(02:57):
I think one of the things that separates us from
the third world is that we have a concept of
belief that there is equal justice under the law, that
there is one tier of justice and it's for everyone,
it applies to everyone, and that faith has gotten shaken,
and that's not acceptable that if we want to be
(03:18):
a democracy, one of the fundamentals and I know we're
a constitutional republican. People can feel free to message me
online and take issue with that characterization, but we colloquially
call it a democracy. And if we want to be
a democracy, we have to have law and order. Law
and order has to reign supreme. And it feels like
half the country, maybe not half, but you know, thirty
(03:39):
forty percent at least feel as though the law actually
gets in the way of them achieving their political goals
and objectives. And that is not sustainable. It's not sustainable.
And someone had to call a warning shot, and that's
what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Do you feel like that we're right in the middle
of an evolution, you know, I mean, legal institutions are
being repurposed. I mean, it's like there's so much change
going on. But with that change, though identification. You're teaching
people what is really going on.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
It's precisely that it's precisely an evolution, and it's really
a de evolution or devolution. I don't know how to
pronounced that I read a lot, so I don't know
to pronounce certain words that I've read a million times.
But I tracked the history of law here. It started
with Franklin Roosevelt that he wanted to pack the court.
He saw the legal system as a nuisance to get
in the way of his political ambitions. And it accelerated
(04:29):
from there with more activist judges being chosen for the court.
And I go through all this history really accelerated with
Joe Biden, who is a terrible law student of play darist,
barely survived law school, went on to lead the Senate
Judiciary Committee and block nominees like Robert Bork who he
didn't like politically, and then even went to hyperdrive with
(04:51):
Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder. So then
you find yourself in this environment where Trump's in people
think he rigged the action because of the Russian collusion
hoax to win himself, and now the laugh is just
totally game on. There is no even pretext or pretense
that they would treat him fairly under the law. That's
(05:14):
what happened. And then we're If you think they're going
to stop because Trump survived, you're going to be kidding me.
The law fair superstructure right now is working three sixty
five twenty four seven in order to try to make
sure that they have control over the next election and
the one after that and the one after that. And
if you do anything to help the bad guys win,
the bad guys meeting us, then they're going to try
(05:35):
to bank you, to platform you, make sure you can't
get a good legal representation. They are dead serious. And
this is a big warning in that regard.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
That is so interesting that you say that, because it
is it's almost like they're living in a future that
hasn't been written yet. But by god, we're going to
do everything we can to get there before anybody else.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
That's the move. That's what they're doing. And while I
think that there's a fun part of the book, which
is that we are in investigation season, and I give
you a blueprint of where the investigations are going to
take place. I'm one for one so far. The first
investigation I wanted was just James, and she's now under investigation.
So we're after a great start. They'll probably be a
half a dozen more, maybe more so, and then you
(06:13):
can understand what's being investigated and why. But then there's
a warning part, the more negative part, which is I
note that the law Faart superstructure is fired up. They're
well funded, they're well organized, and they're working right now
to try to win the next election. And we have
to be deeply engaged in a civic level if we
don't want that to happen.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
One of the things that we're getting burned out on
is the information that we're getting. I mean, conspiracy after
conspiracy after conspiracy, and it's like we're becoming numb and
I don't know if that's the answer, and that we
need people like yourself to kind of give us a
swat upside the head.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah, it's something that I'm very fortunate that I'm able
to do. At bright part is that we've built a
level of credibility, and I'm very grateful for that because
there's so much ways out there. There is so much
a stretching of the truth, and people who are very
persuasively able to articulate things that are not true, that
(07:09):
are false, and it's confusing to people. The right is
much better about this than the left, but both sides,
I think, have been prone lately to exaggerate certain things
in order to get more attention. And I know that luckily,
at bright part we build a reputation for being truth tellers,
and this book does the same thing. You guys can
trust that I've checked everything twice over. I only rely
(07:33):
on the best sources. I rely on firsthand information whenever
humanly possible to try to give you the cold, hard
facts about what's going on, so that when you've read it,
maybe you don't agree with all my conclusions. You'll probably
agree with a lot of them, I'm guessing, but you'll
at least know that I gave it you straight.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
You bring up something that I haven't heard on CNN, Fox,
I haven't even heard it on News Nation. But you
bring up something that really opened up my eyes. You
say that when it comes to the definition of law fare,
it has two parts.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
It's like, oh, you have my attention now.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah. It feels like that if I'm going to define
law fear, then it is it has to be, I
really have to have it thought through. I consider the
use of the legal system against political and cultural adversaries,
so just in general, using the legal system to try
to target a political or cultural foe that you might have,
(08:26):
but also the weaponization of the legal system for partisan
political purposes, which is that I have my side and
I'm going to advance it with the law, which is different.
It's not just picking a target. It's that I'm a
Democrat or I'm a Republican conceivably though more rare. And
I'm only in this because I'm trying to advance a
political narrative, and I find that to be kind of
(08:48):
offensive that people would live that way. But that is
really what it's all about. The law should be about
the law, but it's not. In many cases in this
country right now, it is about politics. And that's a
scary fact.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Please do not move. There's more with Alex marlow coming
up next. Hey, thanks for coming back to my conversation
with Alex Marlowe. Would you say that modern day journalism
is at its peak? And what I mean by that
is that I swear there's better storytelling and there's better
digging in than I've ever experienced in my forty six
years of broadcasting.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
It's a great question. It certainly got some advantages. I
think the speed you're able to access information is amazing,
and it's kind of shocking when you can't. In some ways,
it's funny. I was coincidentally, I was vacationing in Hawaii
during the big tsunami scare, and I was not getting
quick information at that time, and I was kind of surprised.
(09:42):
I thought that we were past this. I thought that
we were all you could just always get the information
you need at this point. But I do think that
there needs to be a level of curation, which is
where I can help, because there's just so much information
now that it's hard to keep track of all of it,
and now that with certain social media apps, you're not
rewarded telling the truth. You're rewarded for being sensationalist and
(10:02):
for exaggerating things. So I feel like there's a lot
of flaws in the system. But the fact that we've
neutralized corporate journalism and replaced it with people who are accountable, directly,
accountable to their audience and not to some corporation that's
funding them, I think is a big development and really positive.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
You make it very clear that this isn't about this
particular administration, that you actually have put this book together
for future generations so that they have a resource outlet
here that they can say, Okay, this is where they were,
I get it, now, this is where we are. I
really need to know it.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
This is the puzzle when you write books, is that
you need them to be relevant immediately and to feel urgent,
but also you would like for them to be if
someone grabs it off the shelf in thirty years, they'll
find something in it. And I do try to do
both of those things. That there are portions of the
book that I believe are histories of a unique and
(10:56):
interesting time that we're going through where there's this massive
change culturally where we start to use the legal system
in a way to play politics more overtly than we
ever have in the past. And so that's there, and
I do write that history. But also there is a immediacy,
there's an urgency to it, because this is an ongoing story.
(11:16):
The story's not over, and we can choose to stand
up against the law fair superstructure and take it seriously,
or we can just you know, go back to the
stuff we like to do, you know, our sports betting
and our toy collections in our video games. And then
we missed the boat here and the Left could take
over the country in the process.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
But Alex, every time we turn around, it's another judge
coming out of the woodwork. It's like, oh my god,
it's always somebody new.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
And this is one of the things we get into
late in the book. I go through the I sort
of I could see this coming without being able to
see it coming. When I started researching the book, I
knew that the way the left was going to try
to win the election was with law fair because they
did no cures candidates. Joe Biden was a terrible candidate.
Kamin Harris was a worst candidate. They had no values.
(12:06):
They're completely out of step with the country when it
comes to things like immigration and when it comes to
things like trade, inflation, war. All that was favorable to
Trump and the Republicans. So how are they going to win?
I figured they would win by trying to jail Trump literally,
try to put him in jail or maybe bankrupt them
and just bum them out to some degree where he
(12:26):
makes some sort of horrible mistake. And so while I
was playing out Trump wins and I'm putting the book together,
and then lo and behold, he gets in. There's un
executive actions. The Democrats don't have a resistance like they
had last time, but they don't have great rallies on Sundays.
They don't have persuasive celebrities trying to bring in new
recruits to their movement. None of that happened. But what
(12:47):
did they have. They had these judges, these district judges
all over the country who were doing these temporary restraining
orders whatever it is, in order to block parts of
the agenda. Were people who were appointed two or acted
by a small constituency to be judges in a small
district of the country, acting as though they had a
veto power over the executive branch of the United States government,
(13:10):
and we were expected to go along with it. Completely.
Wild of that took place, and we just all stood
by powerless.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
See that one more time. That's one of the reasons
why this book is so important, because, I mean, for
a brief second, the Supreme Court made a decision and
all of a sudden it was off the front page
of the newspaper onto the next story, and with your
book you're taking your time to share with us the
right information.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Yeah. I try to do that. And it's the I
could have seen it happen that the Supreme Court says, Okay,
you guys got to stop. And then so what did
the law of these judges do. We're not going to stop, right,
because this is part of their tactic, is that they
can buy time. The most valuable commodity in an executive branch,
in an administration is time. There's only a certain amount
of time that you have to do stuff. That's one
(13:53):
of the reason why Trump likes to move fast and
break things is he's hyper conscious of this. But so
is the left. So is the law fair superstructure, so
you get things. Here's my analogy. One of the most
offensive things in the book, as I go through the
Jack Smith Special Council, where he was in charge of
two cases that were that could have conceivably taken out
(14:15):
Trump maybe landed him in jail. His whole job was unconstitutional.
He never had a job. His job was fake. It
was created by Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice,
and he was able to operate with impunity for eighteen months.
Subpoenaing documents harassing people, getting people under oath depositions, being
(14:35):
able to leak that information the Washington Post, to control
the media narrative, and all that time he had no
right to do any of it. And so what do
they do. Okay, it's determined that he's unconstitutional, that he
sent out a bunch of apologies. Does is there any
retribution or damages that's done for all the people who
were harassed and bothered during this No, of course not
all their time was wasted. Their lives remained miserable, and
(14:57):
that's fine with them. That's part of the process for
people on the lawfair left is that they're willing to
waste your time. That's what these judges are doing in
these courts around the country right now, these district judges,
they're completely comfortable with wasting our time because that's fine
with them. They don't want us to succeed anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
With your ear on the ground, how do you see
that investigation on Jack you know, going, because I mean,
it's going to be very interesting to find out what
they uncover in his journey.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, the fact that his whole appointment was unconstitutional. I'm
curious to see when people started to figure that out
and whether or not they went ahead anyway, So just
know that if you're willing to go through the extent
that they went through to do the law fair that
they did, and to have it turn out to be
entirely unconstitutional, it does make you think that what else
(15:46):
were they willing to cover up? And this is one
of these things where why you have to start these
investigations because you don't know what you're going to find.
You don't know what emails are out there, you don't
know what documents are out there. Because if you knew
they were willing to go through this farce for eighteen
months the middle of an election, so we've never seen
before in American history this level of election manipulation. And
they could go through it with a straight face and
(16:07):
actry Jacksmith with some sort of a hero, then what
else were they doing that was crazy? That's all the
stuff we need to figure out. We need to demand answers.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
The conspiracy to prove a conspiracy, Oh my god, I
have done so much research on the definition of conspiracy,
and then that leads you to another conspiracy and another conspiracy.
It's just an ongoing you know, just so it's.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
A war yeah, it is a war, and it's one
of these things where the law fair is a front
in a war and their battles within that. But that's
why I talk about the culture wars and how we
neutralized Hollywood to large degree, we neutralize the establishment media
to a large extent. But the left is always looking
(16:53):
for a new battle fronts. They're looking for new places
to try to manipulate the public, control the public, and
they use what's available to them. They co opt a
lot of the corporate boardrooms. That was a new front. But
it is one of these things that where the conspiracy
to prove a conspiracy was specifically in reference to the
(17:13):
Georgia Rico case where Fannie Willis was trying to use
racketeering basically treating Trump like he was running some sort
of a criminal enterprise to try to steal the election
in twenty twenty Georgia, and there was a big conspiracy
that was taking place there in her Georgia courtroom because
she this guy named Jeff DeSantis, who was a Joe
(17:34):
Biden aid who came to her courtroom to prosecute Trump.
In the meantime, she'd hired her boyfriend Nathan Wade, who
was a family lawyer. He did divorces and pre nups
and he works for her. They get a bunch of
money for it, and this family lawyer is now on
a mafia case. Essentially, he got two eight hour White
(17:55):
House visits. To this day, we have no idea what
was discussed there, but we know what was discussed. Why
would Nathan Way to nobody get invited to the White
House twice for eight hours at a time. There's only
one possible reason, and that's to talk about the efforts
to get Trump. So even though they were trying to
treat it as though Trump was running some sort of
a criminal conspiracy, there was clearly forces conspiring against Trump
in that case.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Wow, dude, you got to come back to this show
anytime in the future. The door is always going to
be open for you.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That's very kind of you. It's really nice to meet you. Er.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Will you be brilliant today?
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Okay, Alex, thank you, my friend.
Hey er, how are you doing today? I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Absolutely, I'll tell you I got to I'm going to
start things off here by saying that thank you for
doing this book. And the reason why I say that
is because I'm not I'm no different than any other American.
We go to eighteen different platforms to think we're getting
the news, and then we only develop our own opinion.
And so at least with this book, we can take
our time and get a better understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
That's exactly what we're what I'm trying to accomplish here
with this This is one of the main points. I'd
say there's probably about three or so main points what
I was trying to do. But I lead a powerful
newsroom that's influential, and even I was having a hard
time keeping track of all the law fair that was
being done the various fronts. I always assume this is
by design. I tend to give the left credit that
(00:46):
they've thought through things and how they could give us
a hard time, and how they could be most effective
in using whatever means necessary to achieve their political goals.
And I thought, as a fundamental level, as a people,
it'd be nice if we all understood exactly what was happening,
but someone had to piece it together because it gets
very confusing and muddle to distinguish between all the various cases.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah, I wish I could see the way that you
put this book together, because You're right, there's so much
information and is it credible? And how much fact checking
did you have to do? I mean, and then we
got to put it together?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Oh my god, it's incredibly rigorous. I'm very blessed to
have a great research team. Everyone who helps me is
an alum of Peter Schweizer's Government Accountability Institute, So luckily
I'm connected with some of the best in the game
on this stuff. And technology gets better, it gets easier
to fact check, but the fact checking process is very rigorous.
You're very time consuming. I always say that I'm blessed
(01:38):
to do I have a great job, and it's my
work is really pleasurable in general. But writing books is
the hardest thing I do because you do have to
keep track of so many moving parts at once, and
you have to build a trust with the audience. I'm
not playing a short game here. I'm trying to do
this for decades. I'm seventeen years into my career. I
(01:59):
want to do this for thirty more years, and I'm
going to build trust with an audience that they have
to know that if they read something that I wrote,
that I've done my due diligence. So they can take
it to the bank, they could take it to their barbecue,
they can take the polling place, whatever they want to
do when they want to convince someone that this is
the way, this is the truth, that they can trust me.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, you start off the book with an quote from Aristotle.
I mean that right there, gets your attention and says,
this man's not screwing around. I mean Aristotle said, at
his best man is the noblest of all animals, separated
from law and justice, He's the worst mind God. That
just says, hey, dude, wake up, wake up.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
It's about guy that Aristotle. You know a lot of
good quotes. I chose this one. I thank you for that.
It was fun to I had a few quote ideas,
but for an epigraph, I've never done one before, but
I like this one. It spoke to me because it
feels like in America we have to look at some
of the fundamentals that make us a special place. And
(02:57):
I think one of the things that separates us from
the third world is that we have a concept of
belief that there is equal justice under the law, that
there is one tier of justice and it's for everyone,
it applies to everyone, and that faith has gotten shaken,
and that's not acceptable that if we want to be
(03:18):
a democracy, one of the fundamentals and I know we're
a constitutional republican. People can feel free to message me
online and take issue with that characterization, but we colloquially
call it a democracy. And if we want to be
a democracy, we have to have law and order. Law
and order has to reign supreme. And it feels like
half the country, maybe not half, but you know, thirty
(03:39):
forty percent at least feel as though the law actually
gets in the way of them achieving their political goals
and objectives. And that is not sustainable. It's not sustainable.
And someone had to call a warning shot, and that's
what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Do you feel like that we're right in the middle
of an evolution, you know, I mean, legal institutions are
being repurposed. I mean, it's like there's so much change
going on. But with that change, though identification. You're teaching
people what is really going on.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
It's precisely that it's precisely an evolution, and it's really
a de evolution or devolution. I don't know how to
pronounced that I read a lot, so I don't know
to pronounce certain words that I've read a million times.
But I tracked the history of law here. It started
with Franklin Roosevelt that he wanted to pack the court.
He saw the legal system as a nuisance to get
in the way of his political ambitions. And it accelerated
(04:29):
from there with more activist judges being chosen for the court.
And I go through all this history really accelerated with
Joe Biden, who is a terrible law student of play darist,
barely survived law school, went on to lead the Senate
Judiciary Committee and block nominees like Robert Bork who he
didn't like politically, and then even went to hyperdrive with
(04:51):
Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder. So then
you find yourself in this environment where Trump's in people
think he rigged the action because of the Russian collusion
hoax to win himself, and now the laugh is just
totally game on. There is no even pretext or pretense
that they would treat him fairly under the law. That's
(05:14):
what happened. And then we're If you think they're going
to stop because Trump survived, you're going to be kidding me.
The law fair superstructure right now is working three sixty
five twenty four seven in order to try to make
sure that they have control over the next election and
the one after that and the one after that. And
if you do anything to help the bad guys win,
the bad guys meeting us, then they're going to try
(05:35):
to bank you, to platform you, make sure you can't
get a good legal representation. They are dead serious. And
this is a big warning in that regard.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
That is so interesting that you say that, because it
is it's almost like they're living in a future that
hasn't been written yet. But by god, we're going to
do everything we can to get there before anybody else.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
That's the move. That's what they're doing. And while I
think that there's a fun part of the book, which
is that we are in investigation season, and I give
you a blueprint of where the investigations are going to
take place. I'm one for one so far. The first
investigation I wanted was just James, and she's now under investigation.
So we're after a great start. They'll probably be a
half a dozen more, maybe more so, and then you
(06:13):
can understand what's being investigated and why. But then there's
a warning part, the more negative part, which is I
note that the law Faart superstructure is fired up. They're
well funded, they're well organized, and they're working right now
to try to win the next election. And we have
to be deeply engaged in a civic level if we
don't want that to happen.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
One of the things that we're getting burned out on
is the information that we're getting. I mean, conspiracy after
conspiracy after conspiracy, and it's like we're becoming numb and
I don't know if that's the answer, and that we
need people like yourself to kind of give us a
swat upside the head.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah, it's something that I'm very fortunate that I'm able
to do. At bright part is that we've built a
level of credibility, and I'm very grateful for that because
there's so much ways out there. There is so much
a stretching of the truth, and people who are very
persuasively able to articulate things that are not true, that
(07:09):
are false, and it's confusing to people. The right is
much better about this than the left, but both sides,
I think, have been prone lately to exaggerate certain things
in order to get more attention. And I know that luckily,
at bright part we build a reputation for being truth tellers,
and this book does the same thing. You guys can
trust that I've checked everything twice over. I only rely
(07:33):
on the best sources. I rely on firsthand information whenever
humanly possible to try to give you the cold, hard
facts about what's going on, so that when you've read it,
maybe you don't agree with all my conclusions. You'll probably
agree with a lot of them, I'm guessing, but you'll
at least know that I gave it you straight.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
You bring up something that I haven't heard on CNN, Fox,
I haven't even heard it on News Nation. But you
bring up something that really opened up my eyes. You
say that when it comes to the definition of law fare,
it has two parts.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
It's like, oh, you have my attention now.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah. It feels like that if I'm going to define
law fear, then it is it has to be, I
really have to have it thought through. I consider the
use of the legal system against political and cultural adversaries,
so just in general, using the legal system to try
to target a political or cultural foe that you might have,
(08:26):
but also the weaponization of the legal system for partisan
political purposes, which is that I have my side and
I'm going to advance it with the law, which is different.
It's not just picking a target. It's that I'm a
Democrat or I'm a Republican conceivably though more rare. And
I'm only in this because I'm trying to advance a
political narrative, and I find that to be kind of
(08:48):
offensive that people would live that way. But that is
really what it's all about. The law should be about
the law, but it's not. In many cases in this
country right now, it is about politics. And that's a
scary fact.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Please do not move. There's more with Alex marlow coming
up next. Hey, thanks for coming back to my conversation
with Alex Marlowe. Would you say that modern day journalism
is at its peak? And what I mean by that
is that I swear there's better storytelling and there's better
digging in than I've ever experienced in my forty six
years of broadcasting.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
It's a great question. It certainly got some advantages. I
think the speed you're able to access information is amazing,
and it's kind of shocking when you can't. In some ways,
it's funny. I was coincidentally, I was vacationing in Hawaii
during the big tsunami scare, and I was not getting
quick information at that time, and I was kind of surprised.
(09:42):
I thought that we were past this. I thought that
we were all you could just always get the information
you need at this point. But I do think that
there needs to be a level of curation, which is
where I can help, because there's just so much information
now that it's hard to keep track of all of it,
and now that with certain social media apps, you're not
rewarded telling the truth. You're rewarded for being sensationalist and
(10:02):
for exaggerating things. So I feel like there's a lot
of flaws in the system. But the fact that we've
neutralized corporate journalism and replaced it with people who are accountable, directly,
accountable to their audience and not to some corporation that's
funding them, I think is a big development and really positive.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
You make it very clear that this isn't about this
particular administration, that you actually have put this book together
for future generations so that they have a resource outlet
here that they can say, Okay, this is where they were,
I get it, now, this is where we are. I
really need to know it.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
This is the puzzle when you write books, is that
you need them to be relevant immediately and to feel urgent,
but also you would like for them to be if
someone grabs it off the shelf in thirty years, they'll
find something in it. And I do try to do
both of those things. That there are portions of the
book that I believe are histories of a unique and
(10:56):
interesting time that we're going through where there's this massive
change culturally where we start to use the legal system
in a way to play politics more overtly than we
ever have in the past. And so that's there, and
I do write that history. But also there is a immediacy,
there's an urgency to it, because this is an ongoing story.
(11:16):
The story's not over, and we can choose to stand
up against the law fair superstructure and take it seriously,
or we can just you know, go back to the
stuff we like to do, you know, our sports betting
and our toy collections in our video games. And then
we missed the boat here and the Left could take
over the country in the process.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
But Alex, every time we turn around, it's another judge
coming out of the woodwork. It's like, oh my god,
it's always somebody new.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
And this is one of the things we get into
late in the book. I go through the I sort
of I could see this coming without being able to
see it coming. When I started researching the book, I
knew that the way the left was going to try
to win the election was with law fair because they
did no cures candidates. Joe Biden was a terrible candidate.
Kamin Harris was a worst candidate. They had no values.
(12:06):
They're completely out of step with the country when it
comes to things like immigration and when it comes to
things like trade, inflation, war. All that was favorable to
Trump and the Republicans. So how are they going to win?
I figured they would win by trying to jail Trump literally,
try to put him in jail or maybe bankrupt them
and just bum them out to some degree where he
(12:26):
makes some sort of horrible mistake. And so while I
was playing out Trump wins and I'm putting the book together,
and then lo and behold, he gets in. There's un
executive actions. The Democrats don't have a resistance like they
had last time, but they don't have great rallies on Sundays.
They don't have persuasive celebrities trying to bring in new
recruits to their movement. None of that happened. But what
(12:47):
did they have. They had these judges, these district judges
all over the country who were doing these temporary restraining
orders whatever it is, in order to block parts of
the agenda. Were people who were appointed two or acted
by a small constituency to be judges in a small
district of the country, acting as though they had a
veto power over the executive branch of the United States government,
(13:10):
and we were expected to go along with it. Completely.
Wild of that took place, and we just all stood
by powerless.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
See that one more time. That's one of the reasons
why this book is so important, because, I mean, for
a brief second, the Supreme Court made a decision and
all of a sudden it was off the front page
of the newspaper onto the next story, and with your
book you're taking your time to share with us the
right information.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Yeah. I try to do that. And it's the I
could have seen it happen that the Supreme Court says, Okay,
you guys got to stop. And then so what did
the law of these judges do. We're not going to stop, right,
because this is part of their tactic, is that they
can buy time. The most valuable commodity in an executive branch,
in an administration is time. There's only a certain amount
of time that you have to do stuff. That's one
(13:53):
of the reason why Trump likes to move fast and
break things is he's hyper conscious of this. But so
is the left. So is the law fair superstructure, so
you get things. Here's my analogy. One of the most
offensive things in the book, as I go through the
Jack Smith Special Council, where he was in charge of
two cases that were that could have conceivably taken out
(14:15):
Trump maybe landed him in jail. His whole job was unconstitutional.
He never had a job. His job was fake. It
was created by Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice,
and he was able to operate with impunity for eighteen months.
Subpoenaing documents harassing people, getting people under oath depositions, being
(14:35):
able to leak that information the Washington Post, to control
the media narrative, and all that time he had no
right to do any of it. And so what do
they do. Okay, it's determined that he's unconstitutional, that he
sent out a bunch of apologies. Does is there any
retribution or damages that's done for all the people who
were harassed and bothered during this No, of course not
all their time was wasted. Their lives remained miserable, and
(14:57):
that's fine with them. That's part of the process for
people on the lawfair left is that they're willing to
waste your time. That's what these judges are doing in
these courts around the country right now, these district judges,
they're completely comfortable with wasting our time because that's fine
with them. They don't want us to succeed anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
With your ear on the ground, how do you see
that investigation on Jack you know, going, because I mean,
it's going to be very interesting to find out what
they uncover in his journey.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, the fact that his whole appointment was unconstitutional. I'm
curious to see when people started to figure that out
and whether or not they went ahead anyway, So just
know that if you're willing to go through the extent
that they went through to do the law fair that
they did, and to have it turn out to be
entirely unconstitutional, it does make you think that what else
(15:46):
were they willing to cover up? And this is one
of these things where why you have to start these
investigations because you don't know what you're going to find.
You don't know what emails are out there, you don't
know what documents are out there. Because if you knew
they were willing to go through this farce for eighteen
months the middle of an election, so we've never seen
before in American history this level of election manipulation. And
they could go through it with a straight face and
(16:07):
actry Jacksmith with some sort of a hero, then what
else were they doing that was crazy? That's all the
stuff we need to figure out. We need to demand answers.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
The conspiracy to prove a conspiracy, Oh my god, I
have done so much research on the definition of conspiracy,
and then that leads you to another conspiracy and another conspiracy.
It's just an ongoing you know, just so it's.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
A war yeah, it is a war, and it's one
of these things where the law fair is a front
in a war and their battles within that. But that's
why I talk about the culture wars and how we
neutralized Hollywood to large degree, we neutralize the establishment media
to a large extent. But the left is always looking
(16:53):
for a new battle fronts. They're looking for new places
to try to manipulate the public, control the public, and
they use what's available to them. They co opt a
lot of the corporate boardrooms. That was a new front. But
it is one of these things that where the conspiracy
to prove a conspiracy was specifically in reference to the
(17:13):
Georgia Rico case where Fannie Willis was trying to use
racketeering basically treating Trump like he was running some sort
of a criminal enterprise to try to steal the election
in twenty twenty Georgia, and there was a big conspiracy
that was taking place there in her Georgia courtroom because
she this guy named Jeff DeSantis, who was a Joe
(17:34):
Biden aid who came to her courtroom to prosecute Trump.
In the meantime, she'd hired her boyfriend Nathan Wade, who
was a family lawyer. He did divorces and pre nups
and he works for her. They get a bunch of
money for it, and this family lawyer is now on
a mafia case. Essentially, he got two eight hour White
(17:55):
House visits. To this day, we have no idea what
was discussed there, but we know what was discussed. Why
would Nathan Way to nobody get invited to the White
House twice for eight hours at a time. There's only
one possible reason, and that's to talk about the efforts
to get Trump. So even though they were trying to
treat it as though Trump was running some sort of
a criminal conspiracy, there was clearly forces conspiring against Trump
in that case.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Wow, dude, you got to come back to this show
anytime in the future. The door is always going to
be open for you.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That's very kind of you. It's really nice to meet you. Er.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Will you be brilliant today?
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Okay, Alex, thank you, my friend.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.