35 Burst results for "Robert Bork"

"robert bork" Discussed on The Allusionist

The Allusionist

02:59 min | Last month

"robert bork" Discussed on The Allusionist

"Agreed with, he probably would. But Borg did not get that seat on the Supreme Court, the Senate vote on him was the third worst defeat on record, and people said that Bohr had been balked by disinformation, propaganda, false claims of racist sexist principles, but bork may have been bought by Borg by the Dow away he represented himself and his originalist views during the 12 days of confirmation hearings, presided over by Joe Biden, who ended his own presidential campaign partway through them. Another thing balked. The term Borg took off before the hearings even happened and 15 years later was added to the Oxford English dictionary. As we know, language is not neutral, and the Robert bork derived meaning of bork was popularised by Republicans, so it carried the sense of unfairness, a smear campaign, Borg's in other words that gets used to discredit criticism, even if warranted. Although Borg has two different origins, both of them eventually come to mean destruction. It's just the eponym one comes with purposeful malevolence. Whereas computers don't care, computers only have the power we give them. Although that does go for humans too. The illusionist is an independent podcast pumping out that free edutainment, and if you'd like to support this endeavor, please recommend the show to somebody. I'd be very grateful. If you have some spare cash, you can also help fund the show. Go to the illusionist dot org slash donate, and in return, you get behind the scenes info about the making of each episode, you get regular live streams where I read relaxing me from one of my many dictionaries and we chat about all sorts of topics like butter sculpture, leave peeping, the etymology of plankton and wolves made of chocolate. And you get to hang out in the illusion verse Discord community, which is a lovely, friendly corner of the Internet, and all those precious these days join us at the illusionist dot org slash donate. Your randomly selected work from the dictionary today is. Cape noun a hook formed on the lower jaw of adult male salmon and trout during the breeding season. Try using kite in an email today. This episode was produced by me, Helen zaltzman, thanks to Julia fallan and kaitano gained and to Martin Australia for the music. Here his compositions via pale bird music dot com and on band camp. Our ad partner is multitude to sponsor an episode of the show in 2023, contact them at multitude dot production slash ads. Find me at illusionist show on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and find every episode of the podcast in audio and transcript form and the full dictionary entries for the randomly selected words and links to the guests plus more information about the episode topics all at the shows for rather home. The illusionist dot org.

Borg bork Bohr Robert bork Joe Biden Supreme Court Senate Helen zaltzman Julia fallan kaitano Martin Australia Instagram Twitter Facebook
The Impact of Reagan Conservatives

Mark Levin

01:34 min | Last month

The Impact of Reagan Conservatives

"But this has always been the approach Of Reagan conservatives traditional Conservatives again do not confuse people who sit at think tanks and spit out white papers Or write columns to The Wall Street Journal of national review With movement conservatism look at what the court's done What do you think Sam Alito came from Came from the Reagan administration What do you think Scalia came from before he passed from the Reagan administration Where did Robert bork come from the Reagan administration It was the Reagan administration that started the whole judicial pushback against the activism that had taken place in the 60s the 70s and into the 80s Led by Ed meese the attorney general So don't burn the bridges down Rachel The things we can do and we should do We should learn from the successes But I think most of the complaint here while people are trying to be very philosophical about it isn't about philosophy And it isn't about even politics It's about getting strong patriots in the right position so they'll get something done

Reagan Administration Sam Alito Reagan Robert Bork The Wall Street Journal Ed Meese Scalia Rachel Patriots
Larry O'Connor: Joe Biden's One Brief Shining Moment Ends

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:27 min | 2 months ago

Larry O'Connor: Joe Biden's One Brief Shining Moment Ends

"Know if I'm going to commit an act of heresy here by pointing this out and I want to pick your brain on this for one brief shining moment. We saw desantis and Biden standing together yesterday on behalf of floridians, then of course Biden sort of blew it by saying that, you know, climate change is now that discussion has ended thanks to Ian. But am I wrong to feel a little warm and fuzzy about seeing a brief moment of unity right now between yesterday between a Republican governor and a Democrat president? Well, I think you're wrong only if you don't have a little bit of a cynical look at it as well because let's face it, Joe Biden needed to do this for weeks before an election because if he didn't, it would devastate the Democrats even more going into these major terms. I think that they've already written off the fact that Ron DeSantis is going to win going away in Florida. Boy, where is Charlie crisp in all of this? And he's got to be annoyed at Biden coming down there, but obviously they made the calculation that showing that the federal government can function under Joe Biden and that he, you know, in this one brief shining moment he actually fulfills what he's promised us that he'll work with people across the aisle that's always been a lie. We know who this man is. We saw how he treated Robert bork and clarence Thomas and said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains back in 2012. He's one of the most divisive partisan acts Washington's ever seen, but he talks a good game and yeah, for a brief shining moment, he had to show it, but don't expect it the last very long.

Biden Desantis Joe Biden Ron Desantis Charlie Crisp IAN Florida Federal Government Robert Bork Clarence Thomas Mitt Romney Washington
"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

The Doug Collins Podcast

04:38 min | 2 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

"Could see that. One and it hit me as we were finishing up here on this class question. Because I know they'd have had interaction in different ways. And especially because he was only a few years on the court when your father was alive. What do you think your father's reaction with John Roberts is? A little bit of an anomaly on the court to be honest. I think it's a horrible job being chief. You know, you are in the middle. And you're trying to guide things. And I think John Roberts was a big fan of my dad's at his memorial service he gave most beautiful toast. About my father. So I don't want to be critical of him. I understand. And I can't be critical of somebody who's in that job trying to hold a bunch of radical leftists and a bunch of conservatives together and thinking, look, and he's thinking about not just the law, but the larger society. The body politic. So, but I think my dad probably would have had different view of his chief judge, chief justice ship, as it were, then some people would, I think you would have wanted him to have a little more stiffness of spine. But he's a good man. I think, you know, Tom will tell, and I think that's been the and it goes back to, you know, a lot of this, the understanding that the chief justice role has is not just a regular justice. It's not an associate. There is a bigger line there that has to go. Bob, I'll have to tell you this has been one of the more enjoyable podcasts for me. You know, looking at a man's life, I mean, again, someone who, as you said, stood up and made that statement, I'm not going anywhere. You're going to have to vote on this. We don't have to do that much anymore in this world. And I think your father's example, the books, and you can go back and get those books, and look them up. I think returns are the great reminder. And also reminds us that, you know, the great is the man who plants a tree that he'll never sit under the shade of. And I think in many ways your father, we're sitting under the shade of trees that he planted many, many years ago. That's a wonderful thought. Thank you. Folks, there's been a good one you want to share this one the life of judge Robert bork by his in total from a very wonderful position of his son bob and it's exciting to have this. I'm glad to share it with you. Go out and share it, go to the dot com's podcast dot com. You can get us there, send us an email if you want to any input or you would like to know more questions. Or have some questions for me would love to have you. Bob, thanks again for being on the podcast. It's been a great pleasure. Thank you. Hey everybody, my pillow. I just wanted to let you know my pill is having the biggest sheet sale of the year. You have all have helped build my pillow into an amazing company that is today. And now Mike lindell, the inventor and CEO, wants to give back exclusively to his listeners. The perk out bed sheet is set is available in a variety of colors and sizes and they're all on sale. For example, the queen size is regular prostate 89 98, but it is now only 39 98 with our listener promo code. Order now because they, when they're gone, they're gone. You're not going to be able to get it. These fertile sheets are breathable. They have cool Chris Phil. They come with a ten year warning 60 day money back guarantee. Don't miss out on this incredible offer. There's a limited supply. So be sure to order now. Call one 800, 9 8 6, three 9 9 four, use the promo code Collins. Or you can go to my pillow dot com, click on the radio listener square and use the promo code Collins. COL INS. Lisa and I sleep only sheets every night. You will want to have them as well. They're a wonderful product. Go right now, either 800, 9, 8, 6, three, 9, 9, four, code word Collins or go to my pillow dot com. Also use the code word Collins to get this discount. You will not regret it. So is this the line for dragon's maze? The line is really long. We'll meet up later. How long will you wait? As long as it takes. So you guys are only going to do this one ride all day. Then we'll be that long. Probably. Mom, can you get us food? Wait, are they cutting? Caleb food is so far away. Should I say something? Daddy picked me up. Hey. There's a line here. That's like 20 people. One person holds the line for 20 people? This is bull. Don't go there. Go on a real vacation. Go RVing. Learn more at go RVing dot com..

John Roberts Bob Mike lindell Robert bork Collins Chris Phil Tom Lisa Caleb
What Would the Late Judge Robert Bork Think of Justice John Roberts?

The Doug Collins Podcast

01:09 min | 2 months ago

What Would the Late Judge Robert Bork Think of Justice John Roberts?

"Your father's reaction with John Roberts is? A little bit of an anomaly on the court to be honest. I think it's a horrible job being chief. You know, you are in the middle. And you're trying to guide things. And I think John Roberts was a big fan of my dad's at his memorial service he gave most beautiful toast. About my father. So I don't want to be critical of him. I understand. And I can't be critical of somebody who's in that job trying to hold a bunch of radical leftists and a bunch of conservatives together and thinking, look, and he's thinking about not just the law, but the larger society. The body politic. So, but I think my dad probably would have had different view of his chief judge, chief justice ship, as it were, then some people would, I think you would have wanted him to have a little more stiffness of spine.

John Roberts
Which SCOTUS Justice Carries Judge Bork's Legacy? His Son Weighs In

The Doug Collins Podcast

00:52 sec | 2 months ago

Which SCOTUS Justice Carries Judge Bork's Legacy? His Son Weighs In

"Court now, who do you see if you would say, would carry that, I guess, not mantle necessarily, but that thought process that your father had owned the court now? Well, without a doubt, clarence clarence. And Alito, I mean, I thought the opinion he wrote in Dobbs was masterful. I don't know how you take that apart from the other side. He answered all their questions. They just all knew his lie about him. But and I'd like to see more of from Amy Coney Barrett. I think Kavanaugh is perhaps a little more moderate, but give him time. Yeah. You know, they're all going to grow. I hope in the right direction.

Clarence Clarence Alito Dobbs Amy Coney Barrett Kavanaugh
"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

The Doug Collins Podcast

03:22 min | 2 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

"And this is why I'm so interested in this podcast. I'm so glad that we're doing this. The bork mentality that let's fight out the ideas. Let's actually engage. Led to his, you know, not only in the government with the Nixon administration, but then later on, we'll jump ahead here just a little bit. And that is when he was nominated by Reagan to go on to the court. As a family member, a very public spectacle of that. And we went through a time where we still do with conservative justices are always vilified many times by the press by the others in believing that they are bad people. What was that like for you as a fan for him being nominated? And I wish like I said, you know, he had already served in government. He was on the district Court of Appeals there and so judge, you know, his judge title. But what was that like being. In that time when he was nominated? What do you remember most about that? The first thing I remember was that one of his clerks was working at The White House and called me, I mean, I knew it was coming. We called me and said, okay, they're doing it right now. So I went running over from my job at U.S. news and World Report. And we went into the back of the press room. The one you see on TV every day now. And so Reagan announced him. And then I went and then I went up to Chris Cox's. You probably know Chris Cox, the former congressman former SEC chairman, office where he was then associate White House counsel. And we were drinking champagne. And then Ted Kennedy got on TV from the floor about 45 minutes after the announcement and gave his famous Robert bork's America speech. And my jaw just hit the floor. I couldn't believe that those lies they were saying about him, you know, Robert bork's America. We're back Ellie abortions and rogue police are going to break into your bedroom and all that stuff, which people still believe. And they think actually the current court on ruling on Dobbs and roe V wade is the proof of that. Which is awful. And stupid. But I remember that being suddenly very worried. And the spending that summer being very worried that we weren't ready. And I think it proved true we weren't ready. We had no idea that this group of about a hundred left wing organizations would band together to create this atmosphere of lies and hatred about my father. On the other hand, he had it easy compared to the current justices of pardon me. Yeah, I mean, you look at what's happening today, yeah. Yeah, so, you know, no one tried to kill him. And Brett Kavanaugh accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh this was so over the top and so ridiculous..

Nixon administration Chris Cox Reagan Robert bork U.S. Court of Appeals roe V wade White House Ted Kennedy SEC Ellie Dobbs Brett Kavanaugh
"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

The Doug Collins Podcast

03:46 min | 2 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

"You're navigator in a volatile world of investments. Hey everybody, we're back here on the Doug Collins podcast glad to have you coming in with us today. We're going to have a continuation of a conversation that we've had with bob bork junior on antitrust. We have a lot of discuss right discussions you need to download that episode follow it, you know, and understand what's actually going on in Washington right now attacking our understanding of antitrust and the consumer protections that are there. But all throughout that podcast, you heard mention of bob's father, justice Robert bork. And no matter where you fall, everybody now, if you're involved in history, you're involved in politics or you're involved in looking at the Supreme Court watching. His father names comes up almost every time I knew justices actually nominated a Supreme Court because frankly from many of our perspective he was done very wrong. And it became a terminology abort. In other words, he was, I think he should have been on Supreme Court. That didn't happen. And there was some interesting players at the time that are still around right now. Joe Biden being one of them that contributed to what happened to the justice when he was nominated. So bob one, glad to have you back on the podcast. I'm glad to talk about this. You know, being a very personal issue about your father, but he impacted a lot of people. As we get started, talk about how he came about, you know, you know, he came out, he got his law degree, he went to the army, who came to Yale. What are some of those memories you actually in our previous podcast, you actually talked about, you know, growing up as he was on the Yale faculty. Yeah. So just a quick aside, because it's funny, you called him justice for it, and I wanted to say, no, if only he'd be. So yeah, anyway, look, he was a pugilist. He boxed in high school. He was always striving and fighting and engaging. Politically, you know, it's old story, but you know, when he was in high school, he was a socialist. And decided he didn't like that. And he was like, I think he was a libertarian. He didn't like that. Ultimately he became a conservative. He was always trying out ideas. And you went off to the Marine Corps and then ultimately University of Chicago. Where he was an undergrad there. Studying the great books. That's what Chicago was back then. So he was a voracious reader, consumer of ideas, and here's an interesting thing that not a lot of people know. He wanted to be a journalist. And so he thought, wow, he saw it, he would apply to journalism school at Columbia because that's where journalists he thought had to go to become journalists. They wouldn't accept him because he had this great books degree from the University of Chicago. So he went to Chicago law school instead. And there's one of those great forks and historical forks in the road. He went to Chicago and law school study from some great conservative minds like Aaron director, who was an economist, but who taught at the law school Ed levy, who later went on to be attorney general, was there. And it was a baptism of fire there because in those days, they didn't worry about safe spaces..

bob bork Supreme Court Doug Collins Robert bork bob Yale faculty Joe Biden Washington Yale University of Chicago army Marine Corps Chicago law school Chicago Columbia Ed levy Aaron
Remembering Judge Robert Bork With His Son, Robert Bork Jr.

The Doug Collins Podcast

01:40 min | 2 months ago

Remembering Judge Robert Bork With His Son, Robert Bork Jr.

"One, glad to have you back on the podcast. I'm glad to talk about this. You know, being a very personal issue about your father, but he impacted a lot of people. As we get started, talk about how he came about, you know, you know, he came out, he got his law degree, he went to the army, who came to Yale. What are some of those memories you actually in our previous podcast, you actually talked about, you know, growing up as he was on the Yale faculty. Yeah. So just a quick aside, because it's funny, you called him justice for it, and I wanted to say, no, if only he'd be. So yeah, anyway, look, he was a pugilist. He boxed in high school. He was always striving and fighting and engaging. Politically, you know, it's old story, but you know, when he was in high school, he was a socialist. And decided he didn't like that. And he was like, I think he was a libertarian. He didn't like that. Ultimately he became a conservative. He was always trying out ideas. And you went off to the Marine Corps and then ultimately University of Chicago. Where he was an undergrad there. Studying the great books. That's what Chicago was back then. So he was a voracious reader, consumer of ideas, and here's an interesting thing that not a lot of people know. He wanted to be a journalist.

Yale Faculty Yale Army Marine Corps University Of Chicago Chicago
Robert Bork, Jr: Antitrust Is a Powerful Weapon

The Doug Collins Podcast

01:34 min | 2 months ago

Robert Bork, Jr: Antitrust Is a Powerful Weapon

"Of this now has become to the, it's not what's happening now, it's become the preemptive. It's become the, the, the law school socratic question. You know, what if this happened in this happen? And that's not a good way to develop any law and much less one that is as fluid as antitrust. Exactly. And the reason they like antitrust, of course, is because it is a gigantic club that can be you can break up a company with antitrust law, or in bringing private lawsuits, you can get trouble damages in antitrust. So it's a big weapon. In fact, dad wrote this book, the actress paradox started to work on this area because he was concerned back in the 60s that the socialists were going to try to use antitrust to grab hold of the economy. And of course that's what's happening now. This is a social antitrust grab hold of the economy. But you made another interesting point if I might, you know, about stopping things before they happen. That is spreading globally now. You know, there was this merger between attempted merger between Illumina and grail. Grail was a company that lumina had started and spun off. And then they wanted to buy it back after they had after grail had developed these medical technologies. And the FTC has tried to block that. But ultimately, they failed. Their own ALJ refused to block it. And now, in Europe, the European economic authorities and a trust authorities are going to block it have said they're going to block it even though Illumina and grail have no business in Europe. They don't

Illumina Lumina Grail FTC ALJ Europe
Big Is Not Always Bad With Robert Bork, Jr.

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:11 min | 2 months ago

Big Is Not Always Bad With Robert Bork, Jr.

"Especially in the last few years the prevailing idea around this is, is that if it's big that it is bad. I think that's become the understanding and I hear this all the time from members of how you heard it from members of Congress, heard it from members of the media that would say simply because something is big. And let's just say name your company from Amazon to Exxon, whatever it's bad and it inherently causes problems in the marketplace. What's your dad's book and what's your foundation is actually looking at though is going back to that true understanding is does this protect the consumer and is there in it by being big? Is there an excerpt exhortation or something or forcing of these bigger companies to keep people out of the marketplace or to extort an unordered problem in the marketplace? Right. Why do you think that builds, I mean, it's easy to understand why the quote big is bad thing. How do we overcome that though because the reality of most Americans Americans is is that they use these companies. I mean, they enjoy going to Walmart. You know, it's an interesting sort of bipolar kind of concept here. Well, you remind me of my grandmother, my father's mother, late Elizabeth bork, who I remember saying when we were living in New Haven, Connecticut, when he was teaching at Yale law school, and she was grumbling about the corner grocery store, the orange street market. And why they didn't have a lot of things. And the prices were high. And so she was starting to go to the supermarket. This is probably in the 60s, 70s. And. That was, that was an example of how big made her life better, but she was grumbling about the small being so instead of preserving small, companies found big box stores found ways to Walmart is a perfect example. Walmart has achieved so much for the consumer. I mean, I think I saw a number estimated $260 billion in savings to consumers over $2300 per household

Exxon Elizabeth Bork Congress Amazon Walmart Yale Law School New Haven Connecticut
"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:38 min | 2 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

"In his mind, just joy today to have bob board junior owned, he has been a leader in this industry, not only following up on what his father, Robert bork had done, judge bork had done. But in his own right working with this today, bob, welcome to the podcast today. It's such a pleasure to finally be on, I'm sorry about the delays, but here we are. Yay. We made it. Well, to get everybody started off, tell us about where what you're doing now, your organization, and then we're just going to dive head deep into this stuff. The semi short version is that for a long time, I was a reporter and then got sick of that and decided to get a grown-up job. And worked in corporate communications and strategy, but most recently, and really this is a labor of love for my father. I saw in 2016 or so that Elizabeth Warren and others were having sort of their left wing Appalachian meeting to discuss how to hijack antitrust and turn it into a weapon against business, not just big business, all business. And my first thought was, well, I wonder where my dad's book is. And he had written a book called the antitrust paradox in 1978, but it was out of print. And you couldn't find it unless you wanted to spend three or $400 on an old copy. So I decided we needed to get the book back into print. And I asked Mike Lee, senator Mike Lee to write a new introduction. And I wrote a new forward and took some time, but we got it out. It's on Amazon and Barnes and noble. It's very readable. Anyway, I need to start with that. And then I thought, this is getting ugly. Particularly when Joe Biden won The White House and Democrats had both houses of Congress and you saw lots of really insane legislation and the appointment of Lena Khan, who is just a Marxist, you know, put in charge of the FTC, decided we had to get in there and start fighting, so I created the antitrust education project and have been doing lots and lots of media and writing pieces in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere to try to explain why the consumer welfare standard, which was my father's contribution to antitrust back in 1978 and has been basically the operating system for antitrust enforcement for the last 43 years, ought to be preserved against these lunatics

Elizabeth Warren senator Mike Lee Lena Khan Mike Lee intellectual property committe Obama administration Joe Biden Barnes FTC The Wall Street Journal White House Amazon orrin hatch judiciary committee Congress Standard Oil trust bob justice William O Douglas Senate
Doug Welcomes Robert Bork, Jr. of the Antitrust Education Project

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:38 min | 2 months ago

Doug Welcomes Robert Bork, Jr. of the Antitrust Education Project

"In his mind, just joy today to have bob board junior owned, he has been a leader in this industry, not only following up on what his father, Robert bork had done, judge bork had done. But in his own right working with this today, bob, welcome to the podcast today. It's such a pleasure to finally be on, I'm sorry about the delays, but here we are. Yay. We made it. Well, to get everybody started off, tell us about where what you're doing now, your organization, and then we're just going to dive head deep into this stuff. The semi short version is that for a long time, I was a reporter and then got sick of that and decided to get a grown-up job. And worked in corporate communications and strategy, but most recently, and really this is a labor of love for my father. I saw in 2016 or so that Elizabeth Warren and others were having sort of their left wing Appalachian meeting to discuss how to hijack antitrust and turn it into a weapon against business, not just big business, all business. And my first thought was, well, I wonder where my dad's book is. And he had written a book called the antitrust paradox in 1978, but it was out of print. And you couldn't find it unless you wanted to spend three or $400 on an old copy. So I decided we needed to get the book back into print. And I asked Mike Lee, senator Mike Lee to write a new introduction. And I wrote a new forward and took some time, but we got it out. It's on Amazon and Barnes and noble. It's very readable. Anyway, I need to start with that. And then I thought, this is getting ugly. Particularly when Joe Biden won The White House and Democrats had both houses of Congress and you saw lots of really insane legislation and the appointment of Lena Khan, who is just a Marxist, you know, put in charge of the FTC, decided we had to get in there and start fighting, so I created the antitrust education project and have been doing lots and lots of media and writing pieces in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere to try to explain why the consumer welfare standard, which was my father's contribution to antitrust back in 1978 and has been basically the operating system for antitrust enforcement for the last 43 years, ought to be preserved against these lunatics

Bob Board Judge Bork Robert Bork Senator Mike Lee Elizabeth Warren BOB Mike Lee Lena Khan Joe Biden Barnes Amazon White House FTC Congress The Wall Street Journal
"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

02:44 min | 4 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Complex when we moved to Delaware and just up the road a little school I went to holy rosary grade school. And because it was a four lane highway, that was accessible. My mother drove us and rather than us people to walk. And guess what? The first frost, you knew what was happening. It had to put on their windshield wipers to get literally the oil slick off the window. That's why I am so damn and other people I grew up have cancer. All right, so. God, this is so good. So tell us a story three and a half months ago on earth day to talk about how the oil slick and the refrigerator it Delaware that created oil slick of the car that is bob would have to use with a windshield wipers drive to school in fall, although this time it was the first frost. That's why he had asthma four months ago, this time it's cancer. The asthma has progressed. It is metastasized. The asthma somehow has now become malignant. I never do that could happen, actually. But you learn something every day. I don't want to be anti science. So that's what I mean, I just watched one more time. I want you to hear these back to back because it is so stunning. What the media in this country lets this loser get away with. It brings me no joy to call the president of the United States to lose it. The man is a loser. For 50 years, he's never had a real job. He has nothing to show for 50 years in public office. He's been a center he's been a vice president. He's been a president. Can you tell me one accomplishment that says, oh, this great thing in this country wouldn't have happened if it weren't Joe Biden. Anything? He's had one driving principle in value his entire career and that is his own advancement. And advancement of his family members who go out there and make the money for him, while he holds office. Yeah, I'm sorry, that's the definition of a loser. Oh, sure, you know, he won an election, I guess, and he holds an office, but as a human being, not my favorite guy. Oh no, I know. Oh, Joe's really a nice guy. Joe's a good guy. Oh, Joe's really likeable. Good old likeable Joe. Really? As clarence Thomas and his family, how likeable he is. Ask Robert bork in his family. I'm nice a guy, Joe Biden is. Spear me that. All right, so I want you to hear these back to back. Again, the first clip from April. And when I went to the small little school, that was about a mile from the apartment complex we lived in. And a little school called holy rosary, and you couldn't walk to school because although it was a four lane access highway, it was just too dangerous to cross some of the streets. And my mother would get when it came spring. I mean, it came to fall. This is the God's truth.

rosary grade school asthma Delaware cancer Joe Joe Biden bob United States Robert bork clarence Thomas
"robert bork" Discussed on American Scandal

American Scandal

04:14 min | 7 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on American Scandal

"Later that afternoon, president Richard Nixon sits down in the Oval Office across from Elliot Richardson, his attorney general. Richardson has a plain face and brown hair slick to the side. He's been on the job less than 6 months, and while Nixon normally has a good read on people, he can't make any sense of his new attorney general. He was supposed to be an ally, but so far, he's been resisting Nixon's orders. And that's an issue Nixon needs to fix. Before he finds himself with yet another crisis. Nixon squints as he sizes up his attorney general. Elliot, you have a lot to explain. Of course, sir, tell me why you're not following orders. You may Cox a special prosecutor for Watergate. I told you to fire him, and yet Cox is still on the job. I'm sorry, sir. I can't fire Cox. I made a promise. The special prosecutor would have total independence. I can't go back to my word. It's as simple as that. That's not simple, it's selfish. You realize we're in the middle of a crisis in the Middle East. I do, sir. And we can't afford another issue. And now I've gotten word that you're threatening to resign. Mister president, I don't believe I should stay in office if I can't carry out your orders. Oh, I know this is reckless. You're putting your personal commitments ahead of the needs of the administration, not to mention the public interest. Richardson shifts in his seat, looking troubled. Sir, I can only say that I believe my resignation is in the public interest. Is that right? You think you're doing a noble deed, sir, I'm not trying to cause you trouble. I wish there was another way. There is another way. Don't resign. Follow the orders of the president and fire Cox. I can not, sir. I'm sorry. Nixon clenches his jaws, he rises. Fine. If that's how you feel, I accept your resignation. Now get up and leave. Yes, sir. Once Richardson steps out of the Oval Office, Nixon collapses back into his leather chair. He thought he had control of the situation. He thought he could trust his cabinet members, the highest ranking officials in the administration. But once again, Nixon has come to see that he is all alone. He can't rely on anyone. Even if they say they're a friend or an ally. And as always, Nixon now has to make an unsavory choice. Picking one direction from many bad options. The special prosecutor is threatening to undermine the entire administration and Nixon can't let that happen. So the president is going to have to find a way to shut down this investigation. And that might mean taking an extraordinary step. Several hours later, in an office building in downtown Washington, Henry Ruth steps out of an elevator and begins walking toward his office. As Ruth rounds corner, he discovers a scene of chaos and disarray. Ruth is a high ranking official in the office of the Watergate special prosecution, and as he steps forward, he discovers several of his colleagues standing together, blocked from entering their office, and in front of them is a group of men in dark suits. Ruth gets closer and he realizes the man standing guard or FBI agents. Ruth's colleagues are trying to get into their offices to grab files. But the agents won't let them enter. Sweat begins to form on Ruth's forehead as he quickly takes it all in. This is exactly what he feared would happen. A nightmare for American democracy. First, the attorney general Elliot Richardson resigned after refusing president Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor. The Deputy Attorney General, the man next in line for the job, did the same. And that meant Robert bork, the man third in line, would become the acting attorney general, and as one of Nixon's allies bork immediately did the president's bidding. He fired Cox as a special prosecutor, and then he abolished the entire office of the special prosecution, putting an end to the independent investigation of Watergate. After that announcement, Ruth knew he couldn't waste any time, so he raced to the office, he had to secure all the files from the special prosecution's investigation. But it looks like he's too late. The FBI is now sealed off the office, and refused to allow any of the staff inside. Ruth's coworkers are.

Nixon Cox Elliot Richardson Richardson Nixon squints Oval Office president Nixon Ruth Elliot Henry Ruth Middle East Sir cabinet FBI Washington Robert bork bork
"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

03:39 min | 7 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"He's your typical liberal Republican And there he is at the Reagan library Not that the Cheryl Ford library not at the George W. Bush library but the Reagan library And why is he at the Reagan library Because they're dumbing down the history of Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan was a nice man but he was a tough man He was a principled man He fought for his issues He opposed abortion period by the way He nominated Robert bork to the Supreme Court By the way He shut down the government 6 times under his watch To try and get spending under control And focus more spending on the United States military by the way He didn't accept phony peace deals with the Soviet Union He wanted to destroy the Soviet Union By the way he armed freedom fighters in Africa In our hemisphere in Afghanistan by the way he supported what they would call Star Wars A crucial defense system The strategic defense initiative by the way he slashed taxes across the board like we've never seen before By the way he's no Larry Hogan Or Ben sasse Shame On what they're doing to the Reagan library shame By bringing in speakers like this who have no real principles to rally the nation around Chris Christie Ben sasse Larry Hogan and that's just the beginning of it The grievance politics grievance politics that's all the Democrats are about Without grievances you don't have a Democrat party Has he talked out against critical race theory Has he talked out against what's going on in our classrooms across the country Look at Glenn youngkin who won In Virginia Larry Hogan didn't run like a Glenn youngkin Larry Hogan ran like a Democrat Is that what we want America The future of the Republican Party I thought we had guys like that Case it and you name it Go ahead Stone I'm going to go mister chairman I want to insanity is doing the same thing over and over again And expecting a different result And we don't need just another typical professional politician who bends with every political wind and stands for nothing You got to be kidding me That's precisely you Larry Hogan Bends with the political wind Boy you folks who watched him speak all 12 of you at the Reagan library I'd ask for your money back We'll be right back Months On 77 W ABC This is the 77 WABC sports update Let's give you an update on the MLB Metz opened up a three game series tonight with the Philadelphia Phillies It's been a great start to the season.

Reagan library Larry Hogan Ben sasse Cheryl Ford library George W. Bush library Ronald Reagan Glenn youngkin Soviet Union Robert bork Supreme Court America Chris Christie Afghanistan Africa Republican Party Virginia WABC ABC MLB
"robert bork" Discussed on Mike Gallagher Podcast

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:35 min | 7 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on Mike Gallagher Podcast

"Now, on this national day of prayer, I got to share this blasphemy. It's one thing it's political heresy to call half the country extremists. But how about what Biden said about this particular issue itself? Listen to this. This is about a lot more than abortion. I hadn't read the whole opinion at that time. But this reminds me of the debate with Robert bork. Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights was because the government gave them to you. If you go back and look at the opening comments with a work Biden when I was questioning him as chairman, I said, I believe I have the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child, I exist. I'd incidentally, I doubt very seriously and maybe somebody with a better historical perspective on the board hearings can remind me, Robert bork was a rock solid conservative who understands our rights are given by our creator. I doubt that Robert bork said we don't have any rights except the rights given to us by the government. I find that a highly dubious charge. I could be wrong. I wouldn't understand that coming from bork. I wouldn't understand that coming from any conservative because we understand that we have God given rights. But can you imagine using the term child of God as a defense for abortion?

Robert bork Biden Bork Greg gutfeld bork Geraldo Geraldo Rivera Fox News channel Bologna government Hewitt gutfeld Salem Fox News channel building Fox
Did Joe Biden Misquote Robert Bork?

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:35 min | 7 months ago

Did Joe Biden Misquote Robert Bork?

"Now, on this national day of prayer, I got to share this blasphemy. It's one thing it's political heresy to call half the country extremists. But how about what Biden said about this particular issue itself? Listen to this. This is about a lot more than abortion. I hadn't read the whole opinion at that time. But this reminds me of the debate with Robert bork. Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights was because the government gave them to you. If you go back and look at the opening comments with a work Biden when I was questioning him as chairman, I said, I believe I have the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child, I exist. I'd incidentally, I doubt very seriously and maybe somebody with a better historical perspective on the board hearings can remind me, Robert bork was a rock solid conservative who understands our rights are given by our creator. I doubt that Robert bork said we don't have any rights except the rights given to us by the government. I find that a highly dubious charge. I could be wrong. I wouldn't understand that coming from bork. I wouldn't understand that coming from any conservative because we understand that we have God given rights. But can you imagine using the term child of God as a defense for abortion?

Robert Bork Biden Bork Government
"robert bork" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

06:46 min | 7 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"I want to cry You know own a cry in so many different ways but just to start with the substance of this decision There are a lot of things now on the chopping block and Steve you spoke about an earthquake Well a familiar phrase the slippery slope in the Supreme Court that which you do in one area could extend to others Well fundamental rights include interstate travel include the idea of same sex marriage include same sex relationships just to name a few Now this is essentially gone What's next The reasoning of this decision is so as I say muscular it could reach other rights as well including the right of marriage equality which is just recognized by the Supreme Court a few years ago I mean this is an opinion that Robert bork would have written The way Alito frames this all right that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution If they are not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions whatever that means wouldn't be legitimate That would include gay marriage Maybe even interracial marriage Okay that's all a lie folks That's all a lie Read the leak in the Politico piece It's on my website in my newsletter today The leak is of Samuel Alito justice Alito's majority opinion It very specifically puts a perimeter fence around the abortion issue They are just making it up How evil not only to meltdown and lose your mind because you can't kill infants in the womb right You've lost your mind because you can't do it But then in order to further this destructive abomination to humankind you then feel the need to lie about it on national cable television news programs knowing people can just go to the article and read it and see your line They don't care They don't care They don't care at all They don't care This is evil She's not bad It's not wrong It's evil There's a difference It's ticks up on the depravity scale You can read the leak It does not say all of that Jim did you hear the clown in the middle Oh my gosh interstate travels in jeopardy Yes That's it That's Egyptian Tim still shake it He's had really Now folks to be clear I'd like to visit Jim and Mike one day in Texas I was unaware of that right was in peril Cumulus curious we're going to have to set up an often in arrangement for that trip I am never going to Mike's like Mike's like damn Damn it I want to get to a college football game eventually with this cat He said we were going with a and M games sometimes We can't do it With the left of the media set interstate travels in jeopardy Are you an a do you believe this to the leftist to the conservatives This is not for you You can tell I'll turn the radio down for a minute To left this are you all idiots You really believe this That Sam Alito wrote in the majority opinion Folks we're going to have to look at that interstate travel thing too That's a real problem Yeah you're telling me this we can't even keep people out of the United States that the Texas border You think there's going to be a border between Texas and the surrounding states Are you kidding They can't even keep people out of the United States anywhere on their southern border And you think all of a sudden there's going to be a new push to stop interstate I can see it tomorrow They're blame it on the most conservative members of Congress right They'll pull out a Jim Jordan and a Louie gohmert whatever the I can say it folks Louie gohmert tomorrow is going to push the Lance ban interstate travel act and left this will be yeah Yes They'll be sending out email petitions Stop the interstate ban of travel act by Louie gohmert This is how dumb these people on the other side of the IR This is the stupid we're dealing with But make no mistake the people at the top lying to them to brew them up into a into a foaming bath of rage are lying because they want to see the chaos and the violence later Incredible how the left always talks about inciting violence Yet it always seems to originate from the left Now Jim put together a pretty interesting compilation This is short but this is good You did this right before the show The left is talking points on this are so preposterous and ridiculous that when you put a little foil on them you'll see that the left doesn't really mean what they say My body my choice That's kind of weird because Didn't you argue the exact opposite on the vaccine mandate That's kind of strange isn't it And then the lens everything's a war on women except two things They can never define what a woman is actually And then second when you have biological men competing against women destroying them in their own competitions The left celebrated thinks it's great Here listen to this little one too back and forth about leftist talking points versus leftist reality Check this out The amount of just pain and damage this is going to cause and the full ability to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body And we're going back into a handmaid's tale society here I do know that having full approval will really pave the way for a lot more employers And schools and other institutions to implement vaccine mandates which I strongly believe is what we need at this point Brace yourselves ladies I'm with you My heart is just broken I don't understand why this country hates women so much So my first collegiate race I raced against a biological male and they beat me It's extremely deflating I've experienced it 5 times and each time I lost a biological male And the fact that that's still happening that women are still losing to biological males in their own sport shows why we need more female athletes to speak of about this And we're joking about it being a handmaid's palette will be yeah yeah you're not joking all right You just leaving out the point that you all created it You can't talk about the portion It's a woman's issue What's a woman I don't know I don't know no idea No idea So how is it a woman's issue If you don't know what a woman is I'm just asking It's a war on women You have biological men in mixed martial arts and swimming competitions competing against women And beating them in their own sport I didn't.

Louie gohmert Alito Sam Alito Supreme Court Mike Robert bork Jim Texas earthquake Steve Jim Jordan United States Tim football Congress swimming
Dems Forget the SCOTUS Ruling Is Only About Abortion

The Dan Bongino Show

01:52 min | 7 months ago

Dems Forget the SCOTUS Ruling Is Only About Abortion

"They are so determined to continue the practice of terminating human lives in the womb killing babies in the womb That they're completely melting down and losing their minds that this may in some states be taken away from them Here put the media Montage up first stream here's a liberal media again totally melting down that they can't wipe out infants in the womb anymore Sick evil stuff Check this out Honestly I want to cry You know own a cry in so many different ways but just to start with the substance of this decision There are a lot of things now on the chopping block and Steve you spoke about an earthquake Well a familiar phrase the slippery slope in the Supreme Court that which you do in one area could extend to others Well fundamental rights include interstate travel include the idea of same sex marriage include same sex relationships just to name a few Now this is essentially gone What's next The reasoning of this decision is so as I say muscular it could reach other rights as well including the right of marriage equality which is just recognized by the Supreme Court a few years ago I mean this is an opinion that Robert bork would have written The way Alito frames this all right that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution If they are not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions whatever that means wouldn't be legitimate That would include gay marriage Maybe even interracial marriage Okay that's all a lie folks That's all a lie Read the leak in the Politico piece It's on my website in my newsletter today The leak is of Samuel Alito justice Alito's majority opinion It very specifically puts a perimeter fence around the abortion issue They are just making it up

Supreme Court Earthquake Robert Bork Steve Alito Samuel Alito
"robert bork" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

04:35 min | 8 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on KOMO

"Celebration of the south lawn Friday for soon to be Supreme Court Justice katangi Brown Jackson here to discuss that and more former New Jersey governor Chris Christie former DNC chair Donna brazile ABC News political director Rick Klein and Politico White House correspondent Laura ferrin Lopez So Donna you were there in the rose garden You were also there when the vote was taken on the Senate to confirm her How big a moment It was a huge moment And you know she said but we made it We made it We all have made it That was the moment I think that many of us just started to lose it And then she finished up by saying she quoted the American poet Maya Angelou when she said I am the hope and the dream of the slave Everyone was crying I was sitting next to my former mayor Mitch landrieu from Louisiana We were holding hands And here Mitch who took the statues down in Louisiana Confederate statues And we're holding hands This is a moment a moment to rejoice Now look there's work to be done It's the Supreme Court of the United States But the fact that we finally have made this moment in American history It's a moment of celebration And yesterday John I was in the streets of Washington D.C. there paint a merle right next to a wonderful restaurant called you'll love this one Chicken and whisky That sounds like a good play And I was there Well you were invited You just didn't show up But this is why this model was so important for the country And especially little girls and little boys all over this world And it's a marker for women now in the Supreme Court high water mark for women on the court But let me ask you we heard governor Christie we heard from Mitch McConnell this week not willing to commit that there would even be hearings for if there's a vacancy next year if the Republicans retake the Senate He won't even commit to holding hearings We are in a new era really starting back with Robert bork and moving forward since then Of non cooperation between the parties on these appointments They have become ideological litmus tests for both parties And each party has ramped up the contentiousness of these things And so I said on the show 6 weeks ago that she would probably get two or three Republican votes in the second She got three And so this is the new era that we're in John And if Mitch McConnell is nothing he is certainly someone who plays his cards very close to his vest He doesn't know what is going to happen in the next two years and he's not a guy who's going to make any commitments on anything And by the way if the shoe were on the other foot Chuck Schumer I suspect would be doing the same thing And so that's the era we're in whether we like it or not And we have to be able to find our way forward But despite all that this was a bipartisan confirmation And so let's keep our eye on the ball in terms of what actually happened versus now moving to the next thing that we're all worried about This new justice was justice Jackson was confirmed in a bipartisan way as she will now be on the Supreme Court come October You're listening to northwest news radio You're a stock chart dot com money update on northwest news radio From ABC News Wall Street weekend trading will resume after a mixed end last week The Dow ended higher but the broad S&P 500 and the NASDAQ indexes closed lower Among the reports that could affect stock prices are a look at inflation with the monthly consumer price index Tuesday and the producer price index Wednesday Thursday we get a look at retail sales and the Labor Department's weekly report on initial claims for unemployment insurance Then reports on manufacturing and industrial production Friday COVID continues to squeeze the economy around the world particularly in China Shanghai residents face severe restrictions on movement and activities because of a surge in infections with economic effects rippling around the world ACM research a supplier of equipment for the semiconductor industry that has operations in Shanghai says the restrictions will cause a significant hit to its revenue Its stock fell 6% Friday a jump in COVID cases is also behind airline disruptions in Europe Chuck sievertson ABC.

Supreme Court Justice katangi Brown Jackson Rick Klein Politico White House Laura ferrin Lopez Washington D.C. Donna brazile Louisiana governor Christie Mitch McConnell Mitch landrieu Chris Christie Senate Maya Angelou DNC ABC News Donna Mitch Robert bork New Jersey
"robert bork" Discussed on WGN Radio

WGN Radio

06:34 min | 9 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on WGN Radio

"20 million made the switch and watch newsmax all the time Try it You may never go back Who needs an alarm when you have mobs are on weekday mornings at 6 on 7 20 Welcome back to the jumbo hat that you're at one 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo one 8 6 6 5 O 5 four 6 two 6 And you have to go back again to the nomination of Robert bork Robert bork let's not forget was universally regarded as a brilliant legal mind In that basis in terms of the background in terms of demonstrated intellect qualified to sit on the court every bit as much so as the catan J Brown Jackson and that regard his confirmation could have theoretically given opponents of the constitutional right to an abortion a 5 four majority Borks generally libertarian views also pretended ill for other important liberal precedents It was simply more than the liberals in the Senate could accept at that time and thus it was necessary for them to destroy works reputation to board him as was the case Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts actually said in the speech that Robert bork's America would see the return of legal segregation That was patently absurd and what's more I think Ted Kennedy knew that it was absurd but did that make him a liar Yeah I'm afraid it did It actually did make him a liar He knew perfectly well that Robert bork was not about to bring back legal segregation into the United States of America They even got into his private riddle of movies at one point in the effort to him down And of course what made it ultimately work for the future was the fact that it worked that time Bork was defeated In other words you had intense fire brought to bear on an otherwise qualified nominee and on purely philosophical grounds efforts were made to destroy the individual And certainly his reputation in the minds of many people was the destroyed or at the very least impaired And it worked That was the key Had it not worked maybe we wouldn't have gone down the path that we've gone down so many other times But it worked And so you're going to see more of that Now in fairness Ted Cruz the senator from Texas made a very crucial observation on day one when he said to the nominee that nobody's going to ask you about your dating habits No one's going to ask you if you like beer And they didn't And they shouldn't have And his point was well made in my view Gill in Manila Philippines hello Hello Jim A couple of other things if I may Sure I know what he asked her if she'd like watermelon either But that would take did not But that's quite all right I didn't say it you did So go ahead Okay But I can choose doing a great job Can I comment on your last guest Of course sure All right Well I always think out of the box And when I realized that after certain reversals in my life I was going to have to live underneath about $2000 a month And I had been here before I said well that's the place for me I have a four bedroom house here Manila that I ranked It costs about $200 a month Four bedroom house that costs 200 bucks a month I like those prices It gets better We have we are in a subdivision with a homeowners association I just got a letter from the homeowners association Telling all of the members to stop doing a certain thing that was happening and My second biggest Bill is $60 a month That's for electricity and we use everything We have a big Whirlpool refrigerator and have a separate freezer lights heat the water everything costs to $60 a month That's our second biggest expense The other expenses we have to pay for our trash collection Our water and our sewer that cost a dollar and 60 cents per month At dollar 66 really Wow We're all of those services Now and that can't possibly be the actual cost there must be a huge government subsidy in there somewhere I don't know They don't pay very much people here only make $5 a day the ones who perform all those services But what I'm saying is I think I have a better solution on how to feed inflation than you're always catching stuff Well what moved to the Philippines Well I survived this COVID thing I have a VA We have a VA clinic here provides the online medication takes care of a lot of my medical situations Let's say we move to the Philippines and let's say we had to work what kind of pay could we expect What do they pay talk show hosts in the Philippines Well when I was working in her Carl center because Spanish speaker I made a lot more than that I made about $1500 a month But okay Well maybe not a bad idea In that case maybe we should consider that Maybe that's the answer Move to the Philippines All right guilt Thank you If this thing thoughts more to come one 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo one 8 6 6 5 O 5 four 6 two 6 on a variety of the issues of the day and we haven't even gotten to Ukraine back in a moment Finding the right person for the job isn't easy Just ask someone who hired their.

Robert bork Robert bork Robert bork catan J Brown Jackson Borks Ted Cruz Senator Edward Kennedy America Ted Kennedy Manila Bork Philippines Massachusetts Senate Gill homeowners association
"robert bork" Discussed on WGN Radio

WGN Radio

06:29 min | 9 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on WGN Radio

"Hawks cats and the NFL WGN My parents taught me that unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up my path was clearer So that if I worked hard and I believed in myself in America I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be Again pretty standard opening language to be expected in these confirmation hearings these days as the approach that is seen has been adopted by every nominee they have a little school they put these people through one has to wonder if Robert bork had had the benefit of such a school if he might have wound up on the court possibly not He had quite a paper trail Which raised another question here as we go back to our calls here And that is she's been on the court She Brown Jackson has been on a court for quite a while There has to be a paper trail there Do we know much about it Well there is a paper trail She's been mostly for the last period of time you mentioned a district court judge But you can't make much out of a district court judge us rulings because for the most part just a core judges are the foot soldiers of the federal judiciary They apply the precedence that higher level judges have imposed upon them whether it be Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court Justices So they just follow the precedent for the most part Now occasionally one of them might step out on a particular issue particularly if it's a novel issue and issue a written opinion that would reveal their philosophy But for the most part district court judges just follow the law They're not they are really the foot soldiers of the operational arms of the judiciary 26 6 5 O Jimbo would go to Lance and Galloway New Jersey now good evening Lance First and foremost I want to congratulate the university for making it to the sweet 16th I think it's great for the little state of zoo Jersey I forgot to mention that as a matter of fact when Allen was booked at that slipped right past me but congratulations on your basketball power Alan Yes thank you very much and thank you to your caller We appreciate that We're very happy We're very excited and we're glad to be on the map There you go Absolutely Absolutely My question is this is that in response to you just mentioning the paper trail there's senator grassley said today that there's still waiting for paperwork to be produced or presented to them And it's like I just don't understand why this entire process I mean only comes around like very very infrequently like maybe Avery 8 ten years and I can remember except during when people pass away the well they don't tend to resign from the court It happens occasionally but I mean there aren't a lot of openings It's a 9 member body and they're there for life so I mean you're not going to see a whole lot of them The thing is is that I just don't understand why the senators if they know this they don't get the materials they need It's like they always drag it out and that's where it's in the last ten years or the court convening for this to confirmation You always have too many theatrics and the last one with Kavanaugh and even justice Barrett It was again Democrats attacking the person's individual human character If it's a Republican nominee or vice versa I think you should go back to what Allen said a moment ago that in many ways these hearings were a lot more about the senators than it is about the nominee Alan Yeah absolutely I mean that's what it's boiled down to because the nominee whether it's just Jackson or judge Barrett or even judge Kavanaugh Didn't really say very much about what they would do on the court I mean they said we would respect precedent It's all in the way of generalities And so what this is mostly all about is how the senators react what are the issues they want to bring forth How does it play back home and are they running for higher office And that's what it's really all about It really doesn't reveal very much about the judge We kind of know generally speaking whether the judge will be liberal or conservative we kind of know how he or she might react to certain issues on the court But they will never really tell you they'll say well I'm going to follow the law I'm going to follow precedent I'm going to hear both sides I applied the law to the facts I mean the most ridiculous statement I really heard was when the chief justice currency justice Roberts was up for confirmation and said well we're just umpires We're just umpires calling the shots That's ridiculous That's not what they do They do apply It's what they ought to do I mean let's face it the kind of comments made by I think it was Sotomayor about asking somebody what if a given policy was beneficial that's totally out of bounds They're supposed to rule what is or is not constitutional And beneficial beneficial is not part of their province that was absolutely uncalled for on her part Because let's understand something The constitution is clear and if the law is clear they apply it to bound to that And that's what limits them But so many issues that are constitutional don't have any precedent It's just a matter of interpreting the words And as we all know a conservative can interpret the words one way a liberal interpret the very same words another way So the fact is they're not umpire when they do that They're applying their values and their judgment And it goes back to the very beginning of the country The first center of judges appointed by George Washington were federalists and they applied a federalist point of view to the provisions of the constitution and they were picked for that reason just Washington wanted federalist judges He was a federalist himself And so it's clear that judges apply their values like anybody else with to something that doesn't mean they're terrible people It means no it doesn't mean they're terrible people But if you are concerned about beneficial I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here If you're concerned about beneficial then resign your seat from an unelected lifetime tenured body and run for election to the House the Senate or the presidency and see.

Brown Jackson Lance First zoo Jersey senator grassley Robert bork justice Barrett Hawks Allen judge Barrett judge Kavanaugh Alan Jimbo NFL Court of Appeals Lance Kavanaugh Supreme Court Avery America New Jersey
"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

03:12 min | 11 months ago

"robert bork" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"With Republicans now he is talking about Republicans that don't agree with voting rights He's describing him as George Wallace bull Connor and Jefferson Davis What happened to the guy who when he was elected said to make progress we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy I think everybody listening to that speech who's speaking on the level as my mother would say would note that he was not my mother would say She'd say gen Psaki is detestable and full of crap When she mister producer By the way here Go ahead As humans he was comparing the choice to You see ladies and gentlemen you got it all wrong When you heard Biden yelling at you like an unhinged maniac About George Wallace and all the rest reading the words that were stuck in his face Trying to be as outrageous and debit as possible And a class propagandist he wasn't talking about people No He was talking about ideas Joe Biden's always been an idea man He never attacked people personally like Robert bork and clarence Thomas and thousands of others No Tara Reid among them Use so miser and misunderstand Joe robinette Biden Lunch bucket Joe Just because he's invoking names that he knows And he knows we'll upset people Does it mean he's invoking names to personalize the situation Come on It's my mother Go ahead Figures in history and where they're going to position themselves as they determine whether they're going to support the fundamentals I see So if you don't agree with the Democrat agenda you're positioning yourself with George Wallace Is that it And bulk honor Oh that's different I see And so as the great Aaron Burnett said New York's voting laws and some significant risks are more restrictive than Georgia So New York is a backward state as New York like bull Connor These people are so dense Go ahead to vote or not We needed those last words of wisdom or not Or not What would she be doing if she wasn't the spokes idiot for the idiot I sometimes I wonder Would she be the first shamell woman on TV Or birthing person What would she be doing I don't know Peter doocy to Jen Psaki cut 5 go Prison Biden promised to bring decades of D.C. experience.

George Wallace gen Psaki Jefferson Davis Joe robinette Biden Connor Robert bork Biden Joe Just clarence Thomas Tara Reid Joe Biden Aaron Burnett New York Georgia Peter doocy Jen Psaki D.C.
"robert bork" Discussed on Deconstructed with Mehdi Hasan

Deconstructed with Mehdi Hasan

05:21 min | 1 year ago

"robert bork" Discussed on Deconstructed with Mehdi Hasan

"And what was the idea. That she was trying to dismantle. Yeah i think. It's actually. I'm going to start with the idea that she's trying to dismantle. Because it's so pervasive that if you're listening you may have without thinking they have embedded in your own thinking. This is an idea that was pushed. Robert bork. most famously also. Aaron director key thinkers out. What is broadly understood talked about as the chicago school of economics. Which you've talked about on this on this show before and the idea epitomized in a law review article that changed the country sort of so there's moments where larvae articles and books can really can really shape the direction of a policy. Robert bourke wrote an article called the antitrust paradox. And in it. He argued that antitrust law as practiced from the thirties through the seventies was what was in works target works. What's what's the metaphor people. Use the insights insights right sites and he argued that antitrust law as practiced was protecting competitors not competition and was actually harming consumers because it was blocking mergers other kinds of exclusive contracts and business practices that would lead to effectively lower prices for for toothpaste collapsing into shakespeare in thirty seconds. But this is the most important thing work does is the way to solve what he sees. As a series of paradoxes and contradictions within antitrust law is to recognize in works words that the sole purpose of this whole suite of antitrust law is consumer welfare. It is not to protect the relative power of workers as compared to their employers even if their employers have extraordinary amounts of power to set the terms of wages and benefits it is not to protect small businesses. That are in a position of squeezed in the way that amazon sellers are now. We used by amazon or uber drivers squeezed by uber. The purpose of antitrust law to bork is consumer welfare and in practice that ends up being consumer prices. This may sound kind of abstract but it when the rubber at the road. When reagan adopted this policy it has profound implications and this is what what was taking on and in law review article. She goes into great detail about the ways in which amazon cross subsidizes engages in practices that end up squeezing the sellers squeezing potential competitors. Dampening innovation. Now i do want to say something about this article about konin general. It's a little pet peeve of mine concert article was really important about amazon but it was about much more than amazon. It was actually about agriculture. And it's about airlines and it's about pharma and it's about the way we think about economic policy. So my pet peeve is you will often see khan described as a thorn in the side of big tech aura tack opponents anti tech. She's not anti tech at all one of the things that we have seen. Is that these. Big tech. Companies are destroying innovation. They're buying up competitors they're choking people who might have more exciting ideas it's pro tech and it's about economic theory not just tech policy and watch con along with wu and and chopra and other sh. I'm part of this. Movement is an attempt to recover. Something that louis brandeis held dear which is starting with the world as it is and power as it operates in practice. So it's very fact based it's very much focusing on like what actually happens now Theory does and that's where cons training. She started talking to chicken farmers about their experience. She wrote great articles about seeds and patents and monsanto so she actually started in ag and then and then i believe That those insights helped her look at big tech without the without the blurry. Ness and the sort of glamor that tech sometimes brings people say tech is totally new. Everything's just never happened before she went in there. And she's like. I've seen this. I saw this with monsanto..

chicago school of economics Robert bourke amazon Robert bork Aaron bork reagan pharma khan louis brandeis chopra wu monsanto Ness
"robert bork" Discussed on Now & Then

Now & Then

03:01 min | 1 year ago

"robert bork" Discussed on Now & Then

"Of going ahead and interpreting the constitution based on what they said. Originally when the framers developed the constitutional originalism has taken a bunch of different turns since it was first conceived and began to be articulated but bork was the first person who stepped forward and said yes. I want overturn. The civil rights legislation has been put in place by The war and the burger court's and it's worth noting that when people complained about the robert bork hearings and when people today complain about the robert bork hearings did in fact. It wasn't just democrats at the time who complained about bork's approach to the constitution and to the supreme court that fifty eight of the one hundred senators who were sitting at the time opposed nomination and when reagan gave up an appointed anthony kennedy for that spot instead his hearing only took three days and he won confirmation unanimously suggesting that the problem was not with the democrats who are posing board but rather with the nomination in the first place but what this is giving us since then is a real turn among the court to originalism and increasingly the modern day. Republican court under. John roberts who was appointed by george w. bush has taken this originalists. Turn and it's a very unusual supreme court so the court now there are six people appointed by republicans. Three people appointed by democrats by far when you look at republican presidents and democratic presidencies. It's during republican presidencies. That you end up with far more appointments being made than democratic president so indeed. The republican party does and has for quite some time had the majority in the court. Now the question is what should the courts aim be. Should the court be. And we've been talking about this a little bit over time not to say the partisanship vanishes. Should the court be thinking about. The greater whole. Should it be acting in an arbiter or umpire. Kind of state. Should it be deciding issues of law or should it be a political tool. should it be promoting. A party's views. Really obviously really assertively. That's a different thing. A very different vision of what the supreme court should be. And certainly there number of cases. Coming out of the roberts court that suggests that if indeed it's got a vision of the way the country should be. It's a vision that privileges the republican party right now. So for example. In two thousand ten the roberts court decided citizens united which permitted the the rise of dark money and the real flood of corporate money into political advertising. Which is a way of course to increase the power of people with money in determining how elections come out it also in two thousand thirteen. That's something that really addressed. The warn course protection of voting and that's set in nineteen sixty five. Congress passed the voting rights act which required states..

robert bork bork Republican court supreme court anthony kennedy John roberts george w reagan republican party roberts court bush united Congress
"robert bork" Discussed on Tech News Today

Tech News Today

06:37 min | 1 year ago

"robert bork" Discussed on Tech News Today

"Relying on the same decades of president that they were relying on before and so so just because some of the popular view of antitrust has begun to evolve. Doesn't mean the court they're going to accept that today don't lena con made a fascinating argument in her famous paper. Amazon's antitrust paradox. But that doesn't mean it's going to fly with a district court judge until or unless the norms change of the laws change or both and so. I actually think it's not that surprising that this case is having trouble in the courts. Some of the experts. I've talked to said they really didn't think it was going to go anywhere. And that actually might help the lawmakers who are trying to say no we actually need to change the laws if we want to go after big tech companies and rain in their power. It's clear that we already know that. The existing laws. Don't work for that and here is example. And here's a court tossing out a case saying that. We can't prove facebook's monopoly. We'll look everybody. It seems clear that facebook's monopoly so let's change the laws. Give the courts clearer direction. So i think for that effort in the house and the senate that might actually stand to benefit from the swift dismissal in the courts at that make sense. Yes that does. And i mean so. Let's talk a little bit more about your what you were saying there about. The court's not changing is precedent of course plays a huge role in Court judgments in court cases from your perspective is. Do you feel like the courts need to change. They need to to to update their thinking. Based on what kind of society is. And i know that this gets the new a little bit of political stuff but In your in your personal opinion. Do you think that there could be an antitrust ruling. That is against big tech so to speak if If the thinking of the courts doesn't change is going to take a that kind of mentality to change in order for that ruling to come through or do you think that there is enough evidence for These these cases to come through and provide that evidence to get rulings with the current kind of thinking of the court. Does that make sense. I know that was kind of all our all around. But no i think it's a good question i don't have. I don't have an answer to that. I've talked to experts who are on both sides of that question. And i've talked to some say. The courts are never going to change how they rule on these companies until congress directs them to do so. That's why legislation is the route here and not the courts. One one of my sources in the story was helsingor. His antitrust economists and is often called in as an expert witness in anti-trust cases and he said look just been through enough of these cases. The judges aren't going to change their mind until you until you change the law. I've talked to others who say well absolutely. I think if you look at the history of antitrust the court's interpretation has changed without changes in the law in the past just takes time the the current paradigm took root in the nineteen seventies with robert bork persuading the legal establishment to take a more laissez faire approach to antitrust law. It's conceivable that lena. Cons influential article and she has a bunch of fellow. Travelers who are sometimes get lumped in as hipster antitrust or the neo brandeis ends but who who are arguing that actually the laws already on the books do support a more robust approach to these companies and and that you just need to change how we interpret them and that it should be doable without changing the law. I honestly i don't know. I think it's probably varies somewhat from judge to judgment you get a judge whose biggest concern day to day is. They don't want to get an opinion. That's that's gonna get laughed at by a higher court or or thrown out because that looks bad for them. they're going to take a conservative line. Maybe you get a judge who thinks you know what these these neo brandeis ends are right on. The courts have had it wrong forever. And i'm gonna take that stand either one could happen but certainly this was this. Was i think a point. In the favor of those who argued that the more direct way to rein in big tex power. If that is the goal is to do it through legislation and so the courts understood so another thing that that we've seen a lot of is. I've seen several headlines of fly by about this is lobbying on the part of the different tech companies. How much of a role do you think that is going to play going forward. And i think that the focus on that maybe suggests that this is some sort of new practice and i realized this is a bit of a leading question but For folks who may be thinking that this is business as normal right when it comes to one side wanting one thing and one side wanting another these tech companies kind of increasing. Their lobbying efforts is pretty standard right. The largest companies have been building up their lobbying operations for a decade. I think i think that's if you recall ten years ago or so. Sopa pepe the stop online piracy act about copyright. That was a wakeup call to the tech companies that they couldn't just operate in their in their silicon valley world and expect to be untouched by washington. Dc and so they started forging relationships with lawmakers they started hiring. Lobbying firms are now some of the biggest lobbying spenders in the country and that has been true for years now but we haven't necessarily seen it come to a head in a public way until now so i think that's why some lobbying is now starting to get the attention and they've they've put in the they've had the ground game going for years now. I mean they have had. They have lobbyists. Who have the ears of staffers on both sides of the aisle. They have a lot of influence that they built up. Sort of slowly. You know with soft power for years so that when they got to this point when there's a movement to try to break them up when there's an emergency from their perspective in dc. They have those relationships they can knock on those doors. Say hey remember when we advised you or helped you out on that. Well we've got we've got a real problem here and you need to help us and you got to go to bat for us. And i think we're seeing that one of the one of the places you can see that as that in the house of representatives where the most sweeping package of antitrust legislation is working. Its way through committees and such in a big committee boat last week in the house. Judiciary.

lena con facebook robert bork Amazon senate lena congress washington dc house of representatives
US Supreme Court: The possible nominees to fill vacancy

Useful Idiots with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper

04:56 min | 2 years ago

US Supreme Court: The possible nominees to fill vacancy

"Of you paid attention to who the possible nominees are. People are talking about Amy Kuney Barrett and Barbara Lago do you know but these judges and can you tell us anything about them? Sure I mean there. It's almost certain to be Amy Coney Barrett. Just because trump has generally deferred to actually others throughout his four years especially when it comes to the higher court, the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and there's really a pretty big consensus around amy. Barrett, there some talk that like trump would be helped in Florida if he went the other way. But I'll be I'll be very shocked if it's not her now she is you know a a more or less. Predictable right wing jurist. I think her her confirmation. We'll have enormous effects just because I think it's clear. She's a reliable vote to overturn Roe v Wade where. Probably, in her absence, they would just continue cutting the meaning of that precedent down. You know because even as of today it's it's been made so hard to get an abortion in the south that weather would wanNA speak of. A meaningful federal right to abortion is already open to question in in many other areas. She'll just confirm that drift to the supreme, court in this liberal direction, which actually some of the Democrats on on the panel have have kind of colluded and in taking it toward in recent decades. So the addition of one person is rarely like catalytic or transformative. Maybe on this one issue of abortion, it would actually lead five of the justices without chief justice, Roberts to overturn Roe v Wade, which might not happen otherwise and I'm not suggesting that's not a big deal. It is, but probably in most other areas of law, it would just be like the same more of the same except more. So so so what are the different ways that you see this playing out Let's say this happened than Biden is elected He then gets to replace I assume the next soon to retire Justice Briar I believe, right? I mean. We. Assume that Clarence Thomas would try to outlast Joe Biden in the same way that Ruth Ginsburg tried to outlast Donald. Anything could happen right and you happen and of course, we should probably talk about interesting relationship between Biden and Clarence Thomas. How much of a? Let's go there. How much did Biden in neighb- ball Clarence Thomas is Supreme Court. Or empower him as a sitting Supreme Court justice while he was instrumental as as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I mean you know we can get personal. But in we've all seen, you know whatever the you know the Netflix's reenactment of this level. But you know the truth is that Biden you know maybe like all of us only more so again has been a prisoner of his time all the way along and at that moment The He he responded you know as part of the like con, the comedy of the Senate required. You know he hung out with these other white men and they decided that this wasn't a big enough deal and there was deference even in a democratically controlled Senate to the you know right of the president to nominate a supreme. Court justice when a seat is vacant we've totally given up those those norm sense really as a country, but you know within the Senate to. You know I definitely think he sh- his treatment of Anita Hill is part of the record that we ought to think seriously about it's mainly testament to changing norms in the country about gender and about sexual violence and so I but I. so but I would kind of broaden out to less about his own limitations which may be substantial and more about you know. Where we've come why really starting with Robert bork before through the Clarence Thomas Nomination, and through our time we've we've really converted national politics into like these psycho dramas around filling supreme court seats, and again, the reason is not having to do with any of these individuals Biden Thomas. it's more with what's at stake, which is policy making authority over all Americans and it it is. It's. It's hard to argue that this particular institution auto habit

Joe Biden Supreme Court Clarence Thomas Amy Kuney Barrett Circuit Court Of Appeals Senate ROE Wade Anita Hill Justice Briar Netflix Robert Bork Barbara Lago Ruth Ginsburg Florida Judiciary Committee President Trump Chairman Roberts
Big tech CEOs testify before Congress

The Vergecast

48:04 min | 2 years ago

Big tech CEOs testify before Congress

"So, this hearing just going to say it, it was six hours of chaos. So. So many things like individual moments of pure chaos happened this hearing. But because every member of Congress was only given five minutes to ask the questions in and they moved on, no one could process the moments of cash. So here are some things that happened during this hearing. Jeff. bezos just started eating nuts on his call. That was just a thing that you started snacking for the first ninety minutes. It appears that basis had tech issues was operating in some kind of delay. So we didn't hear from him. They just answer any questions and they'd take a ten minute break Jeff. bezos could fix his computer. Amazing. Jim Jordan, who McKenna pointed out. On the show last week is always sort of chaos element. Try to talk over several members of Congress got yelled to put his mass back on floated. Just elaborate conspiracy theories. was when I say was chaos I. Don't know if there's any other way to describe it. I. Think that led a lot of people to think the hearing itself didn't accomplish its goals, but I think in many ways it did. But Kennedy you WanNa Kinda go through what the committee was trying to accomplish the themes they were pointed at in. How hearing played out, right. So okay. First off. Harkening back to last week I mentioned Jim. Jordan's mountain dew obsession. Definitely drink a handful those throughout the hearing I took notes in screen shots. So, I, called it. But regardless of their pores soda choices, there were a lot of lawmakers who definitely did their homework and I think that was really apparent throughout the entire hearing and when I look at. The picture that they tried to paint I think that became really clear in chairman Sicily's opening statements. So this is the guy who liked. And spearheaded the entire investigation from the beginning, and in those opening statements, he pointed out that yeah Apple Amazon Google facebook. There are different in a lot of ways and they exhibit anticompetitive behaviors potentially allegedly and a lot of different ways. But what they tried to pull together and was a story, and it's really hard to tell a story and five minute fragments. But what happened yesterday was Sicily. Ni, and a lot of the Democrats on the Committee wanted to point out that these companies they become bottlenecks for distribution whether that's information or just like APP stores marketplace's they control what gets distributed in how what was really key to the investigation was how? How they survey competitors. If you have so much control dominance over a market or a specific part of the tech industry, you have a lot of insight into your competitors and you can do a lot of dangerous things with that, and then lastly, after that dominance has gained, it's how they abuse it. Right? How they abuse it to make harder for small businesses in competitors and I think that's exactly what Cellini pointed out in the beginning and I think they did a poor job that storytelling throughout the process. But I think that's also our job. Right is to pull that evidence together and tell that story for them in a way that isn't like. Yes, no yelling at CEOS and like stopping them and I think by getting that in the evidentiary record doing all this questioning, I think they really did achieve their goal in the end. Yeah. I mean, I think the thing that happened sort of next to the hearing was that they released a bunch of documents from these one point, three, million documents of clutch. Over the past year, they released pretty targeted selection documents for every company showing some of this stuff, Casey, I wrote a story about. facebook. INSTAGRAM. My I'm going to frame this email or mark Zuckerberg. Literally one sentence, no period. The Andrew says I need to figure out. I'M GONNA buy instagram like I would love to just be in a place were sending that email like super casually like I got this thing to figure out and it's not like am I gonNa buy the model of the car. It's like instagram. I've been thinking of the text messages where so and so says that Mark Zuckerberg's didn't go destroy mode on instagram ever since they got that up. Case she this to Kevin and right that text was. Yes. Well, it was Kevin. System was talking to an investor and Kevin said to the investor. If we don't sell well, mark, go into destroy mode on us and the investor side probably. Of course, stray casual. So there's just a lot of documents and I think one of the functions of hearing was to get those documents into the official congressional record to make the CEO's account for them. That did not seem very successful to me. Is like a takeaway people should have from this hearing, right? No. I think a lot of people that go into these hearings are expecting like these big Gotcha moments and expecting like a lot of news and all this stuff. But it really, it wasn't oversight hearing. You know it wasn't. They didn't come. They came at this like in a report last earlier this week that they came out at as investigators. They didn't come at it to make a big show horse and pony show out of it, and yet I think the CEO's didn't. The record well enough to the extent that they could have. But there was definitely, I was expecting them to do a lot less evasion and I expected a lot less room probation with the documents, but it's just the process of a Congressional hearing. It's. It's hard to do that in a congressional hearing. But if you put those documents out there, you get the CEO's on the record a little bit who does excite this excites the FTC. J, and that's who can take this next and then it's also congress. You know they can't break up a tech company, but they can regulate going forward and it's those three key themes that I pointed out earlier that they could regulate. You know what I mean. They could legislate to forbid companies from surveying competitors and things like that, and that's where this goes. So the format of the hearing, every member and five minute chunks, it seemed very clear that the Democrats had some sort of coordinated evidentiary strategy, they would start and. And they would say, I, want to read this email to you. What did you mean by this email and then Jeff bezos would say something like I have. No idea is on works. I. Was real pattern that developed was basis really not doing or claiming he definitely knows claiming not really no way Wayne is under the thing they did or they would ask sooner Pichai about the very granular add deal google made by an ad product, and soon I, would say I'll get back to you, which is basically all responses. So the Democrats seemed like they were coordinated to move through their documents. The Republicans seem to be doing something else that also seem coordinated intentional, but what was their focus because that seemed clear split my takeaway from Jim Jordan who? We got into earlier, he he was interviewing. As if they were all Jack Dorsey. And as we talked about like, yeah, he invited Jack Dorsey to testify, but he doesn't sit on the antidote subcommittees. Anything. He says, it just doesn't matter. So it sounded to me as if he prepared questions Jack Dorsey and then it was like, oh, he's not coming I'll ask Tim Cook the same questions. Another completely crazy moment that happened just seen by and five minute chunks is that. Represented Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin Dear Sweet Wisconsin. Definitely. Asked Mark Zuckerberg why the Donald Junior was banned from twitter and mark. Zuckerberg was happening on twitter facebook and there was just like a moment of confused silence, and then he tried to move on and that just sort of floated by in the river of chaos to tell you how much chaos there was kneeling. When you started to tell that story, I thought you were going to tell the story about when Jim Jordan asked him cook if the famous one, thousand, nine, hundred, four, Apple Super Bowl, AD was actually about twenty twenty cancel culture, which is another thing that really happened. I think that's out of context. He didn't ask him. He said clearly, this is. That's definitely what Steve Jobs was thinking IBM is canceled culture and Apple's going to break it with hammer and Jeff. Bezos said that social media is a nuance destruction machine and all this crazy stuff from that. It was a wild will that that particular question when Jim Jordan asked, do you support the cancel culture mov, you could see the CEOS like. 'cause they went in order. He asks them all in order. So First Tim Cook just like basically muttered nothing. Here's like I don't. I support speech whatever. The iphone a keyboard like that was his answer. Sooner per child also, just like muttered, right? He's like Google has always supported free expression Zuckerberg like saw the opportunity and took it and the forces of liberalism I rising I, and then basis was like I cannot. I cannot do in like went for it, and that was just totally insane moment. But it also seems like the Republicans were intentional to try to create their own moments where they were yelling at CEOS about bias on platforms is obviously something cover a. At. You were paying a lot of attention that case you're paying a lot of attention to it. Do you think that was effective in creating because you know there's like a parallel conservative Universe Jim? Jordan was on Tucker. Carlson. Last night like was that effective or d think that the CEO's were able to sort of tamp down on interesting the Tucker Carlson pointed out that Google and other companies are all big donors to Jim Jordan another folks. So that is a weird side, but I think it was actually besides the moment where they mixed up twitter with facebook I. Think this was much more effective off. Off Topic yelling about technology than we usually see like are genuinely issues that like they are upset about that, they could point to largely around like cove nineteen misinformation and they could at least like pick those topics and stick to them rather than kind of asking vague questions about like, why is my phone listening to me? Well, they're definitely asked questions about why are my campaign emails getting filtered by G mail? Yes. I should. I should mention that they have really and they have all of these cases where they ask about extremely specific one off incidents that anyone who has used social media knows happens constantly. And, then turn them into a sinister pattern. But I think they managed to come off as sounding more like they understood what they were talking about the unusual. I think that was a real theme of the hearing, Casey. What did you think of this sort of bias side show that occurred? Well, I mean the the idea that conservative voices are being suppressed is foundational to the conservative movement and is behind the rise of conservative talk radio. It was behind the rise of Fox News. Now that social media exists, we have seen it in this new form, but it is sort of being presented as extra, sinister and worthy of. Some sort of legislative intervention what frustrates me about it is that much more than newspapers or or cable news like Mark Zuckerberg Dorsey. These people benefit hugely from having all possible voices on their platform. None of them is incentivized to drive conservatives off their platform. What they are incentivized to do is have rules that make the place safe and welcoming. So that people want to hang out there and so to the extent that there are issues on the platform, they've largely come because these platforms have rules. And you know you would think that a bunch of free marketeers would realize that the alternative to the system that they're so mad about would be creating a new system, but they don't seem at all interested in doing that. So I just sort of dismissed all of them as charlatans I actually thought it was interesting that the opposite track came up, which was the Stop Hey for profit campaign I kind of wasn't expecting that. The representative Raskin I believe asked facebook. Basically, why aren't you kicking more hate speech off. I forget who else asked like look is the point that you're so big. You don't care about advertiser boycotts I. Mean, you know it will here. Here is a fact that the number one complaint that facebook gets from its users, the thing that users. About. FACEBOOK is that it removes too much content and so if you're running the place, you do have to take these complaints seriously in a way. Right? It might not be you know that you shadow band conservative whatever that even means on social network in twenty twenty. But the fact that you're removing content is really upsetting people. So you can't dismiss that idea entirely, but I still don't feel like we're having that intellectually honest conversation about it. So this was definitely I feel like you can connect the you control distribution. We're GONNA show the abuses of power narrative. We got other. Democrats. With the you control distribution. You're banning conservatives right like I. Think what's Sensenbrenner Again, cups and conservatives are consumers to is that people don't realize that like fifty percent of the population in many ways. But facebook has like famous conservatives working its highest levels Kevin. We last week, we're talking about Kevin Roose keeps sharing the list. List of the most engaged content from crowd tangle. It's all conservative content, and that's so problematic for facebook that they're. They're pushing back with other metrics and graphs of their own, making the facts just aren't there, but it doesn't seem to be convincing. Brett Kevin is being asked to recuse himself from facebook case because he's like best friends with facebook I, AP I wrote a column almost two years ago. Now, arguing that conservatives were trying to redefine. Any conservative identified person having any unwanted outcome on a social network, right? So bias is your name was higher than mine in search results. Bias is used suggested that I follow a Democrat and not a Republican right, and if you take action on your policies that apply to everyone against me a conservative that is biased against conservatives, right. So and by the way I have to say this has been hugely successful because we've talked about it. How many minutes now and the longer that these discussions. Discussions. Go on. They just sort of refi people's minds. The idea that there really is a vast conspiracy to silence conservative speech because he's networks are so big millions of conservatives are having experiences like this every day, and now there is an ideology that is basically a religion for them to attach to, which is although Silicon Valley liberals are out to get. Reason I wanted to talk about the conservative side show, which in many ways was a circus is it feels like the notion that we should be punitive to the companies or mad at the company's. Bipartisan, right we were. We were not looking at a hearing where the Democrats were on the attack. Republicans are saying we love. Apple. We're looking at hearing where they were. Everyone was mad. There are a couple of exceptions to that. There were a couple of I think sensenbrenner and a few other folks were like look we want to be clear. Big is not bad. We just WANNA make sure we're not punishing you for your success, but you were like almost entirely, right? Yeah. I. Mean I. think that's it's important to. To capture that mood like Jeff Bezos Mark Zuckerberg, Tim, Cook soon. Darpa, try they usually get to finish whatever sentence they start saying. Right. They're not used to being interrupted. Their thoughts are usually like you know they get to live in complete sentences and people take them seriously here in five in intervals, they were interrupted almost every time they started speaking to be told that they were wrong that they were filibuster at one point Sicily said stop thinking is for the questions. We can just assume they're all good questions. They. Were getting yelled at and they're going yell that about a variety of things that were pretty specific. So you kind of in your kind of structure here. The first one was controlling distribution. What did you hear as a hearing went on the indicated to that? The committee had a case here? I think the apple's APP store is one thing you know charging thirty percent cuts on certain things is just controlling an APP store. It's the same thing with Amazon's marketplace. They can inherently in control what gets placed and what gets sold and you know if they want to play with search results on Amazon, they can do that, and then on facebook and Google, it's not just like products and software that's information. And it could be information when it's like Google. Google. Stealing yelps, texture views right in putting those in its little info boxes in search queries in facebook if facebook is just like an. Mation, distribution platform and. It can decide Algorithm Mickley. Knowingly. What people get to see this bution was very keen to the committee's hearing yesterday and they pointed out different aspects in which you know each company exhibited that kind of behavior. So the one that will you bring up apple? We wrote about this, say there's much emails. Apples document production is just one hundred and thirty pages of unrelated emails and whatever order see it's like scan through it. So there's a lot of little stories in there. There's one about right to repair and apple realizing it needed to repair. By watching PR people operate by reading their emails journalists. Very entertaining. They're like we had a break like here's our strategy. Here's we're GONNA. That's all in there. You can look at it, but there's a lot about the APP store itself and how they're going to use the mechanics of the APP store to control their platform, and it started at the beginning like the first emails in this production from twenty, ten there. From Phil, Schiller Steve Jobs saying, are we GONNA? Let Amazon Sell Books in the kindle store. Store, it felt like I saw an Amazon ad was hard to watch this hard to watch this ad where a person's reading a book on an iphone in the kindle APP in the pick up an android phone keep reading. He's like literally like it was hard to watch like Schiller's at home like pain what a customer is having an experience that good it really just. Heart and so he's like it was hard to watch. You fours Steve Jobs. They're like we gotta shut it down jobs is the bookstore will be the only bookstore on the APP. Store. That's the way it's going to be everyone's gotta used to it. We know that restricting payments will hurt other things, but that's what we're doing and they started there in two thousand ten and they pulled it out, and then that ladders up into everything that we've seen with, hey, ladders up into the analysis group showing up to. Apple, can pay them to say that there's independent study has revealed. Everybody has a thirty percent cut. It has landed up into Tim Cook, forwarding. He gets a letters from developers that are in this direction. It's like apples breaking my heart and he just like Ford's it. Tim, Cook forwards that email to filter credit eighty, just as thoughts like amazing like they are constantly thinking about the APP store as a mechanism of control for the platform in the leverage and other deals. So the other one was apple is this Amazon one which I have very mixed feelings on saying that this is bad or legal I'm curious for all of your thoughts famously. Did, not have the prime video APP on the Apple TV and all these other places apple, Amazon came to a deal. There's an entire presentation in this production like the slide deck of how the deal is going to work. Apple got to be the preferred seller of its own product. So third parties cancel. Apple. Products, Amazon pages, they got. They have a custom by flow. They've custom product pages, all the stuff in return. Amazon got a lower commission on the APP store and gets to Selatan products which no. No like you can rent a movie from the Amazon APP on the Apple TV, no one else gets to it in one world. This is just pure platform collision, right? Apple cut VIP deal for big companies because it wanted something and you could say this is legal in another world. It's like this is how deals work apple something valuable. Amazon s something valuable and they came to a conclusion wherever made more money and quite frankly the consumer experience platform has got better. How do you read that? Casey? That is good and fair analysis of it. I. Think I did read slightly more scandalous. Tones into it in part because apple would never acknowledge that some developers are more important to it than others even though if you assume that that's true, I think maybe one of the things that's frustrating about it is there is no transparency accountability around which developers get sweetheart deals is that once you hit a certain threshold of revenue will cut your price. Why couldn't they extend that deal to everyone right? Or is it just if we withhold something that seems particularly valuable, we can eventually drag you to the table. Table, which is sort of what seems like happened here. I think in all cases, what I'm always looking for is the accountability, right like and some sense of of equitable treatment of developers and I understand the guys are always going to get the best treatment, but it can that be publicly visible. Can it be acknowledged and there'd be routes for others to achieve that same level of success and treatment, and that I'll just seems missing here. Did you buy Tim Co? He said it twice. It was obviously A. Glimmer, of sympathy for all four CEOS. There is a lot of reporting that they had spent months preparing for this hearing like being grilled there, they'd hire outside law firms. They. Practiced they all clearly had soundbites memorized in none of them. Got To say him because it kept getting interrupted. Tim Cook had this one where he is like if we're the gatekeepers, the gates are open wider than ever. We've gone from five hundred. APPS to one point seven, he said like. A whole speech. and. The thing is there's fierce competition for developers. They don't like our store can do for android the windows. For xbox and PS. Four. Which I was like the idea that adobe is going to be like we don't want to be on the IPAD. Here's PS. Four Photoshop is insanity to me. I'm going to build a spreadsheet. APP. For the five. That's how frustrated with Tim Cook. To that ring. True to you I. Mean, there's no, it does not ring true. There is a, there is a duopoly. In the United States when it comes to smartphones, iphones have majority share in the United States and you can't say, well, you know there's there's a rogue fork of android in Malaysia that you could go develop for if you really wanted to and have that come across as a credible argument to Americans. Right it is. Natural for any monopolist to spend most of its time, arguing that it is much smaller and much less consequential as as you think it is and they're essentially always asking you to ignore what is in front of your face, which is that they are the giant. They are in control. What they say goes, and it doesn't matter which small businesses get hurt along the. The. Way I would point out that the contact and we're gonNA talk about earnings eventually. But the context for that is apple had its biggest third quarter ever this month, their revenues went up eleven percent year over year, they're making obviously making billions of dollars in their services revenue, which is a lot of the narrative around the APP stores increasing that services line. Also went up. I think it was thirteen billion. So you're right. They're very big in their earnings the day after the hearing did nothing. To reduce that impression. I want to switch to Amazon a little bit McKenna. You really focused Amazon was basis first time up there. They came at him a lot about marketplace. How did you think that went I think it went pretty good. I. Think. John Paul specifically was just like killer her questions with breakout star. Yeah. She was just like killer and she's the representative for. SEATTLE. So this is where Amazon is right. So she just like killed it and. And I think there were a couple of instances in the documents and in questioning yesterday that really pulled important things out there was like testimony from one bookseller who was like, yeah. We just can't sell a category of books and we don't know why Amazon doesn't let us do that just like testimony like that or even when it comes to like acquisitions, the ring acquisition especially, I wrote about that today through the documents and how. They said, this is for market position. This is a for technology, your talent or anything. We just bought this and that's something that base said again, yesterday he was just very clear. It's like, yeah, we do buy things market position, which is like so insane just here like the richest person in the world. But like, yeah, we're buying market position. It's just what happens. That's another one I have mixed feelings right, and by the way, people should read McKenna story because those documents have just a very funny breakdown like the pros and cons of buying. Buying ring in many of the cons like what if this turns into nest, which if you're just the verge cast listeners like it's just like the Keyword Bingo, but it's fine to say, we're buying market position like this isn't the best product out there, but it's the category of video. doorbells is not huge, right? So to by the the market leader in video doorbells is maybe the most rational use of the money. What is the problem that you think the committee was trying to show an address sense of we're just going to market position. Pointing out, they can just do whatever they want and how casual it is, and there really isn't. It's really funny to read an email like that, and we could buy it or we could just copy it or are. We could just watch. You know that was one of the emails that base from someone. Those are just three options you know and it's like just pick and choose you know. Pointed out like a lot. Just that email itself really pointed out just how easy it is for them. They used a lot of that time history to talk about copycat behaviors and to talk about just like you know buying up competitors and it just seeing that all in one little e mail having to do with the ring was like really i. think it was really kind of I opening and especially like useful for the committee. So Amazon got hit a lot for the data collection side of it of copying competitors. bezos did not seem to have great answers there. Right. So that's the. The thing they got in trouble with this. There is that Wall Street. Journal article from like April where employees were literally like, yeah. We dip into data and we use that to guide our own private label products and everybody was like Whoa and Amazon basins. Yesterday said, well, we do have a policy that bans that but giant pointed out yesterday. It's like, okay. So what's your enforcement look like you can have the policy, but like if you don't enforce it, then it's like meaningless. And then yesterday I. Think Paul was like, can you give me a yes or no answer? Do you dip into data and he's like I can't I can't give you. Yes or no, and we're just like we're looking into it. The story had anonymous sources. So that isn't very helpful to us. You know what I mean. So that was one of the main things and that Wall Street Journal article and I think it's the same kind of examples in the committee's documents. They point out specific examples like car trunk, organizers of all things. It's like weird little products like Amazon's like this is a little hot. Maybe we should do that. So I, I think. I, think they made a good case yesterday. Yesterday on that. Yeah. I mean bezos brought up that Wall Street Journal, Article himself twice, and he was like, well, your policy against it. But I can't guarantee never happened. Then there is a strange just didn't come across clear I. Think I know what the committee was trying to get at their like US aggregate seller data when there's only three sellers and then only to sellers? Yes, I. Think what they're getting at is when you're down to the aggregate data of two companies, you heard effectively looking at individual data. What is the problem? They're like the I get what you're doing. You're just reducing the denominator to get to one, but like it, why is that particular problem? Right? Well, none of these. Dipping into individual seller data and looking at aggregate data. That's not a legal. There is no law. This is all voluntary of Amazon. So they have a voluntary policy where like we can't do individual seller data, but they say nothing against aggregate and aggregate what you're getting at eight. Here you is. Does the same thing if it's just like some goofy little product they. They bring up pop stock. It's all the time before pop tops in a moment. Right? There's only like one pop. So company like you know pop soggy, it was kind of an innovative product. It's like well, if there's only two of them and use the aggregate data, you you you have everything you need to know you know about that product line looking aggregate. If that's what you decide to qualify as do you as you're looking through the other Amazon documents and other stuff. So anything jump out at you is something the committee was trying to prove or get at. The questioning seemed very focused on. Like are you using the state at a copy products? Are you buying things? You shouldn't buy. There's one question which I did not understand why came up about DMC. Take downs on twitch and Jeff as just had this look of panic in his eyes. He's like I don't know man I bought Wedge because my kids want to. Do something like that was like the side show stuff, but the real focus here, it just seemed like it was definitely in the marketplace, right? Amazon, everyone came at Amazon for the marketplace. That's what everybody knows him as like they have all these little sides. They got rain. They got Alexa Alexa was one thing too. That was kind of interesting. It's like. Are you buying things like ring to put Alexa into and dislike expand your like Titan Ism as like an Internet Internet connected home. Thing and make that more closed off and walled gardening. That was one thing. But no, it was just focusing on how much power they have to kind of change. What happens in the marketplace to kind of decide what companies in what products are able to come up on the first page of results. You know that's also something that they dug into Google and in something that one of those like themes that kind of ties everything together. We should say they all spend a lot of time talking about counterfeit goods, and why is it Amazon removed? Fake stuff from the platform and how much is it profiting off of you know selling pick rolexes? Is it surprising? The whole foods didn't show up at all they're. Like that is a really massive thing. Amazon owns that. Is it moving into a huge new product category? I think whole foods is not an online marketplace, which was the title of the hearing, not that that restricted anybody from doing anything except that, one of the things Amazon says is we have lots of competition from offline marketplaces, right? Brought up kroger a lot I mean, this is the case he's point. They all made. It seem like they were beset at any moment. They could be crushed by the likes of stop and Shop Right? Like I think the point though was really on the. Digital. Experience Consumers have and like I, don't know Ho-. Foods fits. Into that narrative, especially, because it is itself not dominant like they bought it because you needed to grow in their. Good at that at my question for you on the Amazon stuff was when you think about, we talk about two thirty a lot right like you and I in particular spent a lot time to thirty, which regulates with the platform can do with content. There's not really an equivalent of two thirty for goods on store. Right like there's some case is out there saying like you're liable for what what happens on your online store page, but Amazon doesn't have that like second order of like Messi nece around it that twitter and facebook to with two thirty, I. Mean, it gets invoked a lot for marketplace's, but it's way messier. Well, I just wanted to like this question at counterfeits question about ranking the store like they are even more free than any twitter is to to sort tweets algorithm. Algorithm clear to modern like it just their store. Do you think that they're like that Algorithm transparency? Your wire things ranked. Did you catch a sense that that's where the regulation is GonNa go. So much of the conversation around Amazon really felt like it was individuals sellers being wronged for reasons of Amazon being unresponsive or stealing. It's data. So I don't know it didn't. It didn't seem like a really big focus of the hearing, but it is a huge deal. Yeah. The, digital marketplace frame of this, which is where we have talked to. Cellini. That's where he's going right like facebook and Google very digital. They have like they don't do physical goods. Really. Apple is the APP store. It's all digital goods. Amazon is the one where it's. Front to a lot of physical things, and that is the only place where I can see this regulation needing to make some sort of like major meaningful distinction in I. Didn't see it in the hearing, but I was curious of you caught a glimmer of it. I'm not positive that they have to make a huge distinction there like depending on what they come up with because. So much of this is about their companies and whatever product they produced. The issue is more or less whether or not they're being surveilled and unfairly by targeted and crushed by that data surveillance. All right. We have gone for forty minutes. We should take a quick break. I said I wasn't going to go by company and it happens. So we should come back and talk with facebook Ango. We'll be right back. This is advertiser content. When I say utopia what comes to mind. Birds Chirping lush natural beauty dialed up and vibrant technicolor. Is it within reach. Your world world. World. explained. You are an essential part of the perfect social body. Every Body Matt Place. Everybody happy now while the peacock original series, brave new world takes place in a scientific futuristic utopia. A concept is nothing new Sir Thomas more. I introduced the theory five hundred years ago. But we keep looking for that community identity stability of aldous Huxley's Utopia and not finding it Americans are the unhappiest they've been in decades, and we're increasingly lonely whereas in a utopia. Everyone belongs to everyone else. In nineteen forty-three, the psychologist Abraham. maslow's developed a theory of Utopia. One that allows total self determination in basic terms. maslow's theory says that in Utopia, we decide for ourselves, what we need and how we're GONNA get it in Huxley's Utopia citizens always get what they want and don't want what they can't get. Sounds. Pretty good. Right. Then why can't we make it happen? For a Utopian Society the work we might need to disband some of the things we hold dearest marriage government privacy individualism even family. See for yourself. If a Utopian world is as perfect as it seems watch brave new world now streaming only on peacock. These are really difficult crazy stressful times, and if you're trying to sort of cope, it could be helpful to find something that gets beyond like doom scrolling and like obsessive worried. But digs into what is really going on underneath the surface, and that's what the weeds is all about I. Matthew Yglesias. Weeds podcast here on the box meeting podcast network. This is podcast for people who really want to understand the policy debates and policy issues that shaping our world. We've seen now more than ever like how relevant policy is to our actual lives, but so much in the news isn't focused on really understanding and explaining detail way if that sounds good to you, join us for the weeds, every Tuesday and Friday to find out what's going on why matters and what we can do about it. You could download the weeds on apple spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts. Tracy. When it comes to facebook I turn to you. FACEBOOK is patience consumer of startups as what we've learned. Yeah. But you said something to me yesterday was interesting, which is everyone else's problems are forward looking and it feels like facebook's problems are actually in the past break for people explain what you mean. Yeah. So when Congress is looking at any trust with respect to these four companies for three of them, it's It's sort of about the marketplaces that their operating right now with facebook, the question is much more about should we have allowed it to buy serum? Should we have allowed it to buy WHATSAPP and most of the antitrust conversation that was around facebook yesterday was all about that. What did Mark Zuckerberg know about Instagram, and when did he know it? We wrote a story based on some documents that the house released yesterday. In which facebook has clearly identified instagram as a competitor. In at least some ways and wants to go after it and knock it off the table, and so that's kind of where the focuses their facebook and Burke did get a lot of other questions yesterday, but it tended to be much more about content moderation and things that don't have a lot to do with antitrust. So there was weird section where they asked the face. Face Research APP in the novel, Vpn? Any kind of got lost well, explain what happened and I'm curious reactions. Yeah. So facebook has a bunch of nifty tech tools to figure out what's trending which APPs or the kids using, and so that can essentially have an early warning system if it needs to consider acquiring something or more likely in these days, go out clone it. and. So Zuckerberg was asked about the way that the company uses these systems and if they are anti competitive I, think you know traditional antitrust law probably would not say copying an APP feature is anti competitive, but could lobby written in the future about it shirt I. Think the one that caught me was I mean, this is what I'm. McKenna's points from earlier is like one of the themes here is, are you so dominant that you can collect data that's unfair and then use that to crush or killer competitors, and definitely bought the Inaba VPN to do it. That's true. Now, when I've asked executives at facebook about this, what they'll say is they don't get surprised anymore. When you have three point, one billion people using your apps around the world. You know what links they're sharing, you know what they're talking about. And so you're not going to need some kind of specialized tool to know that WHATSAPP is really taking off. Right. So they would argue that, yes, these tools were useful to them, but you know at their scale, they know what's popular now, which doesn't really seem like addresses, the problem is reached. The fact that we're so big that we're all knowing is maybe not the defense that they sometimes presented as so here's what I didn't get. I thought, Zuckerberg I want to the instagram. What's about who's issues, but on the facebook research front, the data front, they him about this APP facebook research, which you were giving to teens. They were deploying with an enterprise certificate that story broke apple revoke the certificate, and all of facebook's internal APPs went dark, and this is a scandal story after story about it, they went on for two days. So I can I, don't recall that APP? Just how he you know, he remembers the day that all facebook's internal APPS went down and people couldn't go to the cafeteria. I would agree I found that answer. Extremely, ed? Persuasive. that. Do you think that was like actually strategic for him to be like, I, don't know and then come back later and correct the record I do remember when that happened I. Mean. I really don't know I mean also you know during a six hour hearing, it's also possible that you just you get flustered or you miss here something or or something because. Yeah. As as you say, I'm sure he remembers the day that apple turned off their internal APPS I mean. Honestly. Seems like an opportunity to talk about apple's market power, and the fact that you know a day of work canceled at facebook because apple got mad. But I think most of the CEO's didn't go into yesterday a wanted to pick fights with each other. It was kind of sad that they didn't. I was Kinda hoping that Tim Cook take a shot at soccer burger. Point that the other two APP platforms I was expecting it. It was there. It was. There was all there. So cellini ended and he ended the whole meeting with closing statement. He said, some of these companies didn't get broken out. They all need to get regulated in the off too much power that some of them I. don't these breaking up apple. What sort of break. Right like. The division get sent into the corner thing about what it's done. Right. Does should spin out the finder team I've always wanted to. A clean is always that they want to. They want the APP store to be separate from the IPHONE. Basically, that's the thing I always hear. Can't break I. Think you can write some strong regulations but not playing you're on store, right. But like Elizabeth Warren's point was it's cleaner if it's two companies, but it's still a gigantic remedy that I don't think there's a lot of like like consumer or public opinion is going to walk into an Apple Cup I think you'll radio at marketplace. It seems very clear that we says some of them she broken up he is talking about facebook. I have a twenty percent conference level. He might be talking with Google and Youtube as well. But if he's going to say some of the need to get broken up like it's facebook, did you hear anything yesterday that supported that conclusion or Saudi stocks I? MEAN HE I don't remember which Republican it was, but he was like the Obama FTC looked at this and they said it was minding love. Obama. Right. Like. Why would we go back in time to relook at I? Mean, there is a belief and I mean. Somebody who thinks there could be a lot of benefit in instagram and WHATSAPP being different companies from facebook. And the reason you ask. So many questions about that acquisition as you're making the case that it never should have been approved in the first place, and so now you need to remedy it. So that was actually like the entire thrust of the argument against facebook yesterday. I think, you could probably make just as good a case that Amazon after spin out aws, but lawmakers chose not to make that case. Yeah. I think that also gets into. Politics of the acquisition of the time. To his credit is like nobody knew instagram would actually be a success like we made it a success. It didn't happen by itself. I, don't know if the lawmakers. By award, these guys said, but I don't know that he actually made that case very persuasively. and. Who knows I mean? That's like anything could have happened. Right? Cram could've stayed independent and rapidly grown and overtaken facebook like that's something that could have happened. It could have kind settled into a middle zone like snapchat or twitter seems more likely to me although I think probably would have been bigger than those two but. You're never going to know I mean it is true that facebook gave Mike and Kevin it instagram enormous resources. A lot of the reasons why Mike and Kevin sold was because running tiny startup that's blowing up is absolutely exhausting Mike. Krieger. was dragging his laptop all around San. Francisco. Because the servers were melting at all times of the day whenever Justin Bieber. Posted like the site stopped working and they really we need help. Finding a person who can quickly fix this? So we don't have to like that is the reason that they were entertaining these offers and wanted to sell it. So that is also thing that happened. Do you think that that same kind of argument or approach can apply to what's up? What's up basically did not come up yesterday and all the focus on Instagram, but that's the other one, right? Yeah, and we know weirdly a lot less about that acquisition I. Think it's because people in America just have so much less love for what's APP generally. That, it's never seemed as important. What happened to WHATSAPP as what happens to instagram even though WHATSAPP, is used, you know way more, it probably has way more engagement even than instagram does so I don't know why that didn't come up as often. We know there was a competitive bidding war for that as well. Goule. Wanted it as well. You know Mark Zuckerberg made them an offer, they can't refuse. Do you think everyday Google's we should've spent more money on what's whatsapp like this could have been solved. Should have, but Google has been placed under an ancient curse that prevents them from ever making the right decision about any social product. So it was doomed never to happen. It's fun looking through the documents and watching them casually say they should buy facebook dot com. Yeah, that. Point. That is how they talk like the window into these executives just casually being like we should just this thing or maybe not, or we should just copied ourselves and kill it before it gets any traction like it's repeated over and over again last facebook question. This one is like harder to parse because I. There's a chance, it's October is just joking around but. But. He's in many of these emails. He's like the thing about startups, as you can always buy them, which I think the committee thinks is a smoking gun, right? Like facebook's entire plan is to buy the competition to get the data from wherever they get it to say, oh, man, this apps popping, we just buy it and kill it before it competes with us. I. Think he actually said at one point. That's a joke. Yes, he did and I believe that you know it was two thousand, twelve, right? He was probably still in his mid twenties. At that point, the company was a lot smaller like people were joking around like there's more loose talk when companies are younger and I do think. It was it was part of that. I think the more interesting question becomes. Let's say facebook is telling the truth about everything. Let's say they thought it was going to be a successful acquisition, but they never knew it was gonna big as it became today and they invested in it and it got super big. Okay. Well, now, it's as big as it is. Should they be allowed to keep? Keep it or should they be forced to spend it out and if you're GONNA force them to spin it out. What's the argument that you'RE GONNA. Make about why one question that I have a lot is clearly the referral they're gonNa make, and it seems like if you don't have some other reason, we've heard hints that there's some other reason, the FTC scrutinize this that will eventually be revealed. But what you're saying is the antitrust standard at the time, the Consumer Hartman stand, which is still our standard. Says, you have to prove prices will go up both products for free. You're screwed. Right? There's nothing to review because you're not gonNA prove prove that free products are gonNA get more expensive. I think it's pretty unfair if you change the standard and you go back in time and say you missed that standard. So I think there has to be something else there. Well, what was the standard by which at and T. was broken up? Right? Like presumably at and T. didn't used to be that big, and then it just got really big and then they broke it up at least. That's the thumbnail understanding I have of that break-up. Well, yeah. But then reformed itself. Right. But because of lax antitrust regulation, right? Like it wasn't a naturally occurring phenomenon that all those APPS got back to the other or was that just sort of like inattention to capitalism It's like in the seventies and eighties. This is Tim moves book the cursive bigness in the seventies and eighties Robert Bork I can't talk about Robert on this podcast. Are we doing this right now. Robert was very influential judge Appellate Judge Federal Appellate? Judge. And basically moved the antitrust law to the consumer harm standard as part of a movement called and economics. A whole thing Robert. Bork. Mostly famous because he was not appointed. He was nominated Supreme Court by Reagan but they leaked video tape rental history, and then he didn't get nominated and that is where the expression getting bork's comes from. This is all true Netflix's still has to abide by videotape data privacy act is a whole. This is all true when facebook and Netflix had some partners, Nansen? Partnership. To. Automatically share your net flicks, watch history to facebook. They're like pending the change of this law which we are working on Robert Bork. He haunts us all. I'm sorry, I can't believe this much. Yeah I. think that's just like the law changed in the in the seventies and eighties, the standard change. The conversation right now is a very much about changing it back months and months ago, pre pandemic, we had an economist from I. Think it was Nyu Thomas Philippon came on the show, and he was like look you have this natural ab test going on in the world where the European Union when it formed was like, how do we get an economy like America's? So, we'll just take their competition policies pretty good, and at the same time we changed consumer harm standard. So everything you're seeing the EU is basically our old competition antitrust standard in. You can see how active they are in everything. Here's a new consumer welfare standard. Whether you believe, this is actually a functional Ab test given. The state of both governments is up for debate, but that was his point I thought. It was spare can say.

Facebook Apple Amazon Mark Zuckerberg Google Tim Cook Instagram Jeff. Bezos Tim Co Twitter CEO Casey Brett Kevin Cellini Jeff Bezos Jim Jordan Sicily Mckenna
Charlie Kirk: Coronavirus stimulus

The Charlie Kirk Show

28:10 min | 2 years ago

Charlie Kirk: Coronavirus stimulus

"And you have Schumer Pelosi. In Biden one hundred twenty five years, Charlie Kirk of failure, unmitigated failure, swap failure and I. Think of my kids. You met my son. He's twenty one years old. My daughter's eighteen and I would think about your America their America and when I say you know, live free or die, American, the world on the brink I'm not joking. And very specifically will be probably the biggest choice election by far in my lifetime, and maybe since eighteen sixty, and there's a lot at stake We can go through the issues if you want, but it's. It's there's there's not one issue we agree on that. I can think of for the most part yet, and you wrote this, and it just really sent chills down my spine. You wrote this book to sound an alarm as a warning. Warning to my fellow patriots about the left's undying commitment turn America into a land, our parents, founders and framers wouldn't recognize it. It's perfectly put, and that's the direction that they're headed on page twenty seven. You have a great part about how Ben Franklin says we ever republic. If you can keep it, can you talk more about how this truly is? A referendum election in some sense and the left is trying to do to our country. Well the the story about Franklin's interesting, because it's, it's the constitutional convention and somebody says he comes out one days, says, is it a monarchy republic republic? If you can keep it Reagan, I quote him off. When I give speeches, said Freedom Charlie and you know this is but one generation away from extinction. And you know when if you want understand if socialism is adopted if their stated goal is adopted America as we know, it then becomes unrecognizable look, I can understand psychologically. There's a component of maybe people that that have been indoctrinated in schools, and you're great at this because you're going in to hostile environments every day, and you're saying you know what there's another way of thinking here, so maybe the idea that people think Charlie that some things are oh, everything's going to be free and they're gonNA forgive my loans at I'll have a guaranteed government job guaranteed government food. How did obamacare workout now? We're GONNA have Medicare for all or or double down on the stupidity of Obamacare and guaranteed retirement. Guaranteed vacation sounds great. But simple math shows you that you'll never get there. And that's why in the Fourth Chapter of the book did this whole history of socialism which is a history of failure? The point is look at the issues. If if we're talking about law and order. They've cited in Portland in Seattle and new. York and Chicago with the radicals. Joe Biden his yet that I know of said one good thing about the ninety nine percent of cops protect and serve and put their lives on the line for us every day. You're right. Okay, so law and order taxes. He's pledging to raise your taxes through the roof. That will destroy the economy Then they're gonNA just add all the bureaucracy. The Donald Trump spent almost four years. Eliminating that'll be gone. That means nobody's GONNA WANNA DO Business. That's why the Biden Obama economy was so bad. Then you look at where now energy independent for the first time in seventy five years with a number, one producer of energy in the world will lose that for sure We'll shut down coal fracking. Oil Gas exploration production those tens of millions of jobs high paying jobs career jobs for people. Then it's about amnesty. Or the United Sanctuary states of America versus Border Security and law and order of never mind foreign policy. We haven't even touched that part yet, so. There's a lot at stake. If those plans stated plans are implemented. America will go down the past you know. The Trash bin of history as Reagan, said Freedom One generation away from extinction we will. It I shudder to think what will happen the three you and your children by kids, and and maybe one day grandkids. ARE READY FOR THAT And I love the framing, because as the founder said either we're GonNa live free and defendant right now, or we're gonNA. Have a country that you know. We don't WanNa live it, and that's really the framing. That is so important right now, and you talk about and I'm really pleased about this. Shawn because I think we have forgotten about the Russia hoax too quickly in. In the conservative movement, you have been the leader on this every night. You were covering it. You didn't let us forget you help. Muller Accountable, you had investigative journalism and it just seemed that an Oxana names, but other conservatives just kind of drifted away from like Oh. That's what happened happened. You have two chapters on this in the book. Can you talk about that? Yeah I mean I call it Charlie, the the biggest corruption abuse of power scandal in history and the Ukraine was oh. Okay, we failed with Muller after three years. We won't. We won't even bother with a special prosecutor not to I'm going backwards here but to get to Ukraine. You? Know they're talking about quid pro quos, but you have to ignore their presidential candidate on video saying you're not getting a billion US tax payer dollars unless you're fire. That prosecutor is named Shokhin. WHO's investigating my son Hunter who went on a and said? Do you have any experience in oil? No Gas, no energy, nope, any experience in Ukraine. Nope, why are you being paid millions? No, because you dad, so there was a quid pro quo and millions of dollars for the Biden I call crime family. That's exactly right, so. Listen and China's even worse. You get to this whole thing what we now know and I believe what's coming. It's like, and this is where the media's corrupt because. They're just the propaganda wing of all things democratic. Socialist. We now know and have all the evidence that we'd ever need is that they protected their favorite candidate. Hillary Clinton. For things you and I and everybody you know that follows you and you have a massive audience would. Literally never get away with. If you had subpoenaed emails Charlie Kirk and you decided to delete them, and you decided to acid. Wash your hard drive with something. I had never heard about bleeped bleach bit and bust up your devices with hammers. You'd go to jail. If you violated the espionage act, you'd go to jail. They protected her. Then the narrative began we now know began in August. We know crossfire hurricane representatives actually went to brief. President Trump General Flynn. Flynn on national security, but they were there to try and get information on trump and Russia, the most amazing part of this, because the Democrats and the media live for all these years is that they knew and they said and they wrote, and they even testified. There was never any evidence, but there was a dirty Russian dossier. And now we know even the New York Times acknowledged full full of Russian disinformation and that was used. And they were warned not to use it, but high ranking people abusing their power, wanting to take out candidate, trump, transition, team, trump, and then deep into the Presidency Donald Trump. They use the dirty Russian misinformation dossier to ruin Carter pages life and roomed his civil liberties and constitutional rights, but more importantly to spy on candidate trump, and then they had their insurance policy. The fact that the mob in the media ignores it is beyond comprehension. I have so I have two chapters. One is on the Russia hoax, and the other is on this whole impeachment witch hunt. And I want everybody in your audience to understand one thing here if I can get one point across. Yeah, they hate Donald Trump, but they hate us more. They think we are as Peter. Struck, said the smell by the way I probably shop at Walmart say money. Why not you have a woman I love Walmart I love COSCO's. I Love I love it all. And I've shopped there my whole life I mean people always stopped me when I'm in a grocery? So, what are you doing here? Shopping? Wa I like to eat a cracks me up. So but think about that. smelly Walmart Shoppers while irredeemable deplorables, wow! Bitter Americans as Obama said that WANNA cling to their God. I'm guilty their Second Amendment Rights Guilty Bibles and religion I'm guilty of that, too. But. It's contempt for your audience. It's contemporary my audience. It's because they knew better. And they will ling. This was an attempted coup. Now do I think there's going to be arrests and prosecutions I? Do spend much slower than any of us would have liked, but the evidence is overwhelming. It's incontrovertible sad actually that this could happen. That was going to be my follow up. Question Sean because when I travel and we get thousands of e mails a on this topic. When are people going to go to jail? And can you give me insight on this? Can you give us any clues any crumbs that we're starting to see from Durham? It's I call them. It's funny. You say crumbs because call them the the Attorney General Bar breadcrumbs. It's like Hansel and Gretel. Remember. We're we're trying to follow and see the trail exactly yeah. He did say that the president was spied on. It did happen illegally. The. Think about this. If you go before Judge Judy I wouldn't WANNA lot because Judge Judy I. I've met her once she'll eviscerate. You I watched her show. You. Don't go before a court. The information that you have not verified. It actually said at the top of a FISO Warren Charlie. It says verified. Okay. We now know the dossier was unverifiable. The sub source we now know, said this this bar talk. We were making this up. This was never meant for anything and again Hillary paid for it funneled money separate issue. And so, what is going to happen I don't have a crystal ball but I. do know all of the facts that are in the public. Are Enough to indict many of the names that your audience is most familiar with. I would argue. Komi McCabe struck page. I'd like to know a clapper. Brennan's role in all of this ends up being and and others. The more fascinating deep question is. Will they get to that January fifth twenty seventeen meeting inside the Oval Office? This is when member Biden said George Stephanopoulos Oh I. Don't know. Anything about this, you know this whole impeachment Russia thing. He was the one same. Bring up the Logan Act fifteen days later Susan Rice in that meeting did the Cya memo the day that Donald Trump was inaugurated. Obama in that meeting shot Sally Age by saying a He. He knew everything about the Kislyak Michael Flynn call. If we look. To sum it up. I think we're GONNA get there because the evidence. Is that overwhelming? If we don't. I fear for the country? Because of you. GonNa Raid Manafort's home predawn raid and you're going to raid Roger Stone's home. For lying to Congress by the all many of the names I mentioned were referred for the same crime and you're gonNA. Pull it twenty nine guys in tactical gear, frogmen and tip off CNN cameras and. Have a biased jury for person. We won't have equal justice and equal application of our laws, and worse than that Charlie is. We lose our constitution. Yes, all our laws are are predicated on next great document and some `perfect, but it creates the path to perfection at a more perfect union so. Long answers. I'M GONNA talk. Show I love it. No, this is what our audience needs to hear, and and thank you for that and look I I completely agree because if we do not have people and I, say this as carefully as I can in handcuffs for what they did Donald Trump then I I will lose faith in the American justice system I. Don't want that and I don't want revenge I don't retribution I want people to be held accountable and I would want the same if someone did this to Barack Obama because it should never happen to a leader ever. Yes. and. They've gone after every single trump friend confidant, and yet if you oppose Donald Trump you get different treatment, talk a lot about the constitution in your book and the founding of our country, Sean going to be honest, I've been very let down by some of these supreme. Court decisions lately Can you comment on that and the importance to get more people like Kavanagh? Who's actually ruled brilliantly? Unlike John Roberts. I! I'm a little. I don't know what's happening. Roberts I have my theory I guess I have my sources people that. have their own ideas based on some knowledge? For whatever reason and I think this goes back to the obamacare decision. He has allowed. How the court appears to influence his decision making. I also sense with no evidence whatsoever. You're not a big fan of president trump, but that should not come into his thinking. Now. If getting rid of bureaucracy and lowering taxes and energy, independence, and securing our borders, and law and order are all part of this election. Let me tell you another big part of it. And it's you know we're taping this ninety. Whatever days away from the Election Day, I what about and we got asked. What about the Supreme Court? Yes, I go through a whole list I. Forget what paid maybe sixty seven I forget. A. In the book. Of. All the things Democrats would do if they're getting power one, is they? WanNa, stack the courts. Get rid of the Electoral College. And I. What, they're saying they. WanNa do is scary. They used to hide it Charlie. When I every single Liberal Democrat running for office, they would run to the left in the primary. They race back to the center, but you knew they wanted the left. There now openly embracing the most radical elements in the country and you know. Unfortunately we're watching it all. Play out nightly on TV and and that sad what I see happening when I think we have to remind a trump supporters that these are not trump appointed justices, a gorsuch I think ruled incorrectly on one ruling. That's it besides that gorsuch and cavenaugh have been tremendous and terrific verses Roberts. I just think we have to give the audience a sense. Sense of continued conviction that the trump appointed justices will continue to rule correctly and Clarence. Thomas and you know the the Thomas Family. They get no credit at all. I mean what he has done. And can you comment on that? 'cause I, E, you've actually been you open my eyes to that like eight years ago and I never learned about Clarence Thomas as a high schooler until you I mentioned it just as a quick aside on his incredible career. I like to do on TV and antidote on radio, too. Sometimes I call it the Hannity history, lesson 'cause I lived through all of this. I know this is going to see. You're not even thirty three, but my radio journey started in nineteen eighty-seven crazy right. Now on my twenty fifth year of Fox, I didn't think I last two. So I feel very blessed. As a side note if you haven't read my grandfather's son. Which is about Clarence Thomas is life. It's amazing. But. You know it's interesting because him and Scalia. To my opinion, my to most favorite justices in my lifetime. Scalia this incredible wit and genius and understanding and. They got a little acerbic side to when when he was questioning Clarence Thomas always set by quietly. What they called a high tech lynching at the time, the more modern. Let it. You gotTA. Remember Yeah. And you know. It was then Senator Ted Kennedy you know Robert Bork's America the borking of America. That was Clarence Thomas. Now we see it more recently cavenaugh. It exposes. The, who is Joe Biden? Who is his team? Because Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia or the people we need on that court. We call them constitutionalists or originalists, the original intent, not people that would sight foreign law as liberal justices have done or not people that feel that they can rule by judicial Fiat and dictate or legislate from the bench. Democrats always wanted the court to do that which they could never. Do legislatively or win at the ballot box and that's why they want. We call them. Activists Justices Clarence Thomas. has shown a fidelity to the Constitution at the Antony Scalia. That is beyond enviable And the differences styles always interesting, too because Justice Thomas will always be quiet. That's very few questions. Anthony Scalia was in there in a wrestling with people. I don't know about John Roberts. I can't get into it, but I do believe the next president United States is a very good chance. You have a lot of older justices may want to retire. And I think that the next this election in just three short months. That's on the ballot and that's that's generational now. And Sean I think we have to pressure the Biden campaign to do what trump did and release a list of justices I mean president trump was so transparent and Joe Biden hasn't done it yet. Intentionally, of course, because he'll probably put repeated to lieber something on the United States Supreme Court I mean as horrifying as that might be so in two two quick closing question Sean and thank you for being so generous with your time anchorage, everyone you know. Know go by live, free or die. the first is this. Can you just talk about? We are heading into the election. A lot of trump supporters. They're failed. They're falling victim. They suppression pulse I wish that wasn't the case, but it seems like the memory of two thousand sixteen as faded where people forget. We were down by double digits. Can you just give a little vote of confidence to some of our listeners out there? That think we're just losing. I WANNA. Give the vote of confidence, but I want people to feel this way. I want people to think I'll use a football analogy that our mutual friend Linda that you know. Who's your biggest fan? My radio producer? He's amazing. Amazing, but she doesn't even know how many points you get a touchdown, so I'm giving these football analogies. I, want this election. I want people to feel the way I feel which is. We're on our own twenty. Two minutes to go. We have no time outs We're down by six. We got a cross. The plane marched down the field, cross the plane and hit the extra point to win. So if people feel a sense of genuine urgency and worry and concern, I'm cool with that because fear often as a great motivator, not irrational field fear, but if people do not vote, you will get the government that they're telling you. They're going to give you believe. That that is their agenda. To be a Republican and win. You GotTa always use this analogy got to run the table I gotTA. Get Florida Georgia North Carolina can't win without Ohio. No Republican's ever become president without it right? You got hold Iowa then you got pick off Pennsylvania Wisconsin hopefully Michigan maybe MINNEA- Minnesota will be play. Maybe the city of Arizona will be in play. By Joe Biden reference for those of you. That didn't get. We got a hold Arizona Gopher Nevada New Mexico. New Hampshire and Maine's second congressional district. If every single mom, this is a battle cry. You started out this interview with this. I wrote this book not because I like writing books. My last book I donated every Penny I made to charity I don't care. It's not that. This is a tipping point. Charlie this is I, don't. See if these policies are implemented how America recovers. Irreparable harm the to the rule of law to our courts to our economy, they want to wipe out the lifeblood of of the world's economy. This this promise of socialism and I go into such detail about how it's always failed. Here's a quick socialism of example. Member obamacare. Keep your doctor keep your plan. Save on average twenty five hundred dollars a year per family right? Okay. Millions lost their doctors. Millions lost their plans. We're all paying about two hundred percent more and add to that. Forty percent of Americans almost forty percent have only one obamacare Biden Carriage James Choice now. How did they do with that promise? Medicare is going broke. How did they do it? That promised social security. Charlie hate the break this here. He paying into it. You probably won't get it I. Barely Skate through, and they might give me ten cents until they means tested and then take it back, How does it? How did Liberal government work in New York City with all the anarchy cutting a billion dollars, so please? How's IT WORKING IN CHICAGO? All. These liberal cities have where the violence we've been talking about takes place. They all have one thing in common. They've been run by Liberal Democrats for decades right. Most of these states have been run into the ground by Liberal Democrats for decades. If you WANNA know what America will look like if Biden Bolshevik Bernie. Pelosi Schumer and Bozo. That team gets place look at new. York state and city look at Chicago the City Illinois. The State Look at California. Look at Oregon. Look at Portland, the city. Look at Seattle. Look at the state of Washington. Yes. And I. Love this country too much. You know it's an all hands on deck moment and Every everyone of you've got this connection with younger people in this country. You have this incredible. A credible platform you built, and it's become powerful and meaningful and transformative to the country, and you're going out there, and you're fighting on these college campuses and you. You know it's not easy to be in the middle of a I call it a shift. Show all the time, but let's well put, but you do it. And it's freedom works. Every time you give up freedom for security, you lose your freedom because the security that they're offering. These promises that can never ever be fulfilled. In America. The land. I'll close with this unless you want to go further I can keep going the. Barry Farber who was a mentor of mine. Just recently passed away like ninety ninety one. And he always said there's never been a country in the history of mankind that has accumulated more power and abused at less than the United States well I add. A country in the history of mankind that has accumulated more power abused at less, but used it to advanced human condition. The reason America is great and exceptional. If I can say that today, it's not perfect, but it's great. An exceptional is because of its people, and because of the fundamentals of liberty and freedom. So that? Natural rights versus government or rights, natural rights come from God doubt by our Creator. Life Liberty pursuit of happiness while you can't pursue happiness these days in Chicago New York Moreland Seattle. So there's a lot on the line. I love your audience. I'm so thankful for all you're doing, and you've got a great team that you building review and you're out there fighting the fight and I just urge you guys. Just fight like your country depends on it. Because America's, we know it. It's all hanging in the balance. Yet was Sean. You've been so generous the last quick thing I defend the president all the time personally as a person. Can you comment on that because I've had the opportunity to meet him? not as much as you obviously and get to know him, but a lot of people here misrepresentations in lies about who he is as a human being. Let's close on this note. Can you just mention one or two things that that people can take away from that? You know first of all. It's interesting. Nobody seems to understand Donald trump yet. They don't want to understand. I mean Donald Trump. The Dog Bites the beasts, things you feeling sad or get cancer. You Complain Trump. I mean that's how saying the leftist. But here's a guy that is so unique he this guy is like a soon nami force of energy like I've never met my life. The most distinct and unique quality he's had is as president. You mentioned the Supreme Court. He put those people that he said he put. He cut the bureaucracy as he said he'd caught, and he cut the taxes as he said he'd cut. He did the North Dakota. A keystone pipelines Anwar Likey said he would. He's building the wall or almost four hundred miles. A wall by the by election will be over four hundred miles. He found a way it was. It was an uphill climb He said he wanted to pull us out of foreign conflicts, but not back away from evil defeated. The Caliphate took out. Baghdadi and Associates took out Sola Mani took out the Al. Qaeda leader in Yemen. So? What makes him special and unique in terms of presidency is that he is who you see is who you get. The guy that's fights on twitter is the guy that's fighting for a better trade. Deal the guy that fights. Against Liberal Democrats and the media mob is the same guy is fighting to keep his promises that to me makes him the most unique transformative political figure in our lifetime. And Right now. The. We tip the scales. You have a choice. It's never been a bigger choice. He will keep his promises. Coronas been a little bit of a curve ball to the world, but even that ten days after the first case, the only guy that I know of thought about a travel ban will be donald trump. They were teaching at the time and Joe Binder Biden was call them Sinophobic, so he's a man of his word. He's a man that will fight to his last dying breath for this country and the promises he made, and that makes them in my view very transformative. Men will. The book is live for Your Die God bless you, Sean, thank you for that. You do and we really appreciate. It helps you soon. Thanks bye. What a great conversation that was! Please email me or questions freedom. Charlie Kirk Dot Com freedom at Charlie. KIRK DOT COM please type in trolley. Kirk, show your podcast provider. Hit subscribe, give us a five star reviews screen shot at an email us. If you want to win a signed copy of the Maga- doctrine, please get involved with turning-point USA at Teepee USA dot com that is Teepee USA DOT com. Check out divest you. Dot Com if you want to divest some of. Of your dollars from the sinister backwards malevolent higher education cartel check out our professor watchlist, professor watchlist, dot org professor, watchlist dot Org. We have some incredible new additions that you do not want to miss of radicals that are teaching your children right now to hate. America is professor watchlist dot org email me directly freedom at Charlie Kirk Dot Com your ideas and questions. You want me to ask our guests here on the Charlie Kirk show. Thank you guys so much for listening. So next time God bless.

Donald Trump America Joe Binder Biden President Trump Charlie Kirk Sean United States Warren Charlie Barack Obama Russia Chicago Liberal Democrats Seattle Clarence Thomas John Roberts Reagan Biden Obama Trump General Flynn Hillary Clinton York
Democratic candidates go head-to-head on the Supreme Court

Todd Schnitt

02:34 min | 3 years ago

Democratic candidates go head-to-head on the Supreme Court

"I want to turn to the Supreme Court the balance on the court and the issues before the court right now president trump in just the last twenty four hours saying we've appointed one hundred ninety one federal judges to Supreme Court justices keeping his campaign promise to ship the court to the right with new Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh before it'll characters at the court climate change is working its way to the court and a major abortion cases on the docket this year but president Biden on the issue of abortion in twenty twelve you said president Obama's two Supreme Court pics of them there was no litmus test we pick people who an open mind did not come with an agenda and you said before we both believe that we should not apply Nero litmus tests to appointees to the Supreme Court but I also let me just let me just ask would you do it differently as president Mister vice president whether be a litmus test for say the rest of what I said I said that we are not not appoint anyone who did not have a view that on a new rate right suggested in the constitution that's not a specific test is a generic chest and only way the only reason women have the right to choose is because it's a term that there's underwriter rights coming from the ninth amendment in the constitution that's what I said I was I was part of the reason why Elena Kagan a work from beyond the Supreme Court I was part of the reason why Ruth trader Ginsberg is on the court I was part of the reason why certain wears on the court issued for me and hi to reside and I'm the reason why this right wasn't taking away a long time ago because I almost single handedly made sure the Robert Bork did not get on the court because he did not think there should be no right right on right for let me just straight Mister vice president I am aware of what you said is which is why I'm asking would you do it differently now would there be a litmus test on abortion yes there's a deal litmus test on abortion relates to of them fundamental value the constitution a woman does have a right to choose I would in fact if they ruled to be unconstitutional I will send to the United States con the Senate will pass I believe a bill that off that that that should be legislates Rovi way to Dodge adjusted by Casey it sure is a woman's right to do that and if you call that listens to us as a litmus test but what I was talking about the passer know which gets confused here is if there is no if you if you read the constitution very very narrowly and say there are no own enumerated rights of the judges say in the constitution doesn't exist you cannot have any of the things I care about anything I care about is a progressive members United States Congress at the time and as vice president as a member of

Supreme Court
The Saturday Night Massacre

Retropod

04:46 min | 3 years ago

The Saturday Night Massacre

"Hey history lovers. I'm Mike Rosen with retro pod a show about the past rediscovered. Some of the historical events we cover on retro pod are moments instead of been lost to time forgotten both in details and an important and then there are the events events that stick with us as constant reminders of what history can teach us. This is one of those this is the story of the Saturday night massacre in nineteen seventy two five members of the committee to reelect President Richard Nixon had been caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee's offices at the Watergate hotel the next year a man named Archibald Cox was appointed when it as a special prosecutor to investigate the incident and determine whether the president had been involved in July Cox issued subpoena for secret recordings the president had made of his Oval Office Conversations Nixon refuse he invoked executive privilege to keep the tapes tapes private until finally months later the US Court of Appeals ruled that Nixon had to comply by then the rift between Nixon and the Justice Department had grown and it was clear the president wanted Cox gone and Nixon still didn't want to turn over the tapes why because the implicated him in a vast cover a few days. It's after the ruling. Nixon tried to broker a deal. He said he would not turn over all the tapes but instead would submit a summary of what was in the parts of the tapes related to Watergate Democratic Senator Within listen to the tapes verifying Nixon's Account Cox's answer nope in a statement published in newspapers on October nineteenth nineteen seventy-three Nixon blamed Cox for not accepting his proposal he called it reasonable compromise and ordered Cox to make no further attempts to obtain information on his conversations in response Cox Fox vowed to continue pursuing the tape recordings but Nixon had another more drastic plan to stop Cox from getting the tapes and put it into action the very next day that day a Saturday attorney general Elliot Elliot Richardson was summoned to the White House back at the Justice Department the Deputy Attorney General and three eighths huddled and Richardson's office. They knew why Richardson was being called all to the White House. He was the only one with the authority to fire Cox. Richardson went to the meeting. When he got back confirm their suspicions the president had ordered him to remove Cox. He refused Richardson was prepared to resign as attorney any general instead then the phone rang. It was White House Chief of Staff Alexander Alexander Haig Calling Deputy Attorney General William Ruggles House Richardson would not fight her 'cause it was now his responsibility to do also ruggles house refused and just like Richardson. He drafted resignation letter next in line with firing authority was. US Less Solicitor General Robert Bork he followed Nixon's orders and agreed to fire Cox Nixon won the special prosecutor was gone but the outcry was swift and loud the unprecedented shakeup at the Justice Justice Department became known as the Saturday night massacre and it triggered public and political backlash that accelerated Nixon's eventual downfall that fateful hateful Saturday night after it was all over Cox delivered a statement on national TV. He told the country whether ours shall continue can you to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people. I'm Mike Rosenfeld. Thanks for listening special. Thanks to Amy Wang for reporting the story for the Washington Post and for more forgotten stories from history visit Washington Post host dot com slash retro.

Richard Nixon Archibald Cox Elliot Elliot Richardson Justice Justice Department White House Cox Fox President Trump Deputy Attorney General Mike Rosen Democratic National Committee Mike Rosenfeld Attorney Prosecutor Us Court Of Appeals Washington Post Alexander Alexander Haig United States Watergate William Ruggles Amy Wang
Former Federal Prosecutor on Mueller Testimony

Ethan Bearman

13:27 min | 3 years ago

Former Federal Prosecutor on Mueller Testimony

"Is the day after now we have the benefit of following up on the testimony of Robert Muller yesterday in the two house committees the judiciary in the intelligence committees immediately afterwards but now people have had a little bit of time to ruminate about what they heard what went on what it all meant and we have a couple of people who will be joining us this afternoon the first one I am delighted to say is Laurie Levenson Laurie Levenson is a professor of law at Loyola law school and she's also a former federal prosecutor and she joins us right now Hey Lori welcome to KGO thank you so much I'm so pleased to be with you I am pleased to have you as well I I don't know why but I didn't realize that you were a former federal prosecutor and I just think that gives you a different kind of look at what went on yesterday than those of us who are lay people especially those of us who aren't even lawyers so from the get go let's start it it out easy what did you think what was your overall impression of his testimony you know you're right I see things a little differently I think lot of people when they tuned in wanted to see the show and I was more interested in the information that we got so I so what mother many other peoples you know Bob Miller is not a great witness most lawyers are not that's not a comfortable role for him but that's not what mattered I think what was important was in the first session they were identifying four to five instances of obstruction and laying out what they believe the president and all these men did in that regard and the Republicans were using it for a totally different type of hearing they wanted this hearing to be held at the mall or investigation get started so was much more of a political show than it was but as we would say a legal proceeding I saw the hearing though before Adam ships committee a little differently for small Adam is a former federal prosecutor I had the pleasure working with him and his family just like that you know he sat out the theme that this is about this loyalty to the country and line and greed and I thought the questioning was much crisper at that point and I think Miller was giving up a little bit more than he had in the morning yeah in the morning it seemed as if a specially at the outset his questions were so limited and there were only certain areas that tended to animate him so a lot of the criticism that we heard immediately following and even into today and if you're reading newspaper articles today and especially if you tune into fox which I really try not to do that a lot of the criticism really does have to do with the performance of Robert Muller and not with the content the context of the information that was being presented what a lot of people say is that it didn't make any difference to the viewing public that most people had already taken a side on this and that based on Muller's testimony nobody is going to change their opinions you agree well I think that there is sort of this entrenchment in politics and along the parties we certainly saw that among the you know congressman who were there and they seem to just follow the pod poly it party flying but you know I am a little more optimistic I mean some of the messaging I do think that across there was and has been and continues to be tremendous Russian interference so to the extent that it gives the president stopped to acting cavalierly about his relationship with pollutants and stop saying things like well yeah I take that information again maybe that's a little bit of a step I don't think that people are going to believe that there's an exoneration but on the other hand I don't think a lot of people here so in the big steps now I don't think it moves the needle in open court and closer to impeachment in fact we may back off from it but the facts are a lot clearer having heard them from Bob Muller yeah I would have I will I want to believe this and so maybe that's the reason I say I would have work I am a member of the Judiciary Committee I would want to move forward with impeachment increase with it with the hearings not a voting right now on articles but moving forward and getting some of the other important figures from the Mahler report and others you know this doesn't have to be limited to what was disclosed in the mall report other witnesses to come in and to testify as to the corruption and the potential criminality in the high crimes and misdemeanors of the of Donald Trump wouldn't you well I think that's where they're headed I mean and I heard that during the hearing name suspect they really want don McGann to come in and testify I don't know if he's any better than Bob Muller is as a witness but I suspect he might be and he certainly had the direct contact with the president I'm here is that nobody got the president to actually provide a statement in person I think that's the biggest lacking in this entire investigation I don't disagree with you that continuing the requests for subpoenas makes sense but there's a trade off and that's what Nancy Pelosi saying she saying are we gonna lose our own people will never get the trump people but will we get lose our own people by being so busy focusing on that and not moving the needle on some real issues that need to be addressed problems out of the house out of the house they can do whatever they want to Mitch McConnell's going to kill it right and I'm you know and that's what the the patch for those who don't want to do impeachment is to say why are we going to do this when we know what's going to happen in the Senate but the outlook tournament of argument is we still don't have all the facts yet you know in my mind do you bring in more witnesses didn't have hope picks come in and don McGann but he just go for like the tax returns because if you have to pay that there are other directions all right lord let me ask you this and I'm I'm very serious about this were speaking by the way with Laurie Levenson she's a professor of law at Loyola and she's a former professor of federal prosecutor now I forget residents saying it was a so utterly important I don't remember anyway altera plunging okay you didn't mention well you're coming back here thought which is you know there was some discussion yesterday and whether he could be charged when he got out of office right and one does wonder what's happening up in New York that would be a normal jurisdiction for that to happen so you know all of this might just sort of be a way to say he's got to be held accountable when the hardest way but the way that's most important is that the coming election and it's frustrating I think that we didn't hear any of the major candidates yesterday remark on the ceiling two yeah none of whom said we second this is the guy who killed said scire Muller this is a guy who told people to lie and he's still somebody you're considering this is a guy who cozied up to the Russians welcome their information I just thought there was a huge irony when the Republicans were saying exoneration doesn't mean anything what was the president himself will interject at that so I nobody called him on the double speak they came after the hearing yeah and I I was very disappointed the democratic candidates because if they want to become president they will also be the head of the Democratic Party and so it's time for them to show that sort of leadership capability but in your comments you did remind me of what I had forgotten to say and it is important and it is bill bar bill bars the Attorney General of the United States and I suspect that he is somebody who can more readily more easily should he choose to obstruct investigations obstruct justice when it comes to president trump including those investigations are happening in federal courts outside of Washington DC how much should we be concerned about what bill bar is doing behind the scenes I am I'm actually very concerned you know when he first came into office I thought well you know he's career he is going to be loyal to doing what's right I don't have that same confidence anymore the what I'm most worried about is the investigation into the steel dossier in the beginning of the investigation I wanted to if you want to play politics he could twist that right against the Democrats and that would be much more damaging than anything that's happened up to now I think that's what they're attempting and there's another thing too and that also relates to some of what you were talking about when the president leaves office and and it Robert Muller made this clear yesterday certainly you can pursue criminal charges against him when he's no longer president except for the statute of limitations and he did not have an answer to that question the LC memo really didn't adequately address that so what does happen doesn't doesn't that by abiding by the LC terms you're assuming the president's only going to serve one term in office and otherwise if he's reelected is above the law well I think that's right I mean this all comes down to the election because I don't agree that that somehow and you told the time while he's in office if he gets a second term he's never going to be prosecuted and that's just a clear message that maybe has to go out to the public yeah I think I think that's absolutely true and I really appreciate you bringing that up listen let's get a one quick call here from one of our listeners before we go this is Lee calling from San Jose Lee welcome to KGO your own with Laurie Levenson go ahead that's wonderful I called the other day and I was very upset I read Gibbons decline and fall of the Roman Empire I could just about Roman history yeah are it and Bob and Cicero on duty right okay yes I'm scared but was just sort of had a scared chopped off are you are you we're gonna take Donald Trump to the guillotine no no well what's your question professor Levinson there's money and power yeah and and the thing is it is but err I will I used to be in touch with senator Robert Bork yes and we were we were to change letters in mail right yeah and he wrote losing America and that was when bush was president right so do you have a question for professor Levinson because I have limited time with her right now only no I understand I'm sorry it's okay I mean I I would like to respond to him yes please thank you Sir thank you Sir for realizing that what we face now is something that we've been warned about for centuries and then it comes down some of those basic values I think when Adam yes didn't get into the details but he got into what is at stake here as you mentioned before that really is what's at stake it's not about an individual prosecution it's not about an individual count it's not about about an element of the crime it's about the really big pictures and a threat to democracy so I don't mean to be overly dramatic but I think you're right on the spot I think we're being unduly dramatic at this point I mean it is turned into what some people view is a political game and the stakes as you said are so much higher than that we all need to pay attention and I do believe that Congress has to do its duty under the constitution and so do we as citizens we have to clamor for the kind of for the Congress to do its job and for the president to not be above the law and unless we do that man we set a precedent that I think it's scary you know I heard somebody that I respect tremendously yesterday he was actually in studio with me he's one of my colleagues and he said I'm opposed to impeachment Pat I'm opposed to impeach with because it overthrows the will of the people and I boggles my mind as well is it ever appropriate then because anytime you impeach an elected representative you're gonna overthrow the will of the people but there's a reason for it well you know I think that what we've learned is impeachment and politics can I like law a lot because it's a lot more certain were in really uncertain times thank you for having me on and thank you so much so it's been a pleasure talking with you eighty eighty a tennis or telephone number will come back with your telephone calls as we talk about the aftermath of the molar testimony and where do you think we go from here will the Democrats do you think by pursuing impeachment inquiry will they begin the hearings the hearings which really will allow them to get more witnesses and more information because the courts are going to be tilted toward what the Congress is asking for when what they are asking for is part and parcel of an impeachment investigation which is which is entirely within the purview of the Congress eighty eighty eight ten is the

Robert Muller Laurie Levenson Laurie Levenso Loyola Law School Professor Of Law
Antitrust 3: Big Tech

Planet Money

03:47 min | 4 years ago

Antitrust 3: Big Tech

"Today's show is part three of what I have been calling the planet money antitrust trilogy. The show we much better. If you go back and listen to the first two episodes. If you do not here is the text that scrolls on the screen at the beginning of the movie. United States government used to us antitrust law a lot to protect small companies against big companies in the name of competition. Then there was a backlash led by judge named Robert Bork. He wrote a book called the antitrust paradox. That argued antitrust enforcement had gotten out of hand and the government needed to back off now in the past couple of years as a few tech companies have gotten very big and very powerful a backlash to the backlash has begun. My name is Lena Khan, and I'm an academic fellow Columbia law school in a senior fellow at the open markets institute. And you're a lawyer I'm a lawyer when Lena Khan was in law school two years ago. She wrote a paper for the law review. What was the title of the paper Amazon's antitrust paradox an allusion to that Bork book the antitrust paradox? Why did you choose that title? I was interested in exploring how Bork's approached antitrust had enabled Amazon's rise and the paradise. Talks with Amazon seemed to me that here we had a company that was amassing dominance in various markets. But our current approach to antitrust law was really keeping us blind. So that dominance, and so that to me seemed like an interesting tension or current approach to antitrust law. Bork's approach is known as consumer welfare, and the basic idea is low prices and lots of choices are good. If consumers are getting these things, then there's no antitrust problem and clearly Amazon has delivered low prices and lots of choices. So it hasn't run into much trouble with antitrust law in the United States, and yet Lena argued in this paper, there are things that Amazon has done that have been bad for competition. So her wonky article comes out, she hears from a few antitrust lawyers. Then her article gets mentioned in the New York Times that spurred kind of a new wave of interest. And so I just started receiving more and more emails somewhat modest about this, which I respect that. Tremendous amount. Even though it's not good for our story. What she is not saying is that this student law review article completely blew up. I mean, I know you didn't go on Ellen or whatever. But we're did you go. I got big. We know it got big Lena. Con learn that the rise of a few giant tech companies had made this very wonky thing antitrust policy, suddenly feel urgent and important to lots of ordinary people. Is it bad? These companies are so big are they assigned that the free market is failing us and competition is disappearing. Do we need to think about antitrust in a new way congressman wanted to meet with her the Washington Post in the Atlantic wanted to profiler CNBC NPR, and she joins me now to talk about how antitrust law handles Amazon. Lena, thank you for being with us. Good to be here. Let me first say Amazon is among NPR's corporate sponsors, right? We're going to have to talk about that. Hello and welcome to planet money. I'm Jacob Goldstein. I'm Kenny Malone today on the show, Amazon one of our corporate sponsors and Facebook, also corporate sponsor and Google. I think a corporate sponsor Nata corporates. Oh, okay. But all of this is kind of the point these three companies are suddenly everywhere, they have an incredible amount of money and power and Lena is part of this new wave of thinkers who are starting to say, maybe the rise of these giant tech companies is a sign that antitrust is broken, and we need to fix it.

Lena Khan Amazon Robert Bork United States Columbia Law School NPR Ellen Kenny Malone New York Times Jacob Goldstein Senior Fellow Facebook Google Washington Post Congressman Cnbc Two Years
Ex-Congresswoman who voted to impeach Nixon: Trump firing Sessions brings back troubling memories

Democracy Now

11:56 min | 4 years ago

Ex-Congresswoman who voted to impeach Nixon: Trump firing Sessions brings back troubling memories

"That gives Democrats subpoena power for the first time since President Donald Trump was elected two years ago a day after the election, Trump fired attorney general Jeff Sessions Trump's firing of sessions has led to many comparisons between Trump and former president Richard Nixon on Wednesday CNN's Jake tapper cold sessions ouster another chapter in quote, a slow motion multi-month Saturday night massacre. He was referencing the infamous Saturday night massacre in nineteen Seventy-three when then attorney general Elliot Richardson, and his deputy resigned after president Richard Nixon ordered Richardson to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal for more. We continue our conversation with Elizabeth thoughts. C'mon. Former US congresswoman from New York, she served on the House Judiciary committee that voted to impeach Richard Nixon for over forty years. She had the record of being the young woman ever elected to congress. Her new book the case for impeaching Trump is out Monday still with us. David Cole national legal director for the American Civil Liberties union, so the Saturday night massacre. I mean as you were watching this unfold yet yesterday, Liz, you must have. It must be you must have been flooded with memories. Oh, yeah. And it's not just happy memories is very troubling memories. In fact, you can say that you get you know, tangling up and down your spine from the repetition here. What what triggered Richard Nixon's impeachment was his view that he was above the law, and particularly that he could not be held accountable. He and his staff and his colleagues accountable under the criminal law. So when the special prosecutor. Asked for his tapes, Nixon had White House tapes and the tapes could prove whether or not he had ordered a cover up. Nixon said, no, you're not getting the tapes, and you're going to be fired and the American and he ordered the special prosecutor fired the America, and to the attorney general resigned deputy attorney general resigned, and then Robert Bork's number three fired at the American people. Understood what was going on. They knew that the tapes could prove whether the whether the president of the United States had engaged in a cover up or whether John dean who led she'd been involved in the cover-up was lying who was telling the truth. They understood this, and they said congress you have to do something about it. And these were tapes that Richard Nixon had secretly ordered himself the thing of the White House. Correct. And so at that point the impeachment Corey started, we didn't know exactly where it was going to go. But that's when it started. And right now you have. The president of the United States who had weighed deliberately till after the midterm election. So it would have no adverse political impact on him to fire the turn general the United States. Why did he fire him? There's nothing that as Mr. call set has nothing that sessions did that was contrary to his political view. I mean, political agenda the president's political views or political agenda, except then he wouldn't take control and he wouldn't oversee and he wouldn't supervise and he wouldn't interfere with Muller's investigation. And that was a NASA to this president because this president just like Nixon wants to control the criminal process that's gonna take place against him and his friends, and that is if we go down that road, we're becoming a banana Republic that's not the United States of America where a country that's committed to the rule of law and the president cannot put his finger on the thumb on the scale his thumb on the scale of Justice. That's. Not going to happen. And if it does happen, then God helped merica, well, independent Senator Bernie Sanders has warned that any attempt at obstruction on Trump's part of -struction of the Russia probe would be an impeachable offense. He tweeted Wednesday, quote, any attempt by the president or the Justice department to interfere with Muller's probe would be an obstruction of Justice and an impeachable offense goes no question about that. That was the firing of by Richard Nixon. Of Archibald Cox special prosecutor to stop and squelch that investigation was one of the grants, but the impeachment vote against Richard Nixon. So it may not you don't even need to go much farther. I think than even the appointment of Mr. Whittaker because it seems a parent that Mr. Whitaker is there for one purpose, which is to control an interfere with this investigation. And that turns out to be an congress can investigate that. And if it turns out that the purpose was to interfere with this investigation that in and of itself becomes not only basis for becomes the basis for the removal and impeachment of Donald Trump. So Liz Holzman last week the national archives released documents from the Watergate scandal, including new information relating to the indictment against president Richard Nixon the draft documents known as the Watergate roadmap show plans to charge Nixon with bribery conspiracy. Obstruction of Justice and obstruction of a cr-. Criminal investigation. Nixon was never charged with crimes though, a number of his aides were and someone to jail the documents were released after a lawsuit requested they'd be made public citing their relevance for special counsel Robert Muller, if he decides to issue a report to congress as part of the ongoing probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with alleged Russian meddling in the two thousand sixteen election. So talk about you know, well, what this indictment was of Richard Nixon. Well, let's just make one point Richard Nixon was named by the grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator. That is the only time that's ever happened in the history of the United States. So the grand jury wanted to indict Richard Nixon this wasn't a hypothetical draft indictment. The grand jury said we want to indict Richard Nixon. They were told by the special prosecutor, you can indicted sitting president I don't necessarily agree with that. And so as an alternative they issued this they charged him as being an unindicted co-conspirator. But yes, the the roadmap pointed to these were criminal charges that we're going to be made against the president of the United States. And the supporting evidence impeachment is not a criminal proceeding impeachment is a civil proceeding by congress to preserve and restore our democracy doesn't require criminal standard of proof. It doesn't require any of the trappings of a criminal proceeding. What its purposes is to take a president who is a threat to democracy. And remove that president from office. That's what the framers put impeachment into the constitution for. And that's why the House Judiciary committee voted to impeach Richard Nixon in part because he obstructed the investigation into the break into the Watergate hotel complex, the Democratic National Committee headquarters and Donald Trump has done has tried to interfere with this investigation. He hasn't succeeded in in derailing, it he hasn't succeeded in stopping it. But he's put Whitaker. They're clearly the appearances to shut it down. And what does that mean? What if Whitaker shut it down or starved at a funds? What does Muller need to have in place now, and what would happen if he were fired could the indictments be made public? If there are some already sealed. Well, it's a very interesting question as to what would happen. I think we would have a national crisis. First of all if the American people. At that point don't rise up to protect our democracy. Then maybe nothing can preserve it. Because that's what happened in Watergate. The American people force congress Democrats who are in control Republican president. But the Democrats didn't wanna bring impeachment proceedings, Eric and people force them to do that. That's the critical point. Why didn't they because they were in a way? I mean, this is a very critical issue. I mean, Nancy Pelosi who said she's gonna write for house speaker Guinness famously said impeachment is off the table because it's an unknown process because the first time the congress ever did an impeachment of the president was against Andrew Johnson. And that was done in a partisan way. And it left a historical taint. We did the Nixon impeachment process. We did it in a bipartisan way, we did it in a fair way that should have given the American people a sense at this process works to preserve democracy. But then we had the Clinton impeachment which was again abusive power as as Andrew Johnson impeachment was, but the issue is the I I don't really I wasn't privy to why the speaker of the house and the majority leader Dempo Democrats did not want to proceed with impeachment proceedings until. The Saturday night massacre. I think it's because they just didn't know what was going to happen. The preceding itself was you know, had bad taint, historically, and they didn't have the public was gonna react. No, really take down president, Richard Nixon. Unlike Trump who squeaked through as in his election. Richard Nixon was elected with one of the biggest landslides in American history one thousand nine hundred ninety two nine hundred seventy two so for an impeachment to take place you'd have to change the minds of a majority of American voters, Democrats were sure that could ever happen. So they were worried about the political consequences for themselves instead of thinking about the country. But the American people demanded they said, congress you've got to protect our democracy, and congress did we didn't take knows camp before we started. We didn't even know what when I I remember we started the impeachment proceedings. Nobody even knew at a high crime and misdemeanor as what's the standard for impeachment. None of us had studied this. What happened in the end, why Nixon left Richard Nixon left because the House Judiciary committee proceeding in a nickel? Fair transparent open and bipartisan fashion voted that. He engaged in impeachable offenses, and ultimately every single Republican on the committee, initially when we voted there about eleven twelve Republicans who'd enjoin we had seven or eight who did. They when when there was a tape recording that was released that showed Nixon himself orchestrating the cover up from the very beginning. All the Republicans joined with all the Democrats and saying Richard Nixon should be impeached, including the most conservative at that point the handwriting was on the wall. It was cleared every single member of the House Judiciary committee, including conservative Republicans and conservative southern Democrats supported impeachment. The house is going to support impeachment overwhelmingly, and he would be removed vote convicted in the Senate and removed and he saw the handwriting on the wall. He didn't want that humiliation. It was bad enough that he had to resign became the first American president to resign. But it was because the process was fair open and won the respect of the American people many of home. Most of whom it's supported Richard Nixon in the election just a year and a half before. So it can be done. So Richard Nixon resigned and didn't get impeached. No. There was a vote to impeach in the House Judiciary committee. That was enough for Richard Nixon to get the message. He had to get out because otherwise he'd be forcibly removed by the house full house and the Senate. Well, let's go back to two sessions replacement. Matthew, Whitaker

Richard Nixon President Trump President Donald Trump Congress House Judiciary Committee United States Prosecutor Robert Muller Mr. Whitaker Liz Holzman American Civil Liberties Union Attorney White House David Cole CNN Jake Tapper America Elizabeth