Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and former Congressman George Santos has been
Speaker 1: sentenced to eighty seven months in prison. We have such
Speaker 1: a great show for you today. Know your enemy is
Speaker 1: Sam Adler. Bell stops by to talk about the arrest
Speaker 1: of the Wisconsin judge and all the authoritarian fuckery. Then
Speaker 1: we'll talk to the Shadow Docket author Stephen Vladdock about
Speaker 1: whether or not the Trump administration can do that legally.
Speaker 1: Spoiler they cannot, Samali.
Speaker 2: I think we have seen a new aggression in Trump's
Speaker 2: authoritarian rule. Cash Pattel announced that they're going to bring
Speaker 2: a judge up on obstruction charges, and Pam Bondi has
Speaker 2: doubled down.
Speaker 3: Let's hear what she has to say.
Speaker 4: To our judiciary is beyond me.
Speaker 5: So when the American public hears this and they think
Speaker 5: these were once substanding people in their communities and their
Speaker 5: professions and they put it all on the line for this,
Speaker 5: Have you dug into their motive, like what inspired them
Speaker 5: to carry out these acts?
Speaker 1: In harbor criminals? They're deranged.
Speaker 4: It's all I can think of I cannot believe. I
Speaker 4: think some of these judges think they are beyond and
Speaker 4: above the law, and they are not. And we're sending
Speaker 4: a very strong message today. If you are harboring a fugitive,
Speaker 4: we don't care who you are. If you are helping
Speaker 4: hide one, if you are giving a TDA member guns,
Speaker 4: anyone who is illegally in this country, we will come
Speaker 4: after you and we will prosecute you.
Speaker 1: You know, the false equivalency here is staggering. If you're
Speaker 1: giving somebody guns or trying to keep them from being
Speaker 1: arrested by ICE goons who are not wearing police costs. Right,
Speaker 1: Like we've seen these videos of these ICE members in
Speaker 1: playing clothes. They arrested a student in a hedge job
Speaker 1: because she'd written an op ed. You'll remember that that
Speaker 1: happened in Boston. So look, man, First of all, being
Speaker 1: in this country illegally was not a crime. It was
Speaker 1: not a criminalized crime until Donald Trump made it so
Speaker 1: right before that, it was a civil crime. That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, ICE was not supposed to go to courthouses.
Speaker 1: That's a new Trump thing. I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: thing about this administration. They're changing laws really fast and
Speaker 1: saying that it's Democrats who are doing something wrong. But
Speaker 1: all of these are new laws, right, like that ice
Speaker 1: can go to schools, that ice can go to courthouses,
Speaker 1: that ice can go to hospitals. And then they're losing
Speaker 1: in the courts. So you'll remember that this Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which is the most conservative court ever, the one that
Speaker 1: overturned Roe v. Wade, a nineteen seventy three statute. This
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled nine zero that even if you're not
Speaker 1: a citizen, you still have the right to do process.
Speaker 1: Think about that for a minute. Okay, Trump administration had
Speaker 1: said migrants, illegal immigrants do not have the right to
Speaker 1: do process. Well, guess what the fucking Supreme Court said
Speaker 1: they do. So let me tell you something. Pambondi may
Speaker 1: be very pretty, but she is wrong, and she's wrong.
Speaker 1: These are not people doing criminal activities. These are people
Speaker 1: listening to their consciences. And here is a moment in
Speaker 1: American life where we all know that what the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is doing is wrong and often illegal. And you'll remember,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said that Donald Trump needed to bring
Speaker 1: back Garcia, right, and he has not brought back Garcia.
Speaker 1: He's in Seacott in El Salvador, and had he not
Speaker 1: been sent there, none of this would have happened. So
Speaker 1: do not comply. Peacefully pushback. The lesson from Harvard can
Speaker 1: be a lesson to all of us, which is none
Speaker 1: of this is legal, none of this is okay. You
Speaker 1: need to stand up, just like this judge did. The
Speaker 1: chances that this judge ends up in jail are zero
Speaker 1: because this is crazy, because this administration is acting in
Speaker 1: a way that is illegal and there should be no
Speaker 1: question about it. And she can say whatever she wants
Speaker 1: on Fox News, but we all know the truth.
Speaker 3: Yes, And speaking of the truth, Molly.
Speaker 2: Many people are saying that mister Trump in his one
Speaker 2: hundred Days interview with Time Magazine was not sounding like
Speaker 2: his mental faculties are so good. They did not sound
Speaker 2: like they're the greatest. They did not sound like they're
Speaker 2: the greatest ever. They did not sound like they're doing great.
Speaker 2: Everybody's saying this.
Speaker 1: It's pretty funny, though. I Mean, the one thing I
Speaker 1: will say is it's amazing. So when you listen to
Speaker 1: Trump's incredible. Actually, I was on the train going to
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia today and I listened to the
Speaker 1: Time magazine they publish the entire transcript, And I implore
Speaker 1: you listen to a Trump transcript, because you forget when
Speaker 1: when journalists right about Trump, they never make him sound
Speaker 1: quite as bat shit as he really does in real life.
Speaker 1: And when you put his ramblings together, it is just
Speaker 1: incredible stuff. So do yourself a favor. Take a few
Speaker 1: minutes to listen to that Time magazine transcript of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump saying things like, I mean, basically, the man thinks
Speaker 1: Jerome Pal is responsible for all his problems. And let
Speaker 1: me tell you a secret, Jerome Pal is very much
Speaker 1: non responsible for all of Donald Trump's problems.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that that's his own bad instincts. Speaking
Speaker 2: of his own bad instincts. When asked about a millionaire
Speaker 2: tax hike, Trump said, I love the concept, but it
Speaker 2: may not be acceptable to the public.
Speaker 1: Get the public. That public is not your problem, honey.
Speaker 1: Your problem is your donors and yourself should be a
Speaker 1: millionaire tax apps fucking looney. But is Donald Trump going
Speaker 1: to do it? No fucking why. I mean, the man
Speaker 1: was put in the job to extend the tax cut.
Speaker 1: You know, there's one smart person in this entire administration,
Speaker 1: and his name is Steve Bannon and Steve Bannon knows
Speaker 1: that if you passed a millionaire's tax, it would be
Speaker 1: incredibly good for this administration because then Democrats couldn't push
Speaker 1: back on a lot of stuff. But you know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen, not that.
Speaker 3: I got to disagree with you.
Speaker 2: I think he's going to adopt big structural bailly from
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Ward, and he's going to take the two petties
Speaker 2: and he's going to text the millionaires just like you
Speaker 2: said it.
Speaker 1: Yes, he's the millionaires and the billionaires.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know who he looks to for policy proposals, Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: He loves Elizabeth Warren. Yeah, No, that is not happening.
Speaker 2: We would be remiss, though, to say that nearly every
Speaker 2: poll on this subject shows that has overwhelming support by
Speaker 2: large margins.
Speaker 3: We very rarely see.
Speaker 1: No, this is absolutely true. But there is absolutely no way.
Speaker 1: There's zero chance that Donald Trump enacts progressive taxation. Zero chance.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is like one of these
Speaker 1: things where even reporting on it is kind of malpracticed
Speaker 1: because the whole ethos of the Republican Party is letting
Speaker 1: their friends get away with stuff. So whatever, sure, okay,
Speaker 1: it's not happening.
Speaker 2: Crony capitalism is the brand, yeah, Cronyism and stupidity is
Speaker 2: the brand.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So the DNC, who we let's be honest, where you
Speaker 2: worry about which direction they're heading in, have given a
Speaker 2: pretty good indicator to us that they're maybe getting a
Speaker 2: clue since they are now embracing formerd DNC chair Howard
Speaker 2: Dean's fifty state strategy and they say they're going to
Speaker 2: organize everywhere.
Speaker 1: Don't they always embrace the fifty state strategy.
Speaker 3: Hasn't that been Robert Manuel said absolutely not. Fuck that,
Speaker 3: under no circumstance. That was the Howard Dean ram Emanuel War.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean I don't know. I mean yes, listen,
Speaker 1: I love Howard Dean. He's a frequent guest of this podcast.
Speaker 1: Do I think that they should do it? Of course
Speaker 1: they should do a fucking but Trump's polling is now
Speaker 1: almost lower than it was in his first administration when
Speaker 1: we had COVID and none of us could leave the house. Okay,
Speaker 1: he is crashing and burning, and Democrats, it would be
Speaker 1: malpracticed not to run someone in every fucking seat. That's Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: that's Ohio, that's all of those red state seats because
Speaker 1: the truth is Trump is not a good candidate. He's
Speaker 1: running a wildly unpopular agenda. I think it's very likely
Speaker 1: we're going to see why we have a government regulation
Speaker 1: to avoid the kind of catastrophes that ineverently are going
Speaker 1: to happen when you don't have government regulation.
Speaker 3: Sounds right to me.
Speaker 1: Sam Adler bel is the co host of the famous
Speaker 1: Know You're Enemy podcast. Welcome to Fast Politics, Sam.
Speaker 6: Hi, great to be here, Great to meet you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's great to meet you. I think of you
Speaker 1: as like just a very smart person who is good
Speaker 1: at talking.
Speaker 3: Oh that's good.
Speaker 6: I hope I live up to your expectations. You set
Speaker 6: the bar high for your listeners.
Speaker 1: I think we have to talk about this. So they
Speaker 1: arrested a judge in Wisconsin. She's a county judge elected partisan.
Speaker 1: But here's the real I feel like this concerning truth.
Speaker 1: She's partisan in that she believes that people should rule
Speaker 1: of lights right. She believes in the rule, but she
Speaker 1: also believes like people should have rights even if they
Speaker 1: are not in this country legally, which is also something
Speaker 1: that our very conservative Supreme Court believes. So make it
Speaker 1: make sense.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that is just any abstract something that's very concerning
Speaker 6: about this political moment that you can that we all
Speaker 6: would have to agree. Yeah, well, she's a partisan, But
Speaker 6: what that means nowadays is that one party cares at
Speaker 6: all about the rules, norms, laws, constitutional legality, and one
Speaker 6: of them does not. And so what does nonpartisan mean anymore?
Speaker 6: I find it pretty disturbing. I don't know the details
Speaker 6: of this case. What were the circumstances of her arrest?
Speaker 6: I mean, I read the headlines.
Speaker 1: So the Washington Post has a story. Again, this is
Speaker 1: like one of these things where it's a new story,
Speaker 1: it's just reported on so there's more facts coming up.
Speaker 1: But the Washington Post had a story on it. She
Speaker 1: was in trouble because she had an illegal immigrant in
Speaker 1: her courtroom for a battery charge, which is not related
Speaker 1: to his This is like, again, these are the results
Speaker 1: of criminalizing what has not been until the Trump administration
Speaker 1: a criminal activity, which is being in this country legally, right.
Speaker 1: That was not a criminal activity until trump Ism criminalized it.
Speaker 1: It was not a criminal activity, and now it is.
Speaker 1: So this judge who let this man go out a
Speaker 1: different door because Ice was waiting outside of the courtroom
Speaker 1: to get him again, something that is a new Trump phenomenon,
Speaker 1: having ice allowed in federal or state court hases, and
Speaker 1: he was chased down by ice that arrested. These aren't
Speaker 1: these same ICE agents who we've seen arresting people, you know,
Speaker 1: wearing plain clothes covering their faces. There may be some connection.
Speaker 1: Some of them are connected to local militias, right, we
Speaker 1: saw that in reporting in the Washington Post. She has
Speaker 1: been arrested now. So the question is all of these
Speaker 1: are new circumstances brought to bear because of trump Ism,
Speaker 1: because Trump has changed the designation of certain crimes. But
Speaker 1: the question is like does this mean and again, this
Speaker 1: is like yet another moment of like are we on
Speaker 1: a constitutional grisis? Ice is certainly acting in a way
Speaker 1: they did not act with any other president ever.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And the kinds of situations where you don't know
Speaker 6: how dire or how far along the path to full
Speaker 6: authoritarianism we are produces these kinds of moments where someone
Speaker 6: like this judge or someone else in a position of
Speaker 6: momentary authority over somebody else's life, has to make this
Speaker 6: decision like, well do I trust this you know, like
Speaker 6: pseudo gestapo to treat this person according to the law
Speaker 6: or according to their human rights. And I think increasingly
Speaker 6: we're seeing situations where, you know, in an encouraging way,
Speaker 6: people make a decision that's like, no, this is an
Speaker 6: extreme circumstance, and it demands a kind of moral courage
Speaker 6: that would seem to be norm breaking in another circumstance.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying that that's necessarily true about this judge.
Speaker 6: I don't know the details, but what it reminds me
Speaker 6: of is just in the first Trump administration, there were
Speaker 6: also circumstances where people, you know, were kind of they
Speaker 6: felt the need to do something extreme to protect against
Speaker 6: an extreme behavior by the administration. But then there was
Speaker 6: this very strong impulse that, well, if we break norms
Speaker 6: in reaction to their norm breaking, are we just setting
Speaker 6: up this kind of inevitable you know, domino chain decline
Speaker 6: of consecutive norm breaking. I feel like, and I never
Speaker 6: really got there in the first administration. I'm here now.
Speaker 6: I'm there now that we really kind of are out
Speaker 6: in the breach. We're in a very, very very dire
Speaker 6: situation where the kinds of choices people have to make
Speaker 6: about what's normal and not normal to do. I think
Speaker 6: those things are changing. You see it with the universities,
Speaker 6: for example, who are first kind of like, all right,
Speaker 6: you know, come on campus. Sure, uh, you know, detain
Speaker 6: these students. Sure we'll make a deal with you or whatever.
Speaker 6: But then it becomes clear that no, this isn't this
Speaker 6: isn't a normal administration. It isn't just new people in
Speaker 6: charge with different values. It's getting very very dire and
Speaker 6: very very bleak. And you know, it used to be
Speaker 6: that when we talked this way in the first administration,
Speaker 6: and I did, sometimes we were accused of having trumped
Speaker 6: arrangement syndrome or having some kind of secret, unstated wish,
Speaker 6: a wish for there to be a real authoritarian situation.
Speaker 6: But actually this is just kind of a normal, very
Speaker 6: bad Republican administration. It's not so different. But I just
Speaker 6: don't think that story stands up anymore, because it seems
Speaker 6: very clear that they are willing to go all the
Speaker 6: way in every single direction and on every single issue,
Speaker 6: all at once. That just changes the situation.
Speaker 3: As far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: I vacillate between being like, these guys are so stupid.
Speaker 1: It's great. Here they are arresting a judge in Wisconsin, right, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: where they just love lost a judicial election that Elon
Speaker 1: mush put in thirty million dollars. Okay, So like, obviously
Speaker 1: Wisconsin is going to be a place, it's a purple
Speaker 1: state where this kind of thing is going to stand
Speaker 1: out in a way that it wouldn't in say, are Medillo, Texas,
Speaker 1: Like you could arrest whoever you want in Texas's first district.
Speaker 1: I mean I heard ones from a member of Congress
Speaker 1: who was running for office there that they didn't open
Speaker 1: the polls on time and that he had seen Proud
Speaker 1: Boys around the area or some kind of neo militia.
Speaker 1: Like it's a huge country. There is a lot of
Speaker 1: room for this federal government to do in crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: But when you do it in Wisconsin to a partisan
Speaker 1: Democrat who has been elected, and I mean, I just
Speaker 1: think they constantly do things which are like if you
Speaker 1: wanted to enact authoritarianism the way they have in Hungary,
Speaker 1: there is a playbook for that, and it's slow.
Speaker 6: No, I think that's right. I mean it's always been
Speaker 6: weird with Trump to feel and with Trump World and
Speaker 6: the Mega movement to feel like our greatest protection against
Speaker 6: their you know, most extreme designs is their incompetence and
Speaker 6: their recklessness.
Speaker 3: But that may be the case.
Speaker 6: I mean, that's clearly the case right now with the
Speaker 6: trade war, which is just not going to be popular,
Speaker 6: and it is definitely they're definitely shooting themselves in the foot.
Speaker 6: It's definitely the reason that his numbers are going down.
Speaker 6: I just think it's obvious, and you just have to
Speaker 6: you know, it's just crazy to be in a situation
Speaker 6: where we're like, oh, thank goodness, these people are idiots,
Speaker 6: because obviously there are situations where their recklessness is totally
Speaker 6: consonant with their dangerousness. But I agree, I agree with
Speaker 6: you about that. I take your point very much about
Speaker 6: if they were wanted to do this right, you know,
Speaker 6: which to say, to do it successfully and strategically. You know,
Speaker 6: if they wanted to really fundamentally change this country without
Speaker 6: igniting some kind of you know, resistance movement and resistance
Speaker 6: from the institutions of this country, you know, they would
Speaker 6: have started slow, and they would have built on the
Speaker 6: license and the kind of sense of you know, that
Speaker 6: period of time right after he was elected, when Democrats
Speaker 6: were like, ah, well, I guess this is just a
Speaker 6: conservative country. We're just going to have to go along
Speaker 6: with it, you know, people saying, let's make deals where
Speaker 6: we can work with these people, let's face the facts,
Speaker 6: you know, taking that moment of kind of legitimacy and
Speaker 6: building on it by doing things that were really popular
Speaker 6: for a while and kind of magnanimous even, and that
Speaker 6: then you can gradually turn the screws on the authoritarian agenda.
Speaker 6: But they didn't do it that way. They went with
Speaker 6: this other thing. And it's just a weird situation to
Speaker 6: be in because I'm simultaneously relieved that they're doing it
Speaker 6: so recklessly and also made absolutely crazy by the kind
Speaker 6: of ferocity of it and the feeling that you just
Speaker 6: never know what they're going to do. Oh, the FBI
Speaker 6: director is going to get on Twitter and said we
Speaker 6: arrested a judge, or like, are you so happy? Aren't
Speaker 6: you so thrilled?
Speaker 1: Ohn?
Speaker 5: And then he deletes it.
Speaker 6: I know my sense was that he deleted it because
Speaker 6: he said in the post we believe that she did this,
Speaker 6: or that it's like, Okay, you arrested at judge because
Speaker 6: you heard something that's a pretty extreme thing to do.
Speaker 6: But yeah, I'm with you. There's just it's just it's
Speaker 6: a whiplash though, to feel like relieved that they're more
Speaker 6: reckless and stupid than you could possibly have imagined.
Speaker 1: Yes, I agree it's a whiplash, but it's also I
Speaker 1: want to get back to the tariffs, because the tariffs
Speaker 1: are the single thing Like ten Griffin, Okay, major Republican donor,
Speaker 1: biggest donor of the cycle, did not donate to Trump,
Speaker 1: but donated to every other Republican you've ever thought of,
Speaker 1: or dreamed of or knew of. It was like Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is ru I mean, I want to find the
Speaker 1: Ken Griffin quote because I feel like it's one of
Speaker 1: these things where it's like, now, he didn't really say that,
Speaker 1: but he really did say that in fact, and even
Speaker 1: like the cover of the Economist, right, this is the Economist, Okay,
Speaker 1: the woke Economist. This is like not the nation says
Speaker 1: only one three hundred and sixty one days to go,
Speaker 1: and then it has a picture of like a bald
Speaker 1: eagle that looks like it's been through what we've all
Speaker 1: been through in the last almost one hundred days.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, no, it's true. I mean again, there's another
Speaker 6: irony of feeling like the saviors of our republic are
Speaker 6: going to have to be like bond traders and Wall Street,
Speaker 6: you know. As a socialist myself, I'm kind of like,
Speaker 6: oh god, yes, okay, they're coming to our rescue, the
Speaker 6: people who just move money around and make money. But
Speaker 6: it's true that they really just they got out over
Speaker 6: their skis.
Speaker 1: I'm going to read this to you because I I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm sorry to do this. I know you're
Speaker 1: a socialist. One of my kids is a Marxist. My
Speaker 1: husband's like a blue Anon capitalist, so he's like, we're
Speaker 1: going to fix Americay.
Speaker 6: True, Hey, it takes all types, you know, right.
Speaker 1: We have it all. And then I have a never
Speaker 1: Trump Republican. I have one good kid. I'm kidding. I'm kidding.
Speaker 1: I have lots of good kids. The United States was
Speaker 1: more than just a nation. It's a brand. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you love this. It's a universal brand, whether it's
Speaker 1: our contraur or financial strength or military strength. It was
Speaker 1: like an aspiration post of the world. We're eroding that
Speaker 1: brand right now, Okay. Like, I mean, I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: if you're a Republican donor of saying that, like stick deal.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean it makes me wonder about and this
Speaker 6: is we can only speculate about, but like, what are
Speaker 6: the circumstances that have made them so hubristic? Is it
Speaker 6: just that the goal of surrounding him with only yes
Speaker 6: men and women and the goal of you know, retribution
Speaker 6: being the kind of like you know, the reason you
Speaker 6: know for his presidency. Is it just that there's nobody going, hey,
Speaker 6: wait a mang ad minute, that the bond markets are
Speaker 6: going to freak out if we do this now, like
Speaker 6: Ken Griffin, people don't always answer his calls or like,
Speaker 6: what is it? What is it that creates this license
Speaker 6: in their minds that makes them think that they can
Speaker 6: get away with it?
Speaker 1: You know what Trump did was he scared these people,
Speaker 1: and they were scared of him. I mean that's like
Speaker 1: like Lisa Murkowski. They don't want the mean tweets. They
Speaker 1: don't want to have to pay for security, they don't
Speaker 1: want Maga one two three coming outside their house with
Speaker 1: a gun. Like actually think about this a lot, and you,
Speaker 1: as a student of history, I actually wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to you about this. Which is so My grandfather was
Speaker 1: jailed by the House in an American activity, Howard Fast
Speaker 1: and he was a communist. Refused to name names not
Speaker 1: a particularly brave guy, right, not, but did the thing
Speaker 1: in that moment. I believe that part of how we
Speaker 1: got here is that, like we are just in modern life,
Speaker 1: we are not used to bravery of any sort.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, yeah, what.
Speaker 1: Do you think about that? Because if you look at
Speaker 1: like this sort of the last.
Speaker 6: Fifty years, Yeah, there's a lot of different ways to
Speaker 6: go to tackle this, but like I generally think that, yeah,
Speaker 6: the kind of resources that we have as a political
Speaker 6: and moral culture for rewarding true bravery, moral courage, selflessness
Speaker 6: are just depleted, like profoundly. And I think there's a
Speaker 6: million reasons you could point to for that. I mean,
Speaker 6: I think like kind of the neoliberal turn and the
Speaker 6: kind of the fact that people are so much more
Speaker 6: isolated from each other, and the kind of atomization that
Speaker 6: comes with privatization. And yeah, I think that sound like
Speaker 6: a fogy here, but like you know, kids, heroes are influencers.
Speaker 6: The kind of like models for kind of greatness are
Speaker 6: all celebrity and fame and kind of getting your own
Speaker 6: I mean, the lessons of the manisphere or whatever are
Speaker 6: just like get up, get the paper, like get it
Speaker 6: for yourself, you know, and it takes actually effort as
Speaker 6: a political community to produce you know, this other idea
Speaker 6: of what success is because you know, naming names, that's
Speaker 6: saving your own hide. And there's like a lot of
Speaker 6: kind of like sort of what would seem like common
Speaker 6: sensical norms in this country about like you're a sucker.
Speaker 6: If you don't save your own hide when you can,
Speaker 6: you're a sucker. And so yeah, I think, but you know,
Speaker 6: people rise to the occasion. I think there's also just
Speaker 6: sort of a suspicion of kind of self aggrandizing political
Speaker 6: heroism because that stuff is also kind of infused with
Speaker 6: this suspicion about or are you just doing this for
Speaker 6: the fame? Are you just doing this for a popularity contest.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's one of those things that I always
Speaker 6: think about about the right is that whenever whenever somebody
Speaker 6: in a position of power blows the whistle or something,
Speaker 6: the right will just always say, oh, they did this
Speaker 6: because they're a Democrat, they did this because they're getting paid,
Speaker 6: they paid protesters. I think that there's an enormous number
Speaker 6: of people on the right that just don't believe that
Speaker 6: anybody just goes and protests because it's inconceivable to them
Speaker 6: that someone would take the time to do that and
Speaker 6: have some kind of like actual genuine concern that is
Speaker 6: not reducible to self interest. I think it's a problem
Speaker 6: across our culture. I think the right has really a
Speaker 6: desiccated sense of what human generosity can be and do.
Speaker 1: But it is interesting if you think about it, Right,
Speaker 1: like this idea of paid protesters. They stormed the Capitol,
Speaker 1: so they obviously feel strongly about some stuff, right, I
Speaker 1: mean a lot of those people went to jail. No,
Speaker 1: it's true, but I agree.
Speaker 3: It's a solypsism.
Speaker 6: It's like, well, people on our side have genuine beliefs,
Speaker 6: but right, how how could the others?
Speaker 1: I also think that we find ourselves in a moment
Speaker 1: here where there is such a cynicism from the right
Speaker 1: and also I think from the left. That's what it
Speaker 1: feels like you're talking about, is like, none of this
Speaker 1: is real. Right, they're paid protesters, And I mean that
Speaker 1: goes the whole ethos of Elon Musk, right, that we're
Speaker 1: all non playing characters. And that is something that a
Speaker 1: lot of very wealthy people believe or know enough to
Speaker 1: not say they believe, but do secretly believe because life
Speaker 1: has worked out so well for them that they are
Speaker 1: the only playing characters and that everything else is a
Speaker 1: simulation to lessen or increase their own experience.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I mean that's another contributing tributary to this crisis of
Speaker 6: moral courage is also that there's an enormous number of
Speaker 6: people and there are cultures in this country. I mean,
Speaker 6: I think this look on Valley culture is particularly bad
Speaker 6: in this regard, which encourage you to think of other
Speaker 6: people as not as real as you. I don't know
Speaker 6: when we when we were we did several episodes on
Speaker 6: Musk and that kind of like I sort of steeped
Speaker 6: in his whole gestalt and moral universe and it was
Speaker 6: really disgusting. And I also just encountered a lot more
Speaker 6: of the kind of common sense ideas about what matters
Speaker 6: in the world and how the world works from the
Speaker 6: Silicon Valley kind of you know, insular world, and there
Speaker 6: was so much of that NPC stuff and it's like
Speaker 6: it's like it's like I just remember this tweet that
Speaker 6: I saw that was just one of many like this,
Speaker 6: but there was just from some kind of tech world
Speaker 6: influencer who was saying, how sorry, how sad she was
Speaker 6: for most people in the country who will never like
Speaker 6: do anything heroic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well they may. They may have to because of
Speaker 1: this administration.
Speaker 6: They very well may, and they do every day. I mean,
Speaker 6: I can get very maudlin about this, but I have
Speaker 6: a great belief in the everyday heroism of regular people,
Speaker 6: and actually quite little confidence in the capacity for heroism
Speaker 6: of the of the very wealthy and privileged.
Speaker 1: I agree, And we are out of time. I hope
Speaker 1: you will come back. Yeah, it's fast. It's not one
Speaker 1: of these like fancy dead.
Speaker 6: Podcast goes on and on.
Speaker 1: No, I know, I lit, We're just twenty minutes. Baby,
Speaker 1: We're in the corporate world, so I know. But definitely
Speaker 1: come back. Stephen Gladick is a CNN contributor and the
Speaker 1: author of the shadow doc Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 7: Steven, thanks for having me, Molly.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Supreme Court has become I don't know that
Speaker 1: Roberts wants it to be this way, but they have
Speaker 1: all of a sudden become sort of the center of
Speaker 1: the action. And I think they probably would prefer not
Speaker 1: to be with the Republican president, especially one like Trump,
Speaker 1: but they are it. So talk us through the sort
Speaker 1: of how the deportations got to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: everything else.
Speaker 7: So there are really two different lines of cases that
Speaker 7: sound alike and that have some overlap, but are really
Speaker 7: raising different sets of questions. It might be helpful, Malli,
Speaker 7: for these purposes to separate out what we might call
Speaker 7: just generally the Alien Enemy Act cases and for those
Speaker 7: who know the case name, so that includes JGG and
Speaker 7: AARP and a few other acronyms on one hand, and
Speaker 7: then Abrago Garcia and Abrago Garcia is the Marilyn man
Speaker 7: who was wrongfully removed to El Salvador, right even though
Speaker 7: he had something called withholding of removal which specifically barred
Speaker 7: the government removing him. A Brago Garcia Mali was not
Speaker 7: removed under the Alien Enemy Act. He just happens to be,
Speaker 7: you know, at least or he was being held in
Speaker 7: the same horrible mega jail in El Salvador as the
Speaker 7: folks who were removed under the Alien exactly. So you
Speaker 7: have these two different sets of cases, and the Supreme
Speaker 7: Court has already issued I guess it's three rulings now
Speaker 7: in those two sets of cases, and so let me
Speaker 7: sort of try to break them out briefly, separately.
Speaker 1: Before you just break this out. How much do you
Speaker 1: think Judge Roberts wants not to have to do this?
Speaker 7: Well, I think he desperately wants to not have to
Speaker 7: do this. I think he is incensed, not necessarily at
Speaker 7: the Trump Administration's behavior, although maybe that too, Malli. I
Speaker 7: think he's in sense that they're not getting the message.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think from his perspective, you know, the
Speaker 7: rulings I'm about to describe were meant to send a
Speaker 7: message to the Trump administration to knock it off, and
Speaker 7: that message has just not been received. Why is all
Speaker 7: this happening, right? This is all happening to Molly, because
Speaker 7: the Trump administration is trying to effectuate a policy of
Speaker 7: mass summary removals right without having to go through individualized
Speaker 7: process in each.
Speaker 1: Case, right, the legal process, right.
Speaker 7: And so part of what is happening in all of
Speaker 7: these cases is the Trump Administration's trying to basically find
Speaker 7: any way through the legal you know, sort of process,
Speaker 7: the legal traps from their perspective to being able to
Speaker 7: just sort of put a whole bunch of people on
Speaker 7: a whole bunch of planes and get them out of
Speaker 7: the country.
Speaker 1: So talk me through the three decisions.
Speaker 7: So on April seventh, right, in the first case that's JGG,
Speaker 7: that's where the Supreme Court sort of split and did
Speaker 7: two things right. This was one of the Alien Enemy
Speaker 7: Act cases. So a five to four majority in that
Speaker 7: case held that basically the right way for litigans to
Speaker 7: challenge the Alien Enemy Act was not under a statute
Speaker 7: called the Administrative Procedure Act, but was rather through habeas petitions,
Speaker 7: basically like you can't be before Judge Boseburg, you have
Speaker 7: to go to Texas. But bally in that in that
Speaker 7: same case you had the Court unanimously say in that
Speaker 7: at least going forward, the government could not use the
Speaker 7: Alien Enemy Act to remove people without notice and judicial review,
Speaker 7: without noticing a meaningful chance to contest right whether they
Speaker 7: are who they say they are. So that was the
Speaker 7: first ruling. The second ruling was in the case of
Speaker 7: Abrigo Garcia, the guy who was wrongfully removed to El Salvador,
Speaker 7: where a district judge in Maryland, Judge Paula Zenis, had
Speaker 7: ordered the government to return Abrago Garcia by a day
Speaker 7: in time certain and the government went to the Supreme
Speaker 7: Court saying we shouldn't have to do that. And there again, Molly,
Speaker 7: you had this little bit of a split decision where
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court in one sense said, you know, we're
Speaker 7: not going to make you produce him by a day
Speaker 7: and time certain. But Judge Zenis was right that she
Speaker 7: has the power to at least find out what steps
Speaker 7: you could take and what steps you have taken to
Speaker 7: bring him back, and so we're gonna let her do that.
Speaker 7: We're gonna let her try on Remann to figure all
Speaker 7: that out. So that's where things were until late last.
Speaker 1: Week the nine zero decision. Where did that come from?
Speaker 7: That was a go Garcia, That was.
Speaker 1: A nine zero for due process. Do you think that
Speaker 1: it was written so vaguely because Roberts was trying to
Speaker 1: get Alito and Thomas to rule nine zero.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, And it's why the sodomy or separate opinion, which
Speaker 7: really does read in some respects like a partial dissent,
Speaker 7: is actually styled as a statement she didn't want to
Speaker 7: break that. So but Mollie right, You also have the
Speaker 7: nine to nothing due process holding in the JGG case
Speaker 7: that all the Alien Enemy Act books are entitled to
Speaker 7: due process. So now you have two different messages from
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court, right, message number one you got to give.
Speaker 1: These are both nine zero, that's right.
Speaker 7: So message number one, you've got to give due process
Speaker 7: to folks who before you remove them under the Alien
Speaker 7: Enemy Act. Message number two, you know, even once they're removed, right, like,
Speaker 7: the federal courts are not totally powerless to look into
Speaker 7: the possibility of bringing them back. My sense, Mollie is
Speaker 7: that John Roberts would have been very happy stopping there
Speaker 7: and having the lower courts just sort of figure it
Speaker 7: out from there, like filling all the details as you go.
Speaker 7: But then right like late last week, like Thursday night
Speaker 7: and Friday morning, you had these news stories of a
Speaker 7: whole bunch of immigrants at the Blue Bonnet Detention Center,
Speaker 7: which is in Ansn, Texas, just outside of Abilene, receiving
Speaker 7: these completely indecipherable, incomprehensible notices only in English, even though
Speaker 7: these folks are mostly only you know, Spanish speakers, suggesting
Speaker 7: that they were subject to imminent removal under the Alien
Speaker 7: Enemy Act, that you know, inconsistent with what the Supreme
Speaker 7: Court had said. And so that set off this third
Speaker 7: chain of litigation that got to the Supreme Court, like
Speaker 7: in a lightning Bolt with the justices ruling Molly this time,
Speaker 7: we think seven to two right after just before one
Speaker 7: am Saturday morning, that basically, you know, hey, government stop.
Speaker 7: And it seems to me that like that was at
Speaker 7: least seven of the justices right, and you know, enough
Speaker 7: of this. We're getting very frustrated, Like, you know, we
Speaker 7: met what we said in those two prior decisions. So
Speaker 7: the state of play Molly is that there are now
Speaker 7: six different lawsuits in six different district courts challenging the
Speaker 7: Alien Enemy Act as a basis for removing folks. The
Speaker 7: Abrego Garcia case is still going before Judge Zenis, where
Speaker 7: the government is increasingly not responding to the discovery that
Speaker 7: she had required. And so you know, we're in this
Speaker 7: place where it's like there's a lot going on. It's
Speaker 7: not easy to keep traff of everything, but like this
Speaker 7: is going and get worse before it gets better. I mean,
Speaker 7: the government is by all you know, by all intents
Speaker 7: and at appearances like continuing to try to play games
Speaker 7: with all of this.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we have both of these things going on
Speaker 1: at the same time. Then we have this split descent
Speaker 1: that was seven too. Can you talk us through that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, so this was the early Saturday morning ruling. So
Speaker 7: what the court didaurday morning is it really just looked
Speaker 7: at the Blue Bonnet detainees and said, you know, the
Speaker 7: ACLU has credible reports that they face imminent removal without
Speaker 7: the process we required, and Molly, like, knowing how hard
Speaker 7: it's been in Abrago, Garcia to get anyone back from
Speaker 7: El Salvador, right, the justices are, you know, understandably don't
Speaker 7: want to let anybody else get on a plane until
Speaker 7: they've had their due process. And so that's what set
Speaker 7: off Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. So from the sort
Speaker 7: of early Saturday morning orders, they just noted their descent
Speaker 7: and that a separate statement would would follow. Sometime around
Speaker 7: eleven pm Saturday night, Justice Alito filed his descent and Molly,
Speaker 7: I am. I mean, as you know, I'm not sort
Speaker 7: of the biggest ban of Justice Alito's work to begin with,
Speaker 7: but wow, this was I mean, it's not that it
Speaker 7: was like snarky, it was just so superficially specious. Right, So,
Speaker 7: so Alito offers seven bullet points where he's trying to
Speaker 7: come up with like different reasons why the court acted.
Speaker 7: In his words, hastily and prematurely. And you know, one
Speaker 7: of those claims is that the court didn't even have
Speaker 7: the power to rule. That's just silly. Alito has been
Speaker 7: in the majority in lots of cases in similar contexts
Speaker 7: where the court ruled. One of his claims is that
Speaker 7: there was no urgency because the government had represented that
Speaker 7: there would be no airplanes either Friday or Saturday. That's
Speaker 7: actually a complete misstatement of what the government said. What
Speaker 7: the government said before Judge Boseburg was that there will
Speaker 7: be no flights on Friday, but quote, we reserve the
Speaker 7: right unquote to send planes on Saturday. I wrote about
Speaker 7: this for my newsletter on Monday. But like the Alito dissent,
Speaker 7: just smacks of an effort to rationalize right a position
Speaker 7: he knew he wanted to take, and not to actually
Speaker 7: follow the law and the rules where he where they
Speaker 7: where they led him.
Speaker 1: And how does habeas factor into all of this? And
Speaker 1: can you explain to us has.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so a root of habeas corpus is one of
Speaker 7: the oldest forms of legal process, Molly. The sort of
Speaker 7: the old school habeas was the court would issue the
Speaker 7: writ to a jailer, and the jailer was supposed to
Speaker 7: produce the detainee before the judge so that the judge
Speaker 7: could say, hey, why are you holding this person?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 7: Are they who you say they are? Do you have
Speaker 7: the authority to hold them?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 7: Is all of this on the up and up? So
Speaker 7: it's like the classical way of challenging executive detention. One
Speaker 7: of the reasons why this litigation Molly has gotten so
Speaker 7: procedurally complicated is because habeas historically has really been about individuals.
Speaker 7: You know, am I being held lawfully? Are you being
Speaker 7: held lawfully? And what's really needed in this case is
Speaker 7: what the lawyers would call class wide relief. You really need,
Speaker 7: you know, one lawsuit where a federal court can decide
Speaker 7: one way or the other. Is the Alien Enemy Act
Speaker 7: even lawfully applied to trende Ragua? And if it is, like,
Speaker 7: what should the rules be for how the government proves
Speaker 7: that you're a member of trendy Aragua. And so that's
Speaker 7: what the ACLU had been trying to get that class
Speaker 7: wide nationwide judgment in the case in DC and that's
Speaker 7: why the Supreme Court's very first intervention on April seventh,
Speaker 7: that JGG case. That's why the first part of it
Speaker 7: was five to four because you had the conservative majority
Speaker 7: saying nope, you got to do habeas, and you had
Speaker 7: Justice Sodamaire saying, you know what the hell, One no,
Speaker 7: you don't, and two if you make them do habeas,
Speaker 7: it's going to get like really complicated really quickly. Lo
Speaker 7: and behold, it's gotten really complicated really quickly.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping you could talk about else is happening in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Who decides trying to keep Trump from
Speaker 1: turning America into Venezuela, right or El Salvador. Well, that's
Speaker 1: also happening. They have their regular schedule, so a lot
Speaker 1: of these are coming on the shadow, right, or they're
Speaker 1: going as an emergency. Explain to me how they're taking
Speaker 1: all these Trump cases.
Speaker 7: It's worth stressing two things that I think may not
Speaker 7: be visible to everybody. So I think folks Molly have
Speaker 7: a pretty good intuitive sense that there's been a ton
Speaker 7: of litigation against Trump administration policies. What I think is
Speaker 7: less visible is that Trump's Justice Department is being very
Speaker 7: selective about which cases they're taken up quickly and which
Speaker 7: cases they're slow walking. So you know, for example, right,
Speaker 7: like the law firm lawsuits. Right, they've already lost those
Speaker 7: cases in the trial courtse but they're not hustling to
Speaker 7: take those appeals up.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 7: Because they know they're losers and because they right there,
Speaker 7: they're trying to sort of keep this, you know, sort
Speaker 7: of in place to bully other law firms as long
Speaker 7: as possible.
Speaker 1: Say that again, because I think people need to know
Speaker 1: that the law firms that are protesting Trump, standing up
Speaker 1: to Trump Trump is losing.
Speaker 7: Yes, the law firms are winning. The district judges here.
Speaker 7: I think there are three different cases and the district
Speaker 7: judges in all three cases have issued temporary restraining orders
Speaker 7: blocking the executive orders, Mollie, because there have been I
Speaker 7: think now ninety eight cases where district courts have either
Speaker 7: granted or denied temporary relief against it. Like who can
Speaker 7: keep track of all those cases?
Speaker 3: Right? Right?
Speaker 1: But it's word to the wise. If you are a
Speaker 1: law firm and you want to go against Trump, you
Speaker 1: will win.
Speaker 7: This is well, this is what the lawyers have been saying, right,
Speaker 7: I mean, why the law firms are folding when the
Speaker 7: law is so I mean, you know they're good enough lawyers,
Speaker 7: Molly to know that they're going to win.
Speaker 1: And when you're captured by Trump, you are then his
Speaker 1: servant and you're not protected by the courts, You're not
Speaker 1: protected by the Supreme Court. You are actually just only
Speaker 1: at the whim of one man.
Speaker 7: Right, I mean, if you make a deal voluntarily, right,
Speaker 7: the fact that a different executive order has been struck
Speaker 7: down isn't going to help you. But meanwhile, right instead,
Speaker 7: So the Trump molly here we are. It's what April
Speaker 7: twenty third, so we're like ninety two days in and
Speaker 7: the Trump administration has so far filed ten emergency applications
Speaker 7: in the Supreme Court. So there are ten of these
Speaker 7: cases that the Trump administration has tried to get to
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court in a hurry. Just to put that
Speaker 7: into context, during the Bush and Obama administrations, right across
Speaker 7: sixteen years, if I Recoverment filed eight emergency applications. So
Speaker 7: we've had more in three months than we had in
Speaker 7: sixteen years. A lot of those are in this Alien
Speaker 7: Enemy Act and or immigration context. But we also are
Speaker 7: going to have oral arguments in May in the birthright
Speaker 7: citizenship cases. We have an application pending where Trump is
Speaker 7: trying to basically get the Supreme Court to sign off
Speaker 7: on his firing of members of the National Labor Relations
Speaker 7: Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Speaker 1: I want to go back to the birth rate citizenship.
Speaker 1: Birthrate citizenship was taken up by the Supreme Court. Why, Well, that's.
Speaker 7: A good question. So what is weird about the birthright
Speaker 7: citizenship cases is that the Supreme Court has only for
Speaker 7: now taken up the question of whether when three different
Speaker 7: district courts, one in Boston, one in Seattle, one in Greenbelt, Maryland,
Speaker 7: blocked Trump's policy, whether their injunctions were too broad. Administration
Speaker 7: is not asking the Supreme Court, molly at this juncture,
Speaker 7: to say that the policy is lawful, right. All they're
Speaker 7: asking the Supreme Court to do is to narrow the
Speaker 7: relief that the Court's provided to only the plaintiffs in
Speaker 7: those cases. And the reason, Mally White that's a huge
Speaker 7: deal is because if the Court agrees and says, oh,
Speaker 7: we're not saying anything about the merits you know, blah
Speaker 7: blah blah, that still means the policy would go into
Speaker 7: effect for like ninety nine percent of the country. And
Speaker 7: so maybe you know you're next door neighbor who happens
Speaker 7: to be covered by the policy, like maybe they could sue,
Speaker 7: but they'd have to sue to get their kid to
Speaker 7: be declared a citizen.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, so it would actually work. This is for
Speaker 1: the whole Encelona.
Speaker 7: And this is the pattern. So you know, we spend
Speaker 7: so much time ally talking about sort of John Roberts
Speaker 7: trying to defuse things Trump is two I mean, and
Speaker 7: what I mean by that is Trump is trying to
Speaker 7: use the Supreme Court procedurally to take policies that he
Speaker 7: doesn't think that he has the votes for on the marriage,
Speaker 7: or he does not think or the lawyers don't think
Speaker 7: that five justices are going to uphold this policy. But
Speaker 7: these procedural conceits and these procedural contrivances are there to
Speaker 7: try to provide the sort of the fig leaf, right,
Speaker 7: the shadow of a justification for why the Supreme Court
Speaker 7: could issue a technical rule in where maybe even they
Speaker 7: say nasty things about the Burke relationship policy, but the
Speaker 7: practical effect is that the policy goes goes into force.
Speaker 1: That is so craven in a way. But there's also
Speaker 1: a lot of other policies. Just two more seconds on
Speaker 1: this what else Because there's an anti LGBTQ.
Speaker 3: Believe it or not.
Speaker 7: The Supreme Court also has a regular job, right, and
Speaker 7: so the Court is in the middle of the April
Speaker 7: oral argument calendar, which Molly traditionally is where all the
Speaker 7: big cases go. So you know, you and I are
Speaker 7: sitting here on Wednesday. On Tuesday, the Court had this
Speaker 7: big oral argument about whether parents of public school kids
Speaker 7: in Montgomery County, Maryland can object to the inclusion of
Speaker 7: certain books in the curriculum on religious grounds, right, books
Speaker 7: that portray same sex couples in a positive light, et cetera.
Speaker 7: Next week, the Supreme Court has an oral argument on
Speaker 7: whether the Oklahoma Constitution violates the First Amendments Free Exercise
Speaker 7: Clause because it's been interpreted to not allow the state
Speaker 7: to fund religious charter schools, right, meaning like must states
Speaker 7: fund religious charter schools. The Supreme Court still has its
Speaker 7: regular bucket of cases that are going to make people
Speaker 7: like you and me tear our hair out. Well, you
Speaker 7: still have hair. But what's crazy about what's going on
Speaker 7: is all of this emergency application stuff. This happening not
Speaker 7: in lieu of those big cases, but on top of them,
Speaker 7: where it's just like the Supreme Court is busier and
Speaker 7: more in the middle of everything than really we've ever
Speaker 7: seen before.
Speaker 1: If it comes down to it, do you think ultimately
Speaker 1: there are five saying people on the court.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 7: So let me say this as clearly and emphatically as possible.
Speaker 7: I think there are exactly five votes in the big
Speaker 7: rule of law cases to stand up for basic principles
Speaker 7: of due process, to stand up for basic principles of
Speaker 7: separation of powers. And just to be clear, I think
Speaker 7: that the five votes are the three Democratic appointees and
Speaker 7: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ammy Cony Barrett.
Speaker 1: And that's it, and that's it.
Speaker 7: And so when I lose sleepover is not that I
Speaker 7: think there are five votes, and I think those five
Speaker 7: votes will will be enough when we get there. Where
Speaker 7: I lose sleepover is how much damage and how much
Speaker 7: mess and how much disruption there's going to be until
Speaker 7: and unless we get to that point.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Stephen Bladock, Thanks Molly, No moment, Jesse Cannon Somley.
Speaker 2: In our home city of New York, this is really
Speaker 2: really grotesque stuff. We have four year olds going to
Speaker 2: court in New York City with no lawyer for immigration.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting. This country is falling apart This is not
Speaker 1: how any supposed work. Four year olds should not be
Speaker 1: going to courthouses by themselves, they should be being protected.
Speaker 1: The fact that this country is so uninterested in protecting
Speaker 1: children is just so incredibly distressing and unsurprising and disgusting
Speaker 1: and will forever be our moment of fuck Ray.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I can't help but think that this is
Speaker 2: the logical conclusion of what happens after Eric Adams is
Speaker 2: shown to be Tom Holman's pet and has meetings with
Speaker 2: Christy nom this week the worst.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
Speaker 1: minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
Speaker 1: you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.