Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. As
Speaker 1: I announced last week, this is the first time my
Speaker 1: podcast coming out twice in a week, so that means
Speaker 1: twice as much data and stories and mean So thank
Speaker 1: you all for being here again this week. Please like
Speaker 1: and subscribe and give me a five star review to
Speaker 1: wherever you're listening. It really helps from the podcast. In
Speaker 1: December nineteen sixty, the band The Crickets released a new
Speaker 1: iconic song where they declared I fought the law and
Speaker 1: the law won. When the song was covered by The
Speaker 1: Clash in nineteen seventy nine, it became a punk rock classic.
Speaker 1: Turned to twenty twenty five, and President Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: having his own fight with the legal world. It's not
Speaker 1: over a girl or a gun like the Cricket song,
Speaker 1: but it's over executive orders and liberal judges' efforts to
Speaker 1: stop his agenda. From the start of his administration to
Speaker 1: April first, President Trump has signed one hundred and nine
Speaker 1: executive orders and there have been fifty three rulings by
Speaker 1: district court judges to halt his actions. Now, I think
Speaker 1: it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of judges
Speaker 1: for a second, district court judges are lower on the
Speaker 1: level of federal judiciary. There are six hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: judges who receive a lifetime appointment by the president, and
Speaker 1: like the titlet in their job describes, they're just allowed
Speaker 1: to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint
Speaker 1: is heard at the district level, it makes its way
Speaker 1: up to the appellate court in each respective region of
Speaker 1: the country, and there are thirteen appellate courts in the
Speaker 1: entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over
Speaker 1: the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have
Speaker 1: become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of
Speaker 1: the court and how it has become substantially more conservative,
Speaker 1: especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people
Speaker 1: and the media have paid less attention to is how
Speaker 1: much President Obama, Trump, and Biden have remade the lower courts.
Speaker 1: President Obama appointed fifty five Appellate Court judges in two
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty eight circuit court judges over his two terms.
Speaker 1: President Trump appointed fifty four appellate Court judges, almost as
Speaker 1: much as President Obama in two terms. In one and
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy four court judges. President Biden appointed
Speaker 1: forty five appellate court judges but one hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: seven Circuit court judges, so President Biden got the most
Speaker 1: amount of judges in the least amount of time. That
Speaker 1: means if you're a liberal organization like the ACLU, the
Speaker 1: Campaign Legal Center, or the State Democracy Defender's Fund, you
Speaker 1: have over one hundred appellate court judges and four hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty five district court judges appointed by the last
Speaker 1: two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues,
Speaker 1: not to mention the judges who were brought in during
Speaker 1: the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called judge shopping,
Speaker 1: where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges
Speaker 1: to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions, and hold
Speaker 1: everything up in court for months and sometimes for well
Speaker 1: over a year. This was evident during the first term
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, when a number of executive orders
Speaker 1: were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent
Speaker 1: up to a year or closer a year in legal
Speaker 1: limbo because of district court judges. One such case was
Speaker 1: Judge on Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's
Speaker 1: Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of
Speaker 1: liberal activists since his decision in twenty fifteen to force
Speaker 1: the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer fund and
Speaker 1: medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's as crazy, Yes, you're hearing it as what I'm
Speaker 1: reading it, So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery
Speaker 1: to inmates. In twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen, Judge Tigar
Speaker 1: issued Nation one injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny
Speaker 1: asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal
Speaker 1: ports of entry, and against his Safe Third Country agreement
Speaker 1: were asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries
Speaker 1: countries they could have declared asylum and but didn't they
Speaker 1: waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional
Speaker 1: as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was
Speaker 1: another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii.
Speaker 1: On March fifteen, twenty seventeen, he ruled that Trump's travel
Speaker 1: ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed
Speaker 1: a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. It means he
Speaker 1: couldn't enforce it. It wasn't until June twenty six, twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court finally weighed in and Trump the
Speaker 1: Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal,
Speaker 1: and followed decades of legal president where the president has
Speaker 1: the right to control who and who is an admittency
Speaker 1: the United States. Fast forward twenty twenty five. Thirteen Court
Speaker 1: District Court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush,
Speaker 1: three by Obama, and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are
Speaker 1: still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary holds
Speaker 1: on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell, Junior,
Speaker 1: and Obama appointed judge, placed a nationwide hold on Trump's
Speaker 1: freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge
Speaker 1: who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on
Speaker 1: cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USIAD
Speaker 1: and in the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush
Speaker 1: appointed judge, that it was illegal for Trump to fin
Speaker 1: fire federal workers that worked under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
Speaker 1: And then there's John Bassberg, an Obama appointed judge who
Speaker 1: ruled a Trump's use of the Alien's Edition Act that
Speaker 1: was created in seventeen ninety eight was illegal and even
Speaker 1: said that it was the responsibility of the American government
Speaker 1: to fight illegal aliens who were deported back into the
Speaker 1: United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide
Speaker 1: injunctions against a single president. During the first from the
Speaker 1: Trumpet presidency, he had sixty four nationwide injunctions. This is
Speaker 1: more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined.
Speaker 1: My buddy josh Hammer, a very smart guy who should
Speaker 1: follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented.
Speaker 1: And Judge Clarence Thomas Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in
Speaker 1: his decision over Trump the Hawaii district court judges do
Speaker 1: not have this insane right to is that they're to
Speaker 1: actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of
Speaker 1: the entire nation. During a call with josh, I describe
Speaker 1: a situation and Joshua basically there were no nationwide injunctions
Speaker 1: before the nineteen sixties that this judicial power laid on
Speaker 1: an article through the Constitution does not have the right
Speaker 1: to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have
Speaker 1: the ability, however, to reign in the power of district
Speaker 1: court judges and abolish it tomorrow. The Congress could solve
Speaker 1: this issue tomorrow. Actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he
Speaker 1: put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America
Speaker 1: is not a nation governed by a king, and these
Speaker 1: judges remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown.
Speaker 2: You're listening to it's a numbers game with Ryan Gradsky.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back to quote Wenny Williams, my guest
Speaker 1: this week, is a legend. She's an icon. She is
Speaker 1: the moment and culture. A best selling writer has an
Speaker 1: amazing substack you should all subscribe to. I'll put in
Speaker 1: the link below and thank you for being here.
Speaker 3: Well, this is quite a switch.
Speaker 4: You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on
Speaker 4: a substat which I know.
Speaker 1: I was thinking that before. I've never interviewed you before,
Speaker 1: so this is a big deal. So, and I said
Speaker 1: in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done
Speaker 1: a number on the Trump administration and putting federal injunctions
Speaker 1: from a local district court judge. This is unprescedented. First
Speaker 1: in Volume be two, that it's happening on issues that
Speaker 1: the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration.
Speaker 1: Do you We've talked this privately, but is this normal?
Speaker 4: Like what?
Speaker 1: What? Like? How does a federal judge in San Francisco
Speaker 1: have ruling over the whole country on immigration?
Speaker 4: No, it's really shocking, and I am hoping and I
Speaker 4: think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to
Speaker 4: put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what
Speaker 4: you say, a lot of their rulings are things that
Speaker 4: are clearly part of the president's plenary power, like immigration.
Speaker 4: I wrote about it in my column this week, remember
Speaker 4: or the Arizona whatever it was, speed ten or something.
Speaker 4: Chris Coback wrote it, and by the way, the paper's
Speaker 4: police part of the law was upheld, but the rest
Speaker 4: of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going
Speaker 4: to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know,
Speaker 4: passed by the House and the Senate and then signed
Speaker 4: by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All
Speaker 4: Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court found that no, the president has control
Speaker 4: over immigration because of his soul control over international relations.
Speaker 4: And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law,
Speaker 4: Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law, which was
Speaker 4: I think was kind of crazy enough. During the Clinton administration,
Speaker 4: little eight year old Eleon Gonzalez was sent back to
Speaker 4: a brutal communist dictatorship.
Speaker 3: And what was the reasoning on that? One thing? And
Speaker 3: one thing?
Speaker 4: The president has exclusive plenary power over immigration if Clinton
Speaker 4: wanted to send him back, Clinton send him back, and
Speaker 4: he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send
Speaker 4: him back. Most recently and not covered heavily by by
Speaker 4: the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato,
Speaker 4: you'll like this when Trump. When Trump issued his I
Speaker 4: don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to
Speaker 4: call it the Muslim band. It warms my heart. When
Speaker 4: he issued his Muslim band, the New York Times op
Speaker 4: ed page was bristling with with opinion pieces hot sneering
Speaker 4: this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute.
Speaker 4: I looked him up at the time, and he went
Speaker 4: to I mean, normally I don't I don't raise these things,
Speaker 4: as you always point out.
Speaker 3: You're a college dropout and you're one of the people
Speaker 3: I know. But this guy went to an utterly bush
Speaker 3: lea in college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have.
Speaker 4: You ever published anyone who went to this college before
Speaker 4: put Oh he comes on and sneers about how, oh
Speaker 4: Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history Muslim ban
Speaker 4: upheld by the Supreme Court, and why because the president
Speaker 4: has exclusives.
Speaker 3: Power over immigration.
Speaker 4: So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders.
Speaker 4: This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers
Speaker 4: in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean the
Speaker 4: number of district course one thing I will give the
Speaker 4: New York Times credit for.
Speaker 3: I salute them here.
Speaker 4: I was looking through some of the some of the
Speaker 4: cases there are twenty seven district court rulings on arguing
Speaker 4: we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, blindingly
Speaker 4: unconstitutional for them to do this.
Speaker 3: Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the
Speaker 3: New York Times.
Speaker 4: List was which I've noticed they have not been doing
Speaker 4: all the time. You have to go look it up yourself,
Speaker 4: but I think probably enough people were asking it was
Speaker 4: Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge,
Speaker 4: Biden judge.
Speaker 3: It's overwhelmingly democratic.
Speaker 1: There's like two or three Bush judges, one ray in
Speaker 1: Dress judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all
Speaker 1: Biden Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The judge
Speaker 1: the case you mentioned, which is the Trump and the
Speaker 1: Hawaii case over the Muslim band, which wasn't a Muslim ban,
Speaker 1: but we'll.
Speaker 3: Call it that.
Speaker 1: There was, if not decades one hundred years of precedent,
Speaker 1: the president has exclusive power to deny entry to any
Speaker 1: alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or
Speaker 1: not for the benefit of the United States. And they
Speaker 1: were like, no, I no, I don't believe it. And
Speaker 1: like Clarence Thomas in his in his opinion, in his
Speaker 1: ruling the approve running so there and said, did your
Speaker 1: court judges don't have the right to do this. They
Speaker 1: just this is insane.
Speaker 4: Yes, he is insane, and I mean I Trump seems
Speaker 4: pretty cheeky about all this. He's my favorite, My favorite
Speaker 4: case is the administration admitted.
Speaker 3: That they inadvertently deported.
Speaker 4: Someone who wasn't maybe definitely a gang member, and he's
Speaker 4: now in an l.
Speaker 1: S gang member, maybe gang member Jason.
Speaker 4: But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have
Speaker 4: exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back,
Speaker 4: which I'm totally totally in favor of.
Speaker 3: I can't believe how great this Trump administration is.
Speaker 1: As you know, we'll get back to that in a second.
Speaker 1: But it is the fact that an American judge said
Speaker 1: to a present, you need to bring back someone who
Speaker 1: was here illegally. That alone the two things that infuriate me,
Speaker 1: and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that.
Speaker 1: The second one is that when I read somebody says
Speaker 1: born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there, and
Speaker 1: as a forty year old, like you've been in America
Speaker 1: for how long we're or you were a federal judge exactly,
Speaker 1: that was noticeable too.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad you mentioned that Ryan grew Dusky.
Speaker 4: I suspect do you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican
Speaker 4: rapist speech, there was somebody was suing him. I forget
Speaker 4: what it was for you probably remember.
Speaker 1: I remember that he complained about the case. Yes, I
Speaker 1: remember that he was Mexican. The judge the case.
Speaker 3: Do you remember the case. I don't remember the case.
Speaker 1: I remember the inderal case, but I remember the judge
Speaker 1: was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judges
Speaker 1: partisan because he was born in Mexican.
Speaker 3: Right, That's what I wanted to address here.
Speaker 4: Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh how
Speaker 4: dare you mention that he's a Mexican? Okay, except for
Speaker 4: my entire life, I have been told that a criminal
Speaker 4: conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white
Speaker 4: people on the journey. So we cannot trust white Americans
Speaker 4: steeped in the Magna carta and the rule of law,
Speaker 4: who have been here for generations to rule on a
Speaker 4: criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors,
Speaker 4: well that it's just prime facia. That can't be a
Speaker 4: correct jury verdict. Nope, throwing out the conviction. But Trump
Speaker 4: meant mentions that this guy is a Mexican. With the
Speaker 4: entire media is claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.
Speaker 1: It's like there's a movie I forget what it was,
Speaker 1: was like a who done it? And they were like,
Speaker 1: I mean it was a lib woke movie during COVID
Speaker 1: or during BLM, and they were like, the Mexican character
Speaker 1: was so pure they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up.
Speaker 1: It's that's how they treat a lot of these form
Speaker 1: board judges who do make rulings, and I'm sorry they are.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how you could be in America for
Speaker 1: less than I don't know, fifty years and you're sitting
Speaker 1: there and you're making rulings for the country as a whole.
Speaker 1: President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim
Speaker 1: ban or whatever last of it was, he had more
Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. And he said
Speaker 1: to Eclipse that during this term.
Speaker 4: Yes, now I think he should ignore them. He is
Speaker 4: doing the right thing. This is a point I've made.
Speaker 4: I'm not just making it for Trump.
Speaker 3: I just looked it up. I think I made it when.
Speaker 4: Bush was president and the issue was military trials for
Speaker 4: terrorists captured on the battle field in the commander in
Speaker 4: chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say, and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 4: we want them in an Article three court.
Speaker 3: They must be in an Article three And at the.
Speaker 4: Time, I've always argued these are three co equal. I
Speaker 4: love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal
Speaker 4: branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the
Speaker 4: executive branch, which is.
Speaker 3: Equal to the entire judiciary.
Speaker 4: One man holds the power of all the executive power
Speaker 4: of the United States, the legislature, you know, white camera legislation.
Speaker 3: Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges
Speaker 3: hold like one.
Speaker 4: Even even acting as if you know, Chief Justice John
Speaker 4: Roberts is as important as some puny district Court judge,
Speaker 4: it's still about one two thousandth of the people.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 1: There are eight over eight hundred district cork and Appellate
Speaker 1: court judges. So the fact that there are six hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy district court judges so more than Congress, more
Speaker 1: than both houses combined. No Senator can make a ruling
Speaker 1: for the entire United States, but one of six hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy ken It makes it feel like there is
Speaker 1: a judicial supremacy versus a coequal branch.
Speaker 4: Yes, and I'm pretty sure there are at least five
Speaker 4: justices who would agree with that. I not only should
Speaker 4: Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start
Speaker 4: calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see
Speaker 4: you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the
Speaker 4: docket coming up. Would you mind setting a tenth chair
Speaker 4: up on the dais because I'd like to hear the
Speaker 4: oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should
Speaker 4: start writing to district court judges. I would like to
Speaker 4: be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a
Speaker 4: ruling on that. It is just it is totally beyond
Speaker 4: the power of judges what they're doing.
Speaker 3: And you know, maybe I'll write about this.
Speaker 4: But besides the fact that the president completely should be
Speaker 4: ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and
Speaker 4: asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging
Speaker 4: in criminal sentencing.
Speaker 3: This is an.
Speaker 4: Extension of the left using the courts to get what
Speaker 4: they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think
Speaker 4: to explain this simply because the course have been doing
Speaker 4: this for such a long time, most people don't even
Speaker 4: recognize the outrage that is going on courts, all courts,
Speaker 4: including the Supreme Court. Per the Constitution, decide cases and
Speaker 4: controversies the parties before them. That is what they are deciding.
Speaker 4: They aren't finding anyone else to these cases. Now, they
Speaker 4: may have to interpret a law in order to decide
Speaker 4: that case or controversy.
Speaker 3: But the way all courts.
Speaker 4: Have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, where
Speaker 4: I don't know, I think most of my life is
Speaker 4: let's look at the law and the Constitution and we
Speaker 4: will prommel gates an.
Speaker 3: Overarching rule for the entire country.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's making a law that isn't deciding.
Speaker 3: A case or controversy between two parties.
Speaker 4: So, for example, one of the cases I wrote about
Speaker 4: this week, which I made clear in my column, the
Speaker 4: Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically, what the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court did was decide a case between Students for Fair
Speaker 4: Admissions versus Harvard.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 4: By implication, every other college and university in America. I mean,
Speaker 4: I guess they can start, you know, just openly continue. Well,
Speaker 4: they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue
Speaker 4: each one of these over and over and over again,
Speaker 4: but you're just going to get these procureum decisions by
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court right.
Speaker 1: If you're a lawyer and you want to make a
Speaker 1: lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way,
Speaker 1: law schools, business schools, states, businesses. I mean for NTUIE discrimination,
Speaker 1: you have a cattle cade ahead of you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy
Speaker 4: to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause
Speaker 4: given providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or
Speaker 4: I might add or write to gay marriage that you
Speaker 4: can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's
Speaker 4: nothing about gay marriage.
Speaker 3: But we are so used to courts issuing.
Speaker 4: Over arching rules by e laws and then applying the
Speaker 4: law they have just invented to the dispute before them
Speaker 4: that most people I think don't recognize.
Speaker 3: No, they're getting this exactly backwards.
Speaker 4: And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: They aren't a legislature.
Speaker 4: We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide
Speaker 4: cases and controversies.
Speaker 1: Right, And it's a very post I mean it's post FDR,
Speaker 1: but it's even really post Johnson that they or post Kennedy,
Speaker 1: rather that they really just started becoming the de facto
Speaker 1: decider of national policy eradicating both legislative rights but also
Speaker 1: state rights in the meantime.
Speaker 4: Yes, And I'd add that the Constitution says, this is
Speaker 4: a rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies when
Speaker 4: the law. I don't know this is the Constitution or
Speaker 4: one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and
Speaker 4: facts when the laws and facts.
Speaker 3: Are disputed by two people, two parties. The party could
Speaker 3: be Harvard.
Speaker 4: So you know, notice in this phraseology used by.
Speaker 3: Our founding fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments.
Speaker 3: I think it's just.
Speaker 4: I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy and
Speaker 4: any even it doesn't stay using their policy judgment to
Speaker 4: decide the cases. When two parties disagree law and facts,
Speaker 4: that's it they decided. Then they bind only those parties.
Speaker 4: Now another party comes along and makes the exact same argument.
Speaker 4: It could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on.
Speaker 4: But technically the Court is deciding only the case of
Speaker 4: the two parties before. And so imagine these nationwide injunctions,
Speaker 4: I mean talk about making laws.
Speaker 3: It's it's so beyond the pale.
Speaker 1: Because Trumpy Hawaii mentioned before which was the Muslim ban.
Speaker 1: It took sixteen months to go from district court to
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. You do that two or three times, and
Speaker 1: the administration's over. It's done, with the next presence to go.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is, through both
Speaker 1: judge shopping and through law fair in this practice of
Speaker 1: finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge
Speaker 1: that will hold it up, and then you know, Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit or whatever circuit holds it until the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: finally hears it and you start another lass in the
Speaker 1: same issue. It just goes on and on on. What
Speaker 1: has surprised you the most about the tru administration thus far.
Speaker 3: That I'm in heaven every day.
Speaker 1: We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.
Speaker 3: We finally got the president. I voted for them.
Speaker 4: We finally got the president I wrote a book about,
Speaker 4: I campaigned with in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: We finally got them.
Speaker 4: I'm and thank you liberals for just an absurd number
Speaker 4: of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot
Speaker 4: in Colorado and the New York and Latisia.
Speaker 3: James and Atlanta.
Speaker 4: They were all preposterous, as I think I've said before,
Speaker 4: the only case where there was actual a law broken
Speaker 4: was the documents he had squirreled away at mar A Lago.
Speaker 4: But you know, considering and he did, and he did
Speaker 4: sort of egregiously refuse to return them. I don't know
Speaker 4: that a dawn raid was necessary.
Speaker 3: I don't think they right Malani is underpants draw.
Speaker 1: Right, right right? I mean, knowing who he is, it
Speaker 1: wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell
Speaker 1: this to the Russians. It was probably just to show
Speaker 1: his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who
Speaker 1: Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody. How
Speaker 1: what the president?
Speaker 4: Oh what if he sells them to the enemy. No,
Speaker 4: it was one to brag about him. And look at
Speaker 4: this letter I got from Kim John.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's been extremely aggressive on immigration, on trade.
Speaker 1: I I know we're going to agree, So what's I mean?
Speaker 1: I hate him asking this question. They know what's going
Speaker 1: to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks
Speaker 1: volumes to this administration, and.
Speaker 3: No one giving Stephen Miller the run of the place.
Speaker 3: You know when they.
Speaker 4: Okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there, and maybe you
Speaker 4: are going to save the country now. But when Trump
Speaker 4: signed his third funding bill term one, as he's about
Speaker 4: to lose, I think that was right. But we still
Speaker 4: had the Republican House in the sense, yeah, with.
Speaker 3: No Wall funding.
Speaker 4: And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was
Speaker 4: only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up
Speaker 4: on when it was actually Drudge threw it up on
Speaker 4: the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the
Speaker 4: third funding bill you are signing. You've said the last
Speaker 4: two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without
Speaker 4: without Wall funding.
Speaker 3: And I emailed.
Speaker 4: Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations,
Speaker 4: you've wrecked the country.
Speaker 3: He's made up for it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know what I respect about you and
Speaker 1: I want to say to you on my podcast is
Speaker 1: that unlike ninety nine point ninety nine eight percent of
Speaker 1: the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek
Speaker 1: to be to lose yourself in order to stay in
Speaker 1: the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does.
Speaker 1: They don't care what they say, what they believe, because
Speaker 1: they want to be in the sphere of influence. What
Speaker 1: has changed in your I think third decade in political
Speaker 1: media as far as the media, the way that political
Speaker 1: figures have influenced politicians, I mean, was only three cable
Speaker 1: news networking. I'm SOMEBCCN in the box news. It was
Speaker 1: a much more you know, they package what a Republican
Speaker 1: was supposed to sound like. And you were always out
Speaker 1: of the box because and you were interesting because you're
Speaker 1: out of the box. What is it now like when
Speaker 1: you have social media and a million because it feels
Speaker 1: like there should be more different opinions, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot more of the same. They all want to be
Speaker 1: in the sphere of influence.
Speaker 4: Yes, And actually, the way the reason I even remember
Speaker 4: what the answer to that question is, that's how I
Speaker 4: began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Because until
Speaker 4: I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 4: I didn't own a TV. And then I got one
Speaker 4: because I wanted to be able to.
Speaker 3: Watch c SPAN because I'm cool that way.
Speaker 4: And so for the first time I'm watching TV while
Speaker 4: while workings in a Judiciary committee, and then and then
Speaker 4: doing a lot of TV on on. Luckily we had
Speaker 4: a president who was a felon, which was really.
Speaker 3: Great for a lawyer trying to not practice law.
Speaker 4: And what I noticed was, for one thing, the hurting everyone,
Speaker 4: everyone will say the same thing, and for protection who
Speaker 4: I don't know who the first person is, you know
Speaker 4: who's the first move or here, and then they will
Speaker 4: all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize
Speaker 4: what the rules were, so I'd come along and the
Speaker 4: first like ten times this happened, I thought, Wow, I
Speaker 4: must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong.
Speaker 4: For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come
Speaker 4: out on Jones v. Clinton or I guess at that
Speaker 4: point it was Clinton v.
Speaker 3: Jones.
Speaker 4: I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going
Speaker 4: to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course
Speaker 4: she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the
Speaker 4: only person saying that. I was writing the article. The
Speaker 4: day after the night of the Supreme Court argument, I
Speaker 4: hear the flop of the New York Times in front
Speaker 4: of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda
Speaker 4: Greenhouse and what everyone was saying was they're going to
Speaker 4: split the baby, split the baby. She'll be able to sue,
Speaker 4: but it won't be during his presidency. They're going to
Speaker 4: split the baby. And it did make me sit back
Speaker 4: and think, am I Am I wrong about this? And no,
Speaker 4: I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think
Speaker 4: I'm right, and I swear to you, Ryan grew Dusky.
Speaker 4: I was the only person saying that. But then when
Speaker 4: the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but
Speaker 4: you know, a little pat on the head would be nice.
Speaker 3: No, no one will remember it. And why will no
Speaker 3: one remember it?
Speaker 4: Because they all were saying the same wrong thing, so
Speaker 4: no one can point it out.
Speaker 1: And you, yeah, and you still have today, is that
Speaker 1: the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable, Like it's
Speaker 1: acceptable even in like the conserved ghetto, as I call it,
Speaker 1: Like this is what the opinion is. It could be
Speaker 1: asked and it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear
Speaker 1: like during the first step back when Trump passes. Not
Speaker 1: to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a
Speaker 1: bad bill that he said.
Speaker 3: Now his first term really sucks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he would say the first step back, which
Speaker 1: was horrendous, and he later, according to several juris, regretted it.
Speaker 1: But you would hear conservatives. Conservatives sit there and say, well, here,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing
Speaker 1: a majority of crimes, and how racist she is. I'm like,
Speaker 1: she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct, and you
Speaker 1: shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct,
Speaker 1: and it will drive me personally insane.
Speaker 3: I will.
Speaker 4: I think the highlight of the Trumps stupidity term one
Speaker 4: was in his first debate with Biden.
Speaker 3: I include it in like every third column I write. Now.
Speaker 4: It still makes me so angry. After eight months of
Speaker 4: BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide
Speaker 4: rate going through the roof Donald's Trump bragged, I'm letting
Speaker 4: people out of jail now. Black people hate you. You
Speaker 4: call them super predators. And by the way, he didn't
Speaker 4: call black people. Neither Biden or no one else called
Speaker 4: black people super predators. They called super predator super predators.
Speaker 4: As you're we're seeing in New York City right now.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's always the case that like ninety percent
Speaker 4: of the crime is being committed by ten percent of
Speaker 4: the people. Lock them up and you go a long
Speaker 4: way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue.
Speaker 4: It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden
Speaker 4: was that he's weak on crime, not that I'm letting
Speaker 4: people out of jail on that.
Speaker 3: But let's talk about happy days the new Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Now, I go back to the media appointment. What is
Speaker 1: the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media?
Speaker 1: Has it gotten better than it was in the nineties
Speaker 1: or has it gotten in two thousands and tens or
Speaker 1: has it gotten worse.
Speaker 4: Well, they're just as stupid, but and just as heard like.
Speaker 4: But oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done
Speaker 4: a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away
Speaker 4: every single day. When after Romney lost, and long before that,
Speaker 4: I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing
Speaker 4: an aim amnesty.
Speaker 3: McCain did it, Bush did it. Romney didn't.
Speaker 4: But as soon as Romney loses, but he was the
Speaker 4: toughest on immigration, believe it for sure. Yeah, in twenty twelve,
Speaker 4: then you know the RNC I think tank, they get
Speaker 4: together the brains of the operation and their ideas.
Speaker 3: We've got to be for an amnesty.
Speaker 4: And I think Rush was I know Hannity came out
Speaker 4: for an amnesty.
Speaker 3: And so, I mean those were those were dark days.
Speaker 4: It was down to I mean I didn't know you
Speaker 4: then I assume you me Stephen Miller was that drouge
Speaker 4: A few drudge Yeah, basically anyone who's ever lived in LA.
Speaker 4: That great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his
Speaker 4: first name, but he was KABC LA. He wouldn't I
Speaker 4: think he didn't vote for Reagan. He didn't vote for
Speaker 4: Bush because of because.
Speaker 1: That lady from southern California. Two. She was a big
Speaker 1: anti immigration, right remember her name either. There were very
Speaker 1: very Michelle Malkin at the time. She wasn't work anymore
Speaker 1: in the media, but there were very very very few
Speaker 1: because and then we turned out that the autopsy was
Speaker 1: doctor to make it seeling and it wasn't even real
Speaker 1: begin with because special interests always had I tell I
Speaker 1: give special I like talks to people who are like
Speaker 1: twenty one twenty two I employees or twenty one twenty
Speaker 1: two who never knew the nineties, unfortunately, who never knew
Speaker 1: how great America was unfortunately, and they also never knew
Speaker 1: how bad it was in the when I started coming
Speaker 1: writing articles like six o seven, and it was at
Speaker 1: that time and I became a Republican, as I said,
Speaker 1: anyone who's against amnesty for legal immigrants, I am for
Speaker 1: because I saw how it transformed Queens, New York, where
Speaker 1: I'm from born and raised, and I said, this is
Speaker 1: they have like dead chickens in backyards now formerly very
Speaker 1: nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like,
Speaker 1: this is not the neighbor I grew up, and this
Speaker 1: is I see the transformation having for my eyes, and
Speaker 1: it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was,
Speaker 1: even though it's even just that.
Speaker 3: All the idiot talking heads, I mean, it's just stunning
Speaker 3: to me.
Speaker 4: And you know, I'll retweet them sometimes, but they're like
Speaker 4: direct quotes from Adios America, and I don't know if
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 3: Adios America was not well.
Speaker 4: Received at Fox News, it was not well received. It
Speaker 4: wasn't well received by my own publishers, Salem.
Speaker 3: They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I
Speaker 3: used to always do it to promote any other book.
Speaker 4: Now they've actually published this book and I would be
Speaker 4: banned from from.
Speaker 1: Really yeah all of well you told me one time.
Speaker 1: So in publishing, the way it works is if you
Speaker 1: have a first time bestseller, you don't make money off it.
Speaker 1: You make it money off of year advance of your
Speaker 1: second book. You didn't make money for your second book.
Speaker 1: I don't think right. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: No one would publish it.
Speaker 1: What was your second Bookander Slander? And it was a
Speaker 1: bestseller number one?
Speaker 3: All summer.
Speaker 4: I publishers are all summer, but no one would publishing.
Speaker 4: My agent, Jonie Evans, would forward me some of the emails,
Speaker 4: and she was in with all the publishing houses. You
Speaker 4: couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember
Speaker 4: one of them with the publishers saying, we do not
Speaker 4: think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I
Speaker 4: responded to Joni saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought
Speaker 4: publishers made money. And how many books they sold.
Speaker 3: I had no idea.
Speaker 4: It was how many inches they moved the public. And
Speaker 4: there's a chapter in Slander about how publishers they would
Speaker 4: give quotes about how they kept remember that woman Naomi Wolf,
Speaker 4: They kept giving home million dollar advances, they kept losing
Speaker 4: money on them, and then the head of the publishing
Speaker 4: company would say yes, but was so proud to have
Speaker 4: her as an author, and there were all these books.
Speaker 4: Actually it was my mother who pointed this out to me.
Speaker 4: When High Crimes and Mister Meanors was a smash bestseller,
Speaker 4: my mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring
Speaker 4: to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive
Speaker 4: to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny,
Speaker 4: And so I looked up on Nexus and there was
Speaker 4: one massive conservative blockbuster after another, and they were all
Speaker 4: described as surprise best sellers. They were literally published by
Speaker 4: a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale.
Speaker 4: I think Whittaker Chambers witness some of the really big ones.
Speaker 4: Probably the one on true story of Chapelquitica, I don't remember,
Speaker 4: but it's.
Speaker 3: In that chapter.
Speaker 4: And luckily my publisher for Slander was Steve Ross, God
Speaker 4: bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company
Speaker 4: Crown should make money, and so they wanted it. But
Speaker 4: I've been sitting with this book for a year.
Speaker 1: Anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you.
Speaker 1: I wish you would have done it.
Speaker 4: No, but Steve Ross was happy because he he published it,
Speaker 4: and I forced the publishing industry.
Speaker 3: They said it would take a year to turn around.
Speaker 3: That used to be.
Speaker 4: It's hard to believe now given technology, but it used
Speaker 4: to be you'd turn in a book and it would
Speaker 4: come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay,
Speaker 4: this will come out one year later. I said, I
Speaker 4: can't do that. I got to go back to Regnory.
Speaker 4: I just I can't sit with this book anymore. It's
Speaker 4: got to come out now. I know it's got to
Speaker 4: come out now. And and so they fiddled around and
Speaker 4: they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And
Speaker 4: my editor later told me that the reason they were
Speaker 4: resisting so much was they always knew they could do
Speaker 4: it in two months, but no one wanted to work
Speaker 4: that hard. So now everybody well very quickly.
Speaker 3: Now it's so much easier with con writer.
Speaker 1: Well, and thank you so much for coming on my podcast.
Speaker 1: Before I leave you, I have I mean, there's I
Speaker 1: have so many friends who always like, well next to me,
Speaker 1: see An, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, uh,
Speaker 1: you'd probably be too spanished, whatever, but I want to
Speaker 1: ask one of their questions. You very famously had a
Speaker 1: lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and
Speaker 1: Katie Couric, and you know, just like you know spats
Speaker 1: on air, Chris Matthews when you called John Edwards a
Speaker 1: woman one of your best moments. Who is someone on
Speaker 1: TV that you enjoyed personally that you just argued with
Speaker 1: for the for the sake of it on televisor working
Speaker 1: for the political reasons?
Speaker 3: A fair number of them.
Speaker 4: I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously,
Speaker 4: Bill Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on
Speaker 4: CNN who hilariously was canceled for he said something about how.
Speaker 3: Jewish power over.
Speaker 4: The media, and to prove him wrong, they got him fired.
Speaker 3: Way to go, Wow, he was wrong, all right?
Speaker 1: And where can people get your substack? You're fantastic substect
Speaker 1: that everyone should subscribe to.
Speaker 4: Thank you and Culter dot substack dot com. I have
Speaker 4: an interview with Michael Shellenberger comming and right now the
Speaker 4: Seth Dylan interview is up.
Speaker 3: And you got my columns every week.
Speaker 1: Her comms are great, her podcasts are better. And Coulter,
Speaker 1: you're amazing. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 3: Good to talk to you. Ryan, You're dusky.
Speaker 2: Hey, we'll be right back after this This is the
Speaker 2: ask Me Anything part of the show where listeners can
Speaker 2: sit there and send me an email Ryan at Numbers
Speaker 2: Game podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: That's ryanat numbers Plural podcast dot com. Chew me an
Speaker 1: email about literally anything, and I'll ask. I'll answer for
Speaker 1: you the best my ability. This question comes from Wes
Speaker 1: West asked, your school board pack did very well in
Speaker 1: Wisconsin while the Supreme Court candidate lost by double digits.
Speaker 1: Why do you think you were successful locally more than statewide?
Speaker 1: Conservatives work? That's a great question. So I have a
Speaker 1: school board pack the seventeen seventy six project. We do
Speaker 1: school board races across the country. We did I think
Speaker 1: twenty seven races in Wisconsin and we won twenty of
Speaker 1: the twenty seven twenty six We had a seventy five
Speaker 1: percent victory rate in a day that wasn't very good
Speaker 1: for Republicans. Statewide one, school boards are more localized, so
Speaker 1: we had a lot of regions that were very conservative
Speaker 1: and they voted for the conservative judge. Those a conservative
Speaker 1: rather school board canate as well as a conservative judge.
Speaker 1: That partly benefited us. But I think when he comes
Speaker 1: to Wisconsin and why Republicans and Conservatives fell short. I
Speaker 1: think there's a number of reasons. One, I think Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: I know Conservatives love him, but among Americans as a whole,
Speaker 1: they don't like Elon. Elon's favorability ratings are very low,
Speaker 1: much lower than President Trump's or Vice president of vanceas
Speaker 1: he comes across as you know, obviously very wealthy and
Speaker 1: possibly doing business with a federal government or having control
Speaker 1: in federal government that he gets brands from which people find,
Speaker 1: you know, not tasteful. But they find him weird. That's
Speaker 1: just the truth of the matter. They find him weird.
Speaker 1: He's somebody who's talked about things like putting chips in
Speaker 1: people's brains and having you know, multi planet empires, and
Speaker 1: he's just talked about things about humanity and a post
Speaker 1: human world that I think people find very very off putting,
Speaker 1: including Republicans, including Christians. That makes people question things. His
Speaker 1: love of AI, I think gives a lot of people
Speaker 1: some anxiety. So him going to Iowa doing events, being
Speaker 1: the face of the rally instead of something like Trump,
Speaker 1: I think actually hurt the conservative candidate. Secondly, on early vote,
Speaker 1: the Democrats did a very robust early vote plan. They
Speaker 1: got people out early, so on election theydempt to wait
Speaker 1: for election day. We've seen this problem for so long.
Speaker 1: Republicans like we have seen this problem constantly where we
Speaker 1: do not get our lowro pensity voters out and they
Speaker 1: get theirs out through the early voting system. Republicans got
Speaker 1: a lot of voters out. We had a good candidate,
Speaker 1: he did a hard work, he did a good job.
Speaker 1: He wasn't a bad candidate. But election day, just the
Speaker 1: way we run elections now, it starts way before the
Speaker 1: actual first Tuesday November. It starts months ahead of time
Speaker 1: in some places because the early vote, and we have
Speaker 1: to treat it like that. And I think that lastly,
Speaker 1: as I said before, we worked in certain regions like
Speaker 1: Waukesha County and other counties that may be more conservative
Speaker 1: than to it, and we were reinforcing conservative margins. We
Speaker 1: did flip two school board districts, but that mattered immensely
Speaker 1: to it. But I think that when it comes to
Speaker 1: Wisconsin and all future elections, I don't think that Elon
Speaker 1: Musk should be the face of the of the anti
Speaker 1: liberal movement. I just think that people find him strange
Speaker 1: at best and off putting at worse. The Roman salute
Speaker 1: Nazis lootsuff doesn't help, and we have to do a
Speaker 1: better job of that. I'm not saying he has no value.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 1: But for the face of voters when they question who
Speaker 1: would you like to have a beer with? I think
Speaker 1: they might like to ask elon a couple questions, But
Speaker 1: autistic men in their mid forties with fourteen kids, team kids,
Speaker 1: what HA made is with five or four different women
Speaker 1: is not their first choice. That's my best opinion of it.
Speaker 1: And that's why I think we do better locally than
Speaker 1: conservatives did statewide. Anyway, thank you so much. Please submit
Speaker 1: questions for next week and every question every every show afterwards.
Speaker 1: It's Ryan at Numbers game podcast dot com. Ryan at
Speaker 1: Numbers thoral podcast dot com. I appreciate you all being here.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you all for listening. Please like and subscribe
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast where you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: I'll see you guys next week. Thank you again for listening.